Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/05/1997 03:35 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
March 5, 1997
3:35 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford, Chairman
Senator Lyda Green, Vice Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Bert Sharp
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator John Torgerson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Urging the Attorney General of the State of Alaska to use every
appropriate resource and due diligence to defend the state's
interests in the civil action filed against the state challenging
the 1996 revisions of the Northstar unit leases, and respectfully
requesting the Superior Court of the State of Alaska to give
expeditious consideration to the matter.
- MOVED CSSCR 3(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 16
Relating to reauthorization and reform of the Endangered Species
Act.
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SCR 3 - No previous action to consider.
SJR 16 - No previous action to consider.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Dave Donley
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SCR 3.
Ms. Lorali Meier, Intern
Senator Leman
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement to SJR 16.
Mr. Ken Taylor, Deputy Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 16 with a few changes.
Mr. Ron Somerville, Technical Assistant
Senate/House Leadership
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SJR 16.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-15, SIDE A
Number 001
SCR 3 NORTHSTAR AGREEMENT LITIGATION
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:35 p.m. and announced SCR 3 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR DONLEY, sponsor of SCR 3, said it does two things; it asks
the Attorney General to use every appropriate resource and due
diligence to defend the State's interests in the civil litigation
challenging the 1996 Northstar legislation. It also asks the
Superior Court to expedite consideration of the pending litigation.
He said the other body had made revisions to their identical
resolution which he agrees with and recommends to the committee.
Referring to the proposed CS, SENATOR DONLEY said that on page 2,
line 11 they inserted "voluntary" referring to commitments to hire
Alaskans because the Attorney General agreed that these are
voluntary and were not compulsive under the actual law and to
represent differently played into the hands of the litigants.
On page 2, line 16 the Attorney General has already asked the court
to expedite this and the wording was changed to match that. The
last "Resolve" could have been construed to anticipate the result
of the litigation and it might have been inappropriate for the
legislature to appear to order the court to rule a certain way, and
the legislature is merely asking the court to expedite the
litigation.
Number 66
SENATOR SHARP moved to adopt w/d CS 0-LSO606/B 3/4/97. There were
no objections and it was adopted.
SENATOR LEMAN announced a potential conflict he has because of
financial dealings he had with the company mentioned in the
resolution this past year and asked to be allowed to abstain from
voting on this. SENATOR LINCOLN objected.
SENATOR SHARP moved to pass CSSCR 3 from committee with individual
recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Senator Donley if he anticipated a fiscal
note for the resolution. SENATOR DONLEY replied that they had not
asked for any additional money.
SJR 16 REFORM THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SJR 16 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR LEMAN, sponsor, noted the sponsor statement in their
packets.
LORALI MEIER , intern staff to Senator Leman, said that SJR 16
recognizes the importance of State, federal, and private
partnerships for protecting against species extinction while also
protecting private property rights. She said a resolution had not
yet been introduced to the 105th Congress. However, it is under
discussion in Washington, D.C.
She said the Endangered Species Act (ESA) can be an important tool
in protecting threatened and endangered species, but Congress needs
to address identified weaknesses. In Alaska there have been some
radical decisions based on the ESA including cut backs in fishing
time for Southeast Alaska fishermen, logging in the Tongass, and
various development proposals. The resolution requests that the
approaches to end species protection be balanced, realistic and
focused on measurable goals.
MR. KEN TAYLOR, Deputy Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
said the Department had very little problem with SJR 16 except with
number four and five and the requirements for stricter scientific
and quantitative criteria for listing and delisting species. They
think it's important to have more specific criteria for delisting
for a number of reasons. Under the current system it is far easier
to get a species listed than it is to get it delisted. As an
example he used the Aleutian Canada Goose which was listed several
years ago as an endangered species. A recovery plan was put
together and now recovery goals have been met and exceeded. A
resolution was sent to the Department of Interior requesting
expedited review of that situation and delisting and the response
was that delisting was at the bottom of the Endangered Species
priority list this year.
MR. TAYLOR said the funding mechanisms within the ESA provide funds
for the species while it's listed, but when it becomes delisted,
the management of that species reverts to either another branch of
that agency or to the State and none of the funding follows with
it. The people who receive the funding like to see it remain
listed so that they get the funding.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if he was suggesting to delete (4) or did he
have suggested language. MR. TAYLOR said the suggested language is
"listing or delisting species under the Act."
SENATOR LEMAN said he thought Mr. Taylor's concern was with making
delisting any stricter and he agreed. They don't want to make it
tougher to delist. MR. TAYLOR said he thought the message should
be that once we have reached the recovery goal, there should be a
process in place the agencies have to go through in a timely
fashion to see that delisting occurs. Adding the words "and
delisting" would do that, he thought.
MR. TAYLOR said regarding number five the Department recognizes
there are some problems with the way the definition for "distinct
population segment" has been implemented in various parts of the
country. He said that we have a number of populations up here like
the brown bear, the bald eagle, wolf, wolverine, lynx, and otter
that are listed as threatened or endangered in the lower 48. Under
the Act it says if a species over a portion of its range is
threatened or endangered it may be listed. However, the way things
work, our populations are distinct population segments and so they
are not listed. He said there may be a better way around this than
deleting the "distinct population segments" language and he thought
it probably addressed mostly fishery issues.
SENATOR LEMAN said it was not meant to reach into and cause Alaska
to be pulled into that particular issue. It is intended to reach
into a particular river system in a particular drainage stream,
maybe a dozen fish - a unique sub-element.
MR. TAYLOR responded that if the ESA were properly implemented, he
didn't think the distinct population segment would be a problem.
Number 295
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the Department supported the resolution
except for the three caveats. MR. TAYLOR replied yes.
SENATOR GREEN asked if number seven was consistent with what the
Department says. MR. TAYLOR replied that they have already
scientific period review procedures for delisting in that they have
recovery teams set up. There really are no provisions for those
recovery teams to do something in a time specific manner and their
plans may change as different political forces come into play.
This is part of the problem with the delisting process.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked him to comment on number eight and the cost
of the implementation and the public's interest. MR. TAYLOR
explained this is an issue in the lower 48 where the ESA is used
with a species that people have not had a great deal of concern
for. The issue of whether or not to protect a species at a large
economic cost is measured against the public good in the long run.
It is a difficult call because at the same time it is the intent of
the act to maintain bio-diversity in our environment. The
implementation of the act could be focused only on those species
that the public thinks is neat and pretty and have very little care
for the others that are equally important.
SENATOR LEMAN explained that they have to weigh the goals of the
program against what could be the multi million dollar costs of
saving a small number of subspecies.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if this legislation was worded too broadly
(public interest and economics as a criteria) and might come back
to haunt us in Alaska, but work very well in the lower 48. SENATOR
LEMAN said this is really only a letter to Congress asking them to
include these elements in the reauthorization.
Number 390
MR. RON SOMERVILLE, Technical Consultant to Senate/House
Leadership, suggested rather than adding "or delisting" to number
four to consider adding another paragraph which they eliminated two
years ago which would say, "a mandatory delisting once recovery
plan population objectives are met." In other words it triggers
mandatory delisting once the agreed population objectives have been
met.
He agreed with Mr. Taylor that if the ESA were properly
implemented, they would treat a threatened species as it was
supposed to have been as one of a notice to people that the species
could be in trouble versus a species that's listed as endangered,
where, in fact, it requires immediate action by the federal
government. But, they haven't done that and that's why the
distinct population segment creates a lot of heart burn,
particularly for the fisheries groups.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that the opposite effect is true with regard
to animals that are endangered outside and not here. If you don't
have discreet populations, you are apt to get sucked into their
listing at a higher level than you would be. MR. SOMERVILLE
agreed.
Number 437
CHAIRMAN HALFORD commented that since they had lost their quorum,
they would have to come back to this. He said they had written
testimony from the Alaska Environmental Lobby, but they did not
sign up to testify.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD adjourned the meeting at 4:08 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|