SB 212-FISH & GAME GRANTS    CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 212 to be up for consideration. MR. KEN TAYLOR, Director, Habitat and Restoration Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), said he appreciated working with the committee to narrow the scope of this bill so that it does not deal with general funds, Fish and Game funds, or federal aid funds, but simply with federal receipts. This bill is necessary because the Habitat Division has been involved in restoration activities for some time. In 1994, the legislature passed SB 183, which provided some criminal settlement funds from EVOS, of which a large portion went toward restoration activities on the Kenai River. That program has been very popular with the public and with the fishing community. Unfortunately, the way that system works, because ADF&G didn't have granting authority, it had to enter into a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The division transfers the money to USFWS, it takes an 11 percent cut, then makes the grants and does a little bit of the paper work to the individual land owners on the Kenai. ADF&G works with the USFWS but it ends up getting most of the credit for this work, thus elevating its stature in the public's eye. This system is administratively inefficient. ADF&G feels it would service the public much better if the grants went directly from the State to the private land owners where restoration activities are necessary. There are a fair number of federal funds available for this kind of work that ADF&G frequently gets receipt authority for. SB 212 would facilitate that process. ADF&G has long-term plans to do restoration work throughout a good part of Southcentral Alaska and some work will be done on the Chatanika over the next year. Some work will be done in Southeast, as well. In essence, that's the purpose of this bill. This bill may benefit some of the other divisions, although he didn't know much about granting in commercial fisheries or sport fish or wildlife. The director of the Wildlife Division thinks this bill would benefit that division as well. SENATOR TAYLOR said this version still seems very broad to him. It basically says the Commissioner may award grants from federal funds and just restricts the specific funding mechanisms that come from tax receipts. He asked what program these funds are coming from and whether this is being set up so that ADF&G can take advantage of S 25 or H 701 by Don Young. MR. TAYLOR answered no. Those bills will require major changes to state legislation as well. Currently, AS 16.05.300 (d) restricts the use of federal aid funds to programs that only directly benefit hunters, trappers, and sport fishermen. If the Conservation Reinvestment Act passes, which is principally for non-hunted species, there will have to be some changes made to the fish and game fund in statute. SB 212 is simply for federal funds that are available through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through the Governor's request in the federal budget and, he believes that in this fiscal year the Governor received money for salmon restoration - a statewide pot - as a result of the Treaty negotiations. Some of the money comes from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), EPA, and the USFWS. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that money is subject to appropriation and would still have to go through the appropriation process. Other departments have granting authority, but if you want to do a fish and game grant, you have to do it through another agency. SB 212 would allow grants directly through ADF&G; it still has to be appropriated by this legislature for the purpose of that grant to whoever it's supposed to go to. MR. TAYLOR said that is correct. SENATOR MACKIE asked if that was a result of the narrowing of the bill. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that's in the Alaska Constitution. He asked to whom the grants would be made. MR. TAYLOR responded that currently, he understands that ADF&G can make grants to any recognized governmental entity, such as a municipality or first, second, or third class cities. ADF&G can also make grants to nonprofits or to private individuals. The grants ADF&G has funneled through the USFWS have been primarily to private land owners that own land adjacent to the Kenai River. If SB 212 passes and ADF&G receives the federal funds, it would expand the program it has on the Kenai to places like Chester Creek, Ship Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Wasilla, and other water bodies in need of restoration. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if ADF&G plans to do restoration work on the Chatanika near Fairbanks. MR. TAYLOR answered through the Yukon Treaty negotiations, the Yukon River Board receives federal funds from Congress for its activities. Money was put in the federal FY 00 budget to deal with some of the dams and impoundments built years and years ago that blocked off a lot of salmon spawning areas. ADF&G also received $200,000 in the federal budget this year for that. He didn't know if that would given as grants or whether ADF&G would go through the contract procurement code process to deal with that. Number 478 CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what ADF&G would think about including language that says, "The Commissioner may, with the concurrence of the respective Boards of Fisheries and Game, make grants from federal funds other than ...." He thought that might create a balanced approach to enhancing some resources in return for the protection of other resources. MR. TAYLOR answered that during the course of the year, it takes a while to figure out which projects are going to occur and which aren't. There were over 160 different projects on Kenai River alone. He didn't think ADF&G would mind some Board oversight in this matter but the question is how to do it most efficiently and effectively. CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted the Board could give ADF&G a general concurrence or a specific concurrence. SENATOR MACKIE asked if the Commissioner of ADF&G would put together a grant proposal, i.e., for a fisheries habitat project on the Kenai, and submit it to the Board of Fisheries for approval. If the Board blessed it, it would then go in the budget and the legislature would have to approve it. SENATOR HALFORD said yes, it would just get them back on the same sheet of music. MR. TAYLOR said he thought that would work. He pointed out that tomorrow the Board of Fisheries would take up its sustainable fisheries policy and the first criteria in that policy is habitat related. Number 223 SENATOR GREEN asked if there could be a timing problem in getting the concurrence for the project and whether it would delay anything by 12 months. MR. TAYLOR said it would depend on the approach that the Board took. ADF&G plans its budget in September and it doesn't take effect until July. The legislature approves it sometime between January and May. Board meetings occur over that time and ADF&G could give the Board its general approach. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he had done any assessments to indicate whether any of the habitat enhancement projects done on the Kenai have had an effect. MR. TAYLOR answered that studies are on-going right now, but people doing visual observations of stream banks that have been restored have observed an increase in the number of salmon fry, especially king salmon, so it appears to have been very successful. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if ADF&G thought about putting some large woody debris in that river. He said it is interesting that pooling is taken for granted in Southeast and yet he has never seen it done on the Kenai. MR. TAYLOR said ADF&G looked at doing that to rivers but not particularly on the Kenai. Large woody debris is being studied intensively in Washington State for some of the salmon restoration projects. He noted the Kenai River has some deep pockets of water, unlike the rivers in Washington. Large woody debris is a science in itself and biologists are finding there is a fair amount of difference in its importance to certain environments. Right now, ADF&G is looking at whether it is important at all on the Tanana River. TAPE 00-12, SIDE A Number 001 CHAIRMAN HALFORD suggested amending line 6 by adding, "With the concurrence of the respective Board of Fisheries or Game," before the words, "the Commissioner may." There being no objection to adopting the amendment, Chairman Halford noted it was so ordered. SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt the CS. There were no objections and it was so ordered. SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSSB 212(RES) from committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.