►
From YouTube: 2/24/2021 - Assembly Committee on Natural Resources
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.
A
C
C
A
Here
have
a
quorum,
please
mark
assemblywoman
hanson
present
as
she
arrives
before
we
start
a
few
quick
housekeeping
announcements.
Members
of
the
public
may
participate
in
our
meetings
in
a
variety
of
ways.
Information
on
how
to
participate
can
be
found
on
every
committee
meeting
agenda
as
well
as
on
the
help
page
at
the
nevada
legislature's
website.
A
A
We
ask
the
public
comment,
be
limited
to
two
minutes
so
that
all
speakers
can
be
accommodated
and
we
can
get
through
our
agenda
in
a
timely
manner
and,
of
course,
says
other
housekeeping
items
whenever
emotions
are
being
made.
I
ask
that
members,
please
provide
their
name
as
well
for
clarity
on
the
record
and
for
all
members
to
keep
their
microphones
muted
when
they
are
not
speaking,
and
would
just
like
to
note
for
the
secretary
that
assemblywoman
hansen
is
present
with
that
members.
A
A
D
D
D
Standardizes
the
procedure
for
naming
or
renaming
geographic
features
within
state
borders
avoid
or
eliminate
whenever
possible,
the
duplication
of
names
enter
correct,
spelling
errors
and
finally,
to
retain
and
enhance
the
significance,
heritage
and
distinctive
flavor
of
names
associated
with
the
history
and
development
of
the
state
chair
watts.
At
this
point,
would
you
like
me
to
walk
through
the
bill,
or
would
you
prefer
that
I
answer
any
questions.
A
D
And
we
have
talked
to
the
nevada,
indian
commission,
who
is
in
support
of
this
bill,
and
the
state
archives
has
worked
very
closely
with
the
unit
commission.
So
you
know
I
know
some
of
the
members
and
we've
done
some
work
for
them.
So
we
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
are
adding
all
of
the
voices
that
are
necessary
for
submitting
names
to
the
geographic
name
board.
A
Wonderful,
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
I
appreciate
you
bringing
this
measure
forward
for
our
consideration
with
that.
I
will
open
it
up
to
questions
from
committee
members
and
we'll
start
with
assemblyman
wheeler,
hey.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
The
way
I
read
this,
and
maybe
I'm
just
reading
it
wrong
we're
going
from
an
11
member
board,
voting
member
board
to
a
12
voting
member
board,
which
tells
me
that
there
will
now
be
or
a
possibility
now
of
six
six
votes.
Instead
of
you
know,
six,
five
or
whatever.
E
D
Well,
chair
watts:
what
what
happens
with
the
board
is,
and
we've
never
really
had
that
situation
where
we've
had
had
a
tie
and
that's
what
would
happen
would
be
that
when
someone
proposes
a
name,
it
is
put
on
the
agenda
for
the
next
meeting
and
then
we
have
we
discuss
it,
and
then
it
goes
to
a
second
meeting.
D
It
could
end
up
being
that
particularly
what
we
want
to
do
between
the
board
meetings
is
to
do
any
research
and
due
diligence
on
any
research,
so
that
that
we
can
find
out
that,
yes,
the
locals,
do
support
this
name
or
they
don't
support
this
name.
That,
and
and
sometimes
that
can
can
make
a
difference
on
on
how
a
name
is
has
been
voted.
But
there
has,
as
I've
been
on
the
board
for
nine
years,
and
we've
never
had
a
situation
where
we've
even
had
anyone
disagree
with
the
name.
A
Yes,
but
before
you
do,
let
me
just
interject
very
briefly
and
remind
folks
to
please
state
their
name
for
the
record
and
I'll
also
say
that,
from
my
understanding,
parliamentary
rules
for
for
all
of
these
bodies
are
that,
in
the
event
that
whether
it's
an
odd
number
or
even
number,
if
there
is
a
split
vote,
that
vote
fails.
So
that
is
pretty
commonplace
across
all
decision-making
bodies.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Some
of
them
we
look
for
the
record
and
that's
my
understanding
as
well,
but
that's
it's
not
addressed
in
this
bill
and
parliamentary
procedures
are
not
always
kept.
You
know,
there's
a
difference,
for
instance
between
masons
and
roberts
and
a
couple
of
other
ones
out
there,
so
I
just
wanted
that
cleared
up
and
on
the
record,
so
I'm
assuming
it
would
be
a
fail,
but,
like
I
said,
we
haven't
got
confirmation
of
that.
E
A
Thank
you,
simon
wheeler.
I
will.
I
will
ask
our
legal
counsel
just
I
believe
many
members
are
aware
of
this,
but
just
to
make
sure
everyone
is
aware,
as
well
as
the
public
look.
We
have
our
our
committee
council
is
assisting
and
bill
drafting
so
I'll
reach
out
and
see
if
we
can
get
some
additional
clarification
for
you,
but
I
know
that
the
details
of
voting
procedures
for
each
of
these
bodies
is
usually
not
laid
out
in
statute.
So
with
that,
while
we're
working
on
that
I'll
go
on
to
assemblywoman
titus.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
the
question
looking
at
the
bill
on
this
is
one
pager
and
just
on
section,
one
under
eight
you're,
adding
the
nevada,
indian
commission
and
your
comments
appreciated
that
it's
important
that
they
have
a
seat
at
the
table,
but
under
l,
there's
an
inter
tribal
council
of
nevada
or
a
success
or
successful
successor.
F
So
what
what
are
the?
Who
are?
They
are
they
a
native
group
or
who?
Who
is
what
is
that
group
if
we're
adding
because
they
weren't
represented
before
or
do
they
represent
nevada,
indians
or
who
are
they.
D
This
is
cynthia
laframboise
with
the
nevada
state,
library,
archives
and
public
records
chair.
What
the
intertribal
council
is
a
native
group.
What
we
wanted
to
do
was
provide
more
input
for,
for
our
native
citizens
in
the
past,
they've
often
had
experienced
problems
with
finding
a
member
who
was
interested
in
serving
on
the
state
board
on
geographic
names.
D
We've
had
a
representative
from
the
washoe
tribe,
a
young
student
anthropology
student
from
unr,
and
she
belongs
to
the
washoe
and
she
has
been
very
instrumental
in
helping
us,
particularly
with
pronouncing
native
names,
so
that
we're
we're
pronouncing
them
in
a
respectful
manner.
And
so,
while
we
do
have
the
the
inner
tribal
council,
it's
we've.
We've
always
had
a
good
relationship
with
the
indian
commission
as
well,
and
so
we're
just
trying
to
provide
another
outlet
for
our
our
native
citizens.
F
Many
folks
are
on
the
nevada,
indian
commission,
how
many
representatives
do
they
is
that,
like
a
body
of
a
hundred
or
two
hundred,
so
they
have
a
better
opportunity
to
have
somebody
that
represents
them
on
this
board
because
well,
I
think
I
just
heard
you
say
was
that
you
needed
to
add
this
additional
slot,
because
you
couldn't
get
somebody
from
the
inter
tribal
council
of
nevada
to
be
on
this
commission
or
to
show
up
for
these
meetings.
F
D
I
nevada,
indian
commission
is
a
is
a
state
agency
that
represents
the
tribes
as
well,
and-
and
I
don't
know
how
many
people
work
for
the
indian
commission,
I
can
find
out
if
you
would
like,
but
this
is
this
is
just
no
and
in
the
past
we
have
had
some
issues
with
trying
to
ensure
that
we've
gotten
participation
from
our
from
our
native
citizens
through
the
fact
that
they
don't
always
have
the
kind
of
technical
they
aren't.
You
know
they
aren't
always
able
to
attend
some
of
our
meetings.
D
F
D
Correct
this
is
cynthia
law
firm
ross.
Yes,
yes
assemblywomatitis!
That
is
correct,
that
they
would
in
the
indian
commission,
would
appoint
a
member,
and
we
do
have
a
new
member
with
the
inter-tribal
council,
whose
name,
I'm
sorry,
has
just
completely
escaped
me.
Okay,
very
good.
F
Well,
thank
you
for
your
questions
and
thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
for
allowing
me
to
ask
the
questions.
A
I
have
a
couple
of
quick
questions
and
they
may
add
some
clarification
so,
and
you
spoke
briefly
to
this
in
your
last
response,
but
just
to
clarify,
I
believe
the
energy
council
of
nevada
is
an
association
of
all
the
tribal
governments
which
are
within
the
partially
or
fully
within
the
borders
of
the
state
of
nevada,
and
so
it's
essentially
a
tribal
government
association,
whereas
the
indian
commission
is
a
state
agency
now
within
the
state
of
nevada,
and
I
believe
they
have
a
small
but
mighty
staff
and
a
few
board
members,
whereas
the
inter-tribal
council
has
representation
from
every
tribal
government
within
the
state
is.
D
A
Wonderful,
thank
you,
and
I
just
also
wanted
to
I
see
here
on
section
one
subsection,
one
b
and
c,
we
have
a
faculty
representative
from
each
university,
both
unr
and
unlv,
so
there
is
essentially
two
university
representatives
on
the
board
of
geographic
names.
That's
correct.
A
Wonderful,
thank
you
thank
you
for
that,
and
I
do
appreciate
the
efforts,
especially
considering
the
that
many
of
these
places
had
names
before
before.
Other
communities
came
in
and
and
quote
unquote
officially
named
them.
So
I
appreciate
your
efforts
in
bringing
this
measure
forward
so
that
we
can
have
a
greater
input
on
naming
matters
from
our
indigenous
communities.
A
Bill
hearing
none,
thank
you
so
much
for
the
presentation.
We
will
now
move
on
to
testimony
on
assembly
bill
72
again
in
order
to
provide
testimony
on
the
bill.
You
must
register
on
the
legislative
website
where
you'll
be
given
information
to
call
in.
G
E
Good
afternoon,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
I'm
marla
mcdade
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
the
reno
sparks
indian
colony.
I
want
to
extend
my
appreciation
to
ms
laframbot,
with
the
division
of
state
library,
archives
and
public
records
for
requesting
this
bill
and
recognizing
the
importance
of
tribal
inclusion
on
the
state
board
of
geographical
names.
E
As
you
know,
mr
chair,
prior
to
settlement,
nevada
was
the
territory
of
the
paiute
shoshone
washoe.
As
you
noted,
many
historical
names
used
by
the
tribal
people
were
replaced
by
fellow
names
and
having
representation
on
this
group
will
contribute
to
enriching
nevada's
history
with
accurate
representation.
A
Thank
you,
and
with
that
we'd
like
to
see,
if
there's
anyone
who
would
like
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position
on
assembly
bill,
72.
A
Much
broadcasting
production
services
with
that
we
will
end
testimony
and
I
do
have
some
feedback
from
legal
counsel.
Regarding
assemblyman
wheeler's
question
mason's
manual
states,
the
majority
of
votes
cast
is
sufficient
to
carry
a
proposal
unless
otherwise
stated
it
further
says
that
a
thai
vote
decides
nothing
but
leaves
the
situation
unchanged.
A
So
all
of
which
is
to
say
that,
should
there
be
a
tie
vote,
then
a
measure
fails
according
to
mason's
manual,
and
I
have
not
seen
other
legislative
bodies
explicitly
define
what
parliamentary
procedure
is
being
used
in
statute.
So
I
did
want
to
at
least
provide
that
clarification
based
on
mason's
meal
of
parliamentary
procedure
for
assemblyman
wheeler.
E
A
D
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Once
again,
we
appreciate
you
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
for
presenting
it
to
the
committee
today
with
that
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
72
and
we
will
now
open
up
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
71,
which
revises
the
provisions
relating
to
certain
information
maintained
by
the
division
of
natural
heritage
of
the
state
department
of
conservation
and
natural
resources.
H
Good
afternoon,
chair
watts,
a
member
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
jim
lawrence
and
I
serve
as
the
deputy
director
for
the
department
of
conservation
and
natural
resources
and
with
me
to
my
right
is
kristen
zabo,
who
is
the
administrator
for
the
division
of
natural
heritage,
which
is
one
of
the
eight
divisions
within
our
department.
I
want
to
thank
the
thank
you
chair
and
the
committee
for
the
opportunity
to
present
the
bill
this
afternoon
with
your.
H
Thank
you.
You
know,
I
want
to
say
the
division
of
natural
heritage.
You
know
their
primary
responsibility
is
that
they
are
the
keeper
of
the
database
of
the
states
at
risk,
threatened
protected
either
plant
or
animal
or
biotic
species
or
ecological
conditions.
H
This
is
a
program
that
is
mirrored
in
every
state
in
the
u.s.
Every
state
in
the
u.s
has
this
type
of
database
program
and
it's
connected
through
on
the
network
in
order
to
make
sure
that
there
is
a
database
of
where
these
species
are
located
similar
to
other
resources.
You
know,
perhaps
you
know
cultural
resources
or
historic
resources.
H
H
Lastly,
before
I
turn
it
over
to
chris,
I
want
to
say
that
really
what
this
bill
does
is
it
puts
into
statute
the
existing
practice
like.
So
this
is
a
very
common
practice.
We
do
have
policies
and
protocols
for
protecting
and
confidential
and
sensitive
data.
Our
intent
with
this
legislation
was
to
actually
become
more
transparent
and,
as
opposed
to
have
it
be,
you
know,
perhaps
agency
guidelines.
We
wanted
to
make
it
very
clear
in
statute,
basically
when
data
can
remain
confidential
and
sensitive,
and
so
that
was
our
intent
with
this
bill.
H
J
Good
afternoon,
chair
watts
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
kristen
zabo,
I'm
the
administrator
of
the
nevada
division
of
natural
heritage,
and
I'm
pleased
to
be
here
today
as
well
to
present
assembly
bill
71,
which,
if
passed,
will
keep
certain
natural
heritage
data
confidential
and
before
I
walk
you
through
the
sections
of
the
bill.
I'd
like
to
give
you
some
background
on
the
division
of
natural
heritage
for
context.
J
The
division
manages
data
for
hundreds
of
native
plant
animal
species
that
are
listed
as
threatened
or
endangered
or
designated
as
candidates
for
listing
as
threatened
or
endangered
under
the
federal
endangered
species,
act
considered
sensitive
by
the
u.s
forest
service
or
bureau
of
land
management
protected
under
state
law
or
considered
rare
or
at
risk
of
extinction
by
the
division
of
natural
heritage
and
natural
heritage.
Data
are
used
by
a
variety
of
public
and
private
entities
early
in
the
planning
process,
to
help
minimize
costly
resource
conflicts
and
to
streamline
federally
mandated
environmental
reviews.
J
E
J
J
J
These
include
the
federal
state
and
division
of
natural
heritage.
Designations
mentioned
earlier
in
my
testimony
section
two
is
a
confirming
change
that
being
the
inclusion
of
natural
heritage
data
as
exempt
from
public
records
and,
if
passed,
I
don't
expect
that
this
will
change
how
we
currently
do
business,
but
it
would
provide
an
extra
level
of
protection
for
those
data
sensitive
locations.
J
J
J
The
next
500
records
are
one
dollar
per
record
and
additional
records
over
a
thousand
or
fifty
cents
per
record,
with
a
maximum
charge
of
five
thousand
dollars.
The
fee
doesn't
cover
the
entire
cost
to
maintain
the
database,
but
is
intended
to
offset
some
of
the
costs
and
all
data
request.
Fees
collected
by
the
division
are
reverted
to
our
primary
funding
source,
the
nevada
department
of
transportation
at
the
end
of
each
fiscal
year.
J
I
J
Like
to
point
out
that,
through
my
counterparts
at
other
natural
heritage
programs
across
the
country,
one
of
the
many
benefits
of
being
part
of
the
nature
serve
network
is
networking.
With,
with
all
of
these
people,
I've
learned
that
the
protection
of
data
sensitive
locations
is
a
common
challenge
that
we
all
share,
and
many
states
have
passed
similar
legislation
to
protect
sensitive
data,
and
there
are
at
least
12
states
that
I'm
aware
of
that
have
implemented
similar
data
protections
to
varying
degrees.
J
The
first
is
a
minor
amendment
submitted
by
the
division
of
natural
heritage
to
add
federal
candidate
species
to
the
definition
of
rare
species
in
section
5a,
the
u.s
fish
and
wildlife
service
often
determines
that
species
are
warranted
for
listing,
but
precluded
based
on
higher
priorities
and
those
species
become
candidates
for
listing.
Therefore,
we
would
like
to
treat
candidate
species
similar
to
threatened
and
endangered
species.
J
A
Thank
you
very
much
administrator
zabo.
We
are
going
to
do
a
brief
detour.
I
have
learned
that
we
had
somebody
who
wanted
to
provide
testimony
on
assembly
bill
72
who
had
some
technical
difficulties
getting
through.
So
I'm
gonna
briefly
stop
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
71
and
reopen
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
72
just
so
that
we
can
get
this
on
the
record
and
I'll
ask
broadcast
production
services
if
we
have
that
person
and
can
connect
them
in
order
to
provide
their
testimony
on
assembly
bill
72.
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
Caller,
with
the
last
three
digits
six
six
five,
please
press
star,
six
to
unmute.
A
All
right:
well,
that's,
okay,
we'll
we'll
give
it
another
shot
later
on,
wanted
to
try
and
get
them
in
before
we
dive
into
assembly
bill
71,
but
we'll
we'll
give
it
a
shot
later
on
in
the
meeting.
So
with
that,
we'll
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
72
we'll
resume
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
71,
we'll
start
questions
with
assemblyman
ellison.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I've
got
a
couple
questions
that
when
I
read
through
this
bill
and
and
really
tried
to
get
in,
I
understand
both
sides
of
the
of
the
which
side
of
the
crick
you're
on
on
this
scene,
but
on.
There
was
a
letter
that
was
written
by
several
people
that
that
asked
for
to
reject
the
bill
based
on
transparency.
F
To
me,
I
can
understand
where
somebody
wanted
to
make
sure
that
they're
protected,
but
the
problem
is,
if
it
gets
out,
then
people
could
actually
go
out
there
and
do
damage
or
harm
to
animals.
So
I
see
both
sides
of
this,
but
I
also
see
the
biggest
fear
I
have
is
by
opening
and
clear
open
it
up.
They
could
do
the
damage,
but
closing
it.
What
had
happened
in
the
future?
F
Somebody
wanted
to
go
in
there
and
start
closing
areas
or
not
releasing
the
information
back
to
the
public
on
stuff
that
we're
not
even
known
as
happening.
So
can
you
address
that,
and
I
hope
I
can
make
that
a
little
clearer
for
you?
Can
somebody
actually
go
in
and
put
something
on
the
endangered
species
list
like
a
plant
or
an
animal
or
anything
without
the
public
being
known
that
it's
going
to
be
listed?
Can
you
answer
that?
Thank
you.
J
Hi
kristen
zabo
for
the
record
to
answer
your
question.
J
F
I
don't
know,
I
see
fear
with
this
bill
and-
and
I
can
understand
what
the
people
wrote
the
letter
february
23rd
and
it
was
signed
by
several
different
people
and
have
you
got
that
letter.
F
Okay,
it
yeah
it
had
one
two,
three,
four,
five:
six,
seven
signatures
on
it:
seven
businesses
or
organizations
and
that
come
into
the
office
on
the
23rd,
the,
but
I
do
have
a
problem
with
with
being
extended,
say
there
was
an
endangered
species.
It'll
give
you
an
example
like
the
cutthroat
trout
in
jar
bridge,
say
they
lifted
that.
Could
that
still
stay
as
private
and
stay
on
the
list
of
endangered
species.
J
So
we're
so
there's
two
different
things
happening:
there's
the
list
of
endangered
species,
which
is
something
that
the
federal
government,
the
u.s
fish
and
wildlife
service,
maintains
and
then
there's
the
data
that
we
maintain
in
our
database,
which
includes
listed
species
but
also
includes
sensitive
species.
So
if,
if
a
species
was
removed
from
the
endangered
species
act,
that
would
be
a
public
process,
people
would
know,
but
that
doesn't
necessarily
mean
it
still
wouldn't
be
sensitive
within
the
state,
and
we
would
maintain
that
data.
J
It
would
still
be
a
sensitive
species,
maybe
to
natural
heritage,
based
on
the
criteria
that
we
use
to
rank
species
their
conservation
status.
So
it
still
could
remain
on
on
our
list
and
we
would
still
maintain
data
on
that
species
and
then
particular
locations
depending
on
the
species
might
be
marked
data
sensitive.
So
if
someone
were
to
request
that
data,
we
would
obscure
the
location,
so
you
would
still
you
would
still
get
a
list
or
your
gis
files.
J
That
say
this
particular
species
occurs
in
your
project
area,
but
you
might
not
get
the
exact
coordinates
to
avoid
any
harassment
or
disturbance
to
that
location.
H
Take
a
bit,
mr
mr
chair
and
assemblyman
I'll
see,
if
I
may
add
on
a
little
bit
to
that
answer
by
kristen
for
the
record,
jim
lawrence,
deputy
director,
department,
conservation
and
natural
resources.
H
I
do
want
to
make
it
clear
that
the
division
of
natural
heritage
is
entirely
non-regulatory.
They
just
maintain
the
database
for
information
purposes.
They
do
not
make
the
decisions
on
whether
something
is
to
be
listed.
You
know
on
the
federal
listing
or
even
a
state
listing,
there's
an
entire
different
process.
H
They
just
maintain
the
database
just
for
the
purposes
that
we
need
to
kind
of
know
the
delay
of
the
land
so
to
speak.
If
something
were
to
become
non-listed,
then
it
would
not
fall
under
this
criteria
that
was
proposing
most
likely.
So
then
it
would
be
released.
H
We
do
need
to
protect
certain
location
data
and
I
think,
as
a
good
example,
there
might
be
threatened
or
endangered
raptor,
for
instance,
and
so
we
would
release
the
the
data
that
yes,
there
is
something
present,
but
not
necessarily
that
specific
tree
and
exactly
where
that
nest
is,
as
as
kristen
said,
that
is
to
make
sure
that
they're,
in
certain
cases
that
there's
not
harassment
at
that
specific
exact
location
and
that's
that's
sort
of
the
need
for
the
masking
of
a
certain
data.
So
hopefully
that
helps
and
thank
you
for
letting
me
speak.
F
Okay,
thank
you
and
and
for
the
record,
mr
chair,
the
letter
that
I
did
receive.
I
don't
know
if
everybody
got
it,
but
it
was
signed
by
center,
biological
diversity,
nevada,
press
association,
progressive
leadership,
alliance
of
nevada,
great
basin,
water
networks,
nevada,
open
government
council,
a
coalition
aclu
and
sunrise
movement
in
las
vegas.
That
was
a
letter
I
received.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
I'll.
Just
briefly
note
a
couple
of
things.
One
is
that
the
the
letter
you
referenced
was
uploaded
to
nellis
and
is
available
as
an
exhibit
to
everyone.
A
In
addition,
I
believe
you
are
asking
some
clarifying
questions
about
how
this
statute
would
work,
but
I
would
remind
members
that
if
you're
referencing
a
letter
from
the
opponent
of
the
bill
and
are
are
asking
questions
that
are
really
aimed
at
the
opponent
of
the
bill
that
you
reserve
those
questions
for
testimony
and
opposition
last
thing
that
I
will
note
is
that,
while
many
of
the
questions
here
were
focused
on
federal
action,
there
are
still
within
subsection
five
of
section
one
of
the
bill
in.
A
Paragraph
c
and
d
classifications
from
the
state,
including
the
board
of
board
of
wildlife,
commissioners,
the
and
others
that
are
as
well
as
e
that
are
designations
by
the
state.
So
it
would
be
possible
for
a
federal
designation
to
be
changed
at
some
point,
but
for
a
state
designation
to
remain
and
then
I
believe
the
administrator
spoke
to
the
specific
data
fields
that
may
be
modified
over
time
as
sensitive
or
not.
B
B
I
do
have
a
question
regarding
section
3
c,
the
language
used
in
subsection,
one
of
that,
where
it's
the
phrase,
legitimate
activity
and
although
you
did
state
it
when
you
were
doing
the
presentation,
those
items
are
not
stated
in
the
law.
So
I'll
tell
you
before
you
answer
where
my
concerns
are
coming
from:
it's
a
possibility
that,
although
you
are
not
individuals
who
you
you
are
collecting
the
data
you
do
not
make
those
judgments
called
has
been
made
very
clear
in
the
presentation.
B
This
is
a
judgment
call
and
what
happens
if
it
is
a
politically
motivated
group
that
is
coming
through
that
you
might
not
agree
with
the
not
you
personally,
but
a
future
administrator
or
their
designee
might
disagree.
I'm
very
concerned
with
that
phrase
of
legitimate
activity
without
that
being
defined
further.
So
can
you
possibly
define
that
a
little
bit
better
or
make
some
possible
other
ideas
as
to
how
we
can
get
that
clearly.
J
J
We're
contacted
and
people
request
data
for
those
types
of
things,
and
I
can't
think
of
a
reason
that
we
turn
away
a
customer.
We,
you
know,
we
provide
data,
that's
our
job,
so
I'm
not
sure
I'm
gonna
answer
your
question
fully
at
this
time
and
I
respect.
B
I
respect
that
answer.
I
understand
that
that's
as
far
as
you
believe
it
it
can
go.
B
I
disagree,
and
so
at
this
time
I
I
have
some
serious
concerns
about
the
the
request,
and
so,
if
you
could
send
us
those
other
12
states,
the
information
that
are
in
their
laws
to
see,
if
it
is
that
similar
language
or
if
there's
possibility
of
some
other
qualifications
or
not
qualifications,
excuse
me
clarifications
so
that
this
way
it's
a
little
bit
more,
both
consistent
as
well
as
a
little
bit
more
open
for
our
members
of
the
public
who
are
interested
in
this
information.
K
Thank
you
so
much
mr
chair,
assemblywoman
gonzalez
assembly
district
16
for
the
record.
I
have
a
question
about
section,
one
subsection:
three,
where
it
says
the
administrator
or
his
or
her
designee
may
release
information
declared
confidential.
So
is
this
saying
that
the
administrator
can
release
information?
K
H
Three
thank
you
for
the
record
jim
lawrence,
w
director
dcnr,
and
thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman.
I
think.
Regarding
paragraph
or
subsection
3
in
section
1,
I
think
you're
it
does
a
few
things
one
is
it
makes
it
clear
that
the
administrator
or
his
or
her
designate,
which
is
sort
of
typical
government
bureaucratic
language.
That
means
that
the
administrator
can
delegate
some
of
these
duties
to
the
deputy
administrator
in
case
the
administrator
is
not
around
the.
H
What
it
does
is
it
sets
forth
the
conditions
and,
basically
again,
this
was
to
to
make
it
more
transparent,
the
existing
practice
that
we've
been
doing
and
other
other
folks
do
so
basically,
the
intent
here
is
that
the
confidential
information
can
be
released
by
the
division.
You
know
the
administrator
or
the
designee
under
these
certain
conditions,
and
that
way,
but
we
felt
by
putting
it
into
statute,
it
was
very
clear
to
the
public.
You
know
what
are
the
conditions
that
need
to
be
met
for
confidential
information
to
be
to
be
released.
K
Thank
you
so
much
chair
may
ask
a
follow-up
question.
Please.
K
H
H
And
if,
if
I,
if
I
may
follow
up
chair,
this
is
just
regarding
confidential
information
information,
that's
been
deemed
confidential.
As
administrator
xavi
said,
there's
a
lot
of
information
in
our
database
that
don't
meet
the
criteria
of
confidential
information
so
and
that's
just
released
through.
E
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
director.
B
And
administrator
for
the
presentation,
my
question
kind
of
follows
up
on
assemblywoman
anderson's.
So
in
section
1,
sub
3,
when
the
administrator
is
making
decisions,
is
that
appealable.
H
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman
for
the
record
jim
lawrence
again
this
it's
our
understanding.
This
might
be
a
better
question
for
your
legal
counsel.
Our
understanding
is
that
this
would
be
an
administrative
decision,
just
like
other
administrative
decisions
and
statutes,
and
you
know,
there's
a
process
for
I'm
challenging
those
administrative
decisions,
but
I'm
not
the
best
one
to
probably
to
articulate
that,
and
so
perhaps
I
would
defer
to
the
to
your
legal
counsel.
If
you
desire
on
sort
of
the
mechanics
of
appealing
administrative
decisions,.
A
Thank
you
we'll
put
that
request
into
legal,
and
once
we
have
an
update,
we'll
make
sure
it
gets
shared
with
all
of
the
members
of
the
committee.
I
also
have
a
couple
of
questions.
I
guess
first
I'll
just
follow
up
and
try
and
ask
some
clarifying
questions
on
subsection
three
here.
So
you
know.
Essentially,
there
are
a
couple
of
terms.
A
It
looks
like
in
this
section
of
the
statute
that
impart
discretion
on
the
agency
to
decide
whether
they
can
grant
a
request,
and
it
looks
like
the
first
is
the
use
of
the
word
may
in
at
the
start
of
subsection
three.
So
even
if
all
of
the
conditions
under
it
are
met,
the
agency
is
not
required
to
release
this
information.
A
The
other
is
the
word
legitimate
within
subsections
c
paragraph
one
so
that
there
is
a
some
determination
must
be
made
that
not
only
is
the
activity
related
to
conservation,
environmental
review
or
scientific
research,
but
that
it's
legitimate
and
so
those
impart
discretion
onto
the
agency
to
make
these
decisions,
whether
the
whether
the
information
can
be
released
to
a
party
is,
is
that
correct?
Is
that
your
intent
with
with
the
legislation.
H
Thank
you,
chair
watts,
for
the
question
and
you
know
I'll
take
the
first
shot
at
that
and
then
my
kristen
follow
up
if
needed.
You
know,
I
would
say
in
subsection
three
the
may:
it's
really
the
permissive
language
you're
right.
It
is
basically
you
know,
I
think,
when
we
drafted
the
language
language,
we
wanted
to
set
forth
the
conditions
of
which
confidential
information
could
be
released
or
maybe
released,
and
so
I
don't
know
if
there
was
a
lot
of
thought
between
the
may
and
the
shell.
H
It
was
really
just
to
give
that
authority
to
release
confidential
information
under
certain
conditions.
So
it's
a
good
question.
I
think,
and
that's
kind
of
how
we
thought
about
it.
You
know
the
the
legitimate
activity,
which
was
a
great
question
and
it
was
a
question
raised
by
assemblywoman
anderson
as
well.
I,
our
intent
here,
you
know,
as
kristen
said,
our
intent
is-
is
really
to
to
only
provide
this
information
for
legitimate
reasons,
and
I
understand
the
question
that
well,
who
decides
legitimate,
isn't
that
subjective?
H
We
really
did
try
to
narrow
it
to
certain
activities
that
I
think
for
folks
like
us
that
live
in
the
world
every
day
it
becomes
very
apparent,
but
you
know
maybe
not
so
much
to
folks
that
don't
live
in
this
world
every
day.
You
know.
Obviously
the
intent
here
is
to
make
sure
that
the
data
is
used
and
needed
for
legitimate
purposes,
not
to
not
to
give
it
out.
H
You
know
to
tour
groups
that
are
then
going
around
and
you
know
going
into
these
sensitive
locations
and
trampling
ecological
conditions
or
for
even
worse
reasons,
somebody
that's
interested
in
knowing
where
these
these
plant
species
are,
so
they
can
go,
collect
them.
Clearly,
our
intent
was
to
make
sure
that
it
was
really
for
legitimate
purposes.
H
That
really
is
is
the
intent.
I
think
you've
raised
some
good
questions
and
I
think
it
is
it's
by
beholden
on
us
to
go
back.
A
lot
of
this
was
taken
from
other
states
legislation,
but
perhaps
maybe
do
a
deeper
dive
and
see
if
we
can
maybe
better
define
that
for
this
committee,
but
that
clearly
was
our
attempt
and
hopefully
that
that
answers
your
question.
I
know
it
wasn't
maybe
as
specific
as
you
would
have
liked,
but
that
is
our
intent
and
I
don't
know
chris
if
you
had
anything
to
add.
A
Thank
you.
I
I
appreciate
that,
and
it
is
sometimes
important
to
to
really
clarify
for
the
record
the
intent
of
those
bringing
forward
the
legislation
and
it
may
be
it
sounds
like
it
may
be,
an
issue
where
some
additional
work
is
needed
to
ensure
that
the
statute
aligns
with
the
intent.
So
I
appreciate
the
response.
I
think
it
was
sufficient.
A
I
had
another
question
which
is
really
kind
of
in
subsection,
two
of
section
one,
the
information
related
to
the
location
of
a
rare
plant
or
animal
species,
and
I
know
that
you
know
within
your
testimony.
You've
specifically
talked
about
the
locational
data
itself
and
it
was
even
mentioned
the
redacting
of
that
locational
data.
A
Is
it
your
understanding
and
your
intent
that
the
location
would
be
redacted,
but
the
document
would
be
provided
or
would
the
entire
document
be
able
to
be
withheld
if
it
contained
any
sensitive
location,
information.
J
Thank
you
for
the
question
chair,
watts,
kristen
zabo,
for
the
record.
I
we
would
provide
the
data
and
just
yeah
provide
an
obscured
location
if
it
was
something
that
was
deemed
data
sensitive.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
clarification.
I
appreciate
that
I
have
one
more
question.
Thank
you,
and
that
is
for
the
the
fee.
That's
that
is
discussed
the
reasonable
fee
for
the
provision
of
records.
Can
you
provide
any
information
on
what
fee
is
is
currently
charged
for
public
records
requests
within
the
within
the
division
and
also
just
speak
to
you
know.
A
The
committee's
amendment
was
submitted
to
clarify
language
to
make
sure
that
it
couldn't
be
interpreted
that
the
the
determinating,
the
the
determining
factor
for
a
document
being
unclassified,
was
the
payment
of
a
fee.
So
I
just
want,
if
you
can
speak
to
clarifying
that,
that's
not
your
intent
that
you
currently
have
a
public
records
process
that
has
a
a
fee
and
and
could
provide
a
little
bit
of
information
on
what
that
is.
I
think
that
would
be
helpful
to
the
committee.
J
Thank
you,
kristen
zabo,
for
the
record.
Yes,
so
our
current
process
is,
we
have
a
data
request
form
and
our
data
license
agreement
on
our
website.
So
if
somebody
wants
to
request
data,
they
can
go
to
our
website,
click
on
request
data
and
there's
all
the
information.
There's
all
the
forms
you
can
download
fill
out
and
it
tells
you
where
to
submit
them
and
then
it
goes
to
our
data
manager
and
the
request
is
fulfilled
and
it
records.
J
If
there's
no
records
returned
within
the
project
area
that
you
submit
there's
no
fee,
and
so
we
just
provide
a
letter
that
states.
You
know
we
did
the
search
and
there's
no
records
were
returned
within
this
particular
area
and
and
then
we
don't
follow
up
with
an
invoice.
J
So
for
the
first
500
records,
it's
two
dollars
a
record
with
that
50
minimum
or
the
next
500
records
up
to
a
thousand.
It's
a
dollar
a
record
and
then,
after
a
thousand
records,
it's
57
50
cents,
a
record
with
a
5
000
maximum.
H
H
I
think
I
heard
a
couple
of
questions.
One
is
you
know:
is
it
a
condition
upon
the
release?
No,
it's
not
a
condition.
That's
not!
Our
intent
is
to
it's
to
be
heavy-handed.
H
You
know
for
the
committees.
I
know
this
isn't
a
budget
committee,
but
you
know
just
for
your
information.
This
is
a
very
small
division.
It
is
largely
effective,
not
entirely
paid
through
state
highway
funds,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
ndot
is
department,
transportation,
it's
one
of
our
biggest
customers.
Quite
honestly,
you
know,
as
you
can
imagine,
if
they're
contemplating
a
road
extension
or
a
new
road,
they
need
to
know.
You
know
where
the
species
are,
and
so
so
we
get
funding
from
them.
H
We
have
a
small
fee
in
place
like
other
states,
but
for
this
data
sharing.
Basically
we
don't
keep
it.
This
isn't
to
build
up
an
empire
or
anything
like
that.
Whatever
we
collect,
it
basically
gets
reverted
back
to
offset
the
highway
fund.
So
hopefully
that
gives
you
a
little
bit
of
a
context
of
the
intent
of
the
fee
and-
and
I
apologize
chair
watts-
I
I
may
have
missed
one
of
your
points
in
your
questions,
and
so
I
apologize
and
if
you
happy
answer
anything
more.
A
Thank
you,
mr
lawrence,
that
answered
my
question.
So
I
appreciate
you
providing
that
clarification.
One
last
point
I
will
provide
for
the
record.
Our
legal
counsel
did.
Let
us
know
that
normally
chapter
233
b
of
the
nevada,
revised
statutes
would
apply
when
it
comes
to
appeals,
it's
a
little
bit
fuzzy.
A
An
argument
could
be
made
that
it
doesn't
apply,
since
this
is
not
a
contested
case
or
an
administrative
proceeding
per
se,
and
so,
if
we
wanted
to
make
clear
that
such
a
decision
could
be
appealed,
we
would
likely
want
to
explicitly
include
that
language
within
this
statute.
So
I
just
wanted
to
provide
that
legal
analysis
for
the
record
as
well.
K
I
think
thank
you
so
much.
Mr
chair
assemblywoman
gonzalez
assembly
district
16..
I
just
have
two
clarifying
questions,
so
I
think
a
lot
of
us
are
confused
on
the
may
in
section
three,
so
is
there
or
would
there
be
an
event
where
a
person
who
files
a
request
does
fall
in
one
of
these
sections?
However,
the
administrator
has
still
determined
to
not
release
the
records
and
then
a
follow-up
to
that
is
for
folks
who
do
receive
denial.
Is
there
an
explanation
as
to
why
their
request
was
denied.
J
Thank
you
for
the
question,
kristen
zabo
for
the
record.
I
can't
think
of
any
examples
of
us
not
providing
data
from
the
past.
J
K
No
worries
I
asked
if
so
in
the
section
where
it
says
you
know
the
administrator
may
release
information
and
then
it
lists
out
why
the
reasons
why
they
would
release
it.
So
my
question
is:
let's
say
I
qualify
under,
I
don't
know
section
one
of
these
sections
is
there
a
reason
why
I
would
still
be
denied,
and
I
guess
I'm
still
hung
up
on
this
may
release
information
part
because
it
does
give
them
the
authority
to
may
or
not
me
right.
J
Kristin's
able
for
the
record,
so
I
can't
think
if
you
fall
under
one
of
these
conditions
or
lack
of
a
better
word,
I
don't
see.
I
can't
foresee
any
reason
why
we
would
deny
providing
data.
I
mean
the
purpose
of
providing
the
data
is
to
inform
land
use
decisions,
planning
decisions,
so
it's
so
the
resources
benefit
for
you
to
know
what's
out
there,
so
that
you
can
plan
your
project
accordingly,
but
it's
we
feel
it's
our
responsibility
to
also
protect
those
sensitive
locations,
but
I
I
can't
foresee
a
reason
why
we
would
deny.
H
If
I
may
add
on
mr
charlie,
the
second
part
to
that
question
from
assemblywoman
gonzalez
is:
if
there
was
a
denial,
would
we
give
a
reason-
and
I
think
the
answer
to
that
is
yes,
we
would,
I
think,
that's
just
our
common
practice
in
all
of
our
department
and
all
of
our
divisions
in
our
department
just
to
just
to
document
and
give
reasons
why.
I
think
it's
kind
of
hard
for
us
to
answer,
because,
like
because
folks
that
have
asked
for
data
under
these
conditions,
we've
given
it
and
we've
never
had
it
denial.
H
So
it's
not
a
situation
that
hasn't
really
come
up,
but
but
yes,
the
answer
is
yes,
of
course,.
A
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
other
questions
for
the
division
on
this.
A
A
G
I
Here
representing
clark
county
we're
here
today
in
support
of
assembly,
bill
71
and
would
first
just
like
to
thank
administrator
zabo
as
well
as
deputy
director
lawrence
for
their
willingness
to
work
with
the
county
on
the
proposed
amendment.
Language
that's
been
submitted.
I
I
hope
you
all
had
the
chance
to
review
that
proposed
amendment
language,
that's
been
posted
to
nellis
and,
I
believe,
distributed
to
all
of
the
committee
members
clark
county,
the
clark
county
department
of
environment
and
sustainability
regularly
works
with
the
division
of
natural
heritage,
to
request
and
share
data
related
to
managing
wildlife
and
their
habitats,
as
well
as
to
conduct
research
and
conservation
work
that
benefit
those
species,
and
we
we
appreciate
that
working
relationship
we
have
with
with
the
department
specifically
the
division
of
natural
heritage,
we'd
be
happy
to
walk
through
that
amendment.
I
If,
if
that
is
the
pleasure
of
the
chair
or
if
necessary,
but
if
not
we'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
community
may
have.
Thank
you
so
much.
A
A
G
If
you
are
just
joining
us,
we
are
on
support
for
testimony
on
assembly
bill
71.
Please
press
star
nine
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue.
G
G
G
I
I
This
bill
would
unduly
restrict
public
access
to
important
information
and
undermine
open
government
and
transparency
laws.
Dcnr
has
come
under
scrutiny
recently
due
to
public
records.
Requests
by
my
organization
pertaining
to
the
rare
plant
team's
buckwheat,
which
we
allege
is
threatened
with
extinction
by
an
open
pit
mind.
I
I
The
records
requests
we've
done
have
revealed
that
dcnr
is
making
attempts
to
avoid
the
public
records
scrutiny
as
you've.
Seen
in
the
letter
we
sent
around
there's
evidence
that
dc
and
our
staff
have
been
instructed
not
to
use
the
words
teams
buckwheat
in
emails
in
order
to
avoid
public
records
requests.
A
recent
records
request.
I
just
got
back
had
over
30
documents
and
email
chains
declared
privileged
and
exempt
something
that
dcnr
has
not
previously
done
with
our
requests.
I
This
legislation
would
also
allow
dcnr
to
have
unfettered
discretion
over
who
they
deem
has
a
quote
legitimate
activity
unquote
with
the
species.
This
could
lend
itself
to.
First
amendment
concerns
if
certain
parties,
such
as
my
organization
are
not
in
political
favor
with
the
department,
dcnr
has
not
put
forward
any
examples
where
public
records
requests
have
resulted
in
harm
to
species.
I
There
is
one
infamous
recent
example
of
damage
to
an
endangered
species
with
teams
buckwheat,
but
dc
and
r
blamed
that
on
squirrels,
perhaps
the
squirrels
did
a
public
records
request.
In
short,
this
legislation
appears
geared
its
timing.
Public
access
to
information
held
by
dcnr
there
do
need
to
be
reforms
in
dcnr's.
Adherence
to
the
public
records
act,
not
a
further
ratcheting
back
of
our
right
to
government
transparency,
and
we
did
submit
a
letter
to
you,
signed
by
a
number
of
environmental
groups,
open
government
advocates
and
social
justice
organizations
opposing
this
bill.
G
K
M-A-D-E-L-Y-N-R-E-E-F-E,
I'm
a
volunteer
with
the
sierra
club,
toyota
chapter
legislative
committee,
and
I'm
here
speaking
today,
representing
more
than
7
000
members
and
30
000
supporters
in
nevada
and
urging
you
to
oppose
ab-71
sierra
club
appreciates
and
supports
the
mission
and
staff
of
the
nevada
division
of
natural
heritage
division
officials
are
stewards
tasked
with
helping
the
public
understand
the
threat,
the
status
of
threatened
endangered,
rare
and
at-risk
plant
and
animal
species
in
the
state.
The
data,
the
division
of
choirs
and
catalogs
are
used
to
navigate
the
complexities
between
conservation
and
development
of
natural
resources.
K
K
These
professions
provisions
give
officials
broad
sweeping
discretion
to
conceal
data
and
limit
who
can
access
public
records
and
when
we
cannot
rule
out
the
potential
for
political
misuse
of
ab-71,
we
must
also
consider
the
broad
range
of
documents
that
could
now
be
omitted
from
public
oversight,
such
as
emails
text,
messages,
reports
and
other
correspondence
by
the
sheer
mention
of
a
certain
species.
Like
patrick
mentioned
in
his
earlier
comment
in
conversations
that
we've
had
with
the
division,
we
were
offered
no
examples
of
state
data
leading
to
harm.
K
Therefore,
we're
unsure
of
the
imminent
need
for
this
project.
Suggestions
for
the
division
to
help
solve
this
purported
problem
includes
fuzzing.
The
data
sets
to
protect
species
locations,
creating
a
public
education
program
with
ngo
partners,
like
the
sierra
club,
identifying
all
data
sets
that
can
be
delivered
to
the
public,
with
without
approval
and
in
quick
time
and
more.
K
In
closing,
the
sierra
club
believes
access
to
public
records
is
key
to
a
healthy
democracy
and
the
balancing
test
of
disclosure
versus
censorship.
Open
access
must
always
always
always
outweigh
the
repression
of
information.
The
public
must
have
access
to
open
information
in
order
to
ensure
the
fair
and
transparent
access
to
this
information.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
G
E
My
name
is
richard
carpel,
that's
k-a-r-p-e-l,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada
press
association
and
I'm
today
also
testifying
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
open
government
coalition.
We
share
the
concerns
about
ab-71
that
have
been
articulated
by
others
in
opposition
to
the
bill.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
mr
carpel,
for
your
testimony
we'll
go
on
to
the
next
caller
and
opposition
of
assembly
bill.
G
G
G
K
K
We
support
transparency
and
believe
the
information
this
bill
would
make
exempt
to
public
records.
Requests
should
continue
to
be
accessible
to
the
public.
I
trust
the
conservationists
when
they
say
they
need
this
information
to
support
campaigns
to
save
sensitive
species
from
threats
and
extinctions.
K
As
a
proud
member
of
team
buckwheat
to
save
teens
buckwheat,
we
are
concerned
this
bill
would
exist
not
to
protect
such
species,
but
to
promote
a
culture
of
secrecy
and
shield
the
nevada
division
of
natural
heritage
from
scrutiny
and
criticism.
We
were
happy
to
sign
on
to
the
coalition
letter
and
fully
support
the
concerns
raised
in
it.
We
oppose
ab71.
G
C
My
name
is
kyle
rowrank
k-y-l-e
r-o-e-r-I-n-k.
I
am
the
executive
director
of
the
great
basin
water
network,
mr
chair
and
committee
members.
We
oppose
ab-71
the
great
basin
water
network
represents
a
divorce,
a
diverse
cohort
of
water
users
and
conservation
interests
throughout
the
state
and
has
had
many
partnerships
with
government
entities
and
quasi-governmental
entities.
Over
decades,
we've
participated
in
complex
litigation
and
regulatory
matters
that
have
required
us
to
file
public
records
requests.
C
C
Any
proposal
to
exempt
records
from
public
view
is
potentially
setting
up
a
situation
where
we,
the
public,
could
be
left
in
the
dark,
as
it
relates
to
the
official
business
of
an
agency
or
division.
We
cannot
discount
the
fact
that
ab-71
could
be
used
one
day
to
conceal
information
from
the
public
eye
without
proper
justification
or
consequence.
C
We
must
also
consider
the
broad
range
of
documents
that
could
be
wrapped
up
in
this
bill.
The
scope
is
large
reports,
memos
emails
text,
messages
and
other
correspondence
to
name
a
few.
The
bill
does
not
imply
that
any
documents
containing
locations
would
be
released
if
the
locations
were
redacted.
The
language
is
much
more
sweeping
and
broad.
C
C
It
is
important
to
note
that
proponents
haven't
given
one
example
of
an
open
data
of
open
data
leading
to
harm
the
species
specifically
with
the
language
section.
1
subsection
2
undermines
the
foundations
of
our
current
public
records.
Lawn
sets
a
dangerous
precedent.
Next
section,
one
subsection
three
one
through
three
gives
officials
the
ability
to
pick
and
choose
who
get
what
documents
and
when
another
dangerous
press
precedent,
giving
an
administrator
the
ability
to
determine
what
is
or
is
not
a
legitimate
activity
is
very
dangerous.
That
should
give
us
pause
right
now.
C
C
G
K
A
G
A
Thank
you
very
much
broadcast
production
services.
Now,
with
that,
we
will
end
testimony
and
I
will
invite
the
department
and
division
to
offer
any
closing
thanks.
H
Well,
thank
you,
mr
cherrigan,
for
the
record,
jim
lawrence
deputy
director
department
conservation,
natural
resources
again
really
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
present
the
bill
and
get
on
the
record
our
intentions
with
this
bill.
H
I
think
a
couple
of
things
and
I
really
appreciate
the
questions
and
comments
from
the
committee
members
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
certainly
heard
is
you
know
going
back
and
taking
a
look
at
subsection
three
under
section
one
regarding
the
may
and
the
shall
and
perhaps
a
better
definition
of
what
defines
a
conservation
activity
or
educational
activity.
H
So
we
will
certainly
do
that.
I
think
those
are
good
comments
and
very
easy
to
follow
up
on.
I'm
appreciate
hearing
the
comments
from
the
opposition
as
well.
I
think.
Obviously
we
disagree
with
some
of
the
premise
on
our
intentions.
Our
intentions
really
is
to
make
it
very
clear
the
instances
when
we
can
release
confidential
information.
H
There
are
instances
we
do
want
to
make
sure
that
you
know
data
does
not
get
into
a
situation
where
you
know.
Perhaps
I
retire
and
I
decide
I
want
to
do
tours
to
to
see
the
last
peregrine
falcon
nest
and
I
want
to
go
exactly
there
and
take
words
of
people
there
and
then
that
really,
you
know
if
you
work
in
the
ecological
environmental
field,
that
type
of
disturbance
can
be
very
damaging
to
some
of
our
threat
and
endangered
species.
H
So
we
really
are
from
a
place
of
protecting
these
species,
but
also
making
sure
the
data
is
used
for
the
appropriate
purposes.
There
was
a
comment
regarding
you
know
my
department
and
the
team's
buckwheat.
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
the
team's
buckwheat
would
not
classify
as
confidential
information,
and
so
in
that
case
it
would
just
be
released.
H
So
again,
this
is
really
to
take
a
look
at
the
sensitive
confidential
information
data.
That's
been
given
to
us
voluntarily
sometimes
have
sensitive
private
property
information,
and
we
do
need
to
redact
some
of
that
specific
information
to
protect
your
private
property
rights
or
basically
to
protect
the
resource
as
well.
H
This
is
also,
lastly,
I
would
say
you
know
again:
the
intent
is
to
make
our
practice
transparent.
This
is
a
very
common
practice
by
other
heritage
programs.
We've
been
doing
this
practice,
it's
also
very
common
in
the
historic
and
cultural
resources
field.
It
breaks
my
heart
when
I
read
a
newspaper
article
of
somebody
that's
damaged
and
takes
home
a
petroglyph,
for
instance.
H
Sometimes
it
is
just
very
important
to
to
basically
protect
the
specific
sensitive
locations,
and
that
is
our
intent,
actually
it's
to
make
it
more
transparent
to
put
it
in
statute
our
practices,
as
opposed
to
make
it
maybe
an
internal
policy
or
procedure,
we're
really
trying
to
be
clear
in
statute
when
we
can
release
confidential
information.
A
Thank
you,
mr
lawrence.
Thank
you
miss
for
your
presentation
of
the
bill.
We
look
forward
to
receiving
some
of
the
reference
materials
that
were
mentioned
previously
in
regards
to
other
states,
regulations
of
statutes
and
look
forward
to
continuing
the
discussion
on
this
bill.
With
that,
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
71.
A
That
leaves
one
item
left
on
our
agenda
today,
and
that
is
public
comment
again.
In
order
to
provide
public
comment,
you
must
register
on
the
legislative
website
and
again
we
do
ask
commenters
to
please
limit
their
remarks
to
two
minutes
with
that.
I
will
again
turn
it
over
to
broadcast
production
services
to
see
if
we
have
anybody
in
the
queue
for
public
comments.
G
G
K
A
Thank
you
so
much
miss
montooth
for
your
testimony.
I'm
glad
that
you
were
able
to
dial
in
and
provide
that
I'll.
Ask
the
committee
secretary
to
reclassify
this
public
comment
as
support
for
assembly
bill
72,
and
thank
you
again
for
your
remarks.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you
committee
members
for
your
questions
and
engagement
in
the
bill
hearings
today.
Thank
you
again
to
broadcast
production
services
for
all
of
the
assistance
that
you
provide
in
making
sure
that
members
of
the
public
and
other
interested
parties
can
participate
in
our
meetings
with
that.
A
That
concludes
our
meeting.
For
today.
Our
next
meeting
will
be
on
monday
march
at
4
pm.
Everyone
be
prepared
for
it
to
go
a
little
bit
longer
than
this,
as
it
is
a
presentation
from
the
division
of
water
resources
and
the
first
water
related
bills
of
our
of
the
session.
For
our
committee
with
that.
Thank
you
again,
and
this
meeting
is.