Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/23/2001 03:55 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 61-HABITAT RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT GRANTS
CHAIRMAN JOHN TORGERSON called the Senate Resources Committee
meeting to order at 3:55 pm and announced HB 61 to be up for
consideration.
MR. KEN TAYLOR, Director, Division of Habitat and Restoration,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), said that HB 61
authorizes the commissioner of ADF&G granting authority for federal
receipts. The receipts are limited to those that are not federal
aid funds currently received under Pitman-Robertson, Dingle-Johnson
or the Wallop-Breaux Programs. He explained:
In 1995, the department received a CIP from the
legislature for enhancement grants on the Kenai River.
However, we had no granting authority to implement that
directly. Because of our lack of granting authority, we
had to go to a federal agency, partner with them, funnel
the money through the federal agency - that took 11
percent of the total gross - and then award the grants
from the federal agency to the individuals. We conducted
170 cross-share programs on the Kenai River for habitat
restoration with these funds. By passing this bill, that
will essentially eliminate the middleman. They won't take
their 11 percent, and we'll be able to deal with this
much more effectively administratively.
Currently, there is a strong national emphasis on habitat
restoration for salmon in the Pacific Northwest and I
believe that the funding available for these activities
is going to increase substantially over the next several
years and we would like the opportunity to be able to
partner with Alaskans on salmon restoration activities on
private lands where it's needed.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if bill is subject to the legislature's
power to appropriate funds.
MR. TAYLOR answered, "Absolutely, every dollar that comes to the
department is appropriated through the legislature."
SENATOR TAYLOR asked where the funds come from.
MR. TAYLOR answered that the first set of funds came from EVOS
criminal settlement funds (SB 183 in 1995), which will be exhausted
by the end of this fiscal year. He said ADF&G has asked Congress
for an appropriation for the Kenai Peninsula in the FY02 budget.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they are Carol Light (ph) funds.
MR. TAYLOR answered that they aren't. They have funds appropriated
by the Legislature for Southeast sustainable salmon research
monitoring and restoration and a portion of those funds may be
available for these types of restoration projects.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they are salmon treaty funds.
MR. TAYLOR said they are not. He explained that he is talking about
$14 million that was received by the state in the federal FY00
budget and an additional $10 million in the FY01 budget. Some of
the funds are associated with the Treaty, but they are not referred
to as treaty funds.
He said $14 million was appropriated in the FY00 budget for salmon
restoration, rehabilitation, monitoring, enhancement and related
activities for Cape Suckling to Dixon Entrance. Those funds were
not directly part of the Treaty negotiations, but they were an add-
on to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) budget. The
actual treaty funds come in the Northern Boundary Fund and the
Southern Fund. The Northern Boundary Fund is being set up as a
trust. He didn't know the details of it. Neither one of those funds
are what he is talking about for the Kenai. He has asked for
separate appropriations from Congress for the Kenai. He mentioned
the Southeast salmon funds because they were appropriated for
research, monitoring and restoration and there may be some
opportunity to use some of those funds for restoration activities
in Southeast. If that's the case, the granting authority that is
provided in this bill would allow them to partner with private
individuals or corporations.
Number 500
SENATOR HALFORD said when they considered this issue last year,
they put in an amendment that added "access" to the list of reasons
for the use of the fund. They also added a provision that required
the concurrence of the appropriate authority: the Board of
Fisheries or Game. Mr. Taylor said that because there are so many
grants, it would be too cumbersome to put them through the board
process. However, he believes it's important that the Board set the
direction for ADF&G since the Board is closer to a lot of the
input.
SENATOR HALFORD suggested two amendments:
On page 1, line 7 add "access" to "habitat restoration or
enhancement";
On page 1, line 8, following "projects" insert:
"The award of a grant under this section is subject to the
review/approval by the Board of Fisheries or the Board of
Game, whichever is appropriate."
MR. TAYLOR responded that ADF&G has no problem with the first
amendment (to include access). ADF&G already has a very active
access defense program within the Habitat Division. He has never
found a funding source that would provide access grants, although
he is still looking. It's the only program in his division that is
fully funded with ADF&G funds.
He remarked that last year the Board officially adopted a
sustainable salmon fisheries policy with provisions for
consideration of habitat. Prior to every Board meeting, the board
asks ADF&G to identify salmon stocks of concern. His division then
goes through a procedure of identifying the habitat concerns and
corrective actions that can be taken, if any, for any stock listed.
The Board has a Habitat Committee that he interacts with on a
regular basis. He didn't think it was necessary to amend the bill
to require ADF&G to address the Boards, since the division is
already doing that, although he didn't think the suggested language
would cause any undue complications.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to adopt Amendment 1, which reads:
On page 1, line 7, add ", access" after "restoration"
On line 8, add "The award of grant programs authorized under this
section are subject to approval by the Board of Fisheries or the
Board of Game, whichever is appropriate" after "projects".
SENATOR ELTON objected for the purpose of a question. He asked if
Amendment 1 meant that the Board should give authority to the
commissioner to proceed with a program in which he can give grants,
but it does not give the [Board] the authority to review every
grant.
SENATOR HALFORD said that is correct. He expected that there would
be an annual grant program and there would be one approval that
would cover the one program that the Administration presented.
SENATOR ELTON asked if he meant a list of grantees.
SENATOR HALFORD said he assumed it would be a list that goes beyond
what they have federal support for.
MR. TAYLOR explained that once ADF&G has the funding available, it
advertises the program to the public and then looks at grant
proposals as they come in, evaluating them through a very rigorous
set of criteria. Those that qualify are funded.
SENATOR HALFORD said he assumed the approval would have to come
when they make the initial presentation.
Number 1000
SENATOR ELTON asked Mr. Taylor if his division works on a year-by -
year basis or proposal basis when awarding grants.
MR. TAYLOR answered that it's done on an on-going basis. Once
funding is available, the division figures out where the priorities
are. Then it puts out a proposal to the public and people proposals
throughout the year.
SENATOR ELTON asked if they don't bundle now, but under the process
envisioned in this bill, they would have to bundle so they could
get funds from either the Board of Fisheries or the Board of Game.
MR. TAYLOR answered that he envisioned:
If we are dealing with the Kenai Peninsula and we say
that there's a stretch on the Kenai River that's a
priority and there's the Upper Anchor River where we're
having difficulty with ATV crossings and we need to put
in some bridges and we have a couple of other priorities
- these are the types of things we would like to address.
We would take the information to the Board of Fisheries
or the Board of Game and say this is what we're planning
on doing for habitat restoration on the Kenai that should
interest your user groups. In fact, this is what we do
now. The only part about the wording in this amendment
that concerns me is board approval. The way the board
processes have worked in the past is that regulations
have often been set up where the board authorizes the
department to do something, like conduct wolf control in
a given area. It doesn't mandate… That's the structure
that's used. There hasn't been, in any of the statutes
we've passed so far, any fiscal oversight in what the
department does. There's been that separation of powers
between the board and the legislature. The legislature
has maintained fiscal authority and the board has set
policy direction.
SENATOR ELTON asked if the $14 million in federal funding would be
available for grants under this change.
MR. TAYLOR replied that the $14 million was authorized for a number
of different types of expenditures, one of which was restoration.
He didn't know how much of it would be available for grants or for
restoration. He just mentioned it as another potential source.
SENATOR ELTON asked if the process now for that $14 million is to
have stakeholder review of how those dollars are being used and
this bill would provide another level of review.
MR. TAYLOR replied that the division normally gets a lot of reviews
on how it uses the money, but his point is that the board would get
to review whether it's mandated in statute or not.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to amend Amendment 1 as follows:
After "grant programs under this section are subject to approval"
insert "annually" before "subject".
SENATOR LINCOLN objected to the word "annually". She heard Mr.
Taylor say the boards don't do an annual review; a review is done
as the grants come in or as they put together a review of a given
area. It seems that this amendment would tie the hands of ADF&G to
do anything until it gets all the grants together and then, once a
year or annually, it goes to one of the boards for approval.
MR. TAYLOR said his understanding of the way this amendment is
worded is that the grant program authorized under this section
would be reviewed annually. So, they are looking at the overall
program. The individual grants wouldn't be reviewed. The problem
that might be a little difficult for the boards is that they both
generally deal with the state on a cyclic basis.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said that the boards have dealt with issues all
over the place and there are also things they do every year.
MR. TAYLOR admitted that was correct.
SENATOR HALFORD said he didn't object to "annually" and he didn't
think it hurt the bill either way. He thought they could say, "at
least annually".
SENATOR HALFORD read the proposed amendment: "The award of grant
programs authorized under this section are at least annually
subject to approval by the Board of Fisheries or the Board of Game,
whichever is appropriate."
He explained that way "annually" does not become a limitation, but
it still requires something to be done every year.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to modify his amendment to add "at least
annually".
SENATOR ELTON asked if the amendment now means that, "The board
would look back at the grants from the previous year and say they
did a good job - keep doing it the way you've been doing it because
we're talking about grant programs, not individual grants. So they
review the department's administration of the previous year and
then give the nod or here's where we think you were off track.
Don't do that again."
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said he thought Mr. Taylor was saying that the
division would come in with a project, for instance a bridge across
a river, a project that could be accomplished four or five
different ways. That would be the program. The actual grant to
accomplish it would not come before the board.
SENATOR HALFORD said that the federal government does existing
programs because ADF&G doesn't have the authority to do them. He
commented, "So we're fixing that portion with any of these
versions, but I don't think the review by the board is intended to
be retrospective. I think it's intended to be prospective."
MR. TAYLOR explained that ADF&G has traditionally received these
funds through a multi-year CIP. When it gets the authorization in
the federal budget, it comes to the legislature and asks for a CIP
for five or six years. He said ADF&G would tell the board what it
did with the previous years' funds and what its priorities are for
the coming year. ADF&G would take the board's input on priorities
and, if there is some other focus it should have, get it at this
time.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if that is what ADF&G does now.
MR. TAYLOR replied it is.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked Senator Lincoln if she maintained her
objection. She said no and he announced that the amendment to
Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if there was any discussion on the amended
amendment.
SENATOR ELTON said he could see the value of it, but didn't know if
it anticipates a problem they might not have. He was concerned that
the only people who want to serve on certain boards have to be
crazy to do it because, "It's the amount of time they have to put
into it; they make no friends doing it; they only make enemies and
so what we're doing is creating a situation in which we're saying
'You do a lot. Now do more.'"
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked for a roll call. SENATORS TAYLOR, HALFORD,
LINCOLN, AND TORGERSON voted yea; SENATOR ELTON voted nay.
Amendment 1 as amended was adopted by a vote of four to one.
MR. DALE BONDURANT stated support for HB 61. [The remainder of his
testimony was indisc.]
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SCSHB 61(RES) from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|