Legislature(2001 - 2002)

03/28/2001 01:10 PM House RES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
                         March 28, 2001                                                                                         
                           1:10 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                              
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair                                                                                            
Representative Joe Green                                                                                                        
Representative Mike Chenault                                                                                                    
Representative Lesil McGuire                                                                                                    
Representative Gary Stevens                                                                                                     
Representative Beth Kerttula                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair                                                                                          
Representative Mary Kapsner                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 72(FIN)                                                                                                  
"An Act relating to 'take-a-child-hunting' seasons for big                                                                      
game."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS CSSB 72(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19                                                                                                   
Urging the United States Congress to pass legislation to fund                                                                   
the acquisition of high- resolution digital orthoimagery and                                                                    
digital elevation data for the entire state of Alaska.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HJR 19 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 194                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to fees for commercial fishing licenses and                                                                    
permits; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HB 194 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 72                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE:TAKE A CHILD HUNTING SEASON                                                                                         
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) KELLY                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
02/06/01     0288       (S)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
02/06/01     0288       (S)        RES, FIN                                                                                     
02/07/01     0301       (S)        COSPONSOR(S): WILKEN,                                                                        
                                   THERRIAULT                                                                                   
02/12/01                (S)        RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                 
02/12/01                (S)        Moved CS(RES) Out of                                                                         
                                   Committee                                                                                    
02/12/01                (S)        MINUTE(RES)                                                                                  
02/13/01     0354       (S)        RES RPT CS 3DP 3NR SAME TITLE                                                                
02/13/01     0354       (S)        DP: TORGERSON, TAYLOR, KELLY;                                                                
02/13/01     0354       (S)        NR: PEARCE, LINCOLN, ELTON                                                                   
02/13/01     0354       (S)        FN1: ZERO(DFG)                                                                               
02/23/01                (S)        FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                                                                
                                   532                                                                                          
02/23/01                (S)        -- Meeting Postponed to                                                                      
                                   2/26/01--                                                                                    
02/26/01                (S)        FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                                                                
                                   532                                                                                          
02/26/01                (S)        Moved CSSB 72(FIN) Out of                                                                    
                                   Committee                                                                                    
                                   MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                  
02/26/01     0500       (S)        FIN RPT CS 7DP 2NR SAME TITLE                                                                
02/26/01     0500       (S)        DP: DONLEY, KELLY, GREEN,                                                                    
                                   AUSTERMAN,                                                                                   
02/26/01     0500       (S)        WILKEN, WARD, LEMAN; NR:                                                                     
                                   HOFFMAN, OLSON                                                                               
02/26/01     0500       (S)        FN1: ZERO(DFG)                                                                               
02/28/01                (S)        RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP                                                                   
                                   203                                                                                          
02/28/01     0535       (S)        RULES TO CALENDAR 2OR 2/28/01                                                                
02/28/01     0539       (S)        READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                         
02/28/01     0539       (S)        FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                  
02/28/01     0539       (S)        ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                    
                                   UNAN CONSENT                                                                                 
02/28/01     0539       (S)        READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
                                   72(FIN)                                                                                      
02/28/01     0539       (S)        PASSED Y16 N2 A1 E1                                                                          
02/28/01     0539       (S)        LINCOLN NOTICE OF                                                                            
                                   RECONSIDERATION                                                                              
02/28/01                (S)        MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                  
03/01/01     0560       (S)        RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD                                                                    
                                   READING                                                                                      
03/01/01     0560       (S)        RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1                                                                    
                                   UNAN CONSENT                                                                                 
03/01/01     0561       (S)        AM NO 1 FAILED Y5 N10 E4 A1                                                                  
03/01/01     0561       (S)        AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD                                                                       
                                   READING                                                                                      
03/01/01     0561       (S)        PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y14                                                                
                                   N1 E4 A1                                                                                     
03/01/01     0562       (S)        TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                           
03/01/01     0562       (S)        VERSION: CSSB 72(FIN)                                                                        
03/07/01                (H)        RES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                   
03/07/01                (H)        <Bill Rescheduled to 3/12/01>                                                                
03/09/01     0508       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
03/09/01     0508       (H)        RES                                                                                          
03/12/01                (H)        RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                   
03/12/01                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
03/12/01                (H)        MINUTE(RES)                                                                                  
03/19/01                (H)        RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                   
03/19/01                (H)        Failed To Move Out Of                                                                        
                                   Committee                                                                                    
03/19/01                (H)        MINUTE(RES)                                                                                  
03/28/01                (H)        RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HJR 19                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:DIGITAL ORTHOIMAGERY AND ELEVATION DATA                                                                             
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
03/09/01     0514       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
03/09/01     0514       (H)        RES                                                                                          
03/21/01                (H)        RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                   
03/21/01                (H)        -- Meeting Canceled --                                                                       
03/28/01                (H)        RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 194                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:ENTRY PERMIT FEES                                                                                                   
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STEVENS                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
03/19/01     0648       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
03/19/01     0648       (H)        FSH, RES, FIN                                                                                
03/26/01                (H)        FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                   
03/26/01                (H)        Moved Out of Committee                                                                       
                                   MINUTE(FSH)                                                                                  
03/27/01     0741       (H)        FSH RPT 6DP                                                                                  
03/27/01     0741       (H)        DP: DYSON, COGHILL, SCALZI,                                                                  
                                   KERTTULA,                                                                                    
03/27/01     0741       (H)        WILSON, STEVENS                                                                              
03/27/01     0741       (H)        FN1: (DFG)                                                                                   
03/27/01     0747       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA                                                                       
03/28/01                (H)        RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
KRISTOPHER KNAUSS, Staff                                                                                                        
to Senator Pete Kelly                                                                                                           
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 518                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                                                                            
POSITION STATEMENT:  Spoke on behalf of the sponsor of SB 72.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
GUST PANOS, Chairperson                                                                                                         
Digital Orthoimagery Subcommittee                                                                                               
Alaska Geographic Data Committee                                                                                                
4230 University Drive, Room 230                                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska  99508                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:  Spoke in support of HJR 19.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
JOHN ELLIS                                                                                                                      
AeroMap U.S., Inc.                                                                                                              
(No address provided)                                                                                                           
Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:  Spoke regarding HJR 19 and 3-D imagery.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner                                                                                                     
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)                                                                                    
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)                                                                                        
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska  99801-8079                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Spoke in support of HB 194.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
STEPHEN WHITE, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                       
Natural Resources Section                                                                                                       
Civil Division (Juneau)                                                                                                         
Department of Law                                                                                                               
PO Box 110300                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                                                                       
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of the Department of Law in                                                                 
support of HB 194.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
JERRY McCUNE                                                                                                                    
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)                                                                                                
211 4th Street                                                                                                                  
Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                                                                            
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 194.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
KEVIN BROOKS, Director                                                                                                          
Division of Administrative Services                                                                                             
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)                                                                                        
PO Box 25526                                                                                                                    
Juneau, Alaska 99811-5526                                                                                                       
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the ADF&G on HB 194.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 01-24, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DREW   SCALZI  called  the  House   Resources  Standing                                                               
Committee meeting  to order at  1:10 p.m.   Representatives Fate,                                                               
McGuire, Chenault, Stevens, Kerttula,  and Scalzi were present at                                                               
the call to  order.  Representative Green arrived  as the meeting                                                               
was in progress.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SB 72-TAKE A CHILD HUNTING SEASON                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the  first order of business would                                                               
be CS FOR  SENATE BILL NO. 72(FIN), "An Act  relating to 'take-a-                                                               
child-hunting' seasons for big game."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0138                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FATE  made a  motion to  adopt the  proposed House                                                               
committee  substitute (HCS),  Version T  [22-LS0084\T, Utermohle,                                                               
3/27/01],  with  Senator  Pete  Kelly's  letter  of  intent,  for                                                               
purposes of discussion.  There  being no objection, Version T was                                                               
before the committee.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0233                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
KRISTOPHER  KNAUSS, Staff  to Senator  Pete  Kelly, Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, came  forth on behalf  of Senator Kelly,  sponsor of                                                               
SB 72, to explain the changes in  Version T.  He pointed out that                                                               
page 1, lines  11-13, now reads:  "A big  game animal taken under                                                               
this subsection  must be counted  against the bag limits  of both                                                               
the child  and the adult,  parent, stepparent, or  legal guardian                                                               
who accompanies the child."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0295                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FATE  said  he  was  glad  that  issue  had  been                                                               
addressed, because it had been a concern of the committee.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STEVENS  asked Mr.  Knauss  to  confirm that  the                                                               
intent of the added language is  that there not be an opportunity                                                               
for  the  adult to  [take  a  second  animal during  the  regular                                                               
season].                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. KNAUSS confirmed that.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0350                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA thanked the  sponsor [Senator Pete Kelly]                                                               
for the letter of intent.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0362                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report HCS CSSB 72 [version 22-                                                                 
LS0084\T, Utermohle, 3/27/01] out  of committee with the attached                                                               
letter   of   intent,   individual   recommendations,   and   the                                                               
accompanying zero  fiscal note.   There  being no  objection, HCS                                                               
CSSB  72(RES)  was moved  out  of  the House  Resources  Standing                                                               
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HJR 19-DIGITAL ORTHOIMAGERY AND ELEVATION DATA                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced  that the next order  of business would                                                               
be  HOUSE  JOINT RESOLUTION  NO.  19,  Urging the  United  States                                                               
Congress to  pass legislation  to fund  the acquisition  of high-                                                               
resolution digital  orthoimagery and  digital elevation  data for                                                               
the entire  state of  Alaska.  [The  resolution was  sponsored by                                                               
the House Resources Standing Committee.]                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0441                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR SCALZI  explained that  the technology  being introduced                                                               
in HJR 19 is "three-dimensional  [3-D] mapping."  The majority of                                                               
Alaska maps were  produced between the 1950s and the  1980s.  The                                                               
resolution asks the  U.S. Congress to provide  Alaska the funding                                                               
for  the  same  technological  benefits  provided  to  all  other                                                               
states.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
GUST  PANOS,  Chairperson,   Digital  Orthoimagery  Subcommittee,                                                               
Alaska  Geographic  Data  Committee  (AGDC),  gave  a  PowerPoint                                                               
presentation on  the Alaska Orthoimagery Initiative,  compiled by                                                               
the AGDC.   He  explained that the  goal of HJR  19 is  to obtain                                                               
funding  from  Congress  to   acquire  digital  orthoimagery  and                                                               
digital elevation  data for Alaska,  to be made available  on the                                                               
Internet for all the agencies and  the public to use.  [Mr. Panos                                                               
followed  the format  of the  spiral-bound booklet  found in  the                                                               
committee packet.  He also provided a map and 3-D glasses.]                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PANOS  defined  "digital orthoimagery"  (DO)  as  an  aerial                                                               
photograph  that shows  everything on  the earth's  surface at  a                                                               
moment in  time, with map-like  features that allow  for accurate                                                               
measurement and depiction of township  and range, or latitude and                                                               
longitude.    He  listed the  DO  specifications  for  five-meter                                                               
resolution:   statewide coverage; quarter-quad format,  like maps                                                               
in  the Lower  48  with 1:24,000  scale; color-infrared  imagery;                                                               
national  map accuracy  standards; and  North American  1983 data                                                               
that  is being  adopted nationwide.    He also  described the  DO                                                               
specifications for  one-meter resolution:   urbanized  areas, 227                                                               
federally  recognized   Native  villages,   major  transportation                                                               
corridors and the  trans-Alaska pipeline; color-infrared imagery;                                                               
quarter-quad format;  national map accuracy standards;  and North                                                               
American 1983 data.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PANOS next  described  digital elevation  data  (DED) as  an                                                               
array  of  [elevation  values]  representing  the  shape  of  the                                                               
earth's surface.   He explained that existing  elevation data for                                                               
Alaska,  which was  derived from  USGS [United  States Geological                                                               
Survey] maps, is not very  accurate.  He cited the specifications                                                               
for DED:  30-meter postings,  which show a latitude and longitude                                                               
point every 30 meters; 7-meter  vertical accuracy; and 1983 North                                                               
American data.   Mr.  Panos stated  that the uses  of DED  are to                                                               
make  geometric  corrections  for   orthoimagery  and  to  derive                                                               
topographical  information  for  calculating  aspects,  drainage,                                                               
watersheds,   solar  insulation,   slopes,  and   landforms,  for                                                               
example, and for generating contours.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. PANOS provided an overview of  the AGDC.  Formed in 1993, the                                                               
AGDC  currently  has  40 members  representing  State  of  Alaska                                                               
departments, federal  agencies, municipalities,  boroughs, Native                                                               
organizations, private enterprise, and  the University of Alaska.                                                               
Its  purpose is  to provide  statewide leadership  for surveying,                                                               
mapping,  and  related  spatial data  coordination.    Mr.  Panos                                                               
specified  AGDC's  overall  objectives:     to  build  geographic                                                               
information  partnerships in  Alaska; to  leverage resources;  to                                                               
promote  the  visions and  goals  of  the National  Spatial  Data                                                               
Infrastructure; and to serve as  the technical advisory committee                                                               
to the  Alaska Land  Managers Forum.   Mr.  Panos added  that the                                                               
reason AGDC was  given approximately $8 million  from the federal                                                               
government was  because it leveraged  its resources by  forming a                                                               
partnership with those other groups.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.   PANOS   mentioned   aviation  safety   and   infrastructure                                                               
development,   put  together   by  the   FAA  [Federal   Aviation                                                               
Administration], the "Capstone project folks,"  and Raytheon.  He                                                               
explained that presently the FAA  is trying to provide leadership                                                               
to   improve   aviation   safety,  air   traffic   control,   and                                                               
infrastructure  development.   He  described  eight "hot  button"                                                               
uses of  orthoimagery:   first, to  increase safety  via Capstone                                                               
technology,  utilizing  more  accurate   data;  second,  to  more                                                               
accurately chart publications for  both VFR [visual flight rules]                                                               
and IFR  [instrument flight rules]  flights; third, to  lower the                                                               
instrument-approach  minimums,  resulting  in more  arrivals  and                                                               
departures; fourth,  to augment planning information  for airport                                                               
location and development; fifth, to  aid in managing airspace and                                                               
creating  3-D  traffic  modeling;  sixth, to  plan  and  zone  to                                                               
protect  existing  and  future   arrival  and  departure  routes;                                                               
seventh,  to accurately  locate  towers, power  lines, and  other                                                               
aircraft  obstructions;  and  eighth, to  provide  military  area                                                               
charting   and  routes   for   military   and  civilian   traffic                                                               
"deconfliction."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1240                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PANOS informed  members  that the  Alaska  Fire Service  has                                                               
compiled reported  uses of orthoimagery in  disaster response and                                                               
hazard  prevention.   He  said  fire is  a  natural  part of  the                                                               
Alaskan  ecosystem, and  fire management  is  fundamental to  the                                                               
protection and  enhancement of  human values,  wildlife, habitat,                                                               
and  ecosystem   integrity;  wildfires  burn   approximately  one                                                               
million  acres  a year,  and  suppression  response is  based  on                                                               
statewide  fire  management  plans.   Mr.  Panos  also  mentioned                                                               
prescribed fire plans  for fuel hazard reduction.   He listed the                                                               
following  uses by  Alaska  Fire Service  for  orthoimagery:   to                                                               
assess fuel  types and changes  in surface features;  to identify                                                               
resource  habitat  to  assess the  level  of  [fire]  suppression                                                               
efforts  necessary; to  strategically plan  prescribed burns;  to                                                               
locate natural fire  barriers, which helps in  crew placement; to                                                               
pinpoint ingress  and egress  routes; and  to plan  relocation of                                                               
village landfills for fire prevention.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. PANOS discussed  the Alaska Land Transfer Program.   He said,                                                               
"The state and federal government  and Native corporations are in                                                               
partnership  to  execute the  largest  surveying  effort in  U.S.                                                               
history  and a  huge  adjudication effort."    The transfer  will                                                               
shift 104 million acres to the  state and 44 million acres to the                                                               
Native corporations.   Mr. Panos  stated that he had  worked with                                                               
the cadastral  surveyors at BLM  [Bureau of Land  Management] "to                                                               
put  this  together."     He  listed  the   following  ways  that                                                               
orthoimagery serves  as a reference  source:  to  validate Native                                                               
allotment locations  with accuracy,  thereby spending  less money                                                               
to  do so;  to  develop  survey plans  for  ANCSA [Alaska  Native                                                               
Claims Settlement  Act] and state  selections; to  identify field                                                               
[survey] transportation  needs for four-wheeled  vehicles, fixed-                                                               
wing [aircraft], boats, or helicopters;  to preview the landscape                                                               
and  estimate labor  [costs], which  are currently  between $8-10                                                               
million a  year; to determine  what technology and  techniques to                                                               
use  by previewing  the  landscape; and  to  delineate bodies  of                                                               
water that are 50 acres or more in size.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1559                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. PANOS  stated that everyone  knows [development  of Alaska's]                                                               
natural  resources is  key to  [the  state's] economic  vitality;                                                               
consequently,  [the   state]  must   work  with  the   best  data                                                               
available.   He mentioned receiving  help from  Phillips [Alaska,                                                               
Inc.],  Minerals  Management  Service,  and  BLM  to  create  the                                                               
example  in the  committee packet.   Mr.  Panos highlighted  some                                                               
uses  of orthoimagery  in oil  field development:   to  determine                                                               
lease  boundary locations,  by  projecting  the lease  boundaries                                                               
over  the  orthophoto; to  delineate  hydrologic  basins and  the                                                               
effect  that oil  development  will  have on  them;  to plan  the                                                               
routing  of ice  roads; to  evaluate water  sources for  ice-road                                                               
construction;   to   determine   locations   for   infrastructure                                                               
development; to  locate ecological monitoring stations;  to serve                                                               
as the  base material for  [sensitive habitat locations];  and to                                                               
use as a communication tool for public meetings.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PANOS  turned to  the  issue  of  public safety  and  "Legal                                                               
Access,"  a  report  compiled  by  an  easement  management  team                                                               
composed   of   state   and  federal   employees   as   well   as                                                               
representatives  from  the Native  corporations.    He said  many                                                               
easements  in Alaska  give  access to  major  waterways on  state                                                               
federal  and municipality  lands; there  are approximately  3,000                                                               
easements in Alaska, many of which  cross Native land.  Mr. Panos                                                               
told the  committee that  easements are not  in good  shape right                                                               
now.   He  pointed  out  some color-coded  lines  on  a map  that                                                               
indicated disputed  easements and proposed easements.   He listed                                                               
the  uses  for orthoimagery  regarding  legal  access and  public                                                               
safety:    to  identify  conflicts  between  easements  and  land                                                               
ownership;  to  reroute  existing  easements  because  of  public                                                               
safety  concerns; to  improve, maintain,  and mark  easements; to                                                               
avoid  placing easements  in  [environmentally sensitive  areas];                                                               
and  to  identify  discrepancies among  [locations  of  reserved]                                                               
easements to actual trails.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 1838                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. PANOS next  pointed to Resource Assessment  [and Public Use].                                                               
He  read,  "Public  access  to   Alaska's  natural  resources  is                                                               
essential   to  meet   increasing   tourism,  recreation,   [and]                                                               
development demands."  He stated  that good land-use planning and                                                               
environmental assessment  are necessary  to ensure  public access                                                               
while meeting environmental considerations.   Mr. Panos indicated                                                               
an orthoimagery map [located in  the committee packet] that shows                                                               
a before-and-after  picture of "the old  Sourdough Campground" on                                                               
the Richardson Highway, which was  a mosquito-infested area prior                                                               
to the application of orthoimagery technology.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. PANOS  listed the following  uses for  orthoimagery regarding                                                               
resource  assessment, compiled  by the  people in  the Glennallen                                                               
district and  the park  service:  to  locate existing  ATV trails                                                               
and assess their impact on  land, water, and living resources; to                                                               
inventory overused  public access  trails, in order  to determine                                                               
whether they  should be shut  down or rehabilitated; to  plan for                                                               
optimal  location   of  new  public  access   trails;  to  locate                                                               
[publicly established]  camping sites; to identify  which camping                                                               
sites  are  in need  of  restoration;  and  to plan  for  optimal                                                               
locations for camping sites, so that  people can get the best use                                                               
out of them, while still maintaining the environment.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1980                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. PANOS told the committee  that according to the Department of                                                               
Community & Economic  Development, [more than] 35  percent of the                                                               
communities in rural  Alaska don't have flush  toilets or running                                                               
water; he  added that he believed  that figure had dropped  to 30                                                               
percent.   Many [federal,  state, and  local] initiatives  are in                                                               
progress to  improve [conditions] in the  rural communities, with                                                               
a focus  to improve  the infrastructure  in terms  of sanitation,                                                               
water,  power,   and  transportation.    Mr.   Panos  listed  the                                                               
following ways that orthoimagery could  be used for community and                                                               
economic    development:       to    identify   culturally    and                                                               
environmentally  sensitive  areas,  such  as  salmon-fishing  and                                                               
berry-picking  locales;  to  identify communities'  existing  and                                                               
future land uses by mapping  out trails, buildings, and roads; to                                                               
identify the boundaries of ANCSA  [section 14(c)] land claims; to                                                               
verify  the boundaries  of the  major landowners;  to figure  out                                                               
hazards,  such  as flood  plains;  and  to  serve  as an  aid  to                                                               
communication with the people of the communities.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 2085                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PANOS  defined  "Base  Map Data  Framework"  as  "layers  of                                                               
information"  for which  Alaska has  a  need.   The framework  is                                                               
depicted on  a graph [shown  in the committee  packet] consisting                                                               
of  the   following  elements:    elevation;   geodetic  control;                                                               
[digital] hydrography;  bathymetry, which shows the  depth of the                                                               
coastline;  cadastral [surveying],  which essentially  is showing                                                               
the  location of  all  survey  boundaries; transportation,  which                                                               
involves getting  coordinates on  roads; government  units, which                                                               
shows who has administrative jurisdiction  over which land; land-                                                               
cover  information,  which  shows  land,  water,  and  vegetation                                                               
types; elevation [data]; and digital orthoimagery.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PANOS  explained  that   elevation,  geodetic  control,  and                                                               
hydrography  maps  are  complete,  while  bathymetry,  cadastral,                                                               
transportation, governmental  units, and  land-cover map  work is                                                               
still in  progress.  In  contrast, (accurate) elevation  maps and                                                               
digital orthoimagery  maps [for Alaska]  do not exist.   He said,                                                               
as  an  example,  that digital  orthoimagery  could  supply  such                                                               
information such as  the exact dates during which  a pilot should                                                               
not  fly through  a certain  area, in  order to  avoid disturbing                                                               
moose or caribou calving.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. PANOS  told the committee that  the average map of  Alaska is                                                               
over 40 years  old; many of the  maps are over 50 years  old.  He                                                               
added  that  there are  no  plans  on  the  horizon by  the  U.S.                                                               
Geological Survey (USGS)  to update them.  He  indicated the last                                                               
statewide base [survey]  for imagery was in  1978, for Fairbanks;                                                               
he showed the  committee two maps of Fairbanks  [in the committee                                                               
packet] and pointed out the changes  in the area [over a 21-year-                                                               
period],   which  are   highlighted   by  the   use  of   digital                                                               
orthoimagery.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PANOS mentioned  approaching  the  "Commerce Business  Daily                                                               
(indisc.)" with  an RFI (request  for information),  to determine                                                               
[data  acquisition] costs.   He  called this  the "sticker  shock                                                               
page."   He said the  collection of the digital  information data                                                               
would take approximately  four years, at a  cost of approximately                                                               
$60 million.   Regarding data accessing, Mr. Panos  said that the                                                               
information has  no licensing restriction  on it like  many data;                                                               
consequently,  it would  be  put  on the  Internet  as it  became                                                               
available.   The information would  be available on  the Internet                                                               
through  the   Alaska  Geospatial  Clearinghouse  and   could  be                                                               
ordered,  either  from  the University  of  Alaska  Fairbanks  [a                                                               
potential in-state repository] or  the USGS EROS [Earth Resources                                                               
Observation System] Data Center.   He stated that the fee charged                                                               
to the consumer would only be the cost of the compact disk.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2338                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. PANOS spoke  next regarding letters of endorsement.   He told                                                               
the committee that  so far, [AGDC] has 55  letters of endorsement                                                               
from  the following  groups:   the federal  government, including                                                               
the National Digital Orthophoto Program,  the U.S. Air Force, the                                                               
U.S.  Census Bureau,  and the  Bureau of  Land Management,  among                                                               
others;  industry and  advocacy  groups,  including the  Resource                                                               
Development Council [for Alaska,  Inc.], the Alaska Land Managers                                                               
Forum  (ph), Arctic  Power, Institute  of the  North, the  Alaska                                                               
Airmen's  Association,  Inc.;  private  industry,  including  oil                                                               
companies, engineering  firms, and mining  companies; conservancy                                                               
groups,  such  as the  Nature  Conservancy  and Ducks  Unlimited;                                                               
Native corporations, including the  Association of ANCSA Regional                                                               
Corporation  Presidents/CEOs, Inc.;  local government,  including                                                               
municipalities and  boroughs; several  State of  Alaska agencies,                                                               
with  the  help of  Senator  Phillips;  and professional  mapping                                                               
companies, including "three of the more prominent ones."                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 2443                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PANOS showed  a map  of digital  "orthoquads" currently  for                                                               
sale in Alaska "on what  we call the 'National Aerial Photography                                                               
Program' desktop,"  comprising basically the area  from the Kenai                                                               
peninsula to the Wasilla area.   He noted that Alaska is the only                                                               
state that  does not  belong to  the National  Digital Orthophoto                                                               
Program.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. PANOS explained that the  National Aerial Photography Program                                                               
takes aerial  photography, which the National  Digital Orthophoto                                                               
Program turns into  orthophotos.  Referring to  "the archive," he                                                               
showed another  graph depicting,  in color,  everything "covered"                                                               
to date,  which does not include  Alaska.  He mentioned  a seven-                                                               
year  plan that  spans from  1997-2003,  in which  Alaska is  not                                                               
included.   Mr.  Panos  noted that  recently  the NASA  [National                                                               
Aeronautics  and  Space  Administration]   shuttle  project  -  a                                                               
photographic mapping  mission - covered  an area from  60 degrees                                                               
north  to 60  degrees  south,  which did  not  include [most  of]                                                               
Alaska.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PANOS  told  members  that spatial  data  is  essential  for                                                               
planning,  developing,  and  managing  assets,  improving  living                                                               
conditions,  and  protecting  the   environment.    It  increases                                                               
knowledge   and  reduces   uncertainties,  allowing   for  better                                                               
decisions  from  which  "we"  will   reap  savings.    Mr.  Panos                                                               
indicated  the value  of spatial  data used  in "a  good decision                                                               
support program"  is worth 1 to  4 percent of the  total value of                                                               
the  resources  being managed;  for  example,  if Alaska  had  $1                                                               
trillion  worth of  resources, 1  percent would  be $10  billion.                                                               
Thus good infrastructure information would pay off considerably.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. PANOS noted that the  next point was procured from Australia:                                                               
When there is good spatial  data infrastructure, the cost-benefit                                                               
is about  a 1:9 ratio.   He said  some people at  Ducks Unlimited                                                               
figured out  a 1:7  ratio on  their return.   He stated  that the                                                               
benefits  of  spatial  data  increase;  more  organizations  have                                                               
access  to the  data, which  means  that everyone  is using  good                                                               
information on which  to base decisions.  Mr. Panos  said that is                                                               
the reason [AGDC] is putting the information on the Internet.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 2625                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  SCALZI  commented that  the  list  of endorsements  was                                                               
impressive.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2650                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FATE pointed out that  a [pilot] could not file an                                                               
instrument flight plan without a  published navigational aid, and                                                               
asked how the  initiative would increase the  number of published                                                               
navigational aids in small villages.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. PANOS said  he would have to  ask the people at the  FAA.  He                                                               
added:                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     The  point they  were making,  to me,  on this  is that                                                                    
     they don't have good terrain  data out in the Bush, and                                                                    
     so their  approaches have  to be  very ...  long coming                                                                    
     in.   They said if  they had better terrain  data, they                                                                    
     could  lower their  approaches and  get more  people in                                                                    
     and out.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FATE  responded, "Well,  I'm  a  flier, and  that                                                               
doesn't  quite add  up to  ...  how it's  done.   But that's  all                                                               
right;  we'll let it pass."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. PANOS  reported that actual products,  developed with AeroMap                                                               
and  the Alaska  Science and  Technology Foundation,  would "come                                                               
out  of this  program"; a  variety of  projects can  be generated                                                               
with orthophoto  and with digital  elevation data.   He indicated                                                               
some examples  on the  wall of the  committee room  and mentioned                                                               
additional 3-D  material.  In  response to a comment  by Co-Chair                                                               
Scalzi about  the effects of  wearing the 3-D glasses,  Mr. Panos                                                               
said the digital elevation data  makes it possible to perform 3-D                                                               
"fly-throughs"  of  an  area.     The  U.S.  Air  Force  is  very                                                               
interested  in this  technology, for  example, because  it allows                                                               
using a simulator to practice air operations.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 2770                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR SCALZI  asked Mr. Panos why  Alaska was not up  to speed                                                               
with the Lower 48 regarding this technology.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. PANOS  replied that the  Alaska is  too big, and  covering an                                                               
area of its  size would be expensive.   He said for  years he has                                                               
brought up  the subject to  the USGS,  which is hesitant  to deal                                                               
with  Alaska  because  of  the  amount of  money  that  would  be                                                               
involved.    He recounted  that  someone  in North  Carolina  had                                                               
suggested Alaska's  "counties" could help pay,  but he'd informed                                                               
the person that  the North Slope Borough, for example,  is as big                                                               
as North Carolina, but with only 10,000 people.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 2845                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JOHN  ELLIS, AeroMap  U.S., Inc.,  came before  the committee  to                                                               
explain the  purpose of  the 3-D  glasses that  he provided.   He                                                               
said  the  digital elevation  model  is  a  3-D model,  which  is                                                               
accurate horizontally and  to 2.5 meters; the 3-D  glasses aid in                                                               
seeing the  model.  Mr.  Ellis added that  land-cover information                                                               
and other information can be  draped over the model, producing "a                                                               
whole new  world - almost like  something you can pick  up."  Mr.                                                               
Ellis pointed  out that  this technology is  not new;  almost all                                                               
image-processing  software  available  today can  automate  these                                                               
types of maps.   For example, children could get  on the Internet                                                               
and download  an image of  their favorite campground to  see what                                                               
the elevation  differences are.   He  mentioned software  such as                                                               
"Photoshop."                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 2969                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GREEN moved  to report  HJR 19  out of  committee                                                               
with individual  recommendations and  the attached  fiscal notes.                                                               
There being no  objection, HJR 19 moved from  the House Resources                                                               
Standing Committee.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HB 194-ENTRY PERMIT FEES                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 01-24, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 2995                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced  that the next order  of business would                                                               
be HOUSE  BILL NO. 194, "An  Act relating to fees  for commercial                                                               
fishing  licenses and  permits;  and providing  for an  effective                                                               
date."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
[There was a motion to adopt  HB 194 for discussion purposes, but                                                               
it was already before the committee.]                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 2958                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STEVENS,   speaking  as  the   sponsor,  informed                                                               
members that  HB 194 involves a  very complex subject.   It has a                                                               
lot  to  do with  the  1982  Carlson  case, a  class-action  suit                                                             
brought against the State of  Alaska and the Commercial Fisheries                                                               
Entry Commission  (CFEC) for  charging a  three-to-one difference                                                               
between  nonresident  and  resident  fishermen.    Representative                                                               
Stevens detailed the  supreme court's decision:   the state would                                                               
not be  allowed to  charge three-to-one, but  instead must  use a                                                               
differential based on the difference  paid in taxes by a resident                                                               
versus a nonresident.   The [supreme court] still has  to rule on                                                               
what the state  owes in the case.   If the state  loses the case,                                                               
it may owe more than is estimated now.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STEVENS  further  explained  that  HB  194  would                                                               
repeal the  present statute regarding  the 3:1 ratio  and replace                                                               
it with  language that  allows the  state to  charge nonresidents                                                               
"the maximum  amount allowed  by the court".   He  mentioned that                                                               
the state's attorney, Stephen White,  argued the case in superior                                                               
court,  where he  suggested six  budget categories  in which  the                                                               
state would be  able to charge nonresidents  more than residents.                                                               
In June 2000, the superior court  came up with a formula for what                                                               
the  state  could  charge,  allowing  only two  out  of  the  six                                                               
categories.   Representative  Stevens  said this  could cost  the                                                               
state $22.5 million;  Mr. White would be  appealing that decision                                                               
in the state  supreme court, in an attempt to  get the other four                                                               
categories included in the formula.  He continued:                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Even now, today,  if you were to go down  to the [CFEC]                                                                    
     and  apply  for  a  limited [entry  permit],  you'd  be                                                                    
     charged   ...  three   times  more   than  out-of-state                                                                    
     fishermen, ...  despite what the  court has ruled.   So                                                                    
     what we're doing  is ... adding to  that liability that                                                                    
     we will  owe at some  point in  the future.   This bill                                                                    
     will  allow the  [CFEC] to  stop charging  three-to-one                                                                    
     and begin to charge this  maximum amount allowed by the                                                                    
     courts.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     If the bill  is passed, the CFEC will begin  to use the                                                                    
     formula  the court  has directed  us to  use, based  on                                                                    
     those two  budget categories.   At  the same  time, the                                                                    
     Department  of Law  will continue  trying to  get those                                                                    
     other four  categories into the  formula.  HB  194 will                                                                    
     help us  resolve the problems  we're facing  right now.                                                                    
     Hopefully, it will not  create any additional problems.                                                                    
     It gets rid  of that ... three-to-one ratio.   It shows                                                                    
     that we are  acting in good faith with the  courts.  It                                                                    
     shows that when we realized  what our liability was ...                                                                    
     we took steps to correct things.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said it doesn't  "get us anywhere to stick                                                               
with the  present statute."  He  pointed out that in  addition to                                                               
needing  a statute  change when  the court  decides which  budget                                                               
categories  can  be listed,  the  state  already must  change  it                                                               
because of  the court's decision  against the state's use  of the                                                               
three-to-one ratio.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 2732                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MARY   McDOWELL,   Commissioner,   Commercial   Fisheries   Entry                                                               
Commission  (CFEC), Alaska  Department  of Fish  & Game  (ADF&G),                                                               
spoke  on behalf  of  CFEC  in support  of  HB  194, saying  CFEC                                                               
believes the bill is a "win-win action."  She said:                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     By  adopting  the  provisions  of  this  bill  now,  as                                                                    
     opposed  to  sticking  with  the  current  statute  and                                                                    
     fixing it  after the supreme  court has  finally ruled,                                                                    
     we're actually ahead, whether or  not the supreme court                                                                    
     rules in our favor.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL stated that recently  the Department of Law has done                                                               
briefings for  several legislative  committees on the  details of                                                               
the Carlson case;  therefore, most of the  legislature is "fairly                                                             
familiar" with  the potential fiscal  ramifications of  having to                                                               
pay these possible  refunds and interest for  past overcharges of                                                               
nonresident  fishing licenses.    She referred  to the  sponsor's                                                               
explanation and  said the Carlson case  raises prospective issues                                                             
such as what  the fee structure should be now  and in the future.                                                               
The subject of  HB 194 is how a fee  structure can be established                                                               
that is  "feasible to administer  and will maximize  our revenues                                                               
from nonresidents, while avoiding possible future liability."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL  explained  that   the  "three-to-one"  mandate  in                                                               
statute  is the  main issue  in this  bill.   She said  [CFEC] is                                                               
continuing to use  this ratio, even though the court  has said it                                                               
unconstitutionally overcharges  nonresidents in  some of  the fee                                                               
categories.     The  three-to-one   ratio  has  not   been  ruled                                                               
unconstitutional, but the  supreme court has said  that a formula                                                               
must be  used to charge higher  nonresident fees.  At  this point                                                               
in court, [the state] is  arguing which state expenditures can go                                                               
into that formula.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL said  the ratio by itself is  not acceptable, unless                                                               
fees for residents  and nonresidents are so low  that they happen                                                               
to  fall into  the  allowable differential.    For example,  with                                                               
crewmember  licenses,  the  state has  charged  three-to-one  for                                                               
years, but  the dollar amount is  so low that it  happens to fall                                                               
within what's  allowable.  For years,  [CFEC] charged [residents]                                                               
$30 and  [nonresidents] $90; last  year, that was changed  to $60                                                               
and $125, respectively,  but since the dollar amount  is so small                                                               
and it stays within the ratio,  no refund will be owed.  However,                                                               
within  higher permit  fee categories,  some permit  fees have  a                                                               
differential of $500 between residents  and nonresidents.  So, in                                                               
regard to allowable  fees by the court, she said,  if "we prevail                                                               
at  the supreme  court and  we get  differentials hiked,  we'd be                                                               
able to  charge double the  amount, similar to those  amounts ...                                                               
under the  provisions of this bill.   So, our revenues  would ...                                                               
go back up."                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL remarked  that until  last summer's  superior court                                                               
decision, the state could claim that  the court had not set out a                                                               
specific  explanation  about  what   is  acceptable  and  how  to                                                               
calculate  the  differential.   Now,  however,  [CFEC]  has  that                                                               
direction  from  the  court.    She  noted  that  Stephen  White,                                                               
Department of Law, could elaborate on this.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL commented  that if the superior court  ruling is not                                                               
overturned, what  is currently being  charged will accrue  a debt                                                               
of  approximately  $2.13 million  every  year  under the  current                                                               
statute.    In  addition  to this  debt,  approximately  250  new                                                               
members  are added  to the  Carlson  [class] each  year that  the                                                             
current three-to-one statute is used.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL noted  that HB  194 doesn't  address or  affect the                                                               
outcome of  the Carlson case,  since it affects  liabilities that                                                             
may be ultimately  found for charges in the past  or the present.                                                               
Those issues  will have  to "run  their course"  in court.   This                                                               
bill  affects what  [CFEC] would  charge for  licensing in  2002.                                                               
This  would happen  without conceding  to the  court's decisions.                                                               
It would support the state appeal.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL  explained  that  HB  194  keeps  the  current  $60                                                               
resident  fee for  crewmember licenses.   It  also allows  ADF&G,                                                               
which handles  crewmember licenses, to raise  nonresident fees to                                                               
"tack  on the  entire allowable  differential."   This will  help                                                               
offset the  loss and [CFEC's] having  to reduce the fees  in some                                                               
permit categories.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL pointed  out  that  HB 194  also  addresses the  $5                                                               
crewmember license  for children 11  years and under -  which was                                                               
established  by  the  legislature  "one to  two  years  ago"  for                                                               
residents  and nonresidents  - by  authorizing ADF&G  to add  the                                                               
allowable nonresident differential to the $5 fee.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL  referred to  the annual renewal  fees for  the CFEC                                                               
permits, including limited entry  permits and interim-use permits                                                               
that  one  needs  for  an  unlimited  fishery.    Under  HB  194,                                                               
nonresidents  would be  charged the  base (resident's)  fee, plus                                                               
"up to"  the maximum allowable  differential that the  court will                                                               
allow.   Residents would  be charged slightly  more than  what is                                                               
under current statute.  The fee would  go from $250 to $300.  She                                                               
said  this is  not something  "that fishermen  love," but  United                                                               
Fishermen of Alaska  (UFA) supports this increase  to offset some                                                               
of the loss in revenues.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL noted  that this $250 cap for residents  has been in                                                               
effect  for 20  years  with  no changes.    However, permits  for                                                               
individual  fisheries  move  up  and down  within  the  five  fee                                                               
categories because  they are  charged for  each type  of license,                                                               
according to  the economic return  in that  fishery.  But  if the                                                               
cap were  set at  $300, then  each of the  five classes  would be                                                               
"proportionally hiked  by about  20 percent."   So,  for example,                                                               
under this bill,  the lowest fee class would go  from $50 to $60.                                                               
In short, the resident fee affects the nonresident fee.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL suggested that the  decision on the resident fee cap                                                               
be revisited after a final  supreme court decision, since at that                                                               
point  "we" will  know  what  happens to  the  revenues that  are                                                               
generated.  She said fees generated  by CFEC permit fees are also                                                               
used to fund the Division  of Commercial Fisheries (under ADF&G).                                                               
So it  [resident fee cap]  is a concern  to fishermen as  well as                                                               
the legislature.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL turned  attention to reduced "poverty  fees."  These                                                               
fees are  set in statute for  people who can show  they are below                                                               
poverty level; the  fees have been $15 for residents  and $45 for                                                               
nonresidents for years.   Ms. McDowell noted that  those fees are                                                               
not high  enough to cover what  [CFEC] is required to  submit for                                                               
insurance under the fishermen's fund.   She explained that HB 194                                                               
would set poverty  fees at half of the normal  fee a person would                                                               
pay for the annual renewal of a permit.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL said this is a  modest change for most people, since                                                               
most  poverty  permits are  at  the  lowest  fee category.    She                                                               
reported that 700 out of 895  poverty fee permits in 2000 were in                                                               
the  $50 resident  fee  class;  under this  bill,  the fee  would                                                               
increase  to  $30  from  $15.   For  the  few  people  in  higher                                                               
categories  who  apply  for poverty  fees,  their  permits  would                                                               
increase more substantially;  for example, in 2000  there were 83                                                               
[poverty] permits in  the $100 [fee] class, and  those fees would                                                               
increase to  $60 under this  bill.  She went  on to say  that the                                                               
few  people  in  the  highest  fee  class  would  see  a  tenfold                                                               
increase, from  $15 to $150,  but it is  still a savings  of $150                                                               
[over the full fee].                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL referred to the fiscal  note.  She said HB 194 would                                                               
save  $1.13  million  a  year  in refunds  and  interest  if  the                                                               
superior court  decision stands, or  more if the  plaintiff wins.                                                               
She said  even though the  fiscal note  shows a $470,000  loss of                                                               
revenue that [CFEC's]  fees generated, it is  a little misleading                                                               
because it  would be more than  offset by "other things  that the                                                               
bill  does."   The  first offset  would be  the  way refunds  are                                                               
calculated under the  Carlson case.  There is  a stipulation with                                                             
the  plaintiff's attorney  that credit  is given  if a  fisherman                                                               
over  time   has  held  permits   above  or  below   the  allowed                                                               
differential.  [CFEC] can a use  a year in which [fishermen] paid                                                               
less  than  what was  charged  to  them  in  order to  offset  an                                                               
overpayment.   So, if  [CFEC] wins in  supreme court,  and during                                                               
this  "intervening time"  CFEC has  undercharged,  it can  deduct                                                               
that amount from the refund owed.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL  went on to say  that since this does  not come back                                                               
in the  form of a fee  receipt, there is still  concern that fees                                                               
that would  normally go to  the Division of  Commercial Fisheries                                                               
wouldn't go there.   But as far as the  state's fiscal situation,                                                               
the money "comes back" in the form of reducing those refunds.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL  noted that  if the  state does  not prevail  in the                                                               
supreme court, there  would be refunds plus  interest; thus there                                                               
is a savings by not charging  it upfront.  In the meantime, since                                                               
this bill  allows [ADF&G]  to hike  nonresident crew  member fees                                                               
right  away -  which could  offset a  substantial portion  of the                                                               
decline  in fees  while  [CFEC] is  having to  redo  some of  the                                                               
permit   fees  -   [CFEC]  can   be  increasing   the  crewmember                                                               
nonresident fee,  which would  help offset  it as  well.   If the                                                               
plaintiffs win the aspects that  they're appealing to the supreme                                                               
court, what [CFEC]  would save in this bill  wouldn't fully cover                                                               
the  additional debt,  but it  would reduce  what [CFEC]  owes by                                                               
$1.13 million a year.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL concluded  by saying  HB 194  contains legally  and                                                               
financially responsible actions for the  legislature to take.  It                                                               
protects  the best  interests  of the  state  by "minimizing  our                                                               
potential accrual  of more debt  while seeking to  maintain state                                                               
revenues."   It  contains language  that is  "flexible enough  to                                                               
fulfill  this  purpose  on  into the  future  regardless  of  the                                                               
outcome in the high court."   This bill also "concedes nothing in                                                               
the Carlson  case; it can't  be construed  in any way  to concede                                                             
what the  state is arguing, and  it actually could help  us avoid                                                               
the risk  of punitive action by  the court."  It  provides a tool                                                               
for remaining in compliance to avoid further legal liability.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1962                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FATE asked  if the  poverty fee  is based  on the                                                               
amount  of income  derived  from the  fishing  enterprise or  the                                                               
total.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL  replied  that  it is  derived  from  total  family                                                               
income.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1962                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said  even though he intends  to support this                                                               
bill,  he wants  to look  into the  issue of  crewmember permits.                                                               
Most  of   [the  bill]  emphasizes  deep-sea   offshore  fishing.                                                               
However, there is an inland-waterway  fishery in Alaska; for some                                                               
fisheries  [in   Western  Alaska],  people  couldn't   even  feed                                                               
themselves,  and yet  this is  an increase  for crewmembers.   He                                                               
added that these fisheries can't  have crewmembers anymore, since                                                               
they sold  no fish last year.   Most of those  family enterprises                                                               
consist of  a "man and  a wife going  out on the  boat together,"                                                               
with only one having a limited entry permit.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MCDOWELL  remarked  that  this  bill  does  not  propose  an                                                               
increase in resident crewmember licenses.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FATE  said he  realizes that,  since he  obtains a                                                               
license every year.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL  noted that for  a fishery  that does not  open, the                                                               
permit  fees for  the  year are  waived by  CFEC  for the  permit                                                               
holder.  However,  there is still a hardship  [fee] for fisheries                                                               
that open and have a poor season.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1858                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GREEN  asked  about  the  numbers  if  the  state                                                               
prevails or loses [in the Carlson case].                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL  answered that  [CFEC] had  to calculate  and submit                                                               
this under  the court  ruling by March  15.  She  went on  to say                                                               
there  are 11,000  plaintiffs  in the  [Carlson]  class, and  the                                                             
total refund calculated,  with interest, was $22.5  million up to                                                               
March 15,  2001; this amount  increases a  little each day.   The                                                               
plaintiffs  contend  that  no  differentials   at  all  would  be                                                               
allowable; if  they win, the  number hasn't been  calculated, but                                                               
it would be  much higher than $22.5 million.   She mentioned that                                                               
she could  obtain those  numbers.   She went on  to say,  "If the                                                               
state prevailed on  everything that it's arguing,  there would be                                                               
no refund - we would have no liability."                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR SCALZI  asked:  If  Alaska implemented an income  tax in                                                               
the  next  few  years,  on both  residents  and  nonresidents  in                                                               
Alaska, and  the differential was  revisited, would it be  a part                                                               
of the differential consideration?                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
STEPHEN  WHITE,  Assistant  Attorney General,  Natural  Resources                                                               
Section, Civil  Division (Juneau),  Department of  Law, explained                                                               
that the state does not get any  credit in terms of how much more                                                               
a  nonresident  is charged  for  taxes  that both  residents  and                                                               
nonresidents  pay.   It only  receives benefits  from taxes  that                                                               
residents pay  for service  which nonresidents  do not  also pay.                                                               
This  is how  [Alaska] can  take its  oil revenues,  for example,                                                               
which  pay for  services [for]  Alaskans.   If a  tax is  imposed                                                               
equally on residents  and nonresidents, it doesn't  come into the                                                               
formula at all.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STEVENS  asked  Mr.  White to  comment  on  plans                                                               
regarding  the [Carlson]  court case  and what  he estimates  the                                                             
outcome will be.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1640                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITE replied that the [Department  of Law] filed a notice of                                                               
appeal before the supreme court several  weeks ago.  The state is                                                               
appealing the four budget  categories that Representative Stevens                                                               
mentioned earlier.   These are legitimate costs of  the state for                                                               
commercial  fishing   which,  if   put  into  a   formula,  would                                                               
substantially increase  the amount of differential  that could be                                                               
charged  nonresidents.    Furthermore, [CFEC]  is  appealing  the                                                               
issue about  whether any  refunds of permit  payments need  to be                                                               
paid to  nonresidents; it is  also appealing whether  [the state]                                                               
needs  to pay  interest on  this.   [The state]  has also  argued                                                               
other  technical  legal questions  such  as  whether this  is  an                                                               
appropriate class action  or if it should be limited  to only the                                                               
six people whose names are on the complaint.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WHITE   explained  that  altogether  11   points  are  being                                                               
appealed.  He  is confident that at least  some budget categories                                                               
will be included  [in the formula].  The  superior court included                                                               
only  [the   state's]  direct   operational  costs   of  managing                                                               
commercial fisheries,  such as  salaries for  people in  CFEC and                                                               
the Division  of Commercial  Fisheries.   The superior  court did                                                               
include some overhead  costs for the department  [ADF&G], but did                                                               
not allow [the  state] to include capital  costs for constructing                                                               
fish   hatcheries,   harbors,    general   state   infrastructure                                                               
attributed to the population because  of commercial fisheries, or                                                               
the  subsidy to  hatcheries that  principally support  commercial                                                               
fisheries.  He expressed hope  that some of these categories will                                                               
be included.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITE  explained that if  all the budget categories  had been                                                               
included  at the  superior court  level,  the differential  would                                                               
have been $570 - more than  any of the current ranges for limited                                                               
entry permits.   [The  state] would  have been  "home free."   He                                                               
pointed  out if  [the state]  wins on  the interest  argument, he                                                               
believes the  [amount owed]  would be cut  from one-half  to two-                                                               
thirds because  [the state] has  accrued 10.5  [percent] interest                                                               
on payments back  to 1982.  Although  it is hard to  say what the                                                               
state's opportunities  to win on  those issues are, the  more the                                                               
state   wins,  the   more  the   [amount  owed]   will  go   down                                                               
proportionately, "to the possibility of not being at all."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STEVENS  commented that  Mr.  White  has said  he                                                               
"will see this through to the end."                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1425                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated,  "I  take an issue with the courts."                                                               
He went  on to  say that  the state passes  laws, and  the courts                                                               
should  be  there  to  determine  whether or  not  the  laws  are                                                               
reasonable  and legal.   He  expressed concern  about being  in a                                                               
"defensive  mode"  and  wondered  if   this  is  the  best  legal                                                               
approach.  He suggested that [the  state] be in an offensive mode                                                               
and  adopt what  the  attorney  general used  in  arguments.   He                                                               
added,  "We're  talking  about  saving  about  $1.1  million  for                                                               
another  year until  that determination  is  made, versus  either                                                               
22.5  million or  perhaps significantly  higher."   He said  this                                                               
seems to  be "pretty  reasonable," and said  perhaps it  would be                                                               
worthwhile to "arm you with the  support of the legislature."  He                                                               
indicated this would provide a  reason for the difference between                                                               
permit prices, and then [Mr.  White] could argue a stronger case,                                                               
that  "at  least it's  Alaska's  total;  it's  not just  a  legal                                                               
battle, but  it's the will of  the people who are  elected by the                                                               
people."                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1336                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITE commented that it  wouldn't affect the court's decision                                                               
if   this  legislation   names  and   includes  all   six  budget                                                               
categories.    The court  will  determine  on  its own  what  the                                                               
state's fisheries budget is, and  will use it based on principles                                                               
of  public  budgeting  processes.   He  mentioned  that  a  Ph.D.                                                               
economist,  who   is  also  a   legislator  from  the   state  of                                                               
Washington, had come to help present the case.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITE  said,  "That's  the kind  of economic theory  that the                                                               
courts  are going  to  be  looking at  to  determine what  budget                                                               
expenditures  should be,  and should  not be,  in this  formula."                                                               
Therefore, what  the legislature says  is going to  be irrelevant                                                               
for the  court's interpretation.   In fact, if  [the legislature]                                                               
includes all six budget categories, and  "we don't get all six of                                                               
them," then the statute will have  to be changed once again.  The                                                               
language in  HB 194 enables  [the state], in very  generic terms,                                                               
to  charge the  most that  the law  allows.   This will  become a                                                               
differential in  which, each  year, the amount  will change.   In                                                               
short, he  thinks this  is the  most efficient  way to  deal with                                                               
this case and still be able  to charge nonresidents the most that                                                               
is possible.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN again  expressed dissatisfaction with taking                                                               
a  defensive  posture  and  "back-peddling"  while  awaiting  the                                                               
court's  decision.   He said  that is  the wrong  way to  use the                                                               
court.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WHITE  replied  that  the court  is  interpreting  the  U.S.                                                               
Constitution, not a  state statute.  It is beyond  "our" power to                                                               
affect what  [the court]  is actually looking  at.   Passing this                                                               
bill  will show  the Alaska  Supreme  Court that  the state  took                                                               
corrective action as soon as  the superior court ruled that there                                                               
was some  possible liability.   This will be helpful  because the                                                               
other side's  argument is that the  state has known for  18 years                                                               
that  it  has  been  charging   nonresidents  higher  fees.    He                                                               
indicated that the other side  believes that the state should pay                                                               
back  all  money  received  from  the  three-to-one  ratio,  plus                                                               
interest,  to all  nonresidents,  including those  that can't  be                                                               
located.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITE reiterated  that his argument to this would  be that as                                                               
soon as  it became  clear that  there was  some liability  to the                                                               
state,  the legislature  took the  appropriate steps  to adopt  a                                                               
basic formula into  statute.  In addition, steps  have been taken                                                               
to notify all the nonresidents so  they can continue to keep [the                                                               
state] informed of their whereabouts,  in case [the state] has to                                                               
pay them back.  The  bill, a good-faith effort, demonstrates that                                                               
the  state  is  acting  responsibly.   He  noted  that  the  U.S.                                                               
Constitution  says  all residents  and  nonresidents  have to  be                                                               
treated substantially the same when  pursuing a vocation in terms                                                               
of license  fees and so  forth; the  exception is, the  state can                                                               
charge more  for those services  it provides that are  based upon                                                               
taxes that only residents are paying.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITE added that the formula  says this.  He remarked that it                                                               
won't help  his argument to  go into  the supreme court  and say:                                                               
"The  legislature  thinks the  fisheries  budget  is composed  of                                                               
these factors, because  the supreme court is not  looking at what                                                               
the  legislature  does  in  terms   of  its  definitions  of  the                                                               
fisheries  budget," because  it is  a U.S.  constitutional issue.                                                               
"We are  being aggressive in terms  of attacking it in  every way                                                               
that we can," he concluded.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0947                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GREEN requested  clarification about  the purpose                                                               
of the bill in relation to the legal case.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITE explained that the  bill stops interest from running on                                                               
potential future refunds,  and shows the court that  the state is                                                               
acting responsibly  in terms of  "pounding the argument  that the                                                               
state should  pay not  only all the  nonresidents out  there, but                                                               
also  all the  nonresidents that  we  can find."   The  [Carlson]                                                             
class  is arguing  that  the  State of  Alaska  has ignored  this                                                               
situation for  18 years.   He  said many  of these  class members                                                               
have "disappeared":   some addresses cannot be found  and some of                                                               
these people  are deceased.   He reiterated  that the  other side                                                               
believes the  State of Alaska should  pay "all the people  we can                                                               
find,  all the  people we  can't find,  ... [and]  also pay  that                                                               
money into  a fund or distribute  it amongst all the  rest of the                                                               
nonresidents."  This is an argument  he will face in court.  This                                                               
bill will help [the state] defeat  this argument and help to keep                                                               
the money  that otherwise might  have to  be paid for  people [in                                                               
the Carlson class] who can't be contacted.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0790                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS commented that  there are two major issues                                                               
here.   First,  the state  must move  away from  the three-to-one                                                               
ratio and  find a way to  begin charging the right  amount or the                                                               
most  that  can  possibly  be   charged  to  nonresidents,  since                                                               
liability is accruing.   He noted that he also  likes the idea of                                                               
sending a message to the court  saying, "By the way, we think all                                                               
of  these things  should count."    He mentioned  that Mr.  White                                                               
would say this bill does not  weaken this case and does not admit                                                               
any guilt on [the state's] part.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS  pointed out  that many  people, including                                                               
himself  and Co-Chair  Scalzi, believe  [the legislature]  should                                                               
send a stronger statement to  the court.  However, this statement                                                               
should not  be included  in HB 194.   The bill  is an  attempt to                                                               
current the current situation.   He proposed, therefore, that the                                                               
House  Resources  Standing  Committee  come up  with  a  separate                                                               
resolution,  to  say that  the  legislature  opposes actions  the                                                               
courts have taken, and believes  all six budget categories should                                                               
be included [in the formula].                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0564                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR SCALZI called  an at-ease at 2:38 p.m.   The meeting was                                                               
called back to order at 2:44 p.m.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  SCALZI asked  Mr. White  to comment  on the  difference                                                               
between commercial and sport licenses.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WHITE responded  that the  difference is  that pursuit  of a                                                               
livelihood  or  having   a  license  for  a   vocation,  such  as                                                               
commercial fishing,  brings the privileges and  immunities clause                                                               
from the  U.S. Constitution into consideration;  this clause says                                                               
there must be  substantial equality in the way  that one licenses                                                               
or treat  residents and  nonresidents.  This  is what  has driven                                                               
this case from the beginning.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITE pointed out that  recreational pursuits such as hunting                                                               
and fishing, and  college tuition charges in  regard to residents                                                               
and nonresidents,  are not included in  this clause.  It  is more                                                               
permissive  for  states to  charge  more  [for nonresidents]  for                                                               
those pursuing non-vocational activities.   There was a challenge                                                               
in the courts  a few years ago concerning  the higher allocation,                                                               
by percentage, of moose to residents.   The concern was that this                                                               
was  unconstitutional.   However, the  courts said  since it  was                                                               
recreational and the  state constitution gives a  higher value of                                                               
resources  to  residents,  these   discriminations  in  favor  of                                                               
residents can be  made.  So, different parts  of the constitution                                                               
are  involved   when  dealing  with  recreation   as  opposed  to                                                               
vocation.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0346                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked:  If  the supreme court reverses the                                                               
superior court's decision  and this bill is in  place, what would                                                               
the estimated lost revenue be?                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  McDOWELL  explained that  [CFEC's]  fees  would decrease  by                                                               
$470,000 in  FY 02.   But this  is not "actually  gone."   If the                                                               
state prevails at  the supreme court level, it  can be subtracted                                                               
from what is owed  to the plaintiffs.  There is  an offset due to                                                               
the stipulation  with the plaintiff's  attorney.  If  [the state]                                                               
loses at the supreme court level,  a refund would be owed to [the                                                               
Carlson  class], in  which case  [the state]  could subtract  the                                                             
undercharge.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  McGUIRE asked  what the  amount would  be if  the                                                               
state won  and didn't owe a  refund.  She said  [the legislature]                                                               
is passing  HB 194  because of  wanting to  prevent any  of those                                                               
future  costs  from  being  incurred  during  the  interim  while                                                               
awaiting the supreme court's decision.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. McDOWELL answered that in  this interim, crewmember fees will                                                               
have been increased under provisions  of this bill, which recoups                                                               
most of  [the loss].  She  noted that ADF&G is  still calculating                                                               
the amount.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE  clarified that she has  been hearing from                                                               
colleagues that they don't like [the  bill], and don't want to do                                                               
it, "but  we're gonna do it  because ... it shows  the court good                                                               
faith and, by the  way, it's going to save money  in the event we                                                               
have to  pay out."   She said she didn't  "buy in" to  that good-                                                               
faith idea, because "if the court  isn't going to listen to us if                                                               
we go  back in and  change the policies  in our statute,  why are                                                               
they going to listen to us when  we go back and do something like                                                               
this?"  She questioned the validity  of saying, on one hand, that                                                               
the court will  listen to [the legislature], while  saying on the                                                               
other hand that it won't.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 01-25, SIDE A                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE referred to  the "saving money" element of                                                               
the  bill and  said  it's  "an additional  potential  task if  we                                                               
lose."    She  wondered  about the  benefits  and  setbacks,  and                                                               
mentioned that  under the current  statute, $1.13 million  may be                                                               
lost.   However, this amount  also has to  be offset by  the fact                                                               
that "we're going  to be losing some revenues that  we would have                                                               
continued  to collect  under  the  current statutory  framework."                                                               
She  said she  feels this  is a  "cart before  the horse  kind of                                                               
thing."   It is an  unusual way of  dealing with this  issue, and                                                               
she  was not  sure whether  she had  even seen  a situation  like                                                               
this, except perhaps in the Kasayulie case.  She continued:                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     I would  feel much  more comfortable waiting  until the                                                                    
     highest court  rules and  take their  message, whatever                                                                    
     it is, and reincorporate it  into our statutes and make                                                                    
     sure that  we have  it right.   I  do not  believe that                                                                    
     judges live  in a box.   I  think that they  hear, they                                                                    
     listen, they  know what's  going on  around them.   I'm                                                                    
     not saying  it influences  them one  way or  the other.                                                                    
     But  they certainly  aren't  quarantined  up until  the                                                                    
     date in which  the decision is made, and  I wonder what                                                                    
     message we're  sending by changing this  at this point.                                                                    
     I just feel like it might be premature.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  McGUIRE  remarked  that  the  fiscal  notes  were                                                               
creative.   She said she  has never seen  a zero fiscal  note for                                                               
something that "clearly has fiscal consequences."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  SCALZI  remarked  that   the  fiscal  note  contains  a                                                               
$470,000 change in revenue.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  McGUIRE  stated  that this  is  an  indeterminate                                                               
section.   She would  not hold  the bill,  but wonders  if "we're                                                               
just rolling over here."    She then requested the answers to her                                                               
questions regarding the revenue difference.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0246                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JERRY McCUNE, United  Fishermen of Alaska (UFA),  came forward to                                                               
testify.  He said, "You lost  some aspects of this case already."                                                               
No  matter  what the  legislature  says,  the three-to-one  ratio                                                               
portion is gone.   He mentioned that he has  heard many questions                                                               
concerning  the interest  that would  have  to be  paid out  this                                                               
year, under  the current  situation; if  [the court]  orders [the                                                               
state] to  pay back  all of  the nonresidents,  it would  be $1.5                                                               
million  for  interest accrued  at  10.5  percent.   He  reminded                                                               
members  that  if  Mr.  White is  successful  at  "knocking  that                                                               
interest rate  down or knocking it  off, then yes, you  might not                                                               
have to pay that $1.5 million."                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. McCUNE  reported that after  much discussion, UFA  has agreed                                                               
to increase  the resident fees on  the "high-end cap" to  $300, a                                                               
20 percent  increase.  United  Fishermen of Alaska  represents 26                                                               
groups in  the state.   They agreed to the  bill so that  some of                                                               
the funding  that has been taken  in could be recouped.   He said                                                               
if "we" win  the four [budget categories] in court,  then all six                                                               
[budget   categories]  will   be  counted   to  offset   the  fee                                                               
differential, which  will enable [Alaska] to  charge nonresidents                                                               
more.   He went on  to say, "So  we'll be  able to come  close to                                                               
where we were  before, which is the agency usually  brings in 4.8                                                               
million and  [the agency] takes  about 2.4  million to run."   He                                                               
noted that UFA's support would  not insulate [the committee] from                                                               
having people  still call, because  he couldn't make  7,500 phone                                                               
calls to  inform people about this  case.  He mentioned  that UFA                                                               
has  also  attempted  to  contact   non-UFA  members  about  this                                                               
situation.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0492                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
KEVIN  BROOKS,  Director,  Division of  Administrative  Services,                                                               
Alaska Department of  Fish & Game, said in regard  to the higher-                                                               
end licenses  for commercial crewmembers, the  differential sends                                                               
it  "in  the  negative   direction."    Historically,  crewmember                                                               
licenses   have   been  $30   [for   residents]   and  $90   [for                                                               
nonresidents], but  now it is  $90 and $125, respectively.   This                                                               
$65  difference  is less  than  any  differential that  has  been                                                               
contemplated.   So, under the  terms of  HB 194 that  would allow                                                               
[the state]  to charge this  differential, more revenue  could be                                                               
generated on the crewmember side.   This money is currently being                                                               
used in the fisheries budget to "the tune of about a million."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. BROOKS  explained that  the fee-supported  services generated                                                               
from  the  limited  entry  permits are  also  in  the  commercial                                                               
fisheries  budget to  the "tune"  of about  a $1.4  million.   He                                                               
indicated  reductions   could  be   offset  by  an   increase  in                                                               
nonresident crewmember licenses.  He said this is "late-                                                                        
breaking,"   because  they   had  been   thinking  about   damage                                                               
assessment,  which  meant  considering   things  such  as  vendor                                                               
compensation and  contributions made  to the fishermen's  fund by                                                               
statute out  of this revenue.   He noted that [ADF&G]  is working                                                               
on this,  and said a  fiscal note would  be attached to  show the                                                               
increase of revenue "on the crew."                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.   BROOKS   reiterated  that   currently   there   is  a   $65                                                               
differential.  Based on the formula  that has been looked at, the                                                               
average for the  last four years would be $111.   So, potentially                                                               
a nonresident  crewmember could  be charged  $171 instead  of the                                                               
current  $125  if  [the  state]   prevailed  on  all  six  budget                                                               
categories.   He asked:   If  in one  year that  differential was                                                               
$570, would  the crewmember be  charged $60  plus that $570?   He                                                               
said, "At  some point, enough's  enough.   Maybe $170 is  not too                                                               
much.  My gut tells me $630 is probably too much to charge."                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR SCALZI stated that he  appreciated [ADF&G's] work on the                                                               
figures and attempts to make it equitable.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 725                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS  remarked that he  would like the  bill to                                                               
be  moved out  of the  House Resources  Standing Committee  along                                                               
with  Representative  Green's  idea concerning  a  resolution  to                                                               
accompany the bill to make a stronger statement.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GREEN commented  that Representative  Stevens has                                                               
offered the  fact that "they  have quite  a file on  this," which                                                               
would  help  in writing  a  resolution.    He  said it  would  be                                                               
possible  to have  a  resolution for  the  committee's review  by                                                               
Monday.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  SCALZI asked  Representative  Stevens if  he wanted  to                                                               
wait for the resolution to move the bill out of committee.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STEVENS  replied  that he  would  be  comfortable                                                               
passing the  bill out  as long  as the  committee is  planning to                                                               
have a resolution.   He noted that "we" would  put the resolution                                                               
together and show  it to Representative Green to make  sure it is                                                               
what he wants.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 846                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MCGUIRE made  a motion  to move  HB 194  from the                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
fiscal notes.   There being no  objection, HB 194 was  moved from                                                               
the House Resources Standing Committee.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects