PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 3, 2016
Douglas County Economic Development and Conservation Act of 2016
This bill directs the Forest Service to convey approximately 67 acres of certain Forest Service land (Lake Tahoe-Nevada State Park) to the state of Nevada for the conservation of wildlife or natural resources or for a public park. Subject to the agreement of the permit holder, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) shall include in the permit for operation of the Zephyr Cove Resort the approximately 44.7 acres of National Forest System land identified as the Zephyr Shoals.
The Forest Service, for National Forest System land, and the Department of Interior, for land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), shall convey approximately 7,951 acres of specified federal land to Douglas County, Nevada, for flood control or any other public purpose.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
USDA shall implement a cooperative management agreement for the approximately 13 acres of land identified as the Tahoe Rim Trail North Parcel to: (1) improve the quality of recreation access to such land by providing additional amenities agreed to by the parties to the agreement, and (2) conserve the natural resource values of the land.
The Forest Service or Interior, as appropriate, shall conduct one or more sales of specified federal lands in the county to qualified bidders, with the option for the state or county to obtain the land for public purposes before the land is offered for sale.
All U.S. interest in the approximately 1,011acres of certain federal land and certain land administered by the BLM or Forest Service (Section 5 lands) shall be held in trust for the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, and become part of the Tribe's reservation. Certain gaming cannot be conducted on such land. The bill designates approximately 12,330 acres of specified federal land managed by the BLM, to be known as the Burbank Canyons Wilderness, as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The bill also releases the approximately 1,065 acres of public land in the Burbank Canyons Wilderness study area not designated as wilderness by this Act from further study for designation as wilderness. USDA may transfer from the Forest Service to Nevada or Douglas County, in coordination with the local forest unit, certain lands or interests in Forest Service land which are unsuitable for Forest Service administration.
People & committees
Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2] · R–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs.
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: Dec 9, 2025. 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.4688 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.4688 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.4688 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.4688 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.