MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session April 12, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Wednesday, April 12, 1995, Vice Chairman Max Bennett 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: Assemblywoman Freeman STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Paul R. Gianoli, Granite Construction Co.; Spike Duque, All-Lite Aggregate; Kelly Hiatt, A&K Earth Movers, Inc.; Jack Tedford, Jack N. Tedford, Inc.; Pam Miller, Associated General Contractors, NV; Irene Porter, Nevada Home Builders Association; Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties; Don Tibbals, Gopher Rock; Dallas Coonrod, Las Vegas Associated General Contractors; John Pappageorge, Silver State Disposal; Steve Kreck, T.E. Bertagnolli and Associates; Susan Lynn, Public Resource Reno Associates; Joe Johnson, Sierra Club; Juanita Cox, People Organized For the Next Generation. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman, Max Bennett and roll call was taken. ASSEMBLY BILL 429 - Requires reclamation of aggregates and sand pits. Assemblywoman Freeman spoke on A.B. 429. She stated in 1989 the Legislature passed a mining reclamation bill and left out sand and gravel operators. The mining reclamation bill was noted as one of the most progressive statutes in the states and A.B. 429 would be in the same chapter. She said Mr. Joe Johnson of the Sierra Club asked her to introduce the bill on his behalf. Mrs. Freeman asked for consideration of the bill. Mr. Joe Johnson representing the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club said sand and gravel had been a concern of the Sierra Club since the passage of the 1989 mine reclamation bill. It was the contention of the Sierra Club at the time, sand and gravel operations and stone quarries were mining operations and should be covered under the provisions of Chapter 519 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. They were not trying to duplicate regulations. He gave the committee a handout (Exhibit C), which listed the status of counties as of October 4, 1994. One of the provisions in Chapter 519 A of the NRS were the duties of the division which set up the duties for mine reclamation, primarily hardrock. Mr. Johnson noted most planning departments who cover land use planning simply do not have a person on the staff who fills this category for qualifications, including Washoe County. Washoe County's open space person would be assigned the responsibility for the mine reclamation plan and bonding requirements. They have no staff dedicated to mine reclamation as it would not be an every day event. Washoe County has not had a closure of an operation which was on going and covered under the permit process. Who were the experts when it came time for closure and who were the inspectors for normal on going reclamation efforts. Part of the need would be for inspectors who know the mine reclamation permit regulations. The provision would not be an unfunded mandate and might cost the counties and the county road departments and the Department of Transportation some additional fees. Issues which brought the bill forward was the lack of programs in many of the rural counties and the absence of qualified staff. Some of the disadvantages would be most of the operations such as in Clark and Washoe Counties were covered by programs presently in existence. Mr. Johnson said they did not wish to incur duplicate regulations, particularly in counties that were capable or willing to address reclamation. In general the mining reclamation bill passed in 1989 was working well with the mineral industry. In accepting state programs with state standards, there could be statutory language making it permissible for those counties who wish to review sand and gravel operations to take prime responsibility under a memorandum of understanding. Mr. Johnson encouraged the committee for passage of A.B. 429. It would be the Sierra Club's contention operations normally adjacent to population centers, would be a long term investment with reclamation. Mrs. Segerblom asked if Clark County regulations would be sufficient. Mr. Johnson was not prepared to answer the question as he had not reviewed all county regulations. They have a program and their political entities were sensitive to the issues. Mrs. Segerblom said it appeared Washoe County might have a better regulation than Clark County. Mr. Johnson said the review process of Washoe County was probably adequate, however, whether they have on staff the qualified staff technicians would be problematic. Many small operations cease to exist but were not formally closed. They do not have staff to inspect if plans were being adhered to on a daily, weekly, monthly or whatever basis. Mr. Humke asked on what data or information did he base his assertion land values increase when reclamation takes place. Mr. Johnson stated his observation of sand and gravel pits would not have any value unless they were restored to a building site. He did not have a study, but by personal observation, unreclaimed mine land was reduced in value. Mrs. de Braga suggested, as the bill was written, it would apply to all aggregate and sand operations on both public and private land. Mr. Johnson said yes, presently operations on public lands under various provisions and types of operations fall under normal mining reclamation operations and BLM treats them as a mine. As the bill was written it would retain the small miner exemption. The small mine exemption was five acres within a one mile radius which has disturbance in one year. The Sierra Club felt this was a legitimate exemption because of the burden for the small operator. The small sand and gravel operation who work on public land could also be a member of the bonding pool. When talking about radius, would it be the size of the pit or the full operation covering not more than five acres, asked Mrs. de Braga. The statutory definition would be five acre disturbance in one year or annually, within a radius of one mile from the operation, which would be under one operator. Mrs. de Braga asked if flooding would qualify as reclamation. He said the Sierra Club's position would be filling with water for simple reclamation would not be acceptable in Nevada. Mr. Johnson stated, it was not part of the law dealing with reclamation standards, developed by the county or state. Firm revegetation standards established, and firm policies of bank slope, were the goals of the Sierra Club. Mr. Neighbors said he did not see a cutoff on A.B. 429, and asked if there was a starting point. Mr. Johnson said they would not wish to see the bill retrospective. They were not asking for the bill to go back to existing sand and gravel operations. Mr. Neighbors asked if Mr. Johnson was aware when a major highway project was taking place, many counties bought sand and gravel for their roads. Mr. Neighbors felt the projects had been sloped and left in good condition. Mr. Johnson said, as an example, the Helms pit east of Sparks, which was to have been developed as a recreation area would not be met, due to bankruptcy and petroleum problems. Mr. Bennett asked if there was a legal definition of the term "mineral." Mr. Johnson said Mr. Fields could probably answer the question. Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Ziegler to research the definition of "mineral." He also asked Mr. Johnson if he were prepared to address the fiscal note on A.B. 429. Mr. Johnson said no, the operation in the hard rock mineral areas as recognized was fee based, and this would be a user based pass through. The division should access the fees to cover their cost of operation, and the consumer of the products would pay for the fee. Mr. Bennett said no one was signed up to address the bill in favor of A.B. 429 and asked for anyone who wished to speak in favor to come forward. Ms. Susan Lynn of the Public Resource Associates in Reno, said in 1989 their organization provided a report to the legislature called the "Review of Hardrock Mine Reclamation Practices," as a background for proposed Nevada Legislation. Much of the current law was based on the discussion which occurred in the reports. Basically she would support A.B. 429 but did have reservations. She stated sand and gravel operations were absolutely necessary for the growth of Nevada. The bonding situation was a concern and the hardrock mining industry have been supportive and good neighbors. Very few if any have failed to meet there bonding requirements and have reclaimed the land when going out of the mining business. This has not happened with the sand and gravel operations. Ms. Lynn also had concerns regarding the five acre limitations and felt most sand and gravel operations would fall under the five acre limitation. The five acre limitation would allow the small miners to successfully explore and were not hitting at the heart of what needs to occur with sand and gravel. The major concern would be the riparian areas and the concern of Ms. Lynn was the Truckee River. She said there were several operations along the river, and because of being the primary tourist route in and out of Reno, they create a real scenic blob on the land. The other concern would be for the wildlife and the noxious weeds which come in on scraped land. She talked about an operation along the river and due to the high water the pit was breached and has now become part of the river course. The operators failed to remove some of their equipment which was now buried in a deep pond. The operators as a result want to move to the other side of the freeway, but would still be in a scenic corridor and creating problems in terms of water, air quality and wildlife habitat. This was an extreme case and the rest of the industry might be performing admirably. Mr. Carpenter questioned how Ms. Lynn's group and the Sierra Club reconcile the situation of evaporation. On one hand wetlands were the issue which contributes to evaporation and on the other hand water was not wanted in the gravel pits. Ms. Lynn said there was a distinction between ponds and wetlands. Ponds were wide open water and wetlands usually have a lot of vegetation associated with them, in many instances shallower than ponds and often have a less steep slope on the sides. Pits left over from any kind of mining were generally quite deep. With hardrock mining the slope considered safe would be a three to two slope and sand and gravel did not have that requirement. Mr. Carpenter was not addressing the slope situation, but strictly addressing the evaporation issue. The evaporation of wetlands would be more than ponds. He thought it odd the Sierra Club and the Public Resource Associates would be concerned about the evaporation of water on a pond and yet on the other hand wanting all kinds of wetlands created. The wetlands have a great deal of cleansing value. They remove nutrients from water before going back to the river, used often to cleanse sewage at sewage treatment plants, used as a scrubber to polish the water before it goes out and have many more uses than ponds for those reasons, replied Ms. Lynn. Ms. Juanita Cox, said she represented herself, her family and People Organized for the Next Generation and was in support of A.B. 429. She said she lived above the Truckee River in Storey County at Patrick where a great deal of mining took place. Artificial ponds fill in from the Truckee and/or groundwater and the water did not get downstream where it would be properly appropriated. She talked about the differences of pond water and wetlands. In her battle with the industry she had concluded they had come to some agreement. She said she was happy when they even slope the banks and stop some of the dust. This to some extent was taken care of at the county level but there was not enough personnel and should be a statewide issue. She felt the bill would be a step in the right direction and did realize the need for sand and gravel usually found along waterways. Mr. Carpenter asked Ms. Cox if she was talking about sloping of the sidewalls of the pits and being reseeded. He asked if she was talking about filling in the pits and reclaiming them. Ms. Cox said in Storey County the sides were sloped and reseeded like terraces. Small sections were terraced and not all would be torn up at one time. She felt this becomes a state problem and definitely agrees with the bill. Mr. Carpenter asked Ms. Cox if Storey County was regulating the situation or were the operators doing so by their own volition. Ms.Cox said the county was controlling the areas. Mr. Carpenter asked if Storey County had any of the operations which were along the river. Ms. Cox said Storey County was taking a progressive step and making certain companies reclaim, particularly along the Truckee. Mr. Carpenter asked where the problem existed. Washoe County has had some major problems, said Ms. Cox. Some companies were digging without permits and it was found some companies in Storey were acting without permits. Mrs. de Braga asked what the reclamation requirements were in Storey County. Ms. Cox said they reclaim as they go. They do not fill in the holes but level and terrace. Mrs. de Braga asked if this was at the cost of the mine owner who would be required to have a $900 per acre bond. If someone left without reclamation would the bond take care of the restoration. Ms. Cox could not say, in Washoe someone skipped out and they have a mess. Mrs. de Braga asked if the 102 ranch was in Storey County. Ms. Cox said yes, it became an eyesore. Mrs. de Braga wanted to know if there was any known or proved contamination to the river from that operation. Ms. Cox said for three years she had fought another area upstream which brought contamination to the area. Mrs. de Braga asked if it had come from the 102 area. Ms. Cox said she was unaware of any contamination from the 102 area. Mr. Bennett closed the hearing on those in favor of A.B. 429 and asked if two people at a time would come forward to testify in opposition. Mr. Gianoli and Mr. Spike Duque came forward to speak in opposition to the bill. Mr. Gianoli represented Granite Construction Company and said they were not opposed to the concept of the bill and agree with it and currently adhere to reclamation in their pits. They were opposed to more regulation. Mr. Gianoli handed out an example (Exhibit D), of the process in Washoe County to get a special use permit for a mining operation. The operation probably cost $350 thousand when all the fees and reclamation to the pit were done. They have been operating on the Truckee which Ms. Cox eluded to. Kal Kan was going into one of the areas they had reclaimed and it would become an industrial area for Storey County. He said they felt the regulations were far beyond what was necessary. They did not feel more regulations by another body was necessary. Mr. Neighbors asked what Granite's reclamation consisted of. Mr. Gianoli said sloping and dust control, reseeding and planting. Mr. Carpenter said we had heard Washoe County had no one on their staff who understands reclamation and what needed to be done in the area. Mr. Gianoli said he would disagree with the statement. He said they were required to go out to engineering firms and provide drawings and what the final outlook of the pits would be. He said he thought the county had engineers who were very capable of looking at these things and deciding if they were adequate or not. They also meet the county requirements on slope distance. Storey county, due to their size, was not as stringent as Washoe County. Mr. Carpenter asked about other parts of the state. Mr. Gianoli said they had a project in Winnemucca for the Department of Transportation. He remarked they currently were cleaning up existing aggregate pits leased from BLM by the Department of Transportation. They have been working on them for about six to eight weeks, hauling garbage, resloping. The BLM had an individual on site inspecting and the BLM was back regulating again beyond what the state and county were doing. In Elko County the Department of Transportation required the pits to be sloped and do various things to reclaim the pits. Mr. Carpenter asked if they had any pits on private land in rural areas of Nevada. Mr. Gianoli said yes, there were not the degree of requirements in those pits. Generally without direction Granite slopes the pits to do away with the hazard and potential liability of people getting hurt on the sites. Mr. Carpenter asked if they had to make them safe. Mr. Gianoli said yes. Mrs. de Braga questioned if the rural areas would be regulated by the EPA. Mr. Gianoli said no, in most cases land from the BLM would be used to extract materials for building highway projects. Mr. Gianoli said Granite Construction did not get involved with rural counties, the state controls it for them. Mr. Spike Duque, an owner, representing All-Lite Aggregate has a quarry operation in Storey County off the Truckee River three miles. They were adamantly opposed to any further regulations as Storey County takes an aggressive view on reclamation. All- Lite Aggregate has had to file reclamation plans along with the special use permit and had to meet Federal guidelines as far as sloping, water run off, and reseeding. Mr. Duque said they did not feel more regulations were necessary at this time. Mrs. Segerblom noted Washoe and Storey Counties have bonding and some permits which were required, but many of the counties have nothing. She felt those counties with nothing also needed reclamation of some kind. Mr. Duque said he did not know he only dealt with Storey County. Mr. Bennett asked what percentage of operating cost goes into reclamation. Mr. Gianoli said approximately 10 to 15 percent goes back into reclamation ultimately. Mr. Duque said his business figures 10 to 13 percent would go back into reclamation at the end of the project. Mr. Kelly Hiatt, A & K Earth Movers, Fallon, Nevada, testified on A.B. 429. The company presently operates three gravel operations, one in Washoe County, Lyon County and Churchill County. They also do work for the Department of Transportation throughout the state. He noted each county did have some difference in their regulations depending on whether the gravel pit was private or government land. The two pits A & K operate in Washoe and Lyon County were private and when the job was completed there would be an industrial site or a storage site on the land. They would remove the mountain and leave the area in a condition to have future development. A special use permit from the counties was required with their individual restrictions. In Churchill county a BLM pit required a royalty fee for every ton or yard which would go into a BLM reclamation fund. The Department of Transportation, when operating a private land pit, required the company to put the pit back to the satisfaction of the owner. All the state ground used for pits have regulations for reclamation. Mr. Hiatt felt there was no need for additional regulations and added the industry was working to make the pits a better operation for the public. Working with the counties was a better way of regulating than having another regulation from the state. Mrs. de Braga asked if most sand and gravel operations would exceed the five acre, one mile requirement, and not fall into the small mine category. Mr. Hiatt said all A & K operations would exceed the five acre parcel. He noted five acre parcels for gravel operations were small. Mr. Jack Tedford, Vice President and General Manager of Jack N.Tedford, Inc., contractor in Fallon and also President of J & T Inc., owner of gravel pits testified in opposition to A.B. 429. He said they had four gravel pits in the Fallon, Fernley area, one in Lyon County and three in Churchill County. One pit belongs to BLM, one was leased from the railroad with similar requirements, and the other two properties were owned by the company. He said the property owned by the company was mined in such a way they would be developed into subdivisions when mining was completed. Mr. Tedford remarked we had heard complaints about pits along I-80 and the Truckee River, however most gravel pits were not along I-80 and not along a river, and most wish they could find water in the bottom for dust control. Very few gravel operations would qualify under the five acres. Most gravel strata were very thin and a lot of area needed to be covered to obtain the amount of gravel needed. Mr. Tedford felt if there were problems the counties should deal with them, not pass a law for the rest of the state. Most counties all have some requirements, and most organizations have good operations. He noted the bill had extensive reclamation and would be beyond what anyone would be doing today. Most were small business people struggling to survive and did not need more expense. He would like to see the legislature lighten the requirements on business not try to make them heavier. He did not see how local government would not have a fiscal impact. If more restrictions were put on the operators, the cost would be passed on to the customer, who often would be the city, county or state. Mr. Dallas Coonrod, representing Las Vegas Associated General Contractors, in support of exemption of sand and gravel pits from the mining reclamation act testified in opposition to the bill. Mining sand and gravel is an entirely different operation than mining silver or gold. When mining for silver or gold you take out the silver or gold and have a great deal of raw material left over to go back in the hole. He said it would be difficult to sell sand and gravel and then refill the pit with sand and gravel. Taking the sand and gravel exclusion away from the mining act would cause an extreme increase in cost for construction activity. The majority of the counties have enough regulations without someone else regulating the industry further. Ms. Pam Miller, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter, was also opposed to A.B. 429. She reemphasized most of the pits were in urban areas out of necessity, and those local governments have taken all the steps necessary to make sure reclamation was taking place, and felt the state did not need to supersede what was taking place at the local government level. Ms. Irene Porter, Executive Director, Nevada Homebuilders Association, referred to the Clark County area. She read a letter from Mr. Howard Wells, Wells Cargo Inc., a long time Nevada sand and gravel operator and a member of the Association. The letter addressed to the committee referred to various rules and regulations the sand and gravel industry follows. The latest and most comprehensive regulation was Title V of the Clean Air Act. To amend Nevada Revised Statute 519 as proposed would over regulate the already very regulated industry. He would like the committees' close review of the proposed legislation and urged the committee to vote against the change. Ms. Porter said in Clark County she had dealt extensively with the Clean Air Act. She talked about the use fees and regulations the industry had to follow in Clark County. In Clark County the sand and gravel operators also have to comply with the Endangered Species Act, regarding the preservation of the tortoise. She said it did not take long to reclaim the pits as Clark County builds on the reclaimed pit areas. Mr. Bob Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties and representing Nevada League of Cities today testified on A.B. 429. The organizations represented were the primary agencies responsible for the regulation of the operations within the state of Nevada. Mr. Johnson's concern regarding the capability of the cities or counties handling the job was unfortunate. They were good stewards for the public trust and it was their responsibility under the land use planning authority granted to them by the legislature to issue special use permita such as the sand and gravel pits. He talked of the many regulations placed on the industry for the public trust of the citizens of the state of Nevada. More regulations would cause the industry to pay more administrative costs for another layer which would not be necessary. If the industry did not have the capacity or the capability in house to handle complicated projects within the county they do have the capability and do contract and hire outside people to give advice to take care of plans and can do so with any monitoring project. Mr. Hadfield felt the industries' record was good and would stand on their record and urge this legislature not to encroach upon the current rights of counties and cities, this was not a state problem, this was a local problem. If problems occur within the various counties or cities, citizens need to bring those problems to those entities. Mr. Fettic stated he felt there was plenty of regulations in place. Mr. Hadfield said Humboldt County operates 50 separate sand and gravel pits. Most pits were on BLM land, regulated under BLM control, and the county was sensitive to those regulations. He felt there were ample controls now and if there were gaps which needed to be filled and the cities and counties had the authority they need to do so. It should be a local government issue. Mr. Fettic talked about Carson City and the pressure the community put on the city and industry to stop dust abatement. A plant wanted to extract aggregates and could not because of the pressure of the community. He felt the communities could handle the problems. Mrs. Segerblom noted nine of the counties have no reclamation standards, would the BLM be responsible for regulating reclamation. Mr. Hadfield explained the BLM would only be responsible if the particular operation was on BLM land. If the pit was on private land it was the responsibility of the county to set the requirements. Those nine counties might not have any record of reclamation because it has not been a proven problem. Testimony had not been given where in 17 counties there were sand and gravel pits which need to be fixed. To the contrary the committee had been told most of the pits had been open for a long time and had yet to be closed. He said they did not know if there was a problem, and if there was one, the local cities and counties should take care of it, not the state of Nevada. Mr. Don Tibbals, Gopher Rock, stated he had two pits in Lyon County, private and government land. The government pit was regulated where he has to slope it and reclaim as he mines the pit. A mining plan had to be filed before operations were started. The pit did cover more than five acres, but as they were worked they reclaim behind them. When they complete the mining operation, they also had completed there reclamation and were finished. His other pit on private land was regulated by Lyon County, adjacent to a road in town and there was a depth limit on the pit. They cannot go below the depth of the existing road. The private pits were typically zoned industrial and had to be left in such a way they could be built on. A good example would be where the Hilton stands was the Isbell Construction Company pit in the middle of Reno. The pit was reclaimed and the casino built there and the excess pit has a pond for recreation. Mr. Tibbals said he has seen very few pits left in the condition they cannot be reclaimed to be used for another purpose. Mr. Fettic asked Mr. Tibbals if he had a private pit in Lyon County. The county was requiring Mr.Tibbals to do what. He said they had a depth of the pit not to exceed the adjoining road or property. In other words they do not want an open pit, they want the pit mined on a level basis. Mr. Fettic asked if they had to get a special use permit. Mr. Tibbals said dust abatement, and depth, meet all EPA requirements and the need to slope it when done. Mr. Fettic said Lyon County was one listed as not having a reclamation requirement, but they do as in the special use permit. Mr. Tibbals agreed with Mr. Fettic. Mr. John Pappageorge representing Silver State Disposal, said they had a unique operation as they operate a landfill and a combination sand and gravel pit. They do not leave anything behind as the hole in the ground would be filled with garbage. Mr. Pappageorge said they were not damaging the environment, and the environment requirements were very high. They have a use permit which they applied for and had to comply with stringent regulations. There were plenty of local regulations, the problems were local problems and should be dealt with local people talking to local authorities. Mr. Fettic said if the committee were to pass A.B. 429, it would not do much more than what was being done already. It would require another permit, another fee, and have more beauracy built up in the process. Mr. Pappageorge said yes, and your problems in Carson City would be applied to Clark County or Clark County problems to Carson City or elsewhere. He felt there were enough experts on hand to deal with the problems. Mr. Steve Kreck, T.E. Bertagnolli and Associates, the only major sand and gravel operation in Carson City testified. He echoed what already had been said, they were heavily, heavily regulated. Mr. Kreck's primary responsibility for the company was handling regulatory matters. He spends 25 to 30 percent of his time handling regulatory matters which would include the special use permits with the county, EPA and air and water quality. The sand and gravel operation adjacent to the Carson River operate a sand pit on BLM land south of town and would be opening a pit in Storey County. The addition of state regulations would unnecessarily be burdensome. The hearing was closed on A.B. 429. ASSEMBLY BILL 212 - Makes various changes to provisions governing hunting and fishing licenses. Mr. Dave Ziegler opened the work session on A.B. 212, and spoke from (Exhibit E). A packet from the Department of Wildlife was given to the committee on justification for the proposed license fee increases (Exhibit F). Mr. Ziegler suggested to the Chairman he might meet with the Division of Wildlife and go over the justification and try to understand it and pass on any understandings he had come to so the matter could be passed along. Mr. Ziegler after meeting with Mr. Molini summarized the measure in tabular form. He thought the bill was rather lengthly and had many parts to it and the committee would like to see those parts broken down with what it did line for line. He explained how he prepared the summary table. The proposed fee increases would raise about $750 thousand over the biennium and the cost of living increase would cost about $900 thousand. The fee increases would still be a negative net effect over the biennium. Mr. Neighbors asked if the two pole bill was added into the budget. Mr. Ziegler said it was his understanding the two pole bill was in the Governor's budget. Mr. Carpenter thanked Mr. Ziegler for his handout. It makes the budget and changes much easier to understand. Mr. Willie Molini and Mr. Terry Crawforth of the Division of Wildlife were asked to testify. Mr. Molini said the packet from Mr. Ziegler and the packet from the Division of Wildlife includes the justification for the need to raise fees, gives a background what the agency is, how money was spent currently, detail on revenue, what revenue was constituted from and how the revenue was expended. The only key point Mr. Molini would add would be the three major fee increases on fishing, hunting and the combined license were not in the Governor's budget nor was the cost of living salary increase of $900 thousand. He explained a balanced budget was submitted to the Governor pending the cost of salary increases. When the salary increase was brought forward, pending the action of the Legislature, the additional fees were added to pay for the projected increase. Mrs. de Braga asked if the herds were down and hunting licenses were down, why the need to hire two additional people. Mr. Molini said there was one position in the budget the division was asked to carry for the Wild Horse Commission. Money would come from the general fund for a biologist to work for the Wild Horse Commission. Mr. Molini said they had recommended one part time, 9 month position in boat registration in western Nevada, be made full time and paid out of the boat budget. The other position was the wild horse position to work for the Wild Horse Commission. The Wild Horse Commission was supported by the Hile Trust Fund money and the budget office did not want to set a precedent from general fund money to that commission. They asked if they could flow through the Wildlife Division budget and was added in by the budget office. Mr. Carpenter asked if it would take away from the wildlife budget. Mr. Molini said no, the budget department had added all the necessary expenses to the wildlife budget for the position. He said they had at times provided the Wildhorse Commission with technical help. They were asked if they could continue to give more help to the wild horse people and told them they could not provide the help they needed. Mr. Humke asked if you have some wild horse personnel under the Division of Wildlife budget and someone called for assistance in mitigation of the wild horse problem in Hidden Valley, would you take some action. Mr. Molini said the answer was no. The position would work for the Wildhorse Commission and the division had no intention of becoming involved in wild horse management. Mr. Neighbors asked about rescinding the authority authorizing blind persons to fish. Mr. Molini said it looked as if the division was taking something away. The agent at this time enters on the license bought by a blind person "blind," but nothing happens. By adding "blind," merely calls attention to the person as being blind. A blind hunter has a great meaning as they can have another person shoot for him if he was right there. Mr. Fettic, said they were the Department of Wildlife not the Department of Animal Regulation. Mr. Fettic thought Mr. Molini's division had done a good job under trying circumstances with the drought. Mr. Fettic's constituents were concerned with how much money was collected from fishing licenses, trout stamps, etc., and how much was dedicated to fishing, how much into public relations, and how much goes into other things besides fishing. The same questions have been asked of Mr. Fettic regarding hunting. The persons he has talked to were not necessarily opposed to an increase in their hunting or fishing license, if they know the money would mean more fish in the stream. How much money goes into public relations, or as titled in the pie chart,(Exhibit F), Conservation Education. Mr. Fettic asked if that was found under the line item hunter education. Mr. Molini said it would only be part of it, conservation education shows 3.8 percent budget expended. It includes hunter safety education, which were totally federal funds, and includes Project Wild which was funded by general fund and was truly a conservation education program and includes the public information part. Mr. Fettic said game was 16 percent which meant 16 percent of his license fee would go to game related areas and 84 percent would be going to non game. Mr. Molini suggested Mr. Fettic look at Habitat on the graph at 9.6 percent. He stated wildlife management areas were included in habitat such as Mason Wildlife, places to hunt and fish. Mr. Fettic said game related would be up around 25 to 26 percent. Mr. Molini said it was not a complete yes, as some of habitat benefits both game and non game and fisheries. He stated probably $1 million of habitat could fit with game. Mr. Fettic said 47 percent was going to fish, game and habitat. Mr. Molini said Mr. Fettic was missing law enforcement. He said now he was up to 62 percent, now there was roughly 48 percent for education, general fund programs and habitat. Administration included such things as the application hunt program. Mr. Fettic said one of the reasons fees were down was because of the drought, etc. Now that water was up and habitat better you will sell more licenses so why do you have to raise fees. Mr. Molini said he still could not go six and ten years without raising fees when the price of a truck and wages continue to rise. Mr. Fettic reaffirmed, when extra people were requested, one position would be the position which had been nine months to a full time position in boating and the other would be the wild horse position. Mr. Molini agreed and said the wildlife department was the one in trouble and they had not asked for any new positions. They had positions which were not filled but would leave them open until the budget was settled, said Mr. Molini. Chairman Bennett called for a subcommittee as members of the full committee had other meetings to attend. Mr. Carpenter asked about the out-of-state licenses and why they had not been raised. Mr. Molini said it was true accept for non-resident fishing. He noted they had raised non-resident fees a little more frequently than resident. The non-resident fees were high but not the highest. Mr. Carpenter asked about the vacancies in the budget and if A.B. 212 would pass would he fill the vacant positions. Mr. Molini said he was not sure, he might not fill them, he was looking at some other restructuring as the budget would still be tight. Mr. Carpenter asked about the game position and why it had not been filled. Mr. Molini said one reason was he had been looking at some restructuring at the upper management level of the agency to save money and maybe enhance the efficiency of the operation. Mr. Carpenter asked if the position was going to be filled in game. Mr. Molini reiterated his position of restructuring positions. Mr. Carpenter asked about the large percentage of the budget for administration. Mr. Molini said the overall state cost recovery for services from the treasurer, controller, attorney general, etc., were functions which serve the whole agency and were lumped under administration in the budget. He also stated the motor pool, the application hunt system, department data processing, postage for all areas, printing costs were lumped under administration also, and if they were allocated out to the proper departments the administration budget would be below 15 percent. Chairman Bennett closed the sub-committee hearing on A.B. 212. The meeting 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 April 12, 1995 Page