Legislature(1995 - 1996)

05/03/1996 08:05 AM RES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                          May 3, 1996                                          
                           8:05 a.m.                                           
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman                                         
 Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman                        
 Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman                                      
 Representative Alan Austerman                                                 
 Representative John Davies                                                    
 Representative Pete Kott                                                      
 Representative Don Long                                                       
 Representative Irene Nicholia                                                 
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 Representative Ramona Barnes                                                  
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 Governor's appointment of David Norton to the Alaska Oil and Gas              
 Conservation Commission                                                       
 CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 247(RLS) am(efd fld)(ct rule fld)                      
 "An Act restricting the use of certain funds deposited in the fish            
 and game fund; and relating to the powers and duties of the                   
 commissioner of fish and game."                                               
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  SB 247                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: USE OF FISH & GAME FUND/COMM'R'S POWERS                          
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR, Sharp, Miller                                  
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 01/30/96      2251    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/30/96      2251    (S)   RES, FIN                                          
 03/20/96              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/25/96              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/28/96      2941    (S)   RES RPT  CS  3DP 2NR       NEW TITLE              
 04/03/96              (S)   FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 04/03/96              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                       
 04/04/96      3064    (S)   FISCAL NOTES TO CS (F&G-3)                        
 04/04/96      3064    (S)   FIN RPT  CS  2DP 2NR       NEW TITLE              
 04/04/96      3064    (S)   FISCAL NOTES TO CS (F&G-3)                        
 04/04/96      3064    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DPS)                      
 04/09/96              (S)   RLS AT 12:20 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 04/09/96              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 04/10/96      3112    (S)   RULES CS & 2CAL 1NR  4/10/96  NEW TITLE           
 04/10/96      3112    (S)   FNS TO CS (F&G-3)                                 
 04/10/96      3112    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DPS)                            
 04/10/96      3114    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/10/96      3114    (S)   RLS  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 04/10/96      3114    (S)   ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y12 N8               
 04/10/96      3114    (S)   THIRD READING 4/11 CALENDAR                       
 04/11/96      3166    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 247(RLS)                
 04/11/96      3166    (S)   FAILED PASSAGE Y10 N10                            
 04/11/96      3167    (S)   TAYLOR  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                 
 04/12/96      3206    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                 
 04/12/96      3206    (S)   RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1  UNAN CONSENT           
 04/12/96      3206    (S)   AM NO  1   ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                   
 04/12/96      3207    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                    
 04/12/96      3207    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y11 N8 E1               
 04/12/96      3208    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE(S) FAILED Y13 N6 E1                
 04/12/96      3208    (S)   COURT RULE(S) FAILED Y12 N7 E1                    
 04/12/96      3220    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/15/96      3732    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/15/96      3733    (H)   RESOURCES, FINANCE                                
 04/26/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 04/26/96              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 04/29/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 04/29/96              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 05/01/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 05/01/96              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 05/02/96              (H)   RES AT  0:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 05/02/96              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 05/03/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 DAVID NORTON                                                                  
 1208 "S" Street                                                               
 Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 276-2530                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions regarding his confirmation            
                      to the AOGCC.                                            
 TERRY OTNESS, Legislative Assistant                                           
   to Senator Robin Taylor                                                     
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 30                                                     
 Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 3873                                                        
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Gave sponsor statement for CSSB 247(RLS)                 
                      am(efd fld)(ct rule fld).                                
 ED GRASSER                                                                    
 Alaska Outdoor Council                                                        
 P.O. Box 2193                                                                 
 Palmer, Alaska 99645                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 745-3772                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Reviewed proposed amendments to CSSB 247(RLS)            
                      am(efd fld)(ct rule fld).                                
 WAYNE REGELIN, Director                                                       
 Division of Wildlife Conservation                                             
 Department of Fish and Game                                                   
 P.O. Box 25526                                                                
 Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526                                                     
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on CSSB 247(RLS)                      
                      am(efd fld)(ct rule fld).                                
 SARA HANNAN, Executive Director                                               
 Alaska Environmental Lobby                                                    
 419 Sixth Street                                                              
 Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 463-3366                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against the SB 247(RLS)                        
                      am(efd fld)(ct rule fld).                                
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 96-76, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Resources Committee meeting            
 to order at 8:05 a.m.  Members present at the call to order were              
 Representatives Williams, Kott, Davies, Long and Green.                       
 Number 072                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the first order of business would be              
 the confirmation hearing of David Norton to the Alaska Oil and Gas            
 Conservation Commission (AOGCC).  He asked Mr. Norton to tell the             
 committee members a few things about himself.                                 
 DAVID NORTON came before the committee and read his statement into            
 the record:                                                                   
 "Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is David Norton.             
 Thank you for inviting me to address the committee.  I appreciate             
 the committee holding this hearing to consider me for the                     
 commissioner's seat.                                                          
 "To refresh the committee on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation              
 Commission, I've attached a one page overview of the commission's             
 responsibilities and functions and I have also attached a one page            
 review of the history of the AOGCC and I believe it's in your                 
 "The commission's role is to ensure the efficient depletion of the            
 state's hydrocarbon resources.  This is accomplished in three ways:           
 Preventing waste of the resource; secondly, ensuring maximum                  
 ultimate recovery of the resource; and protecting the correlative             
 rights of adjacent owners of oil and gas properties.  These three             
 aspects of the AOGCC's mission are the basis of the term                      
 `conservation' as used in oil and gas regulation and are typical of           
 the mission that all petroleum producing states provide through               
 conservation agencies just like AOGCC.                                        
 "I would like to address my qualifications as commissioner.  The              
 commissioner's seat I stand for today is reserved for an Alaskan              
 `licensed engineer with an educational and professional background            
 in the field of petroleum engineering.'  I believe you have my                
 resume and a letter to Chairman Green submitting additional detail            
 of my qualifications in your packet.                                          
 "After graduation from Rice University, I moved to Alaska in 1974,            
 to work on the trans-Alaska pipeline.  For the past 22 years, the             
 majority of my career has been associated with design, construction           
 and operation of the pipeline, including facilities for gas                   
 handling, refining and metering.  I have significant experience in            
 managing development of complex oil and gas facilities in Alaska.             
 I have been a licensed professional engineer in the state of Alaska           
 since 1984.                                                                   
 "I believe a commissioner is best qualified by a range of                     
 experience in the oil and gas industry that allows a broad                    
 perspective while maintaining an understanding of the technical               
 challenges associated with public policy.  There is a difference              
 between technical staff work and the judgement required of a                  
 commissioner.  The professional staff at the commission includes              
 two petroleum engineers and a petroleum geologist.  As do most                
 commissioners and legislators, I will use my technical staff as is            
 "I believe I have a unique industry perspective because of my                 
 Alyeska pipeline experience.  At Alyeska, I was required to obtain            
 financial and technical approvals of the major owners, Arco, BP and           
 Exxon.  As a result, I have intimate knowledge of the companies'              
 various cultures, biases and procedures.  I am the only current               
 commissioner with direct industry experience.                                 
 "I would like to provide a response to criticism that I do not have           
 appropriate petroleum engineering background for this seat.                   
 "Petroleum engineering is such a broad category that no one could             
 claim experience in all areas under the commission's purview.                 
 Petroleum engineering can be viewed as encompassing three broad               
 areas:  It covers reservoir characteristics and petrophysics;                 
 secondly, it covers drilling and recovery techniques; and thirdly,            
 it covers surface equipment, processes and delivery.  My background           
 is in the area of surface equipment, processes and delivery.                  
 "The statute does not specifically require a licensed petroleum               
 engineer.  If the intent of the statute was to reserve the seat for           
 licensed petroleum engineers, according to state records then only            
 a small pool of about 20 people would be qualified, some of whom              
 may have conflicts because of their employment.  I am a licensed              
 civil engineer with significant background in the oil and gas                 
 industry in Alaska.                                                           
 "I believe I am a good fit with the current commissioners and                 
 staff.  We are working well together and I would like to apprise              
 you of some current initiatives that I believe we should and can              
 accomplish at the commission.                                                 
 "Number 1, `Regulation Revision.'  We are in the process of                   
 completing the first comprehensive revision of our regulations                
 since 1986.  The focus is on streamlining technical and procedural            
 requirements for drilling and reservoir management.  AOGA is a key            
 industry partner in this effort.  We are deleting obsolete                    
 requirements and providing less prescriptive regulations to allow             
 more latitude to regulate rapidly changing oil field techniques.              
 We are also anticipating new requirements for abandoning offshore             
 platforms in Cook Inlet.  The first phase of this work was                    
 completed this quarter and we hope to adopt the finished set of               
 regulations this summer.                                                      
 "Secondly, `The Alaska Energy Infobank.'  The infobank is an                  
 exciting joint industry/government initiative championed by Arco              
 and BP that puts non-proprietary private and public petrotechnical            
 data on a common shared database.  The prize is significant cost              
 savings in not maintaining duplicate sets of data.  Since the AOGCC           
 is the primary state archive of well and production data, there are           
 opportunities and challenges for the commission to be more                    
 efficient at less cost.  I am on the Infobank Steering Board, along           
 with representatives of Arco, BP, Exxon, Unocal and DNR.  The                 
 Infobank has a website and I've put the electronic address of the             
 website in your packet if you're interested for more information.             
 "Thirdly, `Budget Discipline.'  The commission is committed to                
 efficient use of state funds, including the Oil and Gas                       
 Conservation Tax, to monitor safe oil field practices and to                  
 promote maximum recovery of the state's petroleum resources.  To              
 gain the efficiencies to live within our means, we are evaluating             
 several options, including moving facilities to reduce cost and               
 share infrastructure, sharing resources with other agencies, and              
 upgrading technology to take advantage of opportunities to cut                
 "So in closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to use an analogy that             
 I picked up at the annual Petroleum Industry Alliance meeting last            
 January.  Dick Oliver, who is John Morgan's boss at BP, had flown             
 in to give his assessment of the state of the industry in Alaska.             
 he spoke about a metaphorical bridge between today and tomorrow by            
 comparing it to a real bridge over the Gulkana River.  The real               
 bridge was a critical link in the completion of the trans-Alaska              
 pipeline and required extraordinary innovation, teamwork and                  
 cooperation to complete on time.                                              
 "Mr. Oliver said that the girders of the metaphorical bridge will             
 be marginal oil fields developed with new emerging technologies.              
 This bridge will require the same extraordinary efforts used on the           
 Gulkana bridge and will span today's gap between Prudhoe Bay and              
 future opportunities such as ANWR and a gas pipeline.                         
 "Mr. Chairman, I worked on that Gulkana bridge 20 years ago as a              
 young engineer.  Now, as a more seasoned bridge builder, I look               
 forward to working on today's bridge to tomorrow.  Thank you."                
 Number 639                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "Do you have any idea how many BOP tests             
 are conducted each year?  How many wells and then how many tests on           
 each of those?"                                                               
 MR. NORTON explained that there is about 1,400 wells up there.  He            
 said he didn't know exactly how many.                                         
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified he is talking about BOP on the drilling           
 MR. NORTON said every time they set up, the commission conducts one           
 and that's their goal.  He noted last year they did about 200.                
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there are several conducted during each            
 well drilling.                                                                
 MR. NORTON answered in the affirmative.                                       
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if those are all witnessed by the                     
 MR. NORTON explained they have five inspectors on staff.  They                
 cover the North Slope and Cook Inlet.  The goal is to witness every           
 one of them; however, there isn't enough staff to do that.  He said           
 he believes they are trying to get to 75 percent of them.  Mr.                
 Norton explained the ones they can't physically witness, they                 
 receive a report from the company man.                                        
 Number 737                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES questioned what the BOP test is.                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN explained there is a series of protective                   
 equipment - pieces equipment on a well, from the rams up to what is           
 called a bag.  It is a hydraulic bag that will close off on                   
 anything, either itself or anything that's in the hole drill pipe.            
 He said there are rams which are so powerful they can actually                
 shear the pipe and close against themselves.  These are anchored to           
 the well head so that in case you get a gas bubble or something at            
 the well, you can shut it in instantly and keep it under control.             
 Unfortunately, in the early part of the well you can tie it down              
 and plug it off, but if all you've got is surface pipe it can move            
 the whole pipe out.  So you have diverter on the surface pipe and             
 then as you get deeper where you've got an anchor then you put more           
 and more control because you get higher and higher pressure                   
 potential.  Co-Chairman Green said, "Each time you change into a              
 different size pipe then do you actually try and witness these or             
 do you take -- I think you said you'll actually use the company               
 records where they have actually tested it."                                  
 Number 820                                                                    
 MR. NORTON said the purpose of this is for well control.  He                  
 informed the committee that lately they have been noticing a                  
 disturbing increase in the amount of bad cement jobs of surface               
 casing.  The AOGCC started an investigation in the spring as to why           
 this is happening.  Mr. Norton said the surface casing has to be              
 cemented in properly or else there is a conduit at the surface for            
 any kind of over pressure down below.  It is not only required for            
 well control safety, it is also required for a relatively new                 
 technique on the Slope for disposing of cutting waste and that's              
 down the annulus of a well.  The annulus is the space between the             
 well bore and the casing.  It is a very efficient way to dispose of           
 drilling waste.  Mr. Norton said since the Environmental Protection           
 Agency (EPA) has pressured the North Slope operators to dispense              
 with reserve pits, this has become probably the most efficient way            
 to dispose of waste up there.  Mr. Norton informed the committee              
 that injecting waste down an annulus probably exceeds the leak off            
 test pressure at the casing shoe, so it is very important that the            
 cement job is adequate to preserve the integrity of the formation             
 and prevent fluids from returning to the surface.  There have been            
 several instances of that happening lately so industry has been               
 invited in to explain what is going on.  The inspectors are                   
 scheduled to come in for a seminar on cementing techniques from               
 industry.  He said Arco and BP, through their regulation process,             
 has been invited to suggest ways where commission can be more                 
 efficient or the inspectors can be more precise with assessing                
 whether a cement job is good or bad.  It is tough to do because it            
 is not something that can be visually seen, other than cement                 
 returning to the surface, that would indicated whether the job is             
 good or bad.                                                                  
 Number 974                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there is something called a "cement bond           
 MR. NORTON explained the have run cement bond logs, but the                   
 commission has been told that a cement bond log can be interpreted            
 in many many ways and a bad job could look good on a cement bond              
 Number 997                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to Mr. Norton saying that there is a               
 current rash of these that are not well done.  He asked if there is           
 anything happening differently currently than there was in the past           
 such as the angles are higher.                                                
 MR. NORTON referred to when he says "current," and said he talking            
 about the last two or three years.  There has been maybe 20 cases             
 in the last two to three years and two or three cases this spring.            
 He said they think it is because of a rush to try to economize on             
 the amount of cement used on a job.  The current regulations                  
 require cement to be returned to surface and in doing so, if every            
 job had to be that way then there would be a lot of excess cement             
 returned to the surface and that excess cement would have to be               
 hauled off, disposed of which would increase costs.  They try to              
 cut the margin as close as they can and in trying to cut that                 
 margin, he believes they sometimes have errored on the downside.              
 Mr. Norton said he thinks the initial impetus was when the reserve            
 pits disappeared from the Slope, waste handling on the Slope became           
 and is currently a major cost driver.                                         
 Number 1074                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Well the volumetric of determining the               
 annulus between the pipe and the location would be in your                    
 province.  I mean while it would be maybe not you specifically, but           
 you mentioned that you've got a staff of petroleum engineers that             
 would determine that.  Now if they cut back so they wouldn't                  
 surface, I mean they wouldn't come to the surface and actually                
 spill out, when you run these bonds or temperature surveys that               
 would show where the top of the cement is, is it because that upper           
 part of the hole is not cemented or I thought you indicated that              
 there was leakage at the shoe where you're gonna be using disposal            
 methods, and it seemed like the cement - whatever cement would be             
 there and then maybe run out as you came up the hole."                        
 MR. NORTON explained the commission reviews drilling plans as a               
 part of the permit to drill.  The commission reviews the cement               
 calculations; however, they don't do the calculations.  Typically,            
 North Slope operators specifically will allow a fixed percentage              
 over.  He noted for Prudhoe Bay he thinks it is 30 percent over the           
 theoretical estimate of annulus.  Sometimes that isn't enough,                
 especially in a permafrost area as the hole becomes larger because            
 of permafrost degradation.  The commission doesn't check their work           
 and tell them to increase it.  It is just reviewed to make sure               
 there is an adequate amount of excess.  It is always their                    
 responsibility before drilling to ensure that the leak off test has           
 been done.  That's primarily where you get your safety margin for             
 well control.  He noted he is speaking of annular disposal problems           
 later.  Mr. Norton explained the reason he brought it up is to use            
 it as an example of the way AOGCC has been able to detect a problem           
 and adjust their resources to focus on that as a problem rather               
 than going on with business as usual and letting it happen.                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated, "Well that's why I'm asking you and                 
 certainly we don't need to get into a lot of detail with the                  
 committee.  My concern though is you may recall a letter that was             
 sent to the Governor last year, and I'm not gonna pursue that, but            
 the concern is your division or your department is responsible for            
 the safety of the wells and if - and your particular part of that             
 of the triad of the commission would be down hole operations -                
 cementing, bottom hole safety valves, all those sorts of things               
 would fall into the purview of your potion of this triad.  And the            
 concern I have is - is that there would be certainly the chance of            
 a blow out prevention equipment not functioning properly so you               
 watch that.  And we haven't gotten into down hole safety valves in            
 case there is a rupture of the producing equipment once the well --           
 the rig is gone, and all that is still under your purview.  My                
 concern now is that you mentioned this surface pipe and not being             
 able to meet the leak off test and, yes, there is down hole                   
 injection later in the annulus, but which is now between the                  
 production stream and that surface pipe and there is fluid injected           
 at whatever 4, 5, 6,000 feet.  If there is not integrity at that              
 casing shoe that seems to me that's also a purview of the                     
 Conservation Commission and particularly the job that you are                 
 looking at."                                                                  
 Number 1309                                                                   
 MR. NORTON indicated that is correct.  He said hopes he didn't                
 indicate that they were allowing operators to drill a head if the             
 leak off test failed.  That's not the case.  The leak off test has            
 to pass before they can drill a head.  That demonstrates integrity            
 at the shoe.  Mr. Norton said subsequent to that, if that specific            
 well became a candidate for annular injection, the injection                  
 pressure at the shoe or down hole sometimes exceed the leak off               
 test pressure.  He said he thinks it primarily exceeds it in order            
 to fracture (indisc.).  Mr. Norton explained if you use that as               
 disposal well, you've got to be sure that the cement job above the            
 point of injection is competent.  They look at cement bond logs and           
 other diagnostic techniques to ensure that and the companies bring            
 their information in and show it to the inspectors and staff.  In             
 a limited number of cases, it has not been the case.  It becomes an           
 area of concern for them to focus on.                                         
 Number 1384                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to the inspectors and petroleum                    
 engineers and asked Mr. Norton if they report to him.                         
 MR. NORTON explained the inspectors report to Dave Johnston.  He              
 said there isn't an executive direct at the commission.  The                  
 commissioners have divided up the staff for purposes of supervision           
 and they perform evaluation and personnel action.  Mr. Norton                 
 informed the committee his area includes the statisticians for well           
 production.  He noted that is the reason he is focusing on the info           
 bank as a great opportunity.  Mr. Norton noted his area also                  
 includes one petroleum engineer and petroleum geologist.  The other           
 petroleum engineer supervises the inspectors and is under the                 
 purview of David Johnston.  The three commissioners deal with                 
 issues such as surface cementing as a committee.  He said he thinks           
 they all work fairly well together.                                           
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he is interested in the fact that there are            
 these various charges and safety is one that is of paramount                  
 concern, not only to the employees that might be around it, but to            
 environmental degradation potential.                                          
 Number 1534                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said Mr. Norton indicated the three major               
 purviews of the AOGCC were preventing waste, ensuring maximum                 
 recovery and the correlative rights.  The inspections that have               
 been discussed seem to also have some impact on safety issues.  He            
 asked if there is another agency that has primary responsibility              
 for the safety of these installations.                                        
 MR. NORTON explained for well safety, the AOGCC is the main state             
 agency.  He said he believes state safety personnel gets involved             
 in some surface facilities, but as far as blow out prevention the             
 commission is the primary agency for that.  He noted that follows             
 from preventing waste if there is a blow out.  It is safety                   
 primarily, but the genesis is in the preventing waste of the                  
 Number 1618                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG referred to the Northstar unit that has               
 been discussed.  He said it appears they may be applying for a                
 permit for production very soon or sometime in the near future.  He           
 asked Mr. Norton asked how he sees the role of the commission with            
 the Northstar unit, which is an off-shore unique type of operation.           
 MR. NORTON said the AOGCC hasn't gotten too deep in the Northstar             
 legislation because it is a leasing change.  He said the Department           
 of Natural Resources (DNR) is the primary agency for that.  When              
 and if Northstar becomes a developing field, the commission will              
 get involved in several ways.  They will have to develop pool rules           
 to allocate the resource among the different leases.  Mr. Norton              
 explained Northstar has some partial federal leases on it so they             
 will have to coordinate with MMS.  He said AOGCC will be involved             
 in the details of issuing conservation orders to establish pool               
 rules for that reservoir.  Mr. Norton explained the commission's              
 role in oil field development comes to play after the ground is               
 leased and exploration and development starts.                                
 Number 1710                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to underground blowouts and asked Mr.              
 Norton if there has ever been one in Alaska.                                  
 MR. NORTON said he doesn't believe it has ever happened.                      
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to the leak off test and said you stay             
 below the fractured radiant and when you're going to inject, you go           
 above it.  He asked, "Now what does the Conservation Commission do            
 to ensure that some of that material isn't -- when you fracture               
 that you fracture horizontally instead of having it come up behind            
 the pipe, other from the fact that it shows up at the surface."               
 MR. NORTON said except for exploration wells, a great majority of             
 wells that are being drilled today are development wells in                   
 reservoirs that have known characteristics.  There has been quite             
 a bit of industry work on subsurface geology and they've done                 
 fracture tests and fracture predictions and have set their casing             
 depths based on knowledge of the fields.  Those casing depths are             
 deep enough to contain any surface fractures - fractures that would           
 allow conduit at the surface.  He noted that several years ago they           
 had a well control problem at Endicott.  As a result of that                  
 problem, the operators deepened their surface casing for all                  
 development wells in that area.  Mr. Norton indicated it is a                 
 different situation for exploration wells.  There is more care                
 taken on setting those.                                                       
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the Santa Barbara spill of 1969            
 was because of a problem with inadequate surface pipe.                        
 Number 1852                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked how far the AOGCC purview goes from the           
 well.  He asked if it includes pipes to the gas handling                      
 facilities.  He also asked if it includes any of the pipeline                 
 gathering systems.                                                            
 MR. NORTON said their purview to prevent waste of the resource is             
 not only underground waste, but surface waste.  Technically, their            
 purview goes up to the meters at pump station 1.  He said they are            
 involved with all the gather lines and other surface equipment on             
 the North Slope up to a transportation system like the pipeline.              
 Number 1894                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Mr. Norton indicated that one of the charges           
 is conservation of waste.  He said that in Prudhoe Bay there was a            
 maximum efficient rate set at one and one half million barrels a              
 day and that was predicated primarily on shipping, but the major              
 function was rather than gut the reservoir in a few years was to              
 prevent waste by a little more orderly withdraw.  He said, "My                
 concern again, if reservoir A is discovered or as Representative              
 Long talked about the Northstar.  Now when you get involved in                
 Northstar and you've got enough wells that you feel you've got the            
 field delineated, you I would think would be very instrumental in             
 determining what the MER for that field is gonna be and how they go           
 about developing it to prevent waste.  I know that you don't have             
 economic considerations, but you do have reservoir waste.  Now                
 without being a petroleum engineer, how would you go about doing              
 that major issue?"                                                            
 Number 1969                                                                   
 MR. NORTON said he doesn't have the background to set that rate.              
 He would rely on staff to advise him as to what the rate should be.           
 That is typically the way the commission has operated in the past.            
 Staff work is important as one person can't be all things to all              
 people.  Mr. Norton said if he were a reservoir engineer, he'd                
 probably focus his entire effort on reservoirs and maybe not seed             
 a forest for the trees.  He referred to the Northstar example and             
 said typically the operators would come in with their                         
 recommendations and there would be a public hearing.  The                     
 information they provide would be analyzed by the commission's                
 staff and a recommendation would be made.  The operators would have           
 a chance in a public setting to respond, object or acquiesce, then            
 the commission would issue the order of setting that MER.                     
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned whether the commission employs outside           
 expertise.  He said they may roll you if your not very familiar               
 with the nuances of casing design and some of the petroleum                   
 MR. NORTON said the state of Alaska is interesting as far as oil              
 development goes because the players up here are limited.  For the            
 most part, there are responsible large multi-national companies               
 that have a standard of care that is exemplary.  He said he agrees            
 that bringing in smaller to mid size independents is where the                
 future efficiencies are going to be.  There is lots of development            
 that the big guys just don't want to deal with, but are very                  
 attractive to the small and mid size independents.  However, with             
 those independents could come some bad actors.                                
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out they work on a very thin margin and             
 are going to try and cut costs wherever they can.                             
 MR. NORTON explained the commission has the ability to go outside             
 for contract work, but noted they don't have any money in their               
 budget for outside consulting.                                                
 Number 2140                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN explained when Prudhoe Bay was being formed,                
 there was heavy air between the operators and the AOGCC having to             
 do with how that field was going to be operated.  The expertise of            
 the AOGCC came into a lot of play because while they could contract           
 outside, they still needed some in-house people for reliance.  They           
 actually made a lot of calls, changes and negotiations on the unit            
 agreement.  Those things will continue to happen.  Co-Chairman                
 Green asked Mr. Norton if he feels the commission has or will have            
 the expertise necessary to stand up to some of these companies.  He           
 said it is a matter of opinion and the state looks to the                     
 commission.  He asked Mr. Norton if he feels the AOGCC could stand            
 up to some of the multi national companies and say, "Wait a minute            
 dudes, this is the way we're gonna do it in Alaska."                          
 Number 2225                                                                   
 MR. NORTON pointed out he worked for Aleyska for a long time.  He             
 said he dealt with the owners, Exxon, Arco and BP and is used to              
 the way to the way they operate.  He continued to inform the                  
 committee of a process they just went through regarding the planned           
 development of Prudhoe Bay.                                                   
 Number 2336                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked Mr. Norton if he would describe his           
 professional background as being in the field of petroleum                    
 MR. NORTON said he is not a petroleum engineer.  He noted he has a            
 background in the oil and gas industry in Alaska.  Mr. Norton said            
 he is not a petroleum engineer and is not a licensed petroleum                
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Norton if he is a mechanical                    
 MR. NORTON responded that he is a civil engineer.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Norton if he is aware of the statute            
 requirements for the position he is filling.  He read from the                
 statute, "Licensed professional engineer with educational                     
 professional background of petroleum engineering."                            
 MR. NORTON indicate he is aware of the statute.                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said Mr. Norton seems like a very sincere                 
 gentlemen and has high integrity.  He said he has some basic                  
 problems with the selection in that by statute, he is required to             
 have background and he doesn't have it.  Representative Ogan said             
 he isn't directing it at Mr. Norton, but it seems the Governor was            
 not reading the statute when he made the appointment.                         
 MR. NORTON said if the statute wanted a licensed petroleum                    
 engineer, it would say so directly.  He said it seems that the way            
 it is written where it requires a licensed engineer with a                    
 background, it gives some latitude.  Mr. Norton said he personally            
 believes he qualifies as he is a licensed engineer in the state of            
 Alaska and he has a background.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said not in petroleum engineering.                        
 MR. NORTON said he understands there is a disagreement.                       
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said it isn't a reflection personally on Mr.              
 Norton at all.                                                                
 MR. NORTON said if he felt he couldn't handle the job, he would               
 back out.  He said he feels he could do a good job in the position.           
 Number 2427                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "I guess I base my concern that you made            
 a couple of references that you typically rely on staff to make               
 some decisions that I believe -- the reason the statute was                   
 designed that way was because they were interested in having -- the           
 legislature, when we set up this commission, was interested in                
 having a person on that position that would not have to rely on               
 staff for those kinds of decisions so...  Thank you Mr. Chairman."            
 Number 2464                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA said she thinks Mr. Norton is well              
 qualified as he does have a civil engineering degree and has a                
 background of oil and gas conservation.  She said she believes he             
 could do a good job and is well qualified.                                    
 TAPE 96-76, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA continued, "...I don't know the answer to             
 this so why don't you make some calls and call these people and               
 then come back and tell me what this is about.  I mean nobody in              
 this world knows everything.  So I'd just like to put that onto the           
 record too."                                                                  
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Well what I think what Representative Ogan           
 had referenced to is when you call a staffer or you call some                 
 department, you expect the person in that department to have the              
 expertise.  As an elected official you might not, but you would               
 have to some place to find it in state and that's what we'll be               
 calling the AOGCC for expertise."                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said, "And he won't know all the answers              
 and he'll have to do the research himself when they're dealing with           
 something.  It's just like when we deal with something every day,             
 we always do our research ourselves too.  So I mean, you know, it             
 goes with the job - it goes with every job."                                  
 Number 037                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Mr. Norton is currently working on a 4 mil             
 tax from the industry per barrel and that's supplies the funding              
 for the Conservation Commission.  He said he heard Mr. Norton say             
 something about not having the funding for perhaps hiring a                   
 consultant.  He asked Mr. Norton if he thinks the 4 mil tax should            
 be increased.                                                                 
 Number 053                                                                    
 MR. NORTON said there is such a thing called the oil and gas                  
 conservation tax, 4 mils.  It goes to the general fund and doesn't            
 come directly to them.  He said they have get it reappropriated               
 back to them.  Their budget, historically, has always been less               
 than the income from the tax.  Mr. Norton said the tax is supposed            
 to support oil and gas activities.  The Alaska Oil and Gas                    
 Conservation Commission is not the only agency in state government            
 that deals with oil and gas issues as Department of Natural                   
 Resources and Department of Revenue also does.  Mr. Norton said the           
 tax used to be dedicated directly for the AOGCC.  He said, "Our               
 budget this year - the Governor submitted a steady state budget               
 request.  It was cut, I think now it stands at $50,000 under which            
 is probably about a 3 percent cut which is going to be difficult              
 for us.  We have a -- I believe we still have $100,000 CIP line               
 item in there for reservoir studies and depending on how we                   
 interpret that intent, we can use the $100,000 for contract if some           
 of the hypotheticals you were speaking of earlier came to pass, we            
 could make a stab at using that money for contracts."                         
 Number 129                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified it is budget process maybe more than a            
 tax process.                                                                  
 MR. NORTON agreed.  He said it would be great to have a dedicated             
 4 mil budget for the commission.                                              
 Number 141                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I just wanted to point out as required           
 by the Constitution."                                                         
 Number 147                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "I introduced a bill, 381 which would                 
 designate the -- to keep from having this overlap between DNR and             
 AOGCC.  What's your opinion on that?  Is that necessary?  Or is               
 that gonna be resolved?"                                                      
 MR. NORTON said his opinion is that the bill is premature at this             
 point in time because they've asked the Attorney General's Office             
 to analyze the entire relationship between the Department of                  
 Natural Resources and AOGCC.  He said absent their opinion, we                
 shouldn't try to fix something that may not need to be fixed right            
 now.  He said he personally hasn't seen the Attorney General's                
 opinion on relationships.                                                     
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there is currently conflict.  He asked Mr.             
 Norton if he thinks the Attorney General's Office is going to                 
 resolve it.                                                                   
 MR. NORTON said there is conflict, but maybe it is conflict by                
 design.  He said maybe the intent of the enabling legislation was             
 to create a check and balance.  It would be interesting to know               
 what the intent is and then if legislation is indicated to fix                
 something, the we can focus on that.                                          
 Number 174                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said it is his understanding that DNR has one               
 position and AOGCC has another.  He said if they come together                
 somebody is going to have to have the authority to say, "This is              
 the way it'll be."  He asked Mr. Norton if he thinks that authority           
 will be resolved through the Attorney General's Office.                       
 MR. NORTON said he hopes it will and if it doesn't, there may be a            
 need for legislation.                                                         
 Number 216                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Unicol has shut down some of the platforms             
 in the inlet and they have indicated that over the next few years             
 maybe another five would be shut down.  He said if we don't                   
 eventually use those for something else, they're going to have to             
 be removed.  He asked Mr. Norton if he has a position on the proper           
 method if there has to be a removal.                                          
 MR. NORTON explained in their regulation revision they are trying             
 to anticipate abandonment of platforms.  He said they are working             
 with AOGA to come up with a good plan for the state and industry.             
 In Cook Inlet they are looking at cutting off platforms he believes           
 at five feet below the mud line.  If it is deep enough, they may              
 allow structures to be blown off and laid down on the mud floor.              
 He noted they haven't adopted any regulations yet.                            
 Number 267                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN explained the reason he asked about keeping them            
 is because there has been this thought that DNR says that is a                
 mature exhausted province of oil and yet there have been two recent           
 discoveries there.  He asked if there is any thought that by                  
 removing a structure as expensive as they are, possibly                       
 prematurely, the economics wouldn't support bring another platform            
 out there.  Although the existing platform may not be in the proper           
 position, but it might be usable to help exploit a resource that              
 wouldn't otherwise be exploitable.                                            
 MR. NORTON said that's a good point.  He noted he doesn't have a              
 position on it.  Their regulations require plugging abandonment of            
 wells, including platforms, after a certain point of time where               
 there is no more economic activity.  Mr. Norton said he believes              
 there is discretion in regulations to allow case-by-case                      
 Number 324                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there was an audit conducted by the Budget             
 and Audit Committee in 1991.  He read from it, "A significant                 
 factor in reservoir management as well as in the financial health             
 of the state is the commission's oversight of oil and gas meters.             
 We believe this oversight to be inadequate."  He asked Mr. Norton             
 he had a comment.                                                             
 MR. NORTON said he isn't familiar with the audit.  He said the                
 inspectors do witness meter proving weekly.  He said he could look            
 into it.                                                                      
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he believes last year there was a contention           
 on metering between the Department of Revenue and the Conservation            
 Number 375                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT made a motion to move Mr. Norton's name              
 forward to the floor for confirmation.                                        
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection.  Hearing none,             
 it was so ordered.                                                            
 Number 400                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced at 9:04 a.m. the House Resources                  
 Committee would recess to the call of the chair.                              
 Number 410                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN reconvened the House Resources Committee meeting            
 at 3:08 p.m.                                                                  
 CSSB 247(RLS) am(efd fld)(ct rule fld) - USE OF FISH & GAME                  
 FUND/COMM'R'S POWERS                                                         
 Number 420                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would address CSSB
 247(RLS) am(efd fld)(ct rule fld), "An Act restricting the use of             
 certain funds deposited in the fish and game fund; and relating to            
 the powers and duties of the commissioner of fish and game,"                  
 sponsored by Senator Robin Taylor.                                            
 Number 440                                                                    
 TERRY OTNESS, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor,                  
 Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee.  He explained            
 Senator Taylor has reviewed the proposed amendments and finds them            
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there is Amendment 1.                                  
 MR. OTNESS asked if Mr. Grasser could review the amendment as he              
 prepared it.                                                                  
 Number 483                                                                    
 ED GRASSER, Alaska Outdoor Council, came before the committee.  He            
 said, "The ten of these amendments that the Alaska Outdoor Council            
 proposed was to delete some of the language that we thought was a             
 bit, I guess, controversial and to try and make the bill workable             
 from the department's standpoint, is to give them the discretion to           
 do some of the things that they seem to think they wouldn't be able           
 to do under the original bill.  Anyway, the first amendment takes             
 out the requirement that the legislature would have to go through             
 and do appropriations basically on a -- what we viewed as a line              
 item deal.  It still keeps in the language that says they have to             
 follow the intent of the legislature as to why the money -- or to             
 the programs the was appropriated for in the first part of that               
 section, in section (a) in Section 2.  So the first amendment just            
 deletes the language that says the legislature shall make a                   
 separate appropriation, which is -- probably end up being a rather            
 lengthy affair for the Finance Committee or the subcommittee."                
 CO-CHAIRMAN questioned whether the committee should review all the            
 Number 548                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN said he thinks there are several                
 things that are all tied together in the amendment.                           
 MR. GRASSER continued describing the proposed amendments.  "Then in           
 the expenditure section of the bill starting on page 2, there was             
 considerable concern expressed by some of our member organizations            
 that are involved in sport fishing so we suggested taking out                 
 `sport fish stocks' on page 2, line 2, so that they wouldn't                  
 necessarily fall under the intensive management regime.  On page 2,           
 line 8, we suggested deleting the word `increase' and inserting               
 `may enhance' in there so that there would be some discretionary              
 ability at the department level on whether or not they could                  
 accomplish those goals.  The original language that increased sport           
 fish stocks would basically tie the department's hand, in our view,           
 but by changing that to `may enhance' means that they may or may              
 not be able to accomplish that goal.  And then line 9 or 8 to 9               
 deleting `increase' and inserting `for purposes of increasing'                
 that's basically the same purpose is to give the department some              
 discretionary leeway in making the decision there on enhancing fish           
 stocks or game populations.  Page 2, lines 9 through 12, we just              
 suggested that that be deleted because we didn't want to get into,            
 I guess, the wolf control issue in this bill.  I think from the               
 Outdoor Council's point of view, we were looking at this more as an           
 attempt to streamline or make more tight the requirements of the              
 department to utilize monies raised from the sale of fishing and              
 hunting licenses and big game tags.  And that's kind of a                     
 controversial thing and we thought that could be dealt with                   
 elsewhere so we decided - suggested that be deleted.  On page 2,              
 line 20, following `allowed' and this is I think a fairly                     
 significant change, insert `except in cases where educational                 
 efforts are evident that support sport fishing, hunting, trapping,            
 and related management'."                                                     
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned what that means.                                 
 MR. GRASSER said, "That might be something that the committee might           
 have to work on.  That was our suggested language.  The department            
 might have some problems with that, but the intent of that language           
 was to allow for programs to be funded, like Potters Marsh, through           
 the fish and game fund as long as there was things like                       
 interpretative signs put up on the boardwalk saying where the money           
 came from for the management of the marsh, in other words fish and            
 game fund, and maybe some other information that denoted what kind            
 of contribution the PR fund and fish and game fund and hunters have           
 made, and in this case specifically Ducks Unlimited, as a group,              
 have made to the existence and management of places like Potters              
 Marsh or Kraemers Field or McNeil River or whatever.  That's the              
 intent.  I don't know if this language accomplishes that or not."             
 Number 701                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Would this -- am I - am I on the -- if you           
 put `for the benefit of the public' instead of `where there is                
 benefit to the public' or `where benefits to the public are                   
 evident' something like that.  Is that what your talking about or             
 am I misunderstanding what you mean?"                                         
 MR. GRASSER said that might help delineate what they are trying to            
 do.  He said it is just a suggestion and the council is not tied to           
 this specific language.  He said their intent was to allow for some           
 level of funding from the fish and game fund.  Most sportsmen are             
 not opposed to funding these types of programs and they are                   
 wildlife viewers also.  One of the big arguments they have had in             
 the debate with the department is that when it comes to the support           
 of legitimate hunting, trapping and related management issues, they           
 have been rather quieter or neutral on the issue.  He said the                
 council would feel much more comfortable with the department's                
 position if there were some guidelines in those areas like Potters            
 Marsh or Kraemers Field that demonstrated where the money was                 
 coming from and what role related hunting, trapping and management            
 has played in restoration of wildlife and overall management                  
 schemes for wildlife.  He explained that is the intent of the                 
 amendment and noted they would be willing to look at the wording              
 Number 774                                                                    
 MR. GRASSER said, "From page 3, line 2, following `occur' this is             
 basically the same type of amendment as the previous one.  The                
 intent there is to do the same thing - to allow the department                
 discretion to utilize some level of fish and game funds for                   
 programs in nongame areas.  And, again, if that doesn't accomplish            
 that goal, we'd be willing to work with the committee or...  I                
 guess that we'd urge that, you know, the committee to come up with            
 language and pass this bill out today since time is short, but that           
 was our intent with this language.  Then in line 3 (page 3),                  
 beginning on line 26 you're gonna go through a series of amendments           
 that are basically the same as the ones we just went through                  
 because there's two sections in the bill.  One deals with fish and            
 game fund monies and one deals with PR monies.  And so the                    
 amendments are basically the same as what we've just went through             
 for those expenditure sections that deal with PR monies.  And then            
 the other substantive amendment we have is on page 5, lines 9                 
 through 25.  Those are the definition -- that's the definition                
 section.  We proposed an amendment to delete all the definition               
 section.  And there again, it was our feeling that those                      
 definitions, in our opinion, don't add to what we would like to see           
 happen with this bill, mainly a better view of how these funds                
 should be expended by the department as directed by the                       
 legislature.  And we didn't feel these definitions were necessary             
 to accomplish that and we thought they raised some red flags.  And            
 besides I think some of these definitions were already put into law           
 to some degree or another with the previous intensive management              
 bill that was passed a couple of years ago.  And I guess that's it            
 for the amendments."                                                          
 Number 914                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said the only amendment he would like to work           
 on is the educational programs.  He said he isn't sure exactly what           
 he would propose.  He asked if the committee could exclude that               
 amendment and have an at ease to review the amendment.                        
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated there are three.  The first is toward             
 the bottom of the first page, line 16.  The second is at the top of           
 page 2, line 3 and the third is at the bottom of page 2, line 22.             
 He said, "What you're suggesting is maybe we work on something                
 there, but accept the rest of them."                                          
 Number 951                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that is correct.  He moved to divide the           
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said that seems reasonable to him.  He asked if             
 there was an objection to dividing.  Hearing none, he said they               
 will divide the question on that basis - those three areas where              
 educational efforts are included.  He asked Representative Davies             
 if his amendment is to move everything excluding those three areas.           
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES indicated that is correct.                              
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection.  Hearing none,             
 it was so ordered.  He said the committee would address the three             
 areas where they are trying to come up with educational programs or           
 educational efforts.  He noted all the committee members were                 
 present with the exception of Representative Barnes.  He asked Mr.            
 Grasser to review what the council is looking for.                            
 Number 1000                                                                   
 MR. GRASSER said what they're trying to do with those three                   
 amendments is to provide a level of discretion for the department             
 to be able to solicit and use fish and game fund monies for                   
 programs in traditional nongame areas like Potters Marsh as long as           
 there was also an effort by the department with an agreement or as            
 directed by the legislature that any of those fish and game funds             
 expended for the management of those nongame areas would include              
 and educational program that supported hunting and trapping and               
 related management by some means.  He noted that might need to be             
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Grasser if he is familiar with what           
 is sort of a hunters day that is carried out at Kraemers Field each           
 year.  He asked if that is the kind of thing he is talking about.             
 There must be 3,000 people that come by to talk about how this                
 supports management of game.  There is a lot of discussion of                 
 hunting and the safe use of weapons, etc.                                     
 Number 1053                                                                   
 MR. GRASSER said that is exactly what they are looking for.  In               
 some cases, such as Potters Marsh, an interpretative sign put on              
 the boardwalk would accomplish this goal to some degree.                      
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said it sounds like there are two things going.             
 There is an annual activity and then there is something at Potters            
 Marsh which is a viewing area for six months of the year.                     
 MR. GRASSER said it might be helpful to define `educational                   
 efforts' for the purpose of this language to include things like              
 interpretative signs that support related management to hunting,              
 trapping, etc.  The department would know that they have the                  
 ability solicit these funds and use them in these areas for nongame           
 as long as those types of other activities were included in the               
 Number 1095                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES indicated Wayne Regelin was in attendance and           
 asked if he might have some comments or suggestions.                          
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Regelin to come forward.                          
 Number 1172                                                                   
 WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation                    
 Department of Fish and Game, informed the committee he has seen the           
 proposed amendments.  He said he believes the amendments really               
 improves the bill and takes away some of the department's concerns            
 such as removing the requirement for 360 separate budget                      
 appropriations.  Mr. Regelin noted he doesn't think that was the              
 intent, but that was the way it was worded.  Section (C) adds some            
 flexibility so that the department can use other management schemes           
 other than maximum sustained yield.  There are some concerns with             
 the bill and he thinks the amendments were an attempt to provide              
 the flexibility for the department in doing broader programs that             
 they think are beneficial to hunting, hunters and other people that           
 enjoy wildlife.  Mr. Regelin said, "I didn't put amendments                   
 together but I - or suggested amendments, but I don't know the way            
 it's written right now I don't think we could use the funds for               
 public service which is -- all the big program we have, all the               
 people that call the office and want to know where to go hunting              
 and walk in and do that, you know, cause it -- the way, you know,             
 I don't think that's -- again, it's not what was meant, but it's              
 very restrictive the way it's written still even though there is              
 more flexibility.  It would allow us to do no work in hunter ed -             
 or I mean endangered species work or nongame conservation.  And law           
 enforcement I think is a question.  It might be - you could                   
 interpret it as helping under that part (C), but I think that could           
 be debatable.  The one thing that -- and all of those I think are             
 kind of open to question whether or not we could or couldn't and I            
 don't think it was the intent to stop those things and we can                 
 probably fix that with wording.  There is one big concern and                 
 that's that right now on the federal aid dollars that we get, 6               
 percent of em go for indirect costs back to the Division of                   
 Administration.  Between us and Sport Fish, that gives them about             
 a million dollars a year.  That has been done by the Finance                  
 Committees, it started about three years ago in order to replace              
 general funds that as they got tighter and this bill would prohibit           
 that.  And that's why there is such a (indisc.) would be a                    
 substantial fiscal note because general -- you still have to pay              
 the vendors and that type of thing.  So that would be, you know,              
 one and that's not addressed in any of the amendments.                        
 Number 1299                                                                   
 MR. GRASSER pointed out there is wording that says, "the                      
 administration of fish and game license function and payment of               
 license vendor compensation."                                                 
 MR. REGELIN explained, "In the Division of Administration there is            
 a licensing section and there is -- and that's taken care of.  We             
 brought that up before, but there also use the funds to -- and it's           
 appropriated based on the number of employees we have and the size            
 of the budgets.  Some -- this federal aid funding and the rest of             
 it is general fund and it depends on whether it's commercial                  
 fisheries and subsistence and habitat versus sport fish and                   
 wildlife, so that it's a proportion there to keep us from getting             
 into problems with diversion of funds, but that's you know -- there           
 is more than licensing in the Division of Administration.  It's the           
 payment - it's the personnel section -- the, you know, payment of             
 all the bills and that kind of thing - engineering."                          
 Number 1350                                                                   
 MR. GRASSER said he doesn't necessarily disagree with Mr. Regelin.            
 He suggested asking counsel.  He said, "It seems to me that the               
 expansion of - expenditure of funds for those types of programs               
 like -- I mean obviously you have to administer programs and have             
 some top level management in any type of organization, including              
 Department of Fish and Game, would in some way be tied to the on-             
 the-ground programs that field biologists or area biologists may be           
 carrying out.  I guess what I'm hearing is that the department is             
 doing that section of the bill that has to do with expenditure of             
 funds for personnel or administration, a much more narrow aspect              
 than perhaps, and I'd have to defer to Terry on this, whether or              
 not that's what their intent was, but I don't think the intent of             
 the bill is to preclude them from administering programs."                    
 Number 1499                                                                   
 MR. OTNESS indicated frustration as he hasn't heard anything about            
 this concern.  He said every committee the bill has been in there             
 is another "but" added.  Mr. Otness said his concern is that we're            
 running short of time.  He said if there is an issue, it could be             
 brought up in the Finance Committee as it is a fiscal issue.                  
 MR. REGELIN agreed and said Kevin Brooks, director of                         
 Administration has been in attendance each time the bill was heard            
 and has brought it up.                                                        
 Number 1459                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if the portion of the bill that causes            
 concern is on page 2, lines 23, 24 and 25, "(C) expended for costs            
 of personnel or administration, other than costs of personnel or              
 administration directly incurred in conjunction with projects                 
 allowed under this subsection, except under a general indirect                
 recovery provision;"                                                          
 MR. REGELIN said, "Mr. Chairman, that part allows for -- it says it           
 my not be used for personnel or administration, other than the                
 costs for personnel or administration directly incurred in                    
 conjunction with projects under this section and we call it                   
 indirect costs, that's -- I mean that's the title of how we...."              
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained he wants to be sure that is the               
 part of the bill that is being addressed.  He said he would suggest           
 for consideration is that after the word "subsection," insert                 
 "except under a general indirect recovery provision."  In other               
 words, this would allow for the normal kinds of indirect recovery             
 but it wouldn't allow for direct expenditures for personnel who               
 weren't involved in this.                                                     
 MR. REGELIN said he thinks that would take care of the problem.               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Otness if he is agreeable to the                  
 Number 1597                                                                   
 MR. OTNESS indicated he would have to speak to Senator Taylor.                
 Number 1622                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS said this is a financial area and he is             
 sure it would be addressed in the Finance Committee.  He asked if             
 the Resources Committee can take care of the amendments that deal             
 with the resource issues.                                                     
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated the amendment seems to cover the issue.           
 If the Finance Committee doesn't like it, they will change it.                
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he doesn't want the bill to get bogged              
 MR. OTNESS said Senator Taylor could state his objection in the               
 Finance Committee if he has a problem with the amendment.                     
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he would offer the wording as an                   
 Number 1689                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Amendment 2 would insert the wording "except           
 under a general indirect recovery provision" between the words                
 "subsection" and "or" on page 2, line 25.  He asked if there was an           
 objection.  Hearing none, it was so ordered.                                  
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the committee would address the education              
 section of the bill.  He asked if Mr. Grasser or Mr. Regelin had              
 any suggestions.  He asked Mr. Regelin if he knows what they are              
 looking for with educational programs or educational efforts.                 
 Number 1743                                                                   
 MR. REGELIN said the department could do educational projects.                
 CO-CHAIRMAN said, "There are three places that we're trying to find           
 a word or some words that would explain what they're after and --             
 because it look to me like I misread it.  When I read the                     
 amendments, I looked at that completely different than what Mr.               
 Grasser has told us so..."                                                    
 MR. GRASSER explained the intent of that language was to allow for            
 funding, through the fish and game fund.                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN pointed out the language was on page 2,              
 line 23.                                                                      
 MR. GRASSER said it would allow for the use of fish and funds in              
 nongame areas as long as there was some effort such as an                     
 interpretative sign on the boardwalk at Potters Marsh, etc., to               
 show that the dollars that were help supporting the management of             
 that nongame area came from fish and game fund money or PR money              
 and that there was some effort to demonstrate that hunting,                   
 trapping, sport fishing and related management had benefits to                
 wildlife.  He said that was the intent.  He noted if any members of           
 the committee had alternative language they would like to suggest             
 to make that more evident, it would be fine with him.                         
 Number 1854                                                                   
 MR. REGELIN explained the part that would probably be left out                
 which is very important in their educational program is called                
 "project wild."  He explained that project wild is where they train           
 teachers throughout the state to teach wildlife curriculum that the           
 department develops about hunting, fishing and wildlife management.           
 Unless that project is included somewhere else, they wouldn't be              
 able to do that under the bill.                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Mr. Regelin had indicated hunter's                     
 education, so it is hunters as well as teachers.                              
 MR. REGELIN explained they are separate programs.                             
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that both of the programs are funded,           
 in part, from revenues that are brought in from licenses.                     
 MR. REGELIN indicated they are.                                               
 Number 1906                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked how much money is expended on project               
 wild and where has it been taking place.                                      
 MR. REGELIN explained it is about $150,000 a year and they have               
 trained approximately 4,000 teachers all over Alaska.  On weekends            
 the teachers come in and donate their time.  He said they also have           
 a national curriculum put together for all the western states and             
 one specific to Alaska which is more oriented towards hunting.                
 Number 1972                                                                   
 MR. GRASSER informed the committee it wasn't the Alaska Outdoor               
 Council's intent to exclude funding of project wild.  He said he              
 does see in the original bill the language does tie the                       
 expenditure.  He said they wrote their amendments based on that to            
 a specific areas.  Project wild obviously isn't an area, it is a              
 program.  He said if that could be fixed, it would be fine with               
 Number 2003                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES suggested the change would be needed on page            
 4, after line 8, and on page 2, after line 17.  He indicated there            
 is a wording, "shall be used for only projects that provide for,"             
 and then there is a list (A) through (F).  On another page there is           
 (A) through (E).  He suggested inserting another section (F) on               
 page 4 that says, "Educational programs in schools that support..."           
 Then use the same language "support sport fishing, hunting,                   
 trapping and related management."                                             
 MR. GRASSER suggest that might be simplified by looking at page 2,            
 subsection (B) where it says "shall be used only for projects that            
 provide for..."  He said subsection (B) adds a whole list of things           
 including hunter education.  There might be a possibility of                  
 putting "other educational efforts" or similar language.  He said             
 there is an increment where money is allowed for hunter education.            
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated the wording should be "wildlife                   
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA questioned if the word "hunter" would be              
 deleted and add "wildlife."                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned if the wording would be put in after             
 "hunter education."                                                           
 MR. GRASSER indicated that is correct.                                        
 Number 1514                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved the amendment be adopted.                         
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated a motion has been made to insert                  
 "wildlife education" between the words "education" and "public" on            
 line 5, page 2.  He asked if there was an objection.  Hearing none,           
 the amendment was adopted.                                                    
 Number 2218                                                                   
 MR. OTNESS suggested the committee might want to look at Section 4            
 of page 3 and add that wording to line 29 as well.                            
 Number 2223                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved the amendment be adopted.                         
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said it has been moved that those same two words            
 would be added between "education" and "public" on page 3, line 29.           
 He asked if there was an objection.  Hearing none, the amendment              
 was adopted.                                                                  
 Number 2243                                                                   
 MR. OTNESS said the last issue is defining "educational efforts."             
 He said a section might be added to define educational efforts as             
 interpretative signs, public service, public service events and               
 educational programs.                                                         
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if this would be in all three places.                 
 MR. OTNESS indicated that is correct.  He suggested the drafter of            
 the bill could come up with a definition for educational efforts.             
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked what wording Mr. Otness is suggesting for             
 page 1.                                                                       
 MR OTNESS said, "Educational efforts defined as interpretative                
 signs, public service, public service events and educational                  
 Number 2360                                                                   
 MR. GRASSER said all the language in (h) on page 5 starting on line           
 9 was deleted.  He suggested inserting a definition section and               
 define "educational efforts" there so it wouldn't have to be done             
 in three places.                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted in two places the wording "educational            
 programs" was used and in another place the wording "educational              
 efforts" was used.                                                            
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said they would be defining "educational."                  
 TAPE 96-77, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "...and I want to specify where, but what.            
 Representative Davies."                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said has he understands, the committee is               
 talking about using these funds to support specific areas like                
 Potters Marsh and Kraemers Field.  We're saying it's okay to use              
 these funds for those things so long as there is an interpretative            
 sign or there are public service events that support hunting, etc.            
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Grasser if that is what he had in mind.           
 He said notification or some sort of sign is not necessarily the              
 project the itself.                                                           
 Number 083                                                                    
 MR. GRASSER said it could be just an interpretative sign at Potters           
 Marsh or it could be more than that.  In the case of McNeil River             
 it could be that the biologist that conducts the activity there               
 could have a portion of his presentation to the tourists that visit           
 that area would include information about hunting and the benefit             
 to wildlife and related management, etc.  He said it will be                  
 different in some areas, just as long there is some evidence that             
 we're making an effort to let the public know what benefits                   
 wildlife is getting from hunting.                                             
 Number 136                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he would move a conceptual amendment               
 which would be to add a definition section that defines the word              
 "educational" in the context of "educational efforts and                      
 educational programs to include interpretative signs, public                  
 service events, and wildlife educational events and things like               
 hunting days."                                                                
 Number 278                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection to the conceptual           
 amendment.  Hearing none, the conceptual amendment was adopted.               
 Number 324                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Now that brings us back to perhaps the               
 other half or the divided portion of this Amendment Number 1 where            
 we had those three places called educational.  With this definition           
 now, is there a motion to accept those..."                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES so moved.                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Alright.  Three places then in the                   
 Amendment 1 where we referred to education that we left out is now            
 amendment to accept those as the completion of the amendment.  Is             
 there objection?  This amendment then, Number 1 as well as an                 
 Amendment Number 2 that Representative Davies had are accepted into           
 this act.  Is there any other amendment or any other comment about            
 this bill."                                                                   
 Number 393                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved on page 5, lines 5 through 8...                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN interrupted and stated that has been stricken.              
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved to strike subsection (g).  He explained           
 the amendment the committee just adopted deleted a (indisc.)                  
 definition, but above that is (g) and that is the subject of his              
 current amendment.                                                            
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN apologized to Representative Davies and asked               
 what he was saying.                                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained his motion is to delete subsection            
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS questioned Mr. Otness what his feeling is             
 about the amendment.                                                          
 MR. OTNESS said he doesn't think the sponsor would be in agreement            
 to that amendment.                                                            
 Number 491                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said if the statute law says one thing the           
 department is required to do and if they go and do something                  
 totally the opposite, doesn't the citizen already have the ability            
 to take them to court.  He said he believes they do.                          
 Number 530                                                                    
 MR. OTNESS said he doesn't know the answer to that question.                  
 MR. REGELIN said the department gets taken to court all the time.             
 He said the answer is yes, they have the right.  He said he guesses           
 this just reiterates it.                                                      
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he remembers a bill that went through the              
 House Resources Committee and then it was modified in the House               
 Judiciary Committee where there was immunity granted for some and             
 not others.  That was deleted from the bill.  Co-Chairman Green               
 asked Mr. Otness if he knows what Senator Taylor had in mind by               
 specifying that public officials are not immune from a lawsuit.               
 MR. OTNESS said, "I'm hoping that I might delay a little bit so he            
 might answer that himself.  I'm not sure I care to speculate."                
 Number 609                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there is a motion to strike lines 5 through            
 8.  He asked if there was an objection.                                       
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS objected.                                                
 Number 628                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked for a five minute recess.                      
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recessed the meeting.                                       
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN called the meeting back to order and said the               
 motion has been made to remove lines 5 through 8.  He asked if                
 there was objection.  Hearing none, it was so ordered.                        
 Number 761                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said three amendments have been introduced and              
 adopted.  He asked if there was any other discussion.                         
 Number 806                                                                    
 SARA HANNAN, Executive Director, Alaska Environmental Lobby, came             
 forward to give her testimony on the proposed committee substitute            
 for SB 247.  She said she applauds the committee for their                    
 diligence to detail in modifying the bill.  Ms. Hannan said the               
 amendments are vast improvements, but she doesn't think the bill              
 can be amended to be a good piece of legislation.  She referred to            
 when the sponsor testified on the bill the previous week, he spoke            
 about paying the fiddler and asserted that he had hired the fiddler           
 by paying a small fee.  Ms. Hannan said, "But I'm gonna say that              
 the state of Alaska is hosting a big wedding and you've been                  
 invited to the wedding and you're fee to come to the wedding.  What           
 is expected out of you by that invitation is that when you come you           
 bring a small gift or offering and the right of a hunter to hunt in           
 Alaska and the small fee that a Alaska hunter pays does not cover             
 the cost that the right to hunt bears along the rest of us.  Most             
 the cost the Department of Fish and Game have in managing game are            
 cost for hunters and there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in            
 those costs, but to be a sport hunter in Alaska you pay your small            
 fee and you get to go hunt and to turn around and say, `That gives            
 me the right to tell them what they're gonna serve me at dinner and           
 what music the fiddler plays,' is an erroneous thought.  There are            
 very very very few programs that institute taxes or fees that cover           
 and are a direct corollary between the user.  The thing that comes            
 the closest is probably the federal gasoline tax where you are                
 actually are paying for how much you're driving or how big your car           
 is.  But if you drive an electric car, you still get to drive on              
 federally funded highways and you don't get to go say, just because           
 you've got biggest gas guzzler out there, I get to determine the              
 speed limit because I pay more in gasoline taxes than you and your            
 neighbors driving those little cost efficient car do.  Everyone               
 abides by the same laws and the cost of the highway patrol to                 
 patrol those laws is not proportioned out.  Our licensure of                  
 hunters and fishers in this state is something we do because we               
 think that you need to regulate them and they need to be                      
 responsible for it.  They need to know the bag limits.  They don't            
 get to come say when they get to hunt and where they get to hunt              
 through statute.  They get to make those decisions by participating           
 in the Board of Game and the Board of Fish process.  Those are                
 significant processes that are undermined by forcing the department           
 into a position where they don't get to make fair recommendations             
 and they don't get to distribute fees that they receive from the              
 federal government in a disproportionate share.  If we were truly             
 gonna proportionalize this, the people who would most directly                
 benefit and who get to decide what we do with this are German                 
 hunters who are coming on a guided hunt in Alaska and pay real                
 money to be hunting here.  They would get to say what songs the               
 fiddler plays at the wedding we're hosting.  That's not what we               
 want.  That's not what we should do."                                         
 Number 989                                                                    
 MS. HANNAN continued, "I want to draw your attention to one other             
 section of the bill, Section 1 that puts into statute a directive.            
 And I don't have any problem with a directive for the Department of           
 Game - the Department of Fish and Game to cooperate with sportsmen            
 association, but the final phrase on that section, lines 7 and 8,             
 is that the department should work to introduce new populations               
 into suitable habitat.  Siberian tigers into the Interior, elk on             
 to islands in Southeast, sturgeon into our rivers, work to                    
 introduce new species.  We don't have adequate money to manage the            
 resources we do and provide the baseline science to do accelerate             
 management, let alone to tell our department we want them working             
 on new species.  That's something they can do at the directive of             
 the Board of Game and something we may want them to do.  The reason           
 Sweden has a huge moose population is that area of the country - of           
 the planet has been inhabited for centuries in dense habitation.              
 And to quickly equalize the habitat parallel in Alaska, if we let             
 the entire Kenai Peninsula burn today, we'd have great moose                  
 habitat there.  Lets torch it.  Should burn every 100 years by                
 nature, but we've controlled what it burns and as a result, the               
 moose population and the moose habitat has changed.  Those are                
 socioeconomic decisions, not strictly biology and I don't think               
 that putting into statute a misbalance of it corrects some of those           
 very complex decisions.  I think the bill stinks.  I don't think it           
 can be improved to the point that it should be enacted into                   
 statute.  If you didn't take the time to read - I did distribute              
 last week a really eloquent description of how those federal monies           
 come to play and the thing to remember is our hunters and fishers             
 aren't paying for what we're using.  We're getting a lot of money             
 out Manhattanites who are buying forty-fours and letting us get $9            
 out of every tax - nine to one ratio for what we're paying out in             
 federal taxes on ammo.  I don't want Manhattan to get our money and           
 I don't think that we want German foreign hunters deciding our game           
 policies.  I don't think that this bill does anything to serve the            
 hunters of Alaska.  Thanks for your time."                                    
 Number 1194                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Ms. Hannan brought up an interesting point             
 in Section 1 about the introduction of new species.                           
 MR. OTNESS indicated that it is populations and not species.                  
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Regelin, "Do you see, while even the              
 way this is written, that you would cooperate with?  Does that                
 mandate to you any concern that the division - the Department of              
 Fish and Game would have if some sportsmen comes in and wants                 
 Bangle tigers that this would -- and I don't -- I know that was a             
 facetious thing..."                                                           
 MS. HANNAN clarified it is Siberian tigers as Bengals wouldn't                
 survive our winters, but Siberians would.                                     
 Number 1235                                                                   
 MR. REGELIN noted that when he first reviewed the bill, he had the            
 same concern Ms. Hannan had because he thought exotic species.  He            
 noted it doesn't say "species," it says "populations" and because             
 of that he felt if we can take a population and move it within                
 Alaska, because if it's not biologically feasible he doesn't think            
 they would have to do it.                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if there is a word they could use that            
 would modify populations.                                                     
 MS. HANNAN suggested using the word "indigenous."                             
 Number 1276                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved to insert the word "indigenous."                  
 MS. HANNAN suggested the wording, "To expand indigenous populations           
 into suitable habitat."                                                       
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Regelin what he would suggest.                    
 Number 1297                                                                   
 MR. REGELIN suggested, "To expand indigenous populations into                 
 suitable habitat."                                                            
 Number 1328                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked if they should use the word                     
 "relocate."  She asked if it doesn't say "introduce" and                      
 introducing would be relocating a species.                                    
 MR. REGELIN said he didn't write it down.                                     
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that what he has is "introduced new"              
 would be changed to "expand indigenous population."                           
 MR. REGELIN suggested using "relocate" or "trans locate" or                   
 something similar rather than "expand" might be better.                       
 Number 1362                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA referred to caribou in the Interior and               
 said if you wanted to move some of them to the Anchorage area, and            
 asked if that is what the bill means.                                         
 MR. REGELIN said that is the way he reads the bill.                           
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN suggested using the wording, "introduce                   
 indigenous populations into suitable new habitat."                            
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there are any other comments before he             
 offers the new amendment which would change the words "introduce              
 new" and insert "expand indigenous."  He asked if there was an                
 objection.  Hearing none, the amendment was adopted.                          
 Number 1438                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to move CSSB 247 out of committee           
 with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.            
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection.                            
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected.                                               
 A roll call vote was taken.  Representatives Austerman, Kott, Long,           
 Ogan, Williams and Green voted in favor of the motion.                        
 Representatives Davies and Nicholia voted against the motion.  So             
 HCSCSSB 247(RES) passed out of the House Resources Committee.                 
 Number 1490                                                                   
 There being no further business to come before the House Resources            
 Standing Committee, CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the meeting at 4:10           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects