MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining
Seventy-Second Session
February 12, 2003
The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:28 p.m., on Wednesday, February 12, 2003. Chairman Tom Collins presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Tom Collins, Chairman
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Marcus Conklin
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. John Marvel
Mr. Bob McCleary
Mr. Harry Mortenson
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst
Erin Channell, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John T. Moran, Jr., Chairman, Nevada Board of Wildlife, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Terry Crawforth, Administrator, Nevada Division of Wildlife, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Danny Thompson, Nevada State American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)
Joe Johnson, Government Affairs Consultant, Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club
Tina Nappe, Citizen
Gerald A. Lent, Washoe County Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife and the Nevada Hunters Association
Bill Bradley, Board of Wildlife Commissions
Robert V. Abbey, Nevada State Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Robert L. Vaught, Forest Supervisor, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, U.S. Forest Service
Chairman Collins called the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining to order. Roll was called. All members were present, except Assemblywoman Ohrenschall who was noted as an excused absence.
Chairman Collins opened the meeting with Committee introductions for BDR 51‑568 and BDR 48-520.
Chairman Collins provided additional information about BDR 51-568: It was a committee requested BDR from the Department of Agriculture, it provided for registration of brands of pesticides, and required the annual deposit of certain unexpended registration fees into a separate fund for use in monitoring activities of pesticides to protect ground and surface water.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED FOR AN INTRODUCTION OF BDR 51-568.
ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BT THOSE PRESENT. (Ms. Ohrenschall was absent for the vote.)
********
Chairman Collins stated the BDR came from the Division of Water Resources and it provided for other regulation matters.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED FOR AN INTRODUCTION OF BDR 48-520.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (Ms. Ohrenschall was absent for the vote.)
Chairman Collins related the following information to audience members: Turn off devices that emit noise; he encouraged testimony and the providing of information to legislators; sign in and provide a business card to the Committee secretary; provide 20 copies of any exhibits and materials for presentation to the Committee; NRS 218.5345 allowed him to swear in witnesses and it was illegal to misrepresent any fact in testimony; when testifying turn on the microphone and state one's name for the record; direct questions and responses through the Chairman.
Chairman Collins concurrently opened discussion on the three bills before the Committee: A.B. 41, A.B. 71, and A.B. 72. As he was the sponsor for A.B. 41, Vice Chairman Claborn would conduct the meeting during his testimony.
Vice Chairman Claborn asked Assemblyman Collins to provide his testimony.
Assembly Bill 41: Converts Division of Wildlife of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources into Department of Wildlife. (BDR 45-14)
Assemblyman Collins, Clark County Assembly District No. 1, introduced A.B. 41 to the Committee. He stated the majority of the bill was for legal clarifications, changing the Division of Wildlife to a Department of Wildlife, and providing additional authority to the Commission of Wildlife. He then presented two amendments he wished to have considered: delete text from line 23 on page 6, and on page 7, line 18, replace “approval” with consent or concurrence; legal would make the final decision as to which term to use (Exhibit C).
Mr. Collins went on to add that a precedent had been set in 1993 when the Divisions of Agriculture and Mining were separated from the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and a similar separation would be efficient and beneficial to the Division of Wildlife.
Vice Chairman Claborn asked if there were questions from the Committee.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked what the fiscal note associated with A.B. 41 would be.
Assemblyman Collins responded that the costs associated with the change would be minimal.
Assemblyman Marvel wondered if A.B. 41 would need to go to the Ways and Means Committee because of the fiscal note.
Assemblyman Collins answered that the fiscal note was not large enough to require it to go through Ways and Means, but it would not be a problem if it was requested to be sent there.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked why the portion of A.B. 41 that dealt with the Commission having approval of the budget was being removed.
Assemblyman Collins responded that it was so the Governor would sign. He referred to Section 16 and said the budget was still being developed and the Commission had a stronger position in developing the budget and affecting its direction with the Governor’s Office, but ultimate control would still lie with the Department of Budget. If the world “approval” remained in A.B. 41, then it could delay the budget process as well as the Legislature. He asked if the response was complete enough.
Assemblyman Carpenter said it really was not.
Assemblyman Geddes commented that there was an increase in the pay scale for directors rather than administrators, as well as for support staff, increased office space, and physical support. He thought those expenditures would also be a part of the fiscal note, and wondered if those expenditures were unnecessary, if the regulations for state classified positions were being waived, or if the number of positions affected was not significant.
Assemblyman Collins answered that since the Division of Wildlife already existed, the positions were already established and were within the budget, a budget funded by sportsmen. The Division had a fixed budget to operate within, so the changes in the cost to the state government would not be significant to the amount of the budget.
Assemblyman Goicoechea wanted a clarification about Section 14 where the Department was under the control of the Commission.
Assemblyman Collins stated that one of his suggested amendments was to delete that language on pages 6 and 7 (Exhibit C).
Assemblyman Goicoechea wanted to clarify if the position of the Commission would then be advisory in nature.
Assemblyman Collins stated the language in Section 16 gave the Commission comment on the budget, and the current intent would be to make it stronger, while understanding that the state had superior power to adjust the budgets.
Assemblyman Goicoechea responded that he just wanted to be clear for the Committee and the public.
Assemblyman Collins said it would be clear once the Commission Chairman testified.
Vice Chairman Claborn asked if there were any further questions for Assemblyman Collins, and seeing none, Vice Chairman Claborn excused him and invited him to retake his position with the Committee as Chairman.
Chairman Collins thanked Vice Chairman Claborn and the Committee, and then commented that there were several people who wanted to speak in favor of and against A.B. 41, A.B. 71, and A.B. 72. He then called John Moran and Terry Crawforth to provide testimony.
Assembly Bill 71: Authorizes Division of Wildlife of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to charge certain fees and exempts Division from certain requirements concerning printed matter. (BDR 45‑479)
Assembly Bill 72: Converts Division of Wildlife of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources into Department of Wildlife. (BDR 45-477)
John T. Moran, Jr., Chairman, Nevada Board of Wildlife, thanked the Committee for the opportunity to testify and commented that Chairman Collins had already answered many of the questions pertaining to A.B. 41.
Chairman Collins reminded the witnesses when testifying to state their names prior to speaking because testimony was recorded.
Mr. Moran said he was the Chairman of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners for the state of Nevada, and he introduced Terry Crawforth as the Administrator and Secretary for the Commission Board and reminded the Committee that he had given a presentation to them the previous week. He provided information about the responsibilities of the state Commissioners. Primarily, they were to see that the wildlife and habitat were provided for Nevadans and for future generations of Nevadans.
In fulfilling their responsibilities he was pleased to inform the Committee that the other eight Commissioners were also present; the Wildlife Commissioners came from across the state, and by statute must come from different arenas, working as a cross-section of Nevada. The current Commission was made up of representatives for conservation, the general public, sportsmen, ranching, and farming; they were to represent a cross-section and represented the many interests of Nevadans.
He then introduced the other eight Commissioners and where they came from:
Mr. Moran repeated that it was a privilege to appear before the Committee, and it was a pleasure to serve with the other Commissioners. He commented that the hearts of the Commissioners were in the good of wildlife. According to him, they supported A.B. 41 and it had been a work in progress for some time.
They had received letters of support, some of which they supplied to the Committee as Exhibit D. The letters of support were from outdoor groups and each of the County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife for the state of Nevada. Mr. Moran said the Board of Wildlife Commissioners was similar to a county advisory board organization and governmental arm, and they utilized the information provided by the County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife. Each County Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife had appeared before the Wildlife Board when the legislative package was on the agenda and then sent in letters of support for the legislative package before the Committee for consideration.
Mr. Moran said they had the support of the Wildlife Commission, the County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife in the state, the outdoor groups, from the Governor and his staff, Senator Raggio and his staff, and Speaker Perkins. He said they enjoyed their support, assistance, and cooperation in bringing A.B. 41 to the Committee in the hopes of the Committee supporting the package. He said that they felt the legislative package was in the best interests, and in the Commission fulfilling their functions and responsibilities.
He said that while Chairman Collins had answered many questions, he and Mr. Crawforth would respectfully and quickly answer any additional questions on the bill.
Chairman Collins wanted to mention that in A.B. 71 there were activities listed that dealt with competitive bidding for printing and other State Printing Office issues. Because those were issues dealing with the budgeting process, reorganization, tax discussions, and funding in a different area of the Legislature, he had asked that those issues be amended outside of A.B. 71. That way A.B. 71 would only address the advertising and printing of the Wildlife Commission.
He then briefly discussed A.B. 72 remarking that it was almost identical to A.B. 41 and one of the amendments would then also apply to A.B. 72. He asked if Mr. Moran would agree to that stipulation, who said they were in agreement.
Chairman Collins asked if the Committee wanted to ask questions after Mr. Crawforth’s testimony, and then invited Mr. Crawforth to begin his testimony.
Terry Crawforth, Administrator, Nevada Division of Wildlife, briefly introduced himself, when Chairman Collins interrupted to inquire if Mr. Moran had signed in, who indicated he had.
Mr. Crawforth continued by saying that Commission Chairman Moran covered comments on A.B. 41 and A.B. 72 and he would only add that they had been working with the sportsmen for several months to produce advertising pamphlets and other publications. They had been preparing to produce the documents when they sought an Attorney General’s Office opinion which indicated it would be illegal to advertise on state property as was intended. They were seeking changes to that determination so they could pursue advertising; the Division of Wildlife was also the second or third largest customer of the State Printing Division, annually spending $180,000 - $250,000 for printing publications.
They hoped to find opportunities to address the printing and advertising issues in one bill. Mr. Crawforth understood the legislative process with relation to the exclusive use of the State Printer; they had a long and positive working relationship with the State Printer and while not their intent, he did not think the State Printer wanted to lose them as a customer. He said the bill clearly dealt with providing the Division with the authority to advertise within their publications.
Chairman Collins then said he would allow questions.
Assemblyman Geddes said he had two questions. First, he wanted a clarification about the lack of fiscal note; he used the example of when the Department of Agriculture changed from division to department. He said there were staff positions that needed to be filled and the reclassification of support staff that had a fiscal impact that was not apparent during the original change. He wanted to know if Mr. Crawforth felt that there would be no fiscal note or additional needs through either the General Fund or an increase in division fees to support the change.
Mr. Crawforth clarified by saying they had submitted a fiscal note for both bills stating a zero-impact. The reasoning behind that, he said, was the Nevada Department of Wildlife and its previous iterations, was an independent agency for nearly 50 years. They had been a division of a larger department for less than 10 years; they became associated with the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources as a stand-alone agency. As such, they had their own personnel, fiscal staff, facilities, and infrastructure, and they maintained that arrangement as a division.
He said that while he was intrigued by comment on the salary increase for the administrator, it was not something they had requested or were anticipating. He continued and said turnover for things like stationery and remodeling of facilities was high; they had engineering and clerical staff, they shared facilities in several areas of the state with divisions like State Parks, and they worked in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources on such areas as the new computer server. He said they had joined the Department as a self-sufficient organization: they had maintained that standing and did not see the need for additional staff.
Mr. Crawforth referred back to his testimony at the previous meeting, stating they had a significant fee bill to be presented to the Committee in the future, and it had nothing to do with the legislation currently before the Committee. He concluded that he believed the fiscal impact would be a zero‑impact.
Assemblyman Geddes commented that the Department of Agriculture had left its division signage up until Assemblyman Marvel drove by and said they needed to replace it with new signage.
Mr. Crawforth said the previous director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources had informed him that some of the old Department of Wildlife signage had not been removed. He said they still had some of those old signs.
Assemblyman Geddes then asked about the diversity of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners, listing the different areas represented as conservation, farmers, ranchers, general public, hunters, and fishers. He said that with some of the categories, without listing them, the composition of the Commission might be favored towards fish and game, and not wildlife in general.
Mr. Moran responded that he worked with the Commissioners and that the members participated in the activities represented, saying the ranchers might also fish or the fishers might also farm. He thought it served as a good cross-section, which was what the law was designed to accomplish. After having served as the Chairman of the Wildlife Commission for two terms, he noticed when citizens came before them, they were cognizant of their statutory obligations to wildlife and habitat. They acted equitably in those areas and in the interests of the citizens of the state.
He said he did not see the issues falling easily into the different areas, and the areas themselves added up to the interests of the state of Nevada concerning wildlife resources. Through working with the Commissioners, he felt they had the same opinion.
Assemblyman Marvel asked Mr. Crawforth how many people were unclassified.
Mr. Crawforth responded that only one was unclassified.
Assemblyman Marvel then asked if there would be any changes in status.
Mr. Crawforth replied that he hoped not; he then said that having been both classified and unclassified he knew what it cost and he would prefer not to do that.
Assemblyman Marvel asked whether he was unclassified currently.
Mr. Crawforth answered that he was the only unclassified person.
Assemblyman Mortenson commented that there was testimony earlier about advertising and literature that could be printed. He wanted to explore those issues more, with the downside being that advertising might get into constitutional rights of those who wanted to advertise that the Division of Wildlife might not want to have in their publications. He could also conceive of a situation where someone might place an advertisement who would then appear before the Division as a government entity and ask for certain things. He thought that might be a conflict of interest. Lastly, he thought it would be demeaning to “scrounge around” in the public arena for advertising.
Mr. Moran responded that he agreed and those issues had been discussed in many Commission meetings. The Commission was looking to find ways to generate revenues so they were not constantly asking the sportsmen to raise their fees; other alternative avenues of revenue that could remove the burden off the licensees was the goal. They examined other states that had done that. He said they did not feel they were going to be able to generate large sums of money, but they were willing to leave the option open. If they were willing to try it, they might be able to generate revenues and remove the burden.
He said that in that area, wildlife was funded through the licensees and users. He said they only received about 3 percent from the General Fund, and 55 percent plus comes from licensing. Another option was to develop an outdoor person’s license plate, where those who participated in outdoor activities could buy a special license plate. Those were other options they were considering to generate revenues and release some of the burden from particular license groups from funding the whole group.
Chairman Collins thanked them both and said they were not going to vote on any of the bills that day until they received the amendments. Once they received the written amendments, they would consider voting on them. He said they were about out of time, but would allow a few last questions.
Assemblyman Marvel asked Mr. Crawforth whether the license fee would be exempt under the Governor’s Entertainment Tax.
Mr. Crawforth responded that he assumed it would be because it was totally a tax.
Assemblyman Marvel said it was a charge, and it was something they might need to look at.
Mr. Crawforth then joked that maybe he would take the pay raise.
Assemblyman Claborn asked if there were any plans to hire biologists; he said he knew the staff was full, but wondered if there were any working plans to hire needed biologists.
Mr. Crawforth answered that the revenue and budget projections would not allow for the addition of positions but only for the replacement of personnel. The Division of Wildlife was actually losing three positions through the Governor’s Budget because of their revenue stream.
Assemblyman Claborn asked if they would have to generate funds to hire biologists.
Mr. Crawforth responded that in the fee proposals to be presented to the Committee were only to keep the agency at status quo, not for any growth.
Assemblyman Claborn said that in order to keep the game moving along and in check, they were going to need biologists. He said he would be willing to help work on that.
Assemblyman Carpenter had concerns with deleting the language that placed the Department of Wildlife under the Board of Wildlife Commissioners. If it was not under the control of the Commissioners, then he wanted to know who would be in control.
Mr. Crawforth said he would attempt to answer since several members had asked the question. He said that in the statute the Board of Wildlife Commissioners were responsible for establishing policy and regulations; the Division had no authority in those areas. The bills specified what to do and when, which he thought provided more than adequate controls and that was what the statutes were about.
He said the Division was a user-funded agency, and there were plenty of provisions that established policy, regulation, and direction. He thought the agency did well to address a broad base of issues such as boating, hunting, fishing, wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation. He did not know about the language “under the control of the Commission” because he felt the Commission and the sportsmen were already in control.
Assemblyman Carpenter stated that when the legislation was first discussed and taken to the local game boards, the Division of Wildlife was under the control of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners and the Commission would approve the budget. He was curious what the response would be with those two points removed.
Mr. Crawforth responded that the Commission sponsored the legislation, the Governor had presented it, and it had been taken to various sportsmen organizations and county wildlife advisory boards statewide, and it did not contain that particular language.
Chairman Collins responded that that was correct and the only change being made was to the name, from Division to Department. All the other controls were to remain almost identical.
Mr. Moran indicated agreement with the statement.
Chairman Collins stated that seeing no other questions, they would move on to the next witnesses, Tina Nappe and Joe Johnson, for the remaining time.
Mr. Crawforth thanked the Committee for the time and opportunity to testify.
Chairman Collins invited Mr. Thompson to provide a brief testimony.
Danny Thompson, Nevada State American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, said he was a hunter in southern Nevada and that without the work of the Division of Wildlife there would not be anything to hunt. He said the problem he saw was over the print shop; he represented the print shop workers, and he said the Department of Wildlife was the largest account. The efficiency of the Legislature depended on the print shop and the Legislature could ill-afford to cause harm to them. He said they were opposed to that provision, and there were other witnesses also opposed who would not be testifying on the point.
Chairman Collins said his encouragement was to delete the portion of the bill that dealt with the print shop because it was being addressed somewhere else. He said he doubted anything would move forward with that including the print shop. He then moved on to Mr. Johnson.
Joe Johnson, Government Affairs Consultant, Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club said since they would be providing a presentation the following week, he would only address their concerns with the bill. He said some of those concerns were already addressed by removing the issue of control. He read Section 1 of Exhibit E, the statutory language of NRS 501.100, emphasizing that the natural resources belonged to the people.
Their concern, Mr. Johnson said, was that they had been reasonably happy, except for the minor disagreements, with the operation of the Division of Wildlife. They respected the efforts by the Wildlife Commission; their objection was founded on the issue that while he served on the State Environmental Commission, a regulatory policy board, and they never saw the budget of the Division of Environmental Protection. He said the other fee-based entity in the state was the Department of Mines, and the Commission that represented the mining community did not have approval of that budget either.
He said they wanted to be on record as asking about the new language and what would happen if the Commission did not consent or concur. He said he understood the Chairman’s interest in finding some mid-line language between the existing review and comment and the actual approval.
Chairman Collins thanked him and said he had been assured by the Governor’s Office that if the Commission disagreed, he would continue with his budget without their influence and input.
Tina Nappe, a resident of Reno, said she had been a long-time member of the State Board of Wildlife Commissioners and provided written text of her testimony (Exhibit F). She had a longtime interest in wildlife expressed through her involvement with the Board of Wildlife Commissioners, before and after.
Her concerns (Exhibit F) included the following issue: wildlife of the state were publicly owned and not a private interest resource. Representation of the public, in spite of the user-fees collected by the Division of Wildlife, was important to recognize because wildlife did not depend on the Division so much as they depend on habitat, and habitat was something everyone paid for. It was important to keep in mind when looking at the ownership and management of wildlife to recognize it was as much a habitat issue as anything else.
She made reference to the NRS statute that made wildlife a publicly owned resource, and that while there was talk about public participation on the Board of Wildlife Commissioners, participation was limited; the one public member on the Commission was always a sportsman. She said there was geographic representation, but not much representation of the broad public other than a conservationist.
Further, Ms. Nappe said the Board of Wildlife Commissioners relied on the 17 County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife, who were limited by law to sportsmen and ranchers, and the sportsmen must be nominated by an organized group of sportsmen. She said those boards were not open to other members to hold a position, only to testify before them (Exhibit F). She listed a number of suggestions she wanted the Committee to consider including:
Ms. Nappe wanted credit given to other resources being addressed, and she provided other information within Exhibit F including a letter to Mr. Turnipseed pointing out the values of the Division of Wildlife remaining within the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and a letter to Chairman Collins and Assemblyman Geddes covering her concerns. She wanted to ask that some of the concerns be addressed but to also have an opportunity to enhance the budget and make the Division accessible to a broader public. Wildlife belonged to everyone, she pointed out, and lived in every county and on public and private lands. It would take everyone to help protect it, not just one group.
Chairman Collins asked if there were any questions for the witnesses. Seeing none, he commented that from the sign-in sheets there were 16 people in favor, 8 opposed, 1 neutral, and 4 who removed their proposal if they did not move forward with the printing office. He wanted to recognize those numbers, compliment Mr. Moran for the support of his Board, and recognize the other sportsmen. He asked if Colleen Murphy was still present and wanted to testify, and then said he would allow more speakers until the Bureau of Land Management arrived.
He wanted to try to balance the time and allow the opposition more time to speak because of the amount of time allotted to the supporters. He asked again if there was anyone else who wanted to speak in opposition to the three bills or parts of them. He acknowledged a guest from the audience.
Gerald A. Lent, Washoe County Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife and the Nevada Hunters Association came forward to provide his testimony, saying he was opposed to the bill with the amendment attached. He thanked the Committee for allowing him to testify, and said he was on the County Board and they voted to support the bill as it was, not with an amendment. Their decision was adamantly based on the idea that there needed to budgetary control by the Board of Wildlife Commissioners.
Chairman Collins reminded Mr. Lent there were three bills before the Committee and requested a clarification about which bill he was speaking to.
Mr. Lent clarified he was speaking to A.B. 41 and said that while he signed in as favoring the bill, without knowledge of the amendment, he would be opposed to the bill with the proposed amendment. He said his County Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife, and he thought probably some of the other County Boards, were in favor of the original bill, not the amended version. He stated that, from his hunter organization’s point of view, the Commissioners needed control and approval of the budget; he also thought they would admit it.
Mr. Lent continued by saying the Commission had to set policy, and in order to do that they needed control of the budget, or at least some final say in it. He said the 17 County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife were legally obligated to advise the Wildlife Commission on wildlife issues. The Commission then set the policy, but without a fiscal say they would not be able to be effective. As an example, he said if some County Boards were to say there was an animal disease problem, they would then go to the Commission and recommend hiring a full-time veterinarian, but the Commission might say they had no money to hire. The Commission would not have the budgetary controls to redirect the agency and prioritize expenditures to resolve the problem.
All the advice the County Boards provided to the Commission would not have an effective outlet if the Commission had no way to financially respond. Without the oversight, the Commission could not perform its functions; the Commission was responsible for controlling the funds coming into the Commission, but they were then not able to control the outgoing funds. He wanted to know what kind of company could do that.
He said that control of incoming funds was through fee charges, but the Commission was not able to control the budget and expenditures. He said that did not make sense. He said the County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife had heard the phrase “we understand the problem but we have no enforcement powers to direct the budget money to the problem.” He said they did not want to hear that from the Board of Wildlife Commissioners.
Mr. Lent said there were a lot of problems, and the sportsmen did not want to hear that the Wildlife Agency deficit hurt hunting and fishing. They wanted to have someone they could turn to, and they, as public servants, could go to the Commission and request their input into the budget. He said that currently they could not do that, and they did not want cost overruns.
He concluded by saying he thought it was irresponsible to pass the bill without some budgetary oversight or authority to protect the sportsmen’s dollars. He said that if they were going to go ahead with the amendment he thought they should defeat the bill. He said he was for the bill, but with the amendment he thought they should defeat it because without the budget oversight he did not think it would work.
Chairman Collins thanked Mr. Lent, then asked about his comments on money in and money out. He provided an example of an individual who could work for someone else or have an independent job; wages and income were independently determined but not the outflow because of outside costs and an individual would not control monetary outflow any more than the Commission would. He said what they were asking for in A.B. 41 and A.B. 72 was to separate the Division of Wildlife into a Department, and that was the intent of the legislation. He said A.B. 71 was to raise money through advertising on their printed brochures.
He thought the intent for the Commissioners, based on testimony, was that they would feel more in control as their own employer rather than working for someone else. He said everything could not be achieved at once, a little bit in this session, and a little in the next couple sessions. He said he hoped Mr. Lent would refrain from wanting to kill all three bills.
Assemblyman Geddes said his question might not be for Mr. Lent, but to the Commission and Mr. Moran. The letters of support from the County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife specifically discussed budget approval and he was curious if they should expect a similar pullback by them.
Bill Bradley, Board of Wildlife Commissions, responded saying they had received strong direction from the Governor’s Office that they were willing to work with the Commission to insure the sportsmen felt they had good budgetary input. He then said that with the budget process in the Legislature and at the Governor’s Office, they still controlled the budget; but the Commissioners had been told they wanted to work with the Commissioners, in a closely monitored agency using the Commission. He believed the sportsmen’s groups, and that direction was coming from the Governor’s Office, would still be in support of the legislation.
Assemblyman Marvel asked Mr. Bradley if there was any General Fund money in the budget. As Mr. Bradley responded no, Assemblyman Marvel interrupted and asked none whatsoever.
Mr. Bradley said they would get 3 percent, the same General Fund money as existed prior to the name change.
Assemblyman Marvel commented that any General Fund money still fell under the Governor’s scrutiny.
Mr. Bradley said Senator Raggio and his Finance Committee and the Assembly Ways and Means Committee had all made it clear they were in charge of the budget but they wanted to work closely with the Commission.
Chairman Collins asked if there was anyone else in opposition and if the Bureau of Land Management had arrived. He then asked Assemblyman Geddes if the response was satisfactory.
Chairman Collins reminded the Committee and audience that they were not going to vote on the bills that day, to give everyone an opportunity to think about it and let the Wildlife people have an opportunity for their County Boards to get in touch with their rural departments. He said they would take a vote in a work session; he announced that the BLM was testifying at the Senate and they were waiting for them. He thanked everyone for coming and testifying, and would move on to the BLM presentation.
Written testimony was provided to the Committee by Donald A. Molde, M.D. (Exhibit G) but was not verbally presented in the meeting.
Chairman Collins recessed the meeting at 2:28 p.m.
Chairman Collins reconvened the meeting at 2:34 p.m.
Chairman Collins said they had two presentations, one from the Bureau of Land Management and the other from the United States Forest Service. He then provided a warning to the audience that he would not allow or condone outbreaks or misbehavior. He said they could watch the presentation but if they had other intentions he instructed them to leave. He wanted to be respectful to everyone present, and he wanted to give everyone providing presentations, on that occasion and in the future, the same respect. He hoped that was understood by everyone listening through the Internet as well as those present in the room.
Chairman Collins then invited the presenters to come forward.
Robert V. Abbey, Nevada State Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, said he was pleased to be present, have the opportunity to provide them with the highlights of actions on public lands in Nevada, and answer any questions the Committee might have about management programs. He said many members of the audience were present at his presentation for the Senate Committee; he thought some of the information might be redundant for them. He said they gave him a bumper sticker, which he appreciated, and that his experience with the audience had been respectful and courteous.
While they had disagreements relative to public lands and the appropriate entity to manage the lands, Mr. Abbey thought they could put those aside and focus on the commonalities. He thought they had more in common than they had in differences. He was pleased to report they were making progress towards improving the overall performance in the management of lands for all Americans, with a focus on the effects and impacts to the local economies as they implemented programs.
Mr. Abbey said it was an honor for him to be present; he said it was his third opportunity to appear before the Committee and he had been in Nevada for the past 5½ years, about five years longer than people thought he would stay when he first arrived. He said it was a pleasure to be in the state and to have the opportunities they had to make a difference. He was going to talk about some of those opportunities during his presentation.
Mr. Abbey said he firmly believed that public lands enhanced the quality of life for those who live in the western United States. He said that the quality of life spectrum included those who enjoyed the solitude of wilderness to those interested in developing energy resources to meet the demands of the American public. He said the job of managing the lands for multiple uses, consistent with applicable laws, and implementation of the programs on public lands was challenging, but enjoyable.
He was providing a brief overview, was aware of the time constraints, that the Division of Wildlife had warmed the Committee up and that they were in a “good mood,” and he would be happy to answer any questions they had.
Mr. Abbey said many of them already knew much of the information he was going to share, like the amount of land the Bureau of Land Management managed throughout the state: 48 million acres (Exhibit H). He said it was quite a responsibility and one they took seriously, with employees in offices in Reno, six field offices, and two field stations. There were 600 to 650 permanent employees and they were not just BLM employees, but also members of the community. Mr. Abbey said they were fortunate to have 45 dedicated public members who made up the 3 Resource Advisory Councils who provided advice for managing public lands.
He talked about mining and its importance to the economy of Nevada, with an increase in mining stakes claimed and proposals for mine expansions. He said even with the rising price for gold, there were still problems in the gold and mining industries in obtaining bonds to establish or expand mine operations but the problems encountered with bonding were visible in all industries. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, surety companies had gone bankrupt, and that had an effect on the charges by those companies still operating. The mining companies and other industries that needed bonds for their operations were not able to purchase them.
Mr. Abbey said in other industries, the bonds were just not there. The Department of the Interior was working with agencies and industries to improve the availability of bonds. He said there was nothing in the immediate future to suggest that bonds would become more readily available.
He said gold and silver were not the only minerals on public lands; they also had geothermal, oil and gas, sand and gravel, as well as others they could sell or lease. He said that for FY2001, $7.2 million was generated by the state with nearly half returned to the state.
Assemblyman Geddes asked what bonuses were.
Mr. Abbey responded that they were revenues generated through competitive bidding over and beyond the normal fees of production.
Mr. Abbey continued with a discussion of geothermal, wind, and solar energy; he said they had only minimally tapped the potential for Nevada to produce renewable energy, and that an energy portfolio should include those options. He said oil and gas were finite and there were other opportunities to lease areas of known oil and gas supplies, but that looking towards the future they needed to incorporate renewable energy resources into the portfolio. Mr. Abbey stated that Nevada was fortunate to have wind, geothermal, and solar energy to help meet the demands of the public.
Geothermal energy, he said, was popular in Nevada but that wind energy might overtake it as a viable energy producer. He commented further on wind energy production and covered the following topics: testing and studies on wind for sufficient electricity production to be economically viable and related environmental assessments (Exhibit H).
Assemblyman Marvel asked how difficult it was to get a right-of-way for a transmission line; he said that that was a drawback to alternative energy because of transmission difficulties.
Mr. Abbey responded that it depended on how close the resource was to transmission lines was a determining factor to the economics. He said there was some difficulty in getting authorization for new transmission lines. He said in some cases it would require an Environmental Impact Statement for any new development, including transmission lines, for resources development. Issues they would address would be the impacts to significant cultural resources that could not be mitigated; the public could raise other issues as part of the scoping process, such as intrusions on visibility.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if there would be similar objections.
Mr. Abbey said there might be, but that there were opportunities to meet the demands, and potential demands, in an environmentally sensitive manner, which was possible. Along similar lines as transmission lines and rights-of-way and getting rights-of-way issued, they entertained not only Nevada proposals, but proposals to serve other states like California and the Pacific Northwest to augment their current supplies. Those proposals would require transmission lines, many of which would be across public lands in Nevada.
Assemblyman Marvel said they were looking to alternatives to the gaming industry, and since they had geothermal resources they should be looking at that as an alternative industry. He thought Nevada could be a great exporting state.
Mr. Abbey said Assemblyman Marvel was correct; he said local and county governments were looking to diversify their economies, and clean energy sources, like wind and geothermal, would enhance the tax base. He saw one problem for rural Nevada was how to diversify the economy when they were so reliant on mining and grazing. He thought each of those industries went in cycles and that it was time to begin looking at how to diversify those economies; clean energy production was an option for diversification.
Chairman Collins wanted to remind everyone that he was a journeyman lineman, and that he built power lines; he also said there was an easement available from northern to southern Nevada behind Sunrise Mountain that had been approved, and they should build the line.
Mr. Abbey said they had issued 300 rights-of-way the previous year (Exhibit H) for a variety of purposes like roads, electric distribution lines, and communication sites; he said there were 600 applications still pending.
Mr. Abbey then discussed geothermal energy in more detail, saying nearly two times the acreage was leased for geothermal than the other public lands states combined, with 350,000 acres leased. He said they were the leader in making lands and resources available for geothermal resource production. He covered: Fall 2002 land sales where 17 leases were issued and the return of $250,000 in revenues generated for Nevada from them that was about half the bonus bids that they received from the competitive sale; 9 power plants using federal geothermal resources to generate energy for about 165,000 homes; and the leasing of 2 million acres for oil and gas development.
He then commented on the relationship between responsibilities and roles of state and federal government regarding wildlife, where the Bureau of Land Management managed habitat and the Nevada Division of Wildlife managed species. He discussed the habitat and species, 31 animals and 9 plants, on public lands in Nevada that were threatened or endangered. He said that as a federal land management agency they were to manage the lands to prevent listing of species as threatened or endangered. They were actively working on the Governor’s Sage Grouse Initiative to identify activities on public lands to prevent the sage grouse’s listing, and everyone would benefit by that prevention.
Mr. Abbey moved to a discussion of the wild horse and burro populations located in Nevada; he said the 20,000 population of wild horses and burros was 4,000-5,000 too many for appropriate management levels. He hoped to meet the 14,000-15,000-population level by 2005 by continuing with the planned gathers.
Additional challenges and issues he covered were drought conditions for the past 3-4 years and the resultant stresses and costs of holding horses after gathering. He added that the adoption program had not been able to keep up with the gathering from public lands to manage the populations. He said there were over 17,000 horses in holding facilities, and they had an obligation to the American people to manage a healthy horse population to insure survival, but they also had an obligation to lower the numbers for healthy herds. Long‑term costs of holding decreased abilities to use limited funds from Congress for future gathers, census studies, and habitat improvement projects (Exhibit H).
Chairman Collins asked about the recent gather and who was feeding those horses, the Bureau of Land Management or a contractor.
Mr. Abbey wanted clarification about which horses gathered and mentioned a particular ownership.
Chairman Collins said he did not want information on that, he just wanted to know who was feeding them.
Mr. Abbey responded that the owners of the horses were feeding them; he said once the animals were removed from public lands, the designated owner was responsible for feeding the horses.
Mr. Abbey addressed issues pertaining to livestock grazing and its importance to rural economies and the culture of Nevada. He said that 45 million acres of the 48 million the BLM managed were available for livestock grazing; he said they were considering changes to the current grazing regulations. He said Secretary Norton of the United States Department of the Interior and BLM Director Clark had heard from members of the industry saying current regulations were a burden, and asked the Department of the Interior re-examine the current regulations for possible changes. Secretary Norton and Director Clark had agreed to a re-examination and would be hosting 3 scheduled scoping meetings, to solicit input about modifying or changing the current regulations. One of the meetings was scheduled to be in Reno on March 20, and he invited the Committee to attend and provide their input to the employees of the Department of the Interior.
He said increased activity had been taking place in the area of wilderness and the BLM managed 24 wilderness areas on nearly 1 million acres. He discussed specific wilderness areas, as well as the classified wilderness study areas that were managed to protect existing wilderness values until a decision by Congress to designate them as wilderness areas or release them for multiple use management.
Chairman Collins stated that Mr. Carpenter had a question.
Assemblyman Carpenter commented that in the case of the Clark County Wilderness Area, a number of groups got together to create a plan; he inquired if that was feasible for other areas, such as northeastern Nevada, to promote a plan and get some of the study areas into the multiple-use category.
Mr. Abbey responded that he supported continuing the process started by the Clark County legislation that tried to achieve a consensus, and he commended those involved for creating a forum for dialogue. He said environmental groups and other stakeholders in public lands worked together to achieve enough agreement to establish the bill that was passed. He could see similar examples in the future and would support those efforts.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if it took an act of Congress to release Wilderness Study Areas, and Mr. Abbey said it did.
Assemblyman Marvel made a comment on the identification of wilderness and what should be released; he was curious why it was so difficult to get Congress to make a change.
Mr. Abbey said wilderness was a contentious issue and only Congress could designate a wilderness area, as well as release a current Wilderness Study Area from protection. He stated that it took political courage to introduce legislation involving the question of wilderness. With the process and the opportunity to work with different interests to establish a dialogue and reach an agreement about wilderness designation, they could convince a political delegation that the attempts were real, and they would be willing to introduce future bills to address wilderness.
Assemblyman Marvel said maybe they were on the right page now, and Mr. Abbey said that Nevada currently, in the western United States, was leading in wilderness legislation introductions to help resolve the issue.
Chairman Collins added a personal comment about the Clark County process and that they were able to include some petroglyph areas to the Wilderness Area and open up new areas. He was able to help two friends, one to save the petroglyphs and the other to feed his cows; in general it helped everyone in the community, and he thought it worked well. While not everyone was happy, it was the best deal that could be arranged.
Mr. Abbey then addressed some of the other programs. He said that fire management, and with being in the third year of a drought, they were expecting an early fire season unless more moisture was received. He drew comparisons between the acreage burned in the most recent fire years, where 2002 was only 40,000 acres burned compared to the 1.6 million acres in 1999, the 635,000 acres in 2000, and 654.253 acres in 2001; he said that conditions were right for a more difficult season than they had had previously. Mr. Abbey said 96 percent of the Nevada wildfires were contained before attaining large fire status (Exhibit H).
He said the aviation program was under review by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management because of the previous year’s tragedies; he said 11 large tankers had been grounded and 33 others were still under review status. They were looking to the future with contingency plans to effectively use those large tankers still available and to increase the use of other aviation options.
Mr. Abbey commented on the rural assistance programs for volunteer fire departments and the donation of fire engines to those volunteer departments. He said they were also able to donate funds to volunteer departments for purchase of equipment and training. He stated that the volunteer departments did an excellent job with being on the scene first, and they were part of the reason for holding fires to such small sizes.
He mentioned briefly the continued implementation of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act from 1998 that had generated $240 million in revenues from land sales in North Vegas Valley, and the distribution of those funds to state schools, the Southern Nevada Water Authority, and the rest to special funds. He said they already had two planned land sales for the year and were expecting to generate more than $300 million from those sales.
He then said he was open for comments from the Committee and to answer questions.
Assemblyman Marvel asked about purchasing environmentally sensitive lands that were on the tax role; he said he would hate to see any private lands going into public ownership, and he wondered what the attitude of local governments was.
Mr. Abbey said that in the round four phase, they sought nominations relative to those who thought their lands should be considered for acquisition and who thought their lands met the test for environmentally sensitive lands; they were nominated for consideration by federal land management agencies for acquisition under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act. He said no decisions had been made, and they had not even begun screening nominations for merit and pursuit.
He said they were aware of rural Nevada concerns about more lands being placed into public ownership and off the tax roles. He said plenty of acreage was already managed for the American public in Nevada and many of the nominations were coming from the land owners, but it did have to pass a screening process and meet established criteria before being placed into public ownership. He thought the nominations came to about $148 million. One tract of land, the Elko County project, was estimated at $100 million. He said that while others might disagree, he did not think he could go into Elko County and purchase that kind of acreage.
Assemblyman Carpenter commented that he thought they needed to amend the act in order to use the money for improvements on lands already under management, rather than purchasing more. He also thought they needed a northern Nevada lands act for the areas already designated for disposal and sale in northern Nevada. He saw it as a real problem that needed attention.
Mr. Abbey said that he agreed and they did not need any special legislation to dispose of identified properties through the land-use plans. He saw the benefit of special legislation, similar to southern Nevada, as the ability to use revenues to pay costs of environmental assessments to dispose of the properties. He said they did not have the kinds of funds to proactively dispose of lands currently. He said they had about 1 million acres of public lands for disposal through existing land-use plans and special legislation would allow revenues from the sale of those lands to be used to offset administrative costs of selling the lands.
Chairman Collins made a general announcement to the Education Committee members that he heard the meeting was cancelled for the afternoon which would allow them to stay late.
Assemblyman McCleary inquired more into land sales, and stated his perception that developers purchased large portions of the lands; he wanted to know if private citizens could participate in the land sales and what the relevant rules were.
Mr. Abbey said lands identified for disposal under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act were available to local governments to designate which lands they wanted for public purposes. Those lands were then removed from the auction block and transferred to the local government for recreation and public purposes; Clark County had utilized the Recreation and Public Purpose Act to its benefit.
He said the other issue was the value of land in Las Vegas and the competitiveness; by law, the lands were offered on a competitive basis to the highest bidder. There was a provision, he said, that allowed them to work with Clark County to claim lands they wanted set aside for low-income housing. He said they were currently working on setting some of the lands from Las Vegas Valley aside for low-cost housing, using provisions from Housing and Urban Development. He said they were sensitive to the increasing values of land, and that it might cut out opportunities for the average citizen to successfully bid on lands.
Assemblyman McCleary then asked at what parcel sizes they were selling the lands.
Mr. Abbey said the parcels of land sold were those as nominated by local government; they were not in local and municipal planning and they deferred to local governments to identify which parcels were to be disposed of and how they would be disposed of.
Assemblyman Christensen referred to earlier in Mr. Abbey’s presentation and asked about energy production and wondered where the 500,000 barrels annually of oil production took place.
Mr. Abbey replied most of it took place in Railroad Valley and Pine Valley.
Chairman Collins thanked Mr. Abbey and reminded the Committee that Pam Robinson would be around more than Joe Simpson.
Mr. Abbey said many might remember Bob Stewart from previous sessions to keep legislators informed, but he had retired and Pam Robinson would be around to answer questions throughout this session.
Chairman Collins clarified that she would be available for questions, discussion, and issues from Committee members. He then said Mr. Simpson was valuable to southern Nevada for placing people together to solve issues, and he wanted to say that publicly. He then invited the United States Forest Service to provide their presentation.
Robert L. Vaught, Forest Supervisor, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, introduced himself and said he had held his current position for three years and he was pleased with the progress made by the Forest Service in several areas. He said there was a lot of activity dealing with public land management nationwide and statewide; he wanted to briefly address some of those issues.
He introduced Tom Baker, Legislative Liaison, who had been with the Forest Service for a little over a year and would be available to the Committee to answer questions and they could contact him directly. They would do what they could to answer any questions or accomplish any tasks the Committee might need done. He said Mr. Baker’s other task was to administer the State and Private Forestry Program, which was a separate branch from land management. He said the branch was one of the best-kept secrets of the Forest Service; he stated they generally administered grants with State Forester Steve Robinson. He said there was a high volume of grant activity and moneys from the State and Private Forestry program supported the State Forester and other state and private programs.
He wanted to congratulate Mr. Robinson for his work in aggressively pursuing grants and utilizing them for the benefit of the state of Nevada. He said about $3 million went to the state of Nevada through the grant program: the National Fire Plan State Fire Assistance Grants included moneys that went to the Nevada Fire Safe Council. He said there were an additional 46 grants, for about $121,000, that went to volunteer fire departments. The Forest Stewardship Program, a cost-share program, was designed to assist private, non-industrial forest-land owners to accomplish land management activities, for about $195,000. This program had a section on forest health for surveys for insect disease and other damaging agents on private and state lands.
There was also an urban and community forest program that was awarded $253,000 to plant trees throughout the state, and especially in local communities. Mr. Vaught commented on another program allocated to the Division of Agriculture to fight noxious weeds with $100,000. He said Mr. Baker also managed the state Economic Development Program that offered $130,000 to local rural communities for economic development. He said it was not very impressive when read off, but when added up it involved a large amount of money distributed to various worthwhile efforts, the state, fire programs, and local communities.
Mr. Vaught provided general information about the Forest Service; he said they were established in the early 1900s, and they were proud to have been partners with local communities throughout the state for almost 100 years. He said the location of Forest Service lands was in high elevations, with 15 peaks over 10,000 feet in elevation. He presented the following information:
He began to discuss their location when he realized his PowerPoint presentation was not running. He commented that he had a beautiful map in front of him then on the partnership between the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. He then continued discussing the location of the Forest Service throughout the state, in high elevation country, and that it made up 8 percent of the land base in Nevada. He then provided information on different areas managed by the Forest Service.
· Spring Mountain Recreation Area was the third largest recreation area in the entire National Forest System and was located just outside of Las Vegas, was an amazing resource covering six life zones from desert to alpine. He then commented that because of Las Vegas growth, they had directed as much funding as possible to the area, nearly doubling the number of employees, and they had an increased rate of visitation. They had also seen an increase in work responsibilities because of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act.
· Carson Ranger District and Bridgeport Ranger District were tremendous recreational areas, with Yosemite National Park on the other side of the hill sharing visitors; they had campsites and summer and winter recreation opportunities. They also managed 641,000 acres of California land, including five counties and worked with the Congressional District Senators and public in those counties.
· Ely Ranger District was experiencing changes with an increase in recreation and other activities associated with the eastern portion of the state; it was an area also important to grazing and mineral management.
· Austin Ranger District and Tonopah Ranger District were located in central Nevada and were the largest districts with 2.5 million acres. These areas reminded them of the historic resources they also managed.
· Jarbidge Ranger District, in the northeast, where the mountain ranges rose out of the basin, where the picture he showed was looking from Idaho into Nevada and had a peak of about 13,000 feet in elevation.
· Mountain City Ranger District, also in the northeast, had one of the largest range program workloads in the National Forest system.
· Ruby Mountain Ranger District was located north of Winnemucca and was one of the smallest districts, had a variety of resources, but was relatively unused. (Exhibit I)
Chairman Collins commented that he had been fenced out of the area.
Mr. Vaught said he was not sure what he had said, but he stood corrected. He then said the Forest Service managed 102 threatened, endangered, and sensitive species throughout the state, as well as other species. Because of the elevation of Forest Service lands, they managed many summer habitats for wildlife species.
He commented that water was very important; the high elevation areas were where snowfall accumulated that fed water to the valleys during the summer for agriculture, industrial, and drinking uses. He then discussed issues of access where the population centers were moving closer to the National Forests and access to those forests was decreasing; they were working cooperatively with land owners to ensure access in the future. He provided an example from the Ruby Mountains with an access road from the valley to the high elevation country, but currently the road was blocked from any public access.
Urban interfaces were having a larger impact in more areas than just the Las Vegas and Reno/Sparks/Carson City areas; he used an example in the Elko area and said population centers were approaching forest boundaries.
Mr. Vaught said that since Mr. Abbey had discussed the fire program, he would not address it in detail; he did want to express his appreciation to the Bureau of Land Management, Mr. Robinson, and volunteer fire departments statewide. He thought they had the strongest fire partnership in the country and it was a benefit to the people that they were able to cooperate for the common good.
He said that mining was important and the issue of mine bankruptcy was a growing because of the lack of bonding to cover reclamation activities. He commented on the cooperative efforts of the state and the national Congressional delegation, especially Representative Gibbons, for working on ways to accomplish the reclamation activities that needed to be done.
Mr. Vaught wanted to comment on a few additional issues related to recreation: the Forest Service had active recreation planning efforts statewide because of growth to establish more trails, campsites, and campgrounds. The Forest Service was working within a limited budget to improve the capabilities and opportunities with a variety of partners.
He said that Forest Service employees were proud to have been serving in small communities and were a part of the economic basis of the smaller communities. He said they were proud of community involvement statewide. He concluded his remarks, and once again expressed his appreciation for allowing his presence and his desire to provide any information and help he could.
Chairman Collins asked if there were any questions from the Committee.
Assemblyman Marvel inquired about bull trout.
Chairman Collins said that he asked for a positive presentation.
Mr. Vaught responded that the Jarbidge road issue was still under resolution and they were hoping to release an environmental impact statement draft in the next couple of months for public review. It would address the complex issue of what to do with the road above the Jarbidge community.
Assemblyman Marvel commented that he would deal with Assemblyman Carpenter especially.
Chairman Collins asked for any other questions. He commented that as a former president of the Horse Council of Nevada, and a current member, he had found he could not ride past the peak at Spring Mountain Range. He wanted to ride over to the other side, and knew some of the area had been fenced off because of four-wheeler damage, but they wanted to continue to ride through the area. He thought they were doing ok, other than fencing him out, and he wanted to encourage them to keep areas open.
Mr. Vaught said he would like the specifics and he would see what could be done.
Chairman Collins thanked Mr. Vaught and the others present; he apologized for running late, it was not something he planned to have happen. He said they did not take a vote because Committee members were absent, but a bill already heard could come up for a vote at any future meeting if all the members were present; as they got closer to deadlines they would not have that consideration. Chairman Collins said he would try to have all Committee members present for votes on bills. He then asked if there were any other questions from the Committee.
Chairman Collins adjourned the meeting at 3:36 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Erin Channell
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Chairman
DATE: