BLM

Sorry This is the only way I can show you this document.
There are a lot of counties involved here. This is just one document.

desert conservation
PROGRAM
September 27, 2013
Mr. Lee Kirk
RMP Project Director
Bureau of Land Management
4701 N. Torrey Pines
Las Vegas, Nevada 89130
RE: Clark County Desert Conservation Program comments on Draft Chapter 2, Alternative, Las
Vegas/Pahrump Resource Management Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Kirk,
Clark County (County) as administrator of the Desert Conservation Program, which manages regional
compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on behalf of the cities of Henderson, Las Vegas,
North Las Vegas, Mesquite, Boulder City and Nevada Department ofTransportation, appreciates the
opportunity to be a Cooperating Agency on the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) amendment to
the Las Vegas Resource Management Plan (RMP). The Desert Conservation Program appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the draft Chapter 2 Alternatives, but would have preferred to fulfill our
role as a Cooperating Agency by assisting in the development of the alternatives.
The BLM and Clark County have an excellent history of working together and are inextricably linked in
Southern Nevada as it pertains to land disposal, development and compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act. More than 20 years ago, the BLM
and County embarked on a partnership necessary for the continued orderly development of private
land and the mitigation of lands disposed of by the BLM and developed by private residents in Clark
County. Our predecessors understood that because nearly nine out of ten acres in dark County is
managed by a federal agency, the only feasible way to construct a habitat conservation plan (HCP), a
necessary part of an application for a Section lO(a)(l)(B) incidental take permit, was to include federal
lands in the HCP. This has been an arrangement mutually beneficial to both agencies.
As you may recall, the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (service) significantly streamline NEPA
requirements and section 7 consultations by pointing to the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan (MSHCP) to mitigate for its impacts to covered species from the disposal of public land. •
respect, protect and enjoy our desert!
333 North Rancho. Suite 625. Las VeRas. NV 891 06·Phone (702) 455-5942 •Fax (702) 382-4593
Mr. Lee Kirk
September 27, 2013 Page 2
The current incidental take permit falls short of being able to accommodate the acres anticipated for
BLM disposal when combined with private, local development interests over the next fifty years. To
that end, the County is seeking an amendment to the MSHCP, and has proposed a revised mitigation
strategy of creating and managing a reserve system to mitigate for impacts.
1. MSHCP Amendment and Ability of Oark County to Continue Mitigating for Disposal of BLM Land
The County has on several occasions provided proposed reserve units to serve as mitigation in an amended MSHCP to the BLM for its consideration (see attached). In addition, at the suggestion ofthe las Vegas Field Office, the County nominated the proposed reserve units as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) for the BLM's consideration in the amendment to the RMP. The proposed Reserve Units/ACECs were developed in an open, public process during an 18-month long Community Advisory Committee process and there is broad support for the Reserves/ACECs as articulated in the Committee's final report, which has also been provided to the BLM.
Subsequently, las Vegas Field Office staff conducted a qualitative review of the proposed
Reserves/ACEC nominations and concluded that approximately half of what Clark County
nominated was relevant and/or important. As a result, it would appear that BLM has dropped
the proposed Reserve Units/ACECs from further consideration in the RMP amendment
process. There is significant new information available to the BLM in its consideration ofthe
proposed Reserve Units/ACECs. Unfortunately, given the extremely limited amount of time
provided to the Cooperating Agencies for review and comment on the draft alternatives, it is
not possible to provide a detailed synthesis of this new information for BLM in these
comments. Therefore, Qarlc Countv respectfullv requests that the BLM reconsider the
Importance and relevance ofthe proposed Reserve Unlts/ACECs In light new Information,
Including. but not limited to:
1.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised recovery plan for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California. 222 pp.
2.
Comer, P., P. Crist, M. Reid, J. Hak, H. Hamilton, D. Braun, G. Kittel, I. Varley, B. Unnasch, S. Auer, M. Creutzburg, D. Theobald, and L. Kutner. 2013. Mojave Basin and Range Rapid Ecoregional Assessment Report.Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of land Management. 173 pp +Appendices
3.
Bureau of land Management Interim Policy-Draft Regional Mitigation Manual-1794
•
respect, protect and enjoy our desert!
333 North Rancho. Suite 625. Las Ves:~as. NV 89106 • Phone (702) 455-5942 ·Fax (702) 382-4593
Mr. Lee Kirk
September 27, 2013
Page 3
If the las Vegas Field Office still concludes that the proposed Reserve Units/ ACES in their entirety are not relevant and/or important, then Clark County respectlullr requests that BLM ldentlfv anddesignate these areas, In their entiretY. as •Areas o(Ecoloqlcallmportance'' or "Prior/tv Habitats" In accordance with the Program/Resource-Specific Decision Guidance In Aopendix C ofthe Land Use Planning Handbook lH-1601-11.
Clark Countv also respectfully requests that the BLM revise the list ofal«ematives to include an alternative that contains allofthe proposed Resetve Units/ACECs/Areas ofEcological Importance/Prior/tv Habitats, In their entiretv. so that the public has an ODPOrtunltv to weigh In on theirInclusion In a final amendment to the RMP andso that the BLM mar have benefit ofconsidering allofthe proposed Resetve Units/ACECs/Areas ofEcoloqiml lmportance/Prlorltv Habitats when crafting a prefelfY!d alternative.
During a meeting of the County, BLM and the Service in August 2011, the parties recognized that for this approach to be viable, it must be reflected in the RMP revision being prepared by the BLM.
To further the management ofthese proposed Reserve Units/ACECs/Areas of Ecological Importance/Priority Habitats, Section 307 (b) ofthe Federal land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) gives a broad grant of authority that "subject to the provisions of applicable law, the Secretary of Interior may enter into contracts and cooperative agreements involving the management, protection, development and sale of public lands. n This provision clearly allows the BLM to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements for the management of public lands. As such, Clark County has submitted a proposal for local government management of these lands within the Reserve Units/ACECs/Areas of Ecological Importance/Priority Habitats (see attached). The draft Cooperative Management Agreement, along with a draft Framework Habitat Management Plan (see attached), contains the covered activities, conservation strategy and adaptive management to be employed in the Reserve Units/ACECs/Areas of Ecological Importance/Priority Habitats and would provide the sideboards for management of the Reserve System, such that all activities would be within the scope of what is analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the RMP and the amended MSHCP. All activities undertaken by the County within Reserve Units/ACECs would be consistent with the MSHCP and the RMP. Under this approach, permitting and NEPA compliance by BLM at the individual management action level would not be necessary.
The County also resoect(ullv requests that the management actions andconsetvatlon
measures proposed In the draft Cooperative Management Agreement and the draft
Framework Habitat Management Plan be Included In the alternatives being developed,
analvzed. and carried forward in the amended RMP so that this amendment option can be
considered bv the public andso that the BLM marhave benefitofconsidering allofthe
proposed management actions when crafting a preferred alternative.
respect, protect and enjoy our desert!
333 North Rancho. Suite 625. Las ves:~as, NV B9106 · Phone (702) 455-5942•Fax (702) 382-4593
Mr. Lee Kirk
September 27,2013
Page4
Including designations and management actions developed for the mutual benefit of BLM and Clark County's amended MSHCP in the amended RMP continues the partnership that has worked well for both ofour agencies.
Without the BLM's full cooperation in the amendment of the MSHCP, the County may need to revisit mitigating for the disposal of BLM land and may need to request that the FWS and BLM reinitiate consultation on t hese actions to address impacts to sensitive species and compliance by the BLM with NEPA and the ESA.
2. General comments regarding the BLM RMP Maps and GIS datasets Overall, it appears there is still a need for a general"clean up" of all GIS datasets being used for the RMP analyses. Without accurate and consistent data files, cooperating agencies cannot be expected to provide meaningful comments and feedback to the BLM on such an important and impactful planning effort.
Please check all acres ofall mapped features. For instance, it appears that there might be a
problem with the Muddy Mountain and/ or Bitter Springs shapefile. There could be double
counting of acres of the Bitter Springs between ACEC Alternative 2 and 3.
The document would benefit from including a grazing allotment map showing open and closed allotments.
Table 2.16, please consider providing a list of all alternative 1 wilderness areas and acres.
3. Comments on the Evaluation Report for ACECs Given the extremely limited amount of time provided to the Cooperating Agencies for review, the County could not completely discern if the comments that were sent via a letter to Mary Jo Rugwell dated June 29, 2012 on the Evaluation Report for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern for the Las Vegas/Pahrump RMP Revision dated February 2012 were considered and addressed. With regard to the Evaluation Report for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern for the Las Vegas/Pahrump RMP Revision dated October 2013, we offer the following comments:
•
Page 6, The Clark County Desert Conservation Program did not nominate 425,656 acres for ACEC status. This is inaccurate and misleading and needs to be changed.
•
Table Q-2 and Section 3.2.22 on p. 7-The County did not nominate the Pahrump Valley Mesquite ACEC; the County nominated what it called the Stump Springs ACEC. Please revise as this is not an accurate reflection of what was nominated and is misleading.
respect, protect and enjoy our desert!
333 North RanchO. Suite 625. Las VeRas. NV 89106·Phone (702) 456·5942 • Fa>< (702) 382-4693
Mr. Lee Kirk September 27, 2013 PageS
•
Table 0-2 and Section 3.2.30 on p.8-The County did not nominate the Upper Las Vegas Wash ACEC. Please revise as this is inaccurate and misleading.
•
Table 0-2, Page 8 states that the County nominated 10,275 acres as ACEC. This is inaccurate as the County nominated 37,265 acres in Bird Spring Valley.
•
Map 2, p. 9 does not list all of the ACECs nominated by the County. The scale of this map makes it too difficult to effectively discern the location of the nominated ACECs. In addition, nowhere does it show where the proposed ACECs nominated by the different agencies overlap. Cooperating agencies would be aided in their review by the BLM providing a map with a more clear depiction of each agency's nominations. It would also be helpful to provide a clear map ofthe ACECs to be included in the BLM's preferred alternative.
•
The Jean lake ACEC proposed by the BLM is listed in the Alternatives 2 and 3 as 11,605 acres and in Alternative 4 as 9,137 acres. Based on the best available data, it appears that less than 5,000 acres in the valley can reasonably be categorized as potential habitat for the white-margined penstemon. The BLM should revise this ACEC boundary to adhere more closely to known, occupied habitat as there is no biological evidence to suggest otherwise. At the very least, Alternative 4 described as the "Development Alternative" should include an ACEC that is no more than 5,000 acres large.
•
It is unclear why lvanpah Valley 2 (nominated) is being considered and analyzed in a separate EIS process for the Silver State South project and will not be considered further in the RMP/EIS at this time. There are certainly many impacted stakeholders that were unaware that this ACEC was nominated and being handled in a standalone amendment to theRMP.
•
Also in the County's scoping letter from February 25, 2010, it noted that the 1998 RMP was drafted to conform to the 1994 Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan. Several significant evaluations have occurred since the adoption of the 1994 Recovery Plan including reports by the United States Geological Survey, the General Accounting Office, and the Desert Tortoise Recovery Planning Assessment Team. In addition, a Revised Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan has been released by the Service. It's not clear from the information provided how these updates factored into BLM's analysis ofthe existing or proposed ACECs to aid in the recovery of the desert tortoise. This new information should be discussed and incorporated more transparently in the amended RMP.
•
The County's February 25, 2010 scoping letter also noted that the 1998 RMP states that monitoring and evaluation will be conducted at intervals not to exceed 5 years, for the following purposes:
respect, protect and enjoy our desert!
333 Nonh Rancho. Suite 625. Las Ves:~as. NV B9106•Phone (702) 455-5942·Fax (702) 382-4593
Mr. Lee Kirk
September 27, 2013
Page6
•
Determine effectiveness of the resource management plan in resolving issues.
•
Ensure effectiveness of mitigation measures.
•
Verify assumptions used in assessing impacts.
•
Review whether changes have occurred in related plans of other Federal agencies, and state or local governments.
•
Determine if implementation of the RMP is achieving desired results.
The current RMP also suggests that information gained through this step will be incorporated into future planning, including any amendments or revisions to the RMP. The BLM should evaluate the effectiveness of management actions and mitigation measures implemented in the 1998 RMP and demonstrate that information gained through
evaluation and monitoring is incorporated into the amendment. Of particular interest is
whether or not the designation and management of desert tortoise ACECs and the implementation of the RMP has in fact aided in the recovery of the desert tortoise. The RMP anticipates environmental outcomes that include: improvement in tortoise habitat,
upward population trends in tortoise, and that sufficient habitat would be protected to
support viable populations of tortoise and meet recovery criteria. It is not clear that any
monitoring data has been collected that can be used to assess these outcomes or that the
data that does exist reflects positive outcomes for the desert tortoise. The amended RMP
should strive to improve the monitoring and evaluation of its implementation and make
revisions that more clearly correlate to positive trends in the desert tortoise population.
It's not clear from the information provided how the BLM factored monitoring data into
the evaluation of existing or proposed ACEC nominations with regard to advancing the
recovery ofthe desert tortoise.
4.
Disposal Areas Clark County respectfully requests that the BLM make no reductions to the current disposal boundaries, particularly with regard to Moapa-Glendale, Laughlin, or Apex. Clark County has planned for and anticipates future growth in these areas and any reduction in disposal boundaries would compromise these efforts. In addition, there is no rationale, justification or discussion as to why various disposal boundaries were modified or considered for reduction. Additional rationale and justification should be provided that explains why removing acres from disposal is necessary and prudent. In addition, the BLM should outline the full range of management actions necessary to implement and monitor the disposal alternatives within existing agency resources and should outline the conditional decisions that will be necessary to manage these lands removed from disposal commensurate with available financial and human resources.
5.
Renewable Energy The BLM, as a signatory to the Implementation Agreement for the MSHCP, has assisted the County in the implementation of the current MSHCP by maintaining lands in conservation
respect, protect and enjoy our desert!
333 Nonh Rancho, Suite 625, Las VeRas. NV 89106 • Phone (702) 455·5942 ·Fax (702) 382-4593
Mr. Lee Kirk September 27, 2013 Page7
status to serve as a "reserve system", which is a critical component of the MSHCP. The MSHCP contains a biological goal aimed at no net unmitigated loss ofthese conservation lands.
Equally important to the MSHCP is the funding provided to the BLM for the implementation of conservation actions listed in the RMP that could not have been implemented otherwise. Some of these conservation actions were significant expenditures with an aim to protect and improve the quality of covered species' habitat through projects such as resource protection, restoration, purchase of grazing allotments, etc. These actions were required to mitigate residual impacts anticipated in the MSHCP.
Especially when reviewing analyses related to the BLM's authorization of large-scale alternative energy projects, the County is finding that these analyses are failing to account for the loss of County-funded conservation measures to mitigate impacts anticipated in the MSHCP. These analyses need to be more transparent and better describe the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts ofthe proposed project, and the loss of the conservation actions funded in the area ofthe proposed project that were offsetting impacts anticipated in the MSHCP.
Mitigation areas to be accounted for during analyses include, at a minimum: 1) Within grazing allotments purchased with Clark County funds or assistance; 2) Areas where Clark County funds have restored vegetation or habitat; 3) Areas where Clark County funds have provided for law enforcement actMties; 4) Areas where Clark County funds have provided for weed monitoring and treatment activities; and 5) Areas where Clark County funds have been used for road designation, closure and monitoring.
This issue is also pertinent to modifications to land use designations or allowable uses that may be considered during amendment of the RMP to facilitate actions such as large-scale energy development. We are recommending that this analysis be included when developing alternatives for the RMP amendment.
The BLM should have a comprehensive list ofthe conservation measures funded by County to implement the MSHCP (See letter dated July 12, 2010 to Mary Jo Rugwell for additional information).
Clark County's understanding from the meeting on September 9, 2013 between the BLM and Cooperating Agencies is that it is BLM's intent to include these comments in a table to facilitate BLM's rapid responses to the Cooperating Agency comments. This approach seems to fall short in BLM's willingness to meaningfully consider our comments and allow Clark County to fulfill its role as a Cooperating Agency.
respect, protect and enjoy our desert!
333 North Rancho. Suite 625. Las Ves:~as. NV 89106•Phone (702) 455-5942•Fax (702) 382-4593
Mr. Lee Kirk
September 27, 2013
PageS
The Clark County Desert Conservation Program respectfully requests a follow up meeting with BLM to discuss these comments and to work more closely with the BLM over the coming weeks to develop the alternatives that will move forward in the RMP amendment.
Please contact me at (702) 455-3118 to schedule a meeting or ifyou need additional information.
Sincerely,
~r~~eu~
Marci D. Henson Planning Manager and Administrator of the MSHCP
MDH/aem
Attachments (3)
respect, protect and enjoy our desert!
333 North Rancho. Suite 625. Las VBj:jas. NV 891 06 • Phone (702) 455·5942 ·Fax (7 02) 382-4593
&.e-1
~~--,--......._, Clark County
_,.,Fn o -.-.
__,_,_...
-vqoo-"-
Propased Reserve Units
--Clip~FaWWJft~
W••r
_...,_
-I*C.
Jaoroc~
. .
a a
PNjoallon: r---·
::-..::--UTIIIZ.. tt
Dolo IN'.I-13 NlmrReHfV'e...,....__1
N
~
wf)e
s ~.conoc;r:DRAFT-
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CLARK COUNTY,
A POLmCAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, BY AND
THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENT OF AIR QUALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT, DESERT CONSERVATION PROGRAM
AND THE
BUREAU OF LAND
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
REGARDING
MULTIPLE SPECIES
I.
Service (USFWS) issued a Notice of Multiple Species Habitat (permit). The amendment disturbance that is authorized under -.nn!~P.T'IirSihlln program to minimize and mitigate for number ofcovered species. The permit term of the date the Permit is issued.
endmeJtlt involved updating the conservation strategy dming l 0 years ofimplemmtation ofthe MSHCP. As
ofBoulder City, Hmderson, Las Vegas, Mesquite, North Las Vegas, and County (Permittees) proposed to establish a "Reserve System" to mitigate for impacts to covered species from covered activities within the Plan Area. The Reserve System would be managed and monitored by the COUNTY, on behalfofthe Permittees, to provide for the conservation of covered species.
Approximately 890/o ofClark County is owned and managed by the federal government, predominately through the BLM. As a result, state, local and private lands would be insufficimt for the establishment ofa Reserve System. The Reserve System would
DRAFT-FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
therefore need to be based primarily on public lands that would be subject to a long-term management agreement between BLM and the COUNTY.
On January 10, 2010, the BLM issued a Notice ofIntent to prepare a revision to the Las Vegas Resource Management Plan (RMP). The revision to the RMP was completed on :XXXX. The RMP provides guidance for the management of approximately 3.3 million acres of land administered by the BLM in Southern Nevada and identifies and analyzes alternatives for the long-term management ofpublic lands and resources administered by theBLM.
The RMP includes the definition and justification for Environmental Concern" (ACEC) for the specific implement the conservation ~tegyoutlined in comprise the public land portion ofthe .,~..-...... refe~ce). The Amended MSHCP de54cribes minimize and mitigate the impacts species in Clark County. In cooperation determined that a Reserve System \iVJ.Jll)~,.lll~ needed to adequately mitigate ACECs that make up the oroooSI impacts of implementing marmge MSHCP were analyzed pursuant BLM in the . Impact
n.
Land Policy and Management Act lands be managed in a manner that historical, ecological, environmental, and archeological values; that, where certain public lands in their natural habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and
delegation from the Secretary to conduct investigations, studies, and on its own initiative or in cooperation with others, involving the management, protection, development, acquisition, and conveying ofthe public lands and may authorize Federal personnel or appropriate local officials to carry out its law enforcement responsibilities with respect to the public lands and their resources. In addition, through the FLPMA, BLM has responsibility to consult with local governments to assure that BLM policies, plans, and programs are as consistent as practicable with the local governmental policies, plans, and programs.
DRAFT-FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
COUNTY. COUNTY is responsible for compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) through Section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permit ~(Permit)effective xx:x:xXxxx, administration ofthe Amended MSHCP finalized :XXXXXX:X; and for implementing the conservation strategy outlined in the MSHCP that provides regional ESA compliance without requiring project-by-project consultation with the USFWS. COUNTY serves as the program administrator for the Amended MSHCP on behalfofClark County and the cities ofBoulder City, Henderson, Las Vegas, Mesquite and North Las Vegas (Permittees).
m. AUTHORITIES.
BLM. FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1737), Sec. 307(a) investigmons,studies,mde~~nq or in cooperation with others, involving the ma081!!;~ acquisition, and conveying ofthe public applicable law, the Secretary may enter into involving the management, motec1tion develoJmei
'&Ulbfu;h, control, manage lblli;hmlent, control, management and ofspecies or subspecies. In in cooperation with the responsible in any other manner the preservmon of any spe~~ies or subspecies in the county which have appointed by the Board ofCounty a significant impact upon the economy and ofthe county iflisted as endangered or threatened.
COUNTY to enter into contracts with other public governmental service, activity or undertaking which any entering into the contract is authorized by law to perform.
IV. PURPOSE OF THE CMA.
The purpose ofthis CMA is to: (1) Establish a cooperative partnership between the Parties for the management ofthe public land resources identified in the 2012 Las Vegas Resource Management Plan (LVRMP) and the Amended MSHCP, defined as the Reserve System [provide reference to sections ofLVRMP that discuss Reserve System]; (2) enhance communicmon and consultation between
Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter.
DRAFT-FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
COUNTY and BLM with respect to management ofthe Reserve System; (3)
outline processes and procedures for resolving future conflicts regarding management ofthe Reserve System and implementation ofthe Amended
MSHCP.
This CMA establishes the processes and procedures for the management ofthe Reserve System by the COUNTY as defined in the RMP and the Amended MSHCP. The PARTIES will mutually benefit from the policies and procedures set forth in this CMA.
Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter.
Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter. Text from the Clark County Reserve Unit request letter.
actions on the Reserve System including but not control, law enforcement, habitat restoration and monitoring and management in support ofMSHCP
biological and objectives, and other related conservation actions defined in the Amended MSHCP.
4. Provide BLM with data on research, inventory, monitoring, restoration, enhancement and law enforcement activities conducted within the Reserve System.
DRAFT-FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
B. BLMwill:
1.
Provide COUNTY with management authority over the Reserve System. COUNTY shall be entitled to use the land for purposes ofimplementing and complying with the Amended MSHCP and permit
2.
Designate a management level representative from within the Las Vegas Field Office to be the contact for issues relating to the Reserve System (hereinafter referred to as the "BLM representative''). The representative will:
a) Serve as a liaison between the
b) Have the authority to represent
COUNTY regarding potc:mw
Reserve System and the
and;
c) Be responsible for
CMA.
3. RMP to the full
VI.
u.u.~uu~;;:> sufficient to effectuate transfer the COUNTY not later than
by law, eliminate subsequent NEPA review System management plans, and maximize ifsubsequent NEPA review is required by
6.
enforcement personnel identified by COUNTY to carry
responsibilities identified in the RMP that are necessary conservation strategy outlined in the Amended MSHCP.
7.
Except as otherwise required by law, the Secretary or any ofthe agencies, departments, subdivisions or services ofthe Department ofthe Interior shall not oppose any application to any federal, state or local government agency for permits or other approvals necessary to conduct activities on land that is consistent with the provisions ofthis Agreement.
VI. ALLOW ABLE USES OF THE RESERVE SYSTEM
DRAFf-FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
The following resource constraints will apply to the Reserve System:
A. Lands.
The Reserve System will remain in federal ownership and identified as rightsof-way (ROW) avoidance areas except as allowed within existing transportation and utility corridors as identified in Attachment" ".
B. Minerals.
The Reserve System shall be closed to all new
:tcatJ1ons for locatable
minerals, salable minerals, solid leasables,
community pits and
material site ROWs.
c. Range.
The Reserve System shall be
wild horses and burros.
D. Roads.
All roads in the Rese~System
"closed" pursuant to~.......,,&&Uaw..
as identified in Attachment "'
provide access to nM'I.I'aT""
the action
RMP.
E.
designated as "Limited to designated Roads and 'mechainm:d vehicles. Speed-based and nonmountain bike races, horse endurance rides, 4WD publicity rides high speed testing and similar events
G. Hunting.
Hunting, trapping and casual collection will be allowed as permitted by the State ofNevada
H. Other recreation.
Non-consumptive recreation activities including hiking, bird watching, casual bicycling, casual horseback riding, and photography shall be allowed. Other recreation uses, including but not limited to, target shooting, camping, geocaching and activities not defined herein shall be allowed on a case-by..
DRAFT-FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
case basis as determined by COUNTY to be consistent with the purposes of
the Amended MSHCP. COUNTY may adopt rules for various recreational
activities as necessary in order to effectively manage recreation in the Reserve
System and protect covered species and habitat.
VII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
A. The parties recognize that disputes concerning
with or termination ofthis agreement, the
may arise from time to time. The parties
to resolve such disputes, using the
forth in this section, or such other
agree. However, ifat any time
wmant, it may seek any
informal dispute resolution.
B. Informal dispute res(JIIlm4[)n
dispute resolution
administrative pmceec:
following process to
ofthe provision that that a violation has
"""..,, ........ the alleged violation. will have 30 days, or such other During this time it may seek
1!1..-n•lritt~ll'l in the initial notice. The efforts to provide any information that may responsive to such inquiries. response was provided or was due,
:naru'•es having authority to resolve the dispute negotiate in good faith toward a solution satisfactory to will establish a specific process and timetable to seek
4. cannot be resolved through such negotiations, the parties
t.iVlJ..:nUJ.,.l non-binding mediation and other alternative dispute resolution processes and, ifa dispute resolution process is agreed upon, will make good faith efforts to resolve all remaining issues through that process.
VID. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
A. Effective Date. This CMA shall become effective as soon as signed by the PARTIES hereto and shall continue in force unless formally tenninated as
DRAFT-FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
described in Section XII.C below. This CMA shall extend for a period offifty
(50)
years from the date of execution, after which the CMA will expire unless it is reauthorized by both PARTIES.
B.
Modifieation. This CMA represents the entire agreement and may be modified by the PARTIES only by written agreement by both PARTIES. However, the PARTIES may unilaterally modify their respective designated contacts through written notice by the representatives designated in Section V.
C. Withdrawal and Termination.
1.
Termination for Cause or IVun·,.ru:• terminated by BLM only in the revoked by the USFWS. considered cause for
This Agreement may be No.~is shall be oftheCMA.
2.
IN WTINESS THEREOF, the between County ofClark, ru..u•>l"'• __day of__, 2011.
AS TO FORM:
Name
BLM:
By:
Name
The below describes the contents of the Framework Management Plan and Reserve Unit Management Plans that will be developed for each reserve unit. Items with the (0) notation will be included in the interim Framework Management Plan for interim use in the first up-to-five years a reserve unit is acquired and/or managed by the Plan Administrator (see MSHCP section 4.3.3.3.1). Items with the (1), (2), or (3) notation will be added to a working draft of a Reservespecific Management Plan that will be completed (see MSHCP section 4.3.3.3.2) within five years.
(1)-first priority information to gather and document
(2)-second priority information to gather and document
(3) information that relies upon priority 1 or 2 information and reserve-specific objective setting
Framework Management Plan for amended MSHCP Reserve Units
1 Introduction
1.1 Description of the amended MSHCP reserve system (from MSHCP section 4.3.3 and 4.3.3.3.2)
The amended MSHCP includes a ~esystem for both desert and riparian habitats and covered species. Reserve unit management pl8ns will be prepared as soon as reasonably practicable, but not longer than five years following~establishmerit of the reserve unit. Until reserve unit management plans are develq~. reserve -lands will be managed on an interim basis in accordance with the best managern,eht optians avaHable. In the event that development fees cannot fully fund manag~OQQ