Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife & Cultural Resources Interim Committee minutes for October 7 & 8, 2003.

DRAFT ONLY - APPROVAL PENDING
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife & Cultural Resources Interim Committee

Ranch A October 7 and 8, 2003

Beulah, Wyoming

PRESENT: Senator Delaine Roberts, Cochairman

Representative Mike Baker, Cochairman

Senator Bruce Burns

Senator Keith Goodenough

Senator John Hanes

Representative Dave Edwards

Representative George McMurtrey

Representative Jerry Iekel

Representative Layton Morgan

Representative Mick Powers

Representative Jim Slater

Legislative Service Office: Dave Gruver

Others Present: See Appendix 1(a) and (b).

ABSENT: Senator Tex Boggs

Representatives Steve Harshman and Bill Thompson

AGENDA: See Appendix 2.

* * * * *

Cochairman Baker called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Cochairman Roberts moved approval of the minutes of the June 9 and 10 meeting. The motion passed.

State parks

Pat Green, Joe Bonds and Todd Thibodeau, Department of State Parks and Historic Sites addressed the development of a master plan for state parks and historic sites. Mr. Green provided updated information concerning the expenses of state parks, and typical information currently available for state parks and for historic sites. {Appendices 3 and 4.) Mr. Thibodeau also provided information on a comparison of Wyoming parks with other state's parks and the national park system. Appendices 5 and 6.

Mr. Thibodeau, explained the development of the site criteria for a master plan for state parks and historic sites. This master plan criteria was previously provided to the Committee. (Appendix 7). It was noted that a number of state park sites are not actually owned by the state, but are managed as state parks under agreement with federal agencies. The different state parks and historic sites in the system were reviewed; including staffed and unstaffed sites. The unstaffed sites are problematic for the department. If new facilities are taken on, the sites need adequate staffing in order to make the new facility something that the public can use.

Mr. Thibodeau compared Wyoming's acre per staff being managed under the state park system with other surrounding states and compared the same with visitor per staff. The comparison with federal parks; shows federal parks staff per visitor is much higher than the state system. The proposed criteria for additions to the system were reviewed. The Committee discussed taking the proposed criteria to those currently making requests. Mr. Green stated that if the direction of the Committee is to do so, then the department will. He noted that there has not been an application process up to this date; thus the criteria has not been applied to any application thus far. Sites which have indicated that they would like to be state parks are Afton Intermittent Springs, Vore Buffalo Jump, and Hams Fork River in Kemmerer.

Regarding the review process, Mr. Green stated that he believed the request should first go to the TRW committee and the Committee would forward the request to the Department before the Department would consider the request. The Department would bring to the Committee requests that they receive. Mr. Thibodeau noted the proposed criteria had not yet been presented to the public. He reviewed the development of the criteria. Cochairman Baker noted that an issue that might be included is potential harm to local economy. Mr. Green stated that it would be expected that adequate funding be included with any addition to the system. Representative Morgan, suggested that part of the request should be the expected cost of the site.

One of the issues of concern is whether the sites not owned by the state can be managed in a way which meets the system's goals. The Committee and Mr. Green discussed requests for areas only to be "designated" state parks; Mr. Green stated they are not ruling out the issue of designation only entirely, but there are concerns with what will be requested later and whether the area would be maintained as a "state park" should be. Liability and responsibility issues also remain with such a proposal.

Cochair Roberts spoke in favor of the process being developed. Senator Hanes noted an updated mission statement of the Department would be a critical component. Phil Noble, Director, testified the Department does have strategic plan, but it needs to be updated.

The Committee then reviewed the proposed criteria. Cochair Baker stated that there should be a set number of people evaluating proposals. The Committee questioned who would make appointments to the evaluation committee. Mr. Green stated that the department would go forward if requested, but that would be the Committee's choice. Mr. Bonds noted that the possibility of portions of sites being subject to private development would be a consideration for the Department in the future in making recommendations to the Committee. Representative McMurtrey noted that travel and tourism staff should be consulted to see the effects under the economic provisions included in the criteria. Other items members suggested be included were the date given and the date submitted, a one page narrative and assessment of the local impact. Cochair Baker noted that the distance needs to be considered in conjunction with the number of local persons supporting the park. Cochair Baker noted that the development and maintenance costs could be divided considerations.

Cochair Roberts discussed the criteria for the geographical considerations and distance from population centers. He noted that other highway travel, beyond interstate travel considerations. Mr. Bonds noted there was a philosophical issue as to whether the revenue generated is the important issue over preserving sites; i.e., what is a "successful" park in the system.

Committee discussion turned to the territorial prison. Mr. Green noted that the prison park has downsized and has had discussions with the Department regarding becoming part of the statewide system under the normal budget of the Department. He emphasized that the decision must be made by the park itself first, not by the Department. At this point the park does not appear to be planning to request another appropriation for operation this year. They might be seeking an appropriation request for building upkeep.

Keyhole Reservoir issues

Pat Green addressed the Committee. The recreation commission discussed the issue last week. Mark Hughes and Michael Kuglin, representing the Sundance Boat Club and Keyhole Boat Club, respectively, addressed the Committee. There are approximately 50 members in the two clubs. Mr. Hughes presented information on the history of the boat clubs. He provided a memorandum of understanding between the Bureau of Reclamation and Department of Commerce for administering lands of the Keyhole Reservoir. He also provided letters to Representative Cubin and Senator Enzi from the Bureau of Reclamation regarding use of Keyhole Reservoir. (Appendices 8 through 10)

The Bureau of Reclamation has taken the position that the public use of reservoirs in the system is incompatible with private boat clubs. The boat club occupies 18 acres of the entire site. The clubs currently operate on an annual lease basis; which is intended to be terminated as of December 31, 2005 by the Department of State Parks and Historic Sites, under the operating agreement between the Department and the Bureau of Reclamation. Overall, the boat clubs use less than one-tenth of one percent of the shoreline available at Keyhole. Doug Ramsey, president of the Sundance Boat Club addressed the issue of how people become members of the boat clubs.

The clubs pay approximately $17,700 in annual rental fees for the use of the property. In Mr. Hughes' opinion the issues cited as reasons for terminating the boat club leases have been addressed. Mr. Hughes addressed the memorandum of understanding. The Bureau of Reclamation has retained the right to oversee the leases by the Department. Historically, the Department appeared to be more supportive of continuing the leases for the boat clubs than the current administration. Overall Mr. Hughes believed there are 15 to 20 other sites that could be developed instead of the boat club sites. He asked the Committee to attempt to retain the boat club leases. Mr. Hughes disputed the revenue figures provided by the Department regarding visitation to Keyhole and Glendo and disputed conclusions in the master plan developed by the Bureau of Reclamation regarding visitation to Keyhole and the need for additional campgrounds. He asked the Committee to inquire further into the facts and determinations made by the Bureau of Reclamation.

Mr. Kuglin, testified that the Bureau finds issues that would lead to terminating the boat club leases and once those issues are resolved, additional issues are found to terminate the boat club leases. The projected increased use is not justified. He further noted that the boat clubs are not set on retaining the exact site they currently occupy. They would be willing to move to other sites on the Reservoir. He noted that the current proposal is not supported by the needs for additional campsites and was not one of the alternatives presented in the proposed master plan. He provided a survey of campground occupancy at Keyhole. (Appendix 11)

Cochairman Roberts asked what the Committee was being asked to do and whether this will affect the Buffalo Bill boat club. Mr. Hughes responded that the Buffalo Bill boat club is subject to the jurisdiction of a different Bureau segment. He noted the Committee had influence with the Governor and the Department. Under the memorandum of understanding the Department is allowed to manage the area in its own best judgment subject to the Bureau review. Mr. Hughes reiterated that the Legislative Branch has control over the budget of the Department of State Parks.

The Committee heard from Jeff Middleton, Bureau of Reclamation. Dennis Breitzman, Bureau of Reclamation, also addressed the Committee. They provided a copy of the BuRec master plan for Keyhole state park. (Appendix 12) Mr. Middleton explained the process for developing the master plan and provided a history of the reservoir. In 1980, the Wyoming Recreation Commission recommended that leases by the boat clubs should continue subject to further years' usage patterns.

Mr. Middleton explained the problems boat clubs present; including safety issues, discouragement of public use and inadequate ability of the boat club to maintain roads. Existing campsites were not developed for the size of recreational vehicle now being used by the public. The revenue that would be generated from the campsites is estimated to exceed the lease rentals in the view of the BuRec. There are very limited spots for campgrounds and for boat clubs; either the water is too far from where the campground could be placed or the area drops dramatically; tree cover and other issues factor into the determination of acceptable campgrounds.

The boat club spaces are currently set at 48. Average occupancy for the boat clubs was very low in the BuRec surveys over the last few years. The areas in which the clubs are located are the prime areas for camping and boating. The solution in the BuRec's view is to allow everyone to use spots that the boat club occupies now, and uses only 20% of the time. Forty years ago, the boat club use was probably appropriate but access is better now and the public should be able to use the prime location on the reservoir.

The Committee discussed whether the BuRec plans are to phase out all private leases for boat clubs. Dennis Breitzman responded that different reservoirs are treated differently. As a general policy, the BuRec is to not allow new exclusive use and eliminate existing exclusive use when possible.

Improvements at Keyhole are usually federal funds matched 50% by state funds; though there are some specific exceptions.

Committee members questioned why the boat club exclusive use is different than the exclusive use provided by the concessionaire. The BuRec position is that the concessionaire provides a public service and without the rental of the exclusive use of trailers by the concessionaire he cannot make the living necessary to continue to provide that service. Mr. Middleton noted that the BuRec is going to be seeking changes in the exclusive use area under the concessionaire's agreement in the future.

Joe Bonds addressed the park usage numbers. He explained that the current program is based on vehicle counters and park usage surveys. Using the two and statistical data the park department calculates usage. The current process for visitation counts has been in placed since 1978. Based on historical trends, Mr. Bonds stated that it appears there is going to be increased usage of Keyhole.

Mr. Breitzman testified that the BuRec task is to operate dams and provide water; they look to partner with the state recreation departments regarding recreational aspects. Phil Noble, stated that no issue currently facing him is more contentious; after numerous meetings his Department has concluded that the BuRec plan is acceptable. He urged the Committee to continue to review the issue before making any determination. He also emphasized that this does not mean that there are not other alternatives that could be explored.

The Committee consensus was to review the information presented and address the issue again at its next meeting.

Collections management

Wendy Bredehoft, State Parks and Historic Sites, addressed management of archeological and other artifacts. Most of the state's collections are actually owned by others. The increase in storage of archives is a problem for the department. The same issue is present for artifact collections. Since 1990, 54% of artifacts accepted remain uncatalogued.

Overall, visitation to the state museum has increased and the Department is not yet ready for the additional public requests for access to artifact collections. This is not an unusual situation in comparison to other states. Ms. Bredehoft provided information regarding the increased use of websites to provide access to artifacts and historical information. Appendix 13. The Department is considering additional budget requests to provide better internet access between the different sections of the Department. It is also considering conversion of current records to electronic storage. Once that is done, there will be a recurring cost to continually upgrade to the newest storage technology.

Cochair Baker asked how the Department can control costs if the collections are driven by others. Ms. Bredehoft acknowledged that some of the collections are paid by fees charged to companies creating the collection through activities. There are specific cost allocations to agencies for archive collections. Cochairman Baker asked if the department could come up with concrete examples of conflicting statutes that Ms. Bredehoft suggested existed. Ms. Bredehoft noted the issue had just been recently raised to her and she did not know the extent of the conflicts.

The Committee discussed the needs for increasing storage capacity. Cochairman Roberts asked if the Department was looking at requesting more staff or more money or both. At this time, that is unknown, the Department is conducting additional internal review.

ATV and snowmobile reciprocity

Kim Raap, addressed the issue of reciprocity for snowmobile and ATVs. He had previously provided information on the issue to the Committee and reviewed that information. The amount of sales from out of state nonresident snowmobile fees for 2003 was $632,951; bringing nonresident permitting fees to fully 50% of the funding for the trails program. The resident fees have remained static over the past few years. Overall granting reciprocity for snowmobile fees would greatly affect the ability of the Department to continue the trail grooming program.

Mr. Raap also addressed ATV fees and the revenue generated from those fees. Cochairman Roberts questioned why the issue has become a statewide reciprocity issue; his concern had been over the small segment of trails moving between Idaho and the western part of the state.

Members of the public representing snowmobile organizations testified as to the success story of the program and the desire to continue the funding source as is. Lee Yates, co-chair of the Wyoming Trails Council also spoke in support of the program.

Vore Buffalo jump

Gene Gade and Charles Rherer, UW professors addressed the Committee. Professor Gade provided information regarding the Vore Buffalo Jump. He reviewed the scientific values of the site, the types of Indian tribes and periods of usage of the site by the various tribes. The site was used by at least five tribes between 1500 A.D. and 1800 A.D. The vision is to continue scientific research, educational and interpretative presentations, cultural programs and economic development and tourism in what they believe could be a world class facility.

Professor Gade addressed expected economic returns from the developed site. He expects at least 20 jobs on site, with a contribution of $5 to $7 million generated to the local economy. According to the northeast tourism coalition of three counties, the number one priority for the northeast part of the state should be a year round visitor welcoming center; which could be combined with the jump site. The site is currently owned by the foundation. The University had control of the site but did not develop it in time for the gift to vest in the University.

The potential costs of the project were reviewed. The infrastructure for water, sewer, etc. were estimated at $2 million. The phase I construction costs were estimated at about $5.25 million. A scaled down phase I was suggested at $1.75 million. Professor Gade suggested that the foundation would be responsible for fund raising for phase II and beyond. The federal government might fund part of the first phase. The state of Wyoming is being asked to fund initial infrastructure and to discuss whether the site would be part of the state parks and historic sites system.

Former Representative Marlene Simons noted the Wyoming DOT was negative about the proposal. It would require an off-ramp from the highway and thus would require federal and state DOT approval. She also indicated as a landowner near the site she opposed the running of a ramp on her property.

Professor Gade agreed that a single representative of the Wyoming DOT was not enthusiastic, but that did not mean the DOT was completely opposed to the project; they have been in contact with concerned entities and there are other possible solutions. The Committee recessed at 4:00 p.m. to visit the site.

Tuesday, October 8, 2003

Cochairman Baker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.

Wildlife consumptive use

He explained the Joint Subcommittee action on wildlife damages. The Subcommittee met on October 6 and heard proposals for changes in wildlife damage reimbursement statutes. The Subcommittee asked for draft legislation allowing for implementation of a number of proposals presented on a pilot project basis. Up to four pilot projects would be operated for a time period of three to five years, with a $100,000 appropriation placed in the bill draft as a placeholder. The bill draft will be presented to the Agriculture Committee at its next meeting. Senator Goodenough noted that he disagreed with establishing any new program without the problem being established first.

Cochairman Baker asked if the Committee wished to place the criteria for the state parks master plan in statute. Representative Iekel moved to have the criteria drafted in statutory form with a process outlined. The motion was seconded by Senator Hanes and approved.

Wolf plan

Gregg Arthur, interim Director Game and Fish Department, and John Emmerich, Game and Fish Department, provided a background of the wolf reintroduction and delisting issue. The Commission and Governor support delisting of the wolf as soon as possible.

Mr. Arthur testified that the Department supported alternative b in the draft legislation 04 LSO 0138.W3 (appendix 14), the simplest change to clarify a perceived ambiguity in the law. He asked the Committee not to take any final action on the legislation at this meeting; awaiting to see what the independent reviews reveal.

John Emmerich provided an explanation of the Wyoming wolf management plan, a comparison of the three state plans and the process for delisting. He explained the process established by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for reviewing the three state plans. There will be an independent review completed by November 1, 2003 and a final decision by January 1, 2004 on plan adequacy. Mr. Emmerich was hopeful that if the USFWS sees deficiencies it will notify the states and allow corrective action to be taken. The earliest the delisting would be completed appears to be the end of 2004.

Key elements of the plan highlighted by Mr. Emmerich were that Wyoming would commit to maintaining fifteen packs statewide and seven packs outside of the national parks. The Department will monitor wolves statewide but will only manage for wolves outside of the national parks. Mr. Emmerich reviewed the other specifics of the plan, including the requirement for any person taking a wolf to provide the pelt and skull to the Department; noting the statute requires only reporting of the place of the kill. Where classified as predators, the Department of Agriculture will manage the wolves. Nuisance wolves will be managed under cooperative agreements. Property owners will be allowed to take wolves causing damage, whether classified as trophy game animals or predators. Livestock compensation would not be available where the wolves are predators, but would be if they were trophy game animals.

Mr. Emmerich stated the wolves will be expensive to manage and the department is hopeful that federal funds will made available to the states to do so.

Cochairman Baker asked whether the State will have any input between the time the independent peer reviews are done and the USFWS makes the final decision. Mr. Wichers stated that the federal agency has indicated that there would be feedback to the states and that the USFWS has stated they are committed to getting wolves delisted.

The Department believes that wolves should be managed and maintained in the northwest portion of the state. The Department also believes the wolves need to be delisted as soon as possible. The Department can manage and maintain 7 packs outside of the park areas. The financial impacts are manageable at that level, assuming federal funding is received.

Cochairman Roberts asked about the predator status. There are concerns primarily at the Washington level regarding the designation. But at the same time, other federal officials have indicated that if there are adequate mechanisms in place to ensure the maintenance of the packs the designation should be acceptable.

Wyoming uses the designation "packs" rather than "breeding pairs". Mr. Emmerich testified that the monitoring requirements are more difficult when attempting to document breeding pairs rather than packs. Statistically fifteen packs equates to ten breeding pairs. The Committee discussed the number of packs currently in Wyoming and the movement of those packs between states.

Marvin Applequist, Wyoming Farm Bureau, noted that the proposed draft legislation would require management for more than seven outside of the park areas and suggested that the bill should be made clear that the state only manage for seven outside the areas. He also suggested that the proposed wolf data analysis units encompass a much larger area than was initially indicated. As far as providing the skull and the pelts, Mr. Applequist stated that all the USFWS needs is a patch of hair. There are certain times of year where it will be difficult to provide a pelt and skull. Regarding predator status he noted that the USFWS concern appears not to be that predator status in Wyoming, but that the status is not in place in Idaho and Montana and USFWS is concerned with explaining why that is not acceptable in other states. Overall he questions whether the plan is completely supported by the statute. Before the law is changed, he believes the USFWS should review the plan submitted and the current law. Mr. Applequist noted that when rules are being submitted they will be reviewed in the normal process.

Jim Magagna, Wyoming Stock Growers Association, raised issues as to whether wolves established outside of northwest Wyoming would be counted as one of the seven outside packs. The Department stated that packs will count wherever they are.

Representative Frank Philp stated that if there were differences in the legislation and the plan, the plan should have to conform to the legislation. He also felt the state should maintain the course and not change because the federal government wishes changes were made.

Patricia Dowds, Wyoming Wildlife Federation, suggested that the Game and Fish economic implications are not fully supported and that other economic considerations are not being fully acknowledged. Additionally there are others who do appreciate that wolves are in Wyoming and people travel to Wyoming to see wolves.

Bryce Reece, Wyoming Woolgrowers, stated that the Game and Fish Department numbers were questionable regarding animals which would be killed by wolves and the economic impact wolves will cause. He also had suggested changes to the statutes but withheld them in the interest of time and the failure of the Committee to consider the draft legislation at this meeting. The inclusion of the Gros Ventre as a trophy game animal section for wolves was a concern.

Ben Lamb, Wyoming Conservation Voters, addressed the Committee regarding the economic impact wolves have on travel and tourism industry in Wyoming. Wolves are also having biological impacts that are beneficial, such as reducing coyote numbers and dispersing wildlife.

Other members of the public requested that the Committee remember the goal is to get wolves delisted as soon as possible.

Mike O'Donnell, Attorney General's Office, on behalf of the Governor's Office echoed that the goal is to get wolves delisted as soon as possible. He cautioned that the legislation should not be changed at this point or that only the most minimal changes should be made, as suggested in alternative B. The State should not assume too much of the effort to manage wolves since the federal government introduced wolves. The Committee consensus was to not take action on proposed legislation at this meeting.

Litigation plan

Mr. O'Donnell and Bill Wichers, addressed the issue of potential litigation against the federal government regarding the introduction of species into the state. Mr. O'Donnell testified that the State successfully sued the federal government over the number of wild horses in the State. There are vehicles for suing the federal government for failing to carry out its own policies. There is some hope for damages from the federal government based upon a recent tenth circuit case. Such a case must be brought in the federal court of claims if it exceeds $10,000. There is a possibility of bringing a number of claims of less than $10,000 for compensation.

Mr. O'Donnell noted that they are attempting to divine legislative intent, and in doing so, see the result that requires the federal government to pay for mandates regarding wildlife. Senator Roberts noted that the State should also seek to see if the statutory statement that the State owns wildlife within its borders is accurate. Mr. O'Donnell agreed with that suggestion.

The Committee discussed the possibility of expanding the litigation plans to areas outside of the wildlife context. Mr. O'Donnell noted that the plan is currently limited to that area based upon the legislation passed. There was no action taken on the issue. Mr. O'Donnell stated that the funding for further action is not known and the Attorney General's Office will continue to review the issue.

Mr. Wichers testified that the Game and Fish Commission was required by the legislation last session to demand reimbursement for introduction of species into Wyoming by the federal government. In response to comments as to whether the goal was mutating to avoid protections of the endangered species act, Mr. O'Donnell responded that Congress does have power under the supremacy clause to enact certain laws and he does not see any reasonable likelihood that Wyoming will be able to be beyond the effects of the endangered species act.

No action was taken by the Committee on the issue.

Residency requirements.

Steve DeCecco and Terry Cleveland, Game and Fish Department addressed the Committee. Representative Edwards summarized the issues raised before the Residency Subcommittee. The Committee discussed the issue of the use of department of defense form DD 214 to prove residency of military personnel. Mr. Cleveland explained that the form establishes the persons home of record upon entry into the military.

Mr. DeCecco explained that the primary goal of the bill (04 LSO 0034.W6, appendix 15) was to reconstructed residency statutes to combine like issues in the same provisions. A major change is that a person cannot reside outside of the state for more than 180 days and claim residency privileges. The Committee discussed that limitation and enforcement provisions. The Committee asked whether the person who keeps a mobile home elsewhere throughout the year would lose his residency if that movement was beyond 180 days. Mr. Cleveland replied that under the current law the person must be domiciled in Wyoming to begin with and a person who does not have a permanent location in Wyoming does not have a domicile in Wyoming and thus is not a resident. Mr. Cleveland stated that the bill draft removes some ambiguities. Mr. DeCecco noted that for minors, the restriction is that the minor cannot have claimed residency in any other state, territory or country for hunting and fishing purposes for a year. The Committee discussed the penalty provisions for the violations and the Department suggested existing penalties are strong enough.

Senator Hanes moved the bill be sponsored as a Committee bill. Representative McMurtrey seconded the motion. Representative Edwards moved to delete page 3-line 15 after "if" through line 20. Senator Goodenough seconded and the motion passed. Senator Burns moved page 10-line 30. delete "in writing to that proof" and insert "to an oath of residency". Representative Edwards seconded and the motion passed. Representative Morgan moved to change the effective date to January 1, 2005. The motion was seconded by Representative Powers and passed. The main motion, as amended, passed unanimously.

Preference points

Mr. Wichers provided an explanation of the preference point bill draft (04 LSO 0031.W4) appendix 16. He explained the bill was the same as last session other than the addition of some technical changes and the addition of language allowing for the setting of lower fees for youth. Hale Kreychik, Game and Fish Commissioner and members of the public spoke in support of the bill; noting that outfitters and hunters generally support the bill because it establishes the likelihood of drawing a license.

Senator Hanes moved the bill be sponsored by the Committee to originate in the House. Representative Slater seconded. The motion passed 10-1 with Senator Goodenough voting "no".

Selling hunting and fishing licenses

Mr. Wichers explained 04 LSO 0032.W4 (appendix 17). He explained the veto of last session's bill due to the negative impact it would have had on the Game and Fish Department. The bill draft has been revised to make it nearly revenue neutral to the Department, generating about an additional $50,000 to $100,000 to the Department. Last session's bill would have cost the Department up to $900,000. Cochairman Roberts stated that with other bills last session giving the Game and Fish additional funds he felt the bill could be amended to take the commission paid to the selling agent from the license fee.

Mr. Wichers explained the draft bill would add an additional fee of $1.00 for each license and $.25 for each stamp or permit sold. The license selling agents would retain $1.50 for each license sold. The Committee discussed which licenses were exempt from the additional fees and whether the exceptions would increase the timekeeping requirements for selling agents. The Committee discussed how the fee would be shown on the licenses. Selling agents opposed licenses showing the additional fee as separate fee on the license.

Representative McMurtrey moved to sponsor the bill as a committee bill. Representative Iekel seconded. Senator Burns stated that the bill should be introduced in the House, given the position of the Senate last session. The Committee discussed the proposed amendments to the bill draft. LSO staff offered proposed language to eliminate the need to show the "add-on" fee as a separate item on licenses. The language would be "Each license, permit, tag or stamp sold or distributed under this act shall display only the total amount of all fees and other charges authorized under this act."

Senator Burns noted that the majority of the Senate had a position different than that being taken by the bill before the Committee. The Committee discussed the need to show the issuance charge on the licenses issued. Mike Moser testified that his organization is concerned with getting the fees increased and without the increase, the likelihood is that a number of selling agents will stop selling licenses.

Senator Burns moved to amend page 3-line 10 to incorporate the concept of the language suggested by LSO where appropriate to ensure that the licenses, etc., show only the total amount of the charges. Representative Iekel seconded. The motion passed.

Mr. Wichers noted that on page 6-line 21 after "law" insert "license selling agents and"; and to delete "may" and insert "shall" on that same line. Senator Hanes so moved. The motion was seconded and passed.

Senator Roberts moved to delete page 9-lines 2 through 7. The motion failed.

The main motion, as amended, passed unanimously.

Critical habitat

Mark Fowden, Steve Wolf and Gary Butler, Game and Fish Department addressed the Committee. Mr. Fowden noted that critical habitat is a precise word under the endangered species act and has a specific meaning. Thus he urged the use of the words important habitat or critically important habitat.

The Department's goals regarding habitat management were reviewed. Maps showing the different habitat priorities were shown and explained. Mr. Butler reviewed the terrestrial habitat priorities and Mr. Wolf reviewed the priorities for aquatic species. The Department has developed habitat priorities based upon the types of species present and type of habitat. Mr. Butler explained the impact well drilling and other human activities have on habitat. The Department needs to ensure continued partnerships with other agencies and private landowners in maintaining crucial habitat.

Mr. Wolf addressed aquatic habitat priority areas. The priority watersheds were reviewed and specific activities being taken by the department were reviewed.

Mr. Fowden, emphasized that Wyoming has crucial habitat to retain and crucial habitat to restore and it must be done in partnership with federal and state agencies and private entities.

Committee discussion focused on what can be done to restore some of the habitat conditions. Mr. Butler noted that sagebrush countries have been stressed and that seed establishment is difficult. The Department has attempted to establish sagebrush stands through controlled burns and other methods, but most importantly the need is for adequate moisture.

Senator Goodenough asked if there were simple items the legislature do to help game and fish efforts. Mr. Fowden stated that the building of partnership is the most crucial issue. The development of alternative funding sources would be important with monies directed at future habitat management. Mr. Wichers stated the license fee increase will allow the Department to maintain its current programs, but not attack all the habitat issues presented. He had no specific recommendations regarding legislation for the issue. He offered to discuss the issue internally within the department if requested to do so by the Committee.

The Committee discussed coal mine and other reclamation. Other Committee members questioned the management of predators and whether that management is adequate. Points made by the Committee were that while habitat was important other items were also important and the importance of those items may not be completely recognized by the Game and Fish.

Members of the audience made recommendations for the legislature to take. Including such items as a moratorium on the issuance of new oil and gas permitting in specified areas; funding from a wildlife trust for habitat management; zoning to protect habitat; encouraging county use plans; educating private owners on reduction of barriers to wildlife migration; holding coal bed methane development to the standards the coal industry was held to. Representative Iekel asked for a copy of the map showing the combined aquatic and terrestrial habitat priority areas; with legends and explanations of each and a narrative with the map. Mr. Fowden indicated the Department would do so. Mr. Wolf noted that the maps and narratives will be available on the Department website.

Game and fish issuance of permits

Mr. Cleveland provided written information on the issuance of permits by the game and fish and the cost of issuing a number of permits which are issued free of charge. (Appendix 18) The Department was providing information at this point with the request that the Committee take up the issue in the next interim. Cochairman Roberts suggested that there is some public service for which the public should not pay directly. Mr. Cleveland acknowledged that but at the same time he noted that for some of the permits, people receive them for free and make significant funds from the activities.

No meeting date was set, but the second or third week in January was noted as a possibility.

The Committee adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

________________________

Cochairman Mike Baker