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 2275, 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.