The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order at 1:50 p.m. on Monday, February 8, 1999. Chairman Marcia de Braga 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:

Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman

Mrs. Gene Segerblom, Vice Chairman

Mr. Douglas Bache

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Humke

Mr. John Jay Lee

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. John Marvel (Excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Mr. Tom Collins

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman de Braga announced Assemblyman Marvel was excused from the meeting because he was in the hospital with pneumonia.

The chairman introduced the first speaker, Mary Wagner, Deputy Forest Supervisor of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Her agency was part of the United States Forest Service (USFS). Ms. Wagner began her presentation by providing the committee with a handout, which was an overview of the National Forest System from a nation-wide perspective (Exhibit C). Contained within that handout was a leadership directory for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, a list of principle forest issues, and several maps showing the ecosystems, recreational areas and research centers within the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.

Ms. Wagner continued her presentation by discussing the economic benefits of the National Forest, and various successful partnerships and projects in which the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest had been involved. Among those projects, referred to by the agency as "2001 Goals," were the following:

1) The Ecosystem Sustainability Program, designed to monitor ecosystem conditions and trends in an effort to define what management changes were needed in order to sustain a quality ecosystem in the forest;

2) The Community Service Project, a recreational program focusing on providing the public with unique opportunities for enjoying the special wonders of the Great Basin and eastern Sierra Nevada, and which emphasized health and safety issues;

3) The Professional Culture Program, a decision making community relations project which concentrated on seeking professional collaboration for responding to the needs of the public, and accountability in the use of public funds.

Ms. Wagner pointed out her agency’s agenda, the National Resource Agenda, was introduced by the chief of the Forest Service last spring. It was a reflection of the agency’s mission as outlined in the Organic Act, and represented the needs and desires of the American public to restore, protect, and conserve the nation’s natural resources. The four themes of the agenda were watershed health and restoration, forest road policy and management, sustainable forest and rangeland management, and the study of recreational trends of the American public.

Another project Ms. Wagner’s agency was working on included the revision of its Forest Plan. The Forest Plan was a guiding document for the execution of projects within the National Forests. The approach currently being considered involved developing broad goals and a revised forest management plan. That revision would be implemented along with a series of mountain range amendments, which would include specific management policies designed for each mountain range. The Spring Mountains National Recreational Area was an example of that individualized approach to identifying the needs of a specific region.

Ms. Wagner said Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest was also involved in programs to control and prevent noxious plants from propagating in the National Forest in conjunction with the Nevada Weed Action Committee and the State of California. Other projects on which her agency was working included research projects, specifically the Research Natural Area (RNA). That was an area set-aside for the research and education of biological diversity on national forest lands. The USFS, in collaboration with state and other federal agencies, established a national network of natural areas, which represented a spectrum of ecosystems across the country. The RNA played a vital role in the continuous land management planning process by detecting environmental changes, which aided in the formulation of management decisions. RNA sites were only used for study, observation, and monitoring. Some recreational activities were allowed, provided they did not interfere with objective study, research, and education. Ms. Wagner’s complete testimony was provided in Exhibit D.

Ms. Wagner explained as of late last year, the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest had six RNA sites. A recent environmental analysis concluded there was need for additional RNA sites. A decision was made to develop eight additional RNA sites. White Pine County Public Land Users Advisory Committee met with the Forest Service and White Pine County officials to determine how that community’s concerns could be resolved.

Ms. Wagner described another project her agency was working on was called the South Canyon Road project. That project, located in the Jarbidge Canyon in Elko County, experienced a flood in the summer of 1995. Between 1995 and 1997 an analysis was conducted to consider if the road would be rebuilt. In June 1997, a decision was made to rebuild the mile and one-half of the South Canyon Road; however, the decision was appealed later that year. The USFS reviewed the appeal, ordered additional analysis performed, and by the summer of 1998 an environmental analysis was released for public comment for 30 days. A preliminary decision determined a trail was preferred over the rebuilding of the road. The trail would provide access to the Snowslide Wilderness portal. Prior to the end of the public comment period, Elko County diverted and channeled the South Fork of the Humboldt River in South Canyon in an attempt to rebuild the road without a final decision from the USFS. As a consequence of the county’s action, bulltrout in the river were listed by United States Fish and Wildlife (USF&W) as endangered. By December 1998, the USFS, along with other federal and state agencies, stabilized and restored the portion of the South Canyon Road which had been rebuilt by the county to allow for fish passage and spring run-off.

Late last year, Ms. Wagner continued, Senator Reid and Senator Rhoads, along with representatives from Congressman Gibbon’s office, USFS, USF&W, and Elko County met to formulate a more collaborative strategy on which all parties could agree.

Chairman de Braga asked if Ms. Wagner had any idea when a decision would be reached, to which Ms. Wagner replied in the negative. She added an engineering analysis was being formulated to evaluate road alternatives. The group had not reconvened to discuss those alternatives.

Mr. Mortenson asked who appealed the decision to rebuild the South Canyon Road. Ms. Wagner said the decision was appealed by an Elko, Nevada chapter of Trout Unlimited. Mr. Mortenson asked if the road was to be restored to the condition it was in prior to the flood. Ms. Wagner answered in the affirmative.

Mrs. Segerblom asked Ms. Wagner if access was still available to Jarbidge from Wild Horse, or was it necessary to go up into Idaho to get there. Ms. Wagner said the only change in the road was it had been shortened, and access was restricted to the campground. Ms. Wagner said she did not know if the point of access to the wilderness area was still intact, but she could see no reason why it would not be. She agreed to get back to the committee regarding that question.

Mr. Carpenter stated Elko County and the USFS were currently enmeshed in a disagreement regarding various issues, which could undoubtedly be resolved only in a court of law unless something was worked out prior to that point. He explained Elko County did not feel the USFS treated them with honesty regarding the matter of rebuilding the South Canyon Road. From the beginning USFS indicated it would rebuild the road, and then all of a sudden reneged, he said. Mr. Carpenter admitted many thousands of dollars had been spent by USFS to conduct the study, but someone in Washington, D.C. overturned the decision to do the work. He speculated the protest waged by Trout Unlimited was not based on any scientific evidence. County officials considered the road to be essential; and therefore rebuilt it. According to a memorandum Mr. Carpenter recently received, the USFS had considered putting a road in along the side of a very steep hill in that area, which would have been environmentally unsound. He said if the USFS had followed through with the roadwork to which they had originally agreed, none of those problems would have developed.

Ms. Wagner responded Mr. Carpenter was correct in his evaluation of the present conflict between the USFS and Elko County. She added the good news was Senator Reid’s intervention could possibly lead to constructive discussion between all involved parties. Ms. Wagner said Elko County was involved in various worthwhile projects in partnership with her agency regarding recreational projects, road management (such as the Mount Harrison Pass Road), noxious weed control and prevention programs, and various other cooperative efforts. It was difficult to strike a balance between sustaining habitats for important species and providing access and opportunities for recreation within the nation’s forest.

Chairman de Braga asked if the discussions regarding additional RNA sites in White Pine County had been resolved. Ms. Wagner stated the discussions were ongoing. The chairman asked if there was a statewide effort to identify and prioritize issues and projected goals regarding the noxious weed program. Ms. Wagner acknowledged USFS was participating with local jurisdictions, state agencies, and other federal agencies on a program called the Nevada Weed Action Committee. That organization’s goal was to formulate a statewide approach, which would define strategies for prevention and treatment of noxious weeds. It was hoped the group would become a model the rest of the state would emulate. Mrs. de Braga asked if federal money had been allocated to that effort, to which Ms. Wagner replied in the affirmative, adding increases in revenues had recently been allocated for the prevention and control of noxious weeds in Nevada.

Mr. Lee pointed out within the body of handouts Ms. Wagner gave to the committee was a particular reference to her agency’s mission statement. He said in the section referred to as "Principal Nevada Issues," there was a passage stating the cooperative programs in the state reflected the partnership between the USFS and the State of Nevada. Mr. Lee commented in southern Nevada, at the Spring Mountain National Recreational Area, a $5 fee was charged to visitors. A short distance down the road from the recreational area was the Spring Mountain Ranch State Park, where another fee was charged. Very often, Mr. Lee continued, people did not want to pay the additional fee; and therefore, revenues from the State Park were lost due to competition from the national park. He asked if there was some way the state could build a working relationship with USFS to ensure revenues would be received by the state. Mr. Lee added the Spring Mountain Ranch was experiencing a serious funding shortage. Ms. Wagner responded the national recreational area administered by the USFS did not have a recreational fee. However, the Red Rock Recreational Area did charge a fee, and she suggested an arrangement be worked out with them.

Mrs. Segerblom asked if the Santa Rosa Ranger District was currently headquartered in Elko. Ms. Wagner replied it was where the district ranger was physically located, but the ranger still had administrative responsibilities for Santa Rosa region, headquartered in Winnemucca. The ranger worked closely with elected officials in Humboldt County.

Chairman de Braga introduced the next speaker, Robert Abbey, Nevada State Director, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Mr. Abbey provided the committee with an overview of his agency (Exhibit E). He said his agency was committed to building upon the already strong positive working relationships, which had been formed across the state through the years. Although differences of opinion were bound to exist in regard to some aspects of the agency’s management programs, a great deal of progress had been made as a result of cooperative efforts between BLM and local governments throughout the state.

Mr. Abbey explained his agency was responsible for managing, and improving the condition of America’s public lands. He presented the committee with a map of Nevada, which detailed the public lands throughout the state (Exhibit F). He also provided the committee with a brochure outlining the history of public land management, both nationally and statewide. The brochure described many programs that had been the focus of the agency’s efforts, including the minerals program, range management, forest fire fighting, recreational uses of public lands, noxious weed eradication projects, and the wild horse and burro program (Exhibit G). Mr. Abbey pointed out last session Congress appropriated approximately $7 million in payment-in-lieu of taxes to the State of Nevada. The President had included in his fiscal year 2000 budget a similar amount for the state.

Mr. Abbey told the committee rural counties with low land bases were seeking ways to put more land into private ownership throughout the state in an effort to bolster community expansion and diversity in local economies. In Douglas County efforts were being made to protect private ranchland from subdivision for homesites and industrial purposes. Funds received from sales of public lands in Lincoln, White Pine, Clark, and Washoe Counties, as well as from lands in the Carson Valley and Elko areas would be used to purchase conservation easements in those regions as well as for community expansion. He pointed out the arrangement would result in more land placed into private ownership in counties that had a great need for such land, while private land would be protected from development in counties with increased pressure from growth without removing the land from the tax rolls. The State Director pointed out BLM was currently involved in fewer land exchanges than in the past. He said the reduction was due to the fact the agency’s focus had shifted more toward public policies such as the Rural Lands Initiative, which allowed BLM to place public lands into private ownership.

Another important program BLM was currently involved in was the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, from the 1998 Public Law 105-263, a federal law addressing the land and infrastructure needs of the people in the Las Vegas Valley (Exhibit H). That law provided for sale of land in the Las Vegas Valley to the public, the money from which would remain in Nevada to provide funding for a variety of land management activities emphasizing recreation. The entirety of Mr. Abbey’s testimony could be found in Exhibit I.

Mr. Mortenson said he was reviewing the statistics from Red Rock Recreational Area Mr. Abbey had provided the committee, and had noticed immediately after BLM had instituted its fee, park use had radically dropped. He pointed out although those statistics reflected only approximately 2 months activity in the area he was shocked by the sudden level of decline in park usage. Mr. Abbey stated his agency did not know what impact the fee would have on the number of visitors to the park; however, in reality the number had not dropped as radically as it had at first seemed. The number of people using the recreational area had, in fact, risen slightly. It was agreed other circumstances might have contributed to the drop in park attendance.

Mr. Lee asked if the $5 fee the agency charged could be used to allow additional use of the Spring Mountain Ranch State Park. He expressed concern that state parks were not bringing in enough revenue to stay alive due to the fact the public was hesitant to pay additional fees to enter a state park after paying a fee to enter a national park. Mr. Abbey said there had been some discussion between his agency and state park officials in an effort to develop a cooperative fee program. He said both entities had agreed to give the new fee program a year, and use it as a pilot program, in order to discern what impact the fee would have on park usage. After that, Mr. Abbey said, both state and federal officials would regroup and make adjustments to the admission fee policy, if necessary.

Mr. Abbey briefly addressed the wild horse and burro issue. He said BLM was very aware of the differing viewpoints regarding the management of wild and estray horses on public lands in the State of Nevada. He conceded despite the differing viewpoints surrounding that issue there was no doubt all parties were concerned about the welfare of those creatures. That was demonstrated by the recent killing of estray horses in Storey County. He suggested all concerned parties would be supportive of having viable, healthy horses on public lands in Nevada where resources could sustain them. The challenge to BLM in Nevada, Mr. Abbey continued, was setting appropriate management levels, which meant determining how many horses could be maintained on those public lands in a healthy manner and over a long-term basis. Formulating strategies for maintaining healthy herds was a controversial issue. One such method suggested by BLM was to administer a 2-year contraception vaccination. The program, if implemented, would begin next year, and was expected to substantially reduce the rate of increase of horse and burro populations. One-year vaccinations, which have been in use for the past 3 or 4 years, had thus far proved effective.

Mr. Neighbors, referring to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), specifically 43 CFR 3809, asked what the status of Regulation 3809 was. That was the BLM managed federal directive of 1980 designed to regulate exploration and mining on public lands. He told the committee a draft of mining regulations was to be released by the United States Secretary of the Interior very soon. Once final regulations were approved, BLM would hold formal hearings in Reno, Nevada on March 23, 1999. Another formal hearing would follow in Elko, Nevada, on March 25, 1999. He added there was a provision in the appropriations bill from the Department of the Interior that the National Academy of Sciences had been asked to do a study on behalf of Congress to determine the merit of introducing new regulations regarding mining operations on public lands. The study was expected to be completed sometime this summer. The Secretary of Interior would be restrained from implementing any final regulations prior to the release of the results of that study. Mr. Neighbors asked that copies of the result of that study be sent to committee members, a request which Mr. Abbey welcomed. Mr. Abbey added he understood the mining industry in the State of Nevada was experiencing difficult times of late, due to a great extent in the decline of the prices of gold and silver. That situation made the results of the forthcoming study extremely important to the State of Nevada.

The chairman told the speaker a hearing was about to begin and asked Mr. Abbey to return at a later date. She explained it was important for the committee to discuss with him a land management act for the rest of the state, considering southern Nevada had a land management act already in place.

Mr. Carpenter added he wanted to commend BLM for its cooperation in trying to sustain multiple use on public lands. He said in most areas of the state, cooperation between the federal agency and local governments had improved greatly and he wanted to thank the agency for that progress.

With that final remark the chairman opened the hearing on A.J.R. 2.

Assemblyman Tom Collins began discussion of the measure. He provided testimony referring to a publication from the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management entitled, "The 10^th and 11^th Report to Congress on the Administration of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act for Fiscal Years 1992 – 1995, United States Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service" (Exhibit J). Assemblyman Collins also referred to information contained in a publication by Resource Concepts, Inc., entitled "Wild Horse Management Concerns in Nevada: Executive Summary, May 11, 1992" (Exhibit K). That publication was prepared for the Nevada State Grazing Board, Elko, Nevada.

Assemblyman Collins thanked the committee for allowing him to address them on an issue in which he had personally been involved for a number of years. He told the committee he owned his first Mustang horse in 1966. He said he felt the issue of estray horses in the State of Nevada was a problem of cause and effect. He shared with the committee that his brother and sister-in-law own Mustangs from the BLM adoption program. Assemblyman Collins said in no way was he attempting to attack wild horses or burros, but wanted to look at an important issue in Nevada as a representative of the State of Nevada. He said the economy of the state depended on tourist money generated in Washoe and Clark Counties while ignoring the rural parts of the state. That had been compounded over the years because of growth within the state and by problems in the mining industry. Assemblyman Collins reviewed statistics on wild horse populations throughout the western United States as contained within Exhibit J. The horse herds in Nevada far exceeded populations of wild horses in all the other western states, as per the information contained within the study.

Mr. Collins expressed urgency in that matter because his intentions were that the measure go to other states so they, too, may adopt similar measures which would be sent to Congress. Assemblyman Collins pointed out wild and estray horses were truly a significant and symbolic natural resource and tourist attraction. He emphasized the point A.J.R. 2 simply advocated good management practices for maintaining wild horse herd populations, and he certainly could not support their destruction. He suggested possibly relocating healthy horses from Nevada to other western states that had large sections of land set aside for wild horses, but which had low horse herd populations. Assemblyman Collins also submitted a proposed amendment to A.J.R. 2, which would establish sound management levels for estray horse populations. (Exhibit L).

Warren Hardy, representing Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife, spoke in support of A.J.R. 2. He said his organization supported Assemblyman Collins’ suggestion to urge Congress to require populations of wild horses to be maintained at reasonable levels. While wild horses were both admired and respected by his organization, and he appreciated their existence on public lands. However, populations needed to be controlled to protect range conditions and wildlife resources. He told the committee realistic target populations must be maintained based upon available forage and water. Mr. Hardy said other groups which also supported the measure were the Nevada Waterfowl Coalition, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited of both Reno and Fallon, Nevada Trappers, Ducks Unlimited, Nevada Guides and Outfitters Association, Nevada Public Land Access Coalition, the Mule Deer Foundation, and the Fraternity of Desert Bighorn.

Mr. Claborn asked if Mr. Hardy knew anything about the Nevada Test Site, such as what was the size of the area and how many horses might be out there. Mr. Hardy said he did not have that information, but was willing to research the matter. Mr. Claborn said he worked in that area for many years and could testify there were thousands of wild horses there.

Daniel Hansen, representing the Independent American Party, was the next speaker to testify in support of the measure. He read from his handout, Exhibit M. He told the committee according to the BLM, the feral horse population in Nevada was out of control with riparian areas being destroyed by overgrazing, springs and streams ruined, and wildlife such as deer negatively impacted. There had been instances of mass horse starvation, a truly terrible death for the animals. Mr. Hansen advocated wise human management practices.

Francis Gillings, private citizen, was the next speaker to testify in support of the measure. He told the committee the horse population of the state definitely needed to be reduced, but the horses should not be treated better than human beings. He said presently wild horses were treated better than many children.

Freeman Johnson, Assistant Director of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources spoke next in support of A.J.R. 2. Mr. Johnson introduced Cathy Barcomb, Administrator of the Wild Horse Commission, who also supported the legislation. Mr. Johnson said it was very important wild horse herds in Nevada be managed in a rational manner. Ms. Barcomb concurred with Mr. Freeman. She told the committee in 1974 there were approximately 20,000 wild horses and 1,000 wild burros in the state. Currently, those animal populations had increased somewhat, but the actual count had not yet been completed. Ms. Barcomb said the measure wrongly referred to the United States Code from which A.J.R. 2 was taken "The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act." She suggested the measure be rewritten to reflect the more accurate singular version of the original Public Law from which the measure was taken. The chairman called upon the committee secretary to clarify this point. Sharon Spencer stated she had researched that point with the help of the Nevada State Law Library. The information received from the agency revealed the act was correct as written in A.J.R. 2, and reference to horses and burros in the plural was correct.

Mr. Hettrick stated he considered the proposed amendment to be in conflict with the first resolve of the initial resolution in regard to the actual number of horses in Nevada’s wild horse population. He said the language of the second paragraph stating "That these horse numbers shall be based" implied the number of horses was not a fixed number, but rather an ongoing count was being conducted. He suggested both documents should be in agreement as to the actual number of horses considered, and he requested the word shall be replaced with the word were to reflect that.

Chairman de Braga said she met with the Administrator of the Division of Agriculture regarding that measure. She said her concern regarding the current wording of the bill was it did not take into consideration changes in range conditions. She added that it was probably correct when the measure was reworded, it was important to take into account changes based on real scientific knowledge about range conditions and horse populations. The chairman said without accurate scientific information it would be difficult to determine what was necessary to support agriculture, wildlife, and wild horses under varying range conditions.

Assemblyman Collins stated another amendment was forthcoming. He added it was very important the measure and its amendments reflect scientific information and dates rather than arbitrary guesses.

Janine Hansen, State President of the Nevada Eagle Forum, was the next to speak in favor of the measure. She said the legislation was born out of the frustration many Nevadans felt regarding public land management. She considered the intent of the measure to be necessary and sound. She said the legislation should be viewed as an opportunity for greater assertion of the state of Nevada to order to take control of its issues, to express its sovereignty over the United States Government, and to take control of its own land and problems.

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President of the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, was the next to speak in favor of the measure. He submitted an amendment to A.J.R. 2 (Exhibit N). He told the committee federal land management agencies should be held accountable, through legislative changes, to carry out management programs in a scientifically responsible manner. Mr. Busselman suggested adding to the measure a provision to allow the selling of a limited number of horses in an effort to reduce the number of horses on the range. Appropriate wild horse and burro numbers should be established using appropriate range management science and techniques, he added. Mr. Busselman’s complete testimony was contained in Exhibit O.

Mike Baughman, representing Eureka, Lander, and Lincoln Counties, spoke in favor of the legislation and proposed amendments. He suggested a wording change in the first amendment where the first resolve referred to the number of horses shall be based to state those horse numbers shall be the maximum number with any reductions below 1975 levels based on sound scientific and locally collected resource information. Mr. Baughman added the counties he represented were concerned about the issue because they feared erosion of their local economies and tax base due to a constant lowering of the allowed number of livestock. That was done routinely by regulatory agencies in order to keep numbers of animals in proportion to the health of public lands. Unfortunately, he added, when it came to wild horses, the agencies, which regularly lowered the number of allowable livestock, were unable to reduce the number of wild horses permitted on that rangeland.

Ed Wagner, representing Nevada Wildlife Federation, testified against A.J.R. 2 in its current form due to what the organization considered inaccurate numbers as reflected in the 1975 levels. He said his organization believed in the intent of the measure, but disagreed with the cap placed on the number of horses as it was currently presented. His testimony appears in its entirety in Exhibit P.

Next to speak against the measure was Bobbi Royle of the Wild Horse Spirit. She said she did not believe the measure was a friend of the wild horse as it language wanted the committee to believe. She did not believe any amount of scientific data could be established due to variations in range conditions throughout the state. She told the committee she believed livestock had the greatest impact on ranges due to their large numbers, grazing habits, and seasonal abuse. Her testimony was included in its entirety in Exhibit Q.

Betty Kelly, a doctor and private citizen, was the last to testify. She spoke against the measure because she found the measure to be ambiguous and confusing. She considered livestock to be the real abusers of public rangeland, not wild horses. Her testimony was contained in its entirety in Exhibit R.

Chairman de Braga expressed to the committee and to all those who testified that she understood the importance of that issue to many people. She explained all sides of the issue needed to be discussed, with all issues brought forward and a compromise eventually struck. All interest had to be recognized and respected. Grazing, she added, was not just an activity of livestock, but of wildlife as well. She said all use of public lands had to be considered, including the conservation and preservation of wild horse. That issue was extremely important to all Nevadans.

Assemblyman Collins stated he agreed with many of the items contained within Dr. Kelly’s testimony. However, many hunters and hikers considered that measure a good piece of legislation. He added the economy of the rural areas of the state were in jeopardy due to the ongoing problem. Wild horses did infringe on the grazing of cattle. Mr. Collins reminded the group in Nevada farmers were reimbursed for the damage inflicted by elk and antelope on hay- fields, but no compensation was given to farmers for the damage wild horses inflicted. He expressed the need to bring the wild horse population levels down to manageable levels, which would restore the economies of the rural counties of the state.

The last exhibits, Exhibit S and Exhibit T, respectively submitted without oral testimony by Elsie Dupree, private citizen, and Dawn Lappin of Wild Horse Organized Assistance (WHOA!), were opposed to A.J.R. 2.

The chairman asked if there were any additional comments or questions. There being none, the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sharon Spencer,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: