Assembly committee hears bill to require rulemaking for Nevada sagebrush conservation credit system

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on Tuesday heard Assembly Bill 242, which would require the Sagebrush Ecosystem Council (SEC) and the Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team (SET) to develop regulations formalizing Nevada's conservation credit system for impacts to sagebrush vegetation and the greater sage‑grouse.

The bill's sponsor, Assembly Member Rich DeLong, said the measure would move the conservation credit system from a largely policy‑driven approach into a structured regulatory process, allowing regulated entities and the public to provide formal input during workshops and see agency responses before adoption. "The intent of this bill as amended, is to have the SET and the Council go through a regulatory process to develop a more structured program that the regulatory community has the ability to provide input on and then can rely on as a transparent regulatory process," DeLong said.

Proponents and agency staff described how the existing mitigation framework quantifies "debits" where development removes or alters sagebrush vegetation and allows developers to purchase "credits" from landowners who protect or restore habitat. Kathleen Steele, identified in committee as program manager for the Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team, described monitoring and adaptive management for credit projects: "We do annual monitoring, 5 year monitoring, and then 15 year full comprehensive monitoring, to ensure that the land is staying either as it was, when it initially was analyzed, or improving," Steele said.

Supporters said regulation would provide clarity as the program grows. Nikki Bailey Lundahl, vice president of the Nevada Mining Association, said the industry supports AB242 because a structured regulatory framework would "give the public, the regulated community, and interested stakeholders the information they need and the opportunity to provide input as these systems are developed and maintained."

Opponents urged caution and argued the credit system as implemented can fail to protect species and ecosystems. Olivia Tanager of the Sierra Club opposed the bill, calling the conservation credit system "a green washing spectacle" that can convert pinyon‑juniper woodlands to sagebrush and harm species such as the pinyon jay. Scott Lake of the Center for Biological Diversity said the state's conservation credit system "remains a well meaning, but ultimately flawed approach" and argued AB242 does not require developers to follow an avoidance/minimization hierarchy before using compensatory mitigation.

Clifford Benwellos, identified as the state tribal liaison for the Inter‑Tribal Council of Nevada (ITCN), testified that Nevada tribes have expressed concerns about pinyon‑juniper loss and asked for consultation with tribal leaders before moving forward with statutory changes affecting culturally significant landscapes.

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources staff attended and answered technical questions about how credits are calculated, how proximity and connectivity between debited and credited lands factor into debit multipliers, and the limits of state monitoring. A department director described the technical complexity of individual credit determinations and said the agency is working with the bill sponsor on language and the bill's fiscal note.

DeLong noted the amended bill delays its effective date to Jan. 1, 2027, to allow agencies time to complete the rulemaking and said he will continue to work with agency staff before bringing the bill to a work session. No formal vote occurred during the hearing; committee members solicited public testimony and questions for the record.

Looking ahead, DeLong said he plans further work with the director and SET staff to refine the bill language and bring it back to the committee for a work session. The committee closed the hearing on AB242 and moved to the next item on the agenda.