Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
04/08/2013 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR16 | |
| SJR3 | |
| SJR8 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 16-NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY
1:37:17 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 16, Relating to national
ocean policy.
1:37:25 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER passed the gavel to Co-Chair Feige.
1:37:50 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER, prime sponsor, introduced HJR 16, saying the
resolution urges an exemption for the State of Alaska from the
imminent and far-reaching federal policy to manage and zone
activities in marine and coastal areas. In 2010 President Obama
created the National Ocean Council (NOC) by executive fiat,
granting it broad authority to create a national ocean policy
(NOP) that would among other things, ensure the protection,
maintenance, and restoration of the health of ocean, coastal,
and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources, and also to respond to
climate change and ocean acidification. A key element of NOP is
to develop coastal and marine spatial plans which would
determine what, where, and when activities are allowed in marine
and coastal areas, and in inland wetlands and waterways.
Activities that could be subject to regulation include oil, gas,
and renewable energy development, fishing, mining, timber,
transportation, and tourism. Although this policy may benefit
the Lower 48 - where there is high density development - in
Alaska the need for additional layers of federal management is
not warranted. In January 2012 NOC released its National Ocean
Policy Draft Implementation Plan and the final plan is soon to
be released, thus now is the time for the Alaska State
Legislature to urge for an Alaska exemption to the NOP and
coastal and marine spatial planning, or at a minimum, ask for
voluntary state-by-state participation in the new federal
policies. Co-Chair Saddler acknowledged that the resolution
joins a long list of legislation addressing federal overreach;
however, this and similar resolutions are in response to the
ongoing unprecedented expansion of federal authority, and Alaska
must maintain its control over activities on its oceans, coasts,
and waterways.
1:41:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 16, Version 28-LS0683\C, Nauman, 4/6/13,
as the working document. There being no objection, Version C
was before the committee.
1:42:02 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony on HJR 16.
1:42:38 PM
STEPHANIE MADSEN, Executive Director, At-Sea Processors
Association (APA), informed the committee she has been an Alaska
resident involved with fisheries for approximately 40 years.
She said APA's written comments in support of HJR 16 are
provided in the committee packet, and stressed that the
commercial fishing industry has been participating in the ocean
policy process for over 10 years through the U. S. Commission on
Ocean Policy, H.R. 21 legislation, and now the NOP. The
industry's goal is to preserve the system of regional
stakeholder-driven fishery management that has met success in
Alaska. However, the draft implementation plan ignores the
industry's participation and proposes the creation of a new
ocean resource management system; in fact, the draft plan states
that the fisheries can be better managed, and that NOP will
improve future management decisions. This raises the question
of: Decisions made by whom? Ms. Madsen said APA suggests that
the regional fishery management council process should be
exempted from the program, or that NOP should be revised so that
it returns to a voluntary planning process. Previously, APA has
been told repeatedly that this is a collegial voluntary process,
and if so, it is pleased to participate, but if NOP is instead a
new federal bureaucracy with the aim to regulate all ocean
activities, APA recommends Alaska "opt-out." She restated APA's
support for the resolution.
1:45:15 PM
RICK ROGERS, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
for Alaska, Inc. (RDC), said RDC has been engaged in the issue
of NOP in marine spatial planning since July 2010. He noted a
copy of RDC's 4/3/12 testimony before the federal Subcommittee
on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, & Insular Affairs was provided
in the committee packet. Mr. Rogers said RDC and the National
Ocean Policy Coalition are concerned about NOP because it will
have a disproportionate impact on Alaska's resource dependent
industries. Alaska has over 34,000 miles of coastline and NOP
adds uncertainty and anxiety to an existing cumbersome and
complex regime of state and federal permitting and oversight.
The abovementioned organizations question whether increased
bureaucracy will benefit environmental protection; in fact,
coastal marine spatial planning is an unauthorized, regulatory
program with a federal top-down approach. For example, eco-
system based management sounds like a worthy goal, however,
RDC's concern is that it will lead to a paralysis/analysis
situation. Also, the NOP stated goal of reaching onshore
activities may lead to undue federal control of Alaska's land
and resource management. Marine spatial planning may result in
restrictions to marine waters and submerged lands that override
the needs of Alaskans, particularly if they affect the transport
and shipping of resources. Mr. Rogers pointed out that one
justification for NOP is to resolve conflicts, but all of the
competing industries in Alaska such as mining, tourism,
forestry, oil and gas, and fisheries are collectively concerned
about this policy. He summarized, and urged for the timely
passage of the resolution.
1:50:51 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Acting Director, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, summarized the
state's concerns on ocean policy. He read from an untitled
document as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Let me begin by stating that Alaska has a strong
interest in assuring the continued health and
productivity of its marine and coastal resources. We
rely on these areas for commercial and sport
fisheries, subsistence uses, recreation,
transportation, shipping, and a multitude of other
uses. Marine and coastal resources are vital to our
economy, supporting a vibrant fishing industry that
produces almost six billion dollars in economic
activity in our state annually, accounts for
approximately 60 percent of the nation's seafood
production, and is our largest private sector
employer. Coastal and marine areas also provide
abundant development opportunities, such as: offshore
oil and gas, renewable energy, shipping, and tourism.
With over 44,000 miles of shoreline - more mileage
than the other eight proposed planning areas combined
- and an expansive EEZ, Alaska's interest in managing
ocean and coastal resources cannot be overstated.
Implementation of the President's National Ocean
Policy institutes a new federal framework to govern
marine and coastal activities. Upon inspection, it
federalizes decision processes regarding marine and
coastal activities and embeds authority into regional
governance boards dominated by federal agencies and
federal decision processes.
Alaska's marine and coastal resources and their uses
are already tightly regulated by a vast and diverse
array of federal, state, and local authorities. This
existing oversight has a proven track record and is
fully capable of ensuring the long-term health and
viability of our marine and coastal resources. We do
not believe additional federal regulatory oversight is
needed and we oppose creation of additional federal
bureaucracy and regulation and view this as an
unnecessary threat to our sovereignty. We also do not
support use of this process for zoning or
alternatively termed regulated marine use planning
purposes. Instead, we support achieving efficiency by
relying on the effective proven processes and
authorities that are already in place. Any
establishment of further authority should be through
Congressional action. Congress has a 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 for marine
waters and submerged lands and responsibility for
marine and coastal activities and ecosystems is
divided between the states and the federal government.
Alaska's jurisdiction includes uplands, wetlands, tide
and submerged lands and extends out three nautical
miles to the territorial limit. Within these areas,
Alaska manages and leases lands, and with federal and
local agencies, permits or restricts activities on
them that could impact the environment. Alaska and
the federal government each have 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 development and implementation of new
regulatory programs, a better focus would be
investment in Arctic research, monitoring, and
infrastructure. In short, we need more resources, not
more rules, to ensure conservation of our coastal and
marine resources. 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. We prefer to see
the federal government focus its resources on the many
needs in the Arctic and to focus on much needed
research and monitoring rather than expending
resources on an unnecessary and duplicative planning
effort.
Finally, to ensure an effective outcome, it is
important that any planning effort have clearly
defined expected outcomes, an appropriate timeline,
and provides both the states and the users of marine
and coastal resources with primary authority to
develop ocean and coastal policies. Despite numerous
requests by the state to provide such specifics, they
have yet to be provided by the federal government.
The health and management of our marine and coastal
resources is simply too critical to engage in a
process that does not provide meaningful dialogue
opportunities to address stated concerns.
In closing, this policy is simply not ready for
implementation in Alaska. Until requested details are
provided, especially with respect to governance and
regulated use, the State cannot support this effort as
currently described. We urge Congress to involve
itself in this process and for the National Ocean
Council to delay implementation of this policy to
allow more meaningful dialogue to address state and
other affected users concerns. We also urge a more
meaningful dialogue with the State that recognizes its
sovereign authorities and responsibilities.
We appreciate your resolution and the concern it
expresses.
1:56:31 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, after ascertaining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON observed that the transfer of authority
for permitting finfish aquaculture in offshore areas is of
concern. The state has prohibited pen-reared finfish farming
within state waters and if the federal government proceeds with
regulations to allow the permitting of finfish aquaculture it
could be very detrimental to fisheries in Alaska. He said he
supports the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK raised questions about the executive order
and read:
Final recommendations shall be made publically
available for which a notice of public availability
shall be published in a federal register ... the
establishment of a National Ocean Council ... this
order is not intended to or does not create any right
or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law or in equity by any party against ...
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if the findings of the [National Ocean
Council] are just recommendations or will become law and
regulation.
1:58:57 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER responded:
There is a disclaimer that would not be law but
federal regulation, and management practices of
federal agencies in Alaska carry tremendous amounts of
weight and effectiveness. So it may be a distinction,
not a difference, to say they're not law, but it would
still be effective. I don't think you can actually
create law by executive order.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK surmised then that the findings of the
[Council] from the executive order will become recommendations.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER said no, they are policies.
1:59:42 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE said:
Which would then mean, you could have regulations
written against those policies, and those regulations
would then have the force of law.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE added that he and Representative Saddler went to
a meeting with employees of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce, who would be
administering NOC, and his impression was that the federal
government does not have the assets to enforce, or research and
understand, a program managing Alaska's coastline, which exceeds
the total coastline of the rest of the country. In light of
federal budget concerns, he questioned whether the policy is
merely a way to arbitrarily impose the federal government's will
on U.S. waters surrounding Alaska. Co-Chair Feige doubted the
ability of the federal government to make educated, informed,
science-based decisions regarding the nation's oceans
surrounding Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON returned attention to the subsection
identified by Representative Tuck, found on page 7 of the
executive order which read:
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not,
create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any
party against the United States, its departments,
agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or
agents, or any other person.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON advised the subsection does not say this
will not be policy that will control actions at sea.
2:02:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON called attention to section 6, sub-
subparagraph (i) which read:
(i) take such action as necessary to implement the
policy set forth in section 2 of this order and the
stewardship principles and national priority
objectives as set for the in the Final Recommendations
and subsequent guidance from the Council; and
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON opined the above instructs the agencies
to basically implement the policy; previous to that, "it
instructs other agencies to fund it." He questioned whether the
phrase, "as applicable by law" is a regulation or an executive
order. Representative Johnson characterized the executive order
under discussion as "a very far-reaching and dangerous
document."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified he is supporting HJR 16,
however, there are circumstances when certain restricted areas
on and off the coast that are identified by regional management,
are important and beneficial to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she will co-sponsor the
resolution.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER agreed with the previous comments, saying HJR
16 does not stand in the way of the policy, but Alaska's needs
are unique and the resolution urges the federal administration
to consider exempting Alaska.
2:05:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute for HJR 16, Version 28-LS0683\C, out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 16(RES) was reported
from the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR16 Executive Order 13547.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 Fiscal Note - LAA.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 National Ocean Council.xps |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 NOP Draft Implementation Plan Comments.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 NOPC Comments on Draft Implementation Plan.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 RDC NOP Comments.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 Version N.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 Work Draft (Version C).pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| SJR3 113th Congress HR49.xps |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR3 ANWR Top Ten.xps |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR3 Arctic Power Fact Sheet.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR3 Fiscal Note - LAA.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR3 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR3 Version O.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
|
| SJR3 Work Draft (Version P).pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
|
| SJR8 DGGS REEs Overview.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| SJR8 Fiscal Note - SRES.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| SJR8 RDC Letter.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| SJR8 SEC Resolution.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| SJR8 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| SJR8 Ucore Letter.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| SJR8 Version U.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| LAA Legislative Resolutions.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |