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

PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE
Nevada Land Management Task Force
(Established Pursuant to Assembly Bill 227 enacted in the 2013 Legislative Session)
January 24, 2013, 1:00 p.m.
Nevada Association of Counties
304 South Minnesota Street
Carson City, NV 89703
AGENDA
Some Task Force members may attend via telephone or video from other locations. Items on the agenda
may be taken out of order. The Task Force may combine two or more agenda items for consideration.
The Task Force may remove an item from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the
agenda at any time.
Call to Order, Roll Call
1. Public Comment. Please Limit Comments to 3 Minutes
2. Approval of Agenda. For Possible Action.
3. Approval of the Minutes of the December 6th, 2013 Meeting of the Nevada Land Management
Task Force. For Possible Action. (Attachment)
4. Remarks from Congressman Mark Amodei, Representative from Nevada’s Second
Congressional District.
5. Presentation on State Regulatory Mechanisms in Place for State Owned and Private Land: Leo
Drozdoff, Director, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.
6. Discussion and Overview of Research Regarding the Cost to Transfer Federal Land to the State
of Nevada and as well as Costs of Management (Information to be Included in the Study Being
Conducted by the Nevada Land Management Task Force): Mike Baughman, Intertech Services
Corporation. (Attachment)
7. Update and Presentation on the Results of the Questionnaire Prioritizing and Identifying Issues
Related to a Transfer of Public Land in Nevada (Information to be Included in the Study Being
Conducted by the Nevada Land Management Task Force): Dagny Stapleton, NACO.
8. Discussion on Issues Related to a Transfer of Public Lands from the Federal Government to
Nevada Including the Transfer of Multiple Uses and Valid Existing Rights.
9. Discussion on Issues Related to a Transfer of Public Lands from the Federal Government to
Nevada Including Options for Disposal and Sale of Lands.
10. Discussion on Which Lands to Include in a Transfer of Public Lands from the Federal
Government to the State of Nevada.
11. Discussion on Timeline of Tasks to Accomplish by the Task Force Prior to Summer 2014,
Including a Discussion of Accomplishments to Date, Consensus Needed, and Tasks Outstanding.
(Attachment)
12. Discussion on Content and Presenters for the Task Force Update to the Nevada Legislature’s
Interim Committee on Public Lands.

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

Item 3 . Backup
Approval of the Minutes of the December 6th, 2013 Meeting of the Nevada Land Management
Task Force. For Possible Action.
Attachments:
Preliminary Draft Minutes of the December 6th Meeting of the Nevada Land Management
Task Force.

Regional Transportation
Commission of Southern
Nevada Administration
Building
600 South Grand Central Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89106
December 6, 2013

1
CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF MOTIONS PASSED ................................................................................................................................. 3
SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS ASSIGNED .................................................................................................................. 3
CALL TO ORDER ............................................................................................................................................................... 4
ROLL CALL ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4
OPENING COMMENTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
PUBLIC COMMENT ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
APPROVAL OF AGENDA ................................................................................................................................................. 6
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 1, 2013 MEETING MINUTES OF THE NEVADA LAND
MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE ........................................................................................................................................ 6
PRESENTATION ON PUBLIC LAND TRANSFER ISSUES SPECIFIC TO CLARK COUNTY INCLUDING
PROPOSAL TO TRANSFER PUBLIC LAND ON WHICH PERMANENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT FACTILITIES
EXIST................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
PRESENTATION ON THE SOUTHERN NEVADA PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT (SNPLMA) ................... 7
PRESENTATION ON THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE DEMAND
FOR TRANSFER OF ALL FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS ................................................................................................... 8
PRESENTATION ON THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE DEMAND FOR
TRANSFER OF ALL FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS ........................................................................................................... 9
DISCUSSION ON OPTIONS FOR MANAGEMENT OF ANY PUBLIC LANDS TRANSFERRED FROM THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO NEVADA ...................................................................................................................... 10
INTERTECH/NACO LETTER TO AGENCIES AND STAKEHOLDERS SOLICITING FEEDBACK REGARDING
TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS ISSUES ...................................................................................................................... 12
DISCUSSION ON THE OUTLINE AND TIMELINE OF THE TASK FORCE REPORT/STUDY TO BE PRODUCED
BY INTERTECH SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................ 13
DISCUSSION ON AND APPROVAL OF DATES AND LOCATIONS FOR FUTURE TASK FORCE MEETINGS .... 13
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF TOPICS FOR FUTURE TASK FORCE MEETINGS ....................... 14
PUBLIC COMMENT ......................................................................................................................................................... 14
ADJOURNMENT .............................................................................................................................................................. 15
ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15
ATTACHMENTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 16
Attachment 1 – Meeting Attendance ............................................................................................................................... 16
Attachment 2 – Michele Burkett Public Comment ......................................................................................................... 18
Attachment 3 – Sandra Dyan Public Comment ............................................................................................................... 20
Attachment 4 – David Mahon Public Comment ............................................................................................................. 22
Attachment 5 – Kristin Kosacek Public Comment .......................................................................................................... 23
Attachment 6 – John Marchese Public Comment ........................................................................................................... 25
Attachment 7 – Terri Roberts Public Comment .............................................................................................................. 26
Nevada Land Management Task Force December 6, 2013

2
Attachment 8 – Mark Squillace Presentation .................................................................................................................. 29
Attachment 9 – Public Lands Management Alternative Options and Decision Hierarchy Tool ...................................... 33
Attachment 10 – Congressional Transfer of Public Lands to the State of Nevada: A Report of the Nevada Land
Management Task Force to the Legislative Committee on Public Lands........................................................................ 34

3
SUMMARY OF MOTIONS PASSED
The following table provides a summary of the motions passed during the meeting.
December 6, 2013 Nevada Land Management Task Force
General Topic or
Action
Motions Passed
Page of
Meeting
Minutes
Approval of the
Meeting’s Agenda
Chairman Dahl accepted a motion from the floor which was seconded to accept the
agenda for the meeting. The motion passed unanimously by a voice vote.
6
November 1, 2013
Task Force
Meeting Minutes
Chairman Dahl accepted a motion from the floor which was seconded to accept the
minutes from the November 1, 2013, Task Force meeting. The motion passed
unanimously by a voice vote.
6
Meeting
Adjournment
Chair Dahl accepted a motion which was seconded by Commissioner Laurie Carson
(White Pine County) to adjourn the meeting.
15
SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS ASSIGNED
The following action items were assigned during the meeting.
General Topic
or Action
Action
Party
Assigned
Action
Page of
Meeting
Minutes
NACO/Intertech
Services, Inc.
Letter to
Stakeholders
NACO asked the Task Force if there were any additional
stakeholders who should receive the letter and questionnaire.
Task Force
Members
12
NACO/Intertech
Services, Inc.
Letter to
Stakeholders
Send the letter and questionnaire to all Task Force members,
which can be posted on their County web sites at their
discretion.
Dagny
Stapleton
12
Topics for
Future Meetings
Topics for future Task Force meetings should be e-mailed to
Dagny Stapleton at the NACO office in Carson City.
Task Force
Members
14

4
CALL TO ORDER
Demar Dahl, Chairman of the Nevada Land Management Task Force and Elko County Commissioner, called the
meeting to order at 10:08 AM by asking Lander County Commissioner Patsy Waits to lead the participants in the Pledge
of Allegiance. Chair Dahl welcomed and thanked everyone for being part of the Task Force’s efforts, and identified
locations1 across the State where people were joining via video conference. Chair Dahl introduced Tony Rampton, Utah’s
Assistant Attorney General.
ROLL CALL
Dagny Stapleton, Deputy Director of the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), conducted a roll call of the Task
Force (Attachment 1) to ensure a quorum was present. Attachment 1 also identifies other individuals attending the
meeting.
OPENING COMMENTS
Chair Dahl reminded everyone that Nelson Mandela, a hero to Chair Dahl and great man who taught many people around
the world how to get along and work together, died yesterday. One of the Nelson Mandela’s quotes that Chair Dahl
remembers was “education is one of the most powerful weapons for changing the world.” Chair Dahl believes the Task
Force has become educated as it continues to obtain information concerning the transfer of public lands to the State,
consolidating that information, and passing it along to the legislature.
An individual who did not identify himself mentioned that Vivian Freeman, an Assemblywoman in the Nevada State
Legislature from 1987 through 2001, also recently passed away.
Public Comment Speakers
Terri Robertson
Nancy Gentis
Friends of Sloan
PUBLIC COMMENT
Two speakers (inset to right) provided comment during the meeting’s first
public comment period. Each speaker was limited to three minutes for their
presentation and was encouraged to submit a written statement. In addition,
five public comments were received by e-mail (Attachments 2 through 6),
which were read into the record.
Terri Robertson provided a written statement (Attachment 7). Not included
in her written statement but raised in her verbal presentation was the fact that the Task Force comprises of 17
representatives of which 16 represent rural Nevada with one representing Clark County. Considering the State’s
population of 2,758,931, the single Clark County Task Force member represents 2,000,759 residents while the remaining
members each represent 758,172 residents. She believes the Task Force is representative of how the Legislature works -
where rural counties gather together and work against Clark County, which, she believes, is the “financial engine” running
the State. Ms. Robertson also indicated that Chair Dahl who has supported turning federal lands over to the State must be
very happy serving as Chair of the Task Force.
She believes the only purpose of the transfer of public lands to the State is to allow the State to sell those lands into
private ownership. She expressed how people who move from states with little or no public land to Nevada must feel
when they can walk, ride, and learn to love the public lands in Nevada, which are the State’s greatest treasure that must be
preserved and protected. She isn’t concerned with the hardships experienced by ranchers and others who depend on the
1 NACO office in Carson City, Humboldt County Courthouse in Winnemucca, Elko County Complex, and Mark Squillace, a law
professor from Boulder, Colorado.

5
public lands but cares about being able to drive and walk where she wanted and to continue to live in a State she loves.
She will be grateful to see the end of the ridiculous idea of transferring the federal lands to the State.
Nancy Gentis representing Friends of Sloan Canyon indicated that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has a
“multiple use” philosophy for managing the public lands, which allows everyone to use those lands. She believes that
under private ownership only certain people would be able to continue using those lands. She doesn’t believe Nevada has
the resources to manage the land if it were transferred to the State. Having moved to Nevada from Indiana, she has come
to love the deserts of Nevada and would like to keep the public lands available to everyone.
Chair Dahl introduced and welcomed Nevada Assemblyman Paul Aizley, who is a member of the Nevada Interim
Legislative Public Lands Committee. To date, Task Force meetings have provided a good opportunity to hear all sides
concerning the issue concerning the transfer lands from the federal government to the State. The Task Force has been and
continues to be conscientious of involving and allowing all stakeholders to participate in the process.
Chair Dahl indicated that a presentation at a previous Task Force meeting from Mike Baughman of Intertech Services,
Inc., addressed a proposal to broaden the scope of two 1990s studies addressing the possible transfer of public lands.
Based on a recommendation from the Task Force, NACO has entered into a contract with Intertech Services, Inc. to
update and broaden the 1994 study, which has shown the State of Nevada can afford to manage its public lands. When
asked by Chair Dahl, Dagny Stapleton indicated Intertech Services, Inc.’s draft report is expected in the spring, 2014 with
the final report ready for submission to the Public Lands Committee during the summer. Chair Dahl requested the draft
report be received as soon as possible to allow anyone wishing to present additional information or a position which
refutes the findings and facts in the study have sufficient time to do so prior to the submission of the final report to the
Public Lands Committee. Chair Dahl invited those who have information or a position which can refute the information
presented at Task Force meetings to submit such information to the Task Force as soon as possible.
Terri Robertson, a member of the audience, asked how Intertech Services, Inc. was chosen to complete the study that
shows Nevada has the money to manage the public lands. Chair Dahl explained that the Task Force had been made aware
of a study completed in the 1990s addressing the economics of the transfer of public lands, which was one task given to
the Task Force by the State Legislature. Subsequently, the Task Force received the presentation addressing the 1990’s
study after which the Task Force determined the study needed to be updated and broadened to be included in their effort.
Chair Dahl indicated that he brought the study up at this meeting to ensure everyone was aware of and had opportunity to
review the 1994 – 1996 study, which is available on the NACO website (www.nvnaco.org). Chair Dahl also indicated the
updated report will be made available to everyone. Chair Dahl invited everyone to review the updated report, once it is
available, and, if they disagree with its findings, to challenge the report. At that point, Terri Robertson threatened to leave
the meeting at which time Commissioner Tom Collins (Clark County) welcomed everyone and indicated he was glad
that everyone had opportunity to meet Ms. Robertson, who, he believes, has been instrumental in completing many good
things in Clark County. Commissioner Collins made an offer to have his office as well as Marci Henson from Clark
County obtain the background information referenced by Chair Dahl. Ms. Robertson indicated that she was more
interested in understanding the process by which Intertech Services, Inc. was given tax dollars to complete this study.
Commissioner Collins indicated his office could obtain that information. Commissioner Collins indicated that selection
of Intertech Services, Inc. to complete the updated study was completed subjectively. Ms. Robertson asked if she could
be allowed to ask Mr. Baughman’s party affiliation. Chair Dahl reminded everyone that one of the first principles agreed
upon by the Task Force is that they would not tolerate rude behavior to which Ms. Robertson indicated she was not being
rude but a concerned citizen asking viable questions. Chair Dahl reminded Ms. Robertson that she had and will have
opportunity to participate in the public comment sessions during the meeting.

6
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Chairman Dahl accepted a motion from the floor which was seconded to accept the agenda for the meeting.
The motion passed unanimously by a voice vote.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 1, 2013 MEETING MINUTES OF THE
NEVADA LAND MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
MOTION: Chairman Dahl accepted a motion from the floor which was seconded to accept the minutes from the
November 1, 2013, Task Force meeting. The motion passed unanimously by a voice vote.
PRESENTATION ON PUBLIC LAND TRANSFER ISSUES SPECIFIC TO CLARK COUNTY
INCLUDING PROPOSAL TO TRANSFER PUBLIC LAND ON WHICH PERMANENT LOCAL
GOVERNMENT FACTILITIES EXIST
Scott Higginson, representing the FourSquare Group, is a consultant to the Clark County Regional
Flood Control and was also speaking on behalf of other entities in Clark County.
The purpose of Mr. Higginson’s presentation, which is available on the NACO website, was to give
the Task Force an understanding of the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) process, which is
used significantly in Clark County to allow local government entities access to federal lands to build
permanent facilities. Mr. Higginson recommended an alternative approach that he hopes will be
included in the Task Force’s recommendation to the Legislative Public Lands Committee that
Scott Higginson
federal legislation be recommended that allows the fee title ownership of the federal lands where permanent public
facilities have been constructed through the R&PP Act or granted through Right-of-Way applications be turned over to the
entity who built those permanent structures.
Questions
Following his presentation, Mr. Higginson addressed questions from the Task Force.
1. Commissioner Tom Collins (Clark County) asked how many Counties have access to these assets. Commissioner
Nancy Boland (Esmeralda County) indicated Esmeralda County has access to the R&PP program and has rights-of-way
for utilities, water treatment plant, etc. She indicated Clark County is fortunate to get R&PP leases as they tend
not to be issued to rural counties. Mr. Higginson indicated that the BLM has been supportive of R&PP leases, which
are site specific, but have expressed concern with using such leases for linear Rights-of-Way that go across large
expanses of land.
An unidentified person indicated some have expressed concern that entities get the use of federal land for a small or
no fee as compared to if the State had ownership of the land, the State or County could develop a fee. In response,
Mr. Higginson indicated that if the State were to obtain ownership of the federal lands, it would probably hear the
same local government request that they shouldn’t be charged a fee as the project(s) are for a public benefit and these
are public lands. Nancy Boland (Esmeralda County) indicated the federal government does charge a fee even to
other government entities.
2. Commissioner Paul Mathews (Lincoln County) asked if there is a mechanism for obtaining patent to the land
containing more permanent structures. Mr. Higginson indicated the entity who has an R&PP lease on the land has
“first right to buy” the land but most local governments don’t have the financial resources to meet the appraised value
of that property. Commissioner Mathews clarified his question by asking if the entity would be required to complete

7
the appraisal/sale process rather than just receive a patent transfer. Mr. Higginson indicated the appraisal/sale
process would be required.
Commissioner Virgil Arellano (Lyon County) informed Chair Dahl he would be leaving the video conference at
approximately 12:30 PM but would like some time prior to leaving to speak on some issues.
3. Commissioner Vaughn Hartung (Washoe County) indicated Washoe County does not have any permanent
4. Mike Stremler (Pershing County) indicated that the Task Force has been asked to approach this effort as if the land
will be transferred to the State and to assess the implications of such a transfer. He asked if Mr. Higginson foresaw
any downfalls for Clark County if the lands were managed by the State. Mr. Higginson believes Clark County would
have some of the same issues as they currently have with BLM which is why he is recommending the title for the land
on which permanent public facilities are built revert to the local government entity. Mr. Stremler recommended to
Chair Dahl that a list of such recommendations should be maintained.
5. Commissioner Tom Collins (Clark County) explained that the appropriate steps would be for the Task Force to
recommend the State Legislature pass legislation addressing the suggestion made by Mr. Higginson while also
encouraging Congress to pass federal legislation turning the land on which permanent public facilities exist over to
the local entities who own that those facilities. Mr. Higginson stated that such an action would require federal
legislation; not State legislation. The Task Force would develop a recommendation requesting the State Legislature’s
support for federal legislation to accomplish the transfer of ownership of lands containing permanent public facilities
to the entity owning those facilities.
PRESENTATION ON THE SOUTHERN NEVADA PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT
(SNPLMA)
Karla Norris, Assistant District Manager for the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act
(SNPLMA) located in the BLM’s Southern Nevada District Office in Las Vegas, summarized the
history surrounding disposal of public lands managed by the BLM and provided an overview of
the SNPLMA legislation and program. Her presentation is available on the NACO website.
FLPMA Management Purposes
 Promote multiple use and sustained
yield;
 Protect the scientific, scenic, historical,
ecological environment, air and
atmosphere, water resources, and
archaeological values;
 Preserve the lands in their natural
condition to provide food and habitat
for fish, wildlife, and domestic animals;
and,
 Provide for outdoor recreation and
human occupancy and use.
facilities under R&PP lease.
Highlights of the presentation addressed various pieces
of legislation in place prior to 1976, which required the
disposal of public lands to facilitate settlement of the
Karla Norris
western United States. With passage of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), Congress declared public lands should be
retained in federal ownership, unless, as a result of land use planning, disposal
would serve the national interest. FLPMA also declared that the public lands
would be managed for several purposes (inset to right).
SNPLMA was enacted in 1998 to provide for the orderly disposal of certain
federal lands in Clark County and to expand the sale proceeds and other
revenues for purposes identified in the Act. Over 15 years of implementation,
sale of public lands in Clark County have generated over $3.3 billion which has

8
During the presentation, Commissioner Tom Collins (Clark County) indicated that one of the issues within Clark
County is the emphasis placed by BLM on trails versus other more useful park amenities. Commissioner Collins
emphasized there are parks in Clark County that have other needs and it is easier to get trails or sidewalks approved than
other park amenities. He suggested that if there is another amendment to SNPLMA, he would like to see that issue
addressed. In response, Ms. Norris indicated that many types of park amenities are eligible for SNPLMA funding. BLM
considers the projects as submitted by the local government entity. There isn’t a need to change the legislation but to
ensure other park amenities are included in the local government’s request. She encouraged the Commissioner to attend a
SNPLMA Executive Committee meeting where projects are discussed and ranked for SNPLMA funding. The current
priority within the Parks, Trails, and Natural Areas category, where most park projects are funded, is “serving underserved
communities” which include most of the smaller remote communities in southern Nevada.
1. Commissioner Tom Collins (Clark County) highlighted that there have been some extremely nice facilitates
constructed using SNPLMA funding including the Clark County Shooting Complex for $63 million. He expressed a
concern that when there were huge amounts of money available, many projects were too fluffy and not as practical as
they could have been.
PRESENTATION ON THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE
DEMAND FOR TRANSFER OF ALL FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS
Chair Dahl explained that since people have been talking about the transfer of public lands to the State, there has been an
issue as to the constitutionality of the proposal. Some take the position that it is not constitutional while overs firmly
believe it is. To address this issue, the Task Force asked two speakers to present arguments as the constitutionality issue.
Legal Questions to be Answered
1. What was the intent of the State’s
enabling act that the federal
government would, within a
reasonable period of time, dispose of
the public lands?
2. If the response to Question 1 is “Yes”,
may the United States Congress get
out from underneath the contract using
the property clause of the United State
Constitution?
3. If the responses to Questions 1 and 2
is “Yes”, what is the State’s remedy
because the United States government
is not disposing of the public lands?
been used to approve over 1,200 projects in 8 major categories2 over 14 Rounds.
Questions
Following her presentation, Ms. Norris addressed questions from the Task Force.
Tony Rampton, Utah’s Assistant Attorney General, addressed why he
believes the transfer of public lands is constitutional.
Mr. Rampton indicated there are three basic questions
which must be answered to address the constitutionality
issue (inset to right.)
Mr. Rampton indicated that fundamentally enabling
legislation for all of the western public land States’ are
Tony Rampton
identical. In addressing Question 1, Mr. Rampton indicated the Supreme Court
found in 1980 that the State’s enabling acts equaite to contracts between the
Federal government and the State within which each party entering into the
contact is entitled to be benefit of their bargain. When defining the “bargain”
struck in the enabling legislation, Mr. Rampton reveiwed two clauses of
Nevada’s enabling act, which, if read together, can be interrupted two different
ways. One as mandating the federal government to dispose of the public lands
or, secondly, as the federal government having discretion to dispose of the
2 Parks, Trails and Natural Areas; Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; Lake Tahoe Restoration Act Projects;
Hazardous Fuels Reduction & Wildfire Prevention; Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration Project; Environmentally Sensitive Land
Acquisitions; Capital Improvements; and Conservation Initiatives.

9
public lands. To answer the ambiguity raised by these interpretations, one must look at the historical context in which the
contract (enabling language) was developed. Mr. Rampton provided a summary of the historical context at the time of the
Nevada and Utah enabling legistation. Mr. Rampton believes that disposal of the federal lands was clearly intended by
both the United States government and the State at the time of the enabling legislation.
To answer the second question, it is important to review the body of property clause case law over the past 200 years,
which Mr. Rampton indicated has been interpreted very broadly. He reviewed various property clauses cases including
Kleppe versus New Mexico (1976). None of the property clause case law has addressed the question if the property
clause can trump a State’s enabling act. There are two recent Supreme Court cases which deal with enabling acts,3 which
may provide some direction to the question of if the property clause trumps a State’s enabling legislation.
In summary, Mr. Rampton indicated there is a “good faith” argument that could be made as to the constitutionality of the
transfer of public lands to the State. It would be a tough case to make as there is precedence going against the argument
but it is a case he would be willing to make in a court of law. Currently, the United States Supreme Court looks fondly on
States’ rights and, he believes, there is a possibility if that the property clause question were presented to this Supreme
Court, it could rule in the State’s favor. Mr. Rampton also indicated that winning the property clause question does not
settle the matter. The last (third) question which must be answered is “what is the State’s remedy?” Identifying the
remedy is another tough question which would need to be addressed.
In closing, Mr. Rampton stressed that the issues shouldn’t be resolved based on emotion or ideology but on pragmatism
and the law. He believes Nevada is approaching the issue appropriately by being careful and taking things one step at a
time. He commends the State for its approach to an important question having a major effect on things such as revenues,
education, and jobs.
PRESENTATION ON THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE
DEMAND FOR TRANSFER OF ALL FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS
Mark Squillace, a Professor of Law at the University of Colorado, provided a verbal presentation and
submitted a written statement (Attachment 8) addressing why he believes the transfer of public lands is
unconstitutional.
In summary, Mr. Squillace addressed two important sections of Nevada’s enabling legislation – Sections
4 and 10 – as well as pertinent property clause case law.4 Mr. Squillace closed his presentation by
suggesting other alternative avenues such as land exchange or working with Congress to change the
General Mining Act to increase the State’s control over certain public lands that it believes would benefit
Mark Squillace
from closer State management.
Following Mr. Squillace’s presentation, Mr. Rampton was provided opportunity to make any additional arguments. In
response, Mr. Rampton indicated the “forever” disclaimer language appearing in Nevada’s enabling act also appears in
every single enabling act in the country going back to the original thirteen colonies. In order for the federal government
to obtain a marketable title so it can disposal of the public land, it first needs the States to cede the lands to the federal
government and disclaim title to the public lands. Without such a disclaimer, the federal government could not do what it
agreed to do in the enabling legislation. Mr. Rampton also indicated the Section 10 language of the Nevada enabling act -
“which shall be sold” – can be read one of two ways, which makes it an ambiguous clause. He doesn’t understand Mr.
Squillace’s argument that Section 10 is not an ambiguous clause. Mr. Rampton indicated he doesn’t have concerns with
the characterization of the body of property clause law decided by the U. S. Supreme Court as presented by Mr. Squillace.
3 Andrus v. the State of Utah (1980) and Hawaii v. the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (2009).
4 United States v. Gratiot (1840); United States v. San Francisco (1940); Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976); Pollard v. Hagan (1845).

10
Mr. Rampton doesn’t place stock in the Pollard v. Hagan case (1845) that was an “equal footing” case. It is important to
recognize that none of the property clause cases dealt with enabling acts and he doesn’t believe Mr. Squillace’s suggested
alternative avenues would be viable.
Following Mr. Rampton’s response, Mr. Squillace was given opportunity to make additional arguments. Mr. Squillace
indicated he and Mr. Rampton will have to “agree to disagree” in relation to the language in Section 10 of the enabling
legislation and that there is no credible argument that the State’s enabling legislation trumps federal law.
Questions
Following these presentations, Mr. Rampton and Mr. Squillace addressed questions from the Task Force.
1. Mike Stremler (Pershing County) indicated that the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of New Mexico
in a 1978 water law decision which found the State owned the water. His question to Mr. Rampton was if water is
considered a property issue and, secondly, would the definition of the U. S. Supreme Court that “lands with rights and
claims attached are not public lands” put a “cloud” on the title of the land based on different laws passed by Congress
such as the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 where a grazing preference was adjudicated.
Mr. Rampton responded by stating that comparing water and land is like comparing “apples” and “oranges.” You
cannot use western water law concepts for land. It is generally agreed across the west that the water initially belongs
to the States’ subject to certain reserved water rights held by Federal and tribal governments. In response to his
second question addressing the U. S. Supreme Court’s definition of “land with rights and claims are not public lands,”
Mr. Rampton indicated that he was not familiar with the definition but it was pretty well agreed that BLM land is
public land even though it is subject to grazing rights, rights-of-way, etc. Mr. Rampton does not believe an argument
could be made that it is not public land.
2. Commissioner Tom Collins (Clark County) indicated that one key aspects left out of the discussion was denial of
access to public land. The example provided was the closure of roads preventing access to ranch properties which
have existed on public lands for generations. Mr. Rampton responded by indicating he is the leading attorney for the
Utah Attorney General’s office concerning 26 law suits brought against the federal government to protect rights-of-way
under Revised Statute 2477 for over 12,000 roads, which is an issue similar to the example given.
DISCUSSION ON OPTIONS FOR MANAGEMENT OF ANY PUBLIC LANDS TRANSFERRED
FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO NEVADA
Mr. Mike Baughman from Intertech Services, Inc. provided an overview of a decision hierarchy tool (Attachment 9) that
might be useful to frame what Task Force members view as a management structure for the transfer of public lands. Mr.
Baughman described how the decision hierarchy tool should be used. Under Option 1, there are four choices: A1 – Full
Title, A2 – Partial Title, A3 – Land Use Control, and A4 – Contract Management. Once one choice is selected, the person
would consider the choices outlined in Option B and continue in that manner until Option Q is reached. It was suggested
Task Force members complete an exercise of working through the various options outlined in the hierarchy tool. At the
end of the process, the person would have a concept of their vision of how the transfer of public lands would look and the
management might work.
Mr. Baughman suggested having each member of the Task Force complete their analysis using the decision hierarchy tool
and send the results to NACO within the next 30 days. The inputs could be reviewed to determine commonalities of
approach and where there are significant differences. Additional time would need to be spent resolving the differences.

11
At the Task Force’s November 1st meeting, presentations were given by the Sierra Club, Nevada Conservation League,
and the Farm Bureau. From those presentations and other discussions, Chair Dahl believes the Task Force members are
not that far apart on many of the issues. One concern expressed at several meetings including comments made today
addresses the loss of access to the public lands. Chair Dahl indicated the Task Force is pretty much in agreement that
access to public lands transferred to the State should be continue as well as the multiple uses that occur on those lands.
Uses occurring on the lands prior to the transfer should be allowed after the transfer of the lands to the State has been
completed.
Another statement heard during the meetings is the public lands belong to everyone in the United States; not just to
Nevadans. Chair Dahl indicated that if they continue to be public lands after transfer to the State, everyone in the United
States will still be able to come to Nevada to hunt and fish, and use these lands.
In a conversation with a friend in the Sierra Club, Chair Dahl was told that they (the Sierra Club) doesn’t trust the State
and that they have more faith in the federal government to protect things such as access, Rights-of-Way, etc.
Commissioner Paul Mathews (Lincoln County) asked how the transfer of public land from the federal government to
the State solves the frustrations felt by those who currently work with the BLM. Pressures felt by BLM from outside
entities such as Western Watersheds, Sierra Club, various laws (Threatened/Endangered Species Act, etc.,) court cases,
etc., forces BLM to do what they do. He believes that after the transfer of public lands, we might be in the same position
but with a different agency (the State). As an example, he addressed a spring in Lincoln County where many local
citizens are asking the County to assume management responsibility for the spring so citizens have more access and more
local input into its management. From Commissioner Mathew’s perspective, the County shouldn’t take responsibility for
the spring because of the small endangered fish in the spring and the other federal agencies involved in management of
that fish. He asked the question “Have we solved the real problem with the transfer of land from one agency to another or
do we bring all that baggage with us?” In response, Chair Dahl indicated two things would change with the transfer of
public lands to the State (1) how sage grouse would be managed and (2) ability to sit down and discuss issues with
someone face-to-face within the State versus having to travel to Washington. Commissioner Mathews agreed with Chair
Dahl concerning the concept of management control closer to the ground is better but suggested we should recognize the
constraints that BLM is required to work under and try to cure some of those problems as well.
Commissioner Boland (Esmeralda County) followed up on the concern expressed by Commissioner Mathews stating
that it is her personal feeling that we could be moving from one disaster to another; however, she felt Commission
Mathew’s concern is one the Task Force should discuss more thoroughly. She believes that as the Task Force discusses
additional management issues, Commissioner Mathew’s concern will also be more thoroughly addressed.
Commissioner Jerri Tipton (Mineral County) stated there are many individuals who don’t trust the State but would like
to discuss what would need to be changed at the State level to guarantee access, multiple use, etc. to the transferred lands
under State management. She suggested that at each meeting there be discussion on specific portions of State law and
how those portions should be amended to resolve issues. Chair Dahl responded that as the Task Force works through
proposals received from Intertech Services, Inc., there will be opportunity to do what Commissioner Tipton suggested.
Commissioner Laurie Carson (White Pine County) indicated she is interested in discussing how individual counties
will be able to participate in identifying the administration and management of the property that the counties wish to have
acquired.
Commissioner Tom Collins (Clark County) indicated most of the federal grazing permits in Clark County have been
sold to Clark County. During his years in the State legislature, Commissioner Collins found that many rural northern
Nevada Senators would support some silly socialist ideas saying that it will never get to my county only to find that in 10
to 20 years it might. He believes term limits have taken away much of the ‘long term’ thinking concerning a course of

12
action. Long-term legislators looked out for the next generation and now, with term limits, people are more focused on
what can they can do to get re-elected so they may get elected for something else. He indicated these statements were
made partially facetiously but also with some sincerity. As Clark County contains the majority of the legislators in the
State, one might go to Carson City to pass legislation but it will be coming to Clark County. He has seen BLM close
different things for lack of funding but there are 28 to 78 species such as the Moapa Dace, Bear Poppies, hybrid guppies,
etc. where Clark County and Washoe County can’t handle them all so he stated “God Bless the rest of them.” He believes
many State Governors are more actively involved in the agricultural component of their government because that is where
they derive a majority of revenue income. He believes this belief is not appreciated in the State of Nevada. If the Task
Force goes along with recommendations to the Legislature which go back to Washington, D. C. for a bill to be passed, it
must include some guidelines on the limitations and abilities of the State as well as incorporating the multiple use
standards for State/County management. He would like to see rural counties manage their land and have the abilities to
succeed. Another aspect he would like to see incorporated into the final report is that if a person wants to save the wild
horses then they need to compensate the ranchers just as the sheep farmers are compensated for damages caused by
coyotes. He doesn’t believe the State will close down as much land as the federal government just because they don’t
have the money to take care of it.
INTERTECH/NACO LETTER TO AGENCIES AND STAKEHOLDERS SOLICITING FEEDBACK
REGARDING TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS ISSUES
Dagny Stapleton discussed efforts currently underway to obtain key
feedback from agencies and key stakeholders. During preparation of
the 1994 Eureka County report, a scoping letter and questionnaire was
sent to stakeholders across the state. Responses received were used to
develop the final 1994 report. Using a similar approach, NACO is
working with Intertech Services, Inc. to update the 1994 questionnaire.
Recently, a letter with the questionnaire was sent via e-mail to
stakeholders (see inset to right). NACO asked the Task Force if there
were any additional stakeholders who should receive the letter and
questionnaire. A suggestion was made to put the letter and
questionnaire on NACO’s website.
Stakeholders Receiving Questionnaire Letter
 Nevada State Lands
 Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
 Nevada Department of Minerals
 Nevada Department of Taxation
 Nevada State Budget Office
 Nevada Division of Forestry
 Nevada State Office of Energy
 Nevada Division of Wildlife
 Nevada State Parks
 Nevada Department of Transportation
 Nevada Department of Education
 Grazing Board
 Southwest Gas
 NV Energy
 Newmont
 Nevada Geothermal Association
 Nevada Conservation League
 Barrick Gold
 Union Pacific Railroad
 Sierra Club
 Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife
 Nevada Mining Association
 Nevada Powersport
 Regional economic development authorities
 Sheriffs and Chief’s Association
 Nevada Assessors Association
 Nevada Farm Bureau
 Nevada Cattleman’s Association
 Nevada Land Resources
 Governor’s Office of Economic Development
An unidentified person asked if NACO would like to have the counties
complete the questionnaire. Dagny responded that it would not be
necessary as the questionnaire is being sent by the Task Force, which
has County representation. However, the counties are welcome to
complete the questionnaire if they would like.
Nancy Boland (Esmeralda County) suggested the letter and
questionnaire be posted on the Esmeralda County’s website or
distributed via e-mail in order to obtain input from citizens. Dagny
indicated she would send the letter and questionnaire to all Task Force
members, which can be posted at their discretion.

13
DISCUSSION ON THE OUTLINE AND TIMELINE OF THE TASK FORCE REPORT/STUDY TO BE
PRODUCED BY INTERTECH SERVICES
Mr. Baughman from Intertech Services, Inc. presented a summary of the 2-page preliminary draft document (Attachment
10) entitled Congressional Transfer of Public Lands to the State of Nevada: A Report of the Nevada Land Management
Task Force to the Legislative Committee on Public Lands, which contains an outline for the Task Force’s Report to the
Legislative Public Lands Committee. One of the tasks in the contract was to produce this outline and, ultimately,
Intertech Services, Inc. will be working with NACO staff to prepare the report which will be submitted by the Task Force.
The outline is structured on (1) reports already submitted by the Public Lands Committee to the full legislature over the
past three or four sessions, which should facilitate efforts of the Public Lands Committee and (2) sections III, IV, and V in
the draft outline address the three areas the Task Force was specifically tasked to address by Assembly Bill 227.
DISCUSSION ON AND APPROVAL OF DATES AND LOCATIONS FOR FUTURE TASK FORCE
MEETINGS
Chair Dahl indicated the Task Force has dealt with a multitude of problems while using the video conferencing
technology. When the Task Force first began meeting, it agreed the meetings would be held around the State to facilitate
people’s participation. In hindsight, it appears people can get to the meetings through video conferencing only if the
video conferencing works. It is important that the Task Force meet where the video conference technology works. Jeff
Fontaine, Executive Director of NACO, indicated having the meeting where the technology can be managed onsite is
important for a successful broadcast. If the meetings were held in Carson City, he believes, the quality and reliability of
the video will be greater for people to participate via video from remote locations. Chair Dahl indicated that moving the
meeting locations around the State has worked against the Task Force, which would be better served to have the next
meeting in Carson City rather than Fallon.
It was noted that the staff in Las Vegas had worked hard to ensure a good video experience by testing every connection
and working with the NACO staff in Carson City but, for some unknown reason, the Las Vegas location was dropped
from the video broadcast for a few seconds every four to five minutes. It appears Las Vegas was the only location where
that issue occurred. The meeting in Reno worked well as it was streamed live over the Internet but there were issues
encountered when meeting in Winnemucca.
Chair Dahl indicated the next meeting is currently scheduled for January 10, 2014; however, there has been a request from
Commissioner Tom Collins (Clark County) that Task Force meetings be held in conjunction with the NACO Board of
Director’s meeting, which is currently scheduled for January 24, 2014, in Carson City. Commissioner Collins suggested
the NACO Board of Director’s meeting could be started at 8:30 AM or 9 AM with three or four hours dedicated to the
meeting, which could be followed by a three- or four-hour Task Force meeting. If both meetings were held in the same
day, it would be worth the trip from Las Vegas to Carson City. Jeff Fontaine indicated the NACO staff could work with
Chair Dahl and the incoming NACO President to structure agendas for both meetings. Commissioner Laurie Carson
(White Pine County) indicated she has to go through many of the same travel requirements as others attending the
meetings and combining the meetings as suggested would make it easier for her. Commissioner Carl Erquiaga
(Churchill County) indicated the video conferencing was working fine for him except when the Las Vegas connection
was dropped. Commissioner Nancy Boland (Esmeralda County) indicated she was in agreement with Commissioner
Carson in terms of the travel but would like to ensure that the two meetings were not rushed in order to be completed in
one day.
DECISION: Unless there is significant objection from those who could not attend the meeting today, Chair Dahl
indicated the next Task Force meeting will be held in Carson City on January 24, 2014, commencing in the afternoon
following the NACO Board of Director’s meeting, which will occur that morning.

14
Jeff Fontaine indicated the NACO Board of Directors has not yet established their 2014 meeting dates, which typically
occur on a Friday. It was agreed the date for the February 2014 Task Force meeting will be set after the NACO Board of
Director’s establish their meeting schedule and will sent to all members via e-mail.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF TOPICS FOR FUTURE TASK FORCE MEETINGS
Due to the lateness of the hour, it was agreed topics for future Task Force meetings should be e-mailed to Dagny
Stapleton at the NACO office in Carson City. An unidentified individual suggested tracking so that as we are developing
the process, we keep track of what legislation fits, what we want to do now State-wide, and what legislation amendments
would need to be proposed.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Terri Robertson suggested the Task Force use telephone conferencing instead
of video conferencing as the voices are clearer. She inquired as to why she
listening to the Attorney General’s office from Utah who continues to give out
their prophecy of having the State control public lands. Why isn’t she
listening to the Attorney General from the State of Nevada giving a proper
legal decision? She also would like to know who requested the 1994 study by
Intertech Services, Inc. In the 45 years she has been active in Nevada politics,
the State of Utah and their sagebrush rebellion and Nevada’s sagebrush
rebellion is about getting State control over land. She believes it comes down
to the Republican Party who has made this a flagship issue. If the State of
Utah could have legally done it, it would have been done already. She
believes the Task Force is dragging its feet and the transfer of public lands will not happen.
Public Comment Speakers
Terri Robertson
Nancy Gentis
Friends of Sloan
Ed Uehling
Bevan Lister
NVFBF
Nancy Gentis asked if any Native American tribes were contacted in the mailing of the letter and questionnaire. She
indicated she had worked on a committee with Commissioner Tom Collins when the State decided couldn’t afford to take
care of the state parks (Tule Springs and Roseanne Parks) in the northern part of the city so they gave the parks to the city.
It makes her wonder if they couldn’t afford to take care of the parks how are they going to be able to take care of this
other stuff. She also stated that BLM develops policies and makes regulations and asked who is going to develop those
policies and regulations once the State takes over those lands. How long will that take? Who is in charge of hiring the
people to do that? Why create a whole new system when one is already in place? It just becomes daunting.
Ed Uehling from Las Vegas, Nevada, indicated it cannot get any more basic in a federal system than having control over
the lands in this state. It makes absolutely no sense to him when the Union and the States have recognized this since the
very founding of this country. States must have control over the land in order to generate taxes and economic activity to
support itself. This fight has been going on since the founding of the country. All of the States have the problem where
the federal government wants to come in and control the land. When the government continues to control 80 percent of
the land, it takes away the economic opportunities for the State. If they want to control the land, then let them pay to help
finance the State. Otherwise you have a centralized system, not a federal system. This isn’t the only case of the federal
government doing harmful things to our State, cities, and economy. The federal government won’t grant visas to
foreigners to come here to gamble in our casinos. They won’t allow airplanes land here and then take off to other cities.
Regulations by the federal government harm Nevada’ economy so we have to do something to deal with the federal
government. He suggests we go to a more basic right which is expressed in the Declaration of Independence as our
obligation and authority to establish our own government and secede from the Nation. This is the direction the world is
going – to get rid of the states that want to go to war with each other and the more prospers states are the city states such
as Hong Kong and Singapore where people have control over their own destinies, which is the purpose of the Declaration

15
of Independence. If we can’t get the federal government to understand the basic concept of property and its relationship
to this State under a federal system, then we ought to go to a more basic right.
Bevan Lister from Pioche, Nevada, appreciated the opportunity to watch the Task Force work today. He believes the
Task Force has a monumental task and a great opportunity for the people in the State of Nevada. In his life he has always
tried to look for principles. This great Nation was founded under a principle of freedom where an agency would make a
choice and then accept responsibility for our choices. The Constitution creates a union of sovereign States. In principal,
he believes it impossible for a State to be sovereign if 80 percent of its land is owned by a foreign government. It is
imperfect for a State to be able to choose its own destiny and take responsibility for that decision. He suggested that if the
Task Force members wanted to have day of fun they should sit in the Federal Court house where they address petty crimes
and misdemeanor cases. Hundreds of Nevada citizens are being dragged in front of a Federal magistrate and given the
ultimatum to either pay the large fine or have their driver’s license revoked for drive under the influence or driving 10
mile per hour over the speed limit in a national recreation area. All of those crimes are being charged against our citizens
who are paying extremely high fines under the threat of being required to go into court and subject to a $100,000 fine and
possibility 6 months in jail. There is a tremendous disparity in this justice being done to the people of this state. He
encouraged the Task Force to look at those jurisdictional issues as the affect us in all of the Task Force’s deliberations.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Dahl accepted a motion which was seconded by Commissioner Laurie Carson (White Pine County) to adjourn
the meeting, which occurred at 2:13 PM.
ACRONYMS
The following acronyms were used during the meeting and listed in alphabetical order.
Acronym Meaning
BLM ......................................................................................................................................... Bureau of Land Management
FLPMA ....................................................................................................Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
NACO...................................................................................................................................Nevada Association of Counties
R&PP .................................................................................................................... Recreation and Public Purposes Act
SNPLMA ................................................................................................... Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act

16
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Meeting Attendance
Summit Participant by Governmental Entity
TASK FORCE
Participant Name Position Government Entity Present Not Present
Bob Crowell Mayor Carson City X
Carl Erquiaga Commissioner Churchill County X
Tom Collins Commissioner Clark County X
Doug Johnson Commissioner Douglas County X
Demar Dahl Commissioner & Task Force
Chairman
Elko County X
Nancy Boland Commissioner & Vice Chairman Esmeralda County X
JJ Goicoechea Commissioner Eureka County X
Dan Cassinelli Commissioner Humboldt County X
Patsy Waits Commissioner Lander County X
Paul Mathews5 Commissioner Lincoln County X
Virgil Arellano Commissioner Lyon County X
Jerrie Tipton Commissioner Mineral County X
Lorinda Wichman Commissioner Nye County X
Mike Stremler Pershing County X
Bill Sjovangen Commissioner Storey County X
Vaughn Hartung Commissioner Washoe County X
Laurie Carson Commissioner White Pine County X
SPEAKERS
Name Position Organization or Entity
Scott Higginson Owner FourSquare Group
Karla Norris Assistant District Manager, SNPLMA Bureau of Land Management
Tony Rampton Assistant Attorney General State of Utah
Mark Squillace Professor of Law University of Colorado Law School
Mike Baughman President Intertech Services, Inc.
OTHER PARTICIPANTS
Jeff Fontaine Executive Director Nevada Association of Counties
Dagny Stapleton Deputy Director Nevada Association of Counties
Mike Holbert Owner Silver State Meeting Minutes
Paul Aizley Assemblyman, District 41 Legislative Interim Public Lands Committee
Steve Walker
Sean Whaley Reporter Las Vegas Review Journal
Terri Frolli Capital City Coordinator U. S. Forest Service
Barb Stremler
Marci Henson Assistant Director Department of Comprehensive Planning,
Clark County
Bruno Bowles Management Analyst Southern Nevada Water Authority
Christopher Preciado Organizer PLAN
Ed Uehling
5 Commissioner Mathews was a proxy for Commissioner Kevin Phillips.

17
OTHER PARTICIPANTS (CONTINUED)
Tim Smith District Manager Bureau of Land Management
Southern Nevada District Office
Janice Ridondo Community Liaison Clark County Commission
Bevan Lister Vice President NVFBF
Jackie Ihausen Treasurer Friends of Sloan Canyon
Nancy Gentis Friends of Sloan Canyon
Marcia Bollea NCL
Sarah Short PLAN
Terri Robertson
Steve Parrish Engineering Director Clark County Regional Flood Control
District
Gayle Marrs-Smith Field Manager, Las Vegas Field Office Bureau of Land Management
Vanessa Hice Assistant Field Manager, Las Vegas Field
Office
Bureau of Land Management
Kirsten Cannon Public Affairs Specialist Bureau of Land Management

18
Attachment 2 – Michele Burkett Public Comment

19

20
Attachment 3 – Sandra Dyan Public Comment

21

22
Attachment 4 – David Mahon Public Comment

23
Attachment 5 – Kristin Kosacek Public Comment

24

25
Attachment 6 – John Marchese Public Comment

26
Attachment 7 – Terri Roberts Public Comment

27

28

29
Attachment 8 – Mark Squillace Presentation

30

31

32

33
Attachment 9 – Public Lands Management Alternative Options and Decision Hierarchy Tool
A.1 Full Title
B.1 All Lands
C.1 All Lands Managed In Trust
D.1 Educational Institution/County Government Beneficiaries
E.1 Managed for Long-term Profit Maximization
F.1 State/County Management
G.1 Management Subject to State Environmental Regulations
H.1 Democratic Policy/Decision Making
I.1 Independent Commission or Board
J.1 Decentralized Administration
K.1 User Fees/Rent
L.1.1 Grazing
M.1 Permanent Fund
N.1 Sole Source/Fixed Fee
O.1 Long-Term Permit Tenure
P.1 Transferable
Q.1 Use Required
Q.2 Extended Non-use Allowed
P.2 Non-Transferable
O.2 Short-Term Permit Tenure
N.2 Automatic Competitive Bid
N.3 Appeal Induced Competitive Bid
M.2 General Fund
M.3 Land Management Agency Operating Fund
M.4 Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILT)
M.5 Combination
L.1.2 Mining Claims
L.1.3 Oil & Gas Leases
L.1.4 Recreation Access
L.1.5 Site Leases
L.1.6 Easements
K.2 Royalties
L.2.1 Mineral Production
L.2.2 Oil and Gas Production
L.2.3 Renewable Energy Prod (geothermal, hydro, solar, wind)
K.3 Sales
L.3.1 Forest Products
L.3.2 Industrial Minerals
L.3.3 Landscape Materials
L.3.4 Land Sales
K.4 General Fund
J.2 Centralized Administration
I.2 Cabinet Level Dept.
I.3 Division Level
H.2 Autocratic Policy/Decision Making
G.2 Management Exempt from State and County Environmental Regulations
G.3 Management Subject to County Environmental Regulations
G.4 Management Subject to State/County Environmental Regulations
F.2 County Management
F.3 State Management
E.2 Managed for Net Benefit Maximization
E.3 Managed for Sustainable Yield
E.4 Managed for Long-term Profit Maximization Subject to Sustainable Yields
D.2 County Government Beneficiaries
D.3 Educational Institution and/or State General Fund Beneficiaries
C.2 Some Lands Managed In Trust
C.3 All Lands Managed Outside of Trust
B.2 To Select Lands
A.2 Partial Title
A.3 Land Use Control
A.4 Contract Management

34
Attachment 10 – Congressional Transfer of Public Lands to the State of Nevada: A Report of the
Nevada Land Management Task Force to the Legislative Committee on Public Lands
I. Summary of Nevada Land Management Task Force Recommendations to Legislative Committee on Public Lands
II. Introduction
A. Enabling Legislation, AB 227
B. Task Force Members, Staff and Consultants
C. Task Force Meetings
III. Identification of Public Lands to be Transferred to the State of Nevada
A. Bureau of Land Management
1. Identification of Lands
2. Interests, Rights and Uses Associated with Identified Lands
B. U.S. Forest Service
C. Other Federally Administered Land
IV. Administration, Management and Use of Transferred Lands
A. Alternatives for Administration of Transferred Lands
1. Existing State Agency
2. New State Agency
B. Alternatives for Management of Transferred Lands
1. State Management
2. Local Government Management
3. Shared State and Local Government Management
4. Non-Governmental Organization Management
C. Alternatives Uses of Transferred Lands
1. Revenue Generating Activities
2. Non-Revenue Generating Activities
V. Economic Analysis of the Transfer of Public Lands to the State of Nevada
A. Land Transfer Costs
B. Revenue Sources for State Administration and Maintenance of Transferred Lands
C. Existing State and Local Revenue Derived from Federally Administered Lands to be Transferred
D. Estimated Amount and Recommended Disposition of Net Revenues Derived by State of Nevada from Transferred Lands
VI. Conclusions and Recommendations
A. Lands to be Transferred
B. Administration and Management of Transferred Lands
C. Uses of Transferred Lands
D. Disposition of Net Revenues Generated from Transferred Lands
F. Action by the Nevada Legislative Committee on Public Lands
VII. Appendices
Appendix A – AB 227
Appendix B – Nevada Land Management Task Force Meeting Agendas and Minutes
Appendix C – Summary of Presentations to and Testimony before the Nevada Land Management Task
Appendix D – Summary of Other State Public Land Transfer Initiatives
Appendix E – Evaluation of an Expanded State Land Base in Nevada: Identification of Issues and Comparative Economic Analysis
(ISC/RCI Report)

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

Intertech Services Corporation
Preliminary Draft Public Land
Management Task Force Report
Tables
January15, 2014

Table 2. Five Year Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, Employment, Output: Arizona
ARIZONA FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Revenues $382,385,591 $247,043,134 $155,429,218 $190,308,434 $213,218,799.00
Expenses $18,088,700 $14,281,700 $23,880,660 $13,455,900 $14,336,300
Net Revenue $364,296,891 $232,761,434 $131,548,558 $176,852,534 $198,882,499
Total Acres Managed 9,260,253 9,259,268 9,258,071 9,252,495 9,302,255
Revenue/Acre $41.00 $26.00 $16.78 $19.11 $21.38
Expense/Acre $1.95 $1.54 $2.58 $1.45 $1.54
Net Revenue/Acre $39.00 $25.00 $14.00 $19.00 $21.38
Total FTEs 173 175 154 151 124
Acres/FTE 53527 52910 60117 61274 75018
Revenue/FTE $2,210,321 $1,411,675 $1,009,280 $1,260,320 $1,719,506
Expense/FTE $104,558 $81,609 $155,069 $89,111 $115,615
Net Revenue/FTE $2,105,762 $1,330,065 $854,211 $1,171,208 $1,603,891
Grazing Revenue $2,417,763 $2,559,337 $2,403,080 $2,390,769 $2,458,350
No. Grazing Leases 1247 1246 1247 1239 1224
Total Grazing Acres 8405942 8405371 8408033 8368575 8378985
Grazing Revenue/Acre Grazed $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
Price per AUM $2.29 $2.23 $2.28 $2.30 $2.41
Agriculture Lease Revenue $4,201,575 $4,458,855 $4,944,449 $4,362,612 $4,470,978
No. of Agriculture Leases 387 379 367 354 347
Agriculture Acres Leased 170487 166152 163186 156575 157174
Revenue/Leased Agricultural Acre $24.00 $26.00 $30.00 $27.00 $28.00
Oil & Gas Lease Revenue $1,006,274 $1,149,669 $399,937 $457,623 $1,614,618
No. of Oil & Gas Leases 519 513 320 204 291
Oil & Gas Acres Leased 1004792 992880 571637 330833 508567
Oil & Gas Lease Revenue/Leased Acre $1.00 $1.15 $0.70 $1.38 $3.17
Mineral Lease Revenue $719,000 $766,507 $2,800,008 $1,528,934 $1,770,197
No. of Mineral Leases 492 514 475 1091 873
Mineral Acres Leased 179273 195773 191360 526017 406384
Mineral Lease Revenue/Leased Acre $4.00 $3.00 $14.00 $2.00 $4.00
Oil, Gas and Mineral Royalty Revenue $3,859,592 $2,562,652 $26,539,675 $39,756,402 $21,783,656
Oil, Gas and Mineral Royalty Revenue/Acre Leased $3.26 $2.16 $33.46 $46.39 $23.80
Acres Sold 1994.32 1381.72 918.36 5598.94 9600.44

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

Table 2A. Distribution of Revenues by Beneficiary: Arizona
FY 2012
Trust Acres Total Receipts ($)
BENEFICIARIES
Common Schools
(K—12)‡
8,088,270.54 272,560,356.05
Normal Schools Grant 174,797.56 309,776.02
Agricultural &
124,943.87 367,276.93
Mechanical Colleges
Military Institutes Grant 80,168.11 61,108.41
School of Mines Grant 123,254.09 555,363.13
University Land Code 137,906.42 1,874,540.22
University of Arizona (Act of 2/18/1881) 51,881.13 1,749,257.72
School for the Deaf & Blind 82,559.65 399,040.46
SUBTOTAL Education 8,863,781.36 277,876,718.94
Legislative, Executive & Judicial Buildings 64,257.10 726,847.71
State Hospital Grant 71,248.39 851,716.17
Miners' Hospital Grant† 95,383.13 5,391,036.87
State Charitable, Penal, and Reformatory 77,228.58 6,634,465.60
Penitentiary Grant 76,110.72 1,475,846.60
† Miners’ Hospital and Miners’ Hospital 1929 combined
‡ Including County Bonds

Table 3. Five Year Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, Employment and Output: Idaho
IDAHO FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Revenues $75,490,986 $63,472,207 $48,276,287 $67,526,091 $65,757,944
Expenses $20,161,083 $21,019,253 $22,685,271 $23,854,935 $23,354,297
Net Revenue $55,329,903 $42,452,954 $25,591,016 $43,671,156 $42,403,647
Total Acres 2459750 2446335 2449255 2448425 2448010
Revenue/Acre $30.00 $25.00 $19.00 $27.00 $26.00
Expense/Acre $8.00 $8.00 $9.00 $9.00 $9.00
Net Revenue/Acre $22.00 $17.00 $10.00 $17.00 $17.00
Total FTEs 264 264 264 259 260
Acres/FTE 9317 9266 9277 9453 9415
Revenue/FTE $285,950 $240,425 $182,864 $260,718 $252,915
Expense/FTE $76,367 $79,618 $85,929 $92,103 $89,824
Net Revenue/FTE $209,582 $160,806 $96,935 $168,614 $163,090
Grazing Revenue $1,570,109 $1,524,003 1532652 $1,878,863 $1,439,217
Grazing Leases 1222 1207 1201 1175 1165
Total Grazing Acres 1778280 1783813 1786774 1773249 1777758
Grazing Revenue/Acre Grazed $0.88 $0.85 $0.85 $1.05 $0.81
Price per AUM $5.12 $5.13 $5.25
Ag Land Lease Revenue $280,005 $270,371 $329,298 $277,790 $399,696
No. of Agriculture Leases 77 75 73 71 67
Agriculture Acres Leased 20264 19699 18998 18329 18350
Revenue/Leased Agricultural Acre $13.81 $13.72 $17.33 $15.15 $21.78
Residential and Comm. Land Lease Revenue $6,778,982 $6,554,179 $7,091,512 $6,899,615 $9,078,044
No. of Residential and Comm. Land Leases 747 695 683 672 684
Acres of Residential and Comm. Lease 16993 17116 16435 16450 16696
Revenue/Residential and Comm. Acre $398.92 $382.94 $431.48 $419.42 $543.72
Timber and Forest Products Revenue $61,765,964 $50,425,822 $36,303,906 $54,106,083 $50,760,589
Acres of Forest Managed 971613 971678 977429 977005 977529
Revenue/Acre of Forest Managed $63.57 $51.89 $37.14 $55.37 $51.92
Mineral, Oil and Gas Revenue $4,661,921 $4,302,151 $2,814,511 $3,668,655 $3,379,678
No. of Mineral, Oil and Gas Leases 425 444 425 465 462
Acres of Mineral, Oil and Gas Leases 123234 114562 116809 102500
Revenue/Acre of Mineral, Oil and Gas Acre $34.91 $24.56 $31.40 $32.97

Table 3A. Distribution of Revenues by Beneficiary: Idaho
FY 2012
Beneficiaries Total Receipts ($)
Agricultural College 1,646,080
Capitol Permanent (351,963)
Charitable Inst. 4,572,497
Normal School 627,308
Penitentiary Inc. 2,350,053
Public Schools 24,570,082
School of Science 2,470,613
State Hospital South 3,524,851
University of Idaho 2,985,127

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

Table 4. Five Year Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, Employment and Output: New Mexico
NEW MEXICO FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
No. of Commercial Land Leases 975 782 663 781 n/a
Acres of Commercial Land Leased n/a 403,622 104790 377976 n/a
Commercial Land Lease Revenue/Leased Acre n/a $16.50 $54.35 $11.10 n/a
Table 4A. Distribution of Net Revenues by Beneficiary: New Mexico
FY 2012
Common Schools 544,244,931
University of New Mexico 9,482,298
Saline Lands 81,470
New Mexico State University 2,955,919
Western New Mexico University 263,391
NM Highlands University 263,223
Northern New Mexico School 206,686
Eastern New Mexico University 630,158
NM Institute of Mining and Technology 1,558,074
NM Military Institute 23,094,438
Children, Youth and Families Dept. 73,496
Miner’s Hospital 7,401,699
Behavioral Health Institute 2,986,671
State Penitentiary 11,416,378
School for the Deaf 11,635,495
School for the Visually Impaired 11,613,393
Charitable, Penal and Reform 5,193,081
Water Reservoirs 7,278,813
Rio Grande Improvements 1,557,121
Public Buildings 6,495,934
Carrie Tingley Hospital 23,669

Table 5. Five Year Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, Employment and Output: Utah
UTAH FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Revenues $151,127,806 $138,258,000 $115,281,400 $121,730,413 $129,341,802
Operating Expenditures $9,119,310 $9,537,848 $8,586,066 $9,005,048 $9,626,919
Capital Expenditures $10,134,997 $13,603,453 $12,287,299 $1,845,689 $2,594,791
Total Expenditures $19,254,307 $23,141,301 $20,873,365 $10,850,735 $12,221,710
Net Revenue $131,873,499 $115,116,699 $94,408,035 $110,879,678 $117,120,092
Total Acres 3411514 3407235 3404635 3402250 3402250
Revenue/Acre $44.29 $40.57 $33.86 $35.77 $38.01
Operating Expense/Acre $2.67 $2.79 $2.52 $2.64 $2.82
Net Revenue/Acre $38.65 $33.78 $27.72 $32.59 $34.42
Total FTEs 66 68 74 72 71
Acres/FTE 51689 50106 46008 47253 47919
Revenue/FTE $2,289,815 $2,033,205 $1,557,856 $1,690,700 $1,821,715
Operating Expense/FTE $138,171 $140,262 $116,027 $125,070 $135,590
Net Revenue/FTE $1,998,083 $1,692,892 $1,275,784 $1,539,995 $1,649,578
Surface Management Revenues $10,134,011 $9,367,000 $7,466,700 $8,757,392 $8,641,248
Grazing Revenue
Grazing Leases
Total Grazing Acres
Grazing Revenue/Acre Grazed
AUMs of Actual Use
AUMs/Acre
Price per AUM
Land Development Revenue $25,027,069 $4,427,000 $3,900,900 $3,912,295 $4,459,300
Timber Sales Revenue
Timber Sold (MBF)
Revenue/MBF
Oil & Gas Lease Revenue $76,570,137 $75,412,000 $56,269,400 $60,909,236 $59,129,505
Oil & Gas Royalties & Pnlty
No. of Oil & Gas Leases
Oil & Gas Acres Leased
Oil & Gas Revenues/Acre Leased
Oil & Gas Royalties/Acre Leased
Coal and Other Mineral Revenue $81,908,639 $20,965,000 $21,116,200 $18,619,526 $16,784,842
Other Mineral Royalties
Investment Revenue $41,797,898 $32,546,300 $26,528,200 $29,528,681 $40,303,434
Land Sale Revenue $24,104,025 $3,301,582 $3,059,599 $3,145,089 $3,537,238
Acres of Land Sold 6835 6573 1153 n/a n/a

Table 5A. Distribution of Revenues by Beneficiary: Utah
FY 2012
Public Schools (K-12) 29,263,119
Miners’ Hospital 1,700,000
University of Utah 1,356,385
Reservoirs 425,415
School for the Blind 263,391
School for the Deaf 74,314
State Hospital 476,199
Utah State University 312,058
Normal Schools 320,868
School of Mines 352,878
Youth Development Center 213,606
Public Buildings 5,702
Behavioral Health Institute 2,986,671
State Penitentiary 11,416,378
School for the Deaf 11,635,495
School for the Visually Impaired 11,613,393
Charitable, Penal and Reform 5,193,081
Water Reservoirs 7,278,813
Rio Grande Improvements 1,557,121
Public Buildings 6,495,934
Carrie Tingley Hospital 23,669
Total (Maintenance and Permanent Funds) 658,456,335

Table 7. Observed High, Low and Five Year Average - Arizona
Observed
High
Observed
Low
5-Year
Average
ARIZONA
Revenues $382,385,591 $155,429,218 $237,677,035
Expenses $23,880,660 $13,455,900 $16,808,652
Net Revenue $364,296,891 $131,548,558 $220,868,383
Total Acres Managed 9,302,255 9,252,495 $9,266,468
Revenue/Acre $41.00 $16.78 $24.85
Expense/Acre $2.58 $1.45 $1.81
Net Revenue/Acre $39.00 $14.00 $23.68
Total FTEs 175 124 155
Acres/FTE 74616 52910 60569
Revenue/FTE $2,185,060 $1,253,461 $1,522,220
Expense/FTE $155,069 $81,609 $109,192
Net Revenue/FTE $2,210,321 $854,211 $1,413,027
Grazing Revenue $2,559,337 $2,390,769 $2,445,860
No. Grazing Leases 1247 1224 1241
Total Grazing Acres 8408033 8368575 8393381
Grazing Revenue/Acre Grazed $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
Price per AUM $2.41 $2.23 $2.30
Agriculture Lease Revenue $4,944,449 $4,201,575 $4,487,694
No. of Agriculture Leases 387 347 366.8
Agriculture Acres Leased 170487 156575 162715
Revenue/Leased Agricultural Acre $30.00 $24.00 $27.00
Oil & Gas Lease Revenue $1,614,618 $399,937 $925,624
No. of Oil & Gas Leases 519 204 369
Oil & Gas Acres Leased 1004792 330833 681742
Oil & Gas Lease Revenue/Leased Acre $3.17 $0.70 $1.48
Mineral Lease Revenue $2,800,008 $719,000 $1,516,929
No. of Mineral Leases 1091 475 689
Mineral Acres Leased 526017 179273 299761
Mineral Lease Revenue/Leased Acre $14.00 $2.00 $5.40
Oil, Gas and Mineral Royalty Revenue $39,756,402 $2,562,652 $18,900,395
Oil, Gas and Mineral Royalty Revenue/Acre Leased $46.39 $2.16 $21.81
Acres Sold 9600.44 918.36 3898.76
Land Sale Revenue $125,997,000 $19,151,000 $88,231,707
Land Sale Revenue/Acre Sold $63,177 $12,487 $33,417

Table 8. Observed High, Low and Five Year Average - Idaho
Observed
High
Observed
Low 5 Year Avg
IDAHO
Revenues $75,490,986 $48,276,287 $64,104,703
Expenses $23,854,935 $20,161,083 $22,214,968
Net Revenue $55,329,903 $25,591,016 $41,889,735
Total Acres 2446335 2449255 2450355
Revenue/Acre $30.00 $19.00 $25.40
Expense/Acre $9.00 $6.00 $8.60
Net Revenue/Acre $22.00 $10.00 $16.60
Acres/FTE 9453 9266 9345.6
Revenue/FTE $285,950 $182,864 $244,574
Expense/FTE $92,103 $76,367 $84,768
Net Revenue/FTE $209,582 $96,935 $159,805
Grazing Revenue $1,878,863 $1,439,217 $1,588,969
Grazing Leases 1222 1165 1194
Total Grazing Acres 1786774 1773249 1779975
Grazing Revenue/Acre Grazed $1.05 $0.81 $0.89
Price per AUM $5.25 $5.12 $5.17
Ag Land Lease Revenue $399,696.00 $270,371.00 $311,432
No. of Agriculture Leases 77 67 72.6
Agriculture Acres Leased 20264 18329 19128
Revenue/Leased Agricultural Acre $21.78 $13.72 $16
Residential and Comm. Land Lease Revenue $9,078,044 $6,554,179 $7,280,466
No. of Residential and Comm. Land Leases 747 672 696
Acres of Residential and Comm. Lease 17116 16435 16738
Revenue/Residential and Comm. Acre $543.72 $382.94 $435.30
Timber and Forest Products Revenue $61,765,964 $36,303,906 $50,672,473
Acres of Forest Managed 977529 971613 975051
Revenue/Acre of Forest Managed $63.57 $37.14 $52
Mineral, Oil and Gas Revenue $4,661,921 $2,814,511 $3,765,383
No. of Mineral, Oil and Gas Leases 465 425 444
Acres of Mineral, Oil and Gas Leases 123234 102500 114276
Revenue/Acre of Mineral, Oil and Gas Acre $34.91 $24.56 $30.96

Table 9. Observed High, Low and Five Year Average - New Mexico
NEW MEXICO
Observed
High
Observed
Low
5-Year
Average
Revenue $652,347,910 $420,276,400 $528,912,986
Expense $13,236,000 $12,948,500 $13,103,300
Net Revenue $639,111,910 $407,300,500 $515,809,686
Total Surface Acres 9009302 8900000 8921860
Total Subsurface Acres 13400000 12700000 13260000
Revenue/Surface Acre $72.40 $47.22 $59.25
Expense/Surface Acre $1.48 $1.45 $1.46
Net Revenue/Surface Acre $72.26 $45.76 $57.78
Revenue/Subsurface Acre $31.36 $51.36 $40.00
Expense/Subsurface Acre $1.03 $0.96 $0.98
Net Revenue/Subsurface Acre $51.26 $30.39 $38.01
Surface Acres/FTE 59664 57419 58322
Revenue/FTE $4,320,184 $2,746,904 $3,458,791
Expense/FTE $85,751 $85,393 $85,023
Net Revenue/FTE $4,311,461 $2,662,094 $3,373,142
Grazing and Cropland Lease Revenue $7,427,344 $5,216,784 $6,214,942
No. of Grazing and Cropland Leases
Total Grazing and Cropland Lease Acres
Grazing and Cropland Revenue/Leased Acre
Price per AUM
Oil & Gas Lease Revenue $620,278,957 $389,953,359 $479,007,385
No. of Oil and Gas Leases
Acres of Oil and Gas Leases
Oil and Gas Revenue/Leased Acre
Mineral Revenue $17,682,615 $6,992,516 $12,497,095
No. of Mineral Leases
Acres of Mineral Leases
Mineral Revenue/Leased Acre
Acres Sold
Land Sale Revenue
Land Sale Revenue/Acre Sold
Commercial Land Lease Revenue $10,202,036 $4,194,000 $6,546,640
No. of Commercial Land Leases
Acres of Commercial Land Leased
Commercial Land Lease Revenue/Leased Acre

Table 10. Observed High, Low and Five Year Average - Utah
UTAH
Observed
High
Observed
Low
5-Year
Average
Revenues $151,127,806 $115,281,400 $131,147,884
Operating Expenditures $9,626,919 $8,586,066 $9,175,038
Capital Expenditures $13,603,453 $1,845,689 $8,093,246
Total Expenditures $23,141,301 $10,850,735 $17,268,284
Net Revenue $131,873,499 $94,408,035 $113,879,601
Total Acres 3411514 3402250 3405577
Revenue/Acre $44.29 $33.86 $38.50
Operating Expense/Acre $2.82 $2.52 $2.69
Net Revenue/Acre $38.65 $27.72 $33.43
Total FTEs 74 66 70
Acres/FTE 51689 46008 48595
Revenue/FTE $2,289,815 $1,557,856 $1,878,658
Operating Expense/FTE $140,262 $116,027 $131,024
Net Revenue/FTE $1,998,083 $1,275,784 $1,631,266
Surface Management Revenues $10,134,011 $7,466,700 $8,873,270
Grazing Revenue
Grazing Leases
Total Grazing Acres
Grazing Revenue/Acre Grazed
AUMs of Actual Use
AUMs/Acre
Price per AUM
Land Development Revenue $25,027,069 $3,900,900 $8,345,313
Timber Sales Revenue
Timber Sold (MBF)
Revenue/MBF
Oil & Gas Lease Revenue $76,570,137 $56,269,400 $65,658,056
Oil & Gas Royalties & Pnlty
No. of Oil & Gas Leases
Oil & Gas Acres Leased
Oil & Gas Revenues/Acre Leased
Oil & Gas Royalties/Acre Leased
Coal and Other Mineral Revenue $81,908,639 $16,784,842 $31,878,841
Other Mineral Royalties
Investment Revenue $41,797,898 $26,528,200 $34,140,903
Land Sale Revenue $24,104,025 $3,059,599 $7,429,507
Acres of Land Sold

Table 11. Five Year Average Revenues, Expenditures and Employment In Selected States
Arizona Idaho New Mexico Utah
Revenues $237,677,035 $64,104,703 $528,912,986 $131,147,884
Expenses $16,808,652 $22,214,968 $13,103,300 $9,175,038
Net Revenue $220,868,383 $41,889,735 $518,180,646 $113,879,601
Total Acres Managed 9266468 2450355 8921860 3405577
Revenue/Acre $24.85 $25.40 $59.25 $38.50
Expense/Acre $1.81 $8.60 $1.46 $2.69
Net Revenue/Acre $23.68 $16.60 $58.04 $33.43
Total FTEs 155 262 153 70
Acres/FTE 60569 9346 58322 48595
Revenue/FTE $1,522,220 $244,574 $3,458,791 $1,878,658
Operating Expense/FTE $109,192 $84,768 $85,023 $131,024
Net Revenue/FTE $1,413,027 $159,805 $3,388,844 $1,631,266
Table 12. Multi-State Observed High, Observed Low and Average
Observed High Observed Low Average
Revenues $652,347,910 $48,276,287 $232,990,919
Expenses $23,880,660 $8,586,066 $15,180,057
Net Revenue $639,111,910 $25,591,016 $215,681,060
Total Acres Managed 9,302,255 2449255 5840055
Revenue/Acre $72.40 $16.78 $36.79
Expense/Acre $9.00 $1.45 $3.73
Net Revenue/Acre $72.26 $10.00 $32.55
Acres/FTE 74616 9266 43718
Revenue/FTE $4,320,184 $182,864 $1,753,205
Expense/FTE $155,069 $76,367 $102,394
Net Revenue/FTE $4,311,461 $96,935 $1,620,023

Table 13. Estimated Revenue, Expense, FTEs for Expanded State Land Area in Nevada Using Other State Models
Arizona Idaho New Mexico Utah
Four State
Avg.
Observed 5-Year Avg. Revenue per Acre $24.85 $25.40 $59.25 $38.50 $36.79
Observed 5-Year Avg. Expense per Acre $1.81 $8.60 $1.46 $2.69 $3.73
Observed 5-Year Avg. Net Revenue per Acre $23.68 $16.60 $57.78 $33.43 $32.55
Observed 5-Year Average Acres per FTE 60569 9346 58322 48595 43718
Observed 5-Year Average Total FTEs 155 262 153 70 160
Assumed Acreage Managed by Nevada 47783458 47783458 47783458 47783458 47783458
Estimated Total Revenue $1,187,610,065 $1,213,699,833 $2,831,074,320 $1,839,663,133 $1,757,953,420
Estimated Total Expense $86,583,626 $410,937,739 $69,954,983 $128,441,935 $178,232,298
Estimated Net Revenue $1,101,026,439 $802,762,094 $2,761,119,337 $1,711,221,198 $1,579,721,122
Estimated Total FTEs 788 5112 819 983 1093
Assumed Acreage Managed by Nevada 10000000 10000000 10000000 10000000 10000000
Estimated Total Revenue $248,540,000 $254,000,000 $592,480,000 $385,000,000 $367,900,000
Estimated Total Expense $18,120,000 $86,000,000 $14,640,000 $26,880,000 $37,300,000
Estimated Net Revenue $230,420,000 $168,000,000 $577,840,000 $358,120,000 $330,600,000
Estimated Total FTEs 165 1070 171 205 228

Table 19A. Five Year Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, Employment, Output: BLM
NATIONWIDE - BLM FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Surface Mgt. Revenue $433,820,000 $471,693,000 $568,270,000 $609,004,000 $586,768,000
Subsurface Mgt. Revenue $5,486,000,000 $3,685,000,000 $3,826,000,000 $4,100,000,000 $4,400,000,000
Revenue (surface and subsurface) $5,919,820,000 $4,156,693,000 $4,394,270,000 $4,709,004,000 $4,986,768,000
Expense (surface and subsurface mgt.) $2,244,740,000 $1,774,848,000 $2,393,139,000 $2,282,391,000 $2,375,351,000
Total Net Revenue (surface and subsurface mgt.) $3,675,080,000 $2,411,845,000 $2,001,131,000 $2,426,613,000 $2,611,417,000
Surface Acres Managed 253300000 249700000 247900000 245000000 247300000
Surface and Subsurface Acres Managed 699700000 699700000 699700000 699700000 699700000
Revenue/Acre (surface and subsurface mgt.) $8.46 $5.94 $6.28 $6.73 $7.12
Expense/Acre (surface and subsurface mgt.) $3.21 $2.49 $3.42 $3.26 $3.39
Total Net Revenue Per Surface and Subsurface
Acre $5.25 $3.45 $2.86 $3.47 $3.73
Total FTEs 10584 11763 11846 10635 10489
Surface and Subsurface Acres/FTE 66109 59483 59066 65792 66707
Total Revenue (surface and subsurface)/FTE $559,317 $353,370 $370,949 $442,783 $475,428
Total Expense (surface and subsurface)/FTE $212,088 $150,883 $202,020 $214,611 $226,461
Total Net Revenue (surface and subsurface)/FTE $347,229 $205,036 $168,928 $228,172 $248,967

Table 19B. BLM NV, DOI ONRR and PILT Revenue Distribution to Nevada State and Local Governments
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
BLM NV Revenue Dist. to NV State/Local Govt. $5,447,044 $2,136,862 $2,560,635 $1,465,948 $1,725,963
DOI ONRR Revenue Dist. to NV State/Local Govt. $17,622,148 $28,744,481 $17,059,292 $9,794,788 $11,785,382
PILT Payment to Nevada $22,610,017 $23,269,350 $22,753,204 $22,942,298 $23,917,845
Total BLM NV/ONRR/PILT Revenue Dist. To NV State/Local Govt. $45,679,209 $54,150,693 $42,373,131 $34,203,034 $37,429,190
Total Acres Managed by BLM in Nevada 47808114 47806738 47805923 47794096 47783458
Total Revenue Dist.to NV State/Local Govt./Acre Managed $0.96 $1.13 $0.87 $0.72 $0.78

Item 11 . Backup
Discussion on Timeline of Tasks to Accomplish by the Task Force Prior to Summer
2014, Including a Discussion of Accomplishments to Date, Consensus Needed, and Tasks
Outstanding.
Attachments:
1) An excerpt from AB 227 - the highlighted portion is what the bill mandated be
included in the study that the Task Force will produce;
2) Summary/draft table of contents, from Intertech Services, Inc., of what will be
included in the study being conducted by the Nevada Land Management Task Force.

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

Congressional Transfer of Public Lands to the State of Nevada:
A Report of the Nevada Land Management Task Force to the Legislative Committee on
Public Lands
I. Summary of Nevada Land Management Task Force Recommendations to
i
Legislative Committee on Public Lands
II. Introduction
A. Enabling Legislation, AB 227
B. Task Force Members, Staff and Consultants
C. Task Force Meetings
III. Identification of Public Lands to be Transferred to the State of Nevada
A. Bureau of Land Management
B. U.S. Forest Service
C. Other Federally Administered Land
IV. Administration, Management and Use of Transferred Lands
A. Alternatives for Administration of Transferred Lands
1. Existing State Agency
2. New State Agency
B. Alternatives for Management of Transferred Lands
1. State Management
2. Local Government Management
3. Shared State and Local Government Management
4. Non-Governmental Organization Management
C. Alternative Uses of Transferred Lands
1. Revenue Generating Activities
2. Non-Revenue Generating Activities
V. Economic Analysis of the Transfer of Public Lands to the State of Nevada
A. Land Transfer Costs
B. Revenue Sources for State Administration and Maintenance of Transferred Lands
C. Existing State and Local Revenue Derived from Federally Administered Lands to be
Transferred
D. Estimated Amount and Recommended Distribution of Net Revenues Derived by State
of Nevada from Transferred Lands
VI. Conclusions and Recommendations
A. Lands to be Transferred

B. Administration and Management of Transferred Lands
C. Uses of Transferred Lands
D. Disposition of Net Revenues Generated from Transferred Lands
F. Action by the Nevada Legislative Committee on Public Lands
ii
VII. Appendices
Appendix A – AB 227
Appendix B – Nevada Land Management Task Force Meeting Agendas and Minutes
Appendix C – Summary of Presentations to and Testimony before the Nevada Land
Management Task
Appendix D – Summary of Other State Public Land Transfer Initiatives
Appendix E – Evaluation of an Expanded State Land Base in Nevada: Identification of
Issues and Comparative Economic Analysis (ISC/RCI Report)

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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (13)

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

Similar to Intertech preliminary-draft-public-land-mgmt-task-force-report-tables-beg.-on-p.40 (18)

More from American Lands Council

More from American Lands Council (20)

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