Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
02/29/2012 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR32 | |
| HB328 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 328 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 32-REMOVE WOOD BISON FROM ENDANGERED LIST
2:03:41 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 32, Urging the United States
Congress to remove wood bison from protection under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 and to grant control of wood
bison in Alaska to the state.
2:04:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK, prime sponsor of HJR 32, reminded members
that last year the committee heard HB 186, but that HJR 32 will
be the ultimate answer for both the state and the wood bison.
The people who will benefit the most are the people of the
Yukon. Many groups and individuals within the state and the
nation are concerned about the bison. His concern all along has
not been with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game or the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, but with special interest groups that
could potentially file suit in federal court. He drew attention
to the [e-mail] of support from Deputy Commissioner Craig
Fleener of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
2:06:06 PM
PAUL VERHAGEN, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HJR 32 on behalf of Representative Dick,
prime sponsor. He said last year Representative Dick filed HB
186 in an effort to prevent the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G) from reintroducing wood bison into the state without
approval by the legislature. However, between then and now,
things have happened with regard to the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Several states have spent years working to get gray
wolves removed from the list [of endangered species] - with one
court ruling in their favor and then the next ruling against
them. These states eventually they took their case to Congress.
Congress intervened, exempting the gray wolf from the Endangered
Species Act; further, Congress made its decision not subject to
review by the courts. From Representative Dick's perspective, a
similar action by Congress would remove problems with releasing
the wood bison into the wild without the restrictions that come
along with the Endangered Species Act, and would allow
management of the wood bison by ADF&G.
2:07:18 PM
MR. VERHAGEN said HJR 32 urges Congress to intervene on the
state's behalf by exempting wood bison from the ESA. He related
that in a recent letter to Representative Dick, the regional
director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Geoffrey
Haskett, takes issue with some of the statements made in HJR 32.
However, Representative Dick does not question that the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has spent years working with ADF&G in
an effort to reintroduce wood bison. He does not question that
the service wants the project to move forward, nor does he
question the service's diligence in ensuring that the agreements
reached between the service and ADF&G comply with the most
current interpretation of the Endangered Species Act. Rather,
Representative Dick sympathizes with the service as it tries to
keep up with the various rulings and is constantly chasing a
moving target - and that is the point that Representative Dick
is making. While the Endangered Species Act was created with
the best of intentions by people with sincere concern for the
environment, the contradictory rulings have bogged things down
to the point that it appears the biggest obstacle to the wood
bison's success in Alaska is the act itself. If wood bison were
to be treated the same as the plains bison, they would be
wandering the landscape and Alaska would not have worry about
locked up resources. Although passage of this resolution will
not change anything itself, it will serve to remind Congress
again that in more than a few instances the Endangered Species
Act itself has become its own worst enemy. It may also prompt
Congress to step in and resolve Alaska's wood bison problem. If
Congress were to also exempt all bison, including the plains
bison, then Alaska would not need to worry about recent lawsuits
that have been filed to include plains bison under the
protection of the act.
2:10:11 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS), version 27-LS1234\E, Bullard, 2/24/12, as the working
document. There being no objection, Version E was before the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired how much it is costing per
year to keep the wood bison at the Wildlife Conservation Center
while the state waits for the federal government to get its
regulations in order.
MR. VERHAGEN understood the cost is $100,000 per year. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service recently granted the state $200,000
for the bison's care.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK added that ADF&G and the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) are working together to get the bison
out on the landscape and are looking for an island where the
wood bison could be temporarily released until they are taken
off the endangered species list.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:13:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether some of the changes made in
Version E were in response to the letter from Mr. Haskett of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
MR. VERHAGEN replied the changes that were made preceded receipt
of Mr. Haskett's letter, although some of the changes made were
suggested in that letter.
2:13:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired about the current status of the
"10(j) rule" that would designate wood bison in Alaska as a
nonessential experimental population. He commented that the
rule seems like it would be a way out, but has been talked about
for several years.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK responded the 10(j) exemption is still being
applied for, but the real question is the "4(d)" exemption that
speaks to whether the animals can actually be hunted once they
are reintroduced. The State of Alaska has said it will not
reintroduce the animals if they cannot be hunted at some point
in the future, so it is really the 4(d) exemption that is the
stalemate between ADF&G and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked where the state and service are in
their current negotiations for the hunting of the wood bison.
MR. VERHAGEN understood ADF&G has received approval from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director on the hunting aspect,
but said work on the 10(j) portion is still ongoing.
2:15:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired whether there are any examples
of an endangered species being removed from the list by region.
MR. VERHAGEN answered that that is the only thing that has ever
happened. Congress removed the gray wolf in the area of Idaho
and Montana. He said he did not know if other examples have
occurred since then.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether the possibility has been
explored of removing the wood bison from the endangered species
list in Alaska only.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK replied that since the only wood bison in
the U.S. are in Alaska that thought did not cross his mind.
2:16:43 PM
MIKE MILLER, Executive Director, Alaska Wildlife Conservation
Center, offered his appreciation for the work toward some "can-
do options." Regarding removal of the wood bison through a
congressional act, he said Eddie Grasser is working on that
right now. Three weeks ago Mr. Grasser met with U.S. Senator
Lisa Murkowski and Congressman Don Young to discuss attaching
something to the U.S. budget. There is optimism for this
happening and it would be the best thing for everybody concerned
with the wood bison. He suggested that questions regarding the
10(j) rule be directed to Doug Vincent-Lang. Both ADF&G and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are trying to come up with
agreeable language, but it would be good to proceed with both
the 10(j) rule and the complete congressional delisting at the
same time.
2:18:19 PM
MR. MILLER, in regard to caring for the wood bison, said he
manages the 102 animals for the State of Alaska. The expense is
not all that monumental - Carlisle Transportation hauls the
1,000 bales of hay from the University of Alaska Fairbanks in
Palmer to the center and the U.S. Forest Service has provided
land for the bison under a 15 year lease. This leased area can
be expanded as there will be 40 calves this spring. He
encouraged everyone to continue a can-do attitude, explaining
that because the wood bison is on the endangered species list
these animals cannot go back to Canada and cannot be slaughtered
or sold. Therefore, finding a good end result is necessary
because these are living breathing things that will likely
outlive the people involved. He noted that Canada now has
6,000-8,000 wood bison and has reduced its status to that of
threatened. Resource development in Canada has been compatible
with the bison. Finding some sort of a resolution this
legislative session would be a great thing for the state of
Alaska, not only for the hunting and tourism opportunities, but
also for the return of an extinct animal to the landscape.
2:20:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired what the normal life span is
for a wood bison.
MR. MILLER responded that in the wild, because of hardships, 16
years would be an old bison. However, in captivity wood bison
can live up to 60 years and can calve into their 40s, with a
calf every year instead of every other year as in the wild. He
said putting the wood bison on an island would be abandoning
them, the problem would not go away, and it would only be a
short-term thing. He said he would like to discourage doing
that because he can find foundations that will provide the
$100,000 in cost so that there is no expense to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK commented that ADF&G has been unable to find
an island that does not already have cattle, except one that is
way out in the Aleutians and the cost estimate for moving the
bison out there was $800,000, which would be incurred again for
moving the bison back.
2:22:50 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE closed public testimony on HJR 32 after
ascertaining that no one else wished to testify. He invited any
amendments.
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 which
would remove the second whereas clause from page 1, lines 8-10.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for purposes of discussion.
CO-CHAIR SEATON noted that the third paragraph of the [U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service] letter disagrees with the statement made
in lines 8-10 of the resolution. He did not think that this
whereas clause is necessary at all for accomplishing the goals
of the resolution, so he is offering this as a friendly
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK said he has no problem with the amendment.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection.
2:24:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON directed attention to page 2, paragraph
2, of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter which addresses
the claim in HJR 32 that releasing wood bison in Alaska would
subject their habitat to restrictive provisions. The paragraph
also states that these "exaggerated statements about the ESA are
creating a negative and fearful environment that makes it more
difficult to achieve common ground." She pointed out that this
claim occurs in the resolution on page 2, lines 22-25, and asked
whether these lines should be deleted.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE commented that it depends on a person's point of
view on the Endangered Species Act.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI requested a response from ADF&G.
2:25:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reiterated her question for Doug
Vincent-Lang of ADF&G.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Acting Director, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), began by
providing some background on wood bison from the state's
perspective. He said the state is working with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service on the 10(j) rule and a rule that would
designate these animals as nonessential experimental. He added
that he thinks the agencies are fairly close to reaching some
type of agreement that those rules provide sufficient language
to assure that those animals are not affecting resource
development across the state. However, on the broader national
scale there is concern about the certainty of those rules being
able to withstand legal scrutiny, especially if challenges to
those rules are filed in courts outside of Alaska, in which are
ultimately defended by the U.S. Department of Justice and for
which the State of Alaska may not be a party in the settlement
of those lawsuits. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is right
that all intent is to use these rules to prevent undue
restrictions on designation of critical habitat or on jeopardy
findings on species that are out in the landscape. Getting to a
rule that assures that certainty will go a long ways towards
that end. However, that is only part of the question that the
state will still have to answer after that rule is published.
The state will again have to very closely look at how valid
those rules are or how firm those rules will be in terms of
withstanding judicial scrutiny, especially if those lawsuits are
filed outside of Alaska.
2:28:52 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG further noted that there is recent evidence
that some of these rules may be renegotiated by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to the states that have released
nonessential experimental populations in their landscapes. The
State of Alaska is working towards those rules with the hope
that those rules will provide the state with the certainty that
it will not be in the same position with wood bison that it is
with sea otters today, which is that the state introduces a
species and is then left with the uncertainty of how to manage
those into the future. From the state's point of view, the most
certainty that can be had before release of wood bison on the
landscape is to have an exemption for the species under the
Endangered Species Act similar to what was done with gray wolves
in Idaho and Montana. In those cases the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service was very much in agreement with the states as to the
need to delist those wolves, but it was the judicial system that
prevented it from happening. There is a certain amount of fear
out there regarding the certainty of those rules and regarding
what would happen if those rules were overturned in the future.
2:30:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired whether Mr. Vincent-Lang
believes this whereas clause should remain in the resolution.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that that whereas reflects what he is
hearing at his desk - fear out on the landscape regarding the
certainty of those rules and what could happen if those were
overturned.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for some examples of ESA-listed
animals that have been [reintroduced] into the wild as
nonessential experimental.
MR. VINCENT-LANG responded that these include wolves in the
Lower 48, grizzly bears, and falcons, as well as some others.
He added that the state of Wyoming is now having trouble with
grizzly bears that were reintroduced under nonessential
experimental populations.
2:31:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ requested a detail of what nonessential
experimental means.
MR. VINCENT-LANG explained that when first passed by Congress
the Endangered Species Act did not have a provision for
nonessential experimental populations. As such, when the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and states were trying to reintroduce
species onto the landscape, the only way to do so was under the
full protection of the Endangered Species Act, which resulted in
immediately the carryover of that designation as well as the
designation of critical habitat. It therefore became very
difficult for states or federal agencies to go to private
landowners and others with the suggestion that these animals be
reintroduced on the landscape. So Congress amended the act with
a provision for designating animals being reintroduced into the
landscape as nonessential experimental to that species. As
such, special rules could be written associated with that
species to disallow the designation of critical habitat and
allow a taking of that species that would otherwise not be
allowed under existing Endangered Species Act statutes. It was
basically a way to say that if these animals were brought onto
the landscape they would still be categorized under the
Endangered Species Act, but that they could be treated
differently in terms of how they were regulated under the act.
2:33:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired whether an agreement with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has been negotiated to allow the
designation of nonessential experimental for these wood bison.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that the state is working with the
service towards getting a nonessential experimental population
designation and the associated regulations regarding what is an
allowable take for those wood bison on the landscape. The
allowable takes would be any take that is associated with a
resource development activity or an allowed take would be
hunting. That is one step in this process that would help the
state get towards the end, but before the state puts animals in
the landscape under that rule it would need to be assured that
the rule would withstand judicial scrutiny, especially if it was
filed outside the state of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ understood it is ADF&G's intent to get that
clarified and confirmed before any animals are reintroduced.
MR. VINCENT-LANG related that ADF&G has told the legislature and
the public that it will not introduce wood bison into the
landscape until everyone is convinced there is certainty to the
rules and that those rules would be defendable. None of that
would be necessary if Congress exempted wood bison from the
Endangered Species Act, as requested by HJR 32. He said that
from his point of view, conservation success is getting these
animals out on the landscape and the biggest reason this is not
happening is fear associated with the uncertainty about how the
Endangered Species Act will be implemented. Removing that fear
would go a long way towards getting these bison out on the
landscape quickly.
2:35:21 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether the grizzly bears that were
[reintroduced] as a nonessential species are allowed to be
hunted.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied in some cases yes, but explained that
some of the problems being had with some of these species in the
Lower 48 that were nonessential experimental is that there were
also wild animals that were out in the landscape. As those
animals are mixing with the nonessential experimental animals it
becomes a very complex question. Fortunately, Alaska does not
have that issue right now.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK pointed out that the target of HJR 32 is not
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but the U.S. Congress. The
intent is to build a little sense of frustration into the
resolution so that Congressman Young can show this to his
colleagues. While sorry if someone at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is offended, he said the state must be firm
enough to make its point clear. He reminded committee members
that the Donlin Creek Mine has $100 billion worth of gold and is
only 50 miles away from the proposed site of reintroduction.
Drawing attention to page 3, lines 10-12, of the resolution, he
said these lines say everything: "WHEREAS these facts serve to
demonstrate this point: The wood bison's status on the list of
species protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is
what most endangers them". If the wood bison could be put on
the landscape to roam free they would be able to multiply. His
point is that listing them as an endangered species in the act
makes them endangered because the state is afraid to put them
out there.
2:38:15 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 32, version 27-LS1234\E, Bullard,
2/24/12, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHJR 32(RES) was reported from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR 32.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| CSHJR 32 Version D.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 32 Hearing Request.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 32 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 32 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB0328A.PDF |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 328 |
| HB 328 Separate Accounting Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 328 |
| HB 328 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 328 |
| HB328 Fiscal Note DOR.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 328 |
| Alaska Margins Slide.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Legislative Research Report ConocoPhillips SEC 10K Filings.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Atlantic Richfield Co v. State.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| PFC Energy Regime Competitiveness Slide.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Separate Accounting Revenue Comparison.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Petroleum News May 8, 2011 Eagle Ford Could Nudge Alaska for COP.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| CSHJR32 Version E.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 32 Background Info List.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 32 Comment - R. Rogers.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR32 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR32 Introduction Testimony.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR32 Letter from USFWS Regional Director Haskett.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |