Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
02/23/2010 10:15 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB344 | |
| Overview | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 344 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 23, 2010
10:19 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Scott Kawasaki
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tammy Wilson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 344
"An Act relating to the salmon product development tax credit;
and providing for an effective date by amending an effective
date in sec. 7, ch. 57, SLA 2003, as amended by sec. 4, ch. 3,
SLA 2006, and by sec. 4, ch. 8, SLA 2008."
- MOVED CSHB 344(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
OVERVIEW: INTERIM REPORT OF THE INTERAGENCY OCEAN POLICY TASK
FORCE WITH FOCUS ON THE INTERIM FRAMEWORK FOR EFFECTIVE COASTAL
AND MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING.
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 344
SHORT TITLE: SALMON PRODUCT DEVELOP. TAX CREDIT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) THOMAS
02/12/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/10 (H) FSH, FIN
02/18/10 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
02/18/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/18/10 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/23/10 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
TIM CLARK, Staff
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As staff to the House Special Committee on
Fisheries, presented the changes for the CSHB 344, Version R.
PETER ECKLUND, Staff
Representative William "Bill" Thomas, Jr.
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions, during the hearing
on CSHB 344.
DOUGLAS DeMASTER, Ph.D.
Science and Research Director
Regional Team Leader
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the presentation of the
interim report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force
(OPTF).
ARNE FUGLVOG, Legislative Assistant
Fisheries, Transportation, and Natural Resources
Office of U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the presentation of the
interim report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force
(OPTF).
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:19:41 AM
CHAIR BRYCE EDGMON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:19 a.m. Representatives
Edgmon, Keller, Munoz, Johnson, and Buch were present at the
call to order. Representative Millett arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 344-SALMON PRODUCT DEVELOP. TAX CREDIT
10:21:12 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 344, "An Act relating to the salmon product
development tax credit; and providing for an effective date by
amending an effective date in sec. 7, ch. 57, SLA 2003, as
amended by sec. 4, ch. 3, SLA 2006, and by sec. 4, ch. 8, SLA
2008."
10:21:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt CSHB 344, 26-LS1473\R, Kane
2/22/10, as the working document.
CHAIR EDGMON, hearing no objection, announced Version R was
before the committee.
10:22:11 AM
TIM CLARK, Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that CSHB 344, Version R, includes ice
making equipment as a major means to accomplish value-added
processing; page 2, line 7, sub-subparagraph (i). He said the
value-added processes that have most increased the worth of
salmon catches depend on high quality harvest. With a greater
proportion of high quality fish, more can be directed to the
value-added processes. Ice is essential to significantly
increasing the percentage of number 1 grade fish from the
harvest. Adding ice making equipment to the list of qualified
investments under the products development tax credit would
result in a significantly larger quantity of quality salmon and
increase the proportion of value-added processing.
10:23:40 AM
PETER ECKLUND, Staff, Representative William "Bill" Thomas, Jr.,
Alaska State Legislature, stated sponsor support for Version R.
10:23:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if the only change to the bill is
the inclusion of ice making equipment.
CHAIR EDGMON said yes.
10:24:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report CSHB 344, Version 26-
LS1473\R, Kane, 2/22/10, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Hearing no
objection, CSHB 344(FSH) moved out of the House Special
Committee on Fisheries.
10:25:34 AM
The committee recessed to a call of the chair.
^OVERVIEW
OVERVIEW: Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task
Force With Focus on the Interim Framework for Effective Coastal
and Marine Spatial Planning.
12:25:19 PM
CHAIR EDGMON reconvened the House Special Committee on Fisheries
and announced that the final order of business would be a
presentation of the Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean
Policy Task Force with focus on the Interim Framework for
Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning.
12:25:59 PM
DOUGLAS DeMASTER, Ph.D., Science and Research Director, Regional
Team Leader, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Ocean Policy
Task Force (OPTF), which is a panel comprised of senior, policy-
level officials from throughout the federal government, with
representatives from 24 agencies and departments. Formation of
the task force came about via a request from the head of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and via a
directive for policy from President Obama to ensure appropriate
stewardship of the nation's coastlines. The task force, which
is a means to incorporate the Great Lakes under coastal
management, is led by the White House Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ), and the Office of Science, Technology, and
Policy. The newly formed group is the National Ocean Council
(NOC), to which regionally formed boards will report. The task
force has established nine priority objectives, including
ecosystem based management and coastal and marine spatial
planning (CMSP), which is today's topic. Referring to slide 7,
he reviewed the definition of CMSP and the associated process,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Definition of CMSP:
A comprehensive, adaptive, integrated, ecosystem
based, and transparent spatial planning process, based
on sound science, for analyzing current and
anticipated uses of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
areas.
The CMSP Process:
Identifies areas most suitable for various types or
classes of activities in order to reduce conflicts
among uses, reduce environmental impacts, facilitate
compatible uses, and preserve critical ecosystem
services to meet economic, environmental, security,
and social objectives.
12:29:00 PM
DR. DeMASTER said this is the framework to be used by the
regional planning body (RPB) task forces, which will be formed.
Seven national goals have been established, and he named three:
promoting compatibility among uses and reducing user conflicts;
streamlining and improving the rigor and consistency of decision
making and regulatory processes; and increasing certainty and
predictability in planning. Additionally, there are 12 guiding
principles that are to be followed under CMSP, which include:
ecosystem-based management; stakeholder and public engagement;
best available science; precautionary approach; flexibility to
accommodate changing conditions (environment, science, policy,
technology). He directed attention to a map to indicate how the
U.S. regions are divided and pointed out that the Alaska
coastline comprises a single complex region.
12:30:24 PM
DR. DeMASTER reported that a legal team has been formed to
establish authority. Thus far, the planning legalities have
been addressed and the go-ahead given to begin the process.
Adherence and compliance will be handled via a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) between the various agencies. Although
there are various organizations that do not fit easily into the
following rubric, the three groups of agencies are federal,
state, and tribal organizations.
12:31:28 PM
DR. DeMASTER said the process calls for engaging the
stakeholders, creating a draft plan for review by the NOC, and
once approved, having the plan adopted. The plan is to be
science based, and given the federal and state agencies
involved, compliance with the science mandate should not be a
problem, he opined. It is expected to take one year to identify
teams, and one to two years to implement regional plans. He
reported that $20 million will be available in FY 11 for this
project, on a competition basis. An additional $6 million has
been requested by NOAA to support CMSP. February 12 was the
public comment deadline and a report will be provided to
President Obama in March of 2010.
12:34:12 PM
ARNE FUGLVOG, Legislative Assistant, Fisheries, Transportation,
and Natural Resources, Office of U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski,
said the CEQ is the action agency working directly with
President Obama on this project. Marine spatial plans exist
internationally as well as in some coastal states in the U.S.,
and many of the models work well. Part of the impetus for this
project is to have federal coordination with the existing state
plans. He relayed concerns that have arisen within Alaska as
well as those expressed in Congress. One is the size of the
Alaska coastline and the need for 3 to 5 comprehensive plans
versus the one indicated on the previously viewed map. Clearly,
with the Alaska region shoreline being the size of the other
eight regions combined, the funding will fall short. A major
concern exists for how the CMSP will interact with existing law.
An executive order (EO) will be signed by the president, either
as a mandate or recommendation. A mandate could require that a
plan and framework be developed to interface with, or alter
existing law. However, the question of how an EO will be upheld
in court and whether it supersedes or pre-empts what exists
remains in question. Also, agencies are concerned with
receiving an underfunded mandate. He suggested that a mandate
is being discouraged, and a directive for voluntary programs to
serve areas may be a means to defray costs. There does not
appear to be a demonstrated need in Alaska for this type of
federal oversight.
12:42:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH expressed concerns for how this program will
work with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) treaty, as well as the Homeland Security Act, which
provides the Coast Guard pre-emptive authority.
MR. FUGLVOG said that the Coast Guard, and other agencies, are
part of the OPTF, and the idea is to integrate all the facets
into a seamless process. Typically, management has been handled
sector-to-sector and law-by-law, with the hope that everything
coordinates. The UNCLOS is awaiting ratification by the U.S.
Senate. The framework stipulates that the U.S. will conform to
international and domestic laws and treaties. The involved
agencies will all be represented at the table in the CMSP
process.
12:44:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH pointed out that for the first time freight
can be moved through the Northwest Passage. He maintained that
without ratification, and being part of the UNCLOS, the U.S. is
not at the table. He then asked about the stance of Alaska's
congressional delegation.
MR. FUGLVOG reported that U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski is in
support of ratification. Additionally, a resolution of support
passed the Alaska Legislature, and he assured the committee that
lack of agency support is not the impediment.
12:45:47 PM
CHAIR EDGMON referred to the five states that have independent
marine spatial plans, and asked whether tidal and wave power, or
other energy issues, are the driving factor behind the existing
plans.
MR. FUGLVOG reported that energy is a factor in Oregon as well
as in Massachusetts. Massachusetts exempted the commercial
fisheries from the CMSP to eliminate dealing with that industry.
California established three regions; the northern region is
currently focusing on sanctuaries. He said it would be
informative to track California's progress and results. Pilot
projects may be the best vehicle, he said, as there are no
existing domestic models.
12:48:26 PM
CHAIR EDGMON indicated that it is hard to imagine how CMSP will
take place in Alaska, given the complexity of state and federal
fisheries management schemes.
MR. FUGLVOG said a burden will be placed on the existing
agencies, state and federal, with NOAA potentially taking the
lead. He sympathized with how difficult it will be for Alaska
to comply, should the requirement for regional plans be
presented as a federal mandate.
DR. DeMASTER interjected that in the text of the framework it is
specified that this is not intended to be a top-down mandate.
However, depending on how the EO is written, the implementation
could include a top-down aspect.
12:50:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT observed that the south Atlantic and Gulf
of Mexico areas appear to have similar concerns as Alaska
regarding fisheries and oil/gas development. She asked whether
these regions are working to create a coalition with commerce
industries, which may be affected by the CMSP.
MR. FUGLVOG offered that the Gulf of Mexico has a history of
sustained oil and gas drilling and working together with the
fishing and shrimp industries. Alaska has been highlighted in
the OPTF since it does not have the same multiple uses,
interactions, or conflicts as the other continental regions. In
the northeast, concerns for off-shore wind and wave energy, as
well as shipping, fishing, and the ESA (Endangered Species Act)
around the Right Whales exists. It is expected that the plans
for Alaska will be less complicated due to fewer user groups.
Other than in Cook Inlet, Alaska's oil and gas industry does not
interact with the fishing industry. He reported that many
states are anticipating the benefit of having a CMSP to assist
in managing the multiple uses beyond any existing inter-state
agreements.
12:52:51 PM
CHAIR EDGMON mentioned that Cook Inlet may be named a critical
habitat for the Beluga Whale. He then asked what might
transpire, if that is established, in relation to a mandated
CMSP.
DR. DeMASTER acknowledged that Cook Inlet and the North Slope
are both areas that could be impacted by conflicts between the
ESA and industry. If the proposal to name Cook Inlet as
critical habitat for Beluga Whale is adopted, it would require
Section 7 consultation. He opined that having a CMSP in place
would lessen the burden of the consultation.
MR. FUGLVOG pointed out that the interim framework has the
intended goal to better coordinate activity, regulate ocean
zoning, and streamline the process by having all of the agencies
at the table. The streamline aspect has yet to be demonstrated,
but with the number of agencies commonly communicating,
collaborating, and cooperating, and the level of overlapping
laws, regulations, and statutes, it is clearly an intended
outcome, although not the highest priority.
12:56:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH reiterated the importance for ratification
of the UNCLOS in order to deal with the international aspects
prior to beginning the state process. The international issues
are primary and are occurring now, and he opined that August may
be too late to enter the arena.
MR. FUGLVOG assured the committee that ratification is a high
priority in Washington, D.C.
12:58:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked if there is a means to encourage
the prioritization of streamlining the multi agency permitting
process.
MR. FUGLVOG indicated hope that since Alaska is one independent
region, Alaska will be involved in developing the appropriate
framework for the state RPB. He expressed his further hope that
Alaska could specify the goal of streamlining the permitting
process. As long as the authority remains within the RPB and
the stakeholder process is in place, Alaska will be involved.
1:00:13 PM
CHAIR EDGMON thanked the presenters.
1:00:42 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 1:01
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Interim Report on OPTF.pdf |
HFSH 2/23/2010 10:15:00 AM |
|
| Interim-CMSP-Framework-Task-Force.pdf |
HFSH 2/23/2010 10:15:00 AM |
|
| HB 344--CS in HFSH.PDF |
HFSH 2/23/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 344 |