CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 212(FIN) am An Act authorizing the commissioner of fish and game, with the concurrence of the Board of Fisheries or the Board of Game, to award grants for habitat restoration, access, or enhancement projects; and providing for an effective date. KEN TAYLOR, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF HABITAT AND REFORESTATION, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, stated that the bill would authorize the Commissioner of the Department to award grants for certain resource activities. Under the bill, the Commissioner would have express authority to directly award grants that serve core missions of the Department, protecting, maintaining and improving public access to fish, game and habitat resources of Alaska. Current law necessitates the Department to channel money through other agencies which cause delay and add considerable administrative costs. Mr. Taylor added that an increasing amount of federal funds are available to restore fish habitat and passage. The legislation represents a cost-effective way to continue efforts on private and public land to rehabilitate riverbanks, protect fish streams and enhance access to these areas. Vice Chair Bunde asked for further explanation of Line 10, the "concurrence by the Board of Fisheries or the Board of Game". Mr. Taylor replied that during review in the Senate Resources Committee, language was amended to provide for the concurrence of those entities. Most of the programs would be targeting salmon restoration activities. Mr. Taylor explained the process. The State program would come to the Legislatture with a capital request for the item. If the Legislature denied it, the funding would not be made available; however, if it were approved, they would go to the Board of Fisheries to determine if they approved of the plan. Vice Chair Bunde pointed out that they give the Board of Fisheries veto power. Mr. Taylor agreed. Representative Phillips questioned why the language insinuated that this practice had been standard in the past. Mr. Taylor explained that it had not been a standard practice and that there had been a separation between the fiscal powers of the Department and the Board. It is a deviation from standard practice. Representative Phillips stated that the Legislature does not have the power to designate appropriation authority to anyone else. She MOVED a conceptual amendment, deleting language on Line 10. Vice Chair Bunde OBJECTED for discussion purposes. Representative Austerman asked why the legislation was before the Committee. Mr. Taylor advised that in the past, there were Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS) criminal settlement funds, which were appropriated through the Senate Capital Improvement Project (CIP) to the Department for restoration activities. The funds could not be granted directly to private landowners to do that work and were handled through a cooperative agreement with a federal agency. That process was cumbersome. The State did all the work and then the credit went to federal agencies. Many decisions were placed in the federal agencies. Representative Austerman understood that some of the concerns were about access. He noted the title. Mr. Taylor replied that the bill was amended on the Senate floor to include "access" as a project category that federal receipts would be applied towards. He stated that the receipts, which were going to be available, would be for habitat restoration and enhancement. Mr. Taylor noted that he did not envision many federal receipts available for purchasing access. Representative Grussendorf asked what would occur if the legislation did not pass. Mr. Taylor replied that the Department would continue to be partners with federal agencies to funnel money in order to get people the grants. Representative Grussendorf asked if they would actually have veto power. Mr. Taylor explained that there had been an amendment proposed by the Senate Resources Committee. Representative Phillips MOVED the amendment which would remove Line 1 from the title, "with the concurrence of the Board of Fisheries or the Board of Game" and Line 9, "The award of a grant under this section is subject to concurrence by the Board of Fisheries or the Board of Game, whichever is appropriate." There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted. Representative J. Davies MOVED that the appropriate title resolution be drafted to accompany the legislation. Representative Grussendorf again asked the Department's intent with passage of the legislation. Mr. Taylor responded that the Department was attempting to gain better administrative efficiency. There being NO OBJECTION, the title change was so ordered. Representative Austerman reiterated his concern regarding the access. Mr. Taylor explained that the access had been included by an amendment proposed on the Senate floor as a category of activities that federal receipts could be used for granting mechanisms. Mr. Taylor did not envision any receipts, which the Department would be able to spend in that manner. Discussion followed regarding access concerns. Representative Phillips questioned if it had been added as a result of the EVOS monies. She suggested that the language be removed. Representative Austerman MOVED to remove "access" on Lines Davies pointed out that it would not cause a problem for the Department, however, it could provide a problem for the legislation. Representative G. Davis voiced his objection to the amendment also. Representative Austerman WITHDREW the MOTION to adopt the amendment. Representative Foster MOVED to report HCS CS SB 212 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with a fiscal note by the Department of Fish and Game dated 1/21/00. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HCS CS SB 212 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by Department of Fish and Game dated 1/21/00.