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.