Download Zipped File WP 6.1 1022NAEM.ZIP 6,626 Bytes

Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Interim Committee

MINUTES OF THE
NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT
INTERIM COMMITTEE
Wednesday, October 22, 1997 - 2:00 p.m. - Room 303 State Capitol


Members Present:                    Members Excused:
    Sen. Alarik Myrin, Cochair                Sen. Craig A. Peterson
    Rep. Bradley T. Johnson, Cochair            Rep. Melvin R. Brown
    Sen. R. Mont Evans            
    Sen. Joseph L. Hull                 Members Absent:
    Rep. Eli H. Anderson                    Rep. Mary Carlson
    Rep. Craig W. Buttars                    Rep. Daniel H. Tuttle
    Rep. Beverly A. Evans                Rep. Bill Wright
    Rep. James R. Gowans
    Rep. Tom Hatch                 Staff Present:
    Rep. Dennis H. Iverson                Ms. Constance C. Steffen,
    Rep. Evan L. Olsen                        Research Analyst
    Rep. Michael R. Styler                Ms. Jeanenne B. Larson,
    Rep. Jordan Tanner                        Associate General Counsel
                                Ms. Joy L. Miller, Secretary


     Note: A list of others present and a copy of materials distributed in the meeting are on file in the Office of
Legislative Research and General Counsel.


1.    Committee Business - Representative Johnson called the meeting to order at 2:50 p.m.

2.    Endangered Species Mitigation Funding -    Dr. Frank Howe, Division of Wildlife Resources, distributed a list of Utah Sensitive Species. The list identifies species in the state that are the most vulnerable to population or habitat loss. The list also provides an overview of the conservation status of listed species. Management efforts can be focused on those species that are on the list. Dr. Howe pointed out that every year the wildlife and aquatic sections of the division gather both current and historic information on a number of species. The list is compiled from that data. Dr. Howe reviewed the sensitive species definitions. He noted that it costs a great deal of money to bring federal endangered species back from the brink of extinction. He stated that they are using the list to proactively manage sensitive species.

Mr. Leo Lentsch, Division of Wildlife Resources, explained that the purpose of conservation agreements is to identify those species that are close to federal listing and identify the threats that would warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act. If a species can be caught early in the process of decline, there are more management options. These agreements benefit the species, communities, and others dealing with impacts of managing species.

Mr. Fred Finlinson, Water Coalition, explained that the coalition became involved with the mitigation fund during the last General Session. The federal government passed the Endangered Species Act, which is a substantive rather than procedural kind of law. It states that endangered species will not be harmed or taken. One of the major flaws in the act is that there is no funding mechanism to deal with the mitigation of endangered species. Mr. Finlinson stated the Legislature must develop some creative financing to deal with the fact that the federal government is not paying for the cost of the federal legislation. He said with cooperative agreements and the creation of habitat conservation plans, mechanisms have been developed to deal with a given species. Often those projects require financing at state, federal, and local levels. Mitigation is a stewardship responsibility that the state should take.

Mr. Finlinson stated that currently the only money in the fund is the royalty that comes from the harvest of brine shrimp on the Great Salt Lake. He stated the Water Coalition supports an appropriation of General Fund monies to the Species Protection Account. General Fund monies are more appropriate than diverting money from the sales tax allocation for water, Mr. Finlinson argued, because water development is not the sole source of endangered species problems. Transportation and housing developments also have some mitigation impacts. If funding were to come from the dedicated sales tax, the coalition would suggest taking the money before it is split between transportation and water. He stated it is important to have a policy debate on what Utah's role should be in the mitigation of endangered species.

Mr. Ted Stewart, Department of Natural Resources, indicated he is going to Washington to meet with the chairman of the House Natural Resources Appropriations Subcommittee and the full appropriations committee chairman to ask them to appropriate $60 million as a federal share to continue the recovery program for four endangered fish in the Colorado River. It is based on a presumption that there will be another $60 million that will come from nonfederal sources. The state of Utah's share of that additional $60 million is going to be $4-$5 million. If the recovery implementation program in the Colorado River fails, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will stop water development in the Colorado River Basin. He said a minimum of $2 million a year is needed to deal with mitigation problems in the state.

Rep Hatch said that many of the necessary infrastructure projects won't be built unless the mitigation issues are addressed. The state needs to come up with money to match federal funding in order for mitigation to occur and projects to go forward. By statute, the mitigation fund cannot be used to develop any habitat conservation plan that may be required under federal law unless the federal government pays at least 1/3 of the cost of the plan. Rep. Hatch noted that federal money cannot be accessed unless the state can come up with money to match. He proposed that the account be funded with up to $1.5 million out of the 1/16 sales tax that is currently going to water projects in the state.

Mr. Stewart said the Department of Natural Resources recently completed a study which indicated that the department spends approximately $1.5 million per year in mitigation efforts. Most of that money is from the General Fund. He expressed his support for Rep. Hatch's proposal. He said the majority of money needed for mitigation efforts will go to mitigate water projects.

    Rep. Hatch stated he would like to bring a bill back to the committee next month for their review and action.

MOTION: Rep. Styler moved to approve the minutes of July 16, August 20, and September 5, 1997 with the correction that any reference to "Mr. Larson" be changed to "Ms. Larson." The motion passed unanimously.

3.    Management Plans for Land Owned by the Division of Wildlife Resources -- Sen. Myrin referred to an outline distributed by Ms. Steffen on management plans for land owned by the division. Meetings have been held to obtain the input of interest groups involved with the issue. Another meeting has been scheduled for October 29 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 416. He invited the committee members to attend. Sen. Myrin said the proposal is designed to protect the integrity of the process. The proposal brings in local input on how the lands are to be managed. All interests should be taken into consideration. He said they are trying to work with the division in a way that is meaningful and will not hamper the division's ability to acquire land.

Ms. Steffen explained that the division owns substantial tracts of land throughout the state. That land is used primarily for wildlife purposes but can also be used for other purposes. There are multiple activities that could be compatible with the management of wildlife. The main thrust of the proposed legislation is to require the division to prepare land use plans for the land it owns and to require them to involve the public in the development of those plans. She indicated that under current law counties are notified when the division intends to buy land. The statute will be elaborated to require notification of the intended use of the land and any conditions of the land acquisition that may be placed on the land. After acquiring the land, the division would be required to prepare a management plan. The management plan would go through a review process by various entities, including the Resource Development Coordinating Council, the division's Habitat Council, and the Regional Advisory Council where the land is located. Those entities would make recommendations to the division. The division director would have the authority to approve or disapprove the plan. The plan could also be submitted to the Wildlife Board for its review to determine if the plan is consistent with its policies.

Ms. Steffen indicated that before the division makes any change in any existing permitted

use of the land it would have to first consult with the parties who may be affected by the change and local government officials. Ms. Steffen said there is substantial interest in involving the public in decisions to transplant wildlife. They are working on a process to involve the public in the proposals prior to the plans being approved by the Wildlife Board.

Rep. Tanner questioned the advisability of the process and its potential costs. He asked why under existing rulemaking the department is not able to accomplish much of what is being attempted without drafting formal legislation.

Mr. Stewart responded that these lands and the animals are owned by everyone. Therefore, the decisions made about how to use the land or managing the animals has to be a public process. If the process is done carefully, many problems can be avoided.

Mr. Kevin Conway, Division of Wildlife Resources, said they have used the Regional Advisory Council process to obtain public input on properties they manage. They also have processes in place that involve the public in transplants of wildlife.

MOTION: Rep. Hatch moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:35 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.

[Back to the Interim Directory][Back to the Monthly Schedule][Back to the Committee Listing] Utah State Legislature