MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining
Seventy-Second Session
March 19, 2003
The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:26 p.m., on Wednesday, March 19, 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.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Tom Collins, Chairman
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Marcus Conklin
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. John Marvel
Mr. Bob McCleary
Mr. Harry Mortenson
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Chad Christensen (excused)
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst
Erin Channell, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Don Henderson, Acting Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture
Benny Romero, Chairman, Nevada State Board of Agriculture, Nevada Department of Agriculture
Elwood Miller, Executive Coordinator, Nevada Fire Safe Council
Ed Smith, Natural Resources Specialist, Cooperative Extension, University of Nevada, Reno
Chris Mason, Ph.D., Section Chief, Registration and Laboratory Services, Division of Plant Industry, Nevada Department of Agriculture
Chairman Collins:
[Called meeting to order.] We do not have a quorum; we’ll start a subcommittee and when we have enough, we’ll take a roll call. [Comments on those present and absent for the Subcommittee.] We have an introduction and presentation by the Nevada Board of Agriculture with Mr. Henderson and Mr. Romero; a presentation from the Nevada Fire Safe Council by Mr. Miller; and then A.B. 193 dealing with fertilizer issues. Again, we’re starting as a Subcommittee and when more members are present, we’ll take a roll call and become a regular Committee.
Don Henderson, Acting Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture:
[Introduced himself] I appreciate your valuable Committee time. With me I have the Chairman, Mr. Romero, of the Nevada State Board of Agriculture, who provides oversight and direction for the Department of Agriculture. I think he has some comments and would like to introduce some of the Board members to this Committee. This is a very valuable Committee and they provide a lot of direction to the Department of Agriculture.
Benny Romero, Chairman, Nevada State Board of Agriculture, Nevada Department of Agriculture:
Thanks for the opportunity to come before you and make some short comments to you as to the direction and what we’re doing with the Department of Agriculture and the State Board of Agriculture. Before I do that, I’d like to present to you, and not all members are here, but at least I will mention them, we have with us:
[Benny Romero] First of all, I want to say that I appreciate your support, the support that you have given to the Board of Agriculture, and to the Department of Agriculture, in the past as well as in the present. This past year has been a trying year for the Department, and especially for our Director, Mr. Iverson, due to his illness. We have been very fortunate to have with us Mr. Henderson, who has made a very smooth transition and taken over the Director’s position, and has helped us tremendously in keeping things going smoothly. The nucleus to the Department stands right here, and if that nucleus is solid, we’re effective on the outside.
Mr. Iverson continues to be involved, as his health allows, and we are grateful for his input and participation. We’re very grateful for his input and help that he’s been able to provide for us.
Some of the things we have been doing within the Department have been widespread. You know about the Marijuana Program that is in effect now within the state which was put into the hands of the Department of Agriculture. It has been working and operating fairly smoothly.
The Agriculture Enforcement Unit is something different, and at the present time, especially with the situation in our country, I think it’s critical. The Agriculture Enforcement Unit has been very effective in controlling products and materials exported or transported through the state and across state lines. So far, there have been about 3,400 inspections conducted over the past year. The word is getting out that Nevada is no longer an open state; people are being more cautious about what’s coming in and going out.
The Brands Committee, we’re looking at new methods to approach and make the livestock brands more cost effective, including the feasibility of privatizing the brand inspection certification function. It’s been tough; we’ve had to work through the funding in the past, to keep it on board the way it’s been operating. Consequently, we have been looking at privatization, whether that happens or not, we’re not sure. It’s a way that we can really help the brands inspection process. The horticulture industry –
Chairman Collins:
I know you’ve got a marijuana program and enforcement is improving. On privatizing the brands, can you clarify that?
Benny Romero:
Due to the Brands Department being somewhat under state function, a lot of times, as increases in wages take place, so do increases in wages for the people we have working within the Brands Department. Our system has not been able to keep up with that. In other words, the licensing, brands certification – all that money generated cannot keep up with these increases. Consequently, we’re looking at possibly privatizing. At the present time, the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association has made a presentation to us as a potential for them to take over a portion of the Brands Department.
Chairman Collins:
We’ve got a couple of questions. I’m going to go first, because I get some calves in my backyard, I get ready to take them out to sell them; when they come over, it’s few dollars. The fees aren’t enough. I’m not hauling a truckload, just a trailer. These are part-time brand inspectors who come over, getting mileage of $1.50 or something like that. What are they getting?
Don Henderson:
This is a fee-based account. In other words, we charge fees for this service to the cattlemen getting the brand inspection. As part of our policy funding, and as directed by this body, we have administrative cost recovery. We charge our various fee accounts an administrative fee, in the amount of about $50,000 to the brand program a year, today. What’s been happening is, as state costs increase in terms of labor and such, the brand inspection fees have risen. It’s a feeling, pretty uniformly among the industry, that they’re paying about as much as they can, today, for that service. We foresee that the fees are just going to go up because of the cost of providing the service.
What’s been done at this point, and there seems to be an interest from the cattlemen, is looking at the feasibility of breaking out from the Brands Program, solely the brand certification and inspection component. I believe the thoughts are, at this point, the enforcement and investigations of that program would remain within the Department of Agriculture. That’s kind of the situation. It’s very preliminary. We’re looking at numbers; we have to see if it works for the state; we have to see if it works for this private contractor. The way it would probably be handled would be as contracted services through the Department of Agriculture. We’re not anticipating any revisions to the existing statutes at this point.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Mr. Henderson, would the brand inspection function be privatized, too?
Don Henderson:
Yes, that is the function we’re looking at privatizing.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Are those people going to have to be POST [Peace Officers’ Standards and Training] trained? They’d have to have some type of police powers, wouldn’t they?
Don Henderson:
Not for the certification aspect, for the brand inspection, no; but if they’re doing an investigation or issuing a citation, then, yes, they would be. That’s why we’re looking at keeping the enforcement aspects of the program within the Department of Agriculture.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Do you have POST trained people?
Don Henderson:
Yes, we do.
Benny Romero:
Some of the other things that are taking place within the horticulture industry, private and commercial horticulture in southern and western Nevada may represent the largest economic sector in Nevada. We had the opportunity to take a tour down in Las Vegas and go through the casinos, not gambling. It is amazing to see what the horticulture industry is down there. It’s probably larger than anything else we have throughout the state, as far as economics and so forth.
Control and management in Nevada have been substantially advanced; we’re doing a lot more work in that area. Control, as you know, has become a very critical issue in our state with all the invasive weeds that we’re getting, like whitetop. You’ve seen what southern Reno looks like, and down the Truckee River.
Another area is in natural resources; we have some people there working with natural resources and those capabilities. We’ve hired some new people to help us with natural resources. It’s been a very active portion of the department and is well underway. The sage grouse issue, it’s the spotted owl of Nevada; the Central Nevada Elk Plan; the Great Basin Restoration Initiative with Dr. Thawley from the University [University of Nevada, Reno] handling a lot of work there; water quality standards involved in agriculture, another hot topic; confined animal feeding, feed lots, is another issue we’re looking at closely.
[Benny Romero] On another aspect, Karen Grillo has been doing the Agriculture Marketing and Promotion and Grant Program. She’s done an outstanding job. We were able to grant to programs around $625,000 last year, through a grant from a federal grant. It’s been effective, it’s been doing good research, good work. Grapes in our state, they’re really looking at that, but we’re also looking at natural, or seeds, for replanting out in burned areas of our state.
Another thing taking place is the increasing number of estray horses, especially on the Virginia Hills. We’ve been able to remove a lot more of those horses, and been able to get rid of the horses, which has been a big issue in the past, especially with the Bureau [of Land Management]. They haven’t been able to get rid of the horses after they capture them; we’ve been able to do that. The Department [of Agriculture] has developed and implemented a Nevada Weed‑Free Hay Certification Program. The federal agencies have worked on this fairly strongly to make sure that any hay that’s being fed on public lands is from the Weed-Free Certified Hay Program. That’s been a good program that’s been implemented by the Department; it’s gone very well.
There’s one other achievement. Under the provisions of A.B. 453 of the Seventy-first Legislative Session – I’m sorry I already mentioned that, the Marijuana Program. If anyone has questions or comments, we’d be happy to try to answer.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Mr. Henderson, what’s going on in noxious weeds, the fire ants, and the killer bees?
Don Henderson:
You did ask a mouthful there. What’s going on – there’s a number of things going on. From our perspective, the Seventieth Legislative Session approved a weed specialist position for the Department, which we immediately hired. I think you’ve all met Dawn Rafferty. She’s been doing a “bang-up job” for us. What her job is, there’s so many agencies involved with weed control and have management responsibilities –
Chairman Collins:
She has not been here this session.
Don Henderson:
We’ll make note of that, sir, and if allowed some time, we certainly could. The other thing we’re doing on the weed aspect is we were able to get a grant from the National Fire Plan Moneys and we hired a weed management specialist. Her job is a one-year appointment at this point, or as funded. Her job is to go out around the state and to establish coordinated weed management areas, and to get people working together at the local level to control weeds. She’s been on board since June, and already she has 10 additional weed management areas in the state, and they’re moving ahead.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Are we gaining at all on the elimination of noxious weeds?
Don Henderson:
We’re starting to see more treatment out there. Are we gaining? It’s going to be a tough battle; it’s going to be a battle that’s never won.
Assemblyman Marvel:
It’s a worldwide problem; it’s not a Nevada problem.
Don Henderson:
We’re making good progress. One of the things that would really help us in Nevada, particularly in our public lands, is the BLM’s [Bureau of Land Management] Great Basin Restoration Initiative, and start treating cheatgrass affected rangelands and the fire cycle that results from that situation. In terms of pests, we’ve been very active there. We’ve put a very aggressive surveillance program underway for imported red fire ants in southern Nevada. We did find three sites over the last summer; those sites have been treated. We’re working with the property owners and we’ll go back and continue that the next summer. I could say about the imported red fire ant, we have beaten that one at this point. It’s going to be a long-term program.
Assemblyman Marvel:
What about the bees?
Don Henderson:
The bees are here with us. I think southern Nevada, through education programs, has learned to live with the bees. They haven’t been a problem; we don’t get the comments and concerns that we once did. They have advanced north; the last I heard, I believe that they were just south of Tonopah. We’re hoping that that might be where they stabilize. The other side of it, what’s going to happen is they’re going run up the coast of California and be north of us before too long. That’s just where that critter is.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
You were talking about the horse program; you’re able to adopt those horses out because you’ve been able to gentle them through the prison program. Is there anything on board to increase the facilities down here or to take that program to other prisons? Where does that stand exactly?
Benny Romero:
I’m going to defer to Mr. Henderson on that one because he’s been right in the middle of it. I’ll let him answer to that.
Chairman Collins:
While I’ve got a pause, we do have a quorum. I also wanted to put on the record that Assemblyman Goicoechea and the Assistant Majority Leader have gone to Fallon and will possibly be late getting back in. [Roll was called.] This is no longer a Subcommittee. We’re now in full Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining. Tell us how you’re gathering horses and taking care of them.
Don Henderson:
Over this past year, we’ve been able to capture 300 head of estray horses off the Virginia Range. Our capacities, in terms of holding these horses and handling them, are adequate at this point. Our plan is to continue over the next several years to remove about 250 to 300 head until we got down to a level of about 500 to 600 head. We’ll see how close we are to the capacity of their range. That program is moving ahead; we do have a request for funding in our budget, $100,000. It would be the first time we’ve actually funded this program in a block of money. With that support, we’re hoping to move ahead and manage these.
In terms of the prison training program, that is a Department of Corrections program. They have assumed it. I think they’re very happy with the program and I think they are looking at opportunities of expanding that program. If they do, we have the horses to put into it. They have also tapped in and are training some BLM [Bureau of Land Management] horses at this point, or at least they did; it’s on an as-needed basis. Right now, since the last time you met, I believe they had horse training facilities for about 16 head. That’s been increased to 32 head I believe, at this point. It’s doubled since you last met, and I think they’re looking at opportunities to expand the program.
Benny Romero:
One more comment I’d like to make. It was something we just looked at this morning under our goals and objectives, which we’ll take action on tomorrow at our Board meeting. We’re looking to make sure that people within our industry, in our state, understand what the dangers are by bioterrorism to agriculture, which I think is very critical. We’re going to have to get the word out there what to look out for. It’s something that needs to be covered and take immediate action on.
Chairman Collins:
There’s a bill that was just heard last week in Judiciary on increasing penalties to research facilities that would deal with protecting some of that in one area, and port of entries would be a magnificent way to address that. I don’t want to go on the record saying why I think Nevada doesn’t have them, when California is building a $40 million one at Mountain Pass as we speak; and Utah just completed a brand new one on Interstate 80. There are obviously benefits to it, especially in agriculture, noxious weeds, poisons, and nuclear waste issues. In the last 20 years, livestock grazing, their AUMs [animal unit months] are down a couple of hundred thousand. As we’ve heard, a tremendous impact on our agricultural community. What are your goals? I know ranchers are buying better breeds and improving their breeding so they get more meat per carcass. What are your goals in helping the agriculture community with that and getting more livestock out in Nevada?
Benny Romero:
We’ve been doing some work through the University, and you’re correct, the numbers of AUMs on public lands have decreased tremendously. We have a study that we’ve put together that tells us exactly what the numbers have been, and what the impacts have been, to the communities surrounding where these AUMs have been reduced. We’re still working with the University and federal agencies trying to keep those numbers up there, as much as we can. For your information, here in the near future, sometime in August, I’m having Ann Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture [U.S. Department of Agriculture], come over. That’s going to be one of our points of discussion, the decline of AUMs on Forest [Service] lands and how to overcome that completely. It’s a difficult task.
Don Henderson:
Mr. Romero mentioned natural resources. I was hired by the Department to work in natural resources and public land issues. Since then we’ve been able to hire another two-thirds person to help me out in these areas; there’s a lot of ground to cover. Since I’m the Acting Director, I haven’t been able to put the time to it, but we are involved with all the major programmatic issues from sage grouse to elk, and so forth. We’re covering the bases as best we can. One opportunity that’s happening right now is the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] is looking at revising and updating their grazing regulations. The existing regulations that came about in 1995 have been very detrimental to our public land grazing industry. I think the industry is organizing. We’re working with them to try to get the changes in these BLM regulations that would at least stop those downward trends; stabilize it, if not move in the other direction.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Mr. Henderson, are any of these reductions temporary because of fires? Is there temporary nonuse that will be restored?
Don Henderson:
The grazing reductions that we have documented are in the license permitting use; they’re not affected by that. That’s a temporary permit reduction that you would be speaking of and that would not be picked up in our database. When their ten year permit changes, reduces either up or down, the database the Department [Department of Agriculture] has documented those broad changes.
Assemblyman Marvel:
What disturbs me is if we’re getting these livestock reductions, how can we find more AUMs for health?
Don Henderson:
I think that’s been asked and answered.
Chairman Collins:
I wonder, Mr. Henderson, as Acting Director, and Mr. Romero as Chairman of the Board of Agriculture, are you making it clear enough to this Legislature, as an example, and also are you expressing or requesting us to express it to the federal government, that the additional grazing when they reduce the fire – I’m hoping they understand it by now, but are we doing an ongoing educational way to the public that grazing of those areas would have been better than burning them to nobody’s benefit, and then costing a fortune to go fight the fires, including the lives.
Secondly, to the people that deal with the money matters of this state, including the Governor, realize the economic harm and how we have to adjust our budget in the Legislature because of the harm done to our communities from the loss of mining and grazing, and primarily in your issue with grazing. How are you educating all of us?
Don Henderson:
On the last part, how we’re educating: last session [Seventy-first Legislative Session] there was a report that came out by Nevada Association of Counties talking about that very issue of trends in agriculture, wildfire, and the correlation between the two. I think that was given to each member of that session. The rest of your questions, I think the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] realizes that livestock grazing and the control of weeds is an important component associated with their Great Basin Restoration Initiative, they’re looking for federal funding to implement and move ahead on.
Most of the other questions are a perfect segue to your next presentation, by the Cooperative Extension Service [University of Nevada, Reno] and the Fire Safe Council [Nevada]. They have taken that message out and are educating our public in Nevada as to what can be done to reduce wildfire. Cooperative Extension has done quite a bit of research in that area, of how you can use livestock to help achieve some of your fire fuels goals. Right now, the education component is being carried by the Cooperative Extension and Fire Safe Council. We’re participating in a public arena, through the BLM process and so forth, and indicating the same message.
Chairman Collins:
I wonder how we can compare reducing some AUMs somewhere in rural Nevada is the same as shutting down school buses or convenience stores, like Kmart. If we could find a way to put that term so that the populated areas of the state would understand. Just an encouragement there.
Don Henderson:
The public land grazing database that I was speaking of actually did that. It documented what has been the reduction of permitted public land grazing. Then we worked with the University of Nevada, Reno, Agriculture Statistics Service, and they demonstrated, based upon this loss, what the loss was in rancher wealth, or what they owned, and how that money circulated through – the multiplier effect through the local community. So we have some economic estimates on what the loss was up through 1999. What the Department is doing today is we’re moving to update that database to the present time, and we’re looking at putting it on the Web site. So the public can go to the Web site, point on the allotments, group allotments, the county, or the state, get a number of how many AUMs have been lost or gained over a period of time, and what the economic effects have been with that. We’re moving in that direction. The Web site is not up and running, but that is a high priority for us.
Assemblyman Marvel:
That’s a good point. The economic studies show the ad valorem basis is shrinking in rural Nevada. You people in the south are exporting taxes to some of these rural counties and I think the rural counties don’t like to be in that position. They’d rather get you to hold harmless, or at least not be importing taxes from the urban areas. This study guide could be extremely valuable.
Benny Romero:
You’re exactly right. That education needs to be expanded; we need to get that message out there. On the same line, with grazing and fire and everything else that’s happening out there, the invasion of – pinion-juniper continues to come down, the fuels continue to build up. When we burn, we burn hot and everything is destroyed. That message needs to get out there. I think we need help to get that message out there.
Chairman Collins:
You go to the money Committees to do that. Are there any other questions from the Committee?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Are you going to have someone over for the hearing tomorrow, for the BLM [Bureau of Land Management]?
Benny Romero:
Yes; I’m going to be there. One of the issues I’m bringing up is the reestablishment of the Grazing Advisory Boards, and an expansion of the Grazing Advisory Boards and what they can do for us, along with the Resource Advisory Councils; sort of Grazing Advisory Boards versus the Resource Advisory Councils.
Chairman Collins:
Could I put in a request to you, Mr. Henderson, to have Ms. Rafferty come over a do a presentation. Ms. Eissmann was in the Senate, and she’s glad to be back. If Ms. Rafferty could do a noxious weed thing, here, for us and cover some of what she does and how she promotes things. Mr. Grillo could join her, on how she’s promoting the industry. We need another informational – show us where the states and counties stand – we took a tour and heard from Douglas County, spending $200,000, how much is their money, state money, and federal grants. How much are we getting on top of that?
Don Henderson:
We would be happy to do that. We appreciate the invitation.
Chairman Collins:
The next group is the Nevada Fire Safe Council, Mr. Miller, and whomever he brought with him.
Elwood Miller, Executive Coordinator, Nevada Fire Safe Council:
[Introduced himself] I brought with me Mr. Smith, one of the founders of the Nevada Fire Safe Council and serves on our current Chair of the Board of Directors. What we’d like to do today for you is to present and answer questions that we continually receive regarding the Fire Safe Council, such as:
To start that, I would like to turn the microphone over to Mr. Smith who will give you the background, history, and story of how the Fire Safe Council came into being.
Ed Smith, Natural Resources Specialist, Cooperative Extension, University of Nevada, Reno:
[Introduced himself] I’m housed out of Douglas County. Today I’m wearing the hat of Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Nevada Fire Safe Council. The Nevada Fire Safe Council is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. The mission, simply stated, is to help Nevadans reduce the fire threat to their homes. Our beginnings can be traced back to the Living With Fire Conference that was held here in Carson City in 1999. It was hosted by former U.S. Senator Bryan; 120 Nevadans attended this two-day conference. It was Nevada’s first conference ever held to talk about the wildfire threat to our communities.
A conference resolution came out of that meeting. Simply stated, the resolution from these 120 participants from across the state was to create an independent organization consisting of all the stakeholders involved in this issue, and to pool their resources to address the fire threat. Very important two words [independent organization], in that they want an independent organization. The participants at this conference did not want an organization created that was affiliated with any particular government agency. After that conference, a number of us continued to meet, to try to bring this resolution into being. The Nevada Fire Safe Council is the embodiment of that conference resolution back in 1999.
I’d like to point out, little did we know at that time, that conference that was held in June of 1999 marked the beginning of Nevada’s record-setting 1999 fire season in which 1.7 million acres were burned. Even today, it’s still the record in the lower 48 states for the most acres burned in a state. After struggling for the first two years, the Nevada Fire Safe Council got up and running. That can largely be credited to the National Fire Plan coming on board. We have really only been functioning for a little over a year now, and that’s because we acquired the necessary funds to hire an Executive Coordinator, Mr. Miller, to carry out the wishes of the Board of Directors.
[Mr. Smith] Mr. Miller is the only employee of the Nevada Fire Safe Council and I think you’ll be very impressed with what the Board of Directors, with Mr. Miller’s assistance and the National Fire Plan grant funds, have been able to accomplish. It is important to me – I’ve spent a lot of time with this organization bringing it about – and it’s significant to me that we took a concept that started from scratch and brought it into reality, in a fairly short period of time. In my mind it’s one of the few things I can point to that is truly a grassroots effort that is supported by Nevadans from all walks of life across this state.
We never would have gotten as far as we have without the volunteer efforts of our Board of Directors, which are elected by our board members. Those board members reflect Nevada. We don’t really have any famous or glamorous people on our Board of Directors; we just have people who have a passion about this issue, of reducing the fire threat to Nevada’s communities. We have: a rancher from Jiggs, a County Commissioner from Battle Mountain, a firefighter from Clark County, an insurance agent from Reno, a housewife from Storey County, an extension agent from Eureka, and the list goes on. They’re just different aspects of this problem, of people who are willing to volunteer to do something about the wildfire threat to Nevadans.
With that, I’ll turn it over to Mr. Miller and he will update you on what the organization has managed to accomplish.
Elwood Miller:
I think all of you have a handout (Exhibit C) that was distributed. What I’d like to do at this point is to quickly walk you through some of that; I think some of the pages address and answer some of the questions that may be on your mind.
We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit membership corporation. Therefore, to belong to the Fire Safe Council, you have to be a member. You cannot be a stockholder, and in this volatile age that’s a good thing. On page 2 is a schematic on how we are organized. We tried to keep the organization of this council as simple as possible. We basically have a Board of Directors that sets policy guidelines and sets direction for the organization. Organized and associated formally with that Board of Directors are Community Chapters. One of our objectives and actions that we take is to organize local community citizen action groups into chapters. The chapters then have a focus on the fire issue in their community. On the second page of the handout, presently we have 13 chapters, the names of the chapters are listed there, and the names indicate, generally speaking, where they are located (Exhibit C).
[Mr. Miller] We have chapters from Lake Tahoe and Glenbrook to eastern Nevada, Baker; we have a chapter in Shantytown south down to Mt. Charleston. We do cover the state.
Chairman Collins:
Mr. Miller, would you tell us where each of these locations are, more specifically?
Elwood Miller:
Chairman Collins:
Where are the Ruby Marshes?
Elwood Miller:
Near Elko.
Chairman Collins:
I just wanted to make sure you told us where they were at more specifically.
Elwood Miller:
We are hard at work to get more chapters organized. The next page shows our Board of Directors; I don’t need to go through those, but it gives you a range, and I think Mr. Smith did a good job of indicating the diversity of individuals that we have on our Board of Directors. At the present time there are 12 but we have seats for 13; we have one vacant seat at the present time. As a side note, these individuals are elected by the general membership of the organization (Exhibit C).
The next page shows the organizations that support the Nevada Fire Safe Council. I would like to highlight a few of these that have provided extraordinary support to the development and activities of the Fire Safe Council. First of all, the Nevada Division of Forestry has been an early and strong supporter of the Fire Safe Council, providing funds through a grant assistance program for the operation and community work sponsored by the Fire Safe Council. Bureau of Land Management has been an extraordinary supporter; of particular note is Kevin Hall, the Fire Management Officer for that organization. The U.S. Forest Service has also been a very, very strong supporter, was there at the beginning, and has continued to provide support. Tom Baker is one of the individuals that is a standout in terms of supporting us.
The Sierra Front Wildfire Cooperators have also been extremely supporting of the work that we do. I would also have to say that the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension has been a very strong supporter, as evidenced by Mr. Smith’s presence here today.
The next page shows, in summary fashion, some of our first-year accomplishments. As Mr. Smith mentioned, when we began this year, even though the conference was held in 1999, it took quite a bit of time and discussion to determine exactly the nature of the organization. We’ve really been in business for about 14 months. When I came on board as the Executive Coordinator, what I had was, basically, a file with our Articles of Incorporation. From that point we had to develop the infrastructure of the organization and the organizational structure, the executive board had to be hired, a chapter affiliation process had to be developed; all of those structural and internal development kinds of things had to be put in place. They were completed early on in the year.
When we started, we had zero chapters; today we have 13 chapters represented across the state of Nevada. Funding through grants and contracts, and I will tell you these grants and contracts are received through a competitive process. At the present time, we have been awarded $1.3 million in grants and contracts over the last year. The funds that we receive are earmarked and held in trust for the communities and community chapters to assist in the funding of hazardous fuel reduction work and other kinds of threat reduction projects that are identified in the communities.
[Mr. Miller] The number of members: when we started the year, we had less than 50; today we have nearly 400 members that belong to the Nevada Fire Safe Council. Community fire safe plans: we’ve completed plans in the communities and we have three in progress at the present time. We’ve conducted 15 sessions in the communities, like educational programs related to the creation of defensible space as well as building characteristics that lend themselves to structure ignition. We identified in those communities, for the people, priority projects that they can work on to reduce the threat and reduce the hazards that are present. We have ten fuel reduction projects that have either been completed or are currently in progress. We have written and assisted communities in the writing of 13 grants focused on 13 projects, and a total value of those 13 grants is $1.2 million. Those grants are pending or currently under review.
One aspect that we did not expect to get into when we started all this, which has become a rather significant part of the activity of the Fire Safe Council, deals with the utilization of the biomass that is generated from the fuel reduction and hazard reduction projects. One of the greatest obstacles to community work in reducing fuels in their communities, and in creating defensible space, is once they began to remove the fuels, if they cut the brush and trees, they create an enormous amount of material, what we call biomass because it is biological mass with an organic origin. The obstacle is what to do with it, where you take it, where you put it.
The two most common ways that this material is removed from the community is first of all to haul it to a landfill, which makes landfill managers very unhappy. They don’t like this material; it’s bulky and it creates real problems for them. So they don’t like to receive it. The second way is to stack and pile and burn it. The community doesn’t generally like that approach. There are problems with smoke, especially for people who have respiratory problems in the community, plus the threat of escape of a controlled fire is always on people’s minds. Piling and burning in the community is not a very desirable or acceptable approach to removing this material.
So what can we do with it? The Nevada Fire Safe Council has taken a real leadership role in exploring possible beneficial uses of this material. We were successful in getting an economic development pilot project grant. We’re utilizing part of those funds to conduct a study, looking at the potential availability of biomass feed stock for beneficial uses within a 50-mile radius of Carson City, as a centralized point. That project is currently underway, and by the end of July, June perhaps, we will know how much of this material can be made available in this area. Once we know the volume and the characteristics of this material, we can then pursue possible uses of it.
[Mr. Miller] The technologies to utilize biomass today are increasing and absolutely astounding. There are biorefining techniques that can break down the chemical composition of biomass into highly usable high value products. Of course, the production of electrical power and heat is always on people’s minds in terms of utilization of this material. Utilizing wood fiber in synthetic wood products is another, and synthetic plastic products, is another approach. There are many technologies that are coming online that represent opportunities for industrial development utilizing this material that we considered to be waste in the past. Hopefully by midsummer we will have a good handle on how much material could potentially be available; from that point, knowing the amount and characteristics of it, we can begin to explore possible uses.
The next three pages give you a visual, in terms of the progression, of our chapter development over the past year, the funds received and how that has progressed over the last year, and our membership. You’ll notice a fairly large jump between the first of the year and the middle of the summer, and all the television coverage of Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon certainly didn’t hurt our recruiting efforts (Exhibit C).
The next section goes into considerable detail in terms of what has actually happened in the communities. I don’t intend to take your time this afternoon to go into that detail, but it’s there if you have a particular interest in a community. That detail is there for your information. Of particular note, what I would like to highlight in one community for you, two weeks ago I met with a group of citizens in a little town in Nye County called Manhattan. You may know where Manhattan is; it’s a delightful little community. It was seven individuals from that community, very concerned about the fire threat to their community, sat down in a canyon surrounded by pinion-juniper woodland. We had a wonderful conversation about the community and about the threat to the community in the course of the evening. We laid out a plan to create a firebreak that would tie together an established road network and in the creation of that firebreak, provide the community with protection, surrounding the community with either roads or firebreaks and provide the protection for that community.
I would also like to say, this is another example of how field personnel from our public agencies have been an integral part of this whole activity. The Nevada Division of Forestry field personnel, as well as Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service personnel, were all part of helping to develop that plan to build and create that firebreak around that community. Since that time, I indicated to them that it was necessary for them to organize a local chapter that we could work through, and that the chapter required that members must join the Nevada Fire Safe Council. Within this short period of time, they already have 40 residents signed up as members of the Nevada Fire Safe Council. I don’t know where they got those residents. I don’t think there are 40 residents in Manhattan, but I don’t care where they got them; we’ll take them. It is one example of how Nevadans at the community level recognize the threat that they face from wildfire, recognize the threat to their homes, lives, animals, and lifestyle. They are doing something, taking action, and organizing to get something done.
[Mr. Miller] We’re not here today to ask for funding; we’re not here to ask you for anything except your understanding and your awareness of what’s going on and how Nevadans are taking responsibility for reducing the threat to their community and their lifestyle. I also included a couple of our quarterly updates in the back, in case you want to read and get additional information.
Ed Smith:
We’ve brought with us a three-minute videotape. It was a segment that aired on Channel 8 here in northern Nevada last fall.
[Exhibit D: Wildfire video on the Virginia City Highlands Wildfire Threat Reduction Projects and the Nevada Fire Safe Council. University of Nevada’s Cooperative Extension, in conjunction with Channel 8, provided tips on making homes safer from wildfire, in individual and community efforts. Tips included: fuels reduction, water storage tanks, reflective signs, and evacuation plans.]
Chairman Collins:
Let me start with questions because I need to leave for another meeting. Where do you get the labor?
Elwood Miller:
Our labor source is all contracted; we use our grant funds to pay for the labor. The labor that we contract at this time comes from the Conservation Corps, which is an AmeriCorps federal project. They are working in Double Springs today. We also use the Honor Camp labor from the prisons. There are a few private contractors that have crews trained to do this kind of work. For example, the Incline Village Fire Department has a fuels management crew, the Slagg Mountain Crew, that is available to do work outside of Incline Village and outside the Tahoe Basin. It is a concern that the availability of labor to perform this kind of work is in short supply.
Chairman Collins:
I read through some of the other chapters – for example, getting the cooperation of different groups. You’ve got the utilities to be an equal partner on clearing trees around utility lines.
Elwood Miller:
Yes. In fact, Glenbrook is a prime example of that as part of the Glenbrook fuels reduction effort. The power company was an integral part of those discussions. In fact, the power company was the first organization into that community that reduced fuel under their power lines and in their right-of-way.
Chairman Collins:
We just met some of the AmeriCorps people last night at the Governor’s Mansion, those of us who went up there; they were explaining their program. Do you go outside of these chapters to do any fire prevention, or is it within the chapters and volunteer groups?
Elwood Miller:
We’re always working in communities where we don’t have chapters, to create chapters.
Chairman Collins:
The reason I’m asking is there was an issue maybe a year ago, Panaca Highway over to Utah, they were clearing trees, and the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] was mostly involved and some U.S. Forest Service, the bid came out of Ely versus it being a local contractor clearing and chipping trees. I didn’t know if that was something you coordinated with the BLM or if it was only within your chapter.
Elwood Miller:
In our Mission, we’re specific to private property. We don’t pursue grant funds on public lands.
Chairman Collins:
Strictly on private property land and communities. [Mr. Miller indicated that that was correct.] I’m going to turn the Chair over to Vice Chairman Claborn while I go to another Committee.
Vice Chairman Claborn:
I’d be interested in knowing how you get a permit for removing the fuel.
Ed Smith:
Outside of the Tahoe Basin, there’s not really a permit required, unless you get into a heavy-duty forestry project, like big timber; then there are Nevada Revised Statutes that deal with timber harvest on private property. As far as working on private property, we’re dealing mostly with sagebrush, bitterbrush, cheatgrass, and pinion-juniper. What it requires is private property owner permission, and that’s a big part of what the community does, is get themselves coordinated.
Vice Chairman Claborn:
You don’t have to go through the U.S. Forest Service or the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] or any of that?
Ed Smith:
Not on private property. Mr. Miller, you’re more familiar with the state forestry laws and NDF [Nevada Division of Forestry] rules.
Elwood Miller:
If we are into a situation where you have merchantable timber, then the state laws do apply in terms of timber harvesting, and permits would have to be secured from the State Forester in order to remove merchantable timber off of private property. That’s to ensure that proper silviculture and proper methods are utilized. I would point out, however, that we do have a concern. In surrounding states, organizations are pressing hard to push for clearances being applied to private property as well as to public lands. These clearances would deal with historic artifacts, cultural resources, endangered or threatened species, and other environmental concerns. It’s not that we object to ensuring that those resources are protected. But the time involved in going through the typical public process in order to ensure protection of these resources, as well as the cost involved, could greatly impair our ability to increase the protection to the communities.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Mr. Smith, private lands next to federal lands, do you have trouble getting fire guards to put around the property?
Ed Smith:
On private property or on the adjacent public lands?
Assemblyman Marvel:
The adjacent federal lands.
Ed Smith:
That depends; for example, different land management agencies, BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and U.S. Forest Service may not have projects that are identified as a priority where a community might. Let me back up. One of the things that we look for in a community to come forth is that they have a sincere desire and interest to reduce the fire threat to their community. They may not be the most threatened community in the state, but the most important ingredient for us is that there’s a willingness of these people to do something about it, and so we go help them.
Those communities may not be high priority communities from the land management agencies. I can think of, for example, up in the Tahoe Basin, around the community of Glenbrook, there has been interest in having the Forest Service treat the adjacent perimeter around the private land of Glenbrook. They recognize it as a problem; however, it’s not as big a priority. They’ve got other things on their list that they consider to be more pressing at the moment. Other places, though – the Forest Service, down by Holbrook Junction south of Gardnerville, right by Topaz Lake, have been excellent partners. In fact, we work hard to try to coordinate their fuels work on their adjacent lands with the private land and had a nice partnership down there. So it has varied.
Vice Chairman Claborn:
Are there any other questions? Seeing no other questions, we can let you go. [Mr. Smith and Mr. Miller thanked the Committee for their time.] With that conclusion, we can start with A.B. 193; I think Mr. Henderson is going to present this bill to the Committee.
Assembly Bill 193: Revises provisions governing commercial fertilizers and agricultural minerals. (BDR 51-567)
Don Henderson, Acting Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture:
[Introduced himself] With me, I have Dr. Chris Mason, who oversees and administers our pesticide and fertilizer labs. [Provided Exhibit E.] A.B. 193 is a bill coming from the Department of Agriculture. It provides four major changes to our current fertilizer laws. I’ll present each of these changes separately and talk a little about them.
The first is, in the interests of Homeland Security, this bill would allow the Director of Agriculture to track the sales of certain fertilizers that may also be used as explosives. Fertilizer may contain substances that can be used as explosives. We were asked for details of fertilizer sales in the state by law enforcement officers after September 11, 2001, but the Department of Agriculture was only able to give information on total tonnage sales. Unlike dangerous pesticides and explosive grades, grades of materials used in fertilizers are currently not tracked, but they may be refined and used in explosive devices (Exhibit E).
[Don Henderson] The proposed amendment offered by A.B. 193 gives the Director the authority to designate fertilizers as restricted, require their registration with the Department, and allow their sales to be tracked. The type of materials needing this tracking and designation would be determined during workshops with the concurrence of local, state, and federal law enforcement officers and experts.
As currently worded, A.B. 193 requires that registered sellers report the sale of restricted fertilizers on a monthly basis to the Department. Since we originally submitted this bill, we started looking at that reporting requirement and, quite frankly, determined it would be too onerous for our situation. As such, we have brought forth an amendment (Exhibit F) I believe you have in front of you, that would change that requirement. The proposed amendment would deal with page 5, line 7, or Section 7, subsection 6, in your draft bill. The proposed amendment would basically allow the Director to determine reporting requirements in the future during the regulation development, after we’ve had the chance to consult with the sellers and law enforcement officers.
Although there is a fee provision in the bill to cover program costs for this new program, in practice we anticipate just adding a rider to existing restricted-use pesticide dealer licenses and nursery licenses. This should cover most of the fertilizer sellers in Nevada. There may be a few outside state dealers who would be required with this registration process who would be added to it.
The second major revision relates to fertilizers which can be contaminated with materials such as heavy metals that can end up in the food supply. Current state statutes allow for the regulation of nutrients, but not contaminants, in fertilizers. A provision is added in Section 5 of A.B. 193 that allows the Director to control contaminants in fertilizer. Other Western states, such as California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, have developed standards to ensure that fertilizers and other agriculture materials that are used in their state are not contaminated with excess amounts of toxic, heavy metals. We hope to follow suit in this trend, with the adoption of this bill.
To give you an example of some of the importance of this, China recently attempted to sell fertilizer in Washington containing over 10 percent cadmium. At this point, in our existing statutes, we would have no authority to ban the sale of such a material in Nevada.
[Don Henderson] The third proposed revision would add a penalty fee for selling an unregistered or late-registered fertilizer product in Nevada. Currently, there is no penalty for selling products before they are registered, hence no incentive for proper submission of the required documentation. Charging such a penalty worked well in our pesticide program.
The fourth and final proposed revision is to simplify the process of registering a fertilizer or agriculture material for sale in Nevada. The requirement for duplicate applications is eliminated, and the requirement for deposit of a sample of the product is eliminated. The reason for that is that it’s just no longer required for these duplicate applications. The original application forms are returned to the register as the registration certificates. It is no longer necessary, as certificates are generated electronically by the Department [of Agriculture], as needed.
The requirement for a sample deposit is onerous on both the register and the Department. Shipping, storage, and disposal costs would be eliminated or reduced considerably if this provision is enacted. With that, that’s our overview of the bill and we would be happy to answer any questions.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Mr. Henderson, have you run this bill by the people who sell fertilizers?
Chris Mason, Ph.D., Section Chief, Registration and Laboratory Services, Division of Plant Industry, Nevada Department of Agriculture:
[Introduced himself] Not at this point. We didn’t anticipate any major costs involved to the sellers; most of them were already registered as nursery or restricted use dealers. We were going to basically use the workshop and hearing process for their input.
Don Henderson:
If I may add to that response, I think if you look at these proposed statute changes, we’ve made an attempt to keep them general enough that we can work with the industry during the hearing process to meet both their needs and our needs in these regards.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I think the explosives that were used at the Oklahoma City bombing were a fertilizer. Do you have any idea whether something like that would be outlawed?
Dr. Chris Mason:
I don’t think there are any plans to outlaw. I think it might be of use to law enforcement and other agencies to be able to track these sales, and anything suspicious would be picked up. There is an onus on the fertilizer dealers, obviously, but if there’s any kind of suspicious activity, they should be reporting that already. We were asked after September 11, 2001 specifically by – it came down through the National Organization of Fertilizer Regulators to put out information requests to various agricultural dealers to keep an eye out for suspicious activity. This would basically formalize that. The first World Trade Center bombing also used fertilizer material.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Do you know who all these suppliers are right now?
Dr. Chris Mason:
We think we have a pretty good handle on it. Most of them are registered as nurseries or as pesticide dealers. In the backcountry, most of the general agricultural dealers sell pesticides. We believe we have a handle on most of them.
Assemblyman Marvel:
What about the mines that use the fertilizer for explosives?
Dr. Chris Mason:
That comes under a different authority; that’s a much higher-grade material. We’re talking about ammonium nitrate, mostly here, and that comes under hydrous ammonia. We’d have to bring those guys in. That’s not normally used in the mining industry.
Assemblyman Marvel:
They use it for blowing holes out. They use that and diesel.
Dr. Chris Mason:
Yes, that’s used in the explosive. There are explosive mixes that can be made that way. There was a mining mineral material plant up in Battle Mountain, at one time.
Assemblyman Marvel:
I was called about two days ago, they’re going to [inaudible] that plant. And unfortunately they’ll be bringing it in from Wyoming. Do you have any kind of interstate compacts or agreements?
Dr. Chris Mason:
That we’d have to work on. If they were selling into the state, then we’d –
Assemblyman Marvel:
They’re going to be supplying the mines, because they’re closing that plant.
Dr. Chris Mason:
I know they were supplying some of the ranchers out there with ammonium nitrate. Out of state it would be a problem, but if they’re selling into the state we’d require them to register with us. We’d probably have limited enforcement over them. We’d hope that some other states would follow.
Assemblyman Marvel:
That stuff, if anyone gets their hands on it – with September 11, 2001, and with what we have right now, you just never know who is going to be purchasing it.
Dr. Chris Mason:
There’s another aspect to that, which is plant security, which we really wouldn’t have much authority over, but that’s something that everyone who stores any kind of dangerous material just has to keep an eye on.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I’m more concerned about the restrictions that are imposed on it, whether it be injurious to a person, pollinating insects, bees, animals, crops, and yet you’re saying you’re not going to require a sample. So if I order a load from Landview or Simplot and it comes in, how are you going to respond if it was in fact hazardous or the wrong mix, from a complaint from me? You’re not getting samples from the load or the suppliers? And who’s going to handle the complaint?
Dr. Chris Mason:
We do have the authority to sample, we’re just eliminating – under the law as it stands, this part hasn’t been enforced, everyone who registered a fertilizer is required to submit a pound of that fertilizer for analysis every year. That’s a lot of material that we were not getting through. We had that authority, and I personally much prefer to go and sample out in the field at your request or just as part of an ag enforcement initiative, to go out and sample and find out what’s actually there, as against a pre-prepared sample that someone sends specially for my analysis, which may not reflect what’s really out there.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Just a follow-up on that, you anticipate you would have some field checks made, and that’s how you’re going to do the enforcement. I agree; they’re going to send you what they want you to see for the initial analysis. I’m concerned about additional regulations driving the costs. Fertilizer went up $38 a ton one day last week, so I think we’re all very concerned if you’re going to put more regulation on it, if it will in fact impact the dealers in Nevada, or ranchers.
Don Henderson:
At this point, the program costs for the restricted fertilizer program we’re expecting to be able to handle within our existing fee programs, so there won’t be a registration. I think that’s the important thing, and that’s why the Department [of Agriculture] has put such a priority on our Ag Enforcement Unit, that allows us the ability to pull over vehicles on the highway, to look not only for just quality, pest, and nursery materials, but also to pull over fertilizer loads and so forth. In addition to that, we will respond to complaints, inquiries, and requests from the buyer of the materials if they would like to have it checked. That’s our program at this point. The more we can build up the Ag Enforcement Unit and get people out in the field, the more inspections we’ll do out on site, but we’ll always respond to buyer inquiries.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Do you have any kind of an agreement with the Nevada Highway Patrol or the Motor Carrier Division?
Don Henderson:
We have an informal agreement; there’s nothing formal. They notify us of their inspection site schedule and we tie into that and we run joint Highway Patrolmen and Department of Agriculture inspections, as the program budget allows. We’re working hand in hand. There’s a certain amount of cross-training that is occurring. There probably needs to be more cross-training between the Agriculture inspectors and Highway Patrol officers. We’re doing the best we can with what we have.
Vice Chairman Claborn:
Any more questions? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Henderson and Dr. Mason, for your testimony.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Does the amendment take care of your problems?
Don Henderson:
Yes, it takes care of our concerns with the bill. We ask that the bill be passed as proposed to be amended.
Assemblyman Marvel:
You want this one in it?
Don Henderson:
Yes, we would like this body to include this amendment in A.B. 193.
Vice Chairman Claborn:
Thank you again, Mr. Henderson and Dr. Mason. Does anyone else want to speak on A.B. 193? Is there any opposition to A.B. 193? I’ll bring it back to Committee. We won’t take any action on this today since the Chairman is gone. There are three more matters. Is there any new business? We have some Committee minutes reports.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I’d like to formally return my minutes from February 10, 2003, which were fascinating presentations on land management.
Vice Chairman Claborn:
Mr. McCleary, did you find these to be correct?
Assemblyman McCleary:
I could find no obvious mistakes.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I’m not sure why we both reviewed the February 10 minutes, but I found them to be complete to the best of my knowledge as well.
Vice Chairman Claborn:
Did you find these to be complete as well?
Assemblyman Geddes:
Yes sir.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I find the minutes reflecting February 12, 2003, to be accurate. In fact, better than the ones I’m reviewing for Government Affairs. Good job, staff.
Vice Chairman Claborn:
With that, we’ll turn it back over to Chairman Collins.
Chairman Collins:
Have all your minutes been returned? You did a good job, Assemblyman Claborn. I appreciate it and everyone’s patience while I was out. If the Committee is comfortable, I’d like to go back to A.B. 193. I understand there’s a friendly amendment.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 193.
ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
The only thing I want to really clarify, and maybe we need Mr. Henderson back up there, but there will be no increase in the fees if in fact the person is already licensed for pesticides, then the fertilizer won’t increase his fee structure. Is that correct?
Don Henderson:
At this point there will be no fees. This proposed bill does establish the ability for us to charge fees in the future. Of course, we’ll do that through regulation and through a public process. But at this point, our commitment is, and Dr. Mason, correct me if I’m wrong, our commitment is there would be no additional fees, at least over the next year or two.
Chairman Collins:
Dr. Mason was shaking his head no, for the record. Any other discussion on the bill? The motion is to amend and do pass.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Christensen and Ms. Ohrenschall were absent for the vote.)
Chairman Collins:
Anything else that needs to come before the Committee? Did you get it all handled, Mr. Vice Chair? [Compliments on Vice Chairman Claborn’s conduction of the meeting.] Make sure the compliments to the Vice Chairman are on the record. Seeing nothing else coming before the Committee, we are adjourned. [Adjourned at 2:52 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Erin Channell
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Chairman
DATE: