Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/05/2000 01:07 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 5, 2000
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS:
Board of Fisheries
Larry J. Engel - Palmer
Robert E. Dersham - Anchor Point
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 60
Opposing the designation of millions of acres of Alaska as
critical habitat for the Spectacled Eider and the Steller's
Eider.
- MOVED HJR 60 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 60
SHORT TITLE: HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED EIDER DUCKS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/30/00 2787 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
3/30/00 2787 (H) RES
3/30/00 2787 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
4/05/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
LARRY ENGEL, Appointee
to the Board of Fisheries
P.O. Box 197
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
ROBERT DERSHAM, Appointee
to the Board of Fisheries
P.O. Box 555
Anchor Point, Alaska 99556
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 411
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation for
Robert Dersham; introduced HJR 60.
RON SOMERVILLE, Resource Consultant
Senate and House Majorities
Alaska State Legislature
4506 Robbie Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on critical habitat
designations with regard to HJR 60.
SCOTT PETSEL, Staff
for Representative Gail Phillips
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 411
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions with regard to HJR 60.
TADD OWENS, Project Coordinator
Resource Development Counsel (RDC)
121 West Fireweed, Number 250
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 60.
MARILYN CROCKETT, Deputy Director
Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA)
121 West Fireweed, Number 207
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 60.
OLIVER LEAVITT, Vice President
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC)
P.O. Box 129
Barrow, Alaska 99723
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 60.
CHARLES BROWER, Director of Wildlife Management
North Slope Borough
P.O. Box 69
Barrow, Alaska 99723
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 60.
ROBERT SUDYAM, Wildlife Biologist
Department of Wildlife Management
North Slope Borough
P.O. Box 69
Barrow, Alaska 99723
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 60.
HARRY BROWER, JR., Hunter from Barrow
P.O. Box 69
Barrow, Alaska 99723
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 60.
WAYNE REGELIN, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 60.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-31, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR HUDSON called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Hudson, Masek, Cowdery, Harris,
Whitaker and Joule. Representatives Barnes, Morgan and Kapsner
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS - Board of Fisheries
CO-CHAIR HUDSON announced that the committee would consider two
appointees to the Board of Fisheries. He first called upon Larry
Engel.
Number 0160
LARRY ENGEL, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries, testified via
teleconference from Palmer. He indicated that fisheries have
been a big part of his life since his early childhood. He grew
up in Washington, where his family fished commercially for many
years. He came to Alaska in the Navy and later attended the
University of Washington, College of Fisheries; he joined the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) in 1960 and worked
continuously as a fisheries biologist until retirement in 1992.
He said that after retirement he worked for the Mat-Su
[Matanuska-Susitna] Borough on various contractual matters
relating to fisheries. He was first appointed to the Board of
Fisheries by Governor Walter Hickel in 1994, and was reappointed
by Governor Tony Knowles. This would be his third appointment to
the board.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON indicated that he has heard Mr. Engel's previous
testimonials and watched his participation on the board. He
thinks that it must take a tremendous amount of willpower when
dealing with some of the issues that come before the board and
appreciates Mr. Engel's willingness to continue the service.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he would like to echo what
Representative Hudson just said. He believes that Mr. Engel is
very qualified and admires the fact that [board members] spend a
lot of time on the road when it is on a volunteer basis.
Number 0384
CO-CHAIR MASEK said she also feels that Mr. Engel does an
outstanding job. She made a motion to move the nomination of
Larry Engel to the Board of Fisheries out of committee. There
being no objection, the confirmation was advanced.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON announced that the next order of business would
be the confirmation of Robert Dersham.
ROBERT DERSHAM, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries, testified
via teleconference from Homer. He said that he has been involved
in the fisheries in Alaska for a little over 20 years. He is a
fishing charter operator and lodge owner. He has been involved
in the issues regarding fisheries for almost 15 years, and for
the last three years he has served on the Board of Fisheries. In
that three-year time period, they have completed one whole cycle
[of meetings], around all the state. He has learned a lot about
the fisheries, and he has enjoyed working with the other board
members and with the stakeholders to try to resolve their
allocation disputes and deal with conservation problems. If
confirmed for another term, he looks forward to continuing that
effort.
Number 0608
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS, Alaska State Legislature, indicated
that she has known Mr. Dersham for many years and has worked on
many issues with him relating to the fisheries in Alaska. She
stressed that Mr. Dersham is a very good addition to the Board of
Fisheries. One of the success stories during his term on the
board is the "committee process" that has allowed the local
advisory groups to have far greater input into decisions being
made. She thinks he has done an excellent job, and she supports
his nomination.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON agreed with Representative Phillips and voiced
his appreciation for [board members'] ability to put up with the
contention. He pointed out that they are in a very difficult
position and a very important one, especially now that
subsistence has rolled over to the federal side.
CO-CHAIR MASEK wondered how Mr. Dersham felt about the halibut
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) in terms of the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) issue.
MR. DERSHAM indicated that he has been involved with that issue
since the very beginning. From the Board of Fisheries
perspective, they have been trying to assist the development of
local area management plans for the different areas of the state;
that has been his focus recently. Until the NPFMC took its final
action in February on the Guideline Harvest Level (GHL), the
local area management process was on hold because they did not
know what the NPFMC was going to do. He thinks that the NPFMC
made some interim decisions that were probably the best decisions
they could make under the circumstances. A big determining
factor will be how the IFQ shakes out. They are hoping to do
that within two years. At first, there was a lot of support for
the IFQ from all the user groups, but now, as time goes by, there
is opposition from people who had not been involved in the
process in the past.
MR. DERSHAM noted that in the meantime, the Board of Fisheries is
working on the local area management plan. The main thing coming
out of that with regard to halibut is that local depletion is
starting to be an issue. The biology is starting to support the
idea that [halibut] have a lot of fidelity to the same feeding
ground once they reach a certain size, which means that wherever
there is a lot of fishing pressure in the same area, year after
year, there is going to be depletion.
Number 1054
CO-CHAIR MASEK made a motion to move the nomination of Robert
Dersham to the Board of Fisheries out of committee. There being
no objection, the confirmation was advanced.
HJR 60 - HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED EIDER DUCKS
Number 1100
CO-CHAIR HUDSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 60, opposing the designation of
millions of acres of Alaska as critical habitat for the
Spectacled Eider and the Steller's Eider. [It was sponsored by
the House Resources Standing Committee.]
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS, Alaska State Legislature, stated
that in February of this year they heard that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) was going to propose a rule change to
designate huge marine areas of Alaska as critical habitat for the
Spectacled Eider and the Steller's Eider. The proposed rule
change would take up 75,000 square miles; it is primarily Alaskan
coastline but also includes a huge amount of land bordering the
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) on the North Slope, a
huge amount in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, a huge amount inland on
the Seward Peninsula, a huge amount on the Bering Sea, almost all
of Cook Inlet, almost all surrounding Kodiak Island, and all
surrounding the Aleutian Chain.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS stressed that it is one of the worst
rulings that has come out of USFWS - to declare a critical
habitat area this intense - since she has been in the
legislature. The eiders were listed under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) as threatened in the early 1990s. At that time, it was
not considered prudent to establish critical habitat, because
potential habitat lost is not considered a factor in the recovery
of the species. In September of last year, the [U.S.] Department
of Interior entered into an agreement to reevaluate this critical
habitat determination based on a lawsuit by a coalition of
environmental groups and the previous court rulings to similar
cases that overturned critical habitat determinations.
Therefore, HJR 60 says that the Alaska State Legislature does not
support the critical habitat designation; they are requesting the
Governor to pursue legal action against the USFWS if the
regulations are adopted, and it urges the delegation to assist in
blocking the adoption of the final regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS further stated that she had met with
[U.S.] Senator Stevens specifically and had made him aware of the
issue. His comment was that this is such a huge issue and such a
huge designation of land withdrawal in Alaska that it would be
the three of them - U.S. Senator Stevens, U.S. Senator Murkowski
and Congressman Young - who would take up the fight. She noted
that the designation of critical habitat in those areas would
adversely affect resource development, subsistence, commercial
fishing and just about everything else in those areas. The
proposed ruling fails to identify the areas that are truly
necessary for recovery of the species; therefore, they are not
getting at what they intended to get at, by these proposed
rulings. She stressed that Alaska needs to send a strong message
that there has been enough land withdrawn in Alaska already.
CO-CHAIR MASEK wondered how the Administration feels about the
issue.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS indicated that she has not heard from
them.
[Representative Kapsner indicated that they were invited to
attend this meeting.]
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS stated that they have not had an attack
on lands in Alaska this large since the Carter Administration
"lock-up."
CO-CHAIR HUDSON pointed out that the "WHEREAS" on page 2, line 4,
indicates that 65 percent of the area designated as critical
habitat is already within federal wildlife refuges, and this
current designation would pretty much lock up the rest of the
state except for a few areas in Southeast Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER wondered what they can do to stop the
critical habitat designation from occurring, other than [passing]
a resolution.
Number 1526
RON SOMERVILLE, Resource Consultant, Senate and House Majorities,
Alaska State Legislature, responded that the ESA requires that
critical habitat be designated for any species that is listed as
threatened or endangered. The agencies have avoided that in the
past because if they determine that the designation of critical
habitat does not really enhance the recovery of the species, then
they avoid that. He pointed out that it is probably an oversight
by the agencies. That is why the court cases recently have been
focused on the identification of critical habitat; the
implementation of how the critical habitat would fit into a
recovery plan for a particular species has a lot of unknowns,
whereas the taking of a species that is endangered has been dealt
with a lot in the courts. It has been the missing element that
the environmental community looks upon.
MR. SOMERVILLE stressed that one thing that they are being told
by the USFWS is "the establishment of critical habitat does not
mean anything," which Mr. Somerville said is not true. He
indicated that in the packet there is a memorandum from Bill Horn
which points out that under existing law the only thing that
requires an approval by the USFWS for an activity would be if
someone were actually "taking" an animal. He referred to the
Northern Spotted Owl as an example and said that the impacts of
that designation on private lands was phenomenal. For instance,
it had a tremendous impact on the ability of people to harvest
their own timber on private lands, even though it was unclear
what the critical habitat designation meant.
MR. SOMERVILLE said the same is true here. All the marine
habitat of both the Spectacled Eider and Steller's Eider that is
designated as critical habitat is really based upon the fact that
an animal or bird may have been seen there at one time. Any
activity on the private lands in the lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta
or south of Barrow would require an approval by the USFWS,
regardless of whether the activity impacted the species. Mr.
Somerville emphasized that he does not want anyone to be misled
into believing that the critical habitat designation does not
affect private land or that it does not mean anything, because it
does.
Number 1764
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS pointed out that Kachemak Bay has been
designated as a critical habitat area. There, residents would
like to put in small test-site clam farms. There are over
700,000 acres of shoreline in Kachemak Bay, and they want to put
in a 10-acre clam farms. The ADF&G is forbidding it because it
is a critical habitat area. However, the critical habitat
designation has no reference to whether they can or cannot; it
says that it is open to all uses.
Number 1833
SCOTT PETSEL, Staff for Representative Gail Phillips, Alaska
State Legislature, indicated that the U.S. Department of the
Interior and the ADF&G are having hearings on May 8, 2000, and
the comment period will end; therefore, if [legislators] believe
strongly, they should encourage their constituents to write
letters in opposition to the critical habitat designation, and
[legislators] should write letters themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER stated, "The process itself is a federal
function." He asked, "The determination will be made by the
[U.S.] Fish & Wildlife Service, as approved by whom? Where can
this be stopped?"
MR. SOMERVILLE indicated that the decision will be made by the
USFWS subject to some oversight by the court. He explained that
it can be stopped by asking the delegation to makes sure that
certain instructions are given to the agencies as it relates to
critical habitat.
Number 1930
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER wondered how the designation will affect
the people in her area.
MR. SOMERVILLE pointed out that Natives are excluded from most
regulations under the ESA, so it will not affect most of
Representative Kapsner's constituents.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER noted that she also represents non-
Natives; for example, her dad is a non-Native. She wondered how
the designation might affect someone like her dad from going out
and subsistence hunting.
MR. SOMERVILLE indicated that it would affect someone like her
dad. He explained that "taking" is already effective when the
animal is listed as endangered or threatened.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER clarified that she was wondering about
other hunting of unendangered animals.
MR. SOMERVILLE referred to the proposal in the committee packet
where it reads, "Such activities that may have the potential to
destroy or adversely affect or modify critical habitat for
Spectacled Eiders include, but are not limited to commercial
fishing, oil exploration and development, petroleum product
transfer." He explained that what they are saying is that some
of these other activities can affect critical habitat.
MR. PETSEL indicated that the way he sees it is anything that
requires a permit will have an additional layer of review
attached to it.
Number 2155
TADD OWENS, Project Coordinator, Resource Development Counsel
(RDC), testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He explained
that the RDC represents individuals and companies from all of
Alaska's basic economic sectors, including mining, forestry, oil
and gas, tourism and fisheries. Their mission is to grow
Alaska's economy through the responsible development of the
state's natural resources. The membership [RDC] strongly
supports HJR 60. The USFWS concedes that neither the Spectacled
Eider nor the Steller's Eider is habitat limited in Alaska;
therefore, these waterfowl have not suffered due to a lack of
suitable habitat. The sheer size of the proposed designation is
a serious cause for concern to RDC's members. In fact the USFWS
stated reason for designating critical habitat for these two
species is in order to respond to a lawsuit filed by
environmental organizations. RDC believes that a designation of
this magnitude should be based on sound science and not a legal
compromise. Both the Spectacled Eider and the Steller's Eider
are listed as threatened under the ESA and the protections
afforded to species listed as threatened under the ESA are
substantial. He pointed out that the Spectacled Eider and the
Steller's Eider are not habitat limited; therefore, the
designation of critical habitat does little to significantly
increase their protection.
MR. OWENS noted that critical habitat can, however, be used as a
tool to slow economic development by individuals and
organizations interested in acting as obstructionists. For
example, last week Greenpeace, the American Oceans Campaign and
the Sierra Club asked a federal judge in Seattle to ban the
harvest of pollock and other bottomfish in areas throughout the
Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska where critical habitat for
Steller sea lions has been designated. Mr. Owens said RDC's
members are committed to the responsible development of Alaska's
natural resources. They believe that the protections provided
through a threatened listing are enough to safeguard the welfare
of both the Spectacled and Steller's Eider. The designation of
more that 75,000 square miles of critical habitat, on the other
hand, goes entirely too far.
Number 2311
MARILYN CROCKETT, Deputy Director, Alaska Oil and Gas Association
(AOGA), testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She stated
that AOGA is a private nonprofit trade association whose member
companies account for the majority of oil and gas operations in
Alaska; its members have demonstrated a longstanding commitment
to protection of wildlife populations and their habitat
surrounding oil and gas operations. They have cooperated with
the USFWS over many years in research, so that they could
understand specific habitat preferences. Extensive pre-
development nest and brood-rearing surveys are conducted to map
those areas and avoid them, offering an additional level of
protection for these species, and they plan to continue those
surveys. The USFWS has proposed some 74,000 square miles to be
designated as critical habitat for Spectacled Eider and some
25,000 square miles for the Steller's Eider. As noted in the
resolution, these designations are proposed as a result of the
settlement agreement between the USFWS and environmental groups
who question the USFWS's initial decision not to designate
critical habitat.
MS. CROCKETT continued that ironically USFWS personnel have
stated that they do not believe that the designation of critical
habitat provides significant additional protection over measures
implemented pursuant to either a threatened or endangered
listing. They note that listed species and their habitats are
protected by the ESA whether or not they are in an area
designated as critical habitat; they further note that in most
cases, critical habitat designation duplicates the protection
provided by the ESA. That is why over the years they have chosen
to dedicate their resources to investigate the need to list a
species as threatened or endangered rather than spending time
designating critical habitat. Furthermore, the majority of the
critical habitat designations for both of the eiders are on the
northern portion of NPR-A, where numerous eider protection
measures are already in place.
MS. CROCKETT noted that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for NPR-A designated over 1 million acres in the vicinity as a
Spectacled Eider breeding range "land use emphasis" area. The
EIS also included 79 stipulations to specifically address and
minimize the impacts of human activities upon birds like the
eiders. The state's best interest findings for lease sales
conducted by Alaska contain similar stipulations and mitigation
measures, and these, taken together, offer a whole set of
additional eider habitat protection mechanisms.
OLIVER LEAVITT, Vice President, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
(ASRC), testified via teleconference from Barrow. He read his
testimony into the record:
I am here this afternoon to urge the State of Alaska to
join with us in opposing the designation of much of the
North Slope as critical habitat for Spectacled and
Steller's Eiders. The stakes are high. Unless we
respond quickly and with all the means at our disposal,
the eiders will do for the North Slope what the spotted
owl did for the economy of the Pacific Northwest.
I believe ASRC and the state have a common interest in
opposing this latest example of regulatory
overreaching. ASRC owns 5 million acres of land on the
North Slope. Less than ten years ago, ASRC entered
into an historic agreement with the state of Alaska in
which we merged our titles in the Colville Delta to
facilitate oil and gas development.
The wisdom of that policy is apparent today. This
summer, the Alpine field will go into production. This
will be the first commercial development of oil on
ASRC's lands. The alpine field and other small to
medium fields in the process of development will help
the state of Alaska to offset the revenue decline from
Prudhoe Bay.
You are well aware that every attempt to develop oil
and gas on the North Slope is met with litigation by
the self-appointed environmental ombudsmen. Recently,
for example, ASRC joined with the state and ARCO to
defeat a court challenge that threatened to stop the
Alpine project in its track.
I believe that the designation of much of the North
Slope as eider critical habitat will only spawn more
such litigation and give enormous leverage to those
groups whose sole aim is to stop all further
development of oil and gas in the Arctic.
Let me say at this point that I am not opposed in
principle to designating critical habitat where there
is a demonstrated need to insure the survival of a
species. The lives of the Inupiat are too dependant on
the health of our environment and the animals that have
always sustained us to ignore such threats. Having
said this, we have seen more than our share of
politically motivated science. In my lifetime, I have
witnessed an attempt to end the whale hunt because some
scientists predicted that the bowhead were nearing
extinction. It turned out that the Inupiat hunters
knew a good deal more about the status of the bowhead
stocks than biologist who have never lived in the
Arctic.
I believe that the proposal to designate most of the
coastal plain of the North Slope as critical habitat
for two species of eiders is another example of
politically motivated science. The Fish and Wildlife
Service admits that designating critical habitat will
do nothing to hasten the recovery of the eiders. It
will, however, provide a powerful new litigation tool
for those who want to stop development in the Arctic.
The Spectacled Eider was listed as endangered less than
ten years ago. The Steller's Eider was added to the
threatened list only three years ago. In both cases,
the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that it would
not be prudent to designate critical habitat for a very
simple reason: There is no evidence whatsoever that
habitat destruction or scarcity has contributed to
decline of the species.
Since that time, the Fish and Wildlife Service has been
working on a recovery plan for both species in
cooperation with the state in the North Slope Borough.
To my knowledge neither has suggested that the
designation of critical habitat is necessary for the
species to recovery. Studies done in the past few
years show that the North Slope population of both
species has not declined and may even be increasing.
The Fish and Wildlife Service said that it was forced
to take this action by adverse court decisions. It is
true that the Fish and Wildlife Service was sued in
California. Instead of defending that suit, however,
the Fish and Wildlife Service quickly caved in to the
environmental plaintiffs without even filing an answer.
The haste with which the case was settled suggests that
neither the Fish and Wildlife Service nor their
adversaries wanted to provide a forum for an affected
land owner, including ASRC in the State of Alaska to
intervene and state their views. Our attorneys tell us
that the only case that the fish and wildlife lost
involved failure to designate critical habitat when
loss of critical habitat was a significant factor in
the decline of the species. None has suggested that is
the case with eiders on the North Slope.
Attached to my testimony is an opinion letter from the
Fish and Wildlife Service's own attorneys questioning
the legality of designating critical habitat when loss
of habitat has not been identified as a factor in the
decline of the species. (This letter was produced to
ASRC by the Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to a
Freedom of Information Act request.)
The Fish and Wildlife Service is telling everyone not
to worry, that designating critical habitat will not
change the Endangered Species Act consultation
requirements that are already in effect. Why else
would they go to the trouble and expense of suing the
service? Settling the litigation was just a convenient
excuse for furthering a common agenda and giving both
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the environmental
organizations more control over oil and gas development
on the North Slope.
Since most active development in the Arctic takes place
in the winter when eiders are not present, the non-
jeopardy requirement of the Endangered Species Act can
usually be satisfied with a simple exchange of letters.
That is how it was done at Alpine. Once critical
habitat is designated, however, any permit that
disturbs that habitat - even if there is no evidence
that the habitat has ever been used by the species -
will probably require formal consultation with the
service. Formal consultations require biological
assessments and biological options. The can add a year
or more to permitting time limits. The study costs are
charged to the developer. The slightest imperfection
in the process or the result provides a host of new
procedural and substantive arguments in the inevitable
litigation to follow.
Perhaps more importantly, designation of critical
habitat on ASRC's lands opens absolutely every land use
decision on those lands - even if no federal permit is
required to citizen suits by the environmental lobby.
The same will be true, of course, for state owned
lands. Anyone who thinks that this tremendous power
will be exercised in moderation by groups like the
trustees for Alaska has never tried to develop land in
the Arctic.
Recently the [U.S.] Department of the Interior declared
approximately 700,000 acres of prospective oil and gas
lands in NPR-A off-limits to development as Spectacled
Eider breeding range. If a critical habitat
designation is to be made, it should be limited to the
area already identified and set aside by the Department
of the Interior.
Thank you for providing the opportunity to present my
views on an issue of critical importance to both ASRC
and the State of Alaska.
Number 2908
CHARLES BROWER, Director, Department of Wildlife Management,
North Slope Borough, testified via teleconference from Barrow.
He stated that he is in support of HJR 60 and indicated that he
supports Mr. Leavitt's statement as well.
ROBERT SUDYAM, Wildlife Biologist, Department of Wildlife
Management, North Slope Borough, testified via teleconference
from Barrow. He stated that he has been studying eiders on the
North Slope for approximately 10 years. He noted that when the
USFWS listed Spectacled and Steller's Eiders as threatened, they
did not designate critical habitat. Mr. Sudyam said they did
that for two reasons. First, they lacked the information to know
where these eiders spent their time. Second, when they had
information available on the distribution or the habitat that was
occupied by these species, they determined that the habitat was
in a more or less pristine condition - and most of it was and did
not need special management. Since that time, additional
information has been gathered, but that additional information
does not change the earlier evaluation of the need for critical
habitat. The proposed designation by USFWS for critical habitat
is essentially a distribution [ends midspeech because of tape
change].
TAPE 00-31, SIDE B
Number 2959
HARRY BROWER, JR., a hunter from Barrow, testified via
teleconference from Barrow. He stated that he supports HJR 60,
and he supports the comments made by Mr. Leavitt and
Representative Phillips.
Number 2925
WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), indicated that the
department supports HJR 60 and strongly disagrees with the action
that the USFWS is proposing. Once the huge area is declared as
critical habitat and it goes to court, the court will give it a
whole lot more emphasis. There are a few small areas that recent
research has shown for the Spectacled Eider that might qualify as
critical habitat. For the Steller's Eider there are no critical
habitat areas. The department views the designation as a rather
foolish action that could be extremely detrimental to the state.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON indicated that concluded the public testimony.
Number 2814
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE made a motion to move HJR 60 from committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HJR 60 moved from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Masek. There
was an at-ease from 2:02 p.m. to 2:10 p.m.
[CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the committee would hear HJR 44,
then indicated she did not intend to move it out of committee
that day. Subsequently, at the sponsor's suggestion, HJR 44 was
not heard.]
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR MASEK adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 2:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|