03/27/1996 03:37 PM Senate RES

       CSHJR 58(RES) REFORM THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT                       
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN brought CSHJR 58(RES) before the committee as the              
 next order of business.                                                       
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN , prime sponsor of HJR 58, said as a                
 member of the National Energy Council, he has heard horror stories            
 about areas where there were perhaps overzealous reactions to the             
 Endangered Species Act going well beyond what was envisioned                  
 originally by Congress.  Private property owners were actually                
 destroying habitat that might ultimately be used by a member of an            
 endangered species or what might be considered or even projected as           
 being an endangered species or subspecies because of the fear that            
 there would be condemnation of significant amounts of land around             
 something like a den, a tree, etc.  As a result, the Act was                  
 working backwards; it actually was a disenfranchisement of private            
 property owners against endangered species.                                   
                                                                               
 Representative Green noted that Ron Sommerville was available to              
 respond to any specific and technical questions from committee                
 members.                                                                      
                                                                               
  RON SOMMERVILLE  related that as a consultant to the leadership of           
 both bodies of the Legislature, one of his major responsibilities             
 has been with the Endangered Species Act.                                     
                                                                               
  SENATOR HOFFMAN  directed attention to page 2, line 16, which                
 references section 7 of the Act and asks for greater flexibility,             
 and he asked Mr. Sommerville if he could expand on that.   MR.                
 SOMMERVILLE  explained there are two processes for getting an                 
 incidental take permit from the federal agencies.  Some states use            
 what is called a section 10, which is fairly complicated process.             
 Most of the states have supported the concept that section 7                  
 consultation process for incidental taking would allow for a much             
 more expedited process and is much simpler than the section 10.               
                                                                               
  SENATOR HOFFMAN  then asked if Mr. Sommerville would explain the             
 elimination of the concept of "distinct population segment."   MR.            
 SOMMERVILLE  said the definition of "species" has three parts:                
 species, subspecies or distinct population segment.  Many of the              
 abuses that have occurred in Alaska relate to the concept of being            
 able to list a distinct population segment, and the U.S. Fish &               
 Wildlife Service has never defined what "distinct population                  
 segment" is, which really gives the secretary almost unfettered               
 authority to apply it.                                                        
                                                                               
  TAPE 96-37, SIDE B                                                           
 Number 010                                                                    
                                                                               
  PAULA EASLEY , testifying from Anchorage in support of HJR 58, said          
 she believes that any federal or state law that does not also                 
 protect property rights will not protect endangered species.  She             
 noted the opposition to reforming the Endangered Species Act by               
 people who really don't understand why the reform is needed is                
 really growing.  She said the Act is not working the way it should            
 and it is hurting communities all over the United States.  She                
 urged the legislators' strong support for the resolution.                     
                                                                               
 Number 120                                                                    
                                                                               
  GERON BRUCE , Legislative Liaison, Department of Fish & Game, voiced         
 the administration's support for the Endangered Species Act and its           
 goal of recovering threatened or endangered species to healthy                
 populations.  He said fish and wildlife management must focus on              
 maintaining healthy populations, and prevention is the key.  He               
 pointed out Alaska is fortunate to have the fewest number of                  
 threatened and endangered species of any state in the union.                  
 Currently, 17 listed species occur in Alaska, which includes 11               
 offshore marine mammal species, several species of waterfowl over             
 which the state has minimal authority for most of the year, as well           
 as other species principally managed by the federal government.               
 There are no Endangered Species Act listed species of fish or                 
 wildlife over which Alaska has primary responsibility.                        
                                                                               
 Mr. Bruce said the administration has expressed concerns with the             
 Endangered Species Act, both with its substance and with its                  
 administration.  Last fall a package of amendments was offered by             
 the Western Governors' Association as a middle ground in the                  
 Endangered Species Act debate.  The state of Alaska endorsed that             
 package.  It would recognize states as the primary sovereign over             
 fish and wildlife and make them full partners with the federal                
 government in the recovery of threatened and endangered species.              
 He noted many of the elements of the Western Governors' Association           
 package have already been adopted by the federal administration as            
 regulations designed to improve its flexibility.  Since the                   
 adoption of these new regulations, it has become clear that the Act           
 has begun to function more smoothly, but additional improvements              
 can be made.                                                                  
                                                                               
 Mr. Bruce said the administration supports an approach that lowers            
 the rhetoric surrounding this issue, and for that reason the                  
 administration does not believe that the Legislature should support           
 a specific congressional bill at this time.  They feel it would be            
 more effective if HJR 58 were to focus on those issues that the               
 Legislature believes should be included in an Endangered Species              
 Act reauthorization and not specifically endorse one piece of                 
 legislation or one approach.  However, they do have concern with              
 the inclusion in HJR 58 of the provision on subspecies and the                
 recommendation of the elimination of the distinct population                  
 segment concept.                                                              
                                                                               
  BILL PERHACH , representing the Alaska Environmental Lobby, stated           
 their opposition to HJR 58.  He referred to page 2, line 2, and               
 said he agreed with the statement that inadequate scientific basis            
 exists for many decisions made by federal agencies regarding the              
 listing of species, etc.  He also said the requirements for                   
 stricter scientific and quantitative criteria for listing species             
 makes sense to him, but it does not make sense to him to eliminate            
 the biological diversity reserve system when proposing requirements           
 for criteria.  He said the resolution endorses the passage of HR
, but his understanding is that it is going nowhere because               
 Congress believes it is sending a wrong signal.                               
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN LEMAN  suggested that if Mr. Perhach had any specific               
 amendments that he submit them to the committee for its                       
 consideration.  He then stated HJR 58 would be set aside and taken            
 up the following week.