PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jun 7, 2016
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on April 25, 2016. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Eastern Nevada Land Implementation Improvement Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Lincoln County Land Act of 2000 (LCLA) to require implementation of a multispecies habitat conservation plan in Lincoln County, Nevada.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Both the LCLA and the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (LCCRDA) are amended to make certain amounts available for comprehensive, cost-effective, and multijurisdictional hazardous fuels reduction projects and wildfire prevention planning activities (particularly for pinyon-juniper dominated landscapes) and other rangeland and woodland restoration projects within the county, consistent with the Ely Resource Management Plan or a subsequent amendment to it.
The bill requires cooperative agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Lincoln County for certain county-provided law enforcement and planning related activities approved by the Department of the Interior.
Certain portions of land sale proceeds returned to the County under the LCLA and the LCCRDA shall be used in part for the Lincoln County Regional Development Authority.
Under the LCCRDA Interior shall realign a specified portion of a 2,640-foot wide utility corridor.
The bill:
affirms and validates patent number 27-2005-0081 issued by the BLM on February 18, 2005, as having been issued pursuant to and in compliance with specified law for the benefit of the desert tortoise, other species, and their habitat to increase the likelihood of their recovery; and
ratifies the processes used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM in reconfiguring the land covered by the patent.
Interior may issue a corrective patent for 7,548 specified acres of land in Lincoln County.
(Sec. 3) The bill amends the Pam White Wilderness Act to adjust the boundary of the Mt. Moriah Wilderness to include specified lands, and the boundary of the High Schells Wilderness to include and exclude specified lands.
The bill amends the Nevada Wilderness Protection Act of 1989 to adjust the boundary of the Arc Dome Wilderness to exclude specified land.
(Sec. 4) The bill amends the Mesquite Lands Act of 1988 to require the proceeds of the sales of certain parcels of land by Interior to the city of Mesquite, Nevada, to be made available for use for the development and implementation of a conservation plan to benefit fish and wildlife species of the Virgin River in Clark County (rather than, as currently, for development of a multispecies habitat conservation plan).
People & committees
Rep. Hardy, Cresent [R-NV-4] · R–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 360 - 7 (Roll no. 272). (text: CR H3482-3483)
House roll call 272 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 360 - 7 (Roll no. 272).(text: CR H3482-3483)
House roll call 272 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3492-3493)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1815.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3482-3484)
Mr. Hardy moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 365.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 114-479.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 114-479.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1815 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1815 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1815 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1815 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.