HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE April 24, 1995 8:10 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman Representative Alan Austerman Representative Pete Kott MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Ramona Barnes Representative John Davies Representative Eileen MacLean Representative Irene Nicholia COMMITTEE CALENDAR Confirmation Hearing: Frank Rue, Commissioner Designee, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Walter Sampson, Board of Game Larry Holmes, Board of Game COMMITTEE REPORTS FORWARDED WITNESS REGISTER FRANK RUE, Commissioner Designee Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802 Phone: 465-6141 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding his confirmation WALTER SAMPSON, Appointee Board of Game P.O. Box 1088 Kotzebue, AK 99752 Phone: 442-3605 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding his appointment LARRY HOLMES, Appointee Board of Game P.O. Box 454 Girdwood, AK 99587 Phone: 783-2180 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding his appointment ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 95-54, SIDE A Number 000 The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman Williams at 8:10 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Williams, Green, Ogan, Austerman, and Kott. Members absent were Representatives Barnes, Davies, MacLean, and Nicholia. CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced the committee would again talk with Frank Rue, commissioner designee, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). CONFIRMATION HEARING: FRANK RUE, COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE, ADF&G CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS recalled at Friday's meeting, he had asked Mr. Rue about the letter from the habitat division to the Kodiak Island Borough which mentioned resident fish populations. He asked Mr. Rue if he believes resident fish streams, as well as anadromous fish streams should be implemented on private land or state land. FRANK RUE, COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE, ADF&G, replied the law requires that high value resident fish streams, which are important to a number of users, be protected on public lands. There was a lower standard set by the law on private lands, so there is no protection for high value resident fish on private lands. He stated protection on private lands would be voluntary. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated the Forest Practices Act (FPA) requires a 66-foot buffer zone on private land. He said some ADF&G biologists have suggested increasing this requirement to 100 feet or 300 feet. He asked Mr. Rue if he agreed with that suggestion. MR. RUE stated the department should implement the law which only requires 66 feet. He said the question of whether or not 66 feet is enough to protect a particular stream on private land sometimes comes up when a variation request is submitted by a company and there is a need to answer the question of significant harm--will taking more trees out of the buffer cause significant harm. He explained to know that, there is a need to know what the baseline condition of the stream is. MR. RUE noted the 66-foot buffer was a "one standard meets all" approach. If individual streams are looked at, bigger streams will require, in reality, more trees than smaller trees. Therefore, when taking more trees out of a buffer is discussed, a look is taken at what that stream would need, regardless of 66 feet, to decide if 66 feet is good for that system or is marginal for that system. For example, there are some streams which hydrologists say 300 feet is needed because some streams are dynamic, will move around and will jump out of the buffer into the clear cut if enough trees are not left on the edge. He stressed in those sort of systems there should be more reluctance to take more trees out of the buffer because that buffer is already thin. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified Mr. Rue does not see adding 300 feet if it looks that way on private land. MR. RUE replied no. He said an addition cannot be made. Rather, it is a decision of whether or not more can be taken out of the 66 feet and whether or not more should be allowed. He reiterated in those systems where 66 feet is a very marginal buffer, as compared to a very small stream where 66 feet may do a lot of good, you may be conservative about what is allowed to be removed from the 66 feet rather than expanding it. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if a private landowner came in on his own, prior to cutting any trees next to a stream, and talked with ADF&G because he had some good trees within the buffer and was willing to give up some trees on another part of the stream, even up to 300 feet, would ADF&G work with that landowner to come to an agreement. MR. RUE stated that was a very appealing idea and there was an attempt to do that on a number of occasions. However, private landowners have said they will leave 200 feet in one place and cut more in another place. He said the problem is that commitment has no standing in law. He recalled several occasions when that accommodation was made and then those trees left beyond the 66 feet were taken out afterwards. He stressed the issue has to be decided on the merits of the trees being removed from the buffer because there is no guarantee that the trees beyond 66 feet left voluntarily will remain there. He reiterated it is an appealing idea but a difficult one to implement and there has not been much success with it. Number 155 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted that ADF&G employees have often said logging has harmed salmon or other wildlife populations. He said there are many documented salmon population declines which can be attributed to natural factors such as oxygen depletion due to heavy fish concentrations. In other cases, salmon population decreases have occurred in areas with minimal timber harvest activity. He pointed out that salmon harvests during recent years have been at record levels. He asked Mr. Rue to name specific examples of salmon population declines where there is documented evidence that the principal cause was timber harvest. MR. RUE responded there are streams where the department can demonstrate that has happened such as the Harris River on Prince of Wales Island. He stated the department can take some of the blame because some of that happened early on when the department thought it was best to clear wood out of streams--that it would provide more spawning gravels for pink salmon. However, what was determined is that all the complexity and rearing habitat was removed, the stream was destabilized and in the end a less productive system resulted. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said that did not sound like a logging operation. MR. RUE stated it was a logging operation. He said part of the issue is time. If a system is logged and not enough wood is left in the buffers, it takes about 70 years for that wood to remove itself from the system naturally and if nothing is coming in to replace the wood that creates the pools, it will be decades before a real drop in productivity will be seen. He pointed out the U.S. Forest Service has a list of systems they believe have been depleted or damaged by logging. He told committee members he would be happy to get that list. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if it would have helped if the department had not taken out the woody debris during the logging operation. MR. RUE stated it would have prolonged the health of the system because there would have at least been some wood left which would have taken time to wash or rot out. He noted the timber was logged to the banks. Over time, it would have become less productive. He reiterated the U.S. Forest Service does have a list of streams that were impaired by logging and they are working to rehabilitate them. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified that was done early on. MR. RUE stated the Tongass Timber Reform Act five years ago required a 100 foot minimum and the state FPA required a 100 foot minimum. He stressed Alaska has a good buffer law. He said from the late 1980s on, the state has done well but from the mid 1980s back, there were problems. Number 240 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified the problems were due to the department wanting to take the woody debris out. MR. RUE replied the department wanted to do that in the late 1960s and learned long ago that was a mistake. He said the department quit doing that in the late 1960s and early 1970s. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated ADF&G officials often assert they represent the commercial fishing, subsistence and recreational users of the forest, which sometimes results in ADF&G being in an adversarial relationship with the timber industry. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR), on the other hand, says they cannot represent the same industry they regulate. He wondered, given that the timber industry is a legitimate user of state forest resources, who in state government represents the timber industry's concerns. He asked Mr. Rue if ADF&G, under his direction, will make very effort to represent equally the various users of the state's resources. MR. RUE said he has never known the DNR to be shy about representing the timber industry. He noted the DNR has not spent a lot of time worrying about the Tongass Forest partly because the federal government has been active in promoting it. The DNR focuses more on state lands. He explained his interest is in seeing a fair balance in developing the renewable resources. In that regard, he felt it was healthy for the ADF&G to sit down with the DNR and other interests to make sure the best data is available about what resources are out there; determine how those resources can be developed; and when the resources are developed, determine how other renewable resources such as fish and wildlife can be maintained. MR. RUE explained to get through that process, it usually means each person, whether he or she is a forester or a fish and game biologist, comes to the table saying here is a resource, here is what is known about it, this is what is out there, this is its productivity, its sensitivity, the use of it, etc. Initially, one comes in with one perspective through the planning process or a forest land use planning process. Then it is determined how the various resources can work together, which takes negotiation, resulting in a plan outlining how a timber sale can be done while still maintaining other important public resources as much as possible. MR. RUE stated that process tends to start out, by nature, somewhat adversarial because each person is coming in with information about his or her resource, then discussing the interest the other person has and finally trying to come to a compromise which optimizes everyone's interest. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified that the DNR generally does stand up for the timber industry even though they are saying they regulate that industry. MR. RUE responded on state lands, the DNR is the manager of timber resources. The DNR sells the timber resources, and once the timber is sold, they then monitor the contracts or implement the FPA. He said during the planning phase, the DNR does represent the timber industry in that they have the information about the volumes on those lands, how much they might be worth, if they have insect problems, how quickly they need to be harvested, etc. Number 321 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said it was his understanding that the ADF&G recently requested the cancellation of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Alaska and the U.S. Forest Service which outlined how and when the agencies would respond to proposed environmental impact statements (EISs) regarding timber sales. He stated the MOU involved the state early in the process so that provisions not supported by the state could be identified going in, therefore reducing the time necessary to complete an EIS that would be satisfactory to both the state and the federal government. He asked Mr. Rue, with the MOU cancelled, how will the department handle federal timber sale EISs. He wondered if time consuming rewrites of EISs for timber sales on federal land should be anticipated. MR. RUE replied no. He felt the current process, with the Governor's Office coordinating the various agencies and making sure there is a state position rather than a ADF&G, DNR, etc., position is the best way to develop a response to a federal action. He stated he would continue to support that process. He pointed out part of the problem is getting the state's input into the federal process early because during the federal timber sale process early on, they do not have much detail and the state does not have the opportunity to work out the issues while there is still a chance for flexibility. Number 367 CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN wondered what role the ADF&G will play in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). MR. RUE said the department will be very active in a number of areas. He stated via the Marine Mammal Protection Act and therefore through the ESA, the department has been very active in helping with the research on sea lions, heading the recovery team which will affect ESA listings. He felt the department brought reasonableness to that process, which would not have been there had the department not been present and a far more draconian effort would have been seen to protect marine mammals, which the department did not feel was justified. MR. RUE stated the department is very involved in the Snake River fall Chinook listing and has been fighting that battle again to make sure that any recovery actions required for fall Chinook in the Northwest are fairly distributed. The department feels Alaska has been treated unfairly. He said the department is for fish and would like for the fish to return, but is also for fair allocation of the responsibility for the recovery of those fish. The department has worked very hard technically and commenting on the recovery plan and the biological opinion on the dams, as well as on the legal front. The department filed notice to sue on the recovery plan. The department is arguing against unfair implementation of the ESA. MR. RUE stressed the ESA is an important tool but he is concerned it is being abused in Alaska, particularly for fish. He said not only is that unfair but probably will also lead to far more draconian measures to undo that Act than what it really deserves. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted there had been a lot written about the fact that the problem with the steller sea lion might be attributed to the bycatch on the open sea, but pointed out there really is not a handle on the situation. He expressed concern that in a period of declining revenues, the ADF&G has asked for a position to monitor the ESA. He wondered if this person would take the information presented or will this person actually do research in the field. Number 429 MR. RUE stated the Senate cut the department's marine mammal research. Therefore, the budget is entirely federal and fish and game dollars. He noted three people are involved in this area--one of them chairs the recovery team for the steller sea lion. If the budget cut goes through, the chair will be eliminated which will leave the effort to experts in California. He said when the department had the expertise, it was very influential in getting good science applied to the issue. He pointed out the fish and game fund and the federal fund have been increasing due to increased license fees, the increase in the federal excise tax on firearms, and the Brady bill. He noted the general fund problem is not being helped with that cut, so he is not sure how that helps with the issue of falling revenues. The cut certainly hurts the department in the area of marine mammals and protecting Alaska's resources. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered if the department will get involved in either contract work or possibly privatizing some of the activities historically done by the ADF&G. MR. RUE replied there are definitely areas where the department can do contracting. For example, in the commercial fisheries area, the department is looking at contracting for some of the information gathering on the river. He said the two things that need to be considered is if contracting is really cheaper and if it is desired to have that expertise housed outside the agency. He stated often having the expertise in the department is a tremendous benefit to the state when issues come up and debates happen rather than having the expertise housed in a consulting firm. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered if the ADF&G will be proactive in regard to the opening up of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). MR. RUE replied many of the things the department has done on the North Slope will help people feel more comfortable about development in the ANWR. He felt the department has been very proactive with industry on a number of fronts such as research on caribou crossings, gravel pits, etc. Number 492 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the ADF&G would be proactive with the public, letting them know the agency has been working with industry and that it will not be horrible if the ANWR is opened up for development. MR. RUE said part of the problem is the budget cuts are so significant, 30 percent of the habitat division will be gone and it will be far more difficult for the department to be proactive in any regard. He stated the Administration does have an initiative for the ANWR to publish things which have been done on the North Slope, which are sensitive to the balance of maintaining other resources while developing oil and gas. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Rue what his personal view is on opening the ANWR for exploration and development, while still maintaining stream integrity. MR. RUE stated opening the ANWR and maintaining stream integrity is something which can be done, it just takes people looking at the situation and doing what they need to do to maintain stream integrity. He said the department has interesting experiments ongoing with buried pipes. The department will need to look at reseeding some of those areas. He explained the department knows how to do stream flow--it is just a matter of working with the companies as they develop to make sure the stream is engineered and maintained over time. Number 527 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled on Friday he had asked Mr. Rue about accelerated restoration and whether or not there would be compensatory mitigation considerations in that regard. He asked Mr. Rue to comment again on that issue. MR. RUE responded the idea of accelerated rehabilitation has always been tied to a package of wetlands permitting on the North Slope. He said he is open to that kind of idea. He felt compensatory mitigation is a difficult issue because it is seldom successful because it is hard to reconstruct exactly what was there in the beginning. He stated he would rely on avoiding the most sensitive areas, especially on the North Slope. A wetland may be hit upon but it will be of much lower value wetland and at that point, stabilization is really being considered to make sure there is not erosion, etc. He pointed out on the North Slope, avoidance is the key and for the most part, that is possible because the industry is quite flexible as to where they can go and still reach the oil. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified Mr. Rue favors continuing doing that. MR. RUE replied yes. Number 557 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated there is a lot of talk about habitat damage due to road building. He asked Mr. Rue to give some specific examples of places where road building activities have led directly to significant losses in fish populations. MR. RUE said there are several ways that can happen, including improperly placed culverts. He stated there are a number of instances where poorly constructed culverts have either blocked fish passage or created scouring and unnecessary damage. The other way it can happen is poor road materials and poor maintenance where there is run off resulting in sedimentation in creeks. He stated many of the standards for these things are in the FPA and as long as the operators are diligent and select good materials and good constructions and design in the beginning, many of these impacts can be avoided. MR. RUE stated problems in other areas have been seen where high slide prone soils exist and if roads are not cut properly or constructed properly, there will be problems. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said his experience shows that industry is working with the department and everything is done according to the department's plan. He wondered if Mr. Rue knows of any instances where road building has caused problems for habitat. MR. RUE responded he has seen a number of instances where construction was not done properly. He felt the department has worked well with the industry. He reiterated in the past seven years, the habitat division reviewed approximately 21,000 projects and the complaint rate has been low. He said there are parts of the watershed that are out of the department's jurisdiction. The department only has jurisdiction for anadromous fish streams which have been catalogued and resident fish streams for fish passage. The department has no jurisdiction in the upper watershed and that is where culverts are sometimes improperly placed. He stressed there have not been a lot of adverse situations because the department has worked well with people. MR. RUE noted that with 21,000 permit decisions made over the past seven years, if each of those decisions had been done wrong, that would have been a lot of impact. He said if each was done right, it was not much more expensive for the operator and maintained the productivity of the stream. He stated over the next few decades, Alaska has the chance to sustain its fish and their productivity. He pointed out when looking at the Lower 48, many things have impacted the fish including small decisions which ultimately created big problems. He stressed the department believes that small decisions done right will make a difference over time. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated he had not heard of any problems but he did not like the talk that industry is hurting the fish habitat by building roads. Number 624 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said it seems if a department does not like a bill, the fiscal note is high and if a department likes the bill, the fiscal note is zero. He asked Mr. Rue how he determines a fiscal note for a bill affecting the ADF&G. MR. RUE replied he tries to predict as best as possible, whether or not the legislation is going to require new work as opposed to redirecting existing people into different endeavors. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated the department recently indicated an interest in controlling private land to protect upland habitat. He asked Mr. Rue to define upland habitat and indicate what level of intrusion upon the rights of private landowners he would consider appropriate and acceptable to protect upland habitat. MR. RUE said upland is ordinary high water and above in fresh waters, which is where the department's permit jurisdiction ends. He felt the FPA represents a fair compromise on private lands between protecting public resources, such as water quality and fish, and the rights of the private property owner. He noted only certain salmon streams and channel types on private lands were protected. Type B channels had no buffers. Type A channels, which are those types of streams where wood and vegetation controls the bank and holds it together, are the only kinds of streams that had any buffer. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Rue if the ADF&G has a mission statement. MR. RUE said the department does have a mission statement. He stated Title 16 of the statute basically does a good job of stating the department's mission which is to maintain, enhance and extend the fish, wildlife, and aquatic plant resources of the state for the benefit of people. He added the department's mission statement also talks about how the agency should act as a department--be professional, honest, encourage employees to be creative and extend their knowledge base. TAPE 95-54, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Rue to comment on the direction the department is taking with mitigation relating to recreational resources, especially as it relates to private land. MR. RUE said he is not sure he understood the question. He stated recreational resources are not something, except for sport fishing, which is a part of the department's job. He asked Representative Ogan to be more specific. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated he was referring to an instance where someone wants to do some recreational development on private lands. He wondered what type of mitigation the department would require. MR. RUE said if the recreational activity the person might want to do was to dredge a boat marina in the Kenai River and it was going to affect the river and the rearing habitat for kings or coho salmon, the department might suggest an alternative such as a floating system of docks rather than a dredged out marina. He stated unless something affects some part of a stream system where the department has permit jurisdiction or is an important wetland, he did not think the department would have much to say about an activity on private lands. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS thanked Mr. Rue for his time. MR. RUE stated it is critical that the department and the legislature work together over the next few years. He said he would be as open as possible. He stressed the resources are important to the people of Alaska and he felt the issues need to be solved together. Number 080 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN made a MOTION to FORWARD the appointment of Frank Rue, Commissioner, ADF&G, to the joint session for confirmation. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS passed the gavel to CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN. CONFIRMATION HEARING: WALTER SAMPSON, BOARD OF GAME WALTER SAMPSON, APPOINTEE, BOARD OF GAME, testified via teleconference and said he was born and raised in Noorvik, went to high school in Chemawa, Oregon and after graduation went into the military. He stated in 1973, he went to work for the NANA Regional Corporation. When asked to serve on the Board of Game, he felt with his background of serving on various boards, he could make a difference. He stressed his belief is that it is important for any public official to make sure the public process is part of the process used to make any decisions. He noted there is a point in time when an administrator has to make his or her decision but if that decision is going to impact the public, then that public process should be part of the process to make that decision. MR. SAMPSON said in regard to equity, he feels after serving as Chairman of the Northwest Arctic Borough Planning Commission for eight years, he treats everyone equally. He stated public officials represent all of the public and that is what he bases his decisions on. He told committee members his interest in being a Board of Game member is the opportunity to put his experience into a public process. Number 175 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered if Mr. Sampson's job responsibilities will pose any time conflicts. MR. SAMPSON responded he recently hired an assistant. He added that NANA has gone through a restructuring process and his position will be changing from the Vice President of Lands to a liaison position, meaning he will be more involved with intergovernmental agency processes. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Sampson if he believes the common use clause of the state's Constitution treats everyone equally. MR. SAMPSON stated he was not sure the common clause treats everyone equally. He felt if one looks at the Constitution and the way it was written, there is no equity. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) says that in exchange for close to $1 billion and 40 million acres of land, all aboriginal hunting rights are extinguished. He stated the common use clause says the fish and wildlife resources are reserved for all people of the state and yet, the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act puts the state in conflict with that. He asked Mr. Sampson if he supports federal management of fish and wildlife in the state of Alaska. MR. SAMPSON responded in regard to Native corporations that own land, those are private lands and as far as resources are concerned, those are under state jurisdiction. He said some of the village corporations and regional corporations are being forced to close some of their lands for public access. He stated in regard to federal pursuit, he would rather see the state control the resources within private land. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS made a MOTION to FORWARD the appointment of Walter Sampson, Appointee, Board of Game, to the joint session on confirmation. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. CONFIRMATION HEARING: LARRY HOLMES, BOARD OF GAME Number 264 LARRY HOLMES, APPOINTEE, BOARD OF GAME, testified via teleconference and stated he resides in Girdwood, has two daughters, holds undergraduate degrees in agriculture and biology, a graduate degree in biology, and has been active in fish and game management since becoming a resident of the state ten years ago. He reviewed the various organizations and committees he has served on. MR. HOLMES told committee members he has been a long-time advocate for hunter education and has been involved in establishing a requirement for hunter education in several areas of the state, primarily urban, where there have been problems with activities that threaten to eliminate opportunities for hunters. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Holmes if he supports the common use clause of the state's Constitution. MR. HOLMES responded he does. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated Mr. Holmes will have to take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the state of Alaska when going on the Board of Game. He asked Mr. Holmes if he is willing to defend and protect the common use clause as long as it is in place. MR. HOLMES replied he does support the Constitution. He said he has a problem with some of the interests who would like to change the Constitution of the state on one hand but on the other hand, he sees clearly there are people in areas of the state who have needs different than those who live in urban areas. He stated he does not have a problem with working to create opportunities for people to incorporate fish and game stocks into their lifestyle in areas where there is a need. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Holmes if he supports the federal management of fish and wildlife resources on federal lands in the state. MR. HOLMES replied no. He feels it is a horrible mistake. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Holmes how he feels about predator control. MR. HOLMES said as Chairman of the Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee (AFGAC), he assisted and offered proposals to increase opportunities to take predators in different areas. He pointed out when the state gets into aircraft use in predator control, there is a need to be very careful. He noted one of the plans the AFGAC offered was designated areas for intensive use. He felt it is in the best interest of the state to designate areas for that kind of use rather than getting into a situation where there may be conflicts with all uses or users. He felt more comfortable working with the public to decide where it is in the best interest of the state to do predator control. He said those places will most likely be areas like Unit 13 or 20 where there is a long-standing history of intensive human use for harvest. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN clarified Mr. Holmes supports intensive management. MR. HOLMES replied he does. He mentioned recently there was a board meeting and he supported every intensive management use designation. He added he does not necessarily support every type of intensive management action in an area. REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT made a MOTION to FORWARD the appointment of Larry Holmes, Board of Game, to the joint session confirmation. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a MOTION to RESCIND the committee's action on forwarding Mr. Sampson's appointment because the vote was taken without a quorum present. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a MOTION to FORWARD the appointment of Walter Sampson, Board of Game, to the joint session confirmation. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the House Resources Committee, Co-Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 9:13 a.m.