119 



THE 



^ 



DESERT TORTOISE COUNCIL 



5319 Cerritos Avenue 



Long Beach, California 90805 



June 22, 1987 



TO: 



FROM: 



SUBJECT: 



MEMORANDUM 



Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands 



Glenn R. Stewart, Senior Co-Chairman ^ <^^-^ 



S.854, "Nevada-Florida Land Exchange Authorization Act of 1987" 



I have enclosed two docvunents and request that they be entered for the 

 record as testimony presented before the Senate Subcommittee on Public 

 Lands, June 30,1987. 



Document (1) : Position Statement of the Desert Tortoise Council S.854, 

 "Nevada-Florida Land Exchange Authorization Act of 1987" 



Document (2) : Letter from the Desert Tortoise Council to Ralph E. 



Clark, Executive Vice-President and General Meuiager, 

 Aerojet Nevada 



The following summarizes some of the items in the position statement. 



The Desert Tortoise Council is opposed to S.854. If S.854 is passed, 81 

 square miles of public land that has not been identified for disposal 

 would be removed from public domain and offered to Aerojet Nevada in 

 exchange for only 7 square miles of private land located in Florida and 

 owned by Aerojet-General Corporation. 



The construction amd use of the facility proposed by Aerojet Nevada, in 

 Coyote Spring Valley, would negatively impact 67 contiguous square miles of 

 relatively undisturbed desert tortoise habitat. The proposed exchange area 

 is located at the core of habitat identified as crucial to the long-term 

 survival of the tortoise in Nevada. 



The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined in 1985 that listing of the 

 tortoise is warranted. No listing package has been prepared but this is 

 because there are too many species awaiting listing for the limited staff 

 to do the work. 



The Section 7 Consultation by the Fish and Wildlife Service on the subject 

 of the Nevada land exchange concluded that the effects upon listed and 

 candidate species would not be restricted to the direct and immediate 

 impacts of Aerojet. The eventual sale of the land would further degrade 

 desert tortoise habitat and have a major negative impact upon one of only 

 six known areas in Nevada where tortoise populations may be viable. The 

 Section 7 Consultation has been downplayed by those who believe that the 

 land exchange would benefit the tortoise or that all impacts would be 



