►
From YouTube: 3/16/2021 - Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
C
D
A
President,
please
let
the
collect
all
members
are
present.
We
have
a
quorum
competing
members.
As
always.
I
would
like
to
remind
you
to
please
keep
your
microphone
on
me.
Excuse
me
on
you.
Unless
you
are
speaking
and
that
you
please
keep
your
camera
on
at
all
times,
should
you
have
to,
for
whatever
reason
show
them
off?
Please
do,
but
please
make
sure
you
send
me
a
quick
message
just
to
give
me
a
heads
up
good
morning,
everybody,
those
of
you
following
us
virtually
this
morning.
Thank
you
for
joining
us.
A
A
I
also
want
to
remind
those
of
you
following
us
virtually
that,
because
we
all
have
a
very
unique
setup.
You'll
often
see
us
looking
in
different
directions.
It's
not
that
we're
being
disrespectful
and
we're
not
following
along
it's
very
likely
that
we
have
different
monitors
and
or
documents
that
are
printed
in
front
of
us
and
that's
why
we're
doing
that?
Please
don't
take
that
as
a
sign
of
disrespect.
A
Also
for
those
of
you
who
intend
to
call
in
and
speak
in
support,
opposition
or
neutral,
please
know
that
we'll
do
that
after
the
build
presentation
itself
and
for
whatever
reason,
we're
having
issues
with
our
zoom
or
connection
know
that
you
can
always
email
the
email.
Us
your
comments
and
we
can
make
sure
we
upload
them
to
the
record
as
we
sometimes
have
issues
with
technology,
and
that
is
normal
with
that
members.
We
have
assembly
bill
211
and
we
have
our
assembly
women
hauregi,
who
will
be
presenting
that
good
morning.
E
E
In
addition
to
water
and
environmental
reviews,
tentative
map
reviews
must
also
consider
access
to
utilities
schools.
They
must
consider
the
impact
on
traffic,
flood
potential
and
recreation
just
to
name
a
few,
as
development
pushes
further
into
previously
undeveloped
land.
This
spill
will
ensure
that
effects
of
development
on
wildlife
are
addressed.
E
Those
comments
must
include,
if
applicable,
a
plan
for
how
the
subdivider
may
avoid
minimize
or
mitigate
the
potential
impacts
to
wildlife
and
wildlife
habitat
the
planning
commission
or
governing
body
may
then
taken.
May
then
take
any
comments
from
endow
into
consideration
before
approving
a
tentative
map
just
like
it
takes
into
consideration,
impacts
on
traffic,
schools
and
recreation.
E
Finally,
the
bill
authorizes
endow
to
adopt
any
regulations
it
deems
necessary
to
carry
out
the
duties
provided
pursuant
to
the
passage
of
the
spill
sheriff
loras.
I
have
been
contacted
by
concerned
parties
and
have
begun
meeting
with
many
of
them.
I
want
to
thank
them
for
reaching
out
and
walking
me
through
their
concerns,
and
I
look
forward
to
having
more
time
after
the
hearing
to
work
with
them.
I
would
also
like
to
note
that
there
is
a
proposed
amendment
by
clark
county,
which
is
a
friendly
amendment,
and
we
have
accepted
it
with
that.
Chair
flores.
F
I
am
yes,
so
thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
kyle
davis,
and
I
appear
here
today
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
conservation
league.
F
Ab211
is
a
priority
bill
of
the
nevada
conservation
network,
a
coalition
of
21
organizations
from
across
the
state
that
work
on
conservation
issues
ab-211
is
an
attempt
to
bring
more
information
to
light
for
decision-makers,
as
our
state
continues
to
grow.
Av-211
does
not
create
a
new
permitting
authority
for
the
nevada
department
of
wildlife.
It
simply
ensures
that
when
local
governments
are
making
decisions
on
new
development
that
they're
doing
so
with
the
benefit
of
knowing
the
potential
impacts
on
our
state
wildlife
populations,
the
fundamental
g
has
already
done
a
good
job
of
outlining
the
bill.
F
F
F
Indow's
mission
is
to
protect,
conserve,
manage
and
restore
wildlife,
and
we
don't
think
it's
appropriate
use
of
those
dollars
to
subsidize
development.
We
do
not
anticipate
that
the
fees
would
be
that
high
and
the
schedule
would
be
set
during
a
regulatory
process
that
would
have
full
public
involvement.
We
did.
We
did
feel
it
made
sense
to
put
an
upper
limit
in
statute,
though
this
is
not
always
done.
For
example,
nrs
278
3295
gives
authority
to
the
state
environmental
commission
to
devise
a
fee
for
similar
reasons,
but
does
not
set
an
upper
limit.
F
A
Thank
you,
mr
davis,
and
thank
you
assemblywoman
hawaii.
We
appreciate
both
of
you
joining
us
this
morning
and
walking
us
through
that
amendment
and
explaining
the
purpose
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
to
help
members
at
this
time.
I'd
like
to
open
it
up
for
questions.
C
Thank
you,
miss
chair,
you
know,
and-
and
I
I
don't
know
if
the
mr
davis
once
answered
this
or
what,
but
in
the
total,
pass
that
the
county,
the
the
county,
commission
and
the
department
of
wildlife
and
the
gaming
board,
along
with.
C
The
planning
commission
always
did
this
now
you're
going
to
remove
this.
According
to
this,
this
clark
county's
asked
for
the
planning
commission
to
be
taken
out
of
that.
Well,
I
don't
think
that
would
work
for
the
whole
state,
mostly
in
areas
like
tahoe,
elko
and
stuff,
where
they're
just
now
putting
subdivisions
outside
that
are
still
within
the
local
jurisdiction.
C
F
Mr
chairman,
through
you
to
someone
else
and
kyle
kyle
davis
for
the
record,
no,
that
is,
that
is
certainly
not
the
intent,
the
amendment
that
is
in
front
of
you
from
clark
county.
All
the
amendment
does
is
that
it
clarifies
that
in
cases
where
a
county
has
adopted
a
habitat
conservation
plan,
it
just
clarifies
that
it
is
the
governing
body
that
adopts
the
habitat
conservation
plan
and
not
the
planning
commission.
It
doesn't
change
anything.
F
This
bill
doesn't
change
anything
in
terms
of
the
responsibilities
for
considering
and
approving
development
subdivisions
everything
along
those
lines.
All
of
that
remains
the
same.
The
only
difference
that
we
have
here
is
that
we
would
put
into
place
that
that
a
copy
of
that
map
would
be
given
to
the
department
of
wildlife
and
the
department
of
wildlife
would
give
information
on
the
impacts
of
wildlife
back
to
that
either
planning
commission
or
governing
body,
but
the
ultimate
decision
still
stays
with
that
local
government.
It
doesn't
change
that
at
all.
A
Thank
you
assemblyman.
Next,
if
you
could
go
to
assemblywoman
concert.
G
Thank
you,
chairman
flores,
and
thank
you
assemblyman
howard
and
kyle
davis
for
the
presentation.
I
just
have
a
question
about
how
many
tentative
maps
are
submitted
quarterly.
I
know
that
that
could
vary
greatly,
especially
for
some
of
the
counties
right
now
that
are
exploding
in
growth
and
for
clark
county
that
it's
continuously
growing,
but
it
is.
Is
it
possible
that
the
the
number
of
maps
that
might
be
submitted
in
a
quarter
might
be
a
little
excessive?
G
F
I
can
certainly
take
a
shot.
This
is
kyle
davis.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Through
you
to
attend
one
concide,
I
don't
have
those
numbers
in
front
of
me
and
obviously
it
does
vary
by
for
by
jurisdiction.
F
Obviously,
you
see
a
lot
more
maps
that
are
filed
in
clark
county
in
las
vegas,
henderson,
north
las
vegas,
for
example,
but
under
the
provisions
of
this
bill
as
clark
county
does
have
a
in
place
a
habitat
conservation
program
approved
by
fish
and
wildlife
service.
They
wouldn't
be
going
through
this
process.
They
would
continue
with
their
existing
process
in
other
counties.
Obviously,
it's
going
to
vary
a
lot.
There's
a
lot
more
in
washington,
for
example
than
you
might
see
in,
like
you
know,
esmeralda
county.
F
So
I
guess
the
short
answer
is
I
don't
have
that
information
for
you?
The
longer
answer
is,
I
know
that,
to
some
degree,
some
counties
are
already
doing
this
in
terms
of
consulting
with
the
department
of
wildlife,
we're
trying
to
standardize
that
process
across
the
state
and
also
provide
some
amount
of
cost
recovery
for
the
department
for
the
work
that
they
are
providing
these
local
governments
and
these
developers
in
improving
these
maps.
F
So
that's
essentially
the
intent
of
the
bill
and
that's
also
to
some
degree,
the
purpose
of
allowing
for
some
amount
of
cost
recovery
for
the
department,
so
that
you
know
to
the
extent
that
this
workload,
you
know,
does
increase.
Or
you
know
you
know,
stays
at
a
high
level,
but
they
have
the
ability
to
make
sure
that
they
have
the
staffing
on
hand
to
be
able
to
deal
with
that.
F
But
I
would
I
would
say
in
terms
of
those
numbers
I
I
believe
most
likely
you
will
have
some
of
our
local
governments
testifying
on
this
bill.
They
probably
would
be
better
served
to
have
that
information
than
we
would.
A
Members
any
additional
questions.
I
don't
believe
we
have
any
on
chat,
but
if
you
could
unmute
yourself
state
your
name
for
the
record
and
you
can
get
your
question.
A
Now
I
don't
believe
we
have
any
additional
questions
at
this
time.
Thank
you
both
for
the
presentation
and
at
this
time,
I'd
like
to
invite
those
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
assembly
bill
211
and
we'll
go
straight
to
the
phone
lines
as
I
don't
think
we
have
anybody
joining
us
virtually
broadcast.
If
we
can,
please
go
to
those
wishing
to
testify
and
support
assembly
bill,
211.
H
I
My
name
is
larry
johnson.
I
am
j-o-h-n-s-o-n,
I'm
president
of
the
coalition
for
nevada's
wildlife,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
assembly
natural
resource
committee.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
testify
in
support
of
ab211
a
coalition
for
nevada's
wildlife
was
formed
in
1991.
I
We
want
to
point
out
that
past
land
development
have
often
had
devastating
impacts
on
our
public
wildlife
resources
by
monopolizing
water
resources
by
destroying
habitat
and
interrupting
migration
corridors
on
and
a
wide
variety
of
other
impacts
in
the
past,
land
development
has
proceeded
without
regard
to
the
needs
of
wildlife.
Often
times
developers
can
mitigate
these
impacts.
I
If
they
had
been
made
aware
during
the
planning
stages-
and
it
is
not
a
matter
that
developers
are-
are
bad
guys
or
want
to
impact
our
wildlife
resources,
it
is
just
a
matter
that
it
is
oftentimes
not
considered
in
time.
This
bill
simply
allows
nevada
department
of
wildlife
to
make
local
agencies
aware
of
the
issues
and
offer
potential
mitigation.
I
H
J
If
we
are
to
protect
nevada's,
essential
and
majestic
wildlife
populations
from
economic
development,
we
must
conduct
responsible
development
of
planning
and
find
better
ways
to
code
this
with
nature.
From
an
environmental
perspective,
this
legislation
directly
supports
the
state's
efforts
to
protect
wildlife
species
whose
habitat
could
be
impacted
by
proposed
housing
developments.
J
Even
during
a
pandemic,
nevada
is
experiencing
substantial
growth,
nevada's
census
data
projects,
an
increase
in
population
of
nearly
500
000
people
by
2025.
in
nevada.
We
share
our
state
with
more
than
4
000
living
species
of
mammals,
300
endemic
to
the
state
22
are
endangered
and
16
threatened.
Some
of
these
are
in
dire
need
of
our
protection,
as
developments
continue
to
expand
it's
also
economically
smart,
nevada's
wild
west
appeal
is
one
of
the
main
attractions
for
new
businesses
and
residents.
Nevada
has
a
unique
advantage
over
other
states.
J
It's
one
of
those
rare
places
where
you
can
actually
have
a
great
career
and
an
amazing
quality
of
life,
often
commutes
to
work
include
spectacular
mountain
views
and
opportunities
to
catch
a
glimpse
of
rare
wildlife
in
its
true
habitat.
It's
a
place
where
the
wild
is
in
your
backyard.
Experiences
such
as
hearing
a
pack
of
coyotes,
while
laying
at
bed
at
night
at
your
home,
bring
a
sense
of
coexistence
with
nature
that
many
treasure
and
seek
out,
including
myself.
It's
why
I
moved
here
from
boston.
J
I've
lived
all
over
the
world
and
nevada
is
by
far
my
favorite
place
because
of
its
wild
appeal
too
many
times
I've
seen
cities
lose
their
luster
because
of
irresponsible
planting,
which
did
not
consider
its
impacts
on
the
natural
world
around
it,
while
expanding
too
many
times,
animals
have
gone
extinct.
This
way
as
well-
and
I
hope
nevada-
can
learn
this
lesson
before
it's
too
late.
For
these
reasons,
this
year,
club
strongly
supports
av-211.
J
A
H
H
K
A
Thank
you
at
this
time
we'll
go
to
those
wishing
to
testify
in
opposition
to
assembly
bill
211.
If
we
could
again
go
to
the
phone
lines.
H
H
L
Chairman
flores
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
callie
wilson
with
the
city
of
reno,
that's
c,
a
l
l,
I
w
I
l,
s's
and
sam
ey
first.
I
would
like
to
thank
this
bill
sponsor
for
connecting
with
us
last
night
to
understand
our
concerns
on
ab211
we're
here
today.
Just
to
put
a
few
issues
on
the
record
based
on
the
bill
is
currently
drafted,
and
we
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
the
bill
after
today's
hearing.
L
Our
concerns
today
are
not
related
to
the
build
sponsor's
goal
or
having
the
department
of
wildlife
provide
comments
on
tentative
maps
within
the
city's
jurisdiction.
In
fact,
we
currently
encourage
endows
involvement
in
our
agency
review
process
and
include
them
in
our
distribution
of
all
of
our
planning
cases.
The
challenge
we
have
as
written
as
the
bill
is
written,
is
related
to
the
30-day
30-day
time
frame
for
review
under
a
separate
section
of
nrs.
Other
state
agencies,
I
think
it
was
mentioned-
are
provided
a
15
day
time
frame
to
provide
those
written
conference
comments.
L
The
different
time
frame
can
create
confusion
and
cause
delays
in
the
review
process.
It
also
limits
the
ability
of
our
staff
to
effectively
address
issues
raised
by
the
department
prior
to
the
tentative
map
hearing,
which
must
occur
within
a
statutory
time
frame
of
45
to
60
days
depending
on
the
city's
population.
L
We
would
suggest,
including
endahl's
review
requirement
in
the
existing
statutory
framework.
We
also
wanted
just
to
put
on
the
record
that
the
city's
current
fee
for
a
tentative
map
based
application
is
about
fifty
four
hundred
dollars,
which
accounts
for
review
comments
and
analysis
by
numerous
agencies.
L
If
the
maximum
were
applied,
this
would
almost
double
the
cost
of
applying
for
a
tentative
map
in
our
jurisdiction.
While
we
understand
the
fee
structure
will
be
determined
by
endow
through
the
regulatory
process,
we
suggest
this
is
an
important
consideration
as
we
work
to
address
housing
shortages
and
affordable
housing
needs
in
our
community.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
put
these
points
on
the
record
today
and
we
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
the
bill
sponsor
to
find
a
way
to
address
the
procedural
concern
we
have.
Thank.
H
D
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada
home
builders
association,
section
1,
subsection
2
of
the
bill
is
drafted,
provides
a
recognition
that
the
front
valley
and
clark
county
have
a
federally
recognized
multiple
species,
habitat
conservation
plan
in
place
and
exempts
tentative
maps
in
these
areas
from
a
duplicative
review
by
endow
because
local
governments
aren't
in
control
of
these
federal
approvals.
We
think
it's
very
important
that
there
be
a
circuit
breaker
in
the
bill,
should
a
federal
permit,
expire
or
otherwise
become
inactive.
D
A
two-year
delay
in
assembly
bill
211's
application
to
jurisdictions
currently
covered
by
a
regional
permit
should
should
the
permit
become
inactive,
would
allow
time
for
local
governments
to
resolve
issues
with
fish
and
wildlife
or
provide
endowed
with
the
ability
to
request
additional
resources
necessary
to
facilitate
the
massive
increase
in
tentative
map,
reviews
that
would
be
associated
with
the
expiration
of
an
exemption
for
clark
county.
We
greatly
appreciate
the
bill's
sponsor
meeting
with
us
to
discuss
this
concept
and
are
sure
we
can
land
on
something
that
will
address
our
concerns
by
the
time.
D
D
Efforts
in
southern
nevada,
marcy
henson
and
her
team
at
clark
county
have
delivered
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
in
economic
benefits
through
their
work,
to
manage
the
federal
permit
and
associated
programs,
and-
and
we
would
just
like
to
really
express
our
appreciation
to
marcy
clark,
county
and
the
knight
county
staff
who
facilitate
the
current
permitting
process
and
do
the
significant
amount
of
work
associated
with
that.
Thank
you.
H
M
K-E-R-R-I-E-K-R-A-M-E-R
with
argentine
partners
here
today
on
behalf
of
naop
good
morning,
chair
flores
and
members
of
the
committee,
I
would
first
like
to
thank
the
sponsor
for
taking
the
time
to
work
with
us
on
av-211.
Over
the
years,
naom
has
worked
very
hard
with
local
jurisdictions
in
developing
new
projects
to
mitigate
impacts
on
wildlife.
M
Adding
an
additional
layer
of
oversight
at
the
state
level
that
can
take
up
to
30
days
to
complete
can
cause
significant
delays
in
the
construction
process,
costing
developers
precious
time
and
potentially
having
significant
impacts
on
financing.
Additionally,
as
written,
the
legislation
does
not
take
into
account
the
local
entitlement
process,
which
could
again
cause
significant
delays.
As
I
mentioned,
we
have
spoken
with
the
sponsor
and
have
committed
to
working
with
her.
A
H
N
Thank
you,
I'm
jake,
tibbetts,
that's
j,
a
k,
e
t
I
b
b,
I
t
t
s
and
I'm
the
natural
resources
manager
for
eureka
county
representing
eureka
county.
So,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee,
eureka
county
opposes
ab211
as
written.
I've
submitted
written
testimony
to
the
committee
secretary
and
I'll
just
summarize
her
testimony
here,
so
we
don't
oppose
subdivisions
and
developments
being
done
in
a
way
to
minimize
impacts
to
wildlife,
eureka,
county
values
and
supports
and
has
strong
plans
and
policies
already
in
place
for
conservation
of
wildlife
and
their
habitats.
N
N
We
note
that
nrs
278
335
has
existing
requirements
for
various
state
agencies
and
ab211
does
not
provide
parity
with
this
current
process.
State
agencies
that
review
subdivision
maps
should
not
have
conflicting
review
authorities.
Also,
since
nevada
is
over
80
federal
land,
most
subdivisions
have
some
federal
nexus,
with
federal
permitting
through
the
national
environmental
policy
act.
N
A
H
O
Good
morning,
chair
flores
and
committee-
I
am
jamie
rodriguez,
that's
spelled
j-a-m-I-e
r,
o
d
r.
I
g.
U
e
d,
I'm
the
government
affairs
manager
for
washoe
county.
I
want
to
thank
assemblywoman
haragi
and
the
sponsor
for
work
yesterday
to
discuss
our
concerns
in
washoe
county.
We
take
impact
to
wildlife
very
seriously
and
want
to
state
that
we
are
not
opposed
to
having
ndap
review
our
tentative
subdivision
map.
In
fact,
this
already
occurs
in
washoe
county
and
has
for
for
many
years
we
have
a
multi-species
environmental
conservation
plan
as
part
of
our
master
plan.
O
However,
it
is
not
approved
by
u.s
fish
and
wildlife,
which
is
required
to
be
exempt
from
endow,
which
is
not
something
that
we're
looking
to
do
again
as
we
already
work
with
endow.
However,
our
opposition
is
in
some
of
the
specifics
of
the
bill.
We
do
have
concerns
about
both
the
fees
and
the
timelines.
O
As
has
been
stated,
agency
reviews
are
usually
done
in
about
15
days
or
a
two-week
time
period.
Doubling
that
and
making
it
30
days
would
cause
changes
in
operations
and
our
ability
to
meet
the
provisions
of
when
timelines
for
when
applications
are
submitted
to
planning
commission
and
when
they
have
to
be
heard.
So
the
likely
impact
of
this
would
be
that
those
timelines
would
need
to
be
extended
to
allow
end
out
those
30
days
or
we
would
recommend
that
they
be
put
into
parity
with
the
other
reviewing
agencies.
O
We
are
concerned
with
the
fee
of
up
to
five
thousand
dollars,
and
while
I
appreciate
that
is
the
maximum,
the
concern
is
that
the
determination
of
the
fee
would
not
be
known
until
the
review
is
completed
and
we're
not
sure
exactly
how
all
of
those
things
would
be
determined.
We
are
also
concerned
that
this
would
open
the
door
for
the
numerous
other
reviewing
agencies
who
do
so
without
cost
now
to
come
back
and
ask
for
such
fees.
O
Lastly,
our
concern
is
with
the
effective
date
of
july
1
and
so
we're
unsure
what
would
happen
between
july
1
and
when
endow
would
be
able
to
con
to
complete
the
regulatory
process
of
determining
those
fee
schedules.
O
Again,
we
do
very
much
so
support
endow
reviewing
our
maps
and
taking
into
consideration
wildlife
impacts,
which
is
why
washoe
county
does
have
our
environmental
conservation
plan
and
have
worked
with
endow
on
these
tentative
maps.
For
many
years.
We
very
much
so
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
the
sponsor
and
find
a
solution
for
our
concern.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
H
P
Good
morning,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
for
your
time
this
morning
for
the
record
dan
morgan
d-a-n-m-o-r-g-a-n
on
behalf
of
the
builders
association
of
northern
nevada.
We
are
here
today
in
opposition
of
sp
or
ab211
throughout
the
truckee
meadows
in
northern
nevada.
Local
governments
have
included
and
collaborated
with
development
for
the
evaluation
of
impacts
on
wildlife
and
wildlife
habitat.
P
We
believe
that
this
bill
will
unnecessarily
is
an
unnecessary
expansion
of
regulatory
review
and
will
only
create
significa
significant
additional
time
and
economic
burden
on
the
nevada
department
of
wildlife.
It
will
also
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
development
process
and
timelines
resulting
in
negative
impacts
on
construction,
construction,
jobs
and,
ultimately,
residential
housing
afford
affordability.
P
A
H
Q
D-A-G-N-Y-S-T-A-P-L-E-T-O-N,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
nato,
the
nevada
association
of
counties.
I
want
to
begin
by
thanking
the
sponsor
for
meeting
with
us
and
hearing
our
concerns,
as
the
bill
is
currently
written
today
on
behalf
of
the
16
counties
outside
of
clark
county.
We
are
opposed.
However,
we
want
to
make
clear
that
we
are
not
unsupportive
of
end
our
view
or
analysis
of
wildlife
impacts
for
any
development
project
at
the
local
level,
that
is
outside
of
a
multi-species
habitat
conservation
area.
Q
Understanding
the
impacts
of
development
and
public
works
to
wildlife
and
habitat
is
a
way
of
life
for
counties
in
nevada.
That
is
because
the
federal
government
manages
86
percent
of
nevada's
total
lands
and
because
of
that,
county
projects
are
almost
always
already
subject
to
review
under
national
environmental
law,
the
national
environmental
policy
act
or
nepa.
The
nepa
process
results
in
environmental
reviews,
both
when
the
impact
is
significant
and
even
when
it's
not
either
way.
Q
The
federal
agencies,
such
as
the
blm
and
forest
service,
will
address,
in
addition
to
their
own
analysis,
many
times
also
consult
with
the
nevada
division
of
wildlife
in
existing
law.
An
agency
may
find
that
a
project
has
no
significant
impact
after
consultation
with
endow,
and
the
agency
will
conduct
a
brief
review
called
an
environmental
assessment,
and
the
project
will
move
forward.
Q
However,
under
ab211,
even
after
such
determination,
state
law
would
mandate
that
endow
get
a
fee
for
an
analysis
that
it
may
have
already
created
additionally
on
projects
in
some
urban
areas,
where
there
may
not
be
a
nexus
with
federal
lands,
and
that
already
provides
review
as
well.
In
many
instances
to
ensure,
however,
that
endow
always
does
have
a
review
and
that
impacts
to
wildlife
are
taken
into
consideration.
We
are
supportive
of
a
requirement
in
law,
I'm
ensuring
that
an
endow
review
happens.
Q
A
C
I
was
hoping
naco
might
be
able
to
answer,
if
not
maybe
the
build
sponsor,
but
for
the
last
several
years,
there's
been
thousands
and
thousands
of
permits
across
the
state.
If
we
did
do
this
bill
as
presented,
what
would
be
the
burden
back
on
that
department?
Where
did
the
agencies
in
the
counties?
Could
you
answer
that.
E
C
A
Thank
you,
assemblyman.
We'll
continue
with
those
wishing
to
speak
in
our
position
to
assembly
bill
211.
H
M
Good
morning,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
this
is
marla:
mcdade
williams,
m,
a
r
l,
a
m
c
capital
d,
a
d
e
w.
I
l,
l,
I
a
m
s
with
strategies
360
speaking
today
on
behalf
of
churchill
county.
We
want
to
thank
assemblywoman,
heidegge
and
mr
davis
for
meeting
with
us
to
discuss
our
concerns
with
ab211.
M
H
R
The
nevada
department
of
wildlife
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
testify
neutral,
with
the
ability
to
provide
some
comments
for
consideration
of
ab211
endow
currently
has
a
very
active
technical
review
program
that
annually
reviews
over
600
projects
across
the
state.
Most
of
our
review
is
tied
to
the
federal
requirement
in
the
national
environmental
policy
act
for
any
project,
with
a
federal
nexus
on
federal
lands
are
using
federal
funds
to
coordinate
with
state
wildlife
agencies.
R
These
reviews
that
we
provide
are
funded
by
sportsmen's
dollars
through
our
common
funding
sources.
The
current
situation
we
we
see
ourselves
in
this
is
we
receive
10
to
20
development
or
subdivision
related
reviews
per
year.
In
these
circumstances,
our
reviews
focus
on
wildlife
species
and
their
habitats,
assisting
those
projects
that
may
impact
novel
or
quality
habitats
to
consider
and
incorporate
workable
solution
solutions
into
their
development
plans,
based
on
our
expense.
Our
extensive
experience
in
working
through
the
projects
with
projects
proponents
to
avoid
minimize
and
mitigate
projects.
R
We
would
like
to
like
to
offer
the
following
for
consideration:
language
and
subsection.
1B
states
and
thou
shall
provide
a
plan
for
how
the
subdivider
may
avoid
minimize
or
mitigate
the
potential
impacts
to
wildlife
and
wildlife.
Habitat
endow
recommends
that
the
language
be
modified
to
remove
a
plan
and
replace
it
with
alternatives.
R
Additionally,
in
instances,
the
larger
developments
have
consultants
that
include
wildlife
and
habitat
issues
into
larger
development
plans.
In
subsection
three,
we
we
would
recommend
that
the
fee
structure
be
modified
to
an
annual
fee
annual
365
fee.
This
change
would
ensure
that
those
larger,
more
detailed
projects
that
take
over
a
year
to
address
would
cover
the
additional
workload
required.
R
Also
in
subsection
three,
we
ask
that
the
language
be
added
to
direct
the
fees
collected
in
this
bill
to
an
existing
account
in
nrs,
701,
630,
the
energy
planning
and
conservation
fund,
and
to
consider
or
to
address
this
more
comprehensive
funding
pool.
We
would
also
propose
that
the
account
name
be
changed
to
the
development
planning
and
conservation
fund.
A
Thank
you
for
joining
us
this
morning.
We,
I
know
for
a
fact.
We
do
have
a
question
from
assemblywoman
anderson.
So
we'll
start
there,
assemblywoman
anderson.
L
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
assemblymember
harrygate
for
bringing
this
forward
and
kyle
for
bringing
this
up
as
well.
My
question
that
was
for
the
department
of
wildlife.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
I'm
understanding
correctly.
There
is
no
fiscal
note
attached
and
I
know
that
we're
a
policy
committee.
So
that's
we
worry
about
policy,
but
there
was
no
fiscal
note
attached
with
these
changes.
L
R
Yeah,
thank
you
for
the
question
again.
Alan
jenae
habitat
division
administrator
for
endow
the
physical
node,
I
believe,
would
be
positive.
We
currently
do
this
work,
as
mentioned.
L
Thank
you,
so
I
think,
having
that
information
about
the
the
matching
grant
is
also
an
important
element
to
be
aware
of.
If
I'm
understanding
that
correctly,
there
is
a
matching
grant
is
what
is
that?
What
your
answer
was
just
that
there's
another
way
for
us
to
get
some
other
ways
to
fund
for
this.
So
it's
not
going
to
be
a
huge
burden
on
the
already
overworked
workload.
R
Again,
alan
ginay
habitat
the
division
administrator
for
clarification.
Yes,
there
is
a
federal
grant
that
we
use
to
support
our
technical
review
program,
which
this
is
a
portion
of.
However,
that
is
a
75
25
match
and
currently
the
the
funds
that
create
the
match
are
the
sportsman's
fees
from
user-based
fees
like
hunting
and
fishing
licenses
and
tags.
A
I
don't
believe
we
have
any
additional
questions.
I
just
would
like
to
remind
you
to
please
submit
your
amendment
in
writing.
You
can
provide
that
to
our
committee
manager
and
she'll
make
sure
that
all
members
get
that
before
we
do
anything
else
with
this
bill.
That
will
be
necessary.
A
H
M
Thank
you
good
morning,
chair
flores,
my
name
is
joanna
jacob
j,
o
a
n
n,
a
j
b
on
behalf
of
clark
county
sheriff
flores.
We
just
wanted
to
go
on
record
in
neutral
to
thank
assembly,
one
hargey
and
mr
davis
for
working
with
us
on
the
amendment
clark
county
does
manage
a
multiple
species.
Habitat
conservation
plan
on
behalf
of
the
permittees
of
our
local
cities
in
southern
nevada
is
a
regional
service
and
we
began
that
process
in
1990.
M
So
I
wanted
to
say
thank
you
for
working
with
us
on
the
amendment.
We
will
continue
to
be
in
the
group
working
on
this
bill,
because
I
know
that
there's
been
several
amendments
discussed
today
and
we
look
forward
to
those
conversations.
So
thank
you
to
the
assembly
woman
and
to
mr
davis
and
thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
Thank
you
if
we
could
continue
with
those
wishing
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position
for
assembly
bill
211.
A
E
E
However,
with
thoughtful
planning
informed
by
consultation
with
experts
and
relying
on
the
best
available
science,
harm
to
wildlife
and
habitat
can
be
minimized
or
avoided
and
practice
champion
legislation
that
allows
continued
development
in
a
way
that
protects
our
natural
environment
and
the
wildlife
that
makes
the
silver
state
unique.
I
am
happy
to
work
with
those
who
you
heard
from
today.
E
Again
we
did
start
meetings
and
a
lot
of
the
concerns
I
think
can
easily
be
addressed,
and
so
I
will
be
reaching
out
to
everyone
so
that
we
can
continue
to
work
and
bring
forward
a
bill
that
we
can
all
agree
on
is
a
positive
thing
for
nevada
to
save
wildlife
and
wildlife
habitat
mr
davis.
Is
there
any
closing
remarks
you
would
like
to
give.
F
No
thank
you,
mr
chairman
kyle
davis,
again
for
the
record
appreciate
the
time
today,
we'll
certainly
work
on
working
with
all
of
the
all
the
people
that
you
heard
from
today
and
look
to
bring
a
bill
back
to
you
that
that
we
can,
hopefully
you
can
process.
So
thank
you
again.
A
And
again,
thank
you,
mr
davis
and
assembly
women
howdy
both
for
the
presentation.
This
morning
we
appreciate
you're
working
with
so
many
different
stakeholders
and
we
look
forward
to
what
comes
from
those
meetings,
but
this
time
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
out
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
211
and
at
this
time,
I'd
like
to
invite
those
wishing
to
speak
in
public
comment.
I
want
to
remind
those
of
you
intending
to
speak
there.
A
You
go
during
public
comment:
assemblyman
allison,
not
your
your
microphone
is
on
unmuted
there
we
go
those
of
you
wishing
to
join
us
this
morning.
We
encourage
you,
please
do
we.
We
want
you
to
participate
during
public
comment,
but
I
just
want
to
remind
you
that
public
comment
is
not
a
time
for
us
to
engage
and
debate
on
a
hearing
we've
had
in
the
past.
A
A
And
thank
you
at
this
time
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
out
public
comment.
Members.
Thank
you
for
your
discussion
this
morning.
Although
we
only
had
a
couple
of
questions,
but
I
think
the
the
nature
of
the
hearing
just
played
out
that
way
and
thank
you
again
to
all
those
of
you
who
called
in
to
share
your
support
or
opposition
for
this
bill.
Tomorrow
morning
we
will
be
meeting
at
9.
A
00
am
again
and
we'll
be
hearing
assembly
bill,
2
18
that
is
going
to
be
presented
by
assemblywoman
titus,
give
yourself
an
opportunity
to
reach
out
preemptively.
If
you
have
any
questions
that
you
need
address
ahead
of
time.
Otherwise,
please
come
ready
tomorrow
and
thank
you
all
again.
This
meeting
is
adjourned.