MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session March 20, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Monday, March 20, 1995, Chairman de Braga presiding in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John C. Carpenter, Chairman Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman Mr. Max Bennett, Vice Chairman Mrs. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman Mr. Douglas A. Bache Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mr. David E. Humke Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mr. Brian Sandoval Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dave S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Warren Hardy, Hunters Alert; Gerald Lent, Nevada Hunters Association; Willie Molini, Nevada Division of Wildlife; Ira Hansen; Wayne Perock, State Parks; John Jones, Nevada Division of Forestry; Joe Johnson, Coalition for Nevada Wildlife; Fred Wright. Following roll call, Chairman de Braga opened the hearing on S.B. 63. SENATE BILL 63 - Broadens authority of state department of conservation and natural resources to regulate disposal of hazardous wastes on or near waters of State of Nevada. Mr. Vern Rosse, Division of Environmental Protection, explained the purpose of S.B. 63 was to modify the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 445.287 to insure all waters of the state were protected from the release of radioactive materials. In the statute's present form potentially radioactive discharges to surface waters are not regulated, as well as any disposal or discharges not in liquid or explosive form. The bill would allow the Department to determine if there was need to issue permits to an applicant to discharge, deposit, generate or dispose of any radioactive or hazardous waste in order to protect the waters of the state. The bill modified the water pollution statute and was not intended to impact the hazardous waste statutes found in NRS 459, nor would it impact the health division's authority regarding radioactive materials. The requested statutory modification was a result of the 1992 federal facilities compliance act. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities in 22 states were conducting clean-up activities as a result of that act and were looking for sites to dispose of low level radioactive waste. In almost every case the Nevada test site was being considered for that disposal. This bill would provide the state authority to prevent these activities and protect the water from potential contamination. Ms. de Braga asked what things would be considered in "other waste" as stated in the bill. Mr. Rosse stated the original language defined "other waste" as waste discharged in liquid or explosive forms to the groundwater. They wished to replace that language with "or hazardous waste". The purpose of the legislation was to create a mechanism to potentially permit the United States Department of Energy to bring low level radioactive waste onto the test site for disposal or storage. Ms. Segerblom questioned did they want them to do that. Mr. Rosse answered they did not necessarily want them to do it but had no authority to prevent it. This bill would give authority to regulate it should it be brought to the Nevada site. Ms. Segerblom expressed they were not being encouraged to do so. Mr. Rosse affirmed they were not. Mr. Sandoval queried what was the fee for a typical bond to obtain a permit. Mr. Rosse explained they had not required bonds in the past and this would be the first application of the statute. It was based upon the cost of remediation or clean-up should the liners on the land fill fail. Mr. Sandoval asserted clean-up would be very expensive, in the neighborhood of seven figures, and asked if that would be considered in the price of the bond. Mr. Rosse responded affirmatively. Mr. Bennett stated he was a test site worker and explained Area Five was a low level hazardous waste storage site with a spill test facility where actual tests were done on how to clean up chemicals, spills and flammables. He asked what would be an example of their authority on the Nevada test site. Mr. Rosse answered most of the permits issued would follow the guidelines of the hazardous waste program off the test site. Mr. Bennett asked if he was implying the test site does not comply with regulations. Mr. Rosse stated there was no oversight of disposal radioactive materials on the test site and DOE was exempt from the Nevada Revised Codes (NRC) regulation of the disposal of radioactive materials. Mr. Bennett disagreed stating there was quite a bit of oversight out there. Mr. Rosse asserted not by NRC or by the Division of Environmental Protection in the way of radioactive materials. Mr. Neighbors noted in the summary of the bill the statement: ". . . to regulate disposal of hazardous wastes on or near waters of the State of Nevada". He asked if the word "near" was defined in the NRS. Mr. Rosse said the statute did not make reference to the word "near". They attempted to have controls on a disposal facility so any leach agents generated would not migrate to ground or surface waters, therefore, the statute did not use the word "near". Mr. Neighbors asked if he were to apply for a permit and stated it was 800 to 1,200 feet to water, what would be the basis for his answer. Mr. Rosse answered they would establish conditions in the permit to prevent perculation or the leach agent from going to the groundwater or to migrate to surface waters. Mr. Carpenter asked the correlation between giving the state authority to regulate test sites when it does not have authority to regulate grazing land and other areas. Mr. Rosse noted the Federal Facilities Compliance Act gave the state specific authority to regulate activities of Department of Defense (DOD) and DOE. Mr. Carpenter queried if they had total specific authority to act. Mr. Rosse explained they must have statutory authority which they were attempting to achieve with this bill. Mr. Carpenter asked who would be watching over them. Mr. Rosse responded the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) always watched over their activities. Mr. Carpenter expressed the federal EPA was usurping Nevada's authority. Mr. Rosse explained the air quality, water quality and hazardous waste programs had applied to the federal EPA for authorization to run their own state program that met the minimum requirements required by federal acts. They had obtained that authorization and as long as they maintained it and conducted reasonable programs the EPA would not interfere. Mr. Bennett inquired if Mr. Rosse was aware it was a violation at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) to take a cup of drinking water and pour it out on the ground. The NTS was so regulated. Mr. Rosse declared he was not aware it was to that extent. Mr. Bennett asserted the only group on the NTS not anticipating 30 percent budget cuts annually was Environmental Safety and Health (ES&H) and he further stated he felt this piece of legislation was not meritorious. The Chair asked for questions or opposition to S.B. 63. There being none the hearing was closed on S.B. 63. The hearing was opened on A.B. 159. ASSEMBLY BILL 159 - Makes various changes to provision governing removal or possession of certain trees and flora. Mr. John Jones, Nevada Division of Forestry, explained the purpose of the bill was to make changes to the existing laws regulating the commercial removal of cactus, yucca and Christmas trees in the state of Nevada. The bill proposed to impose additional fees for some of the work done in processing commercial registrations for harvest of yucca, cactus and Christmas trees. This would extend the protection to all lands in the state of Nevada. Various portions of the law as currently written were ambiguous as to exactly how far and which lands were protected. One section referred to state and federal lands; another section referred to private lands; another included state, county and private lands. Some of the proposed changes would require landowner's written permission and, in certain cases, a permit from the Division of Forestry. They were also extending the protection of endangered plant species. Currently the law stated removal or disturbance of endangered plants from any lands by any means could only be done by permit issued by the state forester. However, the section in that portion of the bill, as currently written, only applied to state and Federal lands. It was wished to extend protection of endangered plants to all other lands within the state as well. There were a few other changes that would clarify commercial harvesting activities. Mr. Jones explained after meeting with Wayne Perok from State Parks, and Pam Wilcox from State Lands, changes were proposed to the bill as drafted due to concerns in the first portion (Exhibit C). Mr. Sandoval asked if the first paragraph criminalized the picking of any flower on public lands. Mr. Jones explained as the law was now written a permit from the landowner would be required to pick a flower on private land. The change would require the individual picking the flower to comply with the regulations of the agency administering the land. Mr. Sandoval expressed concern regarding hikers and others with no criminal intent being exposed to a violation and subject to a misdemeanor prosecution. Mr. Jones surmised each government agency, such as the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management, had regulations in place forbidding picking of flowers without permission. If at all possible, as a state agency, they would allow a federal agency or other agency to administer their own regulations. In that situation, if one of his people came across someone picking flowers they would first check for a permit. If there was none, the officer would use his own judgment and, in most cases, the person would be advised to get a permit but a citation would not be issued. On the other hand, if it was someone collecting a truckload of flowers it would be a different scenario. Mr. Carpenter recalled a piece of sagebrush being left on Ms. Segerblom's desk and remarked if the person who put it there did not have a permit the law was probably broken. He could envision many problems should this bill be passed. He expressed people wanted less government, not more, and felt this bill went overboard. If this were a plan to protect endangered species he would be able to support it. Mr. Jones expressed over-regulation was not the intent of the bill. The intent was to clarify the need for landowner's permission to touch plants on private property. Mr. Carpenter queried if a child picked a dandelion in the park, would a permit be required? Mr. Neighbors echoed Mr. Carpenter's position and requested documentation of abuses be given to the Committee. He asked for an estimation of the number of abuses. Mr. Jones said it was difficult to estimate because there were so many incidents happening in the wild never discovered by enforcement officers. The purpose in writing the law was primarily to address commercial trade in cactus, yucca and Christmas trees. He would be able to give the Committee information on investigations and problems regarding those items. Mr. Neighbors asserted he had never heard abuses such as these. Mr. Jones declared their intent was not to harass dandelion pickers in the park. Ms. de Braga asked if they already had the ability to prevent harvesting of cactus and Christmas trees for commercial purposes. Mr. Jones stated the law, as currently written, required anyone proposing to remove cactus, yucca or Christmas trees for commercial purpose were required to register with the Division of Forestry and obtain tags and permits. After the registration was submitted the information was verified, ensuring the individual signing the form was actually the owner of the property. The property was inspected to make sure the plants to be collected were actually growing on the ground. In many cases the harvester wanted all plants on the property, not knowing how many, and requested the division to count them. The division would do an estimate on how many plants were on a 100 acre parcel. Once the permit registration was approved the harvester was required to purchase a tag for each plant taken. The tags were sold for $1.00 each, which was the only fee. After purchasing the tags they would go to the property, dig up the plants, put on the tags and before they were shipped the law required a shipping permit. Therefore, the division returned to the property, inspected the tagged plants ready to be shipped, and issued a shipping permit. The bill was proposing to establish a fee for processing the registration form verifying land ownership, surveying the property and counting plants, and a fee for each time the commercial shipment was inspected. The amount was not stated in the bill but the division was proposing $25 for each registration fee and permit which would be good for up to a year; and $5 for each field inspection pursuant to the issuing of the shipping permit. Due to abuses of these laws in the past they included some restrictions on commercial harvesters. They had experienced problems with shipping permits. Plants brought into Nevada were required to have a shipping permit issued by the state of origin or a notarized permit from the landowner there. In many cases the harvesters did not have that documentation with them although they claimed the permits had been obtained. The change in the bill would require them to have the permit at all times when they were in possession of plants. Toward the end of the bill they were proposing anyone convicted of violating the cactus and yucca laws would be restricted from dealing in the trade for one year. That was patterned after the Arizona laws. Most of the Nevada cactus and yucca laws are patterned after the state of Arizona's native plant laws. Ms. de Braga asked if there were any regulations controlling the commercial pine nut harvest. Mr. Jones stated pine nuts would be included in the first portion of the law where it mentioned wild flowers and seeds. The only other reference to pine nuts, not in that portion of the law, was a mechanical harvester could not be used to collect them, with the exception of native Indians. Ms. de Braga inquired if commercial and non-commercial were regarded as the same. Mr. Jones answered affirmative insofar as state laws were concerned. Ms. Ohrenschall asked, in the first part of the bill concerning private land, was the permit envisioned a written permit? Mr. Jones answered all that was required was permission in writing from the landowner. Mr. Wayne Perock, Acting Administrator, Division of State Parks, stated he and Pam Wilcox had met that morning with Mr. James. They had developed a hand out and supported the bill based upon that hand out. It provided the division with some regulation in statute that was more binding and allowed their people to act without warning. He explained they occasionally obtained permits, usually from the education or scientific communities, asking to collect plants. However, the general public in a state park realized where they were and common sense told them not to pick things. There had been occurrences of individuals picking snow plants at Sand Harbor and the division became involved with enforcement in those cases. Mr. Sandoval referred to the last page of the bill where confiscation of Christmas trees was addressed stating they would be either sold or utilized for public purpose. He asked for an example of this proposal. Mr. Jones said confiscated plants could be disposed of without selling them to the highest bidder when their original location was uncertain. They generally allowed them to be used for public agency offices or, in the case of cactus or yuccas, they were given to state parks, state lands or used for landscaping around public buildings and grounds. Mr. Sandoval asked if they had the ability to provide confiscated Christmas trees to needy families. Mr. Jones indicated they had been donated to the Salvation Army in the past and allowed them to distribute the Christmas trees as they saw fit. The Chair asked for opposition to A.B. 159. Stephanie Licht, representing the Nevada Wool Growers Association, testified A.B. 159 would create a problem for sheepherders using range land. Sheepherders were required to have a permit to graze sheep on public land. She asked if this bill required a sheepherder to obtain a permit to pick flowers to put in his hat band. If he picked a flower on state land would the state officer apprehend him? When he moved to federal land would he be required to show his permit to the state officer, or vice versa? These were problems that might arise. In an attempt to protect endangered species the bill extends to private lands. Ms. Licht stated she was bothered by this. She sited an example wherein a poor Asian individual managed to buy a piece of farm land. While disking the land he ran over a kangaroo rat resulting in confiscation of his land and him landing in jail. She asked, if a seed from federal land blew onto her private land, grew into a flower, her sheep inadvertently ate it, or her cattle tromped upon it, or her horse trampled it, or her child picked it, and she had no permit . . would she go to jail? These were some of the concerns not apparent when attempting to fix the problem of illegal harvesting of plants on public lands. She said she personally did not know any commercial outfits that were into that type of illegal activity. She noted most people know to get a permit when cutting a Christmas tree. In summary, she recognized the need to regulate some of these things but did not feel this particular legislation was the way to accomplish it. There being no more questions or testimony the hearing was closed on A.B. 159. The hearing was opened on A.B. 307. ASSEMBLY BILL 307 - Limits use of money received by division of wildlife of state department of conservation and natural resources from stamps, tags, permits and licenses sold or issued by division. Mr. David Humke, Assemblyman, District 26, Washoe County, explained A.B. 307 was a bill that had been before the legislature many times before in various forms. He felt this was a good session for it to be processed and would be successful this time. Essentially A.B. 307 would cause division of some of the activities currently conducted in the Department of Wildlife. It would separate those activities pertaining more to the Fish and Game Department thus leaving the Department of Wildlife with other existing activities. He indicated he would not testify at length but wished to explain the game plan. He stated Assemblyman Spitler, co-sponsor of the bill, along with other members of the Committee, would also testify. Mr. Spitler served on the Ways and Means Committee and chaired the Natural Resources Subcommittee of Ways and Means. A.B. 307 had been concurrently referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining, and Ways and Means. He impressed upon the Committee should they have reservations about the bill to express them, bearing in mind it should be redrafted from its rather skeletal form in the Ways and Means Committee due to the fact the issues were essentially fiscal. He invited fiscal analysts Gene Botts and Bob Guernsey to inform the Committee of the requirements of money committees when changing a division into two separate agencies. They would demonstrate the intent of the bill. Mr. Warren Hardy, a lobbyist for Hunter's Alert, would be giving his input on the bill. Mr. Humke introduced his constituent, Dr. Gerald Lent, an optometrist practicing in Reno, interested in this and other wildlife issues. Also, the Honorable Judge Donald Mosley of the Eighth Judicial District court in Las Vegas would testify based upon his intense interest in wildlife issues. Mr. Larry Spitler, Assemblyman, District 41, indicated his support for A.B. 307. He mentioned concurrent referral to the Ways and Means Committee who were conducting a fiscal study to ascertain financial aspects in an attempt to arrive at a proposal that would be user friendly in the transition. He indicated he was one of the tri-chairs of the Ways and Means Subcommittee studying the bill. He expressed fascination at finding himself involved with these issues because he was not a hunter and did not like to catch fish. He felt outdoor persons, who paid high fees to perpetuate their sport and replenish natural resources, deserved attention from the bureaucratic world which might have lost sight of the mission of fish and game. For that reason he reiterated his strong support. Ms. Gene Botts and Bob Guernsey, both Program Analysts in the Fiscal Analysis Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) were introduced to the Committee. Ms. Botts indicated they had met with Mr. Humke, Mr. Spitler and other individuals to look at the plan presented in A.B. 307 and were prepared to give comments regarding the budget. Basically the proposal was to separate the current Division of Wildlife into two parts, a Division of Fish and Game and a Wildlife Division. The Fish and Game Division would consist of three sections: (1) a game section responsible for management of big game, upland game, water fowl, fur bearers, unprotected fur bearers, management of lands under fish and game jurisdiction, hunter education and public information and education; (2) a fisheries division responsible for management of sport fisheries within the state, fish hatcheries, fisheries management, fish protection and stocking, and maintenance and development; and (3) a fiscal division responsible for accounting, licensing, budgets and budgetary control, data entry, coordinating federal aid and the boating program. The three divisions would be under an agency administrator and above that would be a reconstituted Fish and Game Commission. That group would be made up of nine individuals which consisted of six sportsmen, one rancher, one farmer and one general public. The existing Wildlife Commission would be eliminated and the Division of Wildlife which dealt with non-game issues, non-game wildlife, non-game habitat and environmental assessments would be under the Natural Resources Advisory Board. That was the board, created during the 1993 legislative session, under the Governor's plan to reorganize state government wherein several existing boards and commissions were consolidated into a Natural Resources Advisory Board who would advise the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. The Nevada Natural Heritage Program suggested they might also go under the new Division of Wildlife and the biodiversity program. Law enforcement would go under the Game Division of the Division of Fish and Game, and also the operation game thief. The scenario was drawn by the Committee and Bob Guernsey, who had the Wildlife Division as an assignment for many years. Ms. Botts indicated she was assigned to the Division of Wildlife to design whatever budget the committee would desire. Ms. Botts pointed out funding on the license and tag fees, currently collected by the Division of Wildlife, between $5 - $6 Million proposed for the coming biennium, and other Federal monies dealing with fish and game issues would go to the Division of Fish and Game. General fund appropriations, provided to the Division of Wildlife for support of non-game programs, currently was approximately $600,000 per year, and had been proposed by the Governor to be increased to $925,000, would go to the proposed Division of Wildlife. There were also some federal biodiversity monies. The budget had not been broken down yet since they had only recently met. Ms. Botts completed the brief overview of the breakdown of money. Mr. Bob Guernsey pointed out they worked at the direction of the committee and would be gathering input from the current Wildlife Division, other interested parties and the budget office as well. They would not be working isolated from the Governor's budget office. It was a very detailed process and responsibilities could overlap in a number of areas, therefore, they would work closely with the division. Mr. Carpenter asked who would oversee the non-game branch. Ms. Botts answered both divisions would be located within the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. The new Division of Wildlife dealing with non-game issues would not have a formal commission over it but would probably fall under the purview of the Natural Resources Advisory Board, which was a Board touching upon many issues within the Department of Conservation and would advise Pete Morros. The new Division of Fish and Game would have a regulatory commission in place similar to the Wildlife Commission now in existence. However, the commission would be reconstituted to be made up of hunters and fishermen consisting of six sportsmen, one rancher, one farmer and one general public representative. The new Wildlife Commission would take the place of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners. There was no proposal to change the County Wildlife Boards and it was her understanding those would remain the same. Ms. Segerblom stated during the last two legislative sessions they had discussed consolidating instead of breaking up and having more administrators. She asked if this would cost the state more money. Ms. Botts said until the budgets were developed she could not say. She felt the question could be better answered by Mr. Humke. Mr. Humke responded the new Division of Fish and Game would remain under the Natural Resources and Conservation Department. It would not create a separate entity by itself but would have its own administrator and divisions and would serve to have its reconstituted commission. It currently had its own commission and he did not foresee a great deal of change. It was hoped there would be additional savings due to fewer participating administrators. The essential rationale for this bill was to make a Division of Fish and Game which would be more responsive to user groups. Mr. Fettic assumed the new Division of Fish and Game would be funded entirely by licenses and other fees. Mr. Humke replied Mr. Fettic was correct in his assumption. Chairman de Braga asked for questions. There being none she introduced Warren Hardy, representing Hunters Alert, who introduced Judge Don Mosely who testified on behalf of the association. Judge Don Mosely stated what was contemplated in A.B. 307 was a self-funding unit. Prior to 1979 there was a Department of Fish and Game. It was essentially self-funding and a very small percentage of general funding was given to the Department of Fish and Game. He indicated he had spoken to many sportsmen over the last few years in the state of Nevada and they were willing to live within the financial boundaries mandated in this bill. Those boundaries included funding generated from fishing and hunting licenses, tags and federal participation funds. If the money was not generated we would not get whatever was wanted to further the sport. The second point he wished to make was in speaking to individuals over the state, he could say in absolute certainty, most sportsmen had lost confidence in the current Department of Wildlife because of the shift in emphasis from fish and game to non-game pursuits and various other interests. He went on to say there were many people who did not even bother putting in for a deer tag because of the deplorable status of the deer herds in the state. Deer were the money maker and in 1988 there were 57,000 tags given, last year there were 17,000. That told the status of the situation. He asked for favorable consideration of this legislation. Mr. Hardy expressed his appreciation for the Committee's consideration and asked they take Mr. Humke's recommendation to move the bill along to Ways and Means where the necessary work could be done. Ms. de Braga introduced Gerald Lent, President of Nevada Hunter's Association, who expressed concern about cost. He understood the Governor's consolidation but he felt this bill would mean more jobs being done by the same people. The money raised by license tags and fees, when matched with federal funds, would adequately support an agency and provide one of the best Fish and Game Departments in the United States. He recalled "the good old days" when there were three departments and a very good organization. They converted to the Department of Wildlife hoping to get general fund money which never developed. Only three states, including Nevada, call their fish and game activities the Department of Wildlife, most states entitle those activities The Department of Fish and Game, and rightfully so, said Mr. Lent. Mr. Carpenter asked how the change might increase benefits to wildlife and fisheries. Mr. Lent stated funds were being expended toward additional administrative personnel, however, there were only two game biologists in the game department. Creating more game would peak interest in the sport but money was not being spent to create game programs or management. If more interest were generated in game and if fees were raised for hunting and fishing license, volume would increase, but programs were needed to accomplish it. There was not much of a water fowl program to create interest. The drought had much to do with it, however, other states, such as Colorado, still had active programs. The emphasis had to be returned to where money was being generated, such as hunters and fishermen. There was approximately $1 million in reserve funds to have been used for big game auction tags. Monies were being diverted to non-game regulations, which were important, but losing sight of the constituency was destroying the money making machine. Hunters and fishermen had been taking a back seat but were the very ones which should have been encouraged to hunt and fish. There had not been a user friendly program. His organization consistently had hunters and fishermen complaining, "We don't have this, why don't we have that!" All they heard was, "There is no money!" He did not wish to get into a fiscal analysis of the department but, as he testified in Ways and Means, he felt it pathetic where the agency was spending money. He suggested a way of getting back on track would be to put hunters in charge of hunting season, increasing the deer and elk season, and managing in a way which would enhance cooperation between agencies. Ms. de Braga asked if the Fish and Game Commission would have any actual authority. Mr. Lent said yes, to set seasons. Ms. de Braga queried other than setting seasons, would the commission be strictly advisory. Mr. Lent stated regulatory, to set the seasons, which was the basic need for a commission at the present time. The Chair asked for opposition to A.B. 307. Mr. Willie Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, stated as the bill was currently constituted the language was innocuous. After listening to the testimony and understanding the intent of the bill he did not see what could be accomplished by this legislation. He noted, as Ms. Segerblom had indicated, a government reorganization had recently been done. His agency, the Division of Wildlife, from 1947 until October of 1993, was a stand-alone department and was now a division within the larger department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Their statutes, since the late 1940's early 1950's, had provided statutory authority. This included all wildlife resources, and their mission was to manage, protect, enhance and preserve the fish and wildlife resources of the state. Wildlife resources include approximately 50 sport fish and game animals and probably another 450 animals that did not fall into a category. There seemed to be a great deal of concern about money being spent on non-game management, but facts did not demonstrate the concern. The non-game program in the state consisted of a staff biologist in the state office having overall program authority for the non-game program. In each of the three regional offices there was a non-game field biologist. In addition, a reptile biologist or a herpetologist on staff at Las Vegas because of the interest in the commercial collection of reptiles, and the broader interest in the happenings of reptiles in the desert southwest, plus an endemic fisheries biologist. In total there were six divisions devoted to non-game and currently those were fully paid from general fund resources, not including tag or license fees. There was some ancillary benefit because of the overall organizational structure which included administrative services personnel, payroll, accounting and personnel regulations benefitting that small cadre of non-game people. They began an active non-game program with one person in 1972, therefore, the program had been in place for a long time. He indicated Dr. Lent had said most agencies were fish and game. Of the 11 western states, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah, Nevada and Montana were called wildlife agencies, not fish and game agencies. California, Idaho, Arizona and New Mexico were still termed game and fish agencies. The bottom line was a $16 million budget being put into non-game itself and about $400,000 and another $103,000 in the project Wild Conservation Education Program paid out of the general fund. It did not make sense to separate the agency, remove a very small portion and put it into a separate agency with separate administration. There were a cadre of field biologists, both fisheries and wildlife, which could serve as an attribute to both game. If there was a game biologist doing deer surveys in a helicopter and there was concern about another species, a sight record could be kept with very little effort. It was an efficiency of scale to do it that way. In summary, he said he kept hearing things had changed since the "old days". He attended the 1979 session of the legislature and at the Committee hearing, held in Room 119, a substantial number of the general public from southern Nevada was in attendance to support the inclusion of this agency under the general fund umbrella. While they had never received very large sums of general funds, it had helped pay for the non-game program and supported programs where money was lost on low-cost licenses. Mr. Molini submitted the following facts. From 1930 to 1979, 50 years, there had been introduction of about 600 big game animals in the state. Since 1980 when Fish and Game became the Department of Wildlife there has been about 3,200 big game animals, five times as many in the last 14 years as in the 50 years prior. In terms of big game water developments there had not been any big game water developments prior to 1980 but 28 have been accomplished since 1980. In terms of upland game development, chukkers, guzzlers and guzzlers for quail , there had been approximately 150 prior to 1980 but 400 have been installed since 1980. They had more elk, big horn sheep, antelope, mountain goats, and wild turkeys today than in 1980. Therefore, the statistics and facts demonstrated there has been a majority of efforts attempting to enhance wildlife populations which were consumptively used. He saw no merit to the proposal and would have more to say about the bill as it was further developed. Mr. Carpenter questioned if there was an increase in tags for mountain lions. Mr. Molini remarked the mountain lion season had been liberalized. Last year the harvest was 236 including a depredation take by the division of animal damage control which was a recent record. The department has continued to liberalize the mountain lion hunt and there was a period of time in the late 1970's where a tag, a hunt permit and a quota were required. At the present time there was still a kill quota but once it was reached the area was closed and people could hunt in adjacent areas. Two hunt permits were provided so if one area closed hunters were allowed to go to another area. He felt they had a very good mountain lion harvest management program. It had never been challenged in court and there were people, who preferred to protect mountain lions, who watched the program carefully for the past 15 years. They had ensured a place for mountain lions in Nevada, they fulfilled a role in the ecosystem and he did not feel they should be eliminated. Mr. Carpenter queried how many there were at present. Mr. Molini said it was a difficult estimate but they used the figure of approximately 2,000. He felt the mountain lion population had increased, along with the deer, through the late 1980's and early 1990's. There had always been predator populations that delayed after the primary prey species which for mountain lions was mule deer. He predicted a decrease in the mountain lion population and had expected it by this time. Ms. Segerblom asked Mr. Molini what he had done with the large mouth bass in Lake Mead. He responded it was a complicated question. Through the late 1960's it was a premier large mouth bass fishery. The operational criteria of the system in fluctuating water levels in the spring exposed bass nesting and bass fry to hybridization. As the large mouth bass population began to decline they introduced striped bass into the system. They were more voracious and competitive than the large mouth bass. He understood there was some recovery but not like it had been in the 1960's. There being no further questions, the Chair asked if there was anyone else to testify for the opposition to A.B. 307. Mr. Joe Johnson, representing the Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, stated he had not come prepared to speak against the bill. What he had heard had not presented a formal amendment. He asked to have the hearing continued and when a formal proposal in writing was presented it could be taken to coalition groups for support. The testimony heard ostensibly representing the sportsman groups was not unanimous throughout the areas, therefore, they requested a formal proposal rather than a carrier bill whose purpose was to diffuse opposition before presentation. In looking at the language and hearing the proposals, which were fairly extensive and a major undertaking of government organization, he expected to hear a more precise description of the intent of the bill. Mr. Johnson wished to review, in general session, the committee would be voting on one-shot general fund items which were strictly game related, such as a hangar or operational equipment. The general fund appropriations had not always been simply for operation, there had been capital items in the past. If, indeed, Hunter's Alert would be willing to accept capital items would also come from their hunter fees then perhaps some organizations might take more kindly to the proposals. The Chair requested more testimony on A.B. 307. Ms. Elsie Dupree, representing the Nevada Wildlife Federation (NWF), stated with affiliates they had nearly 7,000 members. They were not for a division of wildlife and fish and game and would like to keep it the same. She used an analogy of a mother dealing with her children. If two boys were put into one room, it was always the other guy's fault if the room was not clean. If there was only one child in the room she knew who to blame. If there were two divisions, who would be in charge of the habitat? Whether the habitat were for deer, field mice, raptors, or whatever, who would be to blame? The NWF envisioned two state trucks with two state biologists, one counting deer and one counting something else at double expense. They would like to see the Division of Wildlife kept as is and not changed. Mr. Neighbors asked if the 7,000 members of the NWF had been polled and what percentage of that number were opposed to A.B. 307. Ms. Dupree answered there was not an official poll, but a newsletter was sent out to all members. This situation was in the newsletter with a telephone number for people to call with their opinions. She had six calls representing families or groups opposed to A.B. 307. There was also a committee and people knew to come to the committee with complaints. They received complaints when there was something to complain about. Mr. Ira Hansen, Chairman of the Nevada Conservation Committee, a lifetime member of Nevada Big Horns Unlimited, a member of the Nevada Wildlife Federation, Nevada Trapper's Association and several other related organizations pointed out what Ms. Dupree or Mr. Johnson thought their members were thinking was flawed. They had not polled their members, therefore, no conclusions could be drawn on the 7,000 number. The Nevada Trapper's Association was affiliated with the Wildlife Federation and he knew those organizations had not been polled. He stated those organizations would address this issue. The biggest organization opposed to the bill was Nevada Big Horns Unlimited of which he was a lifetime member. Out of the NDOW expenditures $309,000 was spent on the bighorn sheep program which benefitted 125 hunters who drew big horn sheep tags. The department spent $3,005 to harvest 103 sheep. Mule deer had a total harvest of 14,000, 28,000 hunters, and the total expenditure was $546,000. There was a great disparity. Big horns were treated very well by the Nevada Division of Wildlife, therefore, Nevada Big Horns Unlimited would always be supporting the program. He warned the committee to be aware of those things. There was a certain degree of favoritism in the sportsmen community which impacted the individuals who attend committee hearings. Mr. John W. Riggs, Sr., spoke representing himself as a hunter who had purchased licenses, permits, tags and stamps. His concern was the money be spent on fish and game, not hiring a flora-and-fauna detective to go out into the wildlife and arrest people for picking flowers. He wanted it to go to the benefit of fish and game. He felt one way to correct this issue would be to state instead of ". . used only for the management of wildlife", maybe it should have said ". . used only for management of fish and game." The Chair requested Mr. Humke to answer the question asked by Mr. Johnson regarding the entire proposal not being contained in the bill and being superficial. Mr. Humke explained the bill had been rushed out of drafting and they were not exactly sure how to draft it. Mr. Spitler came up with the concept of drafting the bill at the Ways and Means Committee. If the committee was able to process the skeletal concept, which had been laid out through testimony, the bill would move on to Ways and Means where it would be fleshed out and developed more completely. There was no intent to deceive the committee or any legislator. The Chair explained the reason for asking the question was to clarify the committee did not deal with finances, only with policy. She wished Mr. Humke to speak to that should there be more they needed to consider in terms of the actual intent. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Humke if the bill would be returned to committee after coming out of Ways and Means. He expressed it was a money issue but also another issue deserving the concern of the committee. Mr. Humke stated if it were the wish of the committee he would not stand in the way of it. He said they were free to approach Ways and Means and request another hearing after they processed a vehicle and refined it. Mr. Fettic wished to clarify the committee was listening to A.B. 307 which had to do with funding and would go to Ways and Means. There was talk of a proposal separating Wildlife into a Division of Fish and Game and a Division of Wildlife non- game issues. He asked if those were two different subjects and should the latter be returned to the committee to be fleshed out and heard. The Chair answered it was her understanding the budget for the department was not funded through the general fund, it was already funded through fees, therefore, technically part of it would not be changed. Mr. Fettic's point was when looking at the Division of Wildlife and separating it into a Division of Fish and Game and a Division of Wildlife, finances or revenues were not necessarily being discussed, it was policy being discussed. He felt it was in the purview of the committee. Mr. Bache remarked the splitting of a division into various parts was the purview of the Government Affairs Committee. The Chair closed the hearing on A.B. 307. Mr. Carpenter requested an introduction of a bill draft on elk depredation tags similar to deer and antelope. He felt this deserved a hearing and testimony to determine whether it would be good, bad or indifferent. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO INTRODUCE A BILL DRAFT ON ELK DEPREDATION TAGS. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Bennett disqualified himself from voting on S.B. 63 since it directly effected the Nevada test site and he was a government contractor for the Nevada test site. He stated his intent to fight the bill but he could not vote upon it. The Chair announced there would not be a committee meeting on March 22, 1995. She encouraged interested committee members to sit in on the Senate informational hearing on water issues on that day.. Mr. Humke asked if the Committee would entertain a motion on A.B. 307. The Chair stated before a motion was entertained the committee wanted to know if the bill could be re-referred to the committee after Ways and Means had refined it. There being no further business the Committee was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Pat Menath, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Chairman Assemblyman Marcia de Braga, Chairman Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining March 20, 1995 Page