MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining
Seventy-Second Session
February 10, 2003
The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:36 p.m., on Monday, February 10, 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
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst
Erin Channell, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Terry Crawforth, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Wayne Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Steve Robinson, State Forester, Division of Forestry, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Pete Anderson, Deputy State Forester, Division of Forestry, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Paul Iverson, Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture
Don Henderson, Assistant Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture
Chairman Collins called the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining to order. Roll was called. All members were present.
Chairman Collins began the meeting and stated that they would continue hearing presentations.
Ms. Eissmann said that there were four state agency presentations on the agenda for the meeting. The first three would be from divisions within the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and the last would be from the Department of Agriculture.
Terry Crawforth, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, Department of Conservation and Natural Resource, assisted by Kelly Clark, Chief of Conservation Education Program, presented the following PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit C).
Chairman Collins reminded the Committee that there would be three bills under discussion at the next meeting, and the information from the presentation would be related.
Mr. Crawforth explained the Nevada Division of Wildlife was a user-funded agency, with a statutory mission to protect, preserve, manage, and restore wildlife and the related habitats. Also required by the mission was the promotion of the safety of citizens using watercraft on Nevada waters. The Division served as both the wildlife agency and the boating agency for the state.
Wildlife was defined, by statute, into different groups with a number of species listed from within Nevada; the different species of wildlife fell into the categories of birds, mammals, fishes, reptiles, and amphibians. Wildlife and boating activities within Nevada had substantial annual economic effects, with wildlife related activities totaling over $600 million each year.
Mr. Crawforth reviewed Nevada’s history for the management of wildlife from 1877 to the mid 1990s. From 1877 to the first half of the twentieth century, individual counties conducted wildlife management. The Legislature used federal funds for wildlife management activities to create a state agency in 1947 (Exhibit C). As primarily a user-funded agency, the funding sources were from excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment and supplies.
A number of actions were undertaken by the Legislature in the last half of the century that generated changes in the title, organizational structure, and duties of the Division of Wildlife. It became the state boating agency, changed from the Department of Fish and Game to the Division of Wildlife, and acquired additional responsibilities over non-consumptively used species; federal actions also affected the Division, such as the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Crawforth provided general information about the Division and what functions and services they provided, and the agency program profile. He briefly discussed the Board of Wildlife Commissioners, who were appointed by the Governor and represented different constituency groups. He then talked about the County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife, whose members were appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, and who provided input into the regulations and policies that the Board of Wildlife Commissioners adopted.
He discussed the program areas they operated: Administrative Services handled all fiscal, administrative, and personnel issues, as well as the licensing system that handled about 75 percent of the Division’s revenues. The Conservation Education Program provided educational programs in conjunction with schools, coordinated the volunteer program, and public affairs programs like hunter and aquatic education. The Fisheries Program ran the four fish hatcheries and coordinated the native fish and game fish programs.
He said the Game Program primarily dealt with big game and predator management program; it also contained the small air operations force integral to survey, inventory, traffic, and transplant programs. The 13 wildlife management areas were operated by the Habitat Program, who also supplied permits to the mining industry for some of their activities; this program also commented on documents pertaining to land use planning and endangered species. The Law Enforcement Program utilized wardens stationed statewide for wildlife and boating safety and the operation of a radio system; last was the Wildlife Diversity Program.
He explained that the Division was operating under the 1997 Comprehensive Strategic Plan and its components. It had been used as a model for other Nevada state agencies, as well as state agencies throughout the United States. The plan was reaching the end of its life and they were preparing another operation plan. The plan had made promises to the public, and the Division felt it had kept those promises in the following areas (Exhibit C).
· Agency management, fiscal management, infrastructure, and staff training
· New funding sources and volunteer programs could be used as the state’s match for federal programs
· Information delivery through their website, revisions to brochures and pamphlets, and news releases
· Wildlife population management for trapping and transplantation of species to other habitats, the Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program, the establishment of the Be Bear Aware Program in urban areas, and the hatchery refurbishment program
· Habitat management protection and enhancement which greatly affects species status through work with the Nevada Seed Bank and federal land management agencies for recovery of habitat due to incidents like fire and establishment of boating and fishing access sites
· Consultations and review of federal documents, involvement in local and county planning processes, consultations with industries like mining and agriculture, and uniformity of boating laws
· Compliance and enforcement as an educational program to prevent violations
· Public service and documentation to serve the public, an increase in hours of operation of facilities, and revision of licensing system
Mr. Crawforth stated that agency responsibilities would continue to increase into more extensive and expensive areas. He said they were interested in addressing wildlife health through assessments and monitoring and species management and plans for elk, antelope, and mule deer. They envisioned an increase in recreational demands because of the growing public, as well as an increase in threatened species issues.
He provided an overview of the five Division funding accounts: the Wildlife Account, the Trout Stamp Account, the Boat Account, the Obligated Reserve Account, and the Habitat Mitigation Account. He also provided information on the amount budgeted to the accounts and the revenue sources. He reminded the Committee that the accounts were nearly exclusively user-funded rather than funded through the General Fund; he said their primary operating account was the Wildlife Account.
Mr. Crawforth then stated that the rest of the prepared presentation would be provided when the Committee dealt with the fee proposal. He said he would answer any questions.
Assemblyman Mortenson asked how much funding they received from the Dingell-Johnson Act, which established excise taxes on equipment, and into what account those funds went.
Mr. Crawforth answered that the funds were placed in the Wildlife Account. He also informed the Committee that the Dingell-Johnson Act was amended in 1984 with the Wallop-Breaux Act, and that they received $2.5 million to $3 million annually; however, they were required to provide matching funds at 25 percent of that amount.
Assemblyman Mortenson asked if fishing equipment was the only equipment subject to the excise tax.
Mr. Crawforth responded that a similar provision was found in the Pittman‑Robertson Act and provided a 13 percent excise tax on firearms and ammunition. It was then apportioned to the states in a similar manner as the Dingell-Johnson funds, from a formula based on the state’s population, geographic size, and which was apportioned to the states by the United States Department of the Treasury and distributed and managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to the states.
Assemblyman Mortenson asked how much revenue that brought into the state.
Mr. Crawforth replied that it was a slightly more than $2 million, but varied slightly from year to year; he used the example of the Brady Bill and the resultant effect on firearm and ammunition sales.
Chairman Collins asked if there were any other questions.
Assemblyman Marvel inquired about the contingency plans developed for the possibility of a drought year. He particularly asked about deer tags and fishing licenses.
Mr. Crawforth answered that the Division of Wildlife was affected by climate more than other state agencies might be and had dealt with drought conditions in the past. They maintained a reserve account within all division accounts to help buffer against the vagaries of license sales. The revenues had continued to decline over the past three drought years, which caused the wildlife and their associated habitats to suffer. They tried to prepare contingencies to deal with issues like fish stocking and game seasons; he said that the drought situation had been discussed at length.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if it was in light of the drought situation, and Mr. Crawforth replied that it partially was.
Mr. Crawforth also said that there were concerns over long-term habitat and the use of critical winter ranges. Summer range habitat was plentiful but there was very little mule deer winter range.
Assemblyman Marvel mentioned the decline in mule deer population throughout the western United States and asked if they had plans to restore that population, if possible.
Mr. Crawforth responded that the mule deer population was not prospering, and that there were a number of factors influencing the population, from destroyed and aging habitat to predation to fragmentation of habitat. During low population times, they had around 120,000 mule deer within Nevada.
Assemblyman Marvel asked what the high number was for the mule deer population.
Mr. Crawforth responded that it was between 180,000 and 190,000 but had been close to 300,000 in the 1980s.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if horses had an impact on the habitat.
Mr. Crawforth replied that they did, especially in areas like winter ranges they used prior to the mule deer arriving.
Assemblyman Marvel inquired about the sage grouse and the finalization of the Nevada Sage Grouse Conservation Plan.
Mr. Crawforth answered that the Governor had established a Nevada Sage Grouse Conservation Team. They did not think that the species was in jeopardy of becoming endangered but wanted to be proactive in conservation activities. A statewide committee had been established, which Assemblyman Marvel participated in, and developed the Nevada Sage Grouse Conservation Plan. They solicited six local groups to develop local area conservation plans, and once all those plans were gathered, the Governor’s Team would incorporate them into one statewide conservation plan. The statewide conservation plan would incorporate activities to benefit the sage grouse population as well as other sagebrush obligate species, to prevent them from being listed as an endangered species.
Assemblyman Marvel inquired as to what would happen if the sage grouse was listed as an endangered species.
Mr. Crawforth indicated that impacts would be on utilities generation and transmission due to sage grouse breeding and nesting areas, private waters, private lands, and public land grazing.
Assemblyman Marvel inquired to verify that Mr. Crawforth’s statement was on record; he saw a critical problem for the state of Nevada with the mining and ranching industries: if the sage grouse were listed as an endangered species, there would be very little usage of public lands, perhaps even private lands.
Assemblyman Geddes asked for additional information on the hatchery refurbishing program and its funding.
Mr. Crawforth explained that there were three hatcheries and a rearing station within Nevada, and that they were all pre-1952 facilities with some enhancements. He said that the hatcheries were in need of repair. In the previous session, they had asked for approval to sell $20 million in bonds for reconstruction purposes. The price of a trout stamp had also been raised to pay off the bonds and they contracted with a firm, in conjunction with the Public Works Board, to develop a refurbishment plan. Bonds were to be sold as they were used.
Some preliminary construction had already taken place, but construction on the Lake Mead Hatchery, which was in the most need, would begin during the summer. Provisions were being made to close the facility to allow for the reconstruction. Mr. Crawforth indicated that it would take 5½ years for the reconstruction process to be completed, without missing many fish planting cycles.
Assemblyman Claborn asked whether the funding for the rehabilitation of the facilities was in the new budget.
Mr. Crawforth said that there was legislation and a proposal to help sell the bonds.
Chairman Collins thanked Mr. Crawforth, and said that the next presentation would be by Mr. Wayne Perock for the Nevada State Parks.
Chairman Collins recessed the meeting at 2:04 p.m.
Chairman Collins reconvened the meeting at 2:08 p.m.
Wayne Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, presented a PowerPoint presentation on the Nevada State Parks. He stated the mission of the Division of State Parks, was contained within legislative intent in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 407. When the Division of State Parks created their strategic plan, they looked at that mission and made few additions. Mr. Perock stated that the legislative intent was pertinent in 1963 and still was (Exhibit D).
Mr. Perock continued with an overview of the state park system, including the 24 state park units throughout the state (Exhibit E); around 132,523 acres were managed in varying sizes; the 280 structures contained within the parks including buildings, utilities, roads, paths; and the near 3.3 million visitors attending the parks. He indicated that climate, drought, weekends, and holidays significantly affected visitor attendance.
The history of the state park system dated back to 1923 (Exhibit D), Mr. Perock said, and that the Division was similar to the National Park Service; he said that the National Park Service had a tremendous influence upon the development of state systems. Also contributing to state system development was the Civilian Conservation Corp during the Depression.
He said that Cathedral Gorge and the road through Valley of Fire were the first indications of state involvement in setting aside lands for the state. It was in 1935 that state parks within Nevada were first recognized: Cathedral Gorge, Valley of Fire, and Kershaw Ryan.
About 25 percent of revenues for the Division were generated from user fees, concessions, leases, and other miscellaneous sources. He stated that General Fund allocation was about 50 percent and marina fuel taxes were about 25 percent.
Mr. Perock then described the organization of the Division into three areas. Administration dealt with clerical and bookkeeping staff; Planning and Development dealt with landscape architects, civil engineers, planners, and served as the granting agency for Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Recreation Trails Program; and Operations and Maintenance. The Operations and Maintenance was the largest area; they established regional offices from which the daily operations of the parks within the region were managed.
Mr. Perock then provided specific information on the different state areas within the Division of State Parks’ jurisdiction (Exhibit D and Exhibit E).
As he moved into discussion of South Fork State Recreation Area, he pointed out the changes in names used. He clarified that a state park was a natural and scenic area, state historic parks were cultural resource areas, and state recreation areas were active recreational pursuit areas. All three types of parks included a small portion of the attributes of the others (Exhibit D and Exhibit E).
Chairman Collins said that because the Committee was running behind schedule he was going to waive any questions. He said that based on the presentation, the Committee could see that the state parks were a low priority area from a legislative standpoint. The Division of State Parks had limited staff support and funds to do the job required.
Steve Robinson, State Forester, Division of Forestry, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, gave a brief overview of what Forestry did and the missions the Division was involved with. The Division had about 240 full-time employees, which increased to around 300 during the fire season, with a $31 million budget; one third came from federal funding, a third from the counties, and the last third from the state General Fund. The Governor wanted the Division of Forestry to pursue an increase in federal support, and they had acquired around $10 million in federal funding.
Pete Anderson, Deputy State Forester, Division of Forestry, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, discussed the funding of the Division and that there had been an increase in funding over the previous five years. He then explained how the Division was divided into three regions, Washoe Valley, Elko, and Las Vegas. Staff worked with federal land managers and local governments to cooperatively protect the state’s 18.4 million acres from wildfire (Exhibit F).
Mr. Robinson interjected that the charts outlined the Nevada Fire Protection Districts, where they had an agreement with county governments to provide protection for which they reimbursed the Division.
Mr. Anderson continued by stating that the Division worked with a number of different partners, including the Committee and other members of the Legislature. He then commented on the increased fire activity within the state that had had a negative impact on natural resources, tourism, and agricultural economies. The loss of acreage, especially in northern Nevada, had significantly affected the mule deer and sage grouse habitat. Livestock grazing in rural counties was dependent upon agricultural activities and had also been affected by wildland fire.
Mr. Robinson added that the ranching community had been particularly damaged by wildland fire, and that some acreage had been scorched several years in a row.
Mr. Anderson continued with a discussion of the Fire Protection Districts that the Division managed in eight different counties; they provided protection to 8.5 million acres in western and northeastern Nevada. Employees provided such emergency services as varied as wildfire suppression to paramedic responsibilities. He then covered the critical changes occurring in the county fire districts, which would affect the Division’s abilities to suppress wildfires in the future.
The volunteers, Mr. Anderson said, supported emergency services within Nevada. The Division provided technical assistance, cost-share grants, and training to volunteer fire departments, and division mechanical shops rebuilt used state and federal equipment for use by the volunteer departments.
Mr. Robinson asserted that the volunteer program was an important component of the Division, for both rural and urban areas, and that the Division could not exist and operate without the volunteers. He also stated that this was the component that was hurting for equipment and for recruitment.
Mr. Anderson then discussed the plant material nursery located within Washoe Valley and Floyd Lamb State Park that provided conservation-grade trees and shrubs for agencies, local governments, and the public. The Division of Forestry was involved in several growing contracts with Southern Nevada Water Authority and the City of Henderson. The Nevada State Seedbank Program, approved by the 1995 Legislature, provided native and adapted seeds for rehabilitation projects statewide. Both the nursery and seedbank had successful enterprising budgets, with only limited General Fund support.
Mr. Robinson added that the Division had an initial confirmation of a $450,000 program to expand the seedbank program from the United States Forest Service. This additional program would allow the Division to store seeds over successive seasons and encouraged local growers in their endeavors.
Mr. Anderson continued that, by statutory regulation, the Division regulated the commercial harvesting of Christmas trees, cactus, and yucca on private lands. It required the combined efforts of state and federal agencies to control the illegal harvesting of cactus and yucca (Exhibit F).
In conjunction with the Nevada Natural Heritage Program, the Division managed critically endangered native plants. Successful conservation strategies benefited listed plant species and allowed a variety of land uses.
Mr. Robinson interjected that this list of critically endangered species worked similarly to the Endangered Species Act list at the federal level. It worked with business and industry, and he provided the example of the Steamboat buckwheat plant, the only population in the nation, and the geothermal operation.
Mr. Anderson said that the Nevada Forest Stewardship Program was one of the most popular and provided technical assistance and cost-share grants for conservation projects statewide. Projects included riverbank stabilization, timber stand improvement, wildlife habitat, and agricultural windbreaks.
The Nevada Division of Forestry and Department of Corrections had a Conservation Camp Program that managed 10 conservation camps that could field 80 twelve-person crews for fire suppression, conservation, and community based projects. The crews had recently completed an elementary school in Pioche, a community college in Ely, and provided assistance to senior citizens through snow removal and providing firewood for home heating.
Mr. Robinson added that prior to the budget being finalized by the Governor, it had been contemplated to close some of the conservation camps for budgetary reasons. The Governor decided not to close any camps because the camps were a part of the infrastructure throughout the state.
Mr. Anderson stated the Carlin and Wells Conservation Camps had assisted Elko County with the Sherman Station relocation and restoration project at Elko City Park and a remodeling project of the county courthouse. The crews were involved in hazardous fuels reductions throughout the state to reduce the threat of wildfire. The Stewart and Silver Springs Conservation Camp’s crews were involved in stabilizing the state park lands involved in the Gondola Fire of the previous summer. The rehabilitation projects were used to minimize potential soil erosion and impacts to Lake Tahoe’s water quality (Exhibit F).
The aging vehicle fleet was the most serious problem faced by the Division of Forestry. They hoped to soon be able to use a portion of their generated revenues to replace aged and worn out vehicles and equipment.
Mr. Anderson continued with the problem the state faced in the health of the forests and woodlands. Stress from drought and overstocked stands were causing trees to die at increased rates. Federal land managers were not funded or staffed to address the problem; the Division’s foresters provided technical assistance to land owners to address forest health issues on private lands.
The newest addition to the Division’s responsibilities was the National Fire Plan, which was a cooperatively delivered program and included the Division, the United States Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. The Plan brought in nearly $10 million in funds for fuel reduction projects, equipment, and training.
He showed before-and-after photos of a project at Holbrook Junction in Douglas County, where trees and brush stands were thinned. Conservation camp crews worked over a six-week period to complete the project.
Mr. Robinson added that the fuels build-up was a statewide problem and was the reason why there was such a fire danger from year to year. The Division would go to a community, with or without an infrastructure like a board or commission, and worked with the citizens to make their community safer from fire.
Mr. Anderson discussed the Mt. Wilson seasonal recreation community in Lincoln County, where the fuels build-up had increased the fire danger to the area. Mt. Charleston was another area prioritized for fuel-reduction activities because of the high levels of development and visitation. Community assessments had been finished for both communities, and funds were being pursued for fuel-reduction projects (Exhibit F).
Mr. Robinson stated that although there was more they could say, they would conclude at that point.
Chairman Collins asked what the differences were between the Division of Forestry and the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) clearing of fuels.
Mr. Robinson answered that the two agencies worked in cooperation with one another. The Nevada Wildland Fire Board, the Division, the BLM, and the United States Forest Service all worked in conjunction to make sure they were not conducting the same management practices or entering into another’s jurisdiction.
Chairman Collins asked if there were any other questions, and recognized Mr. Marvel.
Assemblyman Marvel asked what the situation was in Lincoln County with the harvesting of juniper and pinion pine for fuel usage.
Mr. Robinson replied that there had been a plan 20 years prior to do that, but not much progress had been made in that direction. He thought that there were new plans that might be incorporated. He also said that the BLM had been having problems with litigation; since the Division did not have that kind of problem, they were trying to get a working fuel plan operational on private lands.
Assemblyman Marvel thought that the standing Committee on Public Lands had funded a study program for feasibility of utilizing juniper and pinion pine for fuels and that the results had been positive.
Mr. Robinson responded that the results had been positive and that there was a significant supply but that the problem was the sustainability of the fuels and convincing a private entrepreneur to invest in the process with the possibility of litigation.
Assemblyman Mortenson asked whether Mr. Wayne Perock was still present to ask him questions.
Chairman Collins responded that he was around, but not in the room, and that he could ask him specific questions outside. He then thanked them and clarified that they had provided their contact information to the secretary. Mr. Robinson indicated that they had.
Chairman Collins then asked the Department of Agriculture, the next presenters, to come forward.
Paul Iverson, Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture, thanked the Committee and said that while he had been ill, he had had a supportive administrative staff to continue managing the agency and he wanted to publicly thank them, as well as the Committee for their support. Because of his illness, he was training other administrative staff members to present and testify before committees. He was pleased with the work of Don Henderson, as Assistant Director, in his absence, and said that they were supported in the Committee Room by the following staff: the State Veterinarian, the Administrator of Measurement Standards, the Administrator of Administration, who dealt with budget issues, and the noxious weeds staff.
Lastly, he said that they were there to support and assist the Committee in any way possible, and that they wanted to protect and advance the agricultural industry, while also protecting the citizens. They enjoyed working with the Committee and their support.
Chairman Collins told Don Henderson that he could begin when ready, then asked if he needed a minute to set up his PowerPoint presentation.
Don Henderson, Assistant Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture indicated that he would need a couple of minutes to finish setting up his presentation.
Chairman Collins stated that he would take care of other Committee business in the meantime. He provided a clarification that a brownfield was a contaminated site.
· BDR 40-518 - Provides for revolving fund to finance remediation of brownfield sites. (A.B. 74)
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED FOR AN INTRODUCTION OF BDR 40-518.
ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
· BDR 51-566 - Revises provisions governing certification of organic agricultural products. (A.B. 75)
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED FOR AN INTRODUCTION OF BDR 51-566.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Don Henderson, Assistant Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture, began his presentation by asking if there was a time limit he needed to work within. He wanted to give the Committee an introduction to the Department and what activities they were involved in.
Mr. Henderson stated that in 1999 the Department completed a strategic plan to address past accomplishments and what they needed to do in the future. They established future goals, measurement indicators, and outlined a vision for the Department. Critical to the Department was the Mission Statement that was driven by state statutes and regulations. He read their mission statement and pointed out the key words of “related industries” because agriculture also included nurseries, petroleum laboratories, and pesticide operations (Exhibit G).
He discussed the organization of the Department, and oversight by the Nevada Board of Agriculture that was comprised of ten members from agriculture and related industries. The Department consisted of six divisions, and he covered the number of full-time and intermittent employees in each division; he said there were 98 full-time employees and 132 intermittent and seasonal employees. The intermittent employees included 110 part-time brand inspectors from across the state (Exhibit G and Exhibit H).
Mr. Henderson then covered the different changes in program elements that the Department dealt with to meet increasing needs of the state. With growth in northern and western Nevada, focus had been directed to urban issues and fulfilling the regulatory service programs in an efficient and professional manner.
He stated that agriculture affected many aspects of the economy because it was a basic industry, and it was important to continue serving the rural counties and support production agriculture. Production agriculture was a foundation of many Nevada counties, and working with the farmers and ranchers was essential to the Department; it was also required to meet the Department goals and statutory requirements. Having strong and economically sustainable rural counties and communities created a better Nevada.
Mr. Henderson continued by saying that an increased focus had been placed on urban areas; the task of regulating multiple industries was increasingly challenging. Regulatory activities were to protect the general public and the industries providing goods and services to Nevada citizens.
The new Agriculture Enforcement Unit was a key element in protecting Nevada’s agricultural interests, and added to the Department of Agriculture’s Homeland Security functions as vehicles were checked as they passed through the state. Increased plant nursery inspections and surveys for insects had saved the state from unwanted pests and the expenses of control measures. Mr. Henderson stated that the new continuing education program for pest control operators made the industry safer and more informed of technological advances for use of pesticides and herbicides.
Mr. Henderson discussed that the surveys taken by the Department to check for Anthrax, West Nile Virus, Chronic Wasting Disease, deer and elk population, plague, and rabies and other wildlife species was an important function for the Department.
To address the state growth challenges, the Department incorporated a five‑step formula to address regulatory and service programs of the Department. The formula allowed the Department to prioritize activities to meet the needs of rural and urban citizens. The formula elements included: exclusion, detection, control, enforcement, and marketing (Exhibit G).
Mr. Henderson discussed how exclusion efforts addressed keeping unwanted and dangerous pests, plants, and agricultural materials out of Nevada. This element involved quarantines and inspections by the Agriculture Enforcement Unit of such areas as nurseries, warehouses, construction sites, wholesale nursery outlets, and livestock sales yards. The livestock Agricultural Enforcement Unit utilized post-certified part-time law enforcement officers trained and equipped to enforce quarantines, conducted vehicle inspections on the highway or ports-of-entry, and Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) points of origin and destination throughout Nevada.
He showed pictures of agriculture enforcement officers at an inspection of imported palm trees at an NHP inspection stop and a roadway inspection of a livestock truck.
Since beginning operations in January of 2002, vehicle stops had resulted in 3,377 vehicle inspections and issuance of 595 citations. To date, program emphasis was on Clark County because of its extended growing season, large horticulture industry, and commerce of imported nursery and agricultural products from quarantined areas.
Mr. Henderson stated that detection was an essential function of the Department of Agriculture’s formula, because of the importance of detecting unwanted pests and animal related diseases that could affect the agriculture industry (Exhibit G). Components of this element were: survey, trapping and sampling, and investigations. Surveys being conducted included: Japanese beetle, gypsy moth, Africanized honeybees, and imported red fire ants. Over the past years, the Department had become increasingly involved in the survey of Mormon crickets and grasshopper populations. Detection of hatching areas in the spring would reduce or destroy the building insect populations prior to reaching the areas they damaged later in the summer.
Mr. Henderson pointed out that if the first two functions of exclusion and detection were performed correctly, the Department could save the state millions of dollars by preventing the introduction of animal and plant diseases and pests. This was instead of the incurred cost of control or eradication of pests.
Important to the detection component were nursery inspections, for diseases, pests, and general conditions and health of the plant stock. Mr. Henderson pointed out that the number of plant nurseries increased on a weekly basis. He then talked about their efforts to keep Nevada free of imported red fire ants; the Department placed over 16,000 traps in the Las Vegas area over the past 2 summers. Infestations were found at three sites, but the surveys did not indicate any other established populations; the three infested sites were treated and would be resurveyed in the future.
Mr. Henderson said that it was important to prevent the introduction and spread of imported red fire ants because it would prevent the expense of infestation control. In Texas, infestation control had cost the state $2 billion annually.
The West Nile Virus also fell under the category of detection. Mr. Henderson provided a brief description and history of the virus, including its initial detection in Uganda and that it was commonly found in vertebrates in Africa, Eastern Europe, West Asia, and the Middle East. It was not documented in the Western Hemisphere until 1998 along the west Gulf coast (Exhibit G). He commented that the spread of the disease from the west Gulf coast throughout the northern hemisphere had surprised even the experts, and that transmission was through mosquitoes.
He discussed Nevada’s surveillance activities of the virus between the Nevada Health Division, Department of Agriculture, and other state and federal agencies. The Health Division monitored health cases; the Department of Agriculture tracked chicken flocks, mosquito pools, and conducted wild horse sampling. He said the Nevada Division of Wildlife also sampled wild bird populations and dead bird corpses. He commented on the current and future implications of the virus on Nevada stating that Nevada was currently free of West Nile Virus but likely to be contaminated in the near future. He said that detection of equine infection would help define areas of infestation but not predict human cases.
Mr. Henderson moved on to the next element of the Department’s formula: control. Activities within this category included: inspections of nurseries, retail outlets, newly landscaped areas, and existing building sites; eradication activities to remove the problem; suppression of pests and diseases; and effective education programs for businesses, classrooms, and the general public. He felt that the most successful of the Department of Agriculture’s education programs was of the Africanized honeybee.
Mr. Henderson used another example of the African rue from the Hawthorne area; he said that the Department played a leadership role in collaborative weed control management programs statewide. They worked with local groups to manage noxious weed infestations that led to the establishment of cooperative weed management areas. Working with the Nevada Department of Transportation, the Department treated state roadways to reduce and prevent the spread of noxious weeds from state property. The Department had also implemented the Nevada Weed-Free Hay Certification Program to inspect hay fields and certify them as weed free.
Mr. Henderson said that the control element included activities pertaining to Exotic Newcastle Disease. He said that it was the first foreign disease outbreak to affect Nevada since the 1970s; he then provided some general facts about the disease (Exhibit G). Newcastle Disease was first identified in California in October 2002 and was diagnosed in a North Las Vegas chicken flock that year. A state and federal quarantine area was established in Clark County and the southern portion of Nye County; Arizona had recently had an outbreak and a quarantine area was established to contain it.
He stated that all birds within a quarantine area were to be tested and a permit issued to be transported out of the quarantine area. All birds within a kilometer of a diseased bird were to be identified or purchased by the federal government, tested for the disease, killed, and the carcasses disposed of. He said that 7 areas in Las Vegas had been diagnosed with the Newcastle Disease, and that 1,670 birds had been identified and put down.
Over the past two years, the Department had placed an emphasis on the control area that included the updating and expansion of training opportunities for licensed pest control operators and restricted use pesticide certification. This resulted in nearly all the pest control operators meeting state requirements for annual training. Additionally, the Department held 6 two-day Pesticide Safety seminars, with over 500 participants from public and private areas certified.
Also falling under the Department’s formula element of control, within the Division of Natural Resources, was Animal Damage Control. Animal Damage Control coordinated with the Nevada Division of Wildlife on hunter-funded programs to provide protection for sage grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, big horn sheep, mule deer, and pronghorn antelope from predators in various areas throughout the state. Animal Damage Control worked to control bird populations around commercial airports and in controlling ravens to protect the desert tortoise, in support of the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
Mr. Henderson mentioned that just two weeks previously, an aircraft in the Reno area had been hit by a bird and had had to land and repair the damage to the aircraft.
He then moved on to the enforcement formula element of the Department of Agriculture’s program (Exhibit G). Because the Department was a regulatory agency an essential function was enforcement. With the Agriculture Enforcement Unit in place, the Department increased its capability to inspect agricultural materials entering Nevada. The Department was also responsible for licensing and monitoring including pest control operators, livestock brands, commercial livestock and hay purchasers, and for overseeing the registration of pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and antifreeze sold within the state.
Enforcement also included inspections by the Bureau of Weights and Measures of gas station pumps, commercial scales, gasoline quality testing at gas stations, investigations of pesticide misuse, farm worker protection, free treatment of new homes for termite prevention, and reports on amounts of lead in gasoline that did not meet state requirements.
Mr. Henderson said that to meet the goals established for the area of enforcement, the Department had three state laboratories: a pesticides and analysis lab in Reno and two petroleum labs, one in Las Vegas and the other in Reno. The Department also operated the only state animal disease diagnostic labs in Reno and Elko.
Marketing was the final element to the program, where the Department focused on helping Nevada producers exist in a competitive market. Roles included staff grading of agricultural products for export and certification of agricultural products. Certification and inspection were important to the ability of producers to export their products (Exhibit G).
Mr. Henderson said that the final aspect he wanted to discuss was the Department’s assistance to ranchers in accessing various markets. With assistance from a United States Department of Agriculture grant and the Nevada Association of Counties, the Department had implemented an active agriculture marketing and promotions program. Sixty-two agricultural promotion projects had been implemented; 34 projects reflected direct financial grants to Nevada producers or businesses and organizations. Projects funded represented education initiatives to the Nevada Agricultural Council and Agriculture in the Classroom as well as test plans of alternative crops including native seed production and growing grapes for wine production.
Mr. Henderson said that several other programs were undertaken. Examples included the development and coordination of trade missions to Mexico for Nevada producers; hosting conferences covering the advance of Nevada’s agricultural future and an ethanol production conference; an initiative to promote Nevada’s native plant seed industry; and a program for crop insurance education for Nevadan ranchers.
He then discussed the Virginia Range Estray Horse Program, authorized by the 1997 Legislature, and the Department of Agriculture was asked to manage the program (Exhibit G). The Department designated the horse herd area and established the infrastructure needed to handle the horse population within the designated area and to develop an effective management plan; the infrastructure included a handling facility at the Northern Nevada Correctional Facility.
He provided an example of Brown Elementary School outside of Reno at the base of Geiger Grade where the horses regularly inhabited the grounds. Parents had to scare off the horses and clean the area for their children to use the grounds.
Mr. Henderson reviewed the program goals of the Virginia Range Estray Horse Program with the Committee; the goals were primarily aimed at managing the horse population within the capacity of its range. Management was accomplished by removal of excess horses and then placing them for adoption to target a herd population of 400-600 horses, and then monitoring the range condition for carrying capacity.
The Department worked with the Department of Corrections to establish a Wild Horse Gentling Program, with a dual benefit of building confidence and skills for the prisoners, and gentling and training the free-roaming estray horses. He then covered the performance record of the Virginia Range Estray Horse Program, and said that in FY2002 the Department had captured and placed 195 horses and they had captured and placed 300 horses thus far in FY2003. He stated that it was the first year they had used a helicopter gathering process.
Mr. Henderson concluded by saying that the Department had several bill draft requests (BDRs) submitted for consideration, and the majority of them were for streamlining or providing clarification of existing statutes.
Chairman Collins thanked Mr. Henderson. He went on to add that those Committee members who served on the Education Committee did not need to worry about being late.
Chairman Collins said that the slide with the Agriculture Enforcement Unit would make a great poster as a symbol of the west and Nevada. He also appreciated the staff support that the Department showed at the meeting. He then informed the Committee that the Department of Agriculture was once a division, and then they were changed to a department.
He then commented that the West Nile Virus might be a cure for the horse population, but Mr. Henderson indicated that it would not. Chairman Collins then asked if they were vaccinating and said he had noticed the difference in terms, where Mr. Henderson had used free roaming rather than wild horses.
Mr. Henderson responded that they did not foresee a high mortality among the horses, and that they were not vaccinating wild horses or estray horses, but they were urging homeowners to vaccinate their horses.
Chairman Collins said that the Committee was looking forward to the Department returning to testify on their bills, and then asked if there were any questions from the Committee. He added that relating to the previous meeting, the graph on wild horse populations showed that the horse populations were still growing even with the capture program in place. This showed that they were not in danger of losing the free-roaming horse population.
Mr. Henderson said that the free-roaming horses were not endangered.
Chairman Collins thanked him again and then moved on to other business. He asked if any of the Committee members were planning on being in the area of Logandale-Overton for the high school rodeo on March 7 and 8. No one indicated that they were going. He then commented on the Carson-Tahoe Hospital Auxiliary Benefit for entertainment and made a general recommendation.
Assemblyman Claborn asked if Chairman Collins could get them free tickets.
Chairman Collins responded that he could buy his own tickets. He then said that Senator McGinness had an event planned for the Churchill Arts Council with the date changed to March 20. He asked if there was any new business to be brought before the Committee, but there was none.
Chairman Collins discussed the planned items to be heard at the next meeting, including three bills during the first half of the meeting, and the second half of the meeting was scheduled for presentations. Committee members could check with Committee Manager Cecile Crofoot, Committee Secretary Erin Channell, or legislative research through Linda Eissmann to get contact information for any of the presenters.
Chairman Collins adjourned the meeting at 3:28 p.m.
Erin Channell
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Chairman
DATE: