The Govt' (Bureau of Land (Mis)Management) has long wanted our wild horses off of our public lands. The BLM originally started out as "The U.S. Grazing Service" and was created for the sole purpose of protecting the interest of the ranching industry. Ranchers have always hated wild horses. They look at them as competition for their cows forage. Nothing much has changed today. It is the ranchers pushing the BLM to get the wild horses off our public lands,..and they (as usual) are getting their way, at least on the state level.
The ranchers and the BLM like to blame "rangeland degradation" (over-grazing) on the wild horses, only they never mention that the privately owned cows that graze these same lands by govt permit outnumber the wild horses 200 to 1!! Nor do they mention the fact that these lands are permitted for other uses that also contribute to rangeland degradation like ATV / ORV use or big game that outnumber the wild horses 3 to 1. However, as it turns out more recently, it is not really about "rangeland degradation" anymore,....its about "land-swapping," special interest, development and "community building." Even the BLM is starting to admit that now,...how could they not? Its getting so obvious these days.
The Ely BLM District in Nevada is getting ready to round up and remove all of the wild horses in 11 "herd management areas.." These lands were legally designated to the wild horses by the provisions of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse & Burro Act of 1971.
Not only are the going to remove all 600 wild horses and burros roaming these lands, they are going to "zero-out" over one million acres of their lands. Not only are they stealing our wild horses, they are stealing their lands too!
Although the public comment period has "officially" ended, these offices listed below are the ones in charge of these removals, and will at least listen to your comments. You can call them and let them know that Americans wont sit still for them "erasing" our wild horse herds and taking away their lands.
Thanks again!
CJ/MK
----------
BLM Ely District Office
702 N. Industrial Way | HC 33 Box 33500 | Ely NV 89301
Phone: 775-289-1800 | Office Hours: 7:30 am - 4:30 pm M-F
Caliente Field Office
US Highway 93, Building #1 | P.O. Box 237 | Caliente NV 89008
Phone: 775-726-8100 | Office Hours: 7:30 am - 4:15 pm M-F
Americas wild horses really are in crisis today. What is happening in Nevada is happening all over our western states, but we ARE NOT powerless to stop it - we DO have powerful voices and, believe it or not, we have the law on our side. What the wild horse movement needs is some DAM good passionately committed to the cause legal experts (lawyers) on their side, working TOGETHER as a UNITED Front attacking the roots of this evil via one great big class-action lawsuit for the overall mis-managment of the wild horse and burro program....on a federal (not state-by-state) level, maybe even by request for an emergency Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States? Anyways, attacking ALL the removals at once in one court would be the lawsuit that should end the necessity of any further state litigation. Can we do it? Can we "get ourselves together" in a hurry to save our wild horse herds? Do we have any other choice? What will the consequences be if we dont attack these illegal removals "on the whole" in an effort to put a stop to them all? What other alternatives do we have? Close your eyes, what do you see? (nada, zero, zilch, nothing)The removals will go on as planned until and unless and ORDER is issued to cease and desist them all.
I would say people if you have a voice (and I know you do) to please use it to keep up our opposition to these removals. Meanwhile, if you know of any good lawyers you may want to talk to them about taking the case or at least becoming part of the legal team we will be trying to build to HALT all removals and ask for a "re-evaluation" of "the plans." Interested parties can contact me for more info by emailing: CJubic@nycap.rr.com or calling me directly at (518) 753 - 7791
All contacts and conversations will be kept confidental.
Thanks.
__._,_.___
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
BLM a Top Revenue Earner for the Gov't But No $$$ for Wild Horses
From the BLMs website;
The public lands provide significant economic benefits to the Nation and to states and counties where these lands are located. Revenues generated from public lands make BLM one of the top revenue-generating agencies in the Federal government. In 2007, for instance, BLM’s onshore mineral leasing activities will generate an estimated $4.5 billion in receipts from royalties, bonuses, and rentals that are collected by the Minerals Management Service. Approximately half of these revenues will be returned to the States where the mineral leasing occurred.
The Bureau administers about 57 million acres of commercial forests and woodlands through the Management of Lands and Resources and the Oregon and California Grant Lands appropriations. Timber receipts (including salvage) are estimated to be $55.4 million in fiscal year 2007, compared to estimated receipts of $33 million in Fiscal Year 2006 and actual receipts of $13.5 million in Fiscal Year 2005.
Click on title above to lean more about the BLM; http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/About_BLM.html
The public lands provide significant economic benefits to the Nation and to states and counties where these lands are located. Revenues generated from public lands make BLM one of the top revenue-generating agencies in the Federal government. In 2007, for instance, BLM’s onshore mineral leasing activities will generate an estimated $4.5 billion in receipts from royalties, bonuses, and rentals that are collected by the Minerals Management Service. Approximately half of these revenues will be returned to the States where the mineral leasing occurred.
The Bureau administers about 57 million acres of commercial forests and woodlands through the Management of Lands and Resources and the Oregon and California Grant Lands appropriations. Timber receipts (including salvage) are estimated to be $55.4 million in fiscal year 2007, compared to estimated receipts of $33 million in Fiscal Year 2006 and actual receipts of $13.5 million in Fiscal Year 2005.
Click on title above to lean more about the BLM; http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/About_BLM.html
STOP the Illegal Removals!! SOS for Clouds Herd
These Illegal Removals by the BLM are Happening All Over, despite our legal successes in various states; - Attention Wild-Horse Advocate Attorneys: NOW is the time for "The Big One" to stop all removals all-together all at once!
U.S. Citizens
v.
SALAZAR, Sec. of the Department of the Interior, Individually and in His Official Capacity, et. el.;
COUNT ONE: GROSS MIS-MANAGEMENT OF THE WILD HORSE & BURRO PROGRAM------------------------------------------------------------------
Plea from The Cloud Foundation....Please Spread The Word To Your Family, Friends and Co-Workers
Massive Roundup Still Planned for Cloud's Herd
Please act now to stop the destruction of this Unique Spanish Herd
Dear Friends of Cloud’s Herd in the Pryor Mountains;
We are doing everything we can through political and legal avenues to save Cloud’s herd but BLM is set on putting helicopters in the air starting around September 1st. They plan to roundup all the horses and remove over 70, including older horses, mares and foals.
The BLM and the Department of Interior are not listening to the public. They appear to be disregarding even Dr. Gus Cothran, a noted equine geneticist, who told the BLM, again, that this unique Spanish herd must be managed at minimum levels of 150-200 to keep the herd viable. Click on title above to go to the Cloud Foundations' website where you can read Dr. Cothran's letter there)(See also in the link below, a USGS Survey that supports Dr. Cothrans theory and concludes also that the management levels set by the BLM are "too low" to maintain a viable herd; http://wildhorsewarriors.blogspot.com/2009/08/usgs-report-finds-population-goals-for.html)
BLM's plan to remove to 70 horses is unnecessary and unwise. This places more horses in danger- few good homes are available in the currently flooded horse market. Older horses are at risk of being bought by killer buyers and others may end up in government holding at risk of being killed by the BLM. Watch my YouTube piece on this issue here. Some may even be put down after capture. This happened to horses during the recent Challis Herd round up and in the Sand Wash roundup last fall in October (view YouTube piece here).
Call and email President Obama and Vice President Biden and tell them that you do not want a misguided agency destroying Americas wild horses. 202-456-9000 or 202-456-1111 or write. Tell them to intervene on behalf of the Pryor Wild Horse Herd! The BLM appears to be on a rampage to manage wild horses to extinction.
Send this brief press release (copy and paste from below) to media and friends- we must stop this unnecessary roundup now. In the Challis round up in Idaho round up just last week six horses were killed, six foals were orphaned and the majority of the 400+ horses lost their freedom. All this destruction when the range looks the best it has in over 80 years according to local residents. Read more about the Challis herd round up here.
I'm pleased to share some good news! Judge Rules to Save West Douglas Herd in Colorado. After more than a decade of legal battles and BLM's efforts to zero out the West Douglas herd in western Colorado, a judge has ruled against the BLM and in favor of the horses. This ruling is due to the enormous efforts of attorney Valerie Stanley (The Cloud Foundation's attorney) and the Colorado Wild Horse and Burro Coalition, especially Toni Moore and Barb Flores and others on the western slope, who have worked for years to save this small, historically significant herd.
Never give up. Keep calling and writing.
Thank you and happy trails,
Ginger Kathrens
Volunteer Executive Director
The Cloud Foundation
Check out our new website at www.thecloudfoundation.org
A Stallion is rounded up in Challis, Idaho- photo by Elisa Kline. July 2009.
PRESS RELEASE
Bureau of Land Management on Rampage to Destroy Famous Wild Horse Herd
For Immediate Release August 10, 2009
Cloud and the wild horses of Montana’s PryorMountains are world famous but fame it appears is not going to protect the herd from a drastic government round up planned to begin September 1st in their spectacular wilderness home.
There are currently only 190 wild horses (one year and older) living in the PryorMountains. The BLM plans to remove 70 of them, plus foals. According to the foremost equine geneticist, Dr. Gus Cothran, 150-200 adult horses are needed in the herd to ensure their genetic diversity, which is vital to their long term survival.
These 70 horses would be placed in jeopardy. Any horses over 10 years of age can be bought directly by killer buyers and transported over the Northern border to Canadian slaughterhouses or south into Mexico. Younger horses not adopted would be put into government holding with 33,000 others that the BLM has removed from the wild and has proposed killing because they can no longer afford to feed them.
BLM cites poor range condition as the reason to remove the horses but abundant snow and rain for the past two and a half years has produced wonderful range conditions according to all who have visited Cloud and his herd. The Agency is not listening to anyone. They want this herd gutted. Nearly all the mares returned to the range would be given an experimental two-year infertility drug, PZP-22.
This helicopter round up is just one among many that the BLM is trying to complete, perhaps before the Obama Administration can catch up with what is going on.
The PryorMountain wild horses are descendants of the Lewis and Clark horses who were stolen by the Crow Indians in the early 1800's. They can be traced further back to the horses brought over with the Spanish Conquistadors in 1500 making them one of the most Spanish of all wild horse herds in North America.
Please contact The Cloud Foundation for more information
www.thecloudfoundation.org, info@thecloudfoundation.org, 719-633-3842
You are receiving this email because you have asked to be on our e-mail list. If you have received this e-mail in error, please unsubscribe. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience!
Unsubscribe mustangalley@hotmail.com from this list.
Our mailing address is:
The Cloud Foundation 107 South 7th St Colorado Springs, CO 80905
Our telephone:
719-633-3842
Copyright (C) 2008 The Cloud Foundation All rights reserved.
Forward this email to a friend
Update your profile
This message was sent from Americans Against Horse Slaughter to redmm97@cox.net. It was sent from: Americans Against Horse Slaughter, 1551 Willow Pond Dr., Yardley, PA 19067.
-----------------------
Whenever people say 'We mustn't be sentimental,' you can take it they are about to do something cruel. And if they add 'We must be realistic,' they mean they are going to make money out of it.
-Brigid Brophy
Friends of Equines FOES of Equine Slaughter
http://www.freewebs.com/friendsofequines
Wont You Join Our "Industry Accountability" Campaigns?
CJ
U.S. Citizens
v.
SALAZAR, Sec. of the Department of the Interior, Individually and in His Official Capacity, et. el.;
COUNT ONE: GROSS MIS-MANAGEMENT OF THE WILD HORSE & BURRO PROGRAM------------------------------------------------------------------
Plea from The Cloud Foundation....Please Spread The Word To Your Family, Friends and Co-Workers
Massive Roundup Still Planned for Cloud's Herd
Please act now to stop the destruction of this Unique Spanish Herd
Dear Friends of Cloud’s Herd in the Pryor Mountains;
We are doing everything we can through political and legal avenues to save Cloud’s herd but BLM is set on putting helicopters in the air starting around September 1st. They plan to roundup all the horses and remove over 70, including older horses, mares and foals.
The BLM and the Department of Interior are not listening to the public. They appear to be disregarding even Dr. Gus Cothran, a noted equine geneticist, who told the BLM, again, that this unique Spanish herd must be managed at minimum levels of 150-200 to keep the herd viable. Click on title above to go to the Cloud Foundations' website where you can read Dr. Cothran's letter there)(See also in the link below, a USGS Survey that supports Dr. Cothrans theory and concludes also that the management levels set by the BLM are "too low" to maintain a viable herd; http://wildhorsewarriors.blogspot.com/2009/08/usgs-report-finds-population-goals-for.html)
BLM's plan to remove to 70 horses is unnecessary and unwise. This places more horses in danger- few good homes are available in the currently flooded horse market. Older horses are at risk of being bought by killer buyers and others may end up in government holding at risk of being killed by the BLM. Watch my YouTube piece on this issue here. Some may even be put down after capture. This happened to horses during the recent Challis Herd round up and in the Sand Wash roundup last fall in October (view YouTube piece here).
Call and email President Obama and Vice President Biden and tell them that you do not want a misguided agency destroying Americas wild horses. 202-456-9000 or 202-456-1111 or write. Tell them to intervene on behalf of the Pryor Wild Horse Herd! The BLM appears to be on a rampage to manage wild horses to extinction.
Send this brief press release (copy and paste from below) to media and friends- we must stop this unnecessary roundup now. In the Challis round up in Idaho round up just last week six horses were killed, six foals were orphaned and the majority of the 400+ horses lost their freedom. All this destruction when the range looks the best it has in over 80 years according to local residents. Read more about the Challis herd round up here.
I'm pleased to share some good news! Judge Rules to Save West Douglas Herd in Colorado. After more than a decade of legal battles and BLM's efforts to zero out the West Douglas herd in western Colorado, a judge has ruled against the BLM and in favor of the horses. This ruling is due to the enormous efforts of attorney Valerie Stanley (The Cloud Foundation's attorney) and the Colorado Wild Horse and Burro Coalition, especially Toni Moore and Barb Flores and others on the western slope, who have worked for years to save this small, historically significant herd.
Never give up. Keep calling and writing.
Thank you and happy trails,
Ginger Kathrens
Volunteer Executive Director
The Cloud Foundation
Check out our new website at www.thecloudfoundation.org
A Stallion is rounded up in Challis, Idaho- photo by Elisa Kline. July 2009.
PRESS RELEASE
Bureau of Land Management on Rampage to Destroy Famous Wild Horse Herd
For Immediate Release August 10, 2009
Cloud and the wild horses of Montana’s PryorMountains are world famous but fame it appears is not going to protect the herd from a drastic government round up planned to begin September 1st in their spectacular wilderness home.
There are currently only 190 wild horses (one year and older) living in the PryorMountains. The BLM plans to remove 70 of them, plus foals. According to the foremost equine geneticist, Dr. Gus Cothran, 150-200 adult horses are needed in the herd to ensure their genetic diversity, which is vital to their long term survival.
These 70 horses would be placed in jeopardy. Any horses over 10 years of age can be bought directly by killer buyers and transported over the Northern border to Canadian slaughterhouses or south into Mexico. Younger horses not adopted would be put into government holding with 33,000 others that the BLM has removed from the wild and has proposed killing because they can no longer afford to feed them.
BLM cites poor range condition as the reason to remove the horses but abundant snow and rain for the past two and a half years has produced wonderful range conditions according to all who have visited Cloud and his herd. The Agency is not listening to anyone. They want this herd gutted. Nearly all the mares returned to the range would be given an experimental two-year infertility drug, PZP-22.
This helicopter round up is just one among many that the BLM is trying to complete, perhaps before the Obama Administration can catch up with what is going on.
The PryorMountain wild horses are descendants of the Lewis and Clark horses who were stolen by the Crow Indians in the early 1800's. They can be traced further back to the horses brought over with the Spanish Conquistadors in 1500 making them one of the most Spanish of all wild horse herds in North America.
Please contact The Cloud Foundation for more information
www.thecloudfoundation.org, info@thecloudfoundation.org, 719-633-3842
You are receiving this email because you have asked to be on our e-mail list. If you have received this e-mail in error, please unsubscribe. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience!
Unsubscribe mustangalley@hotmail.com from this list.
Our mailing address is:
The Cloud Foundation 107 South 7th St Colorado Springs, CO 80905
Our telephone:
719-633-3842
Copyright (C) 2008 The Cloud Foundation All rights reserved.
Forward this email to a friend
Update your profile
This message was sent from Americans Against Horse Slaughter to redmm97@cox.net. It was sent from: Americans Against Horse Slaughter, 1551 Willow Pond Dr., Yardley, PA 19067.
-----------------------
Whenever people say 'We mustn't be sentimental,' you can take it they are about to do something cruel. And if they add 'We must be realistic,' they mean they are going to make money out of it.
-Brigid Brophy
Friends of Equines FOES of Equine Slaughter
http://www.freewebs.com/friendsofequines
Wont You Join Our "Industry Accountability" Campaigns?
CJ
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Another "Take" on The R.O.A.M. Act
COMMENTS and FYI...Re: UPDATE : S.1579 - Senate version of the Restore Our American Mustangs Act
8-11-2009 They've already eliminated "NATURAL thriving ecological balance". Looks like the public lands livestock industry has had a heavy hand in this and others who don't know the 1971 Act, etc. Good old NV Harry Reid and Ensign's marks are on this as well. Ensign is an obstructionist to any proposed protection and Harry gave MT Conrad Burn's his blessing to gut and allow slaughter of wild horses. Harry is a Mormon and the long time wealthy "family" Utah contractor, Cattoor***, is one as well. Harry is protecting his special interest non-profit wealthy religious group members. Ensign, a member of the Washington DC "Family" on C street is a buddy of now Gov. Gibbons and was part of the 7-13-98 Fed. subcommittee meeting in Reno to allow "sale authority" of wild horses and to repeal the 1971 Act. What's wrong with you people? No back bones! The 1971 Act is clear! You are playing right into the hands of these people at the expense of our wild horses/burros freedom and legal rights to their home ranges.
Betty
PS: ***
5-22-1992 Pleads guilty (plea bargaining): 3-11-1992
Yowell, Moss, Zabarte, Hicks, Cattoor and Heaverne
COUNT ONE of CONSPIRACY –to use an aircraft for purpose of capturing and killing wild, unbranded horses, mares and clots running at large on public land or range.
-the defendants were herded onto and held at the Duckwater Indian Reservation and caused the horses to be sold and shipped by truck to Great Western Meats in Morton, Texas to be slaughtered and processed.
COUNT TWO use of aircraft to capture wild horses; aiding and abetting on or about 8-11, 8-12-1990.
8-11-2009 They've already eliminated "NATURAL thriving ecological balance". Looks like the public lands livestock industry has had a heavy hand in this and others who don't know the 1971 Act, etc. Good old NV Harry Reid and Ensign's marks are on this as well. Ensign is an obstructionist to any proposed protection and Harry gave MT Conrad Burn's his blessing to gut and allow slaughter of wild horses. Harry is a Mormon and the long time wealthy "family" Utah contractor, Cattoor***, is one as well. Harry is protecting his special interest non-profit wealthy religious group members. Ensign, a member of the Washington DC "Family" on C street is a buddy of now Gov. Gibbons and was part of the 7-13-98 Fed. subcommittee meeting in Reno to allow "sale authority" of wild horses and to repeal the 1971 Act. What's wrong with you people? No back bones! The 1971 Act is clear! You are playing right into the hands of these people at the expense of our wild horses/burros freedom and legal rights to their home ranges.
Betty
PS: ***
5-22-1992 Pleads guilty (plea bargaining): 3-11-1992
Yowell, Moss, Zabarte, Hicks, Cattoor and Heaverne
COUNT ONE of CONSPIRACY –to use an aircraft for purpose of capturing and killing wild, unbranded horses, mares and clots running at large on public land or range.
-the defendants were herded onto and held at the Duckwater Indian Reservation and caused the horses to be sold and shipped by truck to Great Western Meats in Morton, Texas to be slaughtered and processed.
COUNT TWO use of aircraft to capture wild horses; aiding and abetting on or about 8-11, 8-12-1990.
Monday, August 10, 2009
The DOI: A Long History of Politics & Corruption
Excerpt;
Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall was implicated in the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1921. He was convicted of bribery in 1929 for his part in the controversy. A major factor in the scandal was a transfer of certain oil leases from the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy to that of the Department of the Interior, at Fall's behest.
Secretary of the Interior James G. Watt — already facing criticism related to his alleged hostility to environmentalism and his support of the development and use of federal lands by foresting, ranching, and other commercial interests, and for banning The Beach Boys from playing a 1983 Independence Day concert on the National Mall out of concerns of attracting "an undesirable element" — resigned abruptly after a September 21, 1983, speech in which he said about his staff: "I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent."[1] Within weeks of making this statement, Watt submitted his resignation letter.[1][2]
Under the Administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, the Interior Department's maintenance backlog climbed from $5 billion to $8.7 billion, despite Bush's campaign pledges to eliminate it completely. Of the agency under Bush's leadership, Interior Department Inspector General Earl Devaney has cited a "culture of fear" and of "ethical failure." Devaney has also said, "Simply stated, short of a crime, anything goes at the highest levels of the Department of Interior."[3]
Gale Norton, Interior Secretary under George W. Bush from 2001-2006, resigned due to connections with the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. Julie A. MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary at the Interior Department appointed by Norton in 2002, also resigned after an internal review found that she had violated federal rules by giving government documents to lobbyists for industry.[4][5] On July 20, 2007, MacDonald's "inappropriate influence" led H. Dale Hall, director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, to order a review of eight endangered species decisions in which the former deputy assistant secretary was involved. Hall has called MacDonald's disputed decisions "a blemish on the scientific integrity of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior."[6] On 17 September 2008, the US Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to more than triple the habitat of the California red-legged frog, citing political manipulation by Julie MacDonald.[7] In a government report released in December 2008,[8] Inspector General Devaney called MacDonald's management "abrupt and abrasive, if not abusive,"[9] and U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, who commissioned the report, attributed the "untold waste of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars" to MacDonald's actions.[10]
On September 10, 2008, Inspector General Devaney found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service. In a cover memo, Devaney wrote “A culture of ethical failure” pervades the agency. According to the report, eight officials accepted gifts from energy companies whose value exceeded limits set by ethics rules — including golf, ski, and paintball outings; meals; drinks; and tickets to a Toby Keith concert, a Houston Texans football game, and a Colorado Rockies baseball game. The investigation also concluded that several of the officials “frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.” According to the New York Times, "The reports portray a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch."[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]
This article may need to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information, and remove this template when finished. Please see the talk page for more information.
The previous Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne is criticized for not placing any plants or animals on the federal endangered species list since his confirmation on May 26, 2006, until September 2007. As of that date, Kempthorne held the record for protecting fewer species over his tenure than any Interior Secretary in United States history, a record previously held by James G. Watt for over 20 years.[21]
On December 16, 2008, the Center for Biological Diversity announced intent to sue the Interior Department under Kempthorne for introducing "regulations...that would eviscerate our nation’s most successful wildlife law by exempting thousands of federal activities, including those that generate greenhouse gases, from review under the Endangered Species Act." The lawsuit, which is critical of policy advocated by Kempthorne and President George W. Bush, was filed in the Northern District of California by the CBD, Greenpeace and Defenders of Wildlife. According to the CBD, "The lawsuit argues that the regulations violate the Endangered Species Act and did not go through the required public review process. The regulations, first proposed on August 11th, were rushed by the Bush administration through an abbreviated process in which more than 300,000 comments from the public were reviewed in 2-3 weeks, and environmental impacts were analyzed in a short and cursory environmental assessment, rather than a fuller environmental impact statement."[22]
[edit] References
^ a b 556. James G Watt, US Secretary of the Interior. Simpson’s Contemporary Quotations. 1988
^ RMOA - Document
^ Bush legacy leaves uphill climb for U.S. parks
^ Matthew Daly (May 1, 2007). "Embattled Interior official resigns post". Associated Press. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/interior_official_quits_ahead_of_hearing/.
^ New York Times, "U.S. Agency May Reverse 8 Decisions on Wildlife", July 21, 2007.
^ Broder, John M (2007-07-21). "U.S. Agency May Reverse 8 Decisions on Wildlife". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/21/washington/21interior.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin.
^ A California frog may be about to get room to stretch its red legs
^ Report Finds Meddling in Interior Dept. Actions
^ Investigative Report of the Endangered Species Act and the Conflict Between Science and Policy Redacted
^ Wyden-Requested IG Report on Interior Corruption Uncovers "Contempt for the Public Trust" and "Untold Waste" - Senator praises Devaney's investigation into political interference in ESA decisions.
^ Sex, Drug Use and Graft Cited in Interior Department
^ "Report Says Oil Agency Ran Amok: Interior Dept. Inquiry Finds Sex, Corruption". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/10/AR2008091001829.html. Retrieved on 2008-09-11.
^ "Sex, Drug Use and Graft Cited in Interior Department". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html. Retrieved on 2008-09-11.
^ "Oil companies gave sex, drinks, gifts to federal overseers". McClatchy Newspapers. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/52243.html. Retrieved on 2008-09-11.
^ "Memorandum [cover letter by inspector general]". http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/09/10/18/Gordon-OIG-Cover-Letter.source.prod_affiliate.91.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-09-11.
^ "Investigative Report of Gregory W. Smith (Redacted)". http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/investigative/documents/smith-080708.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-09-11.
^ "Investigative Report of MMS Oil Marketing Group - Lakewood (Redacted)". http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/investigative/documents/mmsoil-081908.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-09-11.
^ "Government Officials Tried To Rewrite Ethics Rules To Accommodate Their Partying". http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/10/rik-ethics-rules. Retrieved on 2008-09-11.
^ "Official increased employee’s ‘performance award’ for providing him with cocaine". http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/10/smith-cocaine. Retrieved on 2008-09-11.
^ Simon, Dan; David Fitzpatrick (October 14 2008). "Whistleblower: Oil watchdog agency 'cult of corruption'". CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/14/oil.whistleblower/index.html.
^ Kempthorne Wins 2007 Rubber Dodo Award: Protects Fewer Species Than Any Interior Secretary in History
^ Bush Administration Regulations Gutting Protections for Nation's Endangered Species Published Today - Conservation Groups' Challenge to 11th Hour Reductions in Protections for Nation’s Wildlife Moves ForwarD
[edit] Further reading
Crimes Against Nature by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (2004)
Utley, Robert M. and Barry Mackintosh; The Department of Everything Else, Highlights of Interior History; Dept of the Interior, Washington, D.C.; 1989
[external links, click on title above to get to them)
United States Department of the Interior Official Website
The Department of Everything Else: Highlights of Interior History
Indian Trust: Cobell V. Kempthorne
Department Of The Interior Meeting Notices and Rule Changes from The Federal Register RSS Feed
Sex, Drug Use and Graft cited in Interior Department New York Times, September 10, 2008
Center for Biological Diversity v Dept of the Interior April 17, 2009 DC Appellate Decision stopping offshore Alaska Oil Leases.
Click on title above for full story; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Department_of_Interior
Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall was implicated in the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1921. He was convicted of bribery in 1929 for his part in the controversy. A major factor in the scandal was a transfer of certain oil leases from the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy to that of the Department of the Interior, at Fall's behest.
Secretary of the Interior James G. Watt — already facing criticism related to his alleged hostility to environmentalism and his support of the development and use of federal lands by foresting, ranching, and other commercial interests, and for banning The Beach Boys from playing a 1983 Independence Day concert on the National Mall out of concerns of attracting "an undesirable element" — resigned abruptly after a September 21, 1983, speech in which he said about his staff: "I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent."[1] Within weeks of making this statement, Watt submitted his resignation letter.[1][2]
Under the Administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, the Interior Department's maintenance backlog climbed from $5 billion to $8.7 billion, despite Bush's campaign pledges to eliminate it completely. Of the agency under Bush's leadership, Interior Department Inspector General Earl Devaney has cited a "culture of fear" and of "ethical failure." Devaney has also said, "Simply stated, short of a crime, anything goes at the highest levels of the Department of Interior."[3]
Gale Norton, Interior Secretary under George W. Bush from 2001-2006, resigned due to connections with the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. Julie A. MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary at the Interior Department appointed by Norton in 2002, also resigned after an internal review found that she had violated federal rules by giving government documents to lobbyists for industry.[4][5] On July 20, 2007, MacDonald's "inappropriate influence" led H. Dale Hall, director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, to order a review of eight endangered species decisions in which the former deputy assistant secretary was involved. Hall has called MacDonald's disputed decisions "a blemish on the scientific integrity of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior."[6] On 17 September 2008, the US Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to more than triple the habitat of the California red-legged frog, citing political manipulation by Julie MacDonald.[7] In a government report released in December 2008,[8] Inspector General Devaney called MacDonald's management "abrupt and abrasive, if not abusive,"[9] and U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, who commissioned the report, attributed the "untold waste of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars" to MacDonald's actions.[10]
On September 10, 2008, Inspector General Devaney found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service. In a cover memo, Devaney wrote “A culture of ethical failure” pervades the agency. According to the report, eight officials accepted gifts from energy companies whose value exceeded limits set by ethics rules — including golf, ski, and paintball outings; meals; drinks; and tickets to a Toby Keith concert, a Houston Texans football game, and a Colorado Rockies baseball game. The investigation also concluded that several of the officials “frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.” According to the New York Times, "The reports portray a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch."[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]
This article may need to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information, and remove this template when finished. Please see the talk page for more information.
The previous Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne is criticized for not placing any plants or animals on the federal endangered species list since his confirmation on May 26, 2006, until September 2007. As of that date, Kempthorne held the record for protecting fewer species over his tenure than any Interior Secretary in United States history, a record previously held by James G. Watt for over 20 years.[21]
On December 16, 2008, the Center for Biological Diversity announced intent to sue the Interior Department under Kempthorne for introducing "regulations...that would eviscerate our nation’s most successful wildlife law by exempting thousands of federal activities, including those that generate greenhouse gases, from review under the Endangered Species Act." The lawsuit, which is critical of policy advocated by Kempthorne and President George W. Bush, was filed in the Northern District of California by the CBD, Greenpeace and Defenders of Wildlife. According to the CBD, "The lawsuit argues that the regulations violate the Endangered Species Act and did not go through the required public review process. The regulations, first proposed on August 11th, were rushed by the Bush administration through an abbreviated process in which more than 300,000 comments from the public were reviewed in 2-3 weeks, and environmental impacts were analyzed in a short and cursory environmental assessment, rather than a fuller environmental impact statement."[22]
[edit] References
^ a b 556. James G Watt, US Secretary of the Interior. Simpson’s Contemporary Quotations. 1988
^ RMOA - Document
^ Bush legacy leaves uphill climb for U.S. parks
^ Matthew Daly (May 1, 2007). "Embattled Interior official resigns post". Associated Press. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/interior_official_quits_ahead_of_hearing/.
^ New York Times, "U.S. Agency May Reverse 8 Decisions on Wildlife", July 21, 2007.
^ Broder, John M (2007-07-21). "U.S. Agency May Reverse 8 Decisions on Wildlife". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/21/washington/21interior.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin.
^ A California frog may be about to get room to stretch its red legs
^ Report Finds Meddling in Interior Dept. Actions
^ Investigative Report of the Endangered Species Act and the Conflict Between Science and Policy Redacted
^ Wyden-Requested IG Report on Interior Corruption Uncovers "Contempt for the Public Trust" and "Untold Waste" - Senator praises Devaney's investigation into political interference in ESA decisions.
^ Sex, Drug Use and Graft Cited in Interior Department
^ "Report Says Oil Agency Ran Amok: Interior Dept. Inquiry Finds Sex, Corruption". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/10/AR2008091001829.html. Retrieved on 2008-09-11.
^ "Sex, Drug Use and Graft Cited in Interior Department". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html. Retrieved on 2008-09-11.
^ "Oil companies gave sex, drinks, gifts to federal overseers". McClatchy Newspapers. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/52243.html. Retrieved on 2008-09-11.
^ "Memorandum [cover letter by inspector general]". http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/09/10/18/Gordon-OIG-Cover-Letter.source.prod_affiliate.91.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-09-11.
^ "Investigative Report of Gregory W. Smith (Redacted)". http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/investigative/documents/smith-080708.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-09-11.
^ "Investigative Report of MMS Oil Marketing Group - Lakewood (Redacted)". http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/investigative/documents/mmsoil-081908.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-09-11.
^ "Government Officials Tried To Rewrite Ethics Rules To Accommodate Their Partying". http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/10/rik-ethics-rules. Retrieved on 2008-09-11.
^ "Official increased employee’s ‘performance award’ for providing him with cocaine". http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/10/smith-cocaine. Retrieved on 2008-09-11.
^ Simon, Dan; David Fitzpatrick (October 14 2008). "Whistleblower: Oil watchdog agency 'cult of corruption'". CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/14/oil.whistleblower/index.html.
^ Kempthorne Wins 2007 Rubber Dodo Award: Protects Fewer Species Than Any Interior Secretary in History
^ Bush Administration Regulations Gutting Protections for Nation's Endangered Species Published Today - Conservation Groups' Challenge to 11th Hour Reductions in Protections for Nation’s Wildlife Moves ForwarD
[edit] Further reading
Crimes Against Nature by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (2004)
Utley, Robert M. and Barry Mackintosh; The Department of Everything Else, Highlights of Interior History; Dept of the Interior, Washington, D.C.; 1989
[external links, click on title above to get to them)
United States Department of the Interior Official Website
The Department of Everything Else: Highlights of Interior History
Indian Trust: Cobell V. Kempthorne
Department Of The Interior Meeting Notices and Rule Changes from The Federal Register RSS Feed
Sex, Drug Use and Graft cited in Interior Department New York Times, September 10, 2008
Center for Biological Diversity v Dept of the Interior April 17, 2009 DC Appellate Decision stopping offshore Alaska Oil Leases.
Click on title above for full story; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Department_of_Interior
Remembering Frantz Dantzler & The Howe / Rancher Wild Horse Massacre of 1973, Id.
Dantzler: Big Man, Big Heart, Big Legacy
Frantz Dantzler (1938-2005)
Years at HSUS: 1962-2005
Major Accomplishments: Ran two affiliates and three regional offices, director of Field Services and Investigations. Investigated and broke national stories on the cruelties of wild horse roundups and greyhound racing. Testified before state and federal legislatures on cruelty to animals. Skilled photographer and innovator who transformed The HSUS's investigation capacities.
By Bernard Unti
Effective humane investigators can't be faint of heart, it's been said, but they must be kind-hearted. For more than four decades, no HSUS staff member better exemplified this essential character symmetry than Frantz Dantzler. In Dantzler's 43-year career with The HSUS, he confronted the stark cruelties of animal fighting, seal hunting, puppy mills, wild horse roundups, predator control, animal auctions, the exotic bird trade, and more. No matter what he witnessed, however, Dantzler retained a fundamental optimism about human nature that matched his deep regard for animals.
To an unparalleled degree, Dantzler's professional progress mirrored the evolution of The HSUS itself. He worked at two HSUS state branch affiliates, in Colorado and Utah, served as a regional director in three different locations, spent almost ten years in Washington D.C. as the head of The HSUS's Field Services and Investigations division, and, in the last stage of his career, supported ongoing investigations by managing videotape evidence and maintaining equipment used by colleagues all over the United States.
In particular, Dantzler's investigative work in the 1970s helped to solidify The HSUS's reputation as the nation's leading humane organization. As its chief investigator, he spearheaded efforts to expose the mismanagement of the Bureau of Land Management’s Adopt-a-Horse program, to compel the National Greyhound Association to prohibit the use of live rabbits as lures in meets, and to criminalize dog theft as a felony offense. In short, Dantzler's reputation as an investigator was as large as his own physical frame; he was a man who stood six feet, six inches tall and had a long list of accomplishments to match his size.
Dantzler, who died in a South Bend, Indiana hospital on June 18, 2005 after an accidental fall at his home, was the longest-serving employee in The HSUS's history, and the only one to have worked under all six HSUS chief executives. From Fred Myers to Wayne Pacelle, Dantzler knew them all.
"Frantz dedicated his life to humane work long before animal protection concerns gained mainstream status. Whether it was wild horses, animal fighting, seal slaughter, greyhound racing or puppy mills—you name the issue—those of us who act on these concerns today are standing on his broad shoulders," Pacelle said shortly after Dantzler's passing. "His legacy to The HSUS and the world is that of a true friend and champion of animals."
Our Man in Transition
Born in Chattanooga, Tennessee in 1938, Dantzler traced his epiphany concerning animals to an incident that occurred at age 14, when he shot a squirrel out of a tree. Forty years later, he could still recall the moment with crystalline clarity. "This was dumb," he remembered thinking, "Why did I do this? I realized then that it would be the last time I'd shoot squirrels, and it was. There was no lightning bolt or anything. It just suddenly seemed senseless."
In the early 1960s, Dantzler, an aerospace electronics technician, was living in Colorado. His neighbor happened to be Belton P. Mouras, head of The HSUS's livestock department and Rocky Mountain branch. It was Mouras who recruited Dantzler to work at the Boulder County Humane Society, then a special affiliate of The HSUS, and it was there, in a small-scale shelter, that Dantzler first learned the techniques of animal care and cruelty investigation that he would later bring to bear on a national level. It was also at Boulder County Humane that Dantzler met HSUS founder Myers, who paid a visit to the shelter in spring 1963, soon after Dantzler began working there.
In July 1964, Dantzler left Colorado to take the position of supervisor at the Salt Lake City shelter operated by The HSUS's Utah State Branch. Led by longtime HSUS board member Hal Gardiner, the Utah shelter was a model for its time, handling an average of 35,000 animals annually, adopting no animals out unless spayed or neutered, and using sodium pentobarbital as a means of euthanasia.
In addition to managing the shelter, Dantzler conducted cruelty investigations throughout the state, and became a deputy officer for the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Department. He first received mention as a staff member of The HSUS in the May 1965 issue of HSUS News, attended his first annual conference later that year, and by 1967 was on the program as a presenter.
Dantzler was appointed director of the HSUS Utah State Branch in 1970, the same year that John Hoyt came to The HSUS as president. In 1972, when The HSUS shifted to a regional office system, Dantzler, like Gardiner, supported the decision. The branch's shelter operation became the Utah Humane Society, while Dantzler became director of The HSUS's Rocky Mountain Regional Office. A year later, he moved to Sacramento, California, to head the HSUS West Coast Regional Office.
Our Man in the Saddle
For humane workers in the western states in the early 1970s, the fate of America's wild horses was a flashpoint issue, and, after passage of the Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act in 1971, Dantzler became The HSUS's point man in the fight to protect mustangs. Together with field representative Hal Perry, he brought to light one of the most haunting cruelty cases of the era, the so-called "Howe Massacre" of 1973, an incident in which ranchers, acting without authority, rounded up and slaughtered a herd of wild horses in the rugged territory of southeastern Idaho.
Acting on a tip from Joseph Wood Krutch Medalist Velma "Wild Horse Annie" Johnston, Dantzler and Perry found a scene of unprecedented carnage: Ranchers had forced hog rings into horses' noses, slit the throats and cut off the legs of horses whose hooves got caught among the rocks, and had driven uncooperative animals over a cliff. At the foot of the cliff, Dantzler and Perry came across the cadavers of seven horses, five of whom had been "choked down" through the insertion of C-shaped hog rings into their nostrils, which reduced their breathing capacity by 80% to 90%.
The 29 horses who survived the Howe Massacre were sold for dog food. The HSUS traced them to a cannery in North Platte, Nebraska, where they remained during the course of a government investigation initiated under pressure from HSUS Chief Investigator Frank McMahon. The HSUS and the American Horse Protection Association also filed suit against the Department of the Interior for allowing illegal roundups that violated the 1971 Act.
Dantzler was able to visit and care for the animals during the course of the investigation and legal proceedings, but the case took a bad turn. Despite The HSUS's efforts, the horses were returned to the very ranchers responsible for the grisly roundup. Even so, for several years, the furious protests that followed prevented further roundups.
His experience at Howe made Dantzler a determined critic of the roundup and slaughter of wild horses. His efforts to develop evidence concerning the Bureau of Land Management's poor management of the roundups and the Adopt-a-Horse program continued throughout the 1970s. As an expert fact witness, he played an essential role in several lawsuits filed by The HSUS in support of the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act, and in 1977, he testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Resources in efforts to protect the gains embodied in the act.
In January 1979 he provided information to ABC-TV's 20/20 news magazine for a feature segment on the BLM's mismanagement of the Adopt-a-Horse program. Geraldo Rivera's reporting gave the wild horse issue unprecedented coverage, and Senate oversight hearings to explore the BLM's ineptitude followed.
Our Man in Washington
In November 1975, a few months after McMahon's death, Dantzler came to Washington to serve as director of Field Services and Investigations, a role in which he said he hoped to reinforce The HSUS's position as "the conscience of the American people with respect to animal cruelty." By every indication, he hit the ground running. With his first-hand knowledge of cruelty investigations, and his talent for documenting evidence through photography and other techniques, Dantzler was a man in demand, frequently representing The HSUS in media and other public appearances.
HSUS President Emeritus Hoyt, who brought Dantzler to Washington, recalled that "Frantz was a reliable and innovative investigator, who dared to go where no one else would go. His use of instrumentation and professional techniques allowed us to document cruelty in ways that had eluded us before he came on board."
To a great extent, the emergent cruelties of the decade determined the course of Dantzler's investigative agenda. In the mid-1970s, he went into the field with other staff to document the deplorable conditions of Midwestern puppy mills, just as America's heartland was being transformed into the center of a miserable industry. The work he did with Ann Gonnerman provided the background for Roger Caras's 1976 ABC-TV news feature report on this nascent cruelty.
At a time when prospects for a federal ban on dogfighting seemed good, Dantzler testified before a congressional committee in 1976, pushing for enforcement of animal fighting provisions in the Animal Welfare Act. Dantzler and his colleagues made The HSUS the nation's foremost authority on the nationwide network of illegal animal fighting enterprises.
Dantzler was also very active on the greyhound racing issue during a decade of aggressive expansion by that industry. In 1978 Frantz took Rivera to Kansas to film a greyhound racing meet. The footage they procured appeared on the premiere episode of 20/20, and underpinned a drive for proposed federal legislation, which, though unsuccessful, led the National Greyhound Association to outlaw the use of live rabbits at coursing events.
In the mid-1980s, Dantzler worked with other HSUS investigators in a complex surveillance operation that targeted a notorious high-volume animal dealer who carried dogs across state lines—without the required vaccination certificates—to deliver them to major laboratories in his home state. Although the dealer was tipped off by someone in law enforcement, Dantzler and Bob Baker were able to procure some damaging footage of sick and crowded animals in the dealer's transport vehicle. This video footage later was crucial to the designation of dog theft as a felony in Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.
Dantzler was also known to lend a hand when disasters struck. In 1976, when the Teton Dam collapsed, he went to southeastern Idaho to support regional agencies in their efforts to safeguard animals. And in 1980, he joined colleague Eric Sakach in Washington State after the eruption at Mount St. Helens, working with humane society personnel to rescue and shelter shocked and injured animals within the devastated zone.
Our Man, The Mentor
In 1984, Dantzler left his position as director of investigations to open The HSUS's new North Central Office in the Chicago area. He would later assume the role of senior investigator, operating from his home in Indiana, where he put his considerable technical talents to use in the support of other HSUS staff members' work.
Dantzler continued to participate in HSUS investigations into the mid-1990s, helping to extend the organization's undercover work abroad. He went several times to Honduras to document the miseries of the illegal trade in imperiled wildlife, checking out suspected poaching operations and finding more than 1,000 illegally captured parrots and macaws destined for the pet trade.
Dantzler was an award-winning photographer whose photo credits were a fixture in HSUS publications. In 2002, he did the digital photography for The Humane Society of the United States Complete Guide to Cat Care, his own cat posing as a model. His dogs, Hercules and Apollo, provided inspiration and examples for his monthly column, "For Pet's Sake," in the South Bend Tribune.
The news of Dantzler's passing fell hard on the many HSUS staff members, past and current, who loved and admired him. "In 1975, before I came to The HSUS, Frantz Dantzler came to Massachusetts to brief me on the organization’s activity," recalled Paul Irwin, who retired as HSUS president and CEO in 2004. "That meeting solidified my decision to join The HSUS, and it was the start of a warm and cordial relationship that profoundly influenced my life and my understanding of humane work once we became colleagues."
"He was a man's man, yet he had a very gentle, kind side," said Sakach, director of the HSUS West Coast Regional Office, who worked alongside Dantzler in a number of investigations and considered him a mentor. "He was a giant of man, physically and figuratively."
Bernard Unti received his doctorate in U.S. history in 2002 from American University. His book, Protecting All Animals: A Fifty-Year History of The Humane Society of the United States, is available from Humane Society Press.
http://www.hsus.org/about_us/accomplishments/the_people_who_have_shaped_the_hsus/frantz_dantzler_big_man_big_heart_big_legacy.html
Frantz Dantzler (1938-2005)
Years at HSUS: 1962-2005
Major Accomplishments: Ran two affiliates and three regional offices, director of Field Services and Investigations. Investigated and broke national stories on the cruelties of wild horse roundups and greyhound racing. Testified before state and federal legislatures on cruelty to animals. Skilled photographer and innovator who transformed The HSUS's investigation capacities.
By Bernard Unti
Effective humane investigators can't be faint of heart, it's been said, but they must be kind-hearted. For more than four decades, no HSUS staff member better exemplified this essential character symmetry than Frantz Dantzler. In Dantzler's 43-year career with The HSUS, he confronted the stark cruelties of animal fighting, seal hunting, puppy mills, wild horse roundups, predator control, animal auctions, the exotic bird trade, and more. No matter what he witnessed, however, Dantzler retained a fundamental optimism about human nature that matched his deep regard for animals.
To an unparalleled degree, Dantzler's professional progress mirrored the evolution of The HSUS itself. He worked at two HSUS state branch affiliates, in Colorado and Utah, served as a regional director in three different locations, spent almost ten years in Washington D.C. as the head of The HSUS's Field Services and Investigations division, and, in the last stage of his career, supported ongoing investigations by managing videotape evidence and maintaining equipment used by colleagues all over the United States.
In particular, Dantzler's investigative work in the 1970s helped to solidify The HSUS's reputation as the nation's leading humane organization. As its chief investigator, he spearheaded efforts to expose the mismanagement of the Bureau of Land Management’s Adopt-a-Horse program, to compel the National Greyhound Association to prohibit the use of live rabbits as lures in meets, and to criminalize dog theft as a felony offense. In short, Dantzler's reputation as an investigator was as large as his own physical frame; he was a man who stood six feet, six inches tall and had a long list of accomplishments to match his size.
Dantzler, who died in a South Bend, Indiana hospital on June 18, 2005 after an accidental fall at his home, was the longest-serving employee in The HSUS's history, and the only one to have worked under all six HSUS chief executives. From Fred Myers to Wayne Pacelle, Dantzler knew them all.
"Frantz dedicated his life to humane work long before animal protection concerns gained mainstream status. Whether it was wild horses, animal fighting, seal slaughter, greyhound racing or puppy mills—you name the issue—those of us who act on these concerns today are standing on his broad shoulders," Pacelle said shortly after Dantzler's passing. "His legacy to The HSUS and the world is that of a true friend and champion of animals."
Our Man in Transition
Born in Chattanooga, Tennessee in 1938, Dantzler traced his epiphany concerning animals to an incident that occurred at age 14, when he shot a squirrel out of a tree. Forty years later, he could still recall the moment with crystalline clarity. "This was dumb," he remembered thinking, "Why did I do this? I realized then that it would be the last time I'd shoot squirrels, and it was. There was no lightning bolt or anything. It just suddenly seemed senseless."
In the early 1960s, Dantzler, an aerospace electronics technician, was living in Colorado. His neighbor happened to be Belton P. Mouras, head of The HSUS's livestock department and Rocky Mountain branch. It was Mouras who recruited Dantzler to work at the Boulder County Humane Society, then a special affiliate of The HSUS, and it was there, in a small-scale shelter, that Dantzler first learned the techniques of animal care and cruelty investigation that he would later bring to bear on a national level. It was also at Boulder County Humane that Dantzler met HSUS founder Myers, who paid a visit to the shelter in spring 1963, soon after Dantzler began working there.
In July 1964, Dantzler left Colorado to take the position of supervisor at the Salt Lake City shelter operated by The HSUS's Utah State Branch. Led by longtime HSUS board member Hal Gardiner, the Utah shelter was a model for its time, handling an average of 35,000 animals annually, adopting no animals out unless spayed or neutered, and using sodium pentobarbital as a means of euthanasia.
In addition to managing the shelter, Dantzler conducted cruelty investigations throughout the state, and became a deputy officer for the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Department. He first received mention as a staff member of The HSUS in the May 1965 issue of HSUS News, attended his first annual conference later that year, and by 1967 was on the program as a presenter.
Dantzler was appointed director of the HSUS Utah State Branch in 1970, the same year that John Hoyt came to The HSUS as president. In 1972, when The HSUS shifted to a regional office system, Dantzler, like Gardiner, supported the decision. The branch's shelter operation became the Utah Humane Society, while Dantzler became director of The HSUS's Rocky Mountain Regional Office. A year later, he moved to Sacramento, California, to head the HSUS West Coast Regional Office.
Our Man in the Saddle
For humane workers in the western states in the early 1970s, the fate of America's wild horses was a flashpoint issue, and, after passage of the Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act in 1971, Dantzler became The HSUS's point man in the fight to protect mustangs. Together with field representative Hal Perry, he brought to light one of the most haunting cruelty cases of the era, the so-called "Howe Massacre" of 1973, an incident in which ranchers, acting without authority, rounded up and slaughtered a herd of wild horses in the rugged territory of southeastern Idaho.
Acting on a tip from Joseph Wood Krutch Medalist Velma "Wild Horse Annie" Johnston, Dantzler and Perry found a scene of unprecedented carnage: Ranchers had forced hog rings into horses' noses, slit the throats and cut off the legs of horses whose hooves got caught among the rocks, and had driven uncooperative animals over a cliff. At the foot of the cliff, Dantzler and Perry came across the cadavers of seven horses, five of whom had been "choked down" through the insertion of C-shaped hog rings into their nostrils, which reduced their breathing capacity by 80% to 90%.
The 29 horses who survived the Howe Massacre were sold for dog food. The HSUS traced them to a cannery in North Platte, Nebraska, where they remained during the course of a government investigation initiated under pressure from HSUS Chief Investigator Frank McMahon. The HSUS and the American Horse Protection Association also filed suit against the Department of the Interior for allowing illegal roundups that violated the 1971 Act.
Dantzler was able to visit and care for the animals during the course of the investigation and legal proceedings, but the case took a bad turn. Despite The HSUS's efforts, the horses were returned to the very ranchers responsible for the grisly roundup. Even so, for several years, the furious protests that followed prevented further roundups.
His experience at Howe made Dantzler a determined critic of the roundup and slaughter of wild horses. His efforts to develop evidence concerning the Bureau of Land Management's poor management of the roundups and the Adopt-a-Horse program continued throughout the 1970s. As an expert fact witness, he played an essential role in several lawsuits filed by The HSUS in support of the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act, and in 1977, he testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Resources in efforts to protect the gains embodied in the act.
In January 1979 he provided information to ABC-TV's 20/20 news magazine for a feature segment on the BLM's mismanagement of the Adopt-a-Horse program. Geraldo Rivera's reporting gave the wild horse issue unprecedented coverage, and Senate oversight hearings to explore the BLM's ineptitude followed.
Our Man in Washington
In November 1975, a few months after McMahon's death, Dantzler came to Washington to serve as director of Field Services and Investigations, a role in which he said he hoped to reinforce The HSUS's position as "the conscience of the American people with respect to animal cruelty." By every indication, he hit the ground running. With his first-hand knowledge of cruelty investigations, and his talent for documenting evidence through photography and other techniques, Dantzler was a man in demand, frequently representing The HSUS in media and other public appearances.
HSUS President Emeritus Hoyt, who brought Dantzler to Washington, recalled that "Frantz was a reliable and innovative investigator, who dared to go where no one else would go. His use of instrumentation and professional techniques allowed us to document cruelty in ways that had eluded us before he came on board."
To a great extent, the emergent cruelties of the decade determined the course of Dantzler's investigative agenda. In the mid-1970s, he went into the field with other staff to document the deplorable conditions of Midwestern puppy mills, just as America's heartland was being transformed into the center of a miserable industry. The work he did with Ann Gonnerman provided the background for Roger Caras's 1976 ABC-TV news feature report on this nascent cruelty.
At a time when prospects for a federal ban on dogfighting seemed good, Dantzler testified before a congressional committee in 1976, pushing for enforcement of animal fighting provisions in the Animal Welfare Act. Dantzler and his colleagues made The HSUS the nation's foremost authority on the nationwide network of illegal animal fighting enterprises.
Dantzler was also very active on the greyhound racing issue during a decade of aggressive expansion by that industry. In 1978 Frantz took Rivera to Kansas to film a greyhound racing meet. The footage they procured appeared on the premiere episode of 20/20, and underpinned a drive for proposed federal legislation, which, though unsuccessful, led the National Greyhound Association to outlaw the use of live rabbits at coursing events.
In the mid-1980s, Dantzler worked with other HSUS investigators in a complex surveillance operation that targeted a notorious high-volume animal dealer who carried dogs across state lines—without the required vaccination certificates—to deliver them to major laboratories in his home state. Although the dealer was tipped off by someone in law enforcement, Dantzler and Bob Baker were able to procure some damaging footage of sick and crowded animals in the dealer's transport vehicle. This video footage later was crucial to the designation of dog theft as a felony in Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.
Dantzler was also known to lend a hand when disasters struck. In 1976, when the Teton Dam collapsed, he went to southeastern Idaho to support regional agencies in their efforts to safeguard animals. And in 1980, he joined colleague Eric Sakach in Washington State after the eruption at Mount St. Helens, working with humane society personnel to rescue and shelter shocked and injured animals within the devastated zone.
Our Man, The Mentor
In 1984, Dantzler left his position as director of investigations to open The HSUS's new North Central Office in the Chicago area. He would later assume the role of senior investigator, operating from his home in Indiana, where he put his considerable technical talents to use in the support of other HSUS staff members' work.
Dantzler continued to participate in HSUS investigations into the mid-1990s, helping to extend the organization's undercover work abroad. He went several times to Honduras to document the miseries of the illegal trade in imperiled wildlife, checking out suspected poaching operations and finding more than 1,000 illegally captured parrots and macaws destined for the pet trade.
Dantzler was an award-winning photographer whose photo credits were a fixture in HSUS publications. In 2002, he did the digital photography for The Humane Society of the United States Complete Guide to Cat Care, his own cat posing as a model. His dogs, Hercules and Apollo, provided inspiration and examples for his monthly column, "For Pet's Sake," in the South Bend Tribune.
The news of Dantzler's passing fell hard on the many HSUS staff members, past and current, who loved and admired him. "In 1975, before I came to The HSUS, Frantz Dantzler came to Massachusetts to brief me on the organization’s activity," recalled Paul Irwin, who retired as HSUS president and CEO in 2004. "That meeting solidified my decision to join The HSUS, and it was the start of a warm and cordial relationship that profoundly influenced my life and my understanding of humane work once we became colleagues."
"He was a man's man, yet he had a very gentle, kind side," said Sakach, director of the HSUS West Coast Regional Office, who worked alongside Dantzler in a number of investigations and considered him a mentor. "He was a giant of man, physically and figuratively."
Bernard Unti received his doctorate in U.S. history in 2002 from American University. His book, Protecting All Animals: A Fifty-Year History of The Humane Society of the United States, is available from Humane Society Press.
http://www.hsus.org/about_us/accomplishments/the_people_who_have_shaped_the_hsus/frantz_dantzler_big_man_big_heart_big_legacy.html
Presented to the Wild Horse and Burro BrainStorming Session put on last July by the HSUS; Presented by:
WYOMING WILD HORSE COALITION
607 Eleventh Street #2
Cody, Wyoming 82414-3064
Phone: (307) 587-3353
patricia.m.fazio@bresnan.net
July 15, 2008
Wild Horse and Burro Brainstorming Session
HSUS Conference Room
2100 L Street, N.W., 5th Floor
Washington, DC
Brainstorming Session Participants:
The gravity of the current situation for federal wild horses and burros leads me to write candidly. I hope that those of you who are earnestly trying to mend a broken agency and a dysfunctional program, from the inside, will forgive me. However, since we are limited to one comment and one idea, I shall ask you to consider an entirely new vision for the Wild Horse and Burro Program, currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
My one principal suggestion is to reorganize this program under an entirely new agency or sub-agency, that is, displacing the BLM but retaining employees, from within, who have shown a particularly high quality of professional performance and humaneness. In general, however, the BLM, with its utilitarian leanings, has been the wrong agency for the job, from Day One, with internal conflict of interest that has lingered for 37 years, and mounting contamination from special interests and commercial enterprises. In the process, wild horses and burros became the last consideration, not a mix of considerations. Long-term holding and suggestions of euthanasia and gelding are at the pinnacle of agency failures… disregarding scientific application of immunocontraceptive control (native porcine zona pellucida) and showing no respect for wild free-roaming horses as a native wildlife species… now irrefutably proven to be the case. Why is it that the National Park Service can safely and effectively control wild horse populations, with PZP, in balance with their ecosystems, and the BLM cannot? The answer is “agency culture.” The BLM works closely with USDA-APHIS, an agency that considers wild horses pests… ripe for removal or eradication. PZP use is far too gentile a practice for population management. Thus, it is unfairly ridiculed. Recently, the BLM put out Web pages on wild horse and burro fertility control, overflowing with numerous factual errors: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/wild_horse_and_burro/fertility_control.html.
The ability of the BLM to protect and manage these animals is corroded beyond repair. If the federal Wild Horse and Burro Program is to continue, this agency must be removed. This transformation would require an amended federal statute (the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, 1971) and a reformed Code of Federal Regulations under Title 43: Public Lands: Interior, PART 4700-PROTECTION, MANAGEMENT, AND CONTROL OF WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS. The BLM has abused its right, for far too many years, to protect and manage this nation’s wild horses and burros. Control, and now lethal methodologies, are on its list of priorities. It has abused animals, under its care, by population mismanagement, excessive gathers, holding, and the failed adoption program; allowed its own employees to be harassed and maligned; ignored illegal behavior within the agency; bowed to commercial agricultural and extractive industry interests; and turned its head when its own scientists and wild horse specialists have pleaded for a better means of population control and humane treatment.
The only way to save this program is to return currently impounded wild horses and burros to original home ranges (Herd Areas), where feasible… given to them by federal statute, within the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. However, I see the BLM fighting this until the cows come home. The agency rarely supports its own wild horses and burros but cooperates with those holding a negative attitude. It disregards the unlawful domination and control of politically muscular individuals, like Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal, who forced through a consent decree to bring Wyoming herds down to AML, when holding facilities were already bulging. Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) thwarted states’ rights over wild horse ownership and management (as determined through case law by the U.S. Supreme Court), but the BLM allowed this action to proceed.
In blunt terms, the BLM does not “get it,” never will “get it,” and, under its supervision, the program will simply disintegrate and die, without intervention by Congress and amended wild horse law. I do not believe that continued BLM management is what the American people wish for its wild free-roaming horses and burros. Wild horses are a reintroduced native wildlife species but are being treated (herded/impounded) like livestock, with no consideration for their wildness and evolutionarily crafted behavior as a sensitive prey species.
My one suggestion… in summary? Save these animals from the BLM, NOW, by legally removing them from this agency’s egregious management and questionable behavior, and setting up a whole new, creative style of management, protection, and control in a free-roaming state, under new management. ALL (or most) of the current problems would be solved by this one mega-shift… combined with an entirely new organizational and legal structure under alternative agency oversight. IT IS POSSIBLE. Failure should never be rewarded with simply more funding, to patch up an agency’s past mistakes and miscalculations. It is time for the BLM to go…
Thank you for the opportunity to give you my point of view. This is an open document and may be shared freely.
With Best Regards,
Patricia M. Fazio, Ph.D.
Statewide Coordinator
WYOMING WILD HORSE COALITION
607 Eleventh Street #2
Cody, Wyoming 82414-3064
Phone: (307) 587-3353
patricia.m.fazio@bresnan.net
July 15, 2008
Wild Horse and Burro Brainstorming Session
HSUS Conference Room
2100 L Street, N.W., 5th Floor
Washington, DC
Brainstorming Session Participants:
The gravity of the current situation for federal wild horses and burros leads me to write candidly. I hope that those of you who are earnestly trying to mend a broken agency and a dysfunctional program, from the inside, will forgive me. However, since we are limited to one comment and one idea, I shall ask you to consider an entirely new vision for the Wild Horse and Burro Program, currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
My one principal suggestion is to reorganize this program under an entirely new agency or sub-agency, that is, displacing the BLM but retaining employees, from within, who have shown a particularly high quality of professional performance and humaneness. In general, however, the BLM, with its utilitarian leanings, has been the wrong agency for the job, from Day One, with internal conflict of interest that has lingered for 37 years, and mounting contamination from special interests and commercial enterprises. In the process, wild horses and burros became the last consideration, not a mix of considerations. Long-term holding and suggestions of euthanasia and gelding are at the pinnacle of agency failures… disregarding scientific application of immunocontraceptive control (native porcine zona pellucida) and showing no respect for wild free-roaming horses as a native wildlife species… now irrefutably proven to be the case. Why is it that the National Park Service can safely and effectively control wild horse populations, with PZP, in balance with their ecosystems, and the BLM cannot? The answer is “agency culture.” The BLM works closely with USDA-APHIS, an agency that considers wild horses pests… ripe for removal or eradication. PZP use is far too gentile a practice for population management. Thus, it is unfairly ridiculed. Recently, the BLM put out Web pages on wild horse and burro fertility control, overflowing with numerous factual errors: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/wild_horse_and_burro/fertility_control.html.
The ability of the BLM to protect and manage these animals is corroded beyond repair. If the federal Wild Horse and Burro Program is to continue, this agency must be removed. This transformation would require an amended federal statute (the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, 1971) and a reformed Code of Federal Regulations under Title 43: Public Lands: Interior, PART 4700-PROTECTION, MANAGEMENT, AND CONTROL OF WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS. The BLM has abused its right, for far too many years, to protect and manage this nation’s wild horses and burros. Control, and now lethal methodologies, are on its list of priorities. It has abused animals, under its care, by population mismanagement, excessive gathers, holding, and the failed adoption program; allowed its own employees to be harassed and maligned; ignored illegal behavior within the agency; bowed to commercial agricultural and extractive industry interests; and turned its head when its own scientists and wild horse specialists have pleaded for a better means of population control and humane treatment.
The only way to save this program is to return currently impounded wild horses and burros to original home ranges (Herd Areas), where feasible… given to them by federal statute, within the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. However, I see the BLM fighting this until the cows come home. The agency rarely supports its own wild horses and burros but cooperates with those holding a negative attitude. It disregards the unlawful domination and control of politically muscular individuals, like Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal, who forced through a consent decree to bring Wyoming herds down to AML, when holding facilities were already bulging. Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) thwarted states’ rights over wild horse ownership and management (as determined through case law by the U.S. Supreme Court), but the BLM allowed this action to proceed.
In blunt terms, the BLM does not “get it,” never will “get it,” and, under its supervision, the program will simply disintegrate and die, without intervention by Congress and amended wild horse law. I do not believe that continued BLM management is what the American people wish for its wild free-roaming horses and burros. Wild horses are a reintroduced native wildlife species but are being treated (herded/impounded) like livestock, with no consideration for their wildness and evolutionarily crafted behavior as a sensitive prey species.
My one suggestion… in summary? Save these animals from the BLM, NOW, by legally removing them from this agency’s egregious management and questionable behavior, and setting up a whole new, creative style of management, protection, and control in a free-roaming state, under new management. ALL (or most) of the current problems would be solved by this one mega-shift… combined with an entirely new organizational and legal structure under alternative agency oversight. IT IS POSSIBLE. Failure should never be rewarded with simply more funding, to patch up an agency’s past mistakes and miscalculations. It is time for the BLM to go…
Thank you for the opportunity to give you my point of view. This is an open document and may be shared freely.
With Best Regards,
Patricia M. Fazio, Ph.D.
Statewide Coordinator
Riding into the sunset: BLM Working 'Tang & Rider Retire
By Geoff Dornan
gdornan@nevadaappeal.com
Koal nuzzles Ranger Stan Zuber as BLM's Desna Young conducts the patrol horse's retirement ceremony Friday at Silver Saddle Ranch. Zuber and Koal have been partners patrolling BLM lands primarily in western Nevada since 2002.
BLM ranger and his steed both hang up their hats to enjoy retirement together
Partners since 2002, BLM Ranger Stan Zuber and his horse Koal are retiring together this month.
Zuber turns 57 this month and, under BLM policy, that means he must retire from the bureau's law enforcement team. He said Koal will go home with him.
“We're a team,” said Zuber at Friday's ceremony retiring his mount. “It's been quite an adventure.”
Koal was captured in the Buffalo Hills near Gerlach. Because of his excellent conformation, he was transferred to the Nevada Department of Corrections wild horse gentling program in Carson City.
Zuber was paired up with him during that training. He said Koal was the first saddle-trained wild horse to be trained for law enforcement. The team has conducted more than 200 mounted patrols of BLM lands in Nevada. Since Koal has an agreeable temperament, he and Zuber were also popular ambassador at local school programs, 4-H fairs and other events.
At the ceremony, Zuber removed the animal's bridle, saddle and blanket as well as the symbolic horseshoe representing his retirement from the BLM Mounted Patrol.
The horseshoe was put on just days ago for the ceremony. Since he spent his first three years in the wild, Koal has “very tough feet” and never needed shoes.
Zuber said most of their patrol duty was in the Carson area urban interface, but they've also done work in the Ely and Winnemucca areas as well as Spanish Springs.
“We can get into areas vehicles can't get into,” he said.
Most of the work involved looking for off-road vehicles in places they don't belong, and helping people who have had accidents or needed help.
Desna Young, the district's planning and environmental coordinator, said that on one occasion, in a white-out blizzard, it was Koal's wild instincts that enabled him to back-track to safety.
Over the years, Zuber said, the backcountry has gotten a lot more crowded.
“We've got more people and when you start getting more people, they need more attention,” he said.
Tim Bryant, who runs the prison horse gentling program with Hank Curry, said they have trained nearly 600 horses since the program started in 2000. Koal, named for his nearly black color, was one of the first program horses they trained. They have since trained horses for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police as well as numerous horses for other programs.
Zuber said fortunately his family home on Prison Hill is zoned for horses.
“We're working on the backyard,” he said.
----------------------
Click on title above to go to original article where you can leave a commet. I am.
I am wondering how many BLM employee horses are ex-wild ones. The only reason I am wondering is because I have learned that the BLM has a program whereby if an employee uses his own horse while on the job for BLM, the BLM will reimburse that horse-owner so much a day, plus cost of tack and gear and even vet care! So I am wondering why they would have to pay anyone to use their own (private) horse when the BLM can have its pick of the young wild ones to use as BLM service horses. Wouldnt they save money that way? And look how good "Koal" turned out. Why wouldnt they want to promote the use of wild horses by the dept more by using only the mustangs and FORBIDDING the use of privately owned horses while on the job? It would be interesting to know the annual expenditures the BLM puts out paying for privately owned horses whos owners use them during their employment with the agency. Reasearch project, anyone?
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20090808/NEWS/908089984/1070&ParentProfile=1058
Ranchers Worry Over Water Rights / What Else is New?
WINDMILL: Ranchers concerned with new language in water restoration act
By Jerry Lackey (Contact)
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Although most ranchers have come to terms with the Clean Water Restoration Act being debated in the U.S. Senate, they have deep concerns about the word “navigable” in the document being replaced with “waters of the United States,” said Eldon J. White, executive vice president and CEO of the Fort Worth-based Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association.
“Taking out the word ‘navigable’ would give the federal government regulatory authority over stock tanks, drainage ditches and any water features found on family ranches despite large opposition from cattle raisers across the country,” White said.
Under the seemingly minor change in language, the federal government would be able to control mud holes in the middle of private property, he said. The legislation would result in a major decrease in authority from state governments and private property owners across the nation.
If the measure became law, ranchers would be required to manage around mud puddles in the middle of pastures. If they were found not to demonstrate proper management, the federal government could require they get a permit.
“The inspection and monitoring of stock tanks would fall to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and they don’t have the staff nor the budget to do that, particularly visiting all the stock tanks in the state,” White said in a recent interview. “So the impracticality of it to begin with is an issue, but the basic rights of an individual and the ownership of a piece of land and the water that’s on the surface of that land for the benefit of that rancher has nothing to do with municipality water supplies or runoff or anything else becomes a greater issue.”
“All waters are not equal in terms of their environmental function and value, and they should not be regulated in the same way,” said TSCRA President Dave Scott, a rancher from Richmond. “If this bill passes in Congress, ranchers across the U.S. will be forced to get a permit to continue everyday operations on their own land.
“The federal government already struggles to handle the backlog of 15,000 existing permit requests; how it plans to deal with the massive amount of new permitting requirements and litigation this bill will surely create is beyond reason,” Scott said. “There is no doubt ranchers like me will be the ones forced to cover the costs, not to mention the huge administrative burdens of endless government red tape.”
Jim Chilton, a fifth-generation rancher from southeastern Arizona, testified July 22 on behalf of National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council during a House Committee on Small Business hearing on the CWRA.
The proposed Act — which passed out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last month — would drastically expand the Clean Water Act, giving the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency control over all watersheds in the nation, and all “activities affecting these water,” Chilton said.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the average applicant for an individual Clean Water Act permit spends 788 days and $271,596 in complying with the current process, and the average applicant for a nationwide permit spends 313 days and $28,915 — not counting the substantial costs of mitigation or design changes (Rapanos, 447 U.S. at 719, plurality opinion), Chilton said.
Considering U.S. farmers and ranchers own and manage approximately 666.4 million acres of the 1.938 billion acres of the contiguous U.S., the permitting requirements under this act would be an unmanageable burden for the government and could bring farming operations to a standstill.
“As a rancher, I wholeheartedly understand the critical importance of a clean water supply; it’s necessary for the health of my animals and my land,” Chilton said.
“Federal agencies have ample authority under existing law to protect water quality, and it’s essential that the partnership between the federal and state levels of government be maintained so states can continue to have the essential flexibility to do their own land and water use planning.”
Jerry Lackey writes about agriculture. Contact him at jlackey@wcc.net or 949-2291
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2009/aug/08/ranchers-concerned-with-new-language-in-water/
By Jerry Lackey (Contact)
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Although most ranchers have come to terms with the Clean Water Restoration Act being debated in the U.S. Senate, they have deep concerns about the word “navigable” in the document being replaced with “waters of the United States,” said Eldon J. White, executive vice president and CEO of the Fort Worth-based Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association.
“Taking out the word ‘navigable’ would give the federal government regulatory authority over stock tanks, drainage ditches and any water features found on family ranches despite large opposition from cattle raisers across the country,” White said.
Under the seemingly minor change in language, the federal government would be able to control mud holes in the middle of private property, he said. The legislation would result in a major decrease in authority from state governments and private property owners across the nation.
If the measure became law, ranchers would be required to manage around mud puddles in the middle of pastures. If they were found not to demonstrate proper management, the federal government could require they get a permit.
“The inspection and monitoring of stock tanks would fall to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and they don’t have the staff nor the budget to do that, particularly visiting all the stock tanks in the state,” White said in a recent interview. “So the impracticality of it to begin with is an issue, but the basic rights of an individual and the ownership of a piece of land and the water that’s on the surface of that land for the benefit of that rancher has nothing to do with municipality water supplies or runoff or anything else becomes a greater issue.”
“All waters are not equal in terms of their environmental function and value, and they should not be regulated in the same way,” said TSCRA President Dave Scott, a rancher from Richmond. “If this bill passes in Congress, ranchers across the U.S. will be forced to get a permit to continue everyday operations on their own land.
“The federal government already struggles to handle the backlog of 15,000 existing permit requests; how it plans to deal with the massive amount of new permitting requirements and litigation this bill will surely create is beyond reason,” Scott said. “There is no doubt ranchers like me will be the ones forced to cover the costs, not to mention the huge administrative burdens of endless government red tape.”
Jim Chilton, a fifth-generation rancher from southeastern Arizona, testified July 22 on behalf of National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council during a House Committee on Small Business hearing on the CWRA.
The proposed Act — which passed out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last month — would drastically expand the Clean Water Act, giving the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency control over all watersheds in the nation, and all “activities affecting these water,” Chilton said.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the average applicant for an individual Clean Water Act permit spends 788 days and $271,596 in complying with the current process, and the average applicant for a nationwide permit spends 313 days and $28,915 — not counting the substantial costs of mitigation or design changes (Rapanos, 447 U.S. at 719, plurality opinion), Chilton said.
Considering U.S. farmers and ranchers own and manage approximately 666.4 million acres of the 1.938 billion acres of the contiguous U.S., the permitting requirements under this act would be an unmanageable burden for the government and could bring farming operations to a standstill.
“As a rancher, I wholeheartedly understand the critical importance of a clean water supply; it’s necessary for the health of my animals and my land,” Chilton said.
“Federal agencies have ample authority under existing law to protect water quality, and it’s essential that the partnership between the federal and state levels of government be maintained so states can continue to have the essential flexibility to do their own land and water use planning.”
Jerry Lackey writes about agriculture. Contact him at jlackey@wcc.net or 949-2291
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2009/aug/08/ranchers-concerned-with-new-language-in-water/
Rally to Take Back Utah
Rally to Take Back Utah
Last Update: 8/08 6:05 pm
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A rally at Utah's State Capitol Saturday was designed to Take Back Utah.
People gathered were concerned about public land management. Specifically federal rules and regulations that threaten access to those lands.
"I think people are waking up across the country to this very type of thing," said Larry Sorrell. "I think they're waking up to the face that they're going to have to stand up and not be the silent majority anymore."
Both of Utah's Senators, Representative Rob Bishop, and Attorney General Mark Shurtleff all spoke at the rally.
The rally was reminiscent of the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970's and 1980's when county officials would take bulldozers and reopen roads on public lands that had been closed by the Bureau of Land Management.
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/slc/story/Rally-to-Take-Back-Utah/cZUrYS71HkipeM7vsOhtLg.cspx
Last Update: 8/08 6:05 pm
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A rally at Utah's State Capitol Saturday was designed to Take Back Utah.
People gathered were concerned about public land management. Specifically federal rules and regulations that threaten access to those lands.
"I think people are waking up across the country to this very type of thing," said Larry Sorrell. "I think they're waking up to the face that they're going to have to stand up and not be the silent majority anymore."
Both of Utah's Senators, Representative Rob Bishop, and Attorney General Mark Shurtleff all spoke at the rally.
The rally was reminiscent of the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970's and 1980's when county officials would take bulldozers and reopen roads on public lands that had been closed by the Bureau of Land Management.
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/slc/story/Rally-to-Take-Back-Utah/cZUrYS71HkipeM7vsOhtLg.cspx
Let's keep the public lands debate productive
August 9, 2009
The Bureau of Land Management in Montana oversees 7.9 million acres of public lands that contain energy and mineral production, open space, recreation opportunities, national monuments, grazing livestock, historic and prehistoric sites, wildlife, wild horses, watersheds, timbered mountains and rolling prairies.
Every 10 years or so, the BLM undertakes the giant task of creating a new resource-management plan for the various districts, monuments and areas under its watch.
Input is gathered from interest groups, industry and the public, along with volumes of data and information.
In what's typically a multi-year process, BLM staff members develop a plan to protect the health of the resources under their watch while allowing for multiple uses — everything from hunting and hiking to cattle grazing and natural gas drilling.
The public input in that process is critical, said Craig Drake, the assistant field manager of the Billings BLM office, which is currently working on the Billings/Pompeys Pillar National Monument Resource Management Plan.
"The area is huge so there are a lot of management issues that we are made aware of by the public," Drake said.
For example, it's the public that often lets the BLM know of old homesteads, or points out places where wildlife has increased, or first notices areas where activities use such as off-road recreation may be causing damage.
The conservation group Trout Unlimited is weighing in on the current resource-management plan development. The group wants the BLM to implement half-mile setbacks for oil and gas drills near blue-ribbon trout streams in the area, as well as streams and rivers that provide habitat for Yellowstone cutthroat.
Drill construction could deposit sediment in the rivers, argues Trout Unlimited's Corey Fisher. The drills also are considered ugly by many river users, he said.
The Montana Petroleum Association's didn't address the setback proposal during the comment period for the plan, but did say it believes exploration and production of oil and gas on all public lands that are not national parks or designated wilderness is important in developing domestic energy supplies and is good public policy.
(2 of 2)
Oil and gas activities on public land also generate revenue for the public, bringing in $45.6 million in royalties and $2.4 million in lease sales in Montana last year.
It's too early to weigh in on drill setbacks near riverbeds. We don't have the data or other fact-based information needed to do that yet.
Frankly, no one does.
So as the process of crafting this resource-manage plan — and all other — continues, it's timely to call for a pledge to set emotions aside and provide thoughtful, useful facts to the BLM.
Clearly, there'll be conflicting ideas of how BLM land should be used. The Trout Unlimited's setback proposal is just a single example of an issue with the potential to be polarizing. So does the future management of the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range, which is included in this plan.
Montanans' have a healthy passion about the use of our public lands; however, that emotion pretty much guarantees the resource-management plan isn't going to please everyone. Its purpose is to balance all uses, not any single interest or group.
Too often in the process, however, the core messages some offer when trying to be persuasive are drowned out, because they are tethered with cynicism, accusations and conspiracy theories and delivered with shrill rudeness.
This is an example of the type of comment too often delivered during the scoping session: "In fact, internal agency bias, bent far left, overrides grass roots input and leads to a lockup of most of our commodity resources. Recreation and wildlife are the winners. Consider what happened in the case of the Upper Missouri Monument. What a scam."
Perhaps this type of comment provides venting for the individual, but it lacks the specifics to be useful. Our emotions need to be backed with facts to move this process forward.
Let your voice be a productive part of the process.
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20090809/OPINION01/908090307
The Bureau of Land Management in Montana oversees 7.9 million acres of public lands that contain energy and mineral production, open space, recreation opportunities, national monuments, grazing livestock, historic and prehistoric sites, wildlife, wild horses, watersheds, timbered mountains and rolling prairies.
Every 10 years or so, the BLM undertakes the giant task of creating a new resource-management plan for the various districts, monuments and areas under its watch.
Input is gathered from interest groups, industry and the public, along with volumes of data and information.
In what's typically a multi-year process, BLM staff members develop a plan to protect the health of the resources under their watch while allowing for multiple uses — everything from hunting and hiking to cattle grazing and natural gas drilling.
The public input in that process is critical, said Craig Drake, the assistant field manager of the Billings BLM office, which is currently working on the Billings/Pompeys Pillar National Monument Resource Management Plan.
"The area is huge so there are a lot of management issues that we are made aware of by the public," Drake said.
For example, it's the public that often lets the BLM know of old homesteads, or points out places where wildlife has increased, or first notices areas where activities use such as off-road recreation may be causing damage.
The conservation group Trout Unlimited is weighing in on the current resource-management plan development. The group wants the BLM to implement half-mile setbacks for oil and gas drills near blue-ribbon trout streams in the area, as well as streams and rivers that provide habitat for Yellowstone cutthroat.
Drill construction could deposit sediment in the rivers, argues Trout Unlimited's Corey Fisher. The drills also are considered ugly by many river users, he said.
The Montana Petroleum Association's didn't address the setback proposal during the comment period for the plan, but did say it believes exploration and production of oil and gas on all public lands that are not national parks or designated wilderness is important in developing domestic energy supplies and is good public policy.
(2 of 2)
Oil and gas activities on public land also generate revenue for the public, bringing in $45.6 million in royalties and $2.4 million in lease sales in Montana last year.
It's too early to weigh in on drill setbacks near riverbeds. We don't have the data or other fact-based information needed to do that yet.
Frankly, no one does.
So as the process of crafting this resource-manage plan — and all other — continues, it's timely to call for a pledge to set emotions aside and provide thoughtful, useful facts to the BLM.
Clearly, there'll be conflicting ideas of how BLM land should be used. The Trout Unlimited's setback proposal is just a single example of an issue with the potential to be polarizing. So does the future management of the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range, which is included in this plan.
Montanans' have a healthy passion about the use of our public lands; however, that emotion pretty much guarantees the resource-management plan isn't going to please everyone. Its purpose is to balance all uses, not any single interest or group.
Too often in the process, however, the core messages some offer when trying to be persuasive are drowned out, because they are tethered with cynicism, accusations and conspiracy theories and delivered with shrill rudeness.
This is an example of the type of comment too often delivered during the scoping session: "In fact, internal agency bias, bent far left, overrides grass roots input and leads to a lockup of most of our commodity resources. Recreation and wildlife are the winners. Consider what happened in the case of the Upper Missouri Monument. What a scam."
Perhaps this type of comment provides venting for the individual, but it lacks the specifics to be useful. Our emotions need to be backed with facts to move this process forward.
Let your voice be a productive part of the process.
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20090809/OPINION01/908090307
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Forest Service Off-road Vehicle Plan Halted Near Grand Canyon
For Immediate Release August 3, 2009
Contacts: Cyndi Tuell, Center for Biological Diversity, (520) 444-6603
Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter, (602) 253-8633 or (602) 999-570
Kim Crumbo, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, (928) 638-2304
Daniel Patterson, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, (520) 906-2159
Forest Service Off-road Vehicle Plan Halted Near Grand Canyon
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz.— Following an appeal by the Center for Biological Diversity and other conservation groups, the Forest Service late Friday conceded to re-do an off road vehicle plan for lands adjacent to Grand Canyon National Park. The Kaibab National Forest will reanalyze an off-road vehicle plan that would have allowed nearly unfettered off-road vehicle access that threatened archeological sites, watershed conditions, wildlife habitat and would have continued the spread of invasive species.
The plan would have allowed hunters to drive ORVs one mile from any road to retrieve downed elk – leaving virtually all lands open to off-road vehicle damage. In addition, the plan would have damaged the habitat of sensitive species such as the northern goshawk, American pronghorn, mountain lion, and black bear – species spanning both National Forest and National Park lands.
“The Tusayan Ranger District’s plan would have continued rather than curbed damage resulting from off-road vehicle use,” said Cyndi Tuell, southwest conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We’re encouraged that the Forest Service agrees with our appeal, and we look forward to a plan that makes public land and wildlife protection the top priority.”
Early in the planning process conservation groups proposed a plan that offered habitat protection, quiet recreation, and a classic hunting experience. The Tusayan Ranger District ignored that proposal. On Friday, the Forest Service directed the Tusayan Ranger District to withdraw its decision, to fully analyze the conservation alternative and reanalyze the other plan alternatives using the best available science.
The Travel Management Rule requires the Forest Service to ban cross-country motorized travel to protect habitat for sensitive species and watershed quality. “This final decision failed to protect wildlife habitat and was not based on the best available scientific information,” said Kim Crumbo, conservation director for the Flagstaff-based Grand Canyon Wildlands Council. “After years of working with the Forest Service and a careful review of the plan and the decision, we were disappointed at the failure to protect forest resources. The appeal decision makes it clear the District has to base their plan in reality.”
“This is a statewide victory and a win for public lands overall,” said Sandy Bahr, chapter director for the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. “The Forest Service has made it clear that ranger districts and forests must develop plans that protect natural resources and must consider consistent, factual information over a desire to coddle the off-road vehicle industry, which facilitates the rampant destruction of public lands and resources.”
"This fragile, arid forest has been slashed by too many off-road vehicles, too many eroded tracks, and suffered too many bad decisions from Forest Service managers, who pushed excess, not reasonable access," said Daniel Patterson, an Ecologist and Southwest Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, in Tucson. "So-called motorized game retrieval is an unnecessary loophole that harms the land and undercuts enforcement efforts to keep ORVs on roads. We will continue to try to work with the Forest Service toward a better plan." Patterson is also an Arizona State Representative and Arizona hunter who hunts on the Kaibab National Forest.
The conservation groups appealed the decision based on several concerns, including failure to comply with the Travel Management Rule, the National Environmental Policy Act, a failure to look at an alternative that would offer resource protection, and a failure to properly consider the impacts of this project to wildlife, air and water quality, and how this project will impact the environment in light of global climate change.
The appeal decision does not make clear whether the Tusayan Ranger District will have to consider global warming and the “albedo effect” in the next steps of the planning process. The albedo effect is an increase in snow melt rates when dust from off-road vehicles settles on snow pack which has the potential to decrease critical water supplies in the already arid west.
Dust can also have health impacts to people hiking, hunting, backpacking, or wildlife viewing in the area. The elderly, children, and those with respiratory or other health issues are at greatest risk relative to particulate pollution.
“We tried to work with the Tusayan Ranger District to develop a good plan that would protect natural resources, but we were ignored. We couldn’t support a plan that didn’t comply with the law, and the Forest Service has agreed with us” said Tuell.
Background
All national forests are required to limit motorized cross-country travel by the Travel Management Rule of 2005 to protect natural resources after more than 30 years of unregulated off-road vehicle use. National forests across the Southwest are acknowledging that they can afford to maintain just a fraction of their current road systems and in fact have billions of dollars worth of backlogged maintenance. This places our public lands at risk for habitat and watershed destruction and increases the risk to the public of driving on unsafe, unmaintained roads, which are often made more unsafe by off-road vehicle use.
The Kaibab National Forest can afford just 8 percent of its current system, according to its own analysis, and it has $43.5 million in maintenance backlog. The Williams Ranger District is expected to release an analysis of its plan later this year, along with the Coconino National Forest. The North Kaibab Ranger District has yet to begin its off-road vehicle planning. The Tusayan Ranger District decision is available on the Forest Service Web site.
Off-road vehicles have had a negative impact on hunting experiences in Arizona. A 2005 Arizona Game and Fish Department study found a majority of hunters (54 percent) thought off-road vehicles disturbed their hunting experience. Failure to draw a tag, urbanization, and lack of time were the only other barriers to hunting that ranked above having a hunt ruined by off-road vehicles.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2009/tusayan-08-03-2009.html
Contacts: Cyndi Tuell, Center for Biological Diversity, (520) 444-6603
Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter, (602) 253-8633 or (602) 999-570
Kim Crumbo, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, (928) 638-2304
Daniel Patterson, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, (520) 906-2159
Forest Service Off-road Vehicle Plan Halted Near Grand Canyon
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz.— Following an appeal by the Center for Biological Diversity and other conservation groups, the Forest Service late Friday conceded to re-do an off road vehicle plan for lands adjacent to Grand Canyon National Park. The Kaibab National Forest will reanalyze an off-road vehicle plan that would have allowed nearly unfettered off-road vehicle access that threatened archeological sites, watershed conditions, wildlife habitat and would have continued the spread of invasive species.
The plan would have allowed hunters to drive ORVs one mile from any road to retrieve downed elk – leaving virtually all lands open to off-road vehicle damage. In addition, the plan would have damaged the habitat of sensitive species such as the northern goshawk, American pronghorn, mountain lion, and black bear – species spanning both National Forest and National Park lands.
“The Tusayan Ranger District’s plan would have continued rather than curbed damage resulting from off-road vehicle use,” said Cyndi Tuell, southwest conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We’re encouraged that the Forest Service agrees with our appeal, and we look forward to a plan that makes public land and wildlife protection the top priority.”
Early in the planning process conservation groups proposed a plan that offered habitat protection, quiet recreation, and a classic hunting experience. The Tusayan Ranger District ignored that proposal. On Friday, the Forest Service directed the Tusayan Ranger District to withdraw its decision, to fully analyze the conservation alternative and reanalyze the other plan alternatives using the best available science.
The Travel Management Rule requires the Forest Service to ban cross-country motorized travel to protect habitat for sensitive species and watershed quality. “This final decision failed to protect wildlife habitat and was not based on the best available scientific information,” said Kim Crumbo, conservation director for the Flagstaff-based Grand Canyon Wildlands Council. “After years of working with the Forest Service and a careful review of the plan and the decision, we were disappointed at the failure to protect forest resources. The appeal decision makes it clear the District has to base their plan in reality.”
“This is a statewide victory and a win for public lands overall,” said Sandy Bahr, chapter director for the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. “The Forest Service has made it clear that ranger districts and forests must develop plans that protect natural resources and must consider consistent, factual information over a desire to coddle the off-road vehicle industry, which facilitates the rampant destruction of public lands and resources.”
"This fragile, arid forest has been slashed by too many off-road vehicles, too many eroded tracks, and suffered too many bad decisions from Forest Service managers, who pushed excess, not reasonable access," said Daniel Patterson, an Ecologist and Southwest Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, in Tucson. "So-called motorized game retrieval is an unnecessary loophole that harms the land and undercuts enforcement efforts to keep ORVs on roads. We will continue to try to work with the Forest Service toward a better plan." Patterson is also an Arizona State Representative and Arizona hunter who hunts on the Kaibab National Forest.
The conservation groups appealed the decision based on several concerns, including failure to comply with the Travel Management Rule, the National Environmental Policy Act, a failure to look at an alternative that would offer resource protection, and a failure to properly consider the impacts of this project to wildlife, air and water quality, and how this project will impact the environment in light of global climate change.
The appeal decision does not make clear whether the Tusayan Ranger District will have to consider global warming and the “albedo effect” in the next steps of the planning process. The albedo effect is an increase in snow melt rates when dust from off-road vehicles settles on snow pack which has the potential to decrease critical water supplies in the already arid west.
Dust can also have health impacts to people hiking, hunting, backpacking, or wildlife viewing in the area. The elderly, children, and those with respiratory or other health issues are at greatest risk relative to particulate pollution.
“We tried to work with the Tusayan Ranger District to develop a good plan that would protect natural resources, but we were ignored. We couldn’t support a plan that didn’t comply with the law, and the Forest Service has agreed with us” said Tuell.
Background
All national forests are required to limit motorized cross-country travel by the Travel Management Rule of 2005 to protect natural resources after more than 30 years of unregulated off-road vehicle use. National forests across the Southwest are acknowledging that they can afford to maintain just a fraction of their current road systems and in fact have billions of dollars worth of backlogged maintenance. This places our public lands at risk for habitat and watershed destruction and increases the risk to the public of driving on unsafe, unmaintained roads, which are often made more unsafe by off-road vehicle use.
The Kaibab National Forest can afford just 8 percent of its current system, according to its own analysis, and it has $43.5 million in maintenance backlog. The Williams Ranger District is expected to release an analysis of its plan later this year, along with the Coconino National Forest. The North Kaibab Ranger District has yet to begin its off-road vehicle planning. The Tusayan Ranger District decision is available on the Forest Service Web site.
Off-road vehicles have had a negative impact on hunting experiences in Arizona. A 2005 Arizona Game and Fish Department study found a majority of hunters (54 percent) thought off-road vehicles disturbed their hunting experience. Failure to draw a tag, urbanization, and lack of time were the only other barriers to hunting that ranked above having a hunt ruined by off-road vehicles.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2009/tusayan-08-03-2009.html
The T. Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Protests Utah Energy Leases Over Habitat Concerns
Submitted by Ted Williams on Mon, 08/03/2009 - 17:41.
Sportsmen’s group points to the need for better upfront planning for development
to be compatible with crucial habitat for big game and upland birds
WASHINGTON – Citing a need for more comprehensive upfront planning in crucial wildlife habitat, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership today filed an official protest of 26,000 acres of oil and gas leases proposed for federal public lands in Utah. Valuable habitat for mule deer, elk, pronghorn, sage grouse and Gunnison sage grouse is of concern to the sportsmen’s group and spurred its action in the Bureau of Land Management’s Aug. 18 mineral lease sale. Administrative protests are the public’s only means for participating in the leasing of public minerals to private entities.
“Sportsmen support responsibly planned energy development that sustain a range of public-lands uses,” said Joel Webster, associate director of campaigns for the TRCP Center for Western Lands. “Our worry with these Utah leases, however, is that advance planning and adequate stipulations for wildlife and recreational resources have not been established prior to the lands being opened to development. History indicates that after public lands are leased, very little can be done to address the course of subsequent development on other values and uses like wildlife habitats and hunting.”
The TRCP protest includes approximately 9,000 acres of viable pronghorn habitat in Utah’s West Desert region, which is overseen by the BLM’s Fillmore Field Office. Since 2007, the TRCP has been vocal in requesting that the BLM undertake the necessary upfront planning to ensure the area’s responsible energy development and sustain activities such as hunting and fishing. Other leases objected to by the sportsmen are located on mule deer and elk crucial winter range in Utah’s famous Book Cliffs and in Gunnison sage grouse habitat southeast of Moab.
“We find it disheartening to be continually addressing the same issues with the BLM over and over again,” continued Webster. “Models for development exist that would enable the leasing and extraction of these energy reserves in a way that conserves traditional public uses of these lands and the valuable habitat for the critters that inhabit them. The approach currently being taken by the Utah BLM works for neither fish and wildlife nor for balanced public land management. Sportsmen will persevere in attempting to assure the responsible management of these shared resources.”
“The BLM has admitted that it sometimes has neglected to pursue adequate advance planning for fish and wildlife in its drive to open public lands to the energy industry,” said Steve Belinda, associate director of policy and science for the TRCP Center for Western Lands, “and in fact the agency is subjecting other areas in Utah to increased scrutiny – including on-the-ground inspections of proposed lease parcels – in an effort to accurately evaluate their suitability for development. While this represents a step forward, we’d like to see similar attention and level of review instituted as standard operating procedure to avoid conflicts and result in fewer protests.”
The TRCP is actively engaged in promoting a new model for energy development on public lands and waters that safeguards fish and wildlife populations and hunting and fishing traditions. The TRCP and its partners believe that to better balance the concerns of fish and wildlife in the face of accelerating energy development, federal land management agencies must follow the conservation tenets outlined in the FACTS for Fish and Wildlife and the CAST principles.
Inspired by the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt, the TRCP is a coalition of organizations and grassroots partners working together to preserve the traditions
of hunting and fishing.
Katherine McKalip
Associate Director of Communications
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Center for Western Lands
406-240-9262
kmckalip@trcp.org
www.trcp.org
http://www.flyrodreel.com/node/126
Sportsmen’s group points to the need for better upfront planning for development
to be compatible with crucial habitat for big game and upland birds
WASHINGTON – Citing a need for more comprehensive upfront planning in crucial wildlife habitat, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership today filed an official protest of 26,000 acres of oil and gas leases proposed for federal public lands in Utah. Valuable habitat for mule deer, elk, pronghorn, sage grouse and Gunnison sage grouse is of concern to the sportsmen’s group and spurred its action in the Bureau of Land Management’s Aug. 18 mineral lease sale. Administrative protests are the public’s only means for participating in the leasing of public minerals to private entities.
“Sportsmen support responsibly planned energy development that sustain a range of public-lands uses,” said Joel Webster, associate director of campaigns for the TRCP Center for Western Lands. “Our worry with these Utah leases, however, is that advance planning and adequate stipulations for wildlife and recreational resources have not been established prior to the lands being opened to development. History indicates that after public lands are leased, very little can be done to address the course of subsequent development on other values and uses like wildlife habitats and hunting.”
The TRCP protest includes approximately 9,000 acres of viable pronghorn habitat in Utah’s West Desert region, which is overseen by the BLM’s Fillmore Field Office. Since 2007, the TRCP has been vocal in requesting that the BLM undertake the necessary upfront planning to ensure the area’s responsible energy development and sustain activities such as hunting and fishing. Other leases objected to by the sportsmen are located on mule deer and elk crucial winter range in Utah’s famous Book Cliffs and in Gunnison sage grouse habitat southeast of Moab.
“We find it disheartening to be continually addressing the same issues with the BLM over and over again,” continued Webster. “Models for development exist that would enable the leasing and extraction of these energy reserves in a way that conserves traditional public uses of these lands and the valuable habitat for the critters that inhabit them. The approach currently being taken by the Utah BLM works for neither fish and wildlife nor for balanced public land management. Sportsmen will persevere in attempting to assure the responsible management of these shared resources.”
“The BLM has admitted that it sometimes has neglected to pursue adequate advance planning for fish and wildlife in its drive to open public lands to the energy industry,” said Steve Belinda, associate director of policy and science for the TRCP Center for Western Lands, “and in fact the agency is subjecting other areas in Utah to increased scrutiny – including on-the-ground inspections of proposed lease parcels – in an effort to accurately evaluate their suitability for development. While this represents a step forward, we’d like to see similar attention and level of review instituted as standard operating procedure to avoid conflicts and result in fewer protests.”
The TRCP is actively engaged in promoting a new model for energy development on public lands and waters that safeguards fish and wildlife populations and hunting and fishing traditions. The TRCP and its partners believe that to better balance the concerns of fish and wildlife in the face of accelerating energy development, federal land management agencies must follow the conservation tenets outlined in the FACTS for Fish and Wildlife and the CAST principles.
Inspired by the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt, the TRCP is a coalition of organizations and grassroots partners working together to preserve the traditions
of hunting and fishing.
Katherine McKalip
Associate Director of Communications
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Center for Western Lands
406-240-9262
kmckalip@trcp.org
www.trcp.org
http://www.flyrodreel.com/node/126
Colorado amends its roadless rules
4:50 PM, August 3, 2009
Colorado is one of two states in the nation that took advantage of a 2005 Bush administration offer that allowed it to set roadless policy for national forest land within its borders. The other state to do so, Idaho, hewed fairly close to Clinton-era standards, but environmental groups have since accused Colorado of not doing enough to protect its remote areas.
On Monday, Colorado released the latest version of its roadless plan, expanding the number of acres protected to 4.2 million from 4 million and eliminating a controversial provision that would have allowed the construction of temporary roads to allow ranchers to access grazing lands. But environmental groups charged that the new Colorado standards are still far looser than those under President Clinton. The Obama administration has put back in place many of those Clinton-era regulations.
"The Colorado plan would open some of the Rocky Mountain West's best backcountry and pristine watersheds to mining, oil and gas development, logging and road-building," Jane Danowitz, director of the Pew Environmental Group's public lands program, said in a statement.
The clock begins ticking on a 60-day public comment period before the new Colorado regulations go into effect.
-- Nicholas Riccardi
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2009/08/colorado-amends-its-roadless-rules.html
Colorado is one of two states in the nation that took advantage of a 2005 Bush administration offer that allowed it to set roadless policy for national forest land within its borders. The other state to do so, Idaho, hewed fairly close to Clinton-era standards, but environmental groups have since accused Colorado of not doing enough to protect its remote areas.
On Monday, Colorado released the latest version of its roadless plan, expanding the number of acres protected to 4.2 million from 4 million and eliminating a controversial provision that would have allowed the construction of temporary roads to allow ranchers to access grazing lands. But environmental groups charged that the new Colorado standards are still far looser than those under President Clinton. The Obama administration has put back in place many of those Clinton-era regulations.
"The Colorado plan would open some of the Rocky Mountain West's best backcountry and pristine watersheds to mining, oil and gas development, logging and road-building," Jane Danowitz, director of the Pew Environmental Group's public lands program, said in a statement.
The clock begins ticking on a 60-day public comment period before the new Colorado regulations go into effect.
-- Nicholas Riccardi
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2009/08/colorado-amends-its-roadless-rules.html
"The Wilderness Warrior"- Theodore Roosevelt & The Crusade for America
By Douglas Brinkley;
Five Questions For Douglas Brinkley
Posted by Jeff Glor
The prodigious writer and historian Douglas Brinkley just released his latest book-- "The Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America" --and I've had a chance to chat with him a few times about it. Every time I leave one of these conversations I feel a little better for it. No matter what the subject is - and Doug's covered many in his nearly two decades of writing (not just the lives of past Presidents) - his mind is constantly moving - fueled by an intense desire to discover information, write it down, and share it with the world. I'm thrilled that he's agreed to be the first author featured on our new site.
What inspired you to write this book?
Doug Brinkley: My parents had a 24-foot Coachman trailer, which was maintained, on our driveway in Perrysburg, Ohio. Every summer we would hitch it up to our Pontiac station wagon and visit National Parks. Three of my favorites were Crater Lake in Oregon, Wind Cave in South Dakota, and Mesa Verde in Colorado. All were designated as National Parks by Theodore Roosevelt. Later, when I taught history in New Orleans I was amazed to learn that Roosevelt had saved our states’ barrier islands and was an Auduboner. I decided to write a book on how T.R. was our only naturalist president.
JG: What surprised you the most during the writing process?
DB: Just how much land T.R. saved. First, there were his national forests: over 150 million acres. Many of those have been enlarged so the figure is closer to 200 million. His fifty one federal bird reservations has turned into a legacy of over 25 million acres and does not include the marine conservation zones which grew directly out of Roosevelt’s saving of the Western Hawaiian Islands and Key West among other marine parks. The figure could be higher, some historians, in fact, claim that Roosevelt’s legacy is actually our entire 600 million acre public lands system. As the argument goes, if Roosevelt didn’t change the concept of public domain to public lands we would not have our current day green grid. Some of TR lands, however, became reclamation sites.
JG: What would you be doing, if you weren't a writer?
DB: I would have been a zoologist. Animals interest me more than anything else. Right now I’m interested in Louisiana black bear rehabilitation.
JG: What else are you reading right now?
DB: A wonderful book by Jerry Dennis titled The Living Great Lakes. And an excellent, highly readable new biography of the “Singing Brakeman”: it’s titled Meeting Jimmy Rodgers by Barry Mazor.
JG: What's next for you?
DB: I’m writing a biography of Walter Cronkite based on his personal archive and interviews with family and friends. It will be published by HarperCollins in 2010. And I plan on spending sometime in Carmel, California with my family.
-----------------
Click on title above to read more about this author and this book;http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/14213/Douglas_Brinkley/index.aspx
Five Questions For Douglas Brinkley
Posted by Jeff Glor
The prodigious writer and historian Douglas Brinkley just released his latest book-- "The Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America" --and I've had a chance to chat with him a few times about it. Every time I leave one of these conversations I feel a little better for it. No matter what the subject is - and Doug's covered many in his nearly two decades of writing (not just the lives of past Presidents) - his mind is constantly moving - fueled by an intense desire to discover information, write it down, and share it with the world. I'm thrilled that he's agreed to be the first author featured on our new site.
What inspired you to write this book?
Doug Brinkley: My parents had a 24-foot Coachman trailer, which was maintained, on our driveway in Perrysburg, Ohio. Every summer we would hitch it up to our Pontiac station wagon and visit National Parks. Three of my favorites were Crater Lake in Oregon, Wind Cave in South Dakota, and Mesa Verde in Colorado. All were designated as National Parks by Theodore Roosevelt. Later, when I taught history in New Orleans I was amazed to learn that Roosevelt had saved our states’ barrier islands and was an Auduboner. I decided to write a book on how T.R. was our only naturalist president.
JG: What surprised you the most during the writing process?
DB: Just how much land T.R. saved. First, there were his national forests: over 150 million acres. Many of those have been enlarged so the figure is closer to 200 million. His fifty one federal bird reservations has turned into a legacy of over 25 million acres and does not include the marine conservation zones which grew directly out of Roosevelt’s saving of the Western Hawaiian Islands and Key West among other marine parks. The figure could be higher, some historians, in fact, claim that Roosevelt’s legacy is actually our entire 600 million acre public lands system. As the argument goes, if Roosevelt didn’t change the concept of public domain to public lands we would not have our current day green grid. Some of TR lands, however, became reclamation sites.
JG: What would you be doing, if you weren't a writer?
DB: I would have been a zoologist. Animals interest me more than anything else. Right now I’m interested in Louisiana black bear rehabilitation.
JG: What else are you reading right now?
DB: A wonderful book by Jerry Dennis titled The Living Great Lakes. And an excellent, highly readable new biography of the “Singing Brakeman”: it’s titled Meeting Jimmy Rodgers by Barry Mazor.
JG: What's next for you?
DB: I’m writing a biography of Walter Cronkite based on his personal archive and interviews with family and friends. It will be published by HarperCollins in 2010. And I plan on spending sometime in Carmel, California with my family.
-----------------
Click on title above to read more about this author and this book;http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/14213/Douglas_Brinkley/index.aspx
A Snapshot of pre-and post FLPMA Management
Click on title above to see how this act has effected the BLM and our public lands;
http://www.blm.gov/flpma/snapshot.htm
http://www.blm.gov/flpma/snapshot.htm
The Federal Land Policy & Management Act or How the West Was Lost
From the BLMs website:
he Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 -- is the landmark piece of legislation that changed not only the Bureau of Land Management and the make-up of its workforce, but the face of the West forever. This ambitious Act both recognized the value of our Nation’s public lands and provided a framework in which they could be managed in perpetuity for the benefit of present and future generations. It defined BLM’s mission as one of multiple use -- a new concept for the times, but which today stands as our agency’s great strength.
Our mission is unique among federal land-managing agencies and provides us with the best opportunity to meet the many and varied demands of the changing West. In 1976, few anticipated the West’s rapid growth and its associated demographic and economic changes, all of which have placed increased demands on the public lands. But because of the insight and vision of the people who crafted it, FLPMA provides us with the tools we need to cooperatively and creatively manage the public lands, and in the process, dispel the notion that a variety of uses and resources cannot co-exist.
The 25th anniversary of this remarkable law gives the agency the opportunity to celebrate BLM’s multiple-use mission and honor those who worked to bring it to fruition.
(Click on title to go to clickable links to full text of law and other links)
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (PDF,1.9MB)
FLPMA Symposium, November 16, 2001 at the University of Colorado-Boulder (PDF, 628KB)
- Symposium Web Site
FLPMA Posters
A Snapshot of pre- and post-FLPMA Management 1976 & 2001
The Growing West: Pre- and Post-FLPMA, 1976 and 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau)
Eleanor Schwartz-Pathbreaking Attorney, Women's Rights Advocate
How the Stage Was Set for BLM's "Organic Act"
Secretary Norton Issues Press Release
http://www.blm.gov/flpma/
Secret Land Swaps That Taxpayers Help Finance
Text and Photos by Ken Olsen
Story in .rtf
Across the West, a handful of environmental groups are persuading Congress to bestow wilderness protection on their favorite stretch of country by trading away public land.
The Nature Conservatory
Taxpayers traded the Nature Conservancy 141 acres of commercial property in return for the right to continue using miles of road running through the 45 Ranch to reach the South Fork of the Owyhee River and thousands of acres of public land in Idaho. The $430,000 deal included purchasing the non-profit group's right to subdivide the ranch into vacation home sites. A proposal to create an Owyhee Canyonlands wilderness area in southwestern Idaho may offer similar deals to ranchers willing to trade access to wilderness areas for title to public land.
Such deals are the only way to protect the last unspoiled territory from development in the face of increasing political hostility, they say.
But controversial land swaps are causing a growing rift between environmentalists who are willing to deal and those who believe the price is too high. Not only are some groups trading away public land, they are relinquishing public water rights, inviting speculation in environmentally valuable acreage, fueling runaway growth in some of the most congested – and water-short – regions of the West and setting a precedent for future land giveaways, critics charge.
Objectionable or not, this deal making is likely to persist. Two of the most significant examples are unfolding in Idaho.
The Nature Conservancy is helping negotiate the proposed transfer of thousands of acres of U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land – including a slice of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area – to Custer County, Idaho. If the proposal wins congressional approval, this central Idaho county plans to sell the land to private developers, ranching, timber and other interests.
In return, the county commissioners are expected to support wilderness designation for a portion of the Boulder and White Clouds mountains – an area at the heart of Idaho's wilderness debate for decades.
Two hundred miles to the southwest, the Conservancy, Idaho Conservation League, and other groups are forging a wilderness deal that some participants suggest should allow ranchers to trade federal grazing leases for public land or cash. Under this scenario, landowners adjacent to wilderness could receive public land or cash in return for providing access through their property.
Both proposals are expected to reach Congress this fall. Even if they fail, more are likely to follow.
Disposing of federally managed public land as a quid pro quo for congressionally designated wilderness was pioneered in Oregon and Nevada over the past three years. Now it's going to be the rule, predicts Lindsay Slater, chief of staff for U.S. Rep Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, who is pushing the Boulder White Clouds pact.
"We think stand-alone wilderness is done," Slater said. "The trend seems to be towards legislation based on compromise among the various interests."
After 20 years of frustration, "part of what we're trying to do is prove wilderness can still be done," added Rick Johnson, executive director of the Idaho Conservation League. This approach also could resolve wilderness conflicts elsewhere.
At what price? critics ask.
"Over time, this could become the established method of buying wilderness," said Steve Wolper, who lives near Idaho's Boulder White Cloud area. "It will be 10,000 acres this time, 50,000 acres the next, and 100,000 acres the next."
Consensus Business
Wilderness designation often precipitates some land exchanges to eliminate islands of private or state acreage, commonly called inholdings. In recent years, however, some environmental groups have succumbed to pressure to make large land trades part of their quest to win new wilderness areas.
The Nature Conservancy and environmental groups are negotiating to give Custer County, Idaho more than 10,000 acres of public land. In return, the County Commissioners are expected to support wilderness designation for parts of the Boulder and White Cloud mountain ranges in central Idaho.
One problem is "they don't care what the costs are," says Charles Hancock, retired chief Nevada appraiser for the BLM.
Take Steens Mountain in southeastern Oregon. Environmentalists agreed to trade 104,000 acres of public land and $5.1 million cash for 18,000 acres of private land on Steens Mountain. As a result, Congress created a 175,000-acre wilderness area in October 2000 and ranchers agreed to stop grazing livestock on more than half of the newly protected land. Another 1.2 million acres of public land was made off-limits to mineral and geothermal exploitation.
Custer Co.
If Custer County is given several thousand acres of public land as part of a Boulder White Clouds wilderness deal, part of the proceeds could go to buying conservation easements that give ranchers cash incentives to continue raising cattle instead of selling to developers or subdividing.
Politicians hailed it as a new model for wilderness. Lindsay Slater, who helped author the bill, moved from the staff of U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore. to join Idaho Congressman Simpson's staff – and work on land trades in the Boulder White Clouds.
Meanwhile, an Oregon businessman acquired one of the key remaining private inholdings in the Steens wilderness and hinted he would develop it unless he could swap it for streamside national forest land near scenic Sisters, Ore.
Defenders of the swap said it was critical to the new wilderness. Critics characterized it as opportunistic real estate speculation – and stopped the trade before it went to Congress.
Meanwhile, rather than basking in the knowledge that they have secured a relatively pristine future for Steens, environmentalists are fighting to keep a 40-foot high dam from being built on an important redband trout creek, upstream from where it enters the wilderness. They also are trying to stop ranchers and landowners from driving in the wilderness at will – unintended byproducts of the compromise.
Dewatering Wilderness
A recent Nevada deal paved the way for a far more dangerous precedent, even in the eyes of some environmentalists who generally supported the effort.
The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 created 452,000 acres of wilderness not far from Las Vegas. It gave thousands of acres of public property to area colleges and an airport project. The bill also ordered the BLM to sell 28,000 acres of public land, meaning private developers can add even more strip malls and thirsty subdivisions to the metropolitan area.
The legislation also makes history by stipulating the Nevada wilderness has no water rights. Idaho politicians cite the bipartisan support for that legislation as justification for stipulating the new Idaho wilderness areas not have water rights. The Idaho Conservation League says that's fine.
The home above was built on a conservation easement managed by the Nature Conservancy along the banks of central Idaho's famed Silver Creek. The structure was supposed to be a rental cabin for fishermen. The Nature Conservancy says it didn't discover the house was too large until an annual review of the easement, even though it has an office less than a mile away. Local residents worry that similar problems will develop if Custer County is given several thousand acres of public land. Custer County's plans include using proceeds from the sale of U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land to purchase of additional conservation easements, which also could be managed by the Nature Conservancy.
Water experts find that alarming, especially considering the Boulder White Clouds are advertised as the headwaters of four major rivers.
"What is a wilderness area worth without a water right?" said Rachael Paschal Osborn, a prominent water law attorney in Washington state. "How do you protect wildlife, scenic and recreational values – which is what the Wilderness Act is about?"
This maneuver would allow people with existing water rights for grazing or mining to go after the water as well as open the door to new claims.
"In these water-short times in the West, that will inspire someone to figure out how to get at it," Osborn said. "When you talk about buying and selling property as part of (this wilderness) deal, the opportunity for corruption increases many fold."
Free Land
Giving away public property became part of a Boulder White Clouds wilderness deal because Custer County blames its economic woes on public ownership of 96 percent of its 3.2 million acres – split between the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, the Salmon-Challis National Forest and the BLM's Challis resource area. Livestock grazing and a bit of mining are the only remaining extractive industries. Wilderness designation will only make matters worse, county officials say, even though Custer Country borders the prosperous vistas of Sun Valley and the Sawtooth Wilderness Area.
"We're broke now," County Commissioner and land deal supporter Wayne Butts said. "We have no private land. We have a proposed playground for the rich and famous and the rest of us have to pay taxes."
The buildings in the left half of this aerial view (above) show the "fishing cabin" constructed on the Nature Conservancy's Silver Creek Preserve.
Congressman Simpson asked the Nature Conservancy to negotiate the specifics in part because of the group's land exchange expertise. The Conservancy hired two staff to help the county draft a wish list – including timberland and high-end home sites – a way to sell the land and a way to handle the profits. The group also may be in line to manage conservation easements funded by the land sales.
"These collaborative efforts, I think, are important to resolving issues like this," said Lou Lunte, an Conservancy official in Idaho. "I would see it nearsighted not to give them a chance."
Opponents say it is better to simply give the county and its 4,200 residents the money to buy ambulances, repair schools, revive the economy and help ranchers change habits that put them in conflict with environmental laws.
"I'm not really comfortable taking land that has some federal protection, turning it over to a county that has no zoning, no building codes and letting them sell it to anyone they want," said Steve Wolper, a resident of nearby Ketchum. "This is federal land that belongs to the American public…that could become a Disneyland theme park or a confined animal feed lot."
Cowboy Compromise
Trading public land for wilderness protection is on a different path in southwestern Idaho. For two years, environmentalists have been negotiating to get ranchers to support wilderness status for some of the deep volcanic canyons churning through these sage-steppe uplands and juniper forests.
Steve Wolper, (above) founder of Citizens for Smart Growth, opposes trading public land for the Custer County Commissioners' support for a Boulder White Clouds wilderness area. The county has no building and zoning codes, meaning it will have little control over what happens to the land once it's sold. Wolper also worries the deal will start a national trend of even larger public land giveaways.
A half-dozen drafts of the proposal called for ranchers to trade public land grazing leases for cash or title to other public land. Landowners adjacent to wilderness areas or recreation sites could have traded access across their land for public land or cash – via roads that, in some cases, were once routinely used by the public.
The Idaho Conservation League says it never supported such trades and declares that scheme dead. History and geography may unravel that resolve.
Access to large swaths of public land across the Owyhee region are blocked by small parcels of private land posted with no trespassing signs, according to the Bureau of Land Management.
That's one reason the Nature Conservancy, a partner at the Owyhee bargaining table, benefited from an earlier land swap here. The group received 141 acres of commercial land in Boise managed by the BLM in 2000. The $432,000 deal secured the public's right to continue driving through the Conservancy's ranch to reach both a popular rafting launch site on the South Fork of the Owyhee River and 130,000 acres of BLM-managed land.
Taxpayers purchased development rights to the 240-acre ranch in the same transaction – even though the Conservancy routinely advertises that it purchases properties like the 45 Ranch to prevent them from being turned into subdivisions. Yet, the fine print allows the Conservancy to run a small commercial guest lodge at the ranch, build an additional house, garages, maintenance shops and an airstrip if a nearby public runway becomes unusable.
Even if environmental negotiators have firmly rejected land exchanges as a part of an Owyhee wilderness pact, the nature of political deal-making means swaps can easily be added back into a bill at the last minute, warned Janine Blaeloch, director of the Western Land Exchange Project in Seattle.
"When consensus-seekers can feel that a deal is about to be struck," Blaeloch said, "the tradeoffs that once seemed completely distasteful become totally acceptable."
©2004 Ken Olsen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Olsen, a reporter for the Vancouver Columbian, is examining the hidden world of public land swaps during his fellowship year.
Story in .rtf
Across the West, a handful of environmental groups are persuading Congress to bestow wilderness protection on their favorite stretch of country by trading away public land.
The Nature Conservatory
Taxpayers traded the Nature Conservancy 141 acres of commercial property in return for the right to continue using miles of road running through the 45 Ranch to reach the South Fork of the Owyhee River and thousands of acres of public land in Idaho. The $430,000 deal included purchasing the non-profit group's right to subdivide the ranch into vacation home sites. A proposal to create an Owyhee Canyonlands wilderness area in southwestern Idaho may offer similar deals to ranchers willing to trade access to wilderness areas for title to public land.
Such deals are the only way to protect the last unspoiled territory from development in the face of increasing political hostility, they say.
But controversial land swaps are causing a growing rift between environmentalists who are willing to deal and those who believe the price is too high. Not only are some groups trading away public land, they are relinquishing public water rights, inviting speculation in environmentally valuable acreage, fueling runaway growth in some of the most congested – and water-short – regions of the West and setting a precedent for future land giveaways, critics charge.
Objectionable or not, this deal making is likely to persist. Two of the most significant examples are unfolding in Idaho.
The Nature Conservancy is helping negotiate the proposed transfer of thousands of acres of U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land – including a slice of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area – to Custer County, Idaho. If the proposal wins congressional approval, this central Idaho county plans to sell the land to private developers, ranching, timber and other interests.
In return, the county commissioners are expected to support wilderness designation for a portion of the Boulder and White Clouds mountains – an area at the heart of Idaho's wilderness debate for decades.
Two hundred miles to the southwest, the Conservancy, Idaho Conservation League, and other groups are forging a wilderness deal that some participants suggest should allow ranchers to trade federal grazing leases for public land or cash. Under this scenario, landowners adjacent to wilderness could receive public land or cash in return for providing access through their property.
Both proposals are expected to reach Congress this fall. Even if they fail, more are likely to follow.
Disposing of federally managed public land as a quid pro quo for congressionally designated wilderness was pioneered in Oregon and Nevada over the past three years. Now it's going to be the rule, predicts Lindsay Slater, chief of staff for U.S. Rep Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, who is pushing the Boulder White Clouds pact.
"We think stand-alone wilderness is done," Slater said. "The trend seems to be towards legislation based on compromise among the various interests."
After 20 years of frustration, "part of what we're trying to do is prove wilderness can still be done," added Rick Johnson, executive director of the Idaho Conservation League. This approach also could resolve wilderness conflicts elsewhere.
At what price? critics ask.
"Over time, this could become the established method of buying wilderness," said Steve Wolper, who lives near Idaho's Boulder White Cloud area. "It will be 10,000 acres this time, 50,000 acres the next, and 100,000 acres the next."
Consensus Business
Wilderness designation often precipitates some land exchanges to eliminate islands of private or state acreage, commonly called inholdings. In recent years, however, some environmental groups have succumbed to pressure to make large land trades part of their quest to win new wilderness areas.
The Nature Conservancy and environmental groups are negotiating to give Custer County, Idaho more than 10,000 acres of public land. In return, the County Commissioners are expected to support wilderness designation for parts of the Boulder and White Cloud mountain ranges in central Idaho.
One problem is "they don't care what the costs are," says Charles Hancock, retired chief Nevada appraiser for the BLM.
Take Steens Mountain in southeastern Oregon. Environmentalists agreed to trade 104,000 acres of public land and $5.1 million cash for 18,000 acres of private land on Steens Mountain. As a result, Congress created a 175,000-acre wilderness area in October 2000 and ranchers agreed to stop grazing livestock on more than half of the newly protected land. Another 1.2 million acres of public land was made off-limits to mineral and geothermal exploitation.
Custer Co.
If Custer County is given several thousand acres of public land as part of a Boulder White Clouds wilderness deal, part of the proceeds could go to buying conservation easements that give ranchers cash incentives to continue raising cattle instead of selling to developers or subdividing.
Politicians hailed it as a new model for wilderness. Lindsay Slater, who helped author the bill, moved from the staff of U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore. to join Idaho Congressman Simpson's staff – and work on land trades in the Boulder White Clouds.
Meanwhile, an Oregon businessman acquired one of the key remaining private inholdings in the Steens wilderness and hinted he would develop it unless he could swap it for streamside national forest land near scenic Sisters, Ore.
Defenders of the swap said it was critical to the new wilderness. Critics characterized it as opportunistic real estate speculation – and stopped the trade before it went to Congress.
Meanwhile, rather than basking in the knowledge that they have secured a relatively pristine future for Steens, environmentalists are fighting to keep a 40-foot high dam from being built on an important redband trout creek, upstream from where it enters the wilderness. They also are trying to stop ranchers and landowners from driving in the wilderness at will – unintended byproducts of the compromise.
Dewatering Wilderness
A recent Nevada deal paved the way for a far more dangerous precedent, even in the eyes of some environmentalists who generally supported the effort.
The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 created 452,000 acres of wilderness not far from Las Vegas. It gave thousands of acres of public property to area colleges and an airport project. The bill also ordered the BLM to sell 28,000 acres of public land, meaning private developers can add even more strip malls and thirsty subdivisions to the metropolitan area.
The legislation also makes history by stipulating the Nevada wilderness has no water rights. Idaho politicians cite the bipartisan support for that legislation as justification for stipulating the new Idaho wilderness areas not have water rights. The Idaho Conservation League says that's fine.
The home above was built on a conservation easement managed by the Nature Conservancy along the banks of central Idaho's famed Silver Creek. The structure was supposed to be a rental cabin for fishermen. The Nature Conservancy says it didn't discover the house was too large until an annual review of the easement, even though it has an office less than a mile away. Local residents worry that similar problems will develop if Custer County is given several thousand acres of public land. Custer County's plans include using proceeds from the sale of U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land to purchase of additional conservation easements, which also could be managed by the Nature Conservancy.
Water experts find that alarming, especially considering the Boulder White Clouds are advertised as the headwaters of four major rivers.
"What is a wilderness area worth without a water right?" said Rachael Paschal Osborn, a prominent water law attorney in Washington state. "How do you protect wildlife, scenic and recreational values – which is what the Wilderness Act is about?"
This maneuver would allow people with existing water rights for grazing or mining to go after the water as well as open the door to new claims.
"In these water-short times in the West, that will inspire someone to figure out how to get at it," Osborn said. "When you talk about buying and selling property as part of (this wilderness) deal, the opportunity for corruption increases many fold."
Free Land
Giving away public property became part of a Boulder White Clouds wilderness deal because Custer County blames its economic woes on public ownership of 96 percent of its 3.2 million acres – split between the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, the Salmon-Challis National Forest and the BLM's Challis resource area. Livestock grazing and a bit of mining are the only remaining extractive industries. Wilderness designation will only make matters worse, county officials say, even though Custer Country borders the prosperous vistas of Sun Valley and the Sawtooth Wilderness Area.
"We're broke now," County Commissioner and land deal supporter Wayne Butts said. "We have no private land. We have a proposed playground for the rich and famous and the rest of us have to pay taxes."
The buildings in the left half of this aerial view (above) show the "fishing cabin" constructed on the Nature Conservancy's Silver Creek Preserve.
Congressman Simpson asked the Nature Conservancy to negotiate the specifics in part because of the group's land exchange expertise. The Conservancy hired two staff to help the county draft a wish list – including timberland and high-end home sites – a way to sell the land and a way to handle the profits. The group also may be in line to manage conservation easements funded by the land sales.
"These collaborative efforts, I think, are important to resolving issues like this," said Lou Lunte, an Conservancy official in Idaho. "I would see it nearsighted not to give them a chance."
Opponents say it is better to simply give the county and its 4,200 residents the money to buy ambulances, repair schools, revive the economy and help ranchers change habits that put them in conflict with environmental laws.
"I'm not really comfortable taking land that has some federal protection, turning it over to a county that has no zoning, no building codes and letting them sell it to anyone they want," said Steve Wolper, a resident of nearby Ketchum. "This is federal land that belongs to the American public…that could become a Disneyland theme park or a confined animal feed lot."
Cowboy Compromise
Trading public land for wilderness protection is on a different path in southwestern Idaho. For two years, environmentalists have been negotiating to get ranchers to support wilderness status for some of the deep volcanic canyons churning through these sage-steppe uplands and juniper forests.
Steve Wolper, (above) founder of Citizens for Smart Growth, opposes trading public land for the Custer County Commissioners' support for a Boulder White Clouds wilderness area. The county has no building and zoning codes, meaning it will have little control over what happens to the land once it's sold. Wolper also worries the deal will start a national trend of even larger public land giveaways.
A half-dozen drafts of the proposal called for ranchers to trade public land grazing leases for cash or title to other public land. Landowners adjacent to wilderness areas or recreation sites could have traded access across their land for public land or cash – via roads that, in some cases, were once routinely used by the public.
The Idaho Conservation League says it never supported such trades and declares that scheme dead. History and geography may unravel that resolve.
Access to large swaths of public land across the Owyhee region are blocked by small parcels of private land posted with no trespassing signs, according to the Bureau of Land Management.
That's one reason the Nature Conservancy, a partner at the Owyhee bargaining table, benefited from an earlier land swap here. The group received 141 acres of commercial land in Boise managed by the BLM in 2000. The $432,000 deal secured the public's right to continue driving through the Conservancy's ranch to reach both a popular rafting launch site on the South Fork of the Owyhee River and 130,000 acres of BLM-managed land.
Taxpayers purchased development rights to the 240-acre ranch in the same transaction – even though the Conservancy routinely advertises that it purchases properties like the 45 Ranch to prevent them from being turned into subdivisions. Yet, the fine print allows the Conservancy to run a small commercial guest lodge at the ranch, build an additional house, garages, maintenance shops and an airstrip if a nearby public runway becomes unusable.
Even if environmental negotiators have firmly rejected land exchanges as a part of an Owyhee wilderness pact, the nature of political deal-making means swaps can easily be added back into a bill at the last minute, warned Janine Blaeloch, director of the Western Land Exchange Project in Seattle.
"When consensus-seekers can feel that a deal is about to be struck," Blaeloch said, "the tradeoffs that once seemed completely distasteful become totally acceptable."
©2004 Ken Olsen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Olsen, a reporter for the Vancouver Columbian, is examining the hidden world of public land swaps during his fellowship year.
Zeroing In on the Zeroing Out: Feds Sell WH&B Ranges to State of Nevada
The Lincoln Co.Conservation, Recreation & Development Act
Read the embolden parts carefully;
PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
Public Law 108–424
108th Congress
An Act
To establish wilderness areas, promote conservation, improve public land, and provide
for the high quality development in Lincoln County, Nevada, and for other
purposes. (note: no mention of wild horse management)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
SEC. 2. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lincoln County
Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004’’.
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 2. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I—LAND DISPOSAL
Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Conveyance of Lincoln County land.
Sec. 103. Disposition of proceeds.
TITLE II—WILDERNESS AREAS
Sec. 201. Findings.
Sec. 202. Definitions.
Sec. 203. Additions to National Wilderness Preservation System.
Sec. 204. Administration.
Sec. 205. Adjacent management.
Sec. 206. Military overflights.
Sec. 207. Native American cultural and religious uses.
Sec. 208. Release of wilderness study areas.
Sec. 209. Wildlife management.
Sec. 210. Wildfire management.
Sec. 211. Climatological data collection.
TITLE III—UTILITY CORRIDORS
Sec. 301. Utility corridor and rights-of-way.
Sec. 302. Relocation of right-of-way and utility corridors located in Clark
and Lincoln counties in the State of Nevada.
TITLE IV—SILVER STATE OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE TRAIL
Sec. 401. Silver State Off-Highway Vehicle Trail.
TITLE V—OPEN SPACE PARKS
Sec. 501. Open space park conveyance to Lincoln County, Nevada.
Sec. 502. Open space park conveyance to the State of Nevada.
TITLE VI—JURISDICTION TRANSFER
Sec. 601. Transfer of administrative jurisdiction between the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
16 USC 1241
note.
Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004.
Nov. 30, 2004
[H.R. 4593]
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00001 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2404 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
TITLE I—LAND DISPOSAL
SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) COUNTY.—The term ‘‘County’’ means Lincoln County,
Nevada.
(2) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map entitled ‘‘Lincoln
County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act Map’’
and dated October 1, 2004.
(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) SPECIAL ACCOUNT.—The term ‘‘special account’’ means
the special account established under section 103(b)(3).
SEC. 102. CONVEYANCE OF LINCOLN COUNTY LAND.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sections 202 and 203 of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1711, 1712), the Secretary, in cooperation with the County, in
accordance with that Act, this title, and other applicable law and
subject to valid existing rights, shall conduct sales of—
(1) the land described in subsection (b)(1) to qualified bidders
not later than 75 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act; and
(2) the land described in subsection (b)(2) to qualified bidders
as such land becomes available for disposal.
(b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The land referred to in subsection
(a) consists of—
(1) the land identified on the map as Tract A and Tract
B totaling approximately 13,328 acres; and
(2) not more than 90,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management
managed public land in Lincoln County that is not segregated
or withdrawn on the date of enactment of this Act
or thereafter, and that is identified for disposal by the BLM
either through—
(A) the Ely Resource Management Plan (intended to
be finalized in 2005); (This is the one that calls for the zeroing out
of all the wild horses)
or
(B) a subsequent amendment to that land use plan
undertaken with full public involvement.
(c) AVAILABILITY.—Each map and legal description shall be
on file and available for public inspection in (as appropriate)—
(1) the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Land Management;
(2) the Office of the Nevada State Director of the Bureau
of Land Management;
(3) the Ely Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management;
and
(4) the Caliente Field Station of the Bureau of Land
Management.
(d) JOINT SELECTION REQUIRED.—The Secretary and the County
shall jointly select which parcels of land described in subsection
(b)(2) to offer for sale under subsection (a).
(e) COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL PLANNING AND ZONING LAWS.—
Before a sale of land under subsection (a), the County shall submit
to the Secretary a certification that qualified bidders have agreed
to comply with—
(1) County and city zoning ordinances; and
Certification.
Deadline.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00002 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2405 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(2) any master plan for the area approved by the County.
(f) METHOD OF SALE; CONSIDERATION.—The sale of land under
subsection (a) shall be—
(1) consistent with section 203(d) and 203(f) of the Federal
Land Management Policy Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1713(d) and
(f));
(2) through a competitive bidding process unless otherwise
determined by the Secretary; and
(3) for not less than fair market value.
(g) WITHDRAWAL.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to valid existing rights and except
as provided in paragraph (2), the land described in subsection
(b) is withdrawn from—
(A) all forms of entry and appropriation under the
public land laws, including the mining laws;
(B) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws;
and
(C) operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal
leasing laws.
(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1)(A) shall not apply to a
competitive sale or an election by the County to obtain the
land described in subsection (b) for public purposes under the
Act of June 14, 1926 (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.; commonly known
as the ‘‘Recreation and Public Purposes Act’’).
(h) DEADLINE FOR SALE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall—
(A) notwithstanding the Lincoln County Land Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 1046), not later than 75 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, offer by sale the land
described in subsection (b)(1) if there is a qualified bidder
for such land; and
(B) offer for sale annually lands identified for sale
in subsection (b)(2) until such lands are disposed of or
unless the county requests a postponement under paragraph
(2).
(2) POSTPONEMENT; EXCLUSION FROM SALE.—
(A) REQUEST BY COUNTY FOR POSTPONEMENT OR EXCLUSION.—
At the request of the County, the Secretary shall
postpone or exclude from the sale all or a portion of the
land described in subsection (b)(2).
(B) INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.—Unless specifically
requested by the County, a postponement under subparagraph
(A) shall not be indefinite.
SEC. 103. DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS.
(a) INITIAL LAND SALE.—Section 5 of the Lincoln County Land
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 1047) shall apply to the disposition of the
gross proceeds from the sale of land described in section 102(b)(1).
(b) DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS.—Proceeds from sales of lands
described in section 102(b)(2) shall be disbursed as follows—
(1) 5 percent shall be paid directly to the state for use
in the general education program of the State;
(2) 10 percent shall be paid to the County for use for
fire protection, law enforcement, public safety, housing, social
services, and transportation; and
Applicability.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00003 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2406 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(3) the remainder shall be deposited in a special account
in the Treasury of the United States and shall be available
without further appropriation to the Secretary until expended
for—
(A) the reimbursement of costs incurred by the Nevada
State office and the Ely Field Office of the Bureau of
Land Management for preparing for the sale of land
described in section 102(b) including surveys appraisals,
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) and compliance with the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1711,
1712);
(B) the inventory, evaluation, protection, and management
of unique archaeological resources (as defined in section
3 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of
1979 (16 U.S.C. 470bb)) of the County;
(C) the development and implementation of a multispecies
habitat conservation plan for the County;
Do we think that this "management of multi-species" will include the grazing of wild free roaming horses? NOT. Remember, according to the above referenced "Ely Resource Management Plan," and as of the date of enactment of this law, the "plan" was to have the horses removed, so er, ah, what species will be managed here under this new "multi-species" plan / act? Anything but wild horses and burros, I am guessing.
(D) processing of public land use authorizations and
rights-of-way relating to the development of land conveyed
under section 102(a) of this Act;
(E) processing the Silver State OHV trail and implementing
the management plan required by section 151(c)(2)
of this Act; and
(F) processing wilderness designation, including but
not limited to, the costs of appropriate fencing, signage,
public education, and enforcement for the wilderness areas
designated. (But no wild horses and burros, I would bet my farm on that! The wilderness will be reserved for BIG GAME and their BIG Monied Hunters.)
(c) INVESTMENT OF SPECIAL ACCOUNT.—Any amounts deposited
in the special account shall earn interest in an amount determined
by the Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of the current average
market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the United
States of comparable maturities, and may be expended according
to the provisions of this section.
TITLE II—WILDERNESS AREAS
SEC. 201. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that—
(1) public land in the County contains unique and spectacular
natural resources, including—
(A) priceless habitat for numerous species of plants
and wildlife; and
(B) thousands of acres of land that remain in a natural
state; and
(2) continued preservation of those areas would benefit
the County and all of the United States by—
(A) ensuring the conservation of ecologically diverse
habitat;
(B) protecting prehistoric cultural resources;
(C) conserving primitive recreational resources; and
(D) protecting air and water quality.
SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00004 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2407 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(1) COUNTY.—The term ‘‘County’’ means Lincoln County,
Nevada.
(2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State of Nevada.
SEC. 203. ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION
SYSTEM.
(a) ADDITIONS.—The following land in the State is designated
as wilderness and as components of the National Wilderness
Preservation System:
(1)MORMON MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS (This is an area that has already been "zeroed-out" for wild horse grazing)
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 157,938 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Southern Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Mormon Mountains
Wilderness’’.
(2) MEADOW VALLEY RANGE WILDERNESS; (This is currently a wild horse range for at least 9 wild horses grazing on 94,521 acres of this valley - and is one of the herds that the "Ely Plan" calls for removal because they are "too many in number and are over-grazing the land)
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 123,488 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Southern Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Meadow Valley
Range Wilderness’’.
(3) DELAMAR MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS.(This is currently a wild horse grazing area for 91 wild horses grazing on 183,558 acres of rangeland. The "Ely Plan" calls for removal of all horses and a "zeroing out" of their rangeland, also for the same reasons as mentioned above)
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 111,328 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Southern Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Delamar Mountains
Wilderness’’.
(4) CLOVER MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS.—(This is land currently being grazed by 53 wild horses on 33,056 acres of land; ditto on the removals and zeroing out of their lands as mentioned above)
Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 85,748 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Southern Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Clover Mountains
Wilderness’’.
(5) SOUTH PAHROC RANGE WILDERNESS;
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 25,800 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Western Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘South Pahroc
Range Wilderness’’.
(6) WORTHINGTON MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS;
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 30,664 acres, as generally depicted on
the map entitled ‘‘Western Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’,
dated October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Worthington
Mountains Wilderness’’.
(7) WEEPAH SPRING WILDERNESS;
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 51,480 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Western Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Weepah Spring
Wilderness’’.
(8) PARSNIP PEAK WILDERNESS;
-Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising approximately
43,693 acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled
16 USC 1132
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00005 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2408 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
‘‘Northern Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated October 1,
2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Parsnip Peak Wilderness’’.
(9) WHITE ROCK RANGE WILDERNESS;
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 24,413 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Northern Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘White Rock
Range Wilderness’’.
(10) FORTIFICATION RANGE WILDERNESS;
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 30,656 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Northern Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Fortification
Range Wilderness’’.
(11) FAR SOUTH EGANS WILDERNESS;
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 36,384 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Northern Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Far South
Egans Wilderness’’.
(12) TUNNEL SPRING WILDERNESS;
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 5,371 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Southern Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Tunnel Spring
Wilderness’’.
(13) BIG ROCKS WILDERNESS;
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising approximately
12,997 acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled
‘‘Western Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated October 1,
2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Big Rocks Wilderness’’.
(14) MT. IRISH WILDERNESS;
-Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising approximately
28,334 acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled
‘‘Western Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated October 1,
2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Mt. Irish Wilderness’’.
(b) BOUNDARY.—The boundary of any portion of a wilderness
area designated by subsection (a) that is bordered by a road shall
be at least 100 feet from the edge of the road to allow public
access.
(c) MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall file a map and
legal description of each wilderness area designated by subsection
(a) with the Committee on Resources of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate.
(2) EFFECT.—Each map and legal description shall have
the same force and effect as if included in this section, except
that the Secretary may correct clerical and typographical errors
in the map or legal description.
(3) AVAILABILITY.—Each map and legal description shall
be on file and available for public inspection in (as appropriate)—
(A) the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management;
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00006 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2409 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(B) the Office of the Nevada State Director of the
Bureau of Land Management;
(C) the Ely Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management;
and
(D) the Caliente Field Station of the Bureau of Land
Management. (Get your copies now! And let them know that you know what the wild horse removals are REALLY all about and how much you think the whole thing stinks!)
(d) WITHDRAWAL.—Subject to valid existing rights, the wilderness
areas designated by subsection (a) are withdrawn from—
(1) all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under
the public land laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws;
and
(3) operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing
laws. (may as well say it,....wild horses will also be forbidden here)
SEC. 204. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) MANAGEMENT.—Subject to valid existing rights, each area
designated as wilderness by this title shall be administered by
the Secretary in accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C.
1131 et seq.), except that—
(1) any reference in that Act to the effective date shall
be considered to be a reference to the date of the enactment
of this Act; and
(2) any reference in that Act to the Secretary of Agriculture
shall be considered to be a reference to the Secretary of the
Interior.
(b) LIVESTOCK.—Within the wilderness areas designated under
this title that are administered by the Bureau of Land Management,
the grazing of livestock in areas in which grazing is established
as of the date of enactment of this Act shall be allowed to continue,(of course)
subject to such reasonable regulations, policies, and practices that
the Secretary considers necessary, consistent with section 4(d)(4)
of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(4)), including the guidelines
set forth in Appendix A of House Report 101–405.
(c) INCORPORATION OF ACQUIRED LAND AND INTERESTS.—Any
land or interest in land within the boundaries of an area designated
as wilderness by this title that is acquired by the United States
after the date of the enactment of this Act shall be added to
and administered as part of the wilderness area within which
the acquired land or interest is located.
(d) WATER RIGHTS.—
(1) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—
(A) the land designated as Wilderness by this title
is within the Northern Mojave and Great Basin Deserts,
is arid in nature, and includes ephemeral streams;
(B) the hydrology of the land designated as wilderness
by this title is predominantly characterized by complex
flow patterns and alluvial fans with impermanent channels;
(C) the subsurface hydrogeology of the region is
characterized by ground water subject to local and regional
flow gradients and unconfined and artesian conditions;
(D) the land designated as wilderness by this title
is generally not suitable for use or development of new
water resource facilities; and
(E) because of the unique nature and hydrology of
the desert land designated as wilderness by this title, it
is possible to provide for proper management and protection
of the wilderness and other values of lands in ways different
from those used in other legislation.
(2) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this title—
(A) shall constitute or be construed to constitute either
an express or implied reservation by the United States
of any water or water rights with respect to the land
designated as wilderness by this title;
(There are wars going on over water here, in this area, not just "rights" and who has them or who dont, but as to how the establishment of new wells and pumping stations will effect the overall (ground) water level. Some say any further expansion of pumping systems will be too much of a strain on an already strained system; More on Nevadas Water Wars later)
(B) shall affect any water rights in the State existing
on the date of the enactment of this Act, including any
water rights held by the United States;
(C) shall be construed as establishing a precedent with
regard to any future wilderness designations;
(D) shall affect the interpretation of, or any designation
made pursuant to, any other Act; or
(E) shall be construed as limiting, altering, modifying,
or amending any of the interstate compacts or equitable
apportionment decrees that apportion water among and
between the State and other States.
(3) NEVADA WATER LAW.—The Secretary shall follow the
procedural and substantive requirements of the law of the
State in order to obtain and hold any water rights not in
existence on the date of enactment of this Act with respect
to the wilderness areas designated by this title.
(4) NEW PROJECTS.—
(A) WATER RESOURCE FACILITY.—As used in this paragraph,
the term ‘‘water resource facility’’—
(i) means irrigation and pumping facilities, reservoirs,
water conservation works, aqueducts, canals,
ditches, pipelines, wells, hydropower projects, and
transmission and other ancillary facilities, and other
water diversion, storage, and carriage structures; and
(ii) does not include wildlife guzzlers.
(B) RESTRICTION ON NEW WATER RESOURCE FACILITIES.—
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, on and
after the date of the enactment of this Act, neither the
President nor any other officer, employee, or agent of the
United States shall fund, assist, authorize, or issue a
license or permit for the development of any new water
resource facility within the wilderness areas designated
by this Act.
SEC. 205. ADJACENT MANAGEMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress does not intend for the designation
of wilderness in the State pursuant to this title to lead to the
creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around any such
wilderness area.
(b) NONWILDERNESS ACTIVITIES.—The fact that nonwilderness
activities or uses can be seen or heard from areas within a wilderness
designated under this title shall not preclude the conduct
of those activities or uses outside the boundary of the wilderness
area.
SEC. 206. MILITARY OVERFLIGHTS.
Nothing in this title restricts or precludes—
(1) low-level overflights of military aircraft over the areas
designated as wilderness by this title, including military overflights
that can be seen or heard within the wilderness areas;
(2) flight testing and evaluation; or
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00008 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2411 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(3) the designation or creation of new units of special
use airspace, or the establishment of military flight training
routes, over the wilderness areas.
SEC. 207. NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS USES.
Nothing in this title shall be construed to diminish the rights
of any Indian tribe. Nothing in this title shall be construed to
diminish tribal rights regarding access to Federal land for tribal
activities, including spiritual, cultural, and traditional food-gathering
activities.
SEC. 208. RELEASE OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS.
(a) FINDING.—Congress finds that, for the purposes of section
603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1782), the public land in the County administered by the
Bureau of Land Management in the following areas has been adequately
studied for wilderness designation:
(1) The Table Mountain Wilderness Study Area.
(2) Evergreen A, B, and C Wilderness Study Areas.
(3) Any portion of the wilderness study areas—
(A) not designated as wilderness by section 114(a);
and
(B) depicted as released on—
(i) the map entitled ‘‘Northern Lincoln County
Wilderness Map’’ and dated October 1, 2004;
(ii) the map entitled ‘‘Southern Lincoln County
Wilderness Map’’ and dated October 1, 2004; or
(iii) the map entitled ‘‘Western Lincoln County
Wilderness Map’’ and dated October 1, 2004.
(b) RELEASE.—Any public land described in subsection (a) that
is not designated as wilderness by this title—
(1) is no longer subject to section 603(c) of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c));
(2) shall be managed in accordance with—
(A) land management plans adopted under section 202
of that Act (43 U.S.C. 1712); and
(B) existing cooperative conservation agreements; and
(3) shall be subject to the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
SEC. 209. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with section 4(d)(7) of the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(7)), nothing in this title affects
or diminishes the jurisdiction of the State with respect to fish
and wildlife management, including the regulation of hunting,
fishing, and trapping, in the wilderness areas designated by this
title.
(b) MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.—In furtherance of the purposes
and principles of the Wilderness Act, management activities to
maintain or restore fish and wildlife populations and the habitats
to support such populations may be carried out within wilderness
areas designated by this title where consistent with relevant wilderness
management plans, in accordance with appropriate policies
such as those set forth in Appendix B of House Report 101–405,
including the occasional and temporary use of motorized vehicles,
if such use, as determined by the Secretary, would promote healthy,
viable, and more naturally distributed wildlife populations that
would enhance wilderness values and accomplish those purposes
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00009 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2412 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
with the minimum impact necessary to reasonably accomplish the
task.
(c) EXISTING ACTIVITIES.—Consistent with section 4(d)(1) of the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)) and in accordance with appropriate
policies such as those set forth in Appendix B of House
Report 101–405, the State may continue to use aircraft, including
helicopters, to survey, capture, transplant, monitor, and provide
water for wildlife populations, including bighorn sheep, and feral
stock, horses, and burros. (My goodness, a mention of horses and burros. Strange how they left out the words "Wild." )
(d) WILDLIFE WATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.—Subject to subsection
(f), the Secretary shall authorize structures and facilities,
including existing structures and facilities, for wildlife water
development projects, including guzzlers, in the wilderness areas
designated by this Act if—
(1) the structures and facilities will, as determined by
the Secretary, enhance wilderness values by promoting healthy,
viable, and more naturally distributed wildlife populations; and
(2) the visual impacts of the structures and facilities on
the wilderness areas can reasonably be minimized.
(e) HUNTING, FISHING, AND TRAPPING.—In consultation with
the appropriate State agency (except in emergencies), the Secretary
may designate by regulation areas in which, and establish periods
during which, for reasons of public safety, administration, or compliance
with applicable laws, no hunting, fishing, or trapping will
be permitted in the wilderness areas designated by this Act.
(f) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.—The terms and conditions under
which the State, including a designee of the State, may conduct
wildlife management activities in the wilderness areas designated
by this title are specified in the cooperative agreement between
the Secretary and the State, entitled ‘‘Memorandum of Understanding
between the Bureau of Land Management and the Nevada
Department of Wildlife Supplement No. 9,’’ and signed November
and December 2003, including any amendments to that document
agreed upon by the Secretary and the State and subject to all
applicable laws and regulations. Any references to Clark County
in that document shall also be deemed to be referred to and shall
apply to Lincoln County, Nevada.
SEC. 210. WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT.
Consistent with section 4 of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C.
1133), nothing in this title precludes a Federal, State, or local
agency from conducting wildfire management operations (including
operations using aircraft or mechanized equipment) to manage
wildfires in the wilderness areas designated by this title.
SEC. 211. CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA COLLECTION.
Subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary may
prescribe, nothing in this title precludes the installation and maintenance
of hydrologic, meteorologic, or climatological collection devices
in the wilderness areas designated by this title if the facilities
and access to the facilities are essential to flood warning, flood
control, and water reservoir operation activities.
TITLE III—UTILITY CORRIDORS
SEC. 301. UTILITY CORRIDOR AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
(a) UTILITY CORRIDOR.—
Applicability.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00010 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2413 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(1) IN GENERAL.—Consistent with title II and notwithstanding
sections 202 and 503 of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1711, 1763), the Secretary
of the Interior (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Secretary’’)
shall establish on public land a 2,640-foot wide corridor
for utilities in Lincoln County and Clark County, Nevada, asgenerally
Recreation, and Development Act’’, and dated October
1, 2004.
(2) AVAILABILITY.—Each map and legal description shall
be on file and available for public inspection in (as appropriate)—
(A) the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management;
(B) the Office of the Nevada State Director of the
Bureau of Land Management;
(C) the Ely Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management;
and
(D) the Caliente Field Station of the Bureau of Land
Management.
(b) RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sections 202 and 503
of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1711, 1763), and subject to valid and existing rights,
the Secretary shall grant to the Southern Nevada Water
Authority and the Lincoln County Water District nonexclusive
rights-of-way to Federal land in Lincoln County and Clark
County, Nevada, for any roads, wells, well fields, pipes, pipelines,
pump stations, storage facilities, or other facilities and
systems that are necessary for the construction and operation
of a water conveyance system, as depicted on the map.(2) APPLICABLE LAW.—A
right-of-way granted under paragraph
(1) shall be granted in perpetuity and shall not require
the payment of rental.
(3) COMPLIANCE WITH NEPA.—Before granting a right-ofway
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.), including the identification and consideration of potential
impacts to fish and wildlife resources and habitat.
(c) WITHDRAWAL.—Subject to valid existing rights, the utility
corridors designated by subsection (a) are withdrawn from—
(1) all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under
the public land laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws;
and
(3) operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing
laws.
(d) STATE WATER LAW.—Nothing in this title shall—
(1) prejudice the decisions or abrogate the jurisdiction of
the Nevada or Utah State Engineers with respect to the appropriation,
permitting, certification, or adjudication of water
rights;
(2) preempt Nevada or Utah State water law; or
(3) limit or supersede existing water rights or interest
in water rights under Nevada or Utah State law.
(e) WATER RESOURCES STUDY.—
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00011 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2414 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through the United
States Geological Survey, the Desert Research Institute, and
a designee from the State of Utah shall conduct a study to
investigate ground water quantity, quality, and flow characteristics
in the deep carbonate and alluvial aquifers of White
Pine County, Nevada, and any groundwater basins that are
located in White Pine County, Nevada, or Lincoln County,
Nevada, and adjacent areas in Utah. The study shall—
(A) focus on a review of existing data and may include
new data;
(B) determine the approximate volume of water stored
in aquifers in those areas;
(C) determine the discharge and recharge characteristics
of each aquifer system;
(D) determine the hydrogeologic and other controls that
govern the discharge and recharge of each aquifer system;
and
(E) develop maps at a consistent scale depicting aquifer
systems and the recharge and discharge areas of such
systems.
(2) TIMING; AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary shall complete
a draft of the water resources report required under paragraph
(1) not later than 30 months after the date of the enactment
of this Act. The Secretary shall then make the draft report
available for public comment for a period of not less than
60 days. The final report shall be submitted to the Committee
on Resources in the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources in the Senate and
made available to the public not later than 36 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) AGREEMENT.—Prior to any transbasin diversion from
ground-water basins located within both the State of Nevada
and the State of Utah, the State of Nevada and the State
of Utah shall reach an agreement regarding the division of
water resources of those interstate ground-water flow system(s)
from which water will be diverted and used by the project.
The agreement shall allow for the maximum sustainable beneficial
use of the water resources and protect existing water
rights.
(4) FUNDING.—Section 4(e)(3)(A) of the Southern Nevada
Public Land Management Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2346; 116
Stat. 2007; 117 Stat. 1317) is amended—
(A) in clauses (ii), (iv), and (v), by striking ‘‘County’’
each place it appears and inserting ‘‘and Lincoln Counties’’;
(B) in clause (vi), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;
(C) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (viii); and
(D) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
‘‘(vii) for development of a water study for Lincoln
and White Pine Counties, Nevada, in an amount not
to exceed $6,000,000; and’’.
SEC. 302. RELOCATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND UTILITY CORRIDORS
LOCATED IN CLARK AND LINCOLN COUNTIES IN THE
STATE OF NEVADA.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
Utah.
Public
information.
Reports.
Deadlines.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00012 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2415 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(1) AGREEMENT.—The term ‘‘Agreement’’ means the land
exchange agreement between Aerojet-General Corporation and
the United States, dated July 14, 1988.
(2) CORRIDOR.—The term ‘‘corridor’’ means—
(A) the right-of-way corridor that is—
(i) identified in section 5(b)(1) of the Nevada-
Florida Land Exchange Authorization Act of 1988 (102
Stat. 55); and
(ii) described in section 14(a) of the Agreement;
(B) such portion of the utility corridor identified in
the 1988 Las Vegas Resource Management Plan located
south of the boundary of the corridor described in subparagraph
(A) as is necessary to relocate the right-of-way corridor
to the area described in subsection (c)(2); and
(C) such portion of the utility corridor identified in
the 2000 Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment
located north of the boundary of the corridor described
in subparagraph (A) as is necessary to relocate the rightof-
way corridor to the area described in subsection (c)(2).
(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(b) RELINQUISHMENT AND FAIR MARKET VALUE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, in accordance with
this section, relinquish all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the corridor on receipt of a payment in an
amount equal to the fair market value of the corridor (plus
any costs relating to the right-of-way relocation described in
this title).
(2) FAIR MARKET VALUE.—
(A) The fair market value of the corridor shall be
equal to the amount by which the value of the discount
described in the 1988 appraisal of the corridor that was
applied to the land underlying the corridor has increased,
as determined by the Secretary using the multiplier determined
under subparagraph (B).
(B) Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Appraisal Services Directorate of
the Department of the Interior shall determine an appropriate
multiplier to reflect the change in the value of the
land underlying the corridor between—
(i) the date of which the corridor was transferred
in accordance with the Agreement; and
(ii) the date of enactment of this Act.
(3) PROCEEDS.—Proceeds under this subsection shall be
deposited in the account established under section 103(b)(3).
(c) RELOCATION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall relocate to the area
described in paragraph (2), the portion of IDI–26446 and UTU–
73363 identified as NVN–49781 that is located in the corridor
relinquished under subsection (b)(1).
(2) DESCRIPTION OF AREA.—The area referred to in paragraph
(1) is the area located on public land west of United
States Route 93.
(3) REQUIREMENTS.—The relocation under paragraph (1)
shall be conducted in a manner that—
(A) minimizes engineering design changes; and
Deadline.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00013 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2416 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(B) maintains a gradual and smooth interconnection
of the corridor with the area described in paragraph (2).
(4) AUTHORIZED USES.—The Secretary may authorize the
location of any above ground or underground utility facility,
transmission lines, gas pipelines, natural gas pipelines, fiber
optics, telecommunications, water lines, wells (including monitoring
wells), cable television, and any related appurtenances
in the area described in paragraph (1).
(d) EFFECT.—The relocation of the corridor under this section
shall not require the Secretary to update the 1998 Las Vegas
Valley Resource Management Plan or the 2000 Caliente Management
Framework Plan Amendment.
(e) WAIVER OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall
waive the requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) that would otherwise be
applicable to the holders of the right-of-way corridor described
in subsection (a)(2)(A) with respect to an amendment to the legal
description of the right-of-way corridor.
TITLE IV—SILVER STATE OFF-HIGHWAY
VEHICLE TRAIL
SEC. 401. SILVER STATE OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE TRAIL.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(2) MAP.—The term ‘‘Map’’ means the map entitled ‘‘Lincoln
County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act Map’’
and dated October 1, 2004.
(3) TRAIL.—The term ‘‘Trail’’ means the system of trails
designated in subsection (b) as the Silver State Off-Highway
Vehicle Trail.
(b) DESIGNATION.—The trails that are generally depicted on
the Map are hereby designated as the ‘‘Silver State Off-Highway
Vehicle Trail’’.
(c) MANAGEMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall manage the Trail
in a manner that—
(A) is consistent with motorized and mechanized use
of the Trail that is authorized on the date of the enactment
of this Act pursuant to applicable Federal and State laws
and regulations;
(B) ensures the safety of the people who use the Trail;
and
(C) does not damage sensitive habitat or cultural
resources.
(2) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation
with the State, the County, and any other interested
persons, shall complete a management plan for the Trail.
(B) COMPONENTS.—The management plan shall—
(i) describe the appropriate uses and management
of the Trail;
(ii) authorize the use of motorized and mechanized
vehicles on the Trail; and
Deadline.
16 USC 1244
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00014 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2417 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(iii) describe actions carried out to periodically
evaluate and manage the appropriate levels of use
and location of the Trail to minimize environmental
impacts and prevent damage to cultural resources from
the use of the Trail.
(3) MONITORING AND EVALUATION.—
(A) ANNUAL ASSESSMENT.—The Secretary shall
annually assess the effects of the use of off-highway
vehicles on the Trail and, in consultation with the Nevada
Division of Wildlife, assess the effects of the Trail on wildlife
and wildlife habitat to minimize environmental impacts
and prevent damage to cultural resources from the use
of the Trail.
(B) CLOSURE.—The Secretary, in consultation with the
State and the County, may temporarily close or permanently
reroute, subject to subparagraph (C), a portion of
the Trail if the Secretary determines that—
(i) the Trail is having an adverse impact on—
(I) natural resources; or
(II) cultural resources;
(ii) the Trail threatens public safety;
(iii) closure of the Trail is necessary to repair
damage to the Trail; or
(iv) closure of the Trail is necessary to repair
resource damage.
(C) REROUTING.—Portions of the Trail that are temporarily
closed may be permanently rerouted along existing
roads and trails on public lands currently open to motorized
use if the Secretary determines that such rerouting will
not significantly increase or decrease the length of the
Trail.
(D) NOTICE.—The Secretary shall provide information
to the public regarding any routes on the Trail that are
closed under subparagraph (B), including by providing
appropriate signage along the Trail.
(4) NOTICE OF OPEN ROUTES.—The Secretary shall ensure
that visitors to the Trail have access to adequate notice
regarding the routes on the Trail that are open through use
of appropriate signage along the Trail and through the distribution
of maps, safety education materials, and other information
considered appropriate by the Secretary.
(d) NO EFFECT ON NON-FEDERAL LAND AND INTERESTS IN
LAND.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect ownership,
management, or other rights related to non-Federal land
or interests in land.
(e) MAP ON FILE.—The Map shall be kept on file at the appropriate
offices of the Secretary.
TITLE V—OPEN SPACE PARKS
SEC. 501. OPEN SPACE PARK CONVEYANCE TO LINCOLN COUNTY,
NEVADA.
(a) CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding sections 202 and 203 of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1171, 1712), not later than 1 year after lands are identified by
the County, the Secretary shall convey to the County, subject to
Deadline.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00015 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2418 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
valid existing rights, for no consideration, all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the parcels of land described
in subsection (b).
(b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—Up to 15,000 acres of Bureau of
Land Management-managed public land in Lincoln County identified
by the county in consultation with the Bureau of Land Management.
(c) COSTS.—Any costs relating to any conveyance under subsection
(a), including costs for surveys and other administrative
costs, shall be paid by the County, or in accordance with section
103(b)(2) of this Act.
(d) USE OF LAND.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Any parcel of land conveyed to the County
under subsection (a) shall be used only for—
(A) the conservation of natural resources; or
(B) public parks.
(2) FACILITIES.—Any facility on a parcel of land conveyed
under subsection (a) shall be constructed and managed in a
manner consistent with the uses described in paragraph (1).
(e) REVERSION.—If a parcel of land conveyed under subsection
(a) is used in a manner that is inconsistent with the uses specified
in subsection (d), the parcel of land shall, at the discretion of
the Secretary, revert to the United States.
SEC. 502. OPEN SPACE PARK CONVEYANCE TO THE STATE OF NEVADA.
(a) CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding section 202 of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712), the
Secretary shall convey to the State of Nevada, subject to valid
existing rights, for no consideration, all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to the parcels of land described in
subsection (b), if there is a written agreement between the State
and Lincoln County, Nevada, supporting such a conveyance.
(b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The parcels of land referred to
in subsection (a) are the parcels of land depicted as ‘‘NV St. Park
Expansion Proposal’’ on the map entitled ‘‘Lincoln County Conservation,
Recreation, and Development Act Map’’ and dated October
1, 2004.
(c) COSTS.—Any costs relating to any conveyance under subsection
(a), including costs for surveys and other administrative
costs, shall be paid by the State.
(d) USE OF LAND.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Any parcel of land conveyed to the State
under subsection (a) shall be used only for—
(A) the conservation of natural resources; or
(B) public parks.
(2) FACILITIES.—Any facility on a parcel of land conveyed
under subsection (a) shall be constructed and managed in a
manner consistent with the uses described in paragraph (1).
(e) REVERSION.—If a parcel of land conveyed under subsection
(a) is used in a manner that is inconsistent with the uses specified
in subsection (d), the parcel of land shall, at the discretion of
the Secretary, revert to the United States.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00016 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2419 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4593:
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–720 (Comm. on Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):
Oct. 4, considered and passed House.
Nov. 10, considered and passed Senate, amended.
Nov. 17, House concurred in Senate amendment.
Æ
TITLE VI—JURISDICTION TRANSFER
SEC. 601. TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION BETWEEN
THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND THE BUREAU OF
LAND MANAGEMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Administrative jurisdiction over the land
described in subsection (b) is transferred from the United States
Bureau of Land Management to the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service for inclusion in the Desert National Wildlife Range and
the administrative jurisdiction over the land described in subsection
(c) is transferred from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
to the United States Bureau of Land Management.
(b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The parcel of land referred to in
subsection (a) is the approximately 8,503 acres of land administered
by the United States Bureau of Land Management as generally
depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation,
and Development Act Map’’ and identified as ‘‘Lands to
be transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service’’ and dated October
1, 2004.
(c) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The parcel of land referred to in
subsection (a) is the approximately 8,382 acres of land administered
by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as generally depicted
on the map entitled ‘‘Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and
Development Act Map’’ and identified as ‘‘Lands to be transferred
to the Bureau of Land Management’’ and dated October 1, 2004.
(d) AVAILABILITY.—Each map and legal description shall be
on file and available for public inspection in (as appropriate)—
(1) the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Land Management;
(2) the Office of the Nevada State Director of the Bureau
of Land Management;
(3) the Ely Field Station of the Bureau of Land Management;
(4) the Caliente Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management;
(5) the Office of the Director of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service; and
(6) the Office of the Desert National Wildlife Complex.
Approved November 30, 2004.
16 USC 668dd
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00017 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6580 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/snplma/pdf/legislation.Par.67217.File.dat/PL108_424.pdf
Read the embolden parts carefully;
PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
Public Law 108–424
108th Congress
An Act
To establish wilderness areas, promote conservation, improve public land, and provide
for the high quality development in Lincoln County, Nevada, and for other
purposes. (note: no mention of wild horse management)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
SEC. 2. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lincoln County
Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004’’.
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 2. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I—LAND DISPOSAL
Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Conveyance of Lincoln County land.
Sec. 103. Disposition of proceeds.
TITLE II—WILDERNESS AREAS
Sec. 201. Findings.
Sec. 202. Definitions.
Sec. 203. Additions to National Wilderness Preservation System.
Sec. 204. Administration.
Sec. 205. Adjacent management.
Sec. 206. Military overflights.
Sec. 207. Native American cultural and religious uses.
Sec. 208. Release of wilderness study areas.
Sec. 209. Wildlife management.
Sec. 210. Wildfire management.
Sec. 211. Climatological data collection.
TITLE III—UTILITY CORRIDORS
Sec. 301. Utility corridor and rights-of-way.
Sec. 302. Relocation of right-of-way and utility corridors located in Clark
and Lincoln counties in the State of Nevada.
TITLE IV—SILVER STATE OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE TRAIL
Sec. 401. Silver State Off-Highway Vehicle Trail.
TITLE V—OPEN SPACE PARKS
Sec. 501. Open space park conveyance to Lincoln County, Nevada.
Sec. 502. Open space park conveyance to the State of Nevada.
TITLE VI—JURISDICTION TRANSFER
Sec. 601. Transfer of administrative jurisdiction between the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
16 USC 1241
note.
Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004.
Nov. 30, 2004
[H.R. 4593]
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00001 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2404 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
TITLE I—LAND DISPOSAL
SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) COUNTY.—The term ‘‘County’’ means Lincoln County,
Nevada.
(2) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map entitled ‘‘Lincoln
County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act Map’’
and dated October 1, 2004.
(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) SPECIAL ACCOUNT.—The term ‘‘special account’’ means
the special account established under section 103(b)(3).
SEC. 102. CONVEYANCE OF LINCOLN COUNTY LAND.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sections 202 and 203 of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1711, 1712), the Secretary, in cooperation with the County, in
accordance with that Act, this title, and other applicable law and
subject to valid existing rights, shall conduct sales of—
(1) the land described in subsection (b)(1) to qualified bidders
not later than 75 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act; and
(2) the land described in subsection (b)(2) to qualified bidders
as such land becomes available for disposal.
(b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The land referred to in subsection
(a) consists of—
(1) the land identified on the map as Tract A and Tract
B totaling approximately 13,328 acres; and
(2) not more than 90,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management
managed public land in Lincoln County that is not segregated
or withdrawn on the date of enactment of this Act
or thereafter, and that is identified for disposal by the BLM
either through—
(A) the Ely Resource Management Plan (intended to
be finalized in 2005); (This is the one that calls for the zeroing out
of all the wild horses)
or
(B) a subsequent amendment to that land use plan
undertaken with full public involvement.
(c) AVAILABILITY.—Each map and legal description shall be
on file and available for public inspection in (as appropriate)—
(1) the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Land Management;
(2) the Office of the Nevada State Director of the Bureau
of Land Management;
(3) the Ely Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management;
and
(4) the Caliente Field Station of the Bureau of Land
Management.
(d) JOINT SELECTION REQUIRED.—The Secretary and the County
shall jointly select which parcels of land described in subsection
(b)(2) to offer for sale under subsection (a).
(e) COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL PLANNING AND ZONING LAWS.—
Before a sale of land under subsection (a), the County shall submit
to the Secretary a certification that qualified bidders have agreed
to comply with—
(1) County and city zoning ordinances; and
Certification.
Deadline.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00002 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2405 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(2) any master plan for the area approved by the County.
(f) METHOD OF SALE; CONSIDERATION.—The sale of land under
subsection (a) shall be—
(1) consistent with section 203(d) and 203(f) of the Federal
Land Management Policy Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1713(d) and
(f));
(2) through a competitive bidding process unless otherwise
determined by the Secretary; and
(3) for not less than fair market value.
(g) WITHDRAWAL.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to valid existing rights and except
as provided in paragraph (2), the land described in subsection
(b) is withdrawn from—
(A) all forms of entry and appropriation under the
public land laws, including the mining laws;
(B) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws;
and
(C) operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal
leasing laws.
(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1)(A) shall not apply to a
competitive sale or an election by the County to obtain the
land described in subsection (b) for public purposes under the
Act of June 14, 1926 (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.; commonly known
as the ‘‘Recreation and Public Purposes Act’’).
(h) DEADLINE FOR SALE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall—
(A) notwithstanding the Lincoln County Land Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 1046), not later than 75 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, offer by sale the land
described in subsection (b)(1) if there is a qualified bidder
for such land; and
(B) offer for sale annually lands identified for sale
in subsection (b)(2) until such lands are disposed of or
unless the county requests a postponement under paragraph
(2).
(2) POSTPONEMENT; EXCLUSION FROM SALE.—
(A) REQUEST BY COUNTY FOR POSTPONEMENT OR EXCLUSION.—
At the request of the County, the Secretary shall
postpone or exclude from the sale all or a portion of the
land described in subsection (b)(2).
(B) INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.—Unless specifically
requested by the County, a postponement under subparagraph
(A) shall not be indefinite.
SEC. 103. DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS.
(a) INITIAL LAND SALE.—Section 5 of the Lincoln County Land
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 1047) shall apply to the disposition of the
gross proceeds from the sale of land described in section 102(b)(1).
(b) DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS.—Proceeds from sales of lands
described in section 102(b)(2) shall be disbursed as follows—
(1) 5 percent shall be paid directly to the state for use
in the general education program of the State;
(2) 10 percent shall be paid to the County for use for
fire protection, law enforcement, public safety, housing, social
services, and transportation; and
Applicability.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00003 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2406 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(3) the remainder shall be deposited in a special account
in the Treasury of the United States and shall be available
without further appropriation to the Secretary until expended
for—
(A) the reimbursement of costs incurred by the Nevada
State office and the Ely Field Office of the Bureau of
Land Management for preparing for the sale of land
described in section 102(b) including surveys appraisals,
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) and compliance with the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1711,
1712);
(B) the inventory, evaluation, protection, and management
of unique archaeological resources (as defined in section
3 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of
1979 (16 U.S.C. 470bb)) of the County;
(C) the development and implementation of a multispecies
habitat conservation plan for the County;
Do we think that this "management of multi-species" will include the grazing of wild free roaming horses? NOT. Remember, according to the above referenced "Ely Resource Management Plan," and as of the date of enactment of this law, the "plan" was to have the horses removed, so er, ah, what species will be managed here under this new "multi-species" plan / act? Anything but wild horses and burros, I am guessing.
(D) processing of public land use authorizations and
rights-of-way relating to the development of land conveyed
under section 102(a) of this Act;
(E) processing the Silver State OHV trail and implementing
the management plan required by section 151(c)(2)
of this Act; and
(F) processing wilderness designation, including but
not limited to, the costs of appropriate fencing, signage,
public education, and enforcement for the wilderness areas
designated. (But no wild horses and burros, I would bet my farm on that! The wilderness will be reserved for BIG GAME and their BIG Monied Hunters.)
(c) INVESTMENT OF SPECIAL ACCOUNT.—Any amounts deposited
in the special account shall earn interest in an amount determined
by the Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of the current average
market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the United
States of comparable maturities, and may be expended according
to the provisions of this section.
TITLE II—WILDERNESS AREAS
SEC. 201. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that—
(1) public land in the County contains unique and spectacular
natural resources, including—
(A) priceless habitat for numerous species of plants
and wildlife; and
(B) thousands of acres of land that remain in a natural
state; and
(2) continued preservation of those areas would benefit
the County and all of the United States by—
(A) ensuring the conservation of ecologically diverse
habitat;
(B) protecting prehistoric cultural resources;
(C) conserving primitive recreational resources; and
(D) protecting air and water quality.
SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00004 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2407 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(1) COUNTY.—The term ‘‘County’’ means Lincoln County,
Nevada.
(2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State of Nevada.
SEC. 203. ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION
SYSTEM.
(a) ADDITIONS.—The following land in the State is designated
as wilderness and as components of the National Wilderness
Preservation System:
(1)MORMON MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS (This is an area that has already been "zeroed-out" for wild horse grazing)
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 157,938 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Southern Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Mormon Mountains
Wilderness’’.
(2) MEADOW VALLEY RANGE WILDERNESS; (This is currently a wild horse range for at least 9 wild horses grazing on 94,521 acres of this valley - and is one of the herds that the "Ely Plan" calls for removal because they are "too many in number and are over-grazing the land)
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 123,488 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Southern Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Meadow Valley
Range Wilderness’’.
(3) DELAMAR MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS.(This is currently a wild horse grazing area for 91 wild horses grazing on 183,558 acres of rangeland. The "Ely Plan" calls for removal of all horses and a "zeroing out" of their rangeland, also for the same reasons as mentioned above)
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 111,328 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Southern Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Delamar Mountains
Wilderness’’.
(4) CLOVER MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS.—(This is land currently being grazed by 53 wild horses on 33,056 acres of land; ditto on the removals and zeroing out of their lands as mentioned above)
Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 85,748 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Southern Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Clover Mountains
Wilderness’’.
(5) SOUTH PAHROC RANGE WILDERNESS;
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 25,800 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Western Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘South Pahroc
Range Wilderness’’.
(6) WORTHINGTON MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS;
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 30,664 acres, as generally depicted on
the map entitled ‘‘Western Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’,
dated October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Worthington
Mountains Wilderness’’.
(7) WEEPAH SPRING WILDERNESS;
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 51,480 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Western Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Weepah Spring
Wilderness’’.
(8) PARSNIP PEAK WILDERNESS;
-Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising approximately
43,693 acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled
16 USC 1132
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00005 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2408 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
‘‘Northern Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated October 1,
2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Parsnip Peak Wilderness’’.
(9) WHITE ROCK RANGE WILDERNESS;
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 24,413 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Northern Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘White Rock
Range Wilderness’’.
(10) FORTIFICATION RANGE WILDERNESS;
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 30,656 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Northern Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Fortification
Range Wilderness’’.
(11) FAR SOUTH EGANS WILDERNESS;
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 36,384 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Northern Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Far South
Egans Wilderness’’.
(12) TUNNEL SPRING WILDERNESS;
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising
approximately 5,371 acres, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ‘‘Southern Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated
October 1, 2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Tunnel Spring
Wilderness’’.
(13) BIG ROCKS WILDERNESS;
—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising approximately
12,997 acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled
‘‘Western Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated October 1,
2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Big Rocks Wilderness’’.
(14) MT. IRISH WILDERNESS;
-Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising approximately
28,334 acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled
‘‘Western Lincoln County Wilderness Map’’, dated October 1,
2004, which shall be known as the ‘‘Mt. Irish Wilderness’’.
(b) BOUNDARY.—The boundary of any portion of a wilderness
area designated by subsection (a) that is bordered by a road shall
be at least 100 feet from the edge of the road to allow public
access.
(c) MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall file a map and
legal description of each wilderness area designated by subsection
(a) with the Committee on Resources of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate.
(2) EFFECT.—Each map and legal description shall have
the same force and effect as if included in this section, except
that the Secretary may correct clerical and typographical errors
in the map or legal description.
(3) AVAILABILITY.—Each map and legal description shall
be on file and available for public inspection in (as appropriate)—
(A) the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management;
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00006 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2409 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(B) the Office of the Nevada State Director of the
Bureau of Land Management;
(C) the Ely Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management;
and
(D) the Caliente Field Station of the Bureau of Land
Management. (Get your copies now! And let them know that you know what the wild horse removals are REALLY all about and how much you think the whole thing stinks!)
(d) WITHDRAWAL.—Subject to valid existing rights, the wilderness
areas designated by subsection (a) are withdrawn from—
(1) all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under
the public land laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws;
and
(3) operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing
laws. (may as well say it,....wild horses will also be forbidden here)
SEC. 204. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) MANAGEMENT.—Subject to valid existing rights, each area
designated as wilderness by this title shall be administered by
the Secretary in accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C.
1131 et seq.), except that—
(1) any reference in that Act to the effective date shall
be considered to be a reference to the date of the enactment
of this Act; and
(2) any reference in that Act to the Secretary of Agriculture
shall be considered to be a reference to the Secretary of the
Interior.
(b) LIVESTOCK.—Within the wilderness areas designated under
this title that are administered by the Bureau of Land Management,
the grazing of livestock in areas in which grazing is established
as of the date of enactment of this Act shall be allowed to continue,(of course)
subject to such reasonable regulations, policies, and practices that
the Secretary considers necessary, consistent with section 4(d)(4)
of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(4)), including the guidelines
set forth in Appendix A of House Report 101–405.
(c) INCORPORATION OF ACQUIRED LAND AND INTERESTS.—Any
land or interest in land within the boundaries of an area designated
as wilderness by this title that is acquired by the United States
after the date of the enactment of this Act shall be added to
and administered as part of the wilderness area within which
the acquired land or interest is located.
(d) WATER RIGHTS.—
(1) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—
(A) the land designated as Wilderness by this title
is within the Northern Mojave and Great Basin Deserts,
is arid in nature, and includes ephemeral streams;
(B) the hydrology of the land designated as wilderness
by this title is predominantly characterized by complex
flow patterns and alluvial fans with impermanent channels;
(C) the subsurface hydrogeology of the region is
characterized by ground water subject to local and regional
flow gradients and unconfined and artesian conditions;
(D) the land designated as wilderness by this title
is generally not suitable for use or development of new
water resource facilities; and
(E) because of the unique nature and hydrology of
the desert land designated as wilderness by this title, it
is possible to provide for proper management and protection
of the wilderness and other values of lands in ways different
from those used in other legislation.
(2) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this title—
(A) shall constitute or be construed to constitute either
an express or implied reservation by the United States
of any water or water rights with respect to the land
designated as wilderness by this title;
(There are wars going on over water here, in this area, not just "rights" and who has them or who dont, but as to how the establishment of new wells and pumping stations will effect the overall (ground) water level. Some say any further expansion of pumping systems will be too much of a strain on an already strained system; More on Nevadas Water Wars later)
(B) shall affect any water rights in the State existing
on the date of the enactment of this Act, including any
water rights held by the United States;
(C) shall be construed as establishing a precedent with
regard to any future wilderness designations;
(D) shall affect the interpretation of, or any designation
made pursuant to, any other Act; or
(E) shall be construed as limiting, altering, modifying,
or amending any of the interstate compacts or equitable
apportionment decrees that apportion water among and
between the State and other States.
(3) NEVADA WATER LAW.—The Secretary shall follow the
procedural and substantive requirements of the law of the
State in order to obtain and hold any water rights not in
existence on the date of enactment of this Act with respect
to the wilderness areas designated by this title.
(4) NEW PROJECTS.—
(A) WATER RESOURCE FACILITY.—As used in this paragraph,
the term ‘‘water resource facility’’—
(i) means irrigation and pumping facilities, reservoirs,
water conservation works, aqueducts, canals,
ditches, pipelines, wells, hydropower projects, and
transmission and other ancillary facilities, and other
water diversion, storage, and carriage structures; and
(ii) does not include wildlife guzzlers.
(B) RESTRICTION ON NEW WATER RESOURCE FACILITIES.—
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, on and
after the date of the enactment of this Act, neither the
President nor any other officer, employee, or agent of the
United States shall fund, assist, authorize, or issue a
license or permit for the development of any new water
resource facility within the wilderness areas designated
by this Act.
SEC. 205. ADJACENT MANAGEMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress does not intend for the designation
of wilderness in the State pursuant to this title to lead to the
creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around any such
wilderness area.
(b) NONWILDERNESS ACTIVITIES.—The fact that nonwilderness
activities or uses can be seen or heard from areas within a wilderness
designated under this title shall not preclude the conduct
of those activities or uses outside the boundary of the wilderness
area.
SEC. 206. MILITARY OVERFLIGHTS.
Nothing in this title restricts or precludes—
(1) low-level overflights of military aircraft over the areas
designated as wilderness by this title, including military overflights
that can be seen or heard within the wilderness areas;
(2) flight testing and evaluation; or
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00008 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2411 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(3) the designation or creation of new units of special
use airspace, or the establishment of military flight training
routes, over the wilderness areas.
SEC. 207. NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS USES.
Nothing in this title shall be construed to diminish the rights
of any Indian tribe. Nothing in this title shall be construed to
diminish tribal rights regarding access to Federal land for tribal
activities, including spiritual, cultural, and traditional food-gathering
activities.
SEC. 208. RELEASE OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS.
(a) FINDING.—Congress finds that, for the purposes of section
603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1782), the public land in the County administered by the
Bureau of Land Management in the following areas has been adequately
studied for wilderness designation:
(1) The Table Mountain Wilderness Study Area.
(2) Evergreen A, B, and C Wilderness Study Areas.
(3) Any portion of the wilderness study areas—
(A) not designated as wilderness by section 114(a);
and
(B) depicted as released on—
(i) the map entitled ‘‘Northern Lincoln County
Wilderness Map’’ and dated October 1, 2004;
(ii) the map entitled ‘‘Southern Lincoln County
Wilderness Map’’ and dated October 1, 2004; or
(iii) the map entitled ‘‘Western Lincoln County
Wilderness Map’’ and dated October 1, 2004.
(b) RELEASE.—Any public land described in subsection (a) that
is not designated as wilderness by this title—
(1) is no longer subject to section 603(c) of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c));
(2) shall be managed in accordance with—
(A) land management plans adopted under section 202
of that Act (43 U.S.C. 1712); and
(B) existing cooperative conservation agreements; and
(3) shall be subject to the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
SEC. 209. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with section 4(d)(7) of the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(7)), nothing in this title affects
or diminishes the jurisdiction of the State with respect to fish
and wildlife management, including the regulation of hunting,
fishing, and trapping, in the wilderness areas designated by this
title.
(b) MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.—In furtherance of the purposes
and principles of the Wilderness Act, management activities to
maintain or restore fish and wildlife populations and the habitats
to support such populations may be carried out within wilderness
areas designated by this title where consistent with relevant wilderness
management plans, in accordance with appropriate policies
such as those set forth in Appendix B of House Report 101–405,
including the occasional and temporary use of motorized vehicles,
if such use, as determined by the Secretary, would promote healthy,
viable, and more naturally distributed wildlife populations that
would enhance wilderness values and accomplish those purposes
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00009 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2412 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
with the minimum impact necessary to reasonably accomplish the
task.
(c) EXISTING ACTIVITIES.—Consistent with section 4(d)(1) of the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)) and in accordance with appropriate
policies such as those set forth in Appendix B of House
Report 101–405, the State may continue to use aircraft, including
helicopters, to survey, capture, transplant, monitor, and provide
water for wildlife populations, including bighorn sheep, and feral
stock, horses, and burros. (My goodness, a mention of horses and burros. Strange how they left out the words "Wild." )
(d) WILDLIFE WATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.—Subject to subsection
(f), the Secretary shall authorize structures and facilities,
including existing structures and facilities, for wildlife water
development projects, including guzzlers, in the wilderness areas
designated by this Act if—
(1) the structures and facilities will, as determined by
the Secretary, enhance wilderness values by promoting healthy,
viable, and more naturally distributed wildlife populations; and
(2) the visual impacts of the structures and facilities on
the wilderness areas can reasonably be minimized.
(e) HUNTING, FISHING, AND TRAPPING.—In consultation with
the appropriate State agency (except in emergencies), the Secretary
may designate by regulation areas in which, and establish periods
during which, for reasons of public safety, administration, or compliance
with applicable laws, no hunting, fishing, or trapping will
be permitted in the wilderness areas designated by this Act.
(f) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.—The terms and conditions under
which the State, including a designee of the State, may conduct
wildlife management activities in the wilderness areas designated
by this title are specified in the cooperative agreement between
the Secretary and the State, entitled ‘‘Memorandum of Understanding
between the Bureau of Land Management and the Nevada
Department of Wildlife Supplement No. 9,’’ and signed November
and December 2003, including any amendments to that document
agreed upon by the Secretary and the State and subject to all
applicable laws and regulations. Any references to Clark County
in that document shall also be deemed to be referred to and shall
apply to Lincoln County, Nevada.
SEC. 210. WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT.
Consistent with section 4 of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C.
1133), nothing in this title precludes a Federal, State, or local
agency from conducting wildfire management operations (including
operations using aircraft or mechanized equipment) to manage
wildfires in the wilderness areas designated by this title.
SEC. 211. CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA COLLECTION.
Subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary may
prescribe, nothing in this title precludes the installation and maintenance
of hydrologic, meteorologic, or climatological collection devices
in the wilderness areas designated by this title if the facilities
and access to the facilities are essential to flood warning, flood
control, and water reservoir operation activities.
TITLE III—UTILITY CORRIDORS
SEC. 301. UTILITY CORRIDOR AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
(a) UTILITY CORRIDOR.—
Applicability.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00010 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2413 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(1) IN GENERAL.—Consistent with title II and notwithstanding
sections 202 and 503 of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1711, 1763), the Secretary
of the Interior (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Secretary’’)
shall establish on public land a 2,640-foot wide corridor
for utilities in Lincoln County and Clark County, Nevada, asgenerally
Recreation, and Development Act’’, and dated October
1, 2004.
(2) AVAILABILITY.—Each map and legal description shall
be on file and available for public inspection in (as appropriate)—
(A) the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management;
(B) the Office of the Nevada State Director of the
Bureau of Land Management;
(C) the Ely Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management;
and
(D) the Caliente Field Station of the Bureau of Land
Management.
(b) RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sections 202 and 503
of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1711, 1763), and subject to valid and existing rights,
the Secretary shall grant to the Southern Nevada Water
Authority and the Lincoln County Water District nonexclusive
rights-of-way to Federal land in Lincoln County and Clark
County, Nevada, for any roads, wells, well fields, pipes, pipelines,
pump stations, storage facilities, or other facilities and
systems that are necessary for the construction and operation
of a water conveyance system, as depicted on the map.(2) APPLICABLE LAW.—A
right-of-way granted under paragraph
(1) shall be granted in perpetuity and shall not require
the payment of rental.
(3) COMPLIANCE WITH NEPA.—Before granting a right-ofway
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.), including the identification and consideration of potential
impacts to fish and wildlife resources and habitat.
(c) WITHDRAWAL.—Subject to valid existing rights, the utility
corridors designated by subsection (a) are withdrawn from—
(1) all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under
the public land laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws;
and
(3) operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing
laws.
(d) STATE WATER LAW.—Nothing in this title shall—
(1) prejudice the decisions or abrogate the jurisdiction of
the Nevada or Utah State Engineers with respect to the appropriation,
permitting, certification, or adjudication of water
rights;
(2) preempt Nevada or Utah State water law; or
(3) limit or supersede existing water rights or interest
in water rights under Nevada or Utah State law.
(e) WATER RESOURCES STUDY.—
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00011 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2414 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through the United
States Geological Survey, the Desert Research Institute, and
a designee from the State of Utah shall conduct a study to
investigate ground water quantity, quality, and flow characteristics
in the deep carbonate and alluvial aquifers of White
Pine County, Nevada, and any groundwater basins that are
located in White Pine County, Nevada, or Lincoln County,
Nevada, and adjacent areas in Utah. The study shall—
(A) focus on a review of existing data and may include
new data;
(B) determine the approximate volume of water stored
in aquifers in those areas;
(C) determine the discharge and recharge characteristics
of each aquifer system;
(D) determine the hydrogeologic and other controls that
govern the discharge and recharge of each aquifer system;
and
(E) develop maps at a consistent scale depicting aquifer
systems and the recharge and discharge areas of such
systems.
(2) TIMING; AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary shall complete
a draft of the water resources report required under paragraph
(1) not later than 30 months after the date of the enactment
of this Act. The Secretary shall then make the draft report
available for public comment for a period of not less than
60 days. The final report shall be submitted to the Committee
on Resources in the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources in the Senate and
made available to the public not later than 36 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) AGREEMENT.—Prior to any transbasin diversion from
ground-water basins located within both the State of Nevada
and the State of Utah, the State of Nevada and the State
of Utah shall reach an agreement regarding the division of
water resources of those interstate ground-water flow system(s)
from which water will be diverted and used by the project.
The agreement shall allow for the maximum sustainable beneficial
use of the water resources and protect existing water
rights.
(4) FUNDING.—Section 4(e)(3)(A) of the Southern Nevada
Public Land Management Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2346; 116
Stat. 2007; 117 Stat. 1317) is amended—
(A) in clauses (ii), (iv), and (v), by striking ‘‘County’’
each place it appears and inserting ‘‘and Lincoln Counties’’;
(B) in clause (vi), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;
(C) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (viii); and
(D) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
‘‘(vii) for development of a water study for Lincoln
and White Pine Counties, Nevada, in an amount not
to exceed $6,000,000; and’’.
SEC. 302. RELOCATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND UTILITY CORRIDORS
LOCATED IN CLARK AND LINCOLN COUNTIES IN THE
STATE OF NEVADA.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
Utah.
Public
information.
Reports.
Deadlines.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00012 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2415 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(1) AGREEMENT.—The term ‘‘Agreement’’ means the land
exchange agreement between Aerojet-General Corporation and
the United States, dated July 14, 1988.
(2) CORRIDOR.—The term ‘‘corridor’’ means—
(A) the right-of-way corridor that is—
(i) identified in section 5(b)(1) of the Nevada-
Florida Land Exchange Authorization Act of 1988 (102
Stat. 55); and
(ii) described in section 14(a) of the Agreement;
(B) such portion of the utility corridor identified in
the 1988 Las Vegas Resource Management Plan located
south of the boundary of the corridor described in subparagraph
(A) as is necessary to relocate the right-of-way corridor
to the area described in subsection (c)(2); and
(C) such portion of the utility corridor identified in
the 2000 Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment
located north of the boundary of the corridor described
in subparagraph (A) as is necessary to relocate the rightof-
way corridor to the area described in subsection (c)(2).
(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(b) RELINQUISHMENT AND FAIR MARKET VALUE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, in accordance with
this section, relinquish all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the corridor on receipt of a payment in an
amount equal to the fair market value of the corridor (plus
any costs relating to the right-of-way relocation described in
this title).
(2) FAIR MARKET VALUE.—
(A) The fair market value of the corridor shall be
equal to the amount by which the value of the discount
described in the 1988 appraisal of the corridor that was
applied to the land underlying the corridor has increased,
as determined by the Secretary using the multiplier determined
under subparagraph (B).
(B) Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Appraisal Services Directorate of
the Department of the Interior shall determine an appropriate
multiplier to reflect the change in the value of the
land underlying the corridor between—
(i) the date of which the corridor was transferred
in accordance with the Agreement; and
(ii) the date of enactment of this Act.
(3) PROCEEDS.—Proceeds under this subsection shall be
deposited in the account established under section 103(b)(3).
(c) RELOCATION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall relocate to the area
described in paragraph (2), the portion of IDI–26446 and UTU–
73363 identified as NVN–49781 that is located in the corridor
relinquished under subsection (b)(1).
(2) DESCRIPTION OF AREA.—The area referred to in paragraph
(1) is the area located on public land west of United
States Route 93.
(3) REQUIREMENTS.—The relocation under paragraph (1)
shall be conducted in a manner that—
(A) minimizes engineering design changes; and
Deadline.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00013 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2416 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(B) maintains a gradual and smooth interconnection
of the corridor with the area described in paragraph (2).
(4) AUTHORIZED USES.—The Secretary may authorize the
location of any above ground or underground utility facility,
transmission lines, gas pipelines, natural gas pipelines, fiber
optics, telecommunications, water lines, wells (including monitoring
wells), cable television, and any related appurtenances
in the area described in paragraph (1).
(d) EFFECT.—The relocation of the corridor under this section
shall not require the Secretary to update the 1998 Las Vegas
Valley Resource Management Plan or the 2000 Caliente Management
Framework Plan Amendment.
(e) WAIVER OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall
waive the requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) that would otherwise be
applicable to the holders of the right-of-way corridor described
in subsection (a)(2)(A) with respect to an amendment to the legal
description of the right-of-way corridor.
TITLE IV—SILVER STATE OFF-HIGHWAY
VEHICLE TRAIL
SEC. 401. SILVER STATE OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE TRAIL.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(2) MAP.—The term ‘‘Map’’ means the map entitled ‘‘Lincoln
County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act Map’’
and dated October 1, 2004.
(3) TRAIL.—The term ‘‘Trail’’ means the system of trails
designated in subsection (b) as the Silver State Off-Highway
Vehicle Trail.
(b) DESIGNATION.—The trails that are generally depicted on
the Map are hereby designated as the ‘‘Silver State Off-Highway
Vehicle Trail’’.
(c) MANAGEMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall manage the Trail
in a manner that—
(A) is consistent with motorized and mechanized use
of the Trail that is authorized on the date of the enactment
of this Act pursuant to applicable Federal and State laws
and regulations;
(B) ensures the safety of the people who use the Trail;
and
(C) does not damage sensitive habitat or cultural
resources.
(2) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation
with the State, the County, and any other interested
persons, shall complete a management plan for the Trail.
(B) COMPONENTS.—The management plan shall—
(i) describe the appropriate uses and management
of the Trail;
(ii) authorize the use of motorized and mechanized
vehicles on the Trail; and
Deadline.
16 USC 1244
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00014 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2417 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
(iii) describe actions carried out to periodically
evaluate and manage the appropriate levels of use
and location of the Trail to minimize environmental
impacts and prevent damage to cultural resources from
the use of the Trail.
(3) MONITORING AND EVALUATION.—
(A) ANNUAL ASSESSMENT.—The Secretary shall
annually assess the effects of the use of off-highway
vehicles on the Trail and, in consultation with the Nevada
Division of Wildlife, assess the effects of the Trail on wildlife
and wildlife habitat to minimize environmental impacts
and prevent damage to cultural resources from the use
of the Trail.
(B) CLOSURE.—The Secretary, in consultation with the
State and the County, may temporarily close or permanently
reroute, subject to subparagraph (C), a portion of
the Trail if the Secretary determines that—
(i) the Trail is having an adverse impact on—
(I) natural resources; or
(II) cultural resources;
(ii) the Trail threatens public safety;
(iii) closure of the Trail is necessary to repair
damage to the Trail; or
(iv) closure of the Trail is necessary to repair
resource damage.
(C) REROUTING.—Portions of the Trail that are temporarily
closed may be permanently rerouted along existing
roads and trails on public lands currently open to motorized
use if the Secretary determines that such rerouting will
not significantly increase or decrease the length of the
Trail.
(D) NOTICE.—The Secretary shall provide information
to the public regarding any routes on the Trail that are
closed under subparagraph (B), including by providing
appropriate signage along the Trail.
(4) NOTICE OF OPEN ROUTES.—The Secretary shall ensure
that visitors to the Trail have access to adequate notice
regarding the routes on the Trail that are open through use
of appropriate signage along the Trail and through the distribution
of maps, safety education materials, and other information
considered appropriate by the Secretary.
(d) NO EFFECT ON NON-FEDERAL LAND AND INTERESTS IN
LAND.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect ownership,
management, or other rights related to non-Federal land
or interests in land.
(e) MAP ON FILE.—The Map shall be kept on file at the appropriate
offices of the Secretary.
TITLE V—OPEN SPACE PARKS
SEC. 501. OPEN SPACE PARK CONVEYANCE TO LINCOLN COUNTY,
NEVADA.
(a) CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding sections 202 and 203 of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1171, 1712), not later than 1 year after lands are identified by
the County, the Secretary shall convey to the County, subject to
Deadline.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00015 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2418 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
valid existing rights, for no consideration, all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the parcels of land described
in subsection (b).
(b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—Up to 15,000 acres of Bureau of
Land Management-managed public land in Lincoln County identified
by the county in consultation with the Bureau of Land Management.
(c) COSTS.—Any costs relating to any conveyance under subsection
(a), including costs for surveys and other administrative
costs, shall be paid by the County, or in accordance with section
103(b)(2) of this Act.
(d) USE OF LAND.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Any parcel of land conveyed to the County
under subsection (a) shall be used only for—
(A) the conservation of natural resources; or
(B) public parks.
(2) FACILITIES.—Any facility on a parcel of land conveyed
under subsection (a) shall be constructed and managed in a
manner consistent with the uses described in paragraph (1).
(e) REVERSION.—If a parcel of land conveyed under subsection
(a) is used in a manner that is inconsistent with the uses specified
in subsection (d), the parcel of land shall, at the discretion of
the Secretary, revert to the United States.
SEC. 502. OPEN SPACE PARK CONVEYANCE TO THE STATE OF NEVADA.
(a) CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding section 202 of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712), the
Secretary shall convey to the State of Nevada, subject to valid
existing rights, for no consideration, all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to the parcels of land described in
subsection (b), if there is a written agreement between the State
and Lincoln County, Nevada, supporting such a conveyance.
(b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The parcels of land referred to
in subsection (a) are the parcels of land depicted as ‘‘NV St. Park
Expansion Proposal’’ on the map entitled ‘‘Lincoln County Conservation,
Recreation, and Development Act Map’’ and dated October
1, 2004.
(c) COSTS.—Any costs relating to any conveyance under subsection
(a), including costs for surveys and other administrative
costs, shall be paid by the State.
(d) USE OF LAND.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Any parcel of land conveyed to the State
under subsection (a) shall be used only for—
(A) the conservation of natural resources; or
(B) public parks.
(2) FACILITIES.—Any facility on a parcel of land conveyed
under subsection (a) shall be constructed and managed in a
manner consistent with the uses described in paragraph (1).
(e) REVERSION.—If a parcel of land conveyed under subsection
(a) is used in a manner that is inconsistent with the uses specified
in subsection (d), the parcel of land shall, at the discretion of
the Secretary, revert to the United States.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00016 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
118 STAT. 2419 PUBLIC LAW 108–424—NOV. 30, 2004
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4593:
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–720 (Comm. on Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):
Oct. 4, considered and passed House.
Nov. 10, considered and passed Senate, amended.
Nov. 17, House concurred in Senate amendment.
Æ
TITLE VI—JURISDICTION TRANSFER
SEC. 601. TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION BETWEEN
THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND THE BUREAU OF
LAND MANAGEMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Administrative jurisdiction over the land
described in subsection (b) is transferred from the United States
Bureau of Land Management to the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service for inclusion in the Desert National Wildlife Range and
the administrative jurisdiction over the land described in subsection
(c) is transferred from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
to the United States Bureau of Land Management.
(b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The parcel of land referred to in
subsection (a) is the approximately 8,503 acres of land administered
by the United States Bureau of Land Management as generally
depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation,
and Development Act Map’’ and identified as ‘‘Lands to
be transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service’’ and dated October
1, 2004.
(c) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The parcel of land referred to in
subsection (a) is the approximately 8,382 acres of land administered
by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as generally depicted
on the map entitled ‘‘Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and
Development Act Map’’ and identified as ‘‘Lands to be transferred
to the Bureau of Land Management’’ and dated October 1, 2004.
(d) AVAILABILITY.—Each map and legal description shall be
on file and available for public inspection in (as appropriate)—
(1) the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Land Management;
(2) the Office of the Nevada State Director of the Bureau
of Land Management;
(3) the Ely Field Station of the Bureau of Land Management;
(4) the Caliente Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management;
(5) the Office of the Director of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service; and
(6) the Office of the Desert National Wildlife Complex.
Approved November 30, 2004.
16 USC 668dd
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:27 Dec 10, 2004 Jkt 039139 PO 00424 Frm 00017 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6580 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL424.108 BILLW PsN: PUBL424
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/snplma/pdf/legislation.Par.67217.File.dat/PL108_424.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
