Legislature(2013 - 2014)BUTROVICH 205
04/12/2013 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR16 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 12, 2013
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator Fred Dyson, Vice Chair
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Click Bishop
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Anna Fairclough
Senator Hollis French
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 16(RES) AM
Relating to the National Ocean Council, the development of a
national ocean policy, and coastal and marine spatial planning.
- MOVED CSHJR 16(RES) AM OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 16
SHORT TITLE: NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SADDLER
04/01/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/01/13 (H) RES
04/08/13 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) NT 5DP 3NR
04/08/13 (H) DP: JOHNSON, P.WILSON, SEATON, SADDLER,
FEIGE
04/08/13 (H) NR: TUCK, OLSON, TARR
04/08/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/08/13 (H) Moved CSHJR 16(RES) Out of Committee
04/08/13 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/10/13 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/10/13 (H) VERSION: CSHJR 16(RES) AM
04/11/13 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/11/13 (S) RES
04/12/13 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE DAN SADDLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 16.
RICK ROGERS, Executive Director
Resource Development Council
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 16.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 16.
JULIANNE CURRY
Executive Director
United Fishermen of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 16.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:19 PM
CHAIR CATHY GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Bishop, Micciche and Chair Giessel.
HJR 16-NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY
3:30:43 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced HJR 16 to be up for consideration.
[CSHJR 16(RES) AM was before the committee]
REPRESENTATIVE DAN SADDLER, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HJR 16, said the resolution urges the
National Ocean Council (NOC) to exempt the State of Alaska from
an imminent and far reaching new federal policy that manages and
zones activities in marine and coastal areas. He explained that
President Obama created the National Ocean Council in 2010 and
gave the council broad authority to create a new national
policy. NOC would ensure the protection, maintenance,
restoration, and health of the oceans, coasts, Great Lakes
ecosystems and resources. He noted that NOC would also respond
to climate change and ocean acidification.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said the key element of the new NOC
policy is to develop coastal and marine spatial plans. The new
NOC policy would actually determine what could or could not be
done in oceans and coasts. NOC would also affect upstream inland
areas that are many miles from the marine coastal areas. The
prospective activities affected by NOC would include: oil, gas,
renewable energy development, fishing, subsistence activities,
mining, timber, transportation, and tourism. He asserted that
the higher population density in the Lower 48 and the well
documented conflicts between user groups might receive some
benefit from NOC. He said Alaska did not need additional layers
of comprehensive federal planning and management. He said
increased bureaucratic burden from federally imposed policies
had not been documented to work. He noted that it was not clear
that the resources were available through appropriate
appropriations channels for NOC to be executed. He said NOC
released its National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan in
January 2012 with the intent to release a final plan by the
spring of 2012. NOC's final implementation plan is over a year
overdue and is expected to be released any day.
He set forth that now was the time for the legislature to urge
an Alaska exemption to a national ocean policy and to coastal
and marine spatial planning, or at a minimum to ask for
voluntary state-by-state NOC participation. He observed that HJR
16 follows the pattern of the fair number of resolutions that
the current legislature has passed that protest federal
overreach. He asserted that legislative actions including the
resolution before the committee were a necessary and direct
response to what he feared was unprecedented expansion of
federal authority over the last several years. He stated that
the worst could be yet to come unless the legislature expressed
its opposition clearly and firmly. He urged the committee to
ensure that Alaska maintained control over activities in its
ocean, coasts, and waterways and to minimize federal overreach
by supporting HJR 16.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked how far inland it would extend.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER answered that one of the principals that
the National Ocean Policy intended to operate by was ecosystem-
wide management. He noted that NOC oversight would depend on how
far the federal management authorities determined an ecosystem
extended. He remarked that all streams run to the ocean, so
philosophically and theoretically an ocean policy could extend
up into the mountains.
3:34:35 PM
RICK ROGERS, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
(RDC), Anchorage, Alaska, said RDC had been involved in the NOC
issue since the president's 2010 executive order. He explained
that he had testified on a federal subcommittee on the issue
that was held in Anchorage. He noted that he was also a board
member of the National Ocean Policy Coalition, a national group
of users concerned about NOC's policy.
MR. ROGERS said RDC was engaged in the NOC issue because RDC
thought it would have a disproportionate impact in Alaska
because of the state's vast coastline. He noted that Alaska had
more coastline than all the other states combined. He asserted
that NOC would add uncertainty to an already cumbersome and
complex regime of state and federal permitting. He said that
added oversight would not provide real benefits to the marine
environments and NOC would be another top-down federal
management approach.
3:36:21 PM
SENATOR DYSON joined the committee.
MR. ROGERS referenced Representative Saddler's statement on
ecosystem-wide management. He said ecosystem-wide management had
a good sound on its face and was probably a worthy goal, but
RDC's concern pertained to never having enough information when
dealing with ecosystems. He asserted that RDC's concern was
getting into a situation without complete information and the
necessary decisions to move Alaska's economy forward would not
be made.
He addressed Representative Saddler's statement pertaining to
upland reach and concurred that NOC's policy could extend to the
mountain sides. He noted RDC's concern for NOC's policy called
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) and stated that the
plan could be like the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA) of the sea. He explained that CMSP
would come up with broad areas that were off limits to
fisheries, oil and gas exploration, or marine transportation. He
noted that one of the justifications for NOC was to resolve
conflicts and RDC members including mining, tourism, forestry,
oil and gas, and fisheries were all aligned in their concern
about the issue.
3:38:15 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Juneau, Alaska,
noted that he previously served as the Ocean Policy Coordinator
for the State of Alaska. He said Alaska has a strong interest in
assuring the continued health and productivity of its marine and
coastal resources. Alaska relies on its marine and coastal areas
for commercial and sports fisheries, subsistence uses,
recreation, transportation, shipping, and a multitude of other
uses. Marine and coastal resources are vital to Alaska's
economy; they support a vibrant fishing industry, the state's
largest private sector employer. Alaska's fishing industry
produces almost $6 billion in annual economic activity and
accounts for 60 percent of the nation's seafood production.
Coastal and marine areas also provide abundant development
opportunities in offshore oil and gas, renewable energy,
shipping, and tourism sectors. He noted that Alaska has over
44,000 miles of shoreline and more mileage than the other eight
proposed planning areas combined. In an expansive Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ), Alaska's interest in managing its ocean and
coastal resources could not be overstated.
MR. VINCENT-LANG said implementation of the president's NOC
policy instituted a new federal framework to govern marine,
coastal, and possibly uplands areas. NOC would federalize
decision processes regarding marine and coastal activities and
imbed authority in the regional governance boards dominated by
federal agencies and federal decision processes. Alaska's marine
and coastal resources and their uses were already tightly
regulated by a vast array of federal, state, and local
authorities. The existing oversight had a proven track record
and in ADF&G's opinion was fully capable of ensuring the long
term health and viability of Alaska's marine and costal
resources. ADF&G did not believe additional federal regulatory
oversight was needed and opposed the creation of additional
federal bureaucracy and regulation. ADF&G viewed NOC as an
unnecessary threat to Alaska's sovereignty and did not support
NOC's process for zoning or regulated marine use planning
purposes. ADF&G would support achieving efficiency by relying on
the proven processes and authorities that are already in place.
Establishing further authority should be through congressional
action due to Congress' keen awareness of the current multi-
jurisdictional structure and respect for the traditional role of
states in managing their marine and coastal resources.
Jurisdiction and management decisions are clearly divided
between the states and the federal government regarding marine
waters, submerged lands, marine activities, and coastal
ecosystems. Alaska's jurisdiction includes uplands, wetlands,
tide and submerged lands that extend out three nautical miles to
the territorial limit. Alaska manages and leases lands with the
addition of federal and local agency permitting in order to
restrict activities that could impact the environment. Alaska
and the federal government each had respective sovereign
responsibilities and authorities to maintain healthy, resilient,
and sustainable marine and coastal resources. Any adopted
program must recognize and respect Alaska's jurisdiction and
sovereign authorities. Coastal states must be recognized as
equal partners with sovereign jurisdictions and authorities, not
relegated to stakeholder status in marine and coastal policy
development and implementation. Rather than the development and
implantation of a new regulatory program, a better focus would
be an investment in arctic research, monitoring, and
infrastructure. He asserted that Alaska needs more resources,
not more rules to ensure coastal and marine resource
conservation. He said it is unfortunate that the new planning
effort is draining agency resources at a time when core agency
functions are struggling for funding due to declining federal
budgets. He specified that ensuring an effective outcome for any
planning effort would require clearly defined and expected
outcomes with appropriate timelines. He said the planning effort
should provide the state both a marine and coastal resource with
primary authority to develop ocean and coastal policies. He
explained that despite numerous requests, the state has not been
given planning specifics. The health and management of Alaska's
marine and coastal resources is simply too critical to engage in
a process that does not provide meaningful dialog opportunities
to address stated concerns, he emphasized.
MR. VINCENT-LANG declared that the state does not feel the NOC
policy is ready for implementation and cannot support the NOC
effort until the requested details are provided, especially with
respect to governance and regulated use. He summarized that
ADF&G appreciated HJR 16 and the concern it expresses.
3:42:47 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if he sits on the National Ocean Council.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered no; he holds a position in ADF&G that
coordinates ocean policy comments for the administration.
CHAIR GIESSEL referenced information in the packets regarding
the National Ocean Council membership, and noted that Mark
Robbins represents the governor's office.
MR. VINCENT-LANG clarified that an advisory group advises NOC,
but does not have decision authority. He explained that NOC is a
federal body, so Alaska has an advisory, but non-decisionary,
seat at the table.
3:43:50 PM
JULIANNE CURRY, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska
(UFA), Juneau, Alaska, said UFA represents 36 member groups that
fish in Alaska and the offshore federal waters. She remarked
that UFA appreciates HJR 16 as a common sense and straight
forward resolution. She explained that Alaska produces over half
of the nation's seafood and is known worldwide as the poster-
child for sustainable fisheries management. She asserted that
UFA is vastly opposed to any action that tries to preempt the
authority of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council or the
Board of Fisheries.
SENATOR BISHOP asked hypothetically if she would be nervous if
he were the federal government and offered help.
MS. CURRY answered yes.
3:45:17 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL closed public testimony and asked if the sponsor
wanted to make closing remarks.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER pointed out the prior discussion
pertaining to the one seat that the state may have at the table.
He cited NOC's national order that would create the following:
· 10 national policies
· 27 member council
· 18 member governance coordinating committee
· 9 regional planning bodies
· 9 national party objectives
· 9 strategic action plans
· 7 national goals for costal marines spatial planning
· 12 guiding principles for coastal marine spatial planning
to be created
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER explained that Alaska would have one seat
on an advisory council without being the majority and could be
overruled in case of disagreements. He reiterated that it is a
complex web.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if the ultimate resolve is "an Alaska region
exemption or to allow voluntary state participation."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER replied yes. He noted a press release
from Senator Lisa Murkowski that detailed hearings on Ocean
Policy with Rebecca Blank, Acting United States Secretary of
Commerce. He said Senator Murkowski indicated that an exemption
may be offered to Alaska.
3:47:05 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said NOC is just coastal zone management on a
federal level which Alaska voters clearly did not support in the
last election cycle. He declared that the NOC executive order
had no statutory authority and noted that there had never been a
single bill in the federal House or Senate. He explained that
NOC addresses urban and suburban development impact. He asserted
that NOC looks like an all controlling plan for absolute
overreach. He said the term overreach is overused, but NOC
scares him. He asked Representative Saddler why he felt it
necessary to include or to allow voluntary state participation
in both sections, both the "be it resolved" and the "further
resolved." He inquired why a stronger statement was not used
that specified a request for an Alaska region exemption and the
state would fail to recognize the final implementation plan.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER replied that there may be some states
that do not have an effective or well-tuned management regime
where user conflicts and lower resource levels might justify NOC
if the states in question want to do so. He reiterated that
Alaska is different. It has good systems in place, it doesn't
have the same conflicts, and it has more resources. He asserted
that an Alaska exemption is appropriate. He commented that he
certainly has his opinions about what the federal government
should do nationally, but he said the intent is to focus on what
is good for or bad for Alaska.
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that the resolution almost provides
an out to allow voluntary state participation, and in his view
means Alaska would lose. He said having a seat at a really
imposing table rarely has a very positive outcome.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if he would prefer a straight
denunciation of NOC and decline involvement.
3:49:22 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE replied that Alaska would always have the
option of joining later. He said he likes the straight request
for an Alaska region exemption first, with the NOC plan not
being recognized. He stated that he would not make an amendment,
but it was something to consider as the resolution goes through
the process. He reiterated that he likes the resolution, but he
does not want to provide an option where Alaska is allowed to
attend NOC meetings and be ignored because of opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER clarified that his intention is not to
have a "B" option; rather, that Alaska would have to assent to
its imposition in Alaska. He commented that perhaps the
resolution should have been drafted more closely.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if the intent was to pass the resolution
today.
CHAIR GIESSEL answered yes.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked Representative Saddler to clarify that he
was saying that Alaska would have the choice of an up and down
vote as to whether or not individual states participate.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER answered that his desire would be to have
Alaska not participate if it did not want to.
3:50:53 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted that the beginning of the resolution talks
about an Alaska region exemption. She asked if Alaska was not at
the table, the state would also not be participating and the
Alaska area would be exempt.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER answered correct.
CHAIR GIESSEL noted that Alaska could choose to participate,
because it's voluntary.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER replied that he had heard some discussion
that NOC is not a state-by-state program. He explained that
there is a Northeast Region, Western Coastal Regions, and Alaska
is big enough to qualify for its own region. He agreed with
Chair Giessel that the state could agree to participate at a
later date after seeing how NOC works as a pilot program in the
Lower 48. He noted having the same discussions with some fishing
groups, but clarified that he could not speak for UFA. He said
part of NOC's problem is due to the program being so amorphous
with all-encompassing language. He said NOC's interpretation and
application of regulations are so broad that Alaska would not
know what it was getting into. He noted his concern and others
agreed that NOC had not attracted much notice. He stated that
part of the resolution's effort is to raise public awareness for
NOC.
SENATOR MICCICHE expressed worry about NOC affecting all 404
jurisdictional waters with tidal influence. He emphasized that
it was not oceans, but the 12 miles up the Kenai River and other
similar rivers throughout Alaska. He said he was fine with the
resolution.
CHAIR GIESSEL noted the NOC regions as follows: Great Lakes,
Gulf of Mexico, Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, South Atlantic, and
West Coast. She addressed the Alaska region commenting that it's
almost as if Alaska is still a territory with one representative
each from Alaska, the Pacific Islands, and the Caribbean. She
expressed appreciation for Senator Micciche's comment that
overreach is being overused.
3:53:03 PM
SENATOR DYSON moved to report CS for HJR 16 from committee with
zero fiscal notes and individual recommendations.
CHAIR GIESSEL announced that seeing no objection, CSHJR 16(RES)
AM was reported from the Senate Resources Standing Committee.
3:53:30 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL adjourned the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 3:53 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR 16 vs C (RES).pdf |
SRES 4/12/2013 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR 16 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SRES 4/12/2013 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR 16 Fiscal Note - LAA.pdf |
SRES 4/12/2013 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR 16 Executive Order 13547.pdf |
SRES 4/12/2013 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR 16 National Ocean Council.pdf |
SRES 4/12/2013 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR 16 NOPC Comments on Draft Implementation Plan 2013.02.27.pdf |
SRES 4/12/2013 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR 16 Supp Letter UFA 2013.04.10.pdf |
SRES 4/12/2013 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR 16 Supp Testimony RDC 2013.04.03.pdf |
SRES 4/12/2013 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR 16 Supp Testimony RDC 2013.04.08.pdf |
SRES 4/12/2013 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR 16 Testimony DF&G 2013.04.08.pdf |
SRES 4/12/2013 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR 16 Written Testimony RDC 2013.04.12.pdf |
SRES 4/12/2013 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 16 |