Wichman wants input on public lands transfer

Nye County Commissioner Lorinda Wichman, who represents a vast area of Nye County north of Pahrump, complained she hasn’t received any comments from county residents for the Nevada Land Management Task Force, which is studying how public lands controlled by the federal government could be transferred to the state.

Assembly Bill 227, passed during the 2013 Nevada Legislature, created the task force, which consists of representatives from each of Nevada’s 17 counties including Wichman. The task force will present its recommendations to the 2015 session of the Nevada Legislature. The task force will identify public lands to be transferred as well as the interests, rights and uses.

“Nevada has the highest percentage of federally managed land in the U.S. at over 80 percent. The charge of the task force is to produce a study that will include an identification of federal lands that could be transferred; a plan for administration or sale of the lands and costs or revenues that would be incurred by either the state or local government in association with managing additional lands,” Wichman wrote in a press release.

At the November task force meeting in Reno, Wichman said presentations were given by environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Nevada Conservation League, which were concerned about how to pay for administering the new state managed lands.

They also had concerns how to ensure environmental protection of any transferred land. Larry Johnson, president of the Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife, made a presentation addressing public access, privatization of public lands and wildlife management.

“If public lands are privatized, there is no guarantee that private interests would manage their private lands in the best interest of wildlife, and wildlife professionals would have no jurisdiction to enforce proper management,” Johnson wrote. “Privatization of public land would alter the entire face of hunting and fishing. In other states with minor public land ownership, hunting and fishing opportunities come at a price with leases going to the highest bidder. This lucrative practice has degraded the sport to a pastime for the rich or politically connected, ending the family tradition that has endured for centuries and embodies the American way. Many of us live in Nevada primarily because we can wander entire mountain ranges without ever encountering a single no trespassing sign.”

Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter President David Seggern said the club opposes a massive land transfer from the federal to state government. He said AB 227 “adversely affects the ability of our members and members of other recreational groups to enjoy the wild lands of Nevada.” It also adversely affects their ability to effectively protect and conserve Nevada’s air, water, wildlife and scenery, he said.

Seggern, in his presentation, questioned how to replace hundreds of federal government employees and whether agreements and management plans would have to be rewritten. He questioned whether fees for mining, recreation, grazing, hunting and fishing would increase.

The Nevada Farm Bureau supported the law at the Reno meeting and said the transfer of federally managed lands to state or private ownership should be encouraged.

A survey of Farm Bureau farmers and ranchers found 65.75 percent rated the proposal very important, 82.86 percent agreed Nevada should control these lands and 77.14 percent found greater advantages for Nevada to acquire federal lands.

The Farm Bureau said it was important for local government to have a role in land under the control of the state.

The bureau added it was critical to build a consensus going forward, providing an opportunity for local citizens to participate in identifying lands to be included and understand the options for managing these lands.

The task force reviewed Utah legislation, on which their bill was patterned, during the June 28 meeting. In September, the task force reviewed economic impacts and a U.S. Forest Service map.

Jim Lawrence, administrator of the Nevada Division of Public Lands, said the legislation authorizing the transfer must spell out the role of the National Environmental Policy Act, how land rights like grazing permits, mining permits and rights-of-way would be addressed and the costs of the transfer. Lawrence said the responsibility and cost of fire suppression, largely borne by the federal government, would need to be addressed. If Nevada received a large acreage of federal land, he recommends a State Land Board oversee the administration.

Lawrence said under the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, which governs largely property in Clark County around the Spring Mountains, counties nominate public lands for auction which has been a successful system.

The proceeds from the sale of state land is ordinarily placed in either a general fund or school trust fund, he said. Lawrence said the task force also needs to consider the loss of payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) the federal government pays for the property value of public lands.

Lawrence said the policy by the Nevada Division of State Lands has been that access to lands is generally open to the public, the Nevada Department of Wildlife typically allows casual use in wildlife management areas.

Eureka County Commissioner J.J. Goicoechea said it’s important to let citizens know they can access state land and the task force should develop language to protect that right.

Task Force Chairman Demar Dahl from Elko County suggested in addition to the Utah approach, that eliminates transferring national parks, monuments and wilderness areas,

Indian lands and U.S. Department of Defense lands should not be transferred to the state. Goicoechea wanted individual counties to identify lands to be transferred and bring them back to a future meeting.

Northeastern Nevada Regional Development Authority Executive Director Pam Borda said 28.7 percent of Elko County land is privately owned, but 62 percent lies in 640-acre checkerboard land patterns from the railroad that limit development.

She said the federal government controls 70 percent of the land in the county and 87 percent in Nevada, costing businesses millions of dollars in expenses and delays in cost recovery.

Borda said: “Currently it requires seven to 10 years to permit a mine at a cost of $2 million to $4 million as compared to Canada where it can be done in three to four years. Rights-of-way utility permits required months to years to be approved. There are less grazing allotments available to ranchers who have to endure costs associated with lawsuits. Recreation permits require a year or more to obtain and contain unreasonable requirements.”

The China Mountain Wind Project was denied due to the interim rule for managing the sage grouse, she said the $737 million project would have resulted in 750 construction jobs, 50 full-time employees and $55 million in taxes to Elko County.

Steve Hill, executive director of the Governor’s Office of Economic Development, warned adding an additional layer of government would increase inconsistency in applying laws, making Nevada less competitive with other states and irritating state residents.

At the September meeting, Fallon range management consultant Floyd Rathbun estimated a $200 million economic benefit to Nevada counties from removing federal government regulation of livestock. He said Nevada agricultural statistics show there were 700,000 cattle on the Nevada range in 1982 but fewer than 450,000 today, while sheep numbers topped out at 1.3 million head in the 1920s as opposed to only 85,000 today.

“The destruction of the historic Nevada livestock industry is primarily the result of federal regulatory actions, particularly grazing regulations imposed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service,” Rathbun wrote.

Elko attorney Grant Gerber said Nevada was third behind Idaho and California as being the most burned over states, with 400,000 acres and over 1.2 million animals burned annually. He blamed it on the failed policies of the federal government.