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.