MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Sixty-eighth Session March 1, 1995 The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 1:40 p.m., on Wednesday, March 1, 1995, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Vice Chairman Senator Mark A. James Senator Mike McGinness Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator John B. (Jack) Regan Senator O. C. Lee STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred W. Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director Billie Brinkman, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Doug Bussleman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club Joe Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen's Association Gaylyn J. Spriggs, Lobbyist, Rayrock Mines Inc. Stephen J. Mahoney, Chief, Livestock Identification Bureau, Division of Agriculture, Department of Business and Industry Helen K. Leveille, President, Nevada Public Land Access Coalition, Inc. Chairman Rhoads asked the committee to consider a bill draft request (BDR). BILL DRAFT REQUEST 40-708: Authorizes local air pollution control agency to establish program to reduce and control air pollution. SENATOR REGAN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 40- 708. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS JAMES AND ADLER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Chairman Rhoads opened the hearing on the first item on the agenda. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 7: Expresses support of Nevada Legislature for ranching and farming in Nevada and expresses its opposition to any extensive and unreasonable reform of existing regulations of Federal Government concerning management of public rangelands. Doug Bussleman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, expressed support for S.J.R. 7 with a proposed amendment. His remarks are included as Exhibit C. Mr. Bussleman cited the proposed changes for the record: The main point on page 1 is the deletion of lines 21 through 23 which deal with the "WHEREAS" on the grazing fee. As proposed in the final rules, the grazing fee is not included as part of that final rule. That would then require you to move the "NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED" part up one "WHEREAS," and then, on page 2, after line 3, the two "RESOLVES" that we are proposing, one would say, "RESOLVED, that the Nevada Legislature requests intervention by the U.S. Congress to halt implementation by the Bureau of Land Management of proposed final rules, published in the February 22, 1995, Federal Register; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Nevada Legislature urges the 104th U.S. Congress to develop and adopt a comprehensive legislative directive to federal land management agencies to pursue policy and regulation which provide for continued livestock grazing based on established range science concepts; ..." The committee received printed copies of the proposed amendments (Exhibit D). Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club, voiced support not only for the goals of the resolution, but also for ranching on public lands in the State of Nevada. He proposed the "WHEREAS" dealing with fees be deleted as inappropriate. Chairman Rhoads concurred. Mr. Johnson reiterated support for the bill with the amendment. Joe Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen's Association, urged support for S.J.R. 7 with the amendments proposed by Mr. Bussleman. Gaylyn J. Spriggs, Lobbyist, Rayrock Mines Inc., voiced the support of the mining industry for ranchers and endorsed S.J.R. 7. She stressed the importance of unity among western area constituencies in order to have a greater impact on the national scene. In the absence of further testimony on S.J.R. 7, Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 68. ASSEMBLY BILL 68: Increases maximum reward for information leading to arrest and conviction of person engaged in stealing livestock. Stephen J. Mahoney, Chief, Livestock Identification Bureau, Division of Agriculture, Department of Business and Industry, explained A.B. 68 would allow the Division of Agriculture to increase the amount to be contributed toward overall rewards for information leading to any conviction on felony livestock offenses. He declared the support of the division for the measure. Chairman Rhoads asked if cattlemen and the Nevada Farm Bureau contribute funds toward the rewards. Mr. Mahoney confirmed the query, but admitted he did not know the percentage breakdown. He added grazing boards and others also make donations to augment rewards. Chairman Rhoads inquired how many calls the division has received during the past year regarding cattle thefts. Mr. Mahoney estimated there may have been 10 calls during the past year. He said management in the Division of Wildlife allows cattlemen the use of their 800 telephone number and dispatcher and they forward information regarding thefts to the Division of Agriculture. In response to a query by Senator McGinness, Mr. Mahoney reported there had been approximately six convictions during the year for cattle theft. Senator Jacobsen asked what is included in the definition of livestock. Mr. Mahoney replied the statutes define livestock as cattle and horses, although horses would not be included in A.B. 68 due to nonparticipation of people in the equine industry. He confirmed there would be no reward offered for livestock owned by the federal government, such as wild horses or burros. Mr. Bussleman again came forward to offer the support of the Nevada Farm Bureau for A.B. 68 through written testimony (Exhibit E). He pointed out the source of funds for rewards are derived from donations, not from the General Fund. He said funding comes from five organizations, those previously mentioned, the Nevada Wool Growers Association and funds collected by the Division of Agriculture as branding fees. Chairman Rhoads inquired why it is necessary to have a bill to allow funding for rewards. Mr. Bussleman responded the division needs authorization through the statutes to contribute to the reward fund. He explained the reward fund is a standing program which was originally authorized through legislation. He said since rewards are not offered on an incident-by-incident basis, legislative approval is required for the division to increase the amount contributed toward the reward. Senator Jacobsen asked if stealing livestock is a felony. Mr. Bussleman replied he did not know, but Mr. Mahoney stated it is a felony under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 205.225, even for the theft or illegal killing of one head of livestock. Mr Guild added his support for A.B. 68 on behalf of the Nevada Cattlemen's Association. Testimony on A.B. 68 concluded and Chairman Rhoads commenced the work session. He referred the committee to Exhibit F, an analysis of bills prepared by the staff. SENATE BILL 46: Repeals prospective expiration of provisions authorizing issuance of deer or antelope tags as compensation for damage to private property. Fred W. Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, recalled during the earlier discussion of S.B. 46 an amendment had been proposed by Fred Wright and the Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, and there had been discussion by two ranchers. Mr. Welden indicated he had summarized the information into two recommended amendments set forth in Exhibit F. Chairman Rhoads asked if the Division of Wildlife had any objections to the proposed amendment which would require them to submit a summary to the Legislature. Mr. Welden said William Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, had approved both proposed amendments. Mr. Welden noted the second amendment would provide an exception that all hunting occur during open season. He said the proposals would allow the Board of Wildlife Commissioners to prescribe a special season for the use of tags to be used solely on private land. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 46 AS PROPOSED IN EXHIBIT F. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS JAMES AND ADLER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Helen K. Leveille, President, Nevada Public Land Access Coalition, Inc., entered the meeting and requested an opportunity to testify on the matter of damage compensation tags. Chairman Rhoads informed her the hearing had concluded but invited her comment. Ms. Leveille declared the Nevada Public Land Access Coalition (NPLAC) does not oppose the compensation tags but has concern regarding access. She provided committee members with copies of her position outlined in Exhibit G, which she reviewed. Chairman Rhoads told Ms. Leveille there had been testimony during a previous hearing which indicated the access problem could be resolved through regulation and would not have to be addressed through a bill. Ms. Leveille conceded she remembered that discussion and continued her remarks. Ms. Leveille recited a coalition request for changes in the Nevada Revised Statutes as outlined in her position paper (Exhibit G). She furnished the committee with a packet of documentation to support her position (Exhibit H. Original is on file in the Research Library.) She said the map referenced in Exhibit G was not included in the packet but she agreed to provide a copy to the Division of Wildlife. Ms. Leveille stated the NPLAC was making an attempt to have all the public agencies involved address the issue of access through the influence of the Legislature. Chairman Rhoads reiterated his advice for her to seek regulation through the Division of Wildlife. Chairman Rhoads resumed the work session. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 8: Urges Congress of United States to amend Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide for consideration of economic impact of Act. Mr. Welden stated two technical changes have been proposed by the Nevada Farm Bureau, as indicated in Exhibit F. He read the two proposed amendments and explained the next proposed change. He indicated Mr. Bussleman had suggested some accountability be included in the bill, and he and Mr. Bussleman had formulated the wording of a new "RESOLVED" clause proposed by number 2 in Exhibit F. Mr. Welden said the new clause would urge Congress to require that an analysis of the anticipated cost and benefits of the proposed action be compiled and reviewed before a species is designated or listed as threatened or endangered. He submitted the change would ask Congress to consider the economic impact when an appropriation is made or prior to the time a species is actually designated. Mr. Welden called attention to another proposed amendment on the second page of Exhibit F. He explained the proposals would be consistent with changes adopted by the Nevada Legislature in 1993 in which the economic analysis would be made at the time the recovery plan is being developed. He said that economic analysis would be based strictly upon scientific information. Chairman Rhoads pointed out the first amendment would require economic analysis prior to the designation, while the second amendment would require economic analysis afterwards. Senator Adler asked what economic analysis has to do with something that is endangered. He said, "It's either endangered or it is not." He asserted economic analysis relates to impact on the local community. He acknowledged economic analysis should be associated with the recovery plan, which he agreed should be implemented in the most cost-effective manner possible. Mr. Bussleman responded the Nevada Farm Bureau proposal would provide for the economic analysis to be made before the designation of endangered or threatened was made. He explained the determination as to whether the species is threatened or endangered would still be based upon scientific analysis, but before a species is designated, the economic analysis would be made. He stated: Then the second step is some designation process and at that point, you can say yes, they are endangered, but we have considered the economic and cost benefits of implementing or listing them in a designated process and have decided that we aren't going to list them. Chairman Rhoads concluded, "If it was too expensive, then they wouldn't be listed, under certain conditions." Mr. Bussleman added, "Or if they didn't have the analysis that showed that what they were going to do made any difference." He pointed out there are some species for which nothing can be done to save them. Mr. Bussleman noted the original testimony had called for further accountability in reform of the Endangered Species Act. He stated the proposal for a cost-benefit analysis would add an element of accountability in the designation process. He declared that would not preclude making a plan to designate the species as threatened or endangered. He suggested once the plan is put into writing other alternatives which might be just as effective but would be less costly might be considered and used. Senator Adler voiced agreement that the lowest cost alternative should be used for a recovery plan, but he reiterated doubts as to how it would work. Mr. Bussleman said the proposal is the result of the committee's request for an explanation of accountability. Senator Regan called to mind the problem with the goshawk when mining companies attempted to protect them and the problem was exacerbated. He suggested that is an example when a prior economic analysis might have been worthwhile. Senator Adler countered the harbor seal has recovered since it was protected, as has the American eagle since DDT (diphenyltrichloroethane) was banned. Mr. Johnson asserted the actual designation should be based upon the status of the species. He said there is one unaddressed problem to which the Sierra Club is sensitive. He declared: The problem of the designation of the species is, when it is decided, it is a sudden event, and that is an area that certainly needs addressing. And this resolution really doesn't make any suggestions or recommendations.... I think it's significant. The goshawk ... case, however you look at it, would be unaffected by this because it wasn't listed, it was simply placed upon a "sensitive" or "indicator" species list that had the effect of being listed from the industry standpoint. In those kinds of cases ... we aren't really addressing that issue. Mr. Johnson added: The point of making from consideration to declaration with some notice in some time, or recognition that there are critical species that need immediate and emergency measures, versus some long-term sustainability in the plan ... comes forward. But I would like to ... speak for the designation being scientific and from our club standpoint, silent on the economics. Chairman Rhoads indicated the committee is attempting to resolve problems such as those that have arisen with the desert tortoise, the goshawk and other species which caused industry and home developers many thousands or millions of dollars. He conceded the language of the bill may need changing in order to be effective. Senator Jacobsen asked what criteria is used to designate a species as threatened or endangered. Mr. Johnson replied there is an elaborate protocol to establish endangerment through identification and inventory. While the listing of the desert tortoise had an overnight effect upon industry, he explained, the study period had been very lengthy, probably a number of years, before the actual determination was issued. Mr. Johnson stated there is a process used with established protocols, but the general public is not generally aware of the problem until the actual designation is made. He acknowledged the difficulty and recognized that once the determination is made, often after a long process, it can be catastrophic for some people. Senator Jacobsen asked if there is a protocol to determine if an animal or bird is a predator. He suggested if both predators and protected species were tied together it might be simpler to make an evaluation. Mr. Johnson conceded the word "management" is troublesome to many people. He stated one can understand a concept often implemented when an agency such as the United States Forest Service tries to manage a species, such as the goshawk, so that it will not be placed under restrictions. He acknowledged from the standpoint of the industry involved it ultimately becomes the same thing as a protected species. In that case, he said, there are not as many administrative oversight requirements as a result of declaring the species sensitive as there would be if it receives one of the protected designations. Mr. Johnson noted most people would not consider the impact, recovery and management plans used on those sites as being realistic. He asserted the problem of managing habitat is external to the Endangered Species Act. He pointed out the species is not listed during the study period and has no impact on most management procedures unless it is identified as sensitive. Mr. Johnson concluded: The ultimate question is whether society says that this species can be obliterated or not, is a public policy issue, but the issue of defining endangerment or threatened should be based on scientific data. Chairman Rhoads asked Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bussleman to work with Senator Adler to formulate some appropriate language for the bill that would clarify the issue. They agreed to do so. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 9: Expresses support of Nevada Legislature for exchanges of land involving Bureau of Land Management and Colorado River Commission which would result in additional land for Laughlin. Mr. Welden reported the Colorado River Commission has proposed an amendment included on page 5 of Exhibit F and he referred to the language there proposed to replace lines 17 through 20 of S.J.R. 9. He recalled there had been no opposition when the measure and amendment were discussed at an earlier hearing. SENATOR REGAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.J.R. 9 AS PROPOSED. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 27 OF THE SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION: Proposes to amend ordinance of Nevada constitution to repeal disclaimer of interest of state in unappropriated public lands. Chairman Rhoads pointed out there had been concerns expressed by two representatives of Native American Tribes that the resolution might remove some of the protection over their traditional rights. He noted the committee had discussed the concern and had directed that a letter of intent be written to accompany the resolution with the understanding it would be sufficient to overcome those concerns. As a result, he said, he had directed Mr. Welden to draft a letter of intent which is included in Exhibit F. Mr. Welden called attention to the letter addressed to Arlan D. Melendez, Tribal Chairman of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, and dated February 27, 1995. He explained the letter indicates that S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session is not intended to diminish the independent sovereignty of the tribes nor is it intended to alter the trust relationship that the tribes have with the federal government. Mr. Welden said the letter of intent outlines some of the actions of the Legislature that have had a positive effect on both the Indian tribes and the rest of the citizens of the State of Nevada. He declared the letter suggests that cooperative agreements and intergovernmental compacts could be used in the future to enhance the protection of Native American rights. SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 27 OF THE 67TH SESSION. SENATOR JAMES SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Because the measure had originally been introduced by Senator Adler, Chairman Rhoads invited him to present the bill on the floor. In the absence of further business to come before the committee, Chairman Rhoads adjourned the hearing at 2:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Judy Jacobs, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Natural Resources March 1, 1995 Page