Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/09/2001 01:40 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 09, 2001
1:40 PM
TAPE HFC 01 - 23, Side A
TAPE HFC 01 - 23, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mulder called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:40 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Vice-Chair
Representative Richard Foster
Representative John Harris
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Ken Lancaster
Representative Jim Whitaker
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Eldon Mulder, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative John Davies
Representative Carl Moses
ALSO PRESENT
Ken Taylor, Director, Division of Habitat and Restoration,
Department of Fish and Game; Kelly Hepler, Director,
Division of Sport Fish, Department of Fish and Game; Wayne
Regelin, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Department of Fish and Game;
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Pat Galvin, Director, Governmental Coordination, Office of
the Governor; Kelly Johnson, Legal Council, US Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; Brian Malnek,
Staff Director, US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources
GENERAL SUBJECT(S):
Overview: Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) Funding
The following overview was taken in log note format. Tapes
and handouts will be on file with the House Finance
Committee through the 22nd Legislative Session, contact 465-
2156. After the 22nd Legislative Session they will be
available through the Legislative Library at 465-3808.
LOG SPEAKER DISCUSSION
TAPE HFC 00 - 23
SIDE A
000 Co-Chair Mulder Gave a brief overview of CARA and noted
that the testimony would cover funding
levels and program specifics.
KELLY JOHNSON, LEGAL Noted that Senator Murkowski and
COUNCIL, US SENATE Representative Young introduced the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY Conservation and Reinvestment Act in
AND NATURAL Congress. The Act proposed the dedication
RESOURCES of revenues for outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) development to a variety of
conservation, recreation and wildlife
programs for 15 years. The proposal would
have distributed approximately $3 billion
dollars to state and local communities.
It included $450 million dollars for
federal land acquisitions.
348 Ms. Johnson Through the appropriation process,
additional programs were included in
CARA. Under the lands legacy proposal
$1.6 billion dollars were included; a
large portion of this funding is for
federal programs. It is one year funding.
A new conservation-spending category was
created in the Budget Enforcement Act.
This funding does not come into play
until FY02.
Ms. Johnson Discussed the FY01 appropriation. The
funding was broken down into three
departments: Commerce, Interior and
Forest Service. There was approximately
$150 million dollars for coastal impacted
systems in the Commerce Department. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAH) will administer
this funding. Alaska will receive
approximately $13 million dollars of the
coastal impact assistance funding.
465 Ms. Johnson Funding for lands legacy programs was
contained in the budgets for the
Department of Interior and the US Forest
Service. There was $90 million for
stateside land and water conservation
grants and $100 million for state
wildlife grants and $30 million dollars
for urban parks.
554 Ms. Johnson Alaska received approximately $800
thousand dollars for the stateside
program of the land and water
conservation fund. Alaska also received
$1 million dollars for state historic
preservation. These funds have been
distributed.
597 Ms. Johnson There was $50 million dollars for state
wildlife grants, of which $2.5 million
dollars would be distributed to Alaska.
This has not been distributed. There was
an additional $50 million dollars in the
Interior Department appropriation bill to
be award through competitive grants.
There was also money for urban parks,
North American wetlands, and endangered
species that would also be award as
competitive grants.
641 Ms. Johnson Coastal impact assistance funding is the
largest grant to Alaska: approximately
$13 million dollars, which has not been
awarded. Reiterated that the
authorization and appropriation is one-
time. The Alaska Delegation would like to
make it more permanent.
700 Co-Chair Mulder Referred to funding through the Forest
service.
722 Ms. Johnson Explained that there was $16 million
dollars through the forest legacy
program, but that Alaska has not chosen
to participate in the program. Alaska may
see $800 thousand dollars from the urban
and community forestry grants. Alaska
received $1.4 million dollars for Tongass
Mental Health lands.
773 Representative Questioned if there would be continuing
Hudson funds.
816 Ms. Johnson Observed that the Senator's intent was to
create a permanent appropriation, but he
was not successful. The program will have
to compete with other programs.
Representative Young intends to
reintroduce the program. Senator
Murkowski is currently pursuing ANWR
issues.
903 Co-Chair Mulder Referred to costal impact assistance and
a summary from Bill Horn.
956 Ms. Johnson Explained that the program was drafted
for the Minerals Management Services
(MMS). It was turned into a NOAA program.
Additional data is needed to determine
the exact appropriation.
1009 Co-Chair Mulder Noted that 60 percent of the funds are to
be divided equally between producing
coastal states and 40 percent is to be
allocated on the basis of OCS revenues,
subject to a maximum of 25 percent to any
single state.
1045 Ms. Johnson Explained that Alaska received its
portion from the amount divided equally
to the 7 production coastal states. The
state of Alaska's percentage of OCS
production averages out to zero.
1086 Co-Chair Mulder Observed that 35 percent of state share
is to be paid directly to coastal
subdivisions and $4.5 million dollars
would go directly to local coastal
communities. Local shares would be
further broken down.
1173 Co-Chair Mulder The local share would be allocated: 25
percent based on population, 25% based on
coastline miles and 50% on the relative
distance from any leased tract. Funds can
be used for a number of uses including:
National marine sanctuaries, fisheries
conservation, conservation and
restoration of coastal and marine
habitats, coastal water quality
improvement, watershed protection,
controlling coastline erosion and
management of coastal growth and
development.
1181 Ms. Johnson Added that funds can be used for
infrastructure up to 23 percent
1195 BRIAN MALNEK, STAFF Noted that breakwaters could be built.
DIRECTOR, US SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
1211 Ms. Johnson Emphasized that infrastructure funds
could go to roads. Senator did not want
restrictions on infrastructure.
1233 Mr. Malnek Observed that there is a need for fire
trucks, police, first aid etc.
1246 Ms. Johnson Emphasized that the sponsor envisioned a
long-term, permanent funding program. The
environmental community wanted assurance
that some environmental use would occur.
The language was maintained but it was
put into short-term program.
1311 Co-Chair Mulder Asked if a project to diminish erosion
would be considered infrastructure or
maintaining coastline erosion.
1340 Ms. Johnson The funding would fall under coastline
erosion.
1357 Co-Chair Mulder Noted that the world would not be changed
with $8 million dollars.
1376 Ms. Johnson Stressed that Senator Murkowski wants to
provide additional funding. Intention was
to tie funding to OSC production.
1391 Co-Chair Mulder Questioned if the intent was for the
funding to go through the normal
legislative authorization process.
1403 Mr. Malnek Stated that the there was a desire to get
money straight into communities but
acknowledged that the funding would pass
through the state.
1426 Representative Could infrastructure funding be used to
Hudson address substandard fuel farms in
villages?
1462 Mr. Malnek Felt that it would be appropriate but
noted that there were no clear
guidelines.
1477 Co-Chair Mulder Questioned if projects need NOAA
approval?
1487 Ms. Johnson States are required to submit a plan by
July 1, 2001 indicating what kind of
programs would be funded by the project.
1512 Mr. Malnek Stressed that NOAA needs to provide the
seven coastal states with a letter
explaining program requirements.
1531 Ms. Johnson Pointed out that NOAA has indicated that
they would only provide guidelines.
1565 Co-Chair Mulder Stressed that NOAA can be more of a
hindrance in the terms of getting things
done.
1590 Ms. Johnson Acknowledged that running the funds
through NOAA has caused concerns. The
Senator's intent was to treat the funds
as revenue sharing.
1613 Co-Chair Mulder Stated that there are a multitude of
projects that the state could be doing
with another revenue stream, but pointed
out that there is extensive
administrative effort involved.
1644 Representative Commended the Congressional delegation
Hudson for their work on the program.
1693 PAT GALVIN, Provided details on the Coastal Impact
DIRECTOR, Assistance Program. The statutory
GOVERNMENTAL structure was geared to an on-going
COORDINATION, OFFICE large-scale program, which ended as a
OF THE GOVERNOR smaller one-year program.
1822 Mr. Galvin Noted that the state has till July 1,
2001 to demonstrate how the state and
local funds would be spent. Most of the
state's effort has been with NOAA
regarding the scope of the plan and the
amount of details needed.
1862 Co-Chair Mulder Asked why local coordination was needed.
1870 Mr. Galvin Explained that there is only one state
plan that designates how all the money is
to be spent. Local communities will
submit plans, but the infrastructure
portion has a cap of 23 percent.
Coordination is required to assure that
local communities share the
infrastructure allotment and that the
total not exceed 23 percent.
1935 Co-Chair Mulder Expressed frustration at the level of
bureaucracy.
1948 Mr. Galvin Goal to make sure that the state fulfills
obligations and receives the entire
funding amount. He emphasized that they
are waiting for a draft from NOAA.
Stressed the need for broad requirements
and flexibility.
1996 Representative Observed that other states are faced with
Hudson the same problems.
2012 Mr. Galvin Noted that they are working with the
other 7 coastal states. Alaska has
constraints that require flexibility.
2049 Co-Chair Mulder Observed that the Governor's budget
contains funding for CARA in the Division
of Governmental Coordination's budget.
2087 Mr. Galvin The state portion of the coastal impact
assistance funds is $8.3 million dollars.
This funding is contained in the Division
of Governmental Coordination's budget.
The CARA statute requires public
participation. NOAA requires a 30-day
comment period.
2117 Co-Chair Mulder Noted that the Legislature is being asked
to give blanket authorization for the
CARA funding.
2135 Mr. Galvin Reiterated that a state plan will have to
go through the public process. There are
some general ideas of where the funding
could be used on a statewide level. Ocean
research and monitoring are among the
possible uses.
2173 Co-Chair Mulder Questioned if it would be wise to spend
onetime funding on long-term research. He
suggested that a few projects be picked
that can be accomplished.
2206 Mr. Galvin Noted that the state does not currently
have $8 million dollars of projects that
are not infrastructure and would meet the
NOAA requirement.
2232 Mr. Galvin Emphasized that CARA funding could be
used to integrate the holes that exist
with ocean monitoring and research around
the state.
2257 Co-Chair Mulder Stressed that he is reluctant to give
cart blanc authority.
2272 WAYNE REGELIN, Observed that there were negotiations on
DIRECTOR, DIVISION the federal level that resulted in $150
OF WILDLIFE million dollars for land acquisitions. A
CONSERVATION, comprehensive management plan for all the
DEPARTMENT OF FISH department's programs would be required
AND GAME before Alaska could compete for the land
acquisition competitive grants. He noted
that there is an attempt to rescind this
statute requirement in Congress and that
it is so burdensome that he did not know
of any states competing for the grants.
TAPE HFC 01 - 23,
Side B
11 Mr. Regelin Provided a brief overview of CARA. There
is $50 million dollars for wildlife
management that is divided by formula to
the states. This is part of the federal
aid program. The funds cannot be used for
other purposes and there is a match
requirement. It is a one-year
appropriation with a permanent
authorization.
88 Mr. Regelin Noted that there is an effort to make the
program permanent and to increase the
funding. The intent was for a $350
million dollar appropriation. The state
would have gotten $17 million dollars if
the original appropriation had been
adopted.
173 Mr. Regelin The state of Alaska will receive $2.4
million dollars, added to their federal
aid account from the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Act. He was
optimistic that the funding would be
continued. Directors have discretion to
spend money on any priority that they
establish.
233 Mr. Regelin However the intent is for preferred
purposes of unmet funding needs for
wildlife education, management of species
that are not hunted and wildlife related
recreation.
260 Mr. Regelin The legislation was started as funding
for species that are not hunted due to
endangered species problems. With help
from the Senator from Louisiana this was
tied into coastal impact assistance and
shared revenue for offshore drilling.
Revenue from offshore drilling goes
directly to the federal treasury.
337 Mr. Regelin An Alaska coalition of hunters,
communities, oil companies, banks, and
the environmental community supported
CARA. Buying federal lands was the only
controversial portion.
424 Mr. Regelin Discussed programs that could be
supported by the funding. Noted that
funding could be reappropriated. Would
like to use some of the funds in FY02 for
program planning in wildlife education,
watchable wildlife programs and non-game
programs. The funding would be used for
projects that are high priority.
533 Mr. Regelin He emphasized that the department would
know in September or October if the
funding would continue.
602 Mr. Regelin Acknowledged that he is asking the
Legislature to make the appropriation by
the end of the session. Felt that the
program would continue. He pointed out
that Coastal impact funding will be lost
if not spent and emphasized the need for
flexibility for planning. He stressed
that the department would work with the
subcommittee. He reiterated that he is
confident that the funds will continue at
$100 to $150 million a year; Alaska would
receive the maximum of 5 percent.
805 Mr. Regelin All federal aid dollars have a state
match of 1 to 3. They would need $800
thousand dollars for the state match.
Hunter and wildlife fees could be used,
but they are reluctant to do so. Looking
at ways to get a state match.
849 Representative What is the timeline?
Hudson
883 Mr. Regelin The statutes outline specific purposes.
He stated that the department could have
broad suggestions by the 2/22/01
subcommittee that would provide big
pieces of land purchases without locking
the state into a long-term direction, but
that they would not have the normal
detailed. Identifying programs will be
the focus.
1016 KELLY HEPLER, Clarified that there are project
DIRECTOR, DIVISION descriptions available. They are looking
OF SPORT FISH, at concrete projects. They do not have to
DEPARTMENT OF FISH go back to NOAA for approval.
AND GAME
1077 KEN TAYLOR, If it remains a one-year appropriation
DIRECTOR, DIVISION they would still have three years to
OF HABITAT AND spend the funds. Can look at the
RESTORATION, availability for additional funds for
DEPARTMENT OF FISH direction. Added that the fight would
AND GAME continue.
1121 Mr. Regelin Noted that the funds flow through the
federal Fish and Wildlife Service. The
$50 million dollars in the competitive
grant program would be difficult to
pursue due to the restrictions.
1216 Co-Chair Mulder Noted that he had questions regarding
urban parks.
1233 Mr. Regelin Urban and state parks will go though the
Department of Natural Resources. There is
only $115 thousand dollars.
1254 Co-Chair Mulder Thought that the funds would be released
through competitive grants for specific
projects.
1336 Representative Observed that the state match would be an
Hudson issue.
1380 Mr. Regelin Reiterated that the match is 3 federal
dollars for each state dollar.
1386 Representative Clarified that there were direct
Lancaster appropriations to the Sea Life Center. He
noted frustrations with NOAA.
interactions.
1468 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|