Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
03/04/2015 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Update on Endangered Species Act Coordination by State of Alaska | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 4, 2015
3:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator John Coghill
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Bill Stoltze
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Mia Costello, Vice Chair
Senator Bert Stedman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
UPDATE ON ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT COORDINATION BY STATE OF Alaska
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
COMMISSIONER SAM COTTEN
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided presentation on the Endangered
Species Act (ESA).
DAVID ROGERS, Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Coordinator, Endangered Species Act
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the Endangered Species Act.
BRAD MEYEN, Sr. Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered legal questions related to the ESA
update.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:31:07 PM
CHAIR CATHY GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:31 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Coghill, Micciche, Wielechowski and Chair
Giessel.
3:31:38 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE joined the committee.
^Update on Endangered Species Act Coordination by State of
Alaska
Update on the Endangered Species Act Coordination by the State
of Alaska
3:31:56 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced an update of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) coordination by the State of Alaska. She said the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) is a pivotal player in
defending the state's rights along with the Department of Law
(DOL). She welcomed Commissioner-designee Sam Cotten and David
Rogers, Coordinator of the Endangered Species Act.
COMMISSIONER SAM COTTEN, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G), Juneau, Alaska, said that they would do a short
presentation on the Endangered Species Act starting with a power
point presentation by David Rogers. He said they worked closely
with Brad Meyen, with the Department of Law and Moira Ingle,
senior member of the ESA Team from ADF&G. He said the department
has a specialist in marine mammals and scientists that pay close
attention to these issues. He said David Rogers is a special
assistant to the commissioner who specializes in a variety of
things: ESA, and alphabet soup agencies including the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Today they would talk about the
Endangered Species Act.
3:35:22 PM
DAVID ROGERS, Special Assistant, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), Juneau, Alaska, said he is a lawyer who practiced
actively for 15 or 20 years with a focus on business law. He has
done some lobbying representing both industry and the
conservation community. He worked for "I don't know how many
legislative committees" in the early part of his career. This is
his fourth tour of duty in the government. He worked for the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and was special counsel to
the Alaska Railroad Transfer Team under the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) in setting up the
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC). Later, he worked for the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) as a program
manager and as the deputy director of the Air and Water Quality
Division. Now he is working with the ADF&G, probably his "last
hurrah." He said his family has owned several businesses over
the years and currently operates a beverage distribution
company.
3:37:39 PM
MR. ROGRES started by listing a suite of relevant laws:
-Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973
-Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
-Administrative Procedure Act
-National Environmental Policy Act
-Alaska Endangered Species Act
He said there are a few species listed under the Alaska
Endangered Species Act that have different standards than the
federal act.
3:38:18 PM
He explained the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 4, Listing
and critical habitat process, as follows:
The applicable agency has to use the best scientific and
commercial data available (new research not required) to
determine whether a species is endangered or threatened because
of any of the following five factors:
1. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
2. Overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific or educational purposes;
3. Disease or predation;
4. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
5. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
3:39:02 PM
He explained that the difference between endangered and
threatened is that an endangered species is in danger of
extinction throughout all of a significant portion of its range.
Threatened species is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if "endangered" has a timeframe.
3:41:02 PM
MR. ROGERS responded that he would focus on that in a little
bit. He added that listing isn't limited to just a species; it
can include subspecies and "distinct population segments (DPS),"
the Steller Sea as an example. The eastern DPS was initially
listed as threatened and now it's delisted. On the other hand,
the western DPS is still listed as endangered.
What happens after being listed? Mr. Rogers explained that if
the project has a federal nexus - a permit or federal funding
that may affect a listed species - then they undertake what is
called a Section 7 consultation process that has multiple steps.
Section 9 also prohibits the "take" of a listed species. This
means it's illegal to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct.
Some "take" exceptions are:
-Alaska Native subsistence harvest - marine mammals
-For threatened species the Service can specify other
exceptions under Section 4(d)
MR. ROGERS said that federally listed "endangered" species
include:
-Steller sea lions - National Marine Fisheries
Service(NMFS)
-Bowhead whales (NMFS)
-Cook Inlet beluga whale (NMFS)
-Humpback whales (NMFS)
-Others
"Threatened" species include:
-Polar bear - United States Fish and Wildlife
Service(USFWS)
-Northern sea otter (USFWS)
-Wood bison (USFWS)
-Ringed seals, a subspecies (NMFS)
-Others
3:42:29 PM
Pending reintroductions - a special category for non-
experimental populations in which the normal hoops don't apply:
-Wood bison (ADF&G working with the United State Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS))
-Steller's eider (USFWS is working to reintroduce them
in Yukon Kuskokwim Delta)
Under consideration for listing are:
-Pacific walrus (USFWS)
-Alexander Archipelago wolf (USFWS)
-Seals in Iliamna Lake (NMFS)
-Alaska yellow-cedar (USFWS)
3:43:39 PM
Delisted species:
-Arctic Peregrine falcon - 1994
-Aleutian Canada goose - 2001
-Eastern DPS, Steller sea lion - 2012
-Central North Pacific stock, humpback whale (state
petitioned for delisting and is expecting a decision
in April)
3:44:18 PM
Listing Not Warranted (State research contributed to most):
-Southeast Alaska herring
-Pinto abalone
-Ribbon seal
-43 species of Alaska corals
3:44:39 PM
Listings based on climate change arguments:
-Polar bear - projected loss of sea ice within 50
years
-Bearded seal - projected loss of sea ice within 100
years
-Ringed seal - projected loss of sea ice within 100
years
Petitions based on climate change arguments:
-Alaska yellow cedar
-Seals in Iliamna Lake
-Pacific walrus
3:45:30 PM
Climate Change Listing Concerns:
-Precautionary listing of ice-dependent species like
the Polar bear and ice seals
-Limited evidence of current declines
-Models predict possible extinction 45 to 100 years in
the future
-Appropriate timeframe for modeling?
SENATOR MICCICHE said thousands of species have become extinct
in the last thousands of years for many reasons and asked what
kind of credit is given to natural forces that have little to do
with human interaction in a species becoming extinct.
MR. ROGERS said he couldn't answer that, but asked Brad Meyen to
try.
3:47:08 PM
BRAD MEYEN, Sr. Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Department of Law (DOL), Anchorage, Alaska, explained
that the five factors mentioned earlier are looked at for
listing of a species and they don't distinguish between a human
caused event and a naturally occurring one. A species can be
listed if it is just from a naturally occurring cause.
COMMISSIONER COTTEN said the reason for the Steller sea lion
drop in population couldn't be determined, but clearly the fix
was to restrict fishing.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked the basic process for listing a
species.
MR. MEYEN answered the process can be by NMFS or USFWS
initiative or a petition filed by anyone. But it must be a
document that reviews the science and states the reason for the
need to list; this is submitted to the agency. The agency has a
90-day period to review the petition and make a determination
whether further review is warranted. During the 90-day period
they basically just pull open their files and see what
information they have on hand to evaluate the situation and then
decide whether further investigation is warranted. For example,
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) found enough
information to warrant further review of the ringed seal and the
impacts of climate change on them.
He explained that with a positive 90-day finding, there is
another 12-month review period during which the public and the
state can submit comments on what the agency should be looking
at in the status of that species. At the end of that 12-month
period, the federal agency must make a finding whether there is
sufficient information to warrant listing the species and then
publish a proposed rule, or make a finding that listing is not
warranted at this time, or make a finding that listing is
warranted but there are other species that need more attention
at this time and the agency doesn't have time to get to it. For
that reason, the species is then put on a candidate species list
and looked at in a future time period. If the decision is to go
ahead and list the species, there is another 12-month period in
which the public and state can comment. Litigation cannot be
filed to stop the efforts at this time, because the rule is not
final. The rules must become final under the formal rule-making
process of the Administrative Procedure Act of the United
States. At such time as the rule is final, though, and the
decision is made to list the species, a six-year period is
started when litigation can be filed.
3:55:26 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked the standard of review for courts. Is
it an abuse of discretion standard or a higher standard?
MR. MEYEN answered that the abuse of discretion standard is
used. The administrative record must support the decision and
the agency must be able to connect the dots through the
information that they reviewed and the decision they reached.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked the court's view of challenges to ESA
listings. Are they often overturned or not?
MR. MEYEN answered that challenges of an actual listing are an
uphill battle, because the agencies get deference in two ways:
they are accorded deference from the courts if there is some
sort of an interpretation of the ESA that they have been filled
in through promulgation of regulation, and the second is in
evaluation of the science. But, having said that, he added that
the state had been a party to two climate change cases now where
the judge vacated the decision at the district court level and
sent it back to the agency for further consideration.
SENATOR COGHILL said that precautionary listings are based on
models that are speculative in many ways, because they look out
20 or 100 years, and even models they look back on show that
they haven't predicted very well. So, when it goes to a court,
does the court get to review the information or is it considered
science?
MR. MEYEN replied that the court gets to review the information
that the agency has relied upon, but in the bearded seal case
the federal agency made a real cursory review. The model made an
assumption that the sea ice would no longer be there in 100
years to support their life strategies and on that basis alone
found that the species should be listed as threatened. The dots
were not connected about how that species would be impacted.
CHAIR GIESSEL, referencing slide 3, asked if ESA, Section 4,
listing and critical habitat processes, is using the "best
scientific and commercial data available" because it also says
(new research not required). Is that true that nothing new needs
to be done in terms of science?
MR. MEYEN answered that was correct. But having said that, where
the ADF&G anticipates potential listings it has proactively put
plans into the works so that there is more, fresh and better
science for the agency to look at. Otherwise the decision will
be made on stale and inadequate information.
4:01:06 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked how that anticipatory work and DOL budget
cuts would affect the state's effectiveness in pushing back on
these designations.
MR. MEYEN answered that he wasn't prepared to address proposed
budget constraints, but he had personally been working these
topics and issues for the past seven years, and based upon what
litigation he has now and what he anticipates in the near
future, the Department of Law and ADF&G should be able to handle
that.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if ADF&G continues to have the robust staff
focus on developing this proactive science.
COMMISSIONER COTTEN replied that it is hard to say at the
moment, because they don't know what the final budget will look
like, but so far it looks like they will be able to continue
their work.
MR. ROGERS added that they are serious about this and will do
what they have to do within their powers to continue a robust
effort on these issues.
4:03:26 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if the state has a legal leg to stand on
in cases like the beluga whale and limiting future adverse
human-related activities in the critical habitat area that led
to the listing in the first place.
MR. MEYEN answered that the twist Alaska has that other states
don't is that it has marine animals, which are also governed
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and are the same mammals
that have been petitioned to be listed under ESA. So, it has
layers of protection and differences in what is considered a
take. In this instance it goes back two stages. The Cook Inlet
Beluga whale subsistence harvest impacts were known in 1999 when
the first attempts were made to list the species. At that time
it was taken into account and attempts were made to list under
both the state and federal acts, and both were denied. Later in
2008, the federal agency looked at the situation again and saw
no improvement in the population level and decided to list the
species. In that instance, the State of Alaska challenged the
listing indicating that the impact was known when it occurred.
The court gave deference to the agency and upheld its decision
because that is where the population was.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked there any potential for adjusting for
subsistence harvests prior to a species becoming threatened or
endangered.
MR. MEYEN answered that it was hard to guess and he wasn't aware
of another situation with those sorts of risks.
4:08:22 PM
MR. ROGERS next discussed listing concerns and how recovery
objectives are developed for species that are at currently
healthy levels but projected to decline and how critical habitat
should be designated if the species ranges is projected to
change. He explained that the ESA provides few additional
protections from the existing Marine Mammal Protection Act
protections. So, the ultimate question to ponder is whether a
listing based on climate change warrants a different approach.
Another issue is expansion of critical habitat designations:
187,000 square miles for the Polar bear.
4:09:23 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE asked the department's position on climate
change, if it has a position.
COMMISSIONER COTTEN answered that he wasn't prepared to describe
the administration's positon on climate change at this time, but
there are a lot of climate changes in the Arctic. They are more
specifically focusing on some of the listings like this that use
climate change as a nexus and are in the process of challenging
those decisions based on the 100-year horizon.
MR. ROGERS added that regardless of the cause, something is
going on and it has to be taken into account in thinking about
how to address these issues.
SENATOR STOLTZE asked the question of Mr. Meyen.
MR. MEYEN said he didn't have a response to the policy, but
climate change modeling in the litigation is really a record-
based review.
4:12:45 PM
MR. ROGERS said the 187,000 square miles listing for Polar bears
was vacated and the proposed ringed seal critical habitat of
350,000 square miles is in the comment stage and due March 31.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if he had a preview.
MR. ROGERS answered that Moira Engel was doing the heavy lifting
on that, but they were just in the beginning stage of getting
comments together.
4:13:56 PM
He said the boundaries for the discussion of critical habitat
are ESA, Section 3, which says that critical habitat means the
specific areas within the occupied area where biological and
physical features essential to the conservation of the species
are found. Section 5 also adds that critical habitats include
entire the geographical area, which can be occupied by the
species. One new requirement is that there has to be an economic
analysis associated with critical habitat designations and the
secretary has discretion to exclude areas based on the economic
analysis.
CHAIR GIESSEL remarked that it says critical habitat shall not
include the entire geographical area and in looking at the
ringed seal, it appears that it is including the entire
geographical area. The humpback whale was filed based on
distinct population segments and she asked if that is an
opportunity here to limit the area that would be considered
critical habitat.
MR. ROGERS answered that it is an opportunity to comment, but
they haven't developed the comments. They will do their best to
influence the final decision.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if he has any new science on the populations
in geographic areas that would refute this very large possible
critical habitat designation.
MR. MEYEN responded that it is known that the ringed seals
number in the millions, so one of the arguments is that the
whole area isn't needed for sustainability of the species.
4:18:16 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE asked him to describe any strategy or
philosophical changes that came with the change of
administrations.
COMMISSIONER COTTEN answered that the administration has not
changed direction or philosophy. They are still pursuing some of
the same issues the previous administration was pursuing. They
are evaluating successes and lack thereof; they want to learn
from mistakes and build on the areas of success. They are still
interested in the deficiencies in the U.S. government proposal.
SENATOR STOLTZE said during the campaign there was a lot of
criticism about excessive and unproductive lawsuits and asked if
this administration has the same commitment to litigation to
aggressive pursue things through the court.
COMMISSIONER COTTEN answered that for the ones they are focusing
on today the commitment is as strong, but the Department of Law
could speak more on the litigation aspect. If litigation hasn't
been successful, they may decide they can't afford some of those
things. But if they have been successful, they want to recognize
that.
4:22:02 PM
MR. ROGERS added that he is a lawyer and litigation is an
important tool; money changes the equation a bit, but no one is
afraid to use it. Talking has value, but it doesn't always work.
When they sit down and make some final decisions and
Commissioner Cotten signs a document, a recommendation, an
opinion, that will be the real test of how they feel and the
best way to judge case by case how they are looking at these
things.
SENATOR STOLTZE said the previous administration always had
attorney generals in those ESA discussions.
4:24:46 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI encouraged them to look carefully at these
cases and to go forward on the cases they think they can win. He
advised that the abuse of discretion standard is the easiest
standard for a federal agency to win with.
4:25:24 PM
MR. ROGERS agreed that it is a tough argument.
MR. MEYEN responded that it is a difficult standard, but they
have learned that under ESA, the one advantage the state has is
Section (4)(i) that requires the federal government to respond
specifically to state comments on whether to list a species or
not, whether to designate critical habitat or not, and to date
that has been the strong arm in this litigation when they fail
to do it. The state has been a very important player in
particularly the challenge of the designation of critical
habitat for the Polar bear and listing of the bearded seals. In
both cases the court recognized that obligation to respond to
the state and also recognized the failure of it.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he didn't know if the 350,000 square-mile
proposed listing makes the Guinness Book of Critical Habitat
Records or not, but it seems like a large swath of real estate
especially with 1 million seals in existence. It seems like they
are at least interested in violating the ESA, Section 5. Some
listings almost seem to be project specific and asked what
actually begins the process. Could it be an NGO that just simply
opposes Arctic exploration?
4:28:32 PM
MR. MEYEN answered that NGOs submit a petition with the
biological reasons they want to see the species listed. That
triggers the agency's review. If there has been no petition, the
agency itself can have an informal discussion and decide to
begin its own review of whether or not to list a species.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if he thought there was at least the
potential for abuse of the ESA on a project-specific basis.
MR. MEYEN replied that it was hard to address a hypothetical
question.
MR. ROGERS moved on to the issue of state strategy, the first
one being political and building partnerships with various
organizations. The prior administration was involved and the new
one is, too. In fact, the director and others are going to the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency gathering in Omaha,
Nebraska, and to the extent they can pay for the travel, they
intend to actively participate in these things. That includes
the State/Federal ESA Task Force. Bringing concerns to Congress
and others could be an effective option.
COMMISSIONER COTTEN added that they want to find other states
that participate in these associations that have similar v that
the more states campaigning for changes to federal law, the more
likely the chances of success are.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if he had identified any specific part of
the ESA that could be changed.
COMMISSIONER COTTEN answered that he didn't have anything in
particular with ESA, but had some authority issues with ANILCA.
4:33:09 PM
MR. MEYEN replied that the previous administration had looked at
some areas of the ESA, but he hadn't had time to speak to the
commissioner about them. One was generally felt throughout all
the state wildlife agencies and that is the deference given to
science and elevating that deference to the state's science.
SENATOR STOLTZE said in the past, the DOL took the lead and
others supplemented their case and asked if there had been a
shifting of the lead department.
COMMISSIONER COTTEN answered that the actual decision to
litigate lies with DOL. Most recently, the ADF&G's role is as a
resource to the DOL for Endangered Species Act listings. The
ADF&G has taken some leadership role in working other states on
specific issues, most recently the National Park Service and
Fish and Wildlife Service preserve lands in Alaska and some
Alaska hunting regulations.
SENATOR COGHILL suggested using three strategies. The first was
to talk to the western states, because they have such big
federal land tracts, talk to the coastal states, as well: the
Gulf Coast, Pacific Coast and the East Coast. They have similar
issues and have been very successful in getting some of their
OCS issues navigated through the ESA.
Secondly, the ESA specifically has broadened its scope by
defining language through regulation and some court cases have
broadened that even more. So, if they are going to talk to
Congress about specific language, the science just has to be
better defined.
4:40:04 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL agreed that more good science is needed and ADF&G
has the good biologists to do it. She said the climate change
issue had never been tested relating to the Polar bear; theories
were put out about ice melting, but populations of Polar bears
haven't changed. She urged to first get the science and then
engage the federal agencies, with a lawsuit if necessary.
4:40:36 PM
MR. ROGERS went to slide 22 and said it's the state's right to
conduct research and develop conservation acts that are
sometimes less expensive and easier to develop than ESA
requirements. So, that is a focus and the primary goal of the
state's wildlife action plan, but funding is a constraint. A lot
of the money comes from federal sources with state matches. He
believes in science as the basis for these decisions and he will
be focusing on that.
CHAIR GIESSEL said the Alaska Arctic Policy Commission
recognized the robust work being done at the University of
Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in Arctic issues. She asked if the
department collaborates with them or if there are "silos" of
research being done.
MR. ROGERS replied that some collaboration goes on today, but he
has also begun conversations with Chancellor Rogers and others
to talk about the possibility of additional collaboration with
the university. It is a priority.
4:43:27 PM
MR. ROGERS explained that they created a process called "Aqua"
that got everyone doing research around one table to prioritize
research needs and figure out who was going to do what. It's not
a perfect solution, but he would follow up. He doesn't like
silos.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if there is actually an Alexander
Archipelago wolf subspecies.
MR. ROGERS said that question is being debated.
COMMISSIONER COTTEN said it had been explained to him that a
petitioner, in hopes of success on getting something listed, is
better off taking on a small chunk of a population. For
instance, some people think Prince of Wales Island is a
distinction subspecies of grey wolf, because it might be easier
to get a listing under those circumstances. However, Kim Titus,
their chief wildlife scientist, is an expert on wolves and he
suggests that it is one population of Southeast wolf.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if a substantial scientific basis for that
assertion is being developed.
COMMISSIONER COTTEN answered yes. He added that he had actually
had conversations with USFWS on this subject and they haven't
announced a conclusion otherwise yet.
4:45:36 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked what the implications are if this wolf is
thought to be a distinct subspecies.
COMMISSIONER COTTEN replied that they would go through the
process that Mr. Rogers described earlier. There would be a
petition, and under Section 7 consultation they would end up
with a biological opinion, and if there was old growth timber on
federal land on Prince of Wales Island, then there would perhaps
be restrictions on removing old growth timber if they are
listed.
CHAIR GIESSEL wanted to know how much further this could be
expanded and asked if this is a subspecies, are grey wolves in
general in Alaska threatened, which would implicate the
intensive management policy of managing our wildlife?
COMMISSIONER COTTEN said there has been no suggestion that grey
wolves are endangered or threatened in general in Alaska.
4:47:40 PM
MR. ROGERS added that in terms of the real world consequences of
a listing, it is the consultation process that often leads to
mitigation measures and delays.
4:48:01 PM
MR. ROGERS said another strategy is to fully participate in
various ways through data and information, comments, recovery
planning (the department is deeply involved in Polar bear
recovery planning), and submitting delisting petitions.
He said like the previous administrations, they are meeting at
high levels to discuss some of the policy implications to help
them understand each other. This applies not only to ESA, but
ANILCA issues.
4:49:45 PM
MR. ROGERS said the standard he uses is if the science doesn't
support a listing or they didn't do it right, they will take a
real hard look. They also intervene in court cases where the
state has interest.
MR. MEYEN commented that if the NMFS or the USFWS makes a
decision and their decision is challenged by other groups or
interests the state is supportive. That has been done on several
occasions.
4:50:48 PM
MR. ROGERS went to current litigation:
-Polar bear critical habitat designation was struck down and
remanded to the USFWS. The USFWS has appealed.
-Bearded seal, a threatened listing, was struck down and
remanded and NMFS has appealed that one.
MR. ROGERS said the state had a successful challenge in district
court on the bearded seal listing, because of a lack of
information and data connecting the dots between the projected
loss of sea ice and habitat needs. There is a very large current
population of 155,000 animals with no indication of current
decline. That was remanded to NMFS for additional work and it is
also under appeal.
4:52:57 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL paused him to say she was glad the department was
engaged in that and along with a private organization, the
Resource Development Council (RDC). Legislators comment on these
things as well, but they look at the department to be the "Big
Gun" and again she urged robust action.
MR. ROGERS quoted Judge Beistline who summed up the issue:
An unknown, unquantifiable population reduction, which
is not expected to occur until nearly 100 years in the
future is too remote and speculative to support a
listing as threatened. If the court were to hold
otherwise, such a holding could logically render every
species in the Arctic and sub-Arctic areas potentially
threatened.
He said similar litigation is currently being considering on
ringed seals.
4:53:46 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE said the North Slope Borough has a noted
research department for game and fish and asked if he had worked
with them.
COMMISSIONER COTTEN answered they haven't, yet, but they are
starting to look for research partners for a lot of other
reasons. The North Slope Borough is another logical partner that
has already filed a suit on the ringed seal (as has Alaska Oil
and Gas Association (AOGA)).
4:55:12 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if industry actively follows these
cases.
COMMISSIONER COTTEN replied that AOGA has filed suit already on
the ringed seals and that is an example of action.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said the only reason he asked is with
declining budgets it will be hard to have robust research,
analysis and litigation and if industry is picking that up, it's
a good thing.
SENATOR COGHILL said the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) has provided a reason to do a lot of science in Alaska
some of which has brought significant benefit to the state's
fisheries. Some suits are defensive in order for them to be able
to finish the science and the public comment on NEPA.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if they are commenting on the gill nets on
the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers.
COMMISSIONER COTTEN replied that the opportunity to file for a
request for reconsideration is still open, but you can't just
send in some little note; it is quite an extensive document. It
is being worked on internally and will be ready to submit if it
is necessary.
MR. ROGERS said he would keep the chair posted.
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked the presenters.
4:59:14 PM
Finding no further business to come before the committee, Chair
Giessel adjourned the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Endangered Species Act Issues in Alaska Final 3_3_15.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2015 3:30:00 PM |