03/05/1997 03:35 PM Senate RES

                                                                               
            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.