02/05/2001 05:02 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 5, 2001
5:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gary Stevens, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative John Coghill
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 61
"An Act authorizing the commissioner of fish and game to award
grants for habitat restoration or enhancement projects; and
providing for an effective date."
-MOVED HB 61 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 61
SHORT TITLE:HABITAT RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT GRANTS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/16/01 0093 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/16/01 0093 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
01/16/01 0093 (H) FN 1: ZERO(DFG)
01/16/01 0093 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/05/01 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KEN TAYLOR, Director
Division of Habitat and Restoration
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 22526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement and answered
questions for HB 61.
SUE SCHRADER
Alaska Conservation Alliance
Alaska Conservation Voters
PO Box 22151
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Alaska Conservation
Alliance and Alaska Conservation Voters in support of HB 61.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-5, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Stevens, Wilson, Scalzi,
Dyson, Coghill, Kapsner, and Kerttula. Also present was
Representative Chenault.
HB 61- HABITAT RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT GRANTS
CO-CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 61, "An Act authorizing the commissioner of
fish and game to award grants for habitat restoration or
enhancement projects; and providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR WILSON stated that House Bill 61 was requested by
Governor Tony Knowles.
Number 0182
KEN TAYLOR, Director, Division of Habitat & Restoration, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), explained that HB 61 would
authorize the commissioner to have granting authority for
federal funds for habitat and restoration projects. This same
bill passed the House last session. However, it was passed too
late to get final approval and consensus from the Senate.
MR. TAYLOR said the primary reason the department is looking for
this granting authority is that the department has had a number
of restoration projects throughout the state. They worked with
municipalities and private interests, particularly, on the Kenai
River. Since 1995, the department has had 180 restoration
projects granted and 170 completed on the Kenai River. However,
in order to do this work on the Kenai River, the department has
had to take funds that were available through the EVOS [Exxon
Valdez Oil Spill] Settlement Funds and funds from CIP [Capital
Improvement Projects], passed by the legislature in 1995. These
funds were passed through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
then back out to the public. In doing this, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service receives an 11 percent administrative fee for
work that actually duplicates all of the division's
administrative work. In short, it is a very inefficient process
for handling these funds. The division [Division of Habitat and
Restoration] feels that this process would be done better and
more effectively if it [transferring of funds] was done directly
to the individuals involved.
MR. TAYLOR said that HB 61 is restricted to federal funds for
granting authority. It is further restricted to exclude Pitman-
Robertson Funds, Dingle-Johnson Funds, and Wallop-Breaux Funds,
which are standard federal funds that the ADF&G receives from
excise taxes on sporting equipment. House Bill 61 would only
encompass federal funds that "we" were successful in getting
Congress to appropriate for this type of an activity.
MR.TAYLOR remarked that due to salmon restoration activities in
Washington and Oregon, there is a strong national focus to
restore salmon habitat in the Pacific Northwest. For this
reason, Congress is appropriating a lot of funding for these
types of activities. The department feels that with this
authority they would be able to engage in these programs more
efficiently than they are now.
Number 0412
CO-CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if there was a state fee that
follows these funds when they are granted to another agency,
municipality, or nonprofit group.
MR. TAYLOR replied that he did not believe there was a state fee
on these funds. He said typically when money is passed from one
agency to another, there is about a 3 percent overhead in the
Division of Habitat and Restoration.
Number 0480
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that he was not familiar with the
scope of these funds (Pittman-Robertson, Dingle-Johnson, and
Wallop-Breaux programs). He asked Mr. Taylor to give him some
concept of the scope of the programs.
MR. TAYLOR explained that Congress established the Pittman-
Robertson fund in 1937, as an excise tax on rifles, shotguns,
and ammunition. This fund is divided among the 50 states and is
a continuing appropriation to the 50 states that is based on a
formula of state size and population. Alaska receives 5 percent
of this fund, which is the maximum of the Pittman-Robertson
dollars. The Dingle-Johnson Fund was set up in 1950, along the
same lines as the Pittman-Robertson fund, but for sport fishing.
Alaska receives 5 percent of this excise tax on items such as
fishing rods and tackle. The Wallop-Breaux fund was established
[in 1952]. This fund is derived from additional excise tax on
items such as motorboat fuels.
MR. TAYLOR summarized that these funds are a continuing
appropriation through Congress to the state. They are the
backbone of the Division of Sport Fish and Wildlife Conservation
federal funding. For this reason, these funds are excluded from
HB 61. The ADF&G and the legislature would not want to see
funds that traditionally go to those programs [Division of Sport
Fish and Division of Wildlife Conservation] siphoned off to go
into something new and different.
Number 0733
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Mr. Taylor if there were specific
criteria he anticipates looking at when dealing with habitat
restoration grants.
MR. TAYLOR said it would depend on the area and what the habitat
problem was. On the Kenai River, the department was looking at
bank stabilization due to fishing pressure along the river.
This was the focus of many grants that were done with the public
"down there." However, in other areas such as Anchor River,
there is a problem with ATV [all-terrain vehicles] crossings on
the upper Anchor River through salmon and steelhead spawning
grounds where "we" might want to put bridges or something like
that across. In short, criteria would be developed around the
problem that was trying to be addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that one of his concerns was that
HB 61 would be used to "limit access rather than to enhance the
habitat." He said that he is always a "little cautious about
giving grants that's going to limit the access to the very
people who generally are going to be using it."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL mentioned that one of things "we" have
been trying to do on the Yukon and Tanana drainages is to "do
weir counts and try to find where our habitat really is in our
spawning grounds." He asked Mr. Taylor if these areas would be
considered in the grants.
MR. TAYLOR reported that the department has talked about areas
along the Chena River that would benefit from habitat
restoration. But so far he has not heard "too much" on the
Tanana River. However, this [HB 61] would be a statewide
program. In response to Representative Coghill's first concern
[HB 61 would limit access rather then enhance], the Division of
Habitat and Restoration runs a project for "access defense." It
is funded primarily by sports fish and wildlife dollars.
However, it is a program for maintaining 17 easements [Alaska
Easement Act of 1971] and R.S. 2477 [federal statute.] "We" are
very conscious about protecting public access. These grants
would not be used for limiting public access to any area. The
projects on the Kenai River are called a 50/50 cost share grant
where the applicant provides 50 percent of the cost and "we"
provide a grant for the other 50 percent. It is strictly to
restore his or her bank along the river. It has nothing to do
with access, whether the person has allowed public access or
not.
Number 0867
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what regulations would be required
to implement this legislation.
MR. TAYLOR answered that currently [ADF&G] does not anticipate
any regulations, since "we've been doing it through a federal
agency and we would simply do it directly." House Bill 61 does
provide the commissioner authority to develop regulations if
they are needed at some point. However, he [Mr. Taylor] does
not envision any at this time.
CO-CHAIR STEVENS remarked that it "sounds like a great idea to
be more cost-effective." He then asked what the 11 percent
(that has been going to fish and wildlife) represents in a
dollar amount.
MR. TAYLOR said he believed "we've spent a little over a million
five." Therefore, the dollar amount would be 11 percent of that
which would be close to $150,000-$160,000.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS remarked that [Mr. Taylor's] feelings
would be that whatever the dollar amount is would go directly
into projects to restore habitat.
MR. TAYLOR confirmed Representative Stevens's statement.
SUE SCHRADER, Alaska Conservation Alliance/Alaska Conservation
Voters (ACA/ACV), stated that many of the 35,0000 members of
"our" member organizations are hunters, fishers, and wildlife
watchers. She said that they are all very supportive of HB 61.
The members appreciate the need for habitat protection,
restoration, and improvement. "We" are hoping that "you" [House
Special Committee on Fisheries] will join us and support the
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that he is "learning so much."
He asked if currently there are logistical roadblocks keeping
"us" from getting money in, or if HB 61 is just looking at a new
source for funding to make it [the process] easier.
MS. SCHRADER said she preferred that the question be addressed
to ADF&G. But, she said, "certainly we are not having to go
through U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service." [With House Bill 61]
ADF&G can give money directly to people who have won grant
awards. Therefore, it seems that it "would probably save some
time."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Mr. Taylor if there is a "good
logistical reason" for it [HB 61] or if there is just a "pot of
money" that is now available.
Number 1139
MR. TAYLOR said that currently "we" have one "pot of money" that
came to the governor's office last fiscal year, called the
Southeast Salmon Recovery Fund. This was part of the Southeast
Salmon Treaty negotiations. Congress appropriated 14 million
dollars through this. But only a small portion of that (2-1/2
million) is tentatively set aside for restoration activities,
and that would be in Southeast Alaska. Decisions have not been
finalized on exactly how or where that money is going to be
spent. However, there are other sources of funding out there,
and there continue to be new sources "cropping up" for
restoration activities. He said that "we" would like to be able
to be in a position to take advantage of those [funding sources]
in the most efficient and effective way.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Mr. Taylor to explain what his
scope of the enhancement part in the grant process might look
like.
Number 1253
MR. TAYLOR replied that there are a number of different habitat-
related issues in Alaska that can be addressed with this type of
funding. He mentioned that the House Special Committee on
Fisheries would be hearing a presentation on the Tongass
Roads/culvert report after this hearing. This will provide the
committee with an idea of some of the habitat impacts that
"aren't all that obvious to people in the public but do affect
productivity of salmon streams." It [enhancement] can range
from replacing culverts to fixing stream banks or building
bridges across salmon spawning areas. In short, there are a
number of different things that could be done with these type of
funds.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that there was a stream going by
his house that might fit this description.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. SCHRADER if she lived in Juneau
and if she was an officer for ACA/ACV.
MS. SCHRADER answered that yes, she lived in Juneau, and that
she was an employee of ACA/ACV.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if she could give a list of the 44
member organizations [within ACA/ACV.]
MS. SCHRADER said she would be happy to supply that information.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked how many of the 35,000 Alaska
registered voters [within ACA/ACV] have hunting and fishing
licenses.
MS. SCHRADER responded that she is not sure if that information
is available but she would check.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if any of the 44 member organizations
were likely to bid or apply to get the grants for restoration
work.
MS. SCHRADER said she did not know. However, several member
organizations have applied for grants from the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC). Member organizations have
received funds from DEC in past years.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked how much ACA/ACV spent on or
contributed to elections last fall.
MS. SCHRADER stated that this information was recently published
in an Anchorage Daily News article. She was not able to recall
specific numbers, but she believed that "better than half" of
the amount that "we" [ACA/ACV] did raise and put towards the
November elections was to predominantly work on ballot measure
1.
Number 1456
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON remarked that he was also interested in how
much ACA/ACV spent on individual legislative campaigns. He then
said,
To our co-chairs, who are both competent and
delightful, one of the difficult things we always have
is figuring out people to testify before us, whether
or not they have a "dog in the fight," you know, a
vested interest. You may want to, at the beginning of
our session, to ask folks if indeed they have a vested
interest, and I think this organization [ACA/ACV] has
a vested interest in promoting the conservation of our
natural renewable and non-renewable resources, which
is very admirable. Thank you.
Number 1568
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI made a motion to move HB 61 from committee
with individual recommendations. There being no objection, HB
61 moved from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
CO-CHAIR WILSON called for an at-ease at 5:30 p.m. in order to
hear a presentation on the Condition of the Tongass National
Forest roads and culverts in reference to Fish and Game. [The
minutes for this presentation are found in the 5:35 p.m. cover
sheet for the same date.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|