U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73-693 PDF 2013

ALASKA’S SOVEREIGNTY IN PERIL: 

THE NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY’S 

GOAL TO FEDERALIZE ALASKA 

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, 

OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Tuesday, April 3, 2012, in Anchorage, Alaska 

Serial No. 112-105 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Mark Amodei, NV 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Paul Tonko, NY 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS 

AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, April 3, 2012 ................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska ................. 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Young, Hon. Don, the Representative in Congress for the State of Alaska 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Farrell, Dr. John W., Executive Director, U.S. Arctic Research 

Commission ................................................................................................... 42 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 44 

Joule, Hon. Reggie, Member, Alaska House of Representatives .................. 12 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Madsen, Stephanie, Executive Director, At-sea Processors Association, 

on behalf of the United Fishermen of Alaska ............................................. 22 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24 

Moriarty, Kara, Executive Director, Alaska Oil and Gas Association ......... 33 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 35 

Parady, Fred, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association ..................... 37 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 38 

Rogers, Rick, Executive Director, Resource Development Council for 

Alaska ............................................................................................................ 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Sturgeon, John, Director, Alaska Forest Association .................................... 40 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41 

Vincent-Lang, Douglas S., Acting Director, Division of Wildlife 

Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game ............................... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Additional materials supplied: 

Alaska Federation of Natives, Letter submitted for the record .................... 51 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING TITLED 

‘‘ALASKA’S SOVEREIGNTY IN PERIL: THE 

NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY’S GOAL TO 

FEDERALIZE ALASKA.’’ 

Tuesday, April 3, 2012 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Anchorage, Alaska 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in the 

Assembly Chambers of the Z.J. Loussac Library-Main Branch, 3600 

Denali Street, Anchorage, Alaska, Hon. Don Young presiding. 

Present: Representative Young. 

Also Present: Senator Lisa Murkowski. 

Mr. YOUNG. The Subcommittee will come to order. Good morning. 

Today the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular 

Affairs will conduct an oversight hearing entitled Alaska’s 

Sovereignty in Peril: The National Ocean Policy’s Goal to 

Federalize Alaska. 

Before I begin, I’d ask that Senator Murkowski be allowed to join 

the Subcommittee on the dais and participate in the hearing. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. YOUNG. I’d like to welcome our witnesses here today. You 

know, in four separate Congresses, legislation was introduced to 

create a National Ocean Policy. Most recently, the legislation is 

known as BOB, Big Ocean Bill. Congress is not active in this bill 

due to serious concerns about the scope of the legislation. Now, 

without statutory authorization, the Administration has decided to 

create a new vague regulatory bureaucracy through an Executive 

Order. 

The Executive Order creates a new National Ocean Policy and a 

complicated bureaucratic scheme, which includes: a 27-member National Ocean Council; an 18-member Governance Coordinating 

Committee; 10 National Policies; 9 Regional Planning Bodies—each 

involving as many as 27 Federal agencies as well as states and 

tribes; 9 National Priority Objectives; 9 Strategic Action Plans; 7 

National Goals for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning; and 12 Guiding Principles for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning. Are you confused yet? 

I’ve been confused ever since they introduced this. I hope you 

have a diagram. Think of what I said: 27 members, 18 members, 

10 National Policies, 9 Regional Planning Bodies, 27 Federal agencies, 9 National Priority Objectives, 9 Strategic Action Plans. That 

2 

means you’ve got too much in the pot when you’re creating this 

soup. 

The Coastal Marine Spatial Planning Initiative is the most troubling. This initiative requires the establishment of nine Regional 

Planning Bodies, each made up of as many as 27 Federal agencies, 

which each will create Marine and Coastal Zone Planning. All Federal agencies will be required to follow these plans when making 

decisions on permits or when authorizing activities. These plans 

will reach far inland and affect all forms of resource development 

and add a new layer of decision-makers. This will create even more 

uncertainty for businesses that we want to invest in Alaska. 

This goes not only in the ocean; it goes far inland. Despite the 

Administration’s claims that it will be the most transparent ever, 

this Federal environmental overlay is being developed and implemented with no direct stakeholder involved. Nowhere in the United 

States will the effect of a National Ocean Policy be felt, as I said 

before, to as great an extent as in Alaska. The reach of this ocean 

policy will stretch throughout the entire State and affect almost all 

activity required by Federal permit. 

As we will hear from our witnesses today, the State’s economic 

viability is a direct result of our ability to use our natural resources. Any new Federal initiative that affects our ability to use 

these natural resources will cost us jobs and take away our statehood. 

The Administration claims that this whole National Ocean Policy 

is nothing more than an attempt to coordinate Federal agencies 

and make better permitting decisions. Forgive me if I’m a little suspicious when the government through the Executive Order decides 

to create a new bureaucracy that will help us plan where activities 

can and cannot take place in our waters and inlets. 

This effort for zoning authority in the State of Alaska using criteria and new policy goals will not be helpful. In fact, this effort 

will take place whether the State of Alaska wants it to and makes 

me even more suspicious of the Federal Government. 

Alaska has the most productive fisheries in the U.S. and possibly 

the world. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has allowed the fishermen themselves to be part of the process to participate in the government interpretation of the science used to create 

the management plan. 

Almost 6 percent of the seafood produced in U.S. waters comes 

from Alaska, but now the Federal Government is proposing a new 

overlay that will second-guess the North Pacific Council system 

and will require them to use new criteria—criteria that are not included in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We have well-managed oil 

and gas industries and mining industry. We manage our wildlife to 

allow ourselves a subsistence harvest and for sport hunting in a 

manner that allows for an incredible number and diversity of animals. 

We do not need the Federal Government coming in and telling 

us that we now have to change our management and regulatory 

system to work within a zoning plan based on new criteria and developed by bureaucrats behind closed doors in Washington, D.C. 

The National Ocean Policy is a bad idea. It will create more 

uncertainty for businesses and will limit job growth. It will also 

3 

compound potential litigation by groups that oppose human activities. What makes matters worse, the Administration refuses to tell 

Congress how much money will be diverted from other uses to fund 

the new policy. 

The Federal budget is already tight. Taking money from existing 

research and management to fund some poorly designed national 

initiative that will hinder economic growth of Alaska is just wrong. 

This is not the first oversight hearing that’s being held on the 

National Ocean Policy, and it will not be the last. 

I want everybody to understand. We will continue this policy of 

hearing why this has been put forth by Executive Order. I look forward to hearing the witnesses today and hearing about the 

National Ocean Policy and how it will affect our activities. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Don Young, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska 

In four separate Congresses, legislation was introduced to create a national ocean 

policy. Most recently the legislation was known as BOB—the Big Ocean Bill. Congress has not acted on these bills due to serious concerns about the scope of the 

legislation. 

Now, without statutory authorization, this Administration has decided to create 

a new, vague, regulatory bureaucracy through an Executive Order. 

The Executive Order creates a new National Ocean Policy and a complicated bureaucratic scheme which includes: a 27-member National Ocean Council; an 18- 

member Governance Coordinating Committee; 10 National Policies; 9 Regional Planning Bodies—each involving as many as 27 Federal agencies as well as states and 

tribes; 9 National Priority Objectives; 9 Strategic Action Plans; 7 National Goals for 

Coastal Marine Spatial Planning; and 12 Guiding Principles for Coastal Marine 

Spatial Planning. Are you confused yet? 

The ‘‘Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning’’ initiative is the most troubling. This 

initiative requires the establishment of 9 Regional Planning Bodies—each made up 

of as many as 27 Federal agencies—which will each create marine and coastal zoning plans. All Federal agencies will be required to follow these plans when making 

decisions on permits or when authorizing activities. These plans will reach far inland and add a new layer of decision-makers. This will create even more uncertainty 

for businesses that want to invest in Alaska. 

And despite the Administration’s claims that it will be the most transparent ever, 

this new federal environmental overlay is being developed and implemented with 

no direct stakeholder involvement. 

Nowhere in the United States will the effects of the National Ocean Policy be felt 

to the extent that it will in Alaska. The reach of this ‘‘ocean’’ policy will stretch 

throughout the entire state and affect almost any activity that requires a federal 

permit. As we will hear from our witnesses today, the State’s economic vitality is 

a direct result of our ability to use our natural resources. Any new federal initiative 

that affects our ability to use these natural resources will cost jobs. 

The Administration claims that this whole National Ocean policy is nothing more 

than an attempt to coordinate federal agencies and make better permitting decisions. Forgive me if I am a little suspicious when the Federal government—through 

an Executive Order—decides to create a new bureaucracy that will ‘‘help’’ us plan 

where activities can or cannot take place in our waters and inland. This effort to 

‘‘zone’’ a majority of the State of Alaska using new criteria and new policy goals will 

not be helpful. The fact that this effort will take place whether the State of Alaska 

wants it to or not makes me even more suspicious. 

Alaska has the most productive fisheries in the U.S. and possibly the world. The 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council has allowed the fishermen themselves 

to be a part of the process—to participate in the development and interpretation of 

the science used to create the management plans. Almost 60% of the seafood produced in U.S. waters comes from Alaska. But now the federal government is proposing a new overlay that will second guess the North Pacific Council system and 

will require that they meet some new criteria—criteria that are NOT included in 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Our forests are productive despite the federal government and environmental litigants’ efforts to stop that industry. We have a well-managed oil and gas industry 

4 

and mining industry. And we manage our wildlife to allow for subsistence harvest 

and for sport hunting in a manner that has allowed for an incredible number and 

diversity of animals. We do not need the Federal government coming in and telling 

us that we now have to change our management and regulatory systems to work 

within a new zoning plan based on new criteria developed by bureaucrats behind 

closed doors in Washington, D.C. 

This National Ocean Policy is a bad idea. It will create more uncertainty for businesses and will limit job growth. It will also compound the potential for litigation 

by groups that oppose human activities. To make matters worse, the Administration 

refuses to tell Congress how much money it will be diverting from other uses to fund 

this new Policy. The Federal budget is already tight. Taking money from existing 

research and management missions to fund some poorly-designed national initiative 

that will hinder economic growth in Alaska is just wrong. 

This is not the first oversight hearing we have held on the National Ocean Policy 

and this will not be the last. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses and hearing how the National 

Ocean Policy will affect their activities. 

Mr. YOUNG. With that, I recognize Senator Murkowski and hear 

any statement. By the way, I do believe this is the first time we’ve 

ever had a Senator from Alaska and a Congressman from Alaska 

sitting on the same panel and having the House hold the Chair. I 

do thank you, Senator, for being here. 

Senator Lisa. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman 

Young, not only for doing this oversight hearing in Anchorage 

today on the National Ocean Policy, but for allowing me to join you 

in this effort. I do recognize that it is somewhat unusual and I am 

actually happy that we’re able to do this. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here to dive into some of the 

anticipated effects of the nine National Ocean Policy initiatives, including the Coastal Marine Spatial Planning. I share the concerns 

that you have outlined. When you outlined the number of entities 

that are involved, it kind of reminded me of the partridge in a pear 

tree. We might be able to sing that one together. 

I do believe that the concerns that have been expressed by a 

number of industries, state and local governments, I think we recognize this is yet another attempt by the executive branch to tell 

us how we can and how we cannot use our oceans and our coast. 

In the FY12 budget request from the President, I worked to ensure 

that the Coastal Marine Spatial Planning funding request was zeroed out. I’m glad the President got the message and did not request CMSP funding. But I do worry that the Administration will 

continue to work and to move forward with all aspects of the National Ocean Policy. 

Back in January the National Ocean Council released a draft National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan identifying an exhaustive 

list of milestones, many for 2012/2014 completion. I think some of 

these milestones are pretty ambitious. 

For example, within the Ecosystem Base Management Policy, 

which I think there are 20 milestones, one of them is to develop 

national guidelines and best practices for ecosystem-based management implementation based on engagement of the nonFederal partVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:29 Apr 12, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\73693.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
5 

ners and stakeholders. Another is to establish a process for adaptive resource management. 

I commend the resource management bodies here in the Alaska 

region, like the North Pacific Fishery Management Council for 

proactively developing and integrating ecosystem-oriented management approaches into their decision-making process. However, I do 

not support national guidelines that dictate standards for ocean 

management. These one size fits all standards rarely work for 

Alaska. 

National Ocean Policy milestones would require tremendous coordination and as you point out, Mr. Chairman, they would be very 

costly. And you have to ask yourself: To what end? We need more 

science and baseline information in order to effectively incorporate 

ecosystem-based management and decision-making, but arbitrary 

milestones in the draft National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan 

will drain resources from foundational science and core Federal 

programs. 

The National Ocean Policy will be expensive and we recognize 

that. As you point out, there’s no dedicated funds for agencies to 

follow through with commitments that are identified in the draft 

Implementation Plan. In Washington, we’ve been hearing from 

agencies that the Administration’s National Ocean Policy initiatives will be absorbed by existing programs, but the agencies have 

not provided us with any indication of what work will need to be 

set aside as a tradeoff. We simply can’t make that expansion without offsetting it somewhere else. 

Now, just one final comment on CMSP for a second. The President’s budget calls for expanding the Regional Ocean Partnership 

Grants by half a million dollars. Regional Ocean Partnerships have 

been formed in regions of the country where they feel that there 

is a need for some coordination above and beyond what existing 

management bodies can provide on their own. 

Regional Ocean Partnerships were a way for those regions to 

continue to move forward with that type of work without imposing 

CMSP and the associated Regional Planning Bodies on everyone. I 

was disappointed to learn that this year the Regional Ocean Partnership competitive grants support activities that contribute to 

achieving the priorities identified by Regional Ocean Partnerships 

while also advancing National Ocean Policy priorities, including 

national CMSP framework. I think this program is clearly being 

used to advance the Administration’s CMSP initiative despite the 

fact that Congress has zeroed out CMSP funding. 

These are just a couple of the concerns that I have, in addition 

to what you have, Congressman. I look forward to the testimony 

that we will hear and an opportunity for ongoing discussion about 

this proposed national policy. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, 

a U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska 

I would like to thank my good friend, Congressman Young, for calling this oversight field hearing on the National Ocean Policy and allowing me to join you on the 

panel. I appreciate the opportunity to be here in Alaska to dive into some of the 

anticipated affects of the nine National Ocean Policy initiatives, including Coastal 

and Marine Spatial Planning (or CMSP). You know as a member of the Senate ApVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:29 Apr 12, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\73693.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
6 

propriations CJS Subcommittee, I worked to defund FY 2012 spending for CMSP, 

and I was pleased to see that the President’s budget request left that budget line 

item at zero for FY 2013. Congressman Young, despite the message Congress sent 

in pulling funds for CMSP, I see many indications that the administration continues 

to move forward will all aspects of NOP. 

In January, The National Ocean Council released a draft National Ocean Policy 

(NOP) implementation plan identifying an exhaustive list of milestones, many for 

2012–2014 completion. Some of these milestones are pretty ambitious. For example, 

within the Ecosystem-based Management policy objective, there are 20 milestones. 

One of them is to develop national guidelines and best practices for EBM implementation based on engagement of non-Federal partners and stakeholders. Another is 

to establish a process for adaptive resource management. 

I support ecosystem-oriented decision making, and commend resource management bodies in the Alaska region like the North Pacific Fishery Management Council for proactively developing and integrating ecosystem-oriented management approaches into their decision making process. However, I do not support the concept 

of issuing national guidelines dictating standards for EBM, these one-size-fits all 

standards rarely work for Alaska 

These two milestones alone, both targeted for 2013, would require tremendous coordination and would be very costly. And I have to ask to what end? We need more 

science and baseline information in order to effectively incorporate ecosystem based 

management in decision making—ironically, arbitrary milestones in the draft NOP 

implementation plan will drain resources from foundational science and core federal 

programs. EBM is just one of nine priority policy objectives, each with action items 

and milestones in the draft NOP implementation plan. 

NOP will be expensive, and there are no dedicated funds for agencies to follow 

through with commitments identified in the draft implementation plan. In budget 

hearings in Washington, we’ve been hearing from agencies that the administration’s 

NOP initiatives will be absorbed by existing programs, yet agencies have not provided us any indication of what work will need to be set aside as a tradeoff. 

I’d like to return to CMSP for a minute. The President’s Budget calls for expand- ing the Regional Ocean Partnership grants by $0.5 million. Regional Ocean Partnerships have formed in regions of the country where they feel there’s a need for some 

coordination above and beyond what existing management bodies can provide on 

their own. Regional Ocean Partnerships were a way for those regions to continue 

to move forward with that type of work without imposing CMSP and the associated 

Regional Planning Bodies on everyone right now. I was disappointed to learn that 

this year, Regional Ocean Partnership competitive grants support activities that 

contribute to achieving the priorities identified by Regional Ocean Partnerships 

while also advancing NOP priorities including the national CMSP Framework. This 

is an unacceptable end run around Congress to implement CMPS. This program is 

clearly being used to advance the administration’s CMSP initiative. Eligibility 

standards for ROPs under the grant program require only that applicants be a government, institution of higher learning, or non-profit or for-profit organization that 

may receive and expend federal funds. Yet, the administration’s definition of CMSP 

includes identifying areas most suitable for various types or classes of activities. 

There is no guarantee Regional Ocean Partnerships are the appropriate body to 

be making recommendations or dictating what can and cannot happen in waters off 

Alaska or along the Alaska coastline, and they certainly would not have the authority. 

Congressman Young, these are just a few of my concerns about NOP, and I look 

forward to learning more through the testimony we receive today about Alaskan’s 

concerns over NOP and CMSP, and how the organizations represented here today 

think the NOP priority initiatives will affect them. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, I’m going to submit for the record 

a letter from Governor Parnell and a synopsis of this bill dated 

July 2nd, 2011, an additional letter from Governor Parnell on October 3rd, 2011, and we have other correspondence from the State 

and how they think this is a bad idea. 

[The documents submitted for the record have been retained in 

the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. YOUNG. I mentioned the confusion. This is the map we’re 

looking at right here, ladies and gentlemen. I know you may not 

7 

be able to see it, but this is how confusing this thing is. This is by 

Executive Order 13547, and it goes on, nine priorities, objectives, 

27 members here, 10 national policies and I can go on down the 

line. This is an example of what they’re proposing. 

There will be nothing ever achieved in this state when we lose 

our statehood. That sounds kind of alarming, but the utilization of 

our resources—this will be and has been the State of Alaska. We 

became a state for our socioeconomic well-being by utilization of 

our resources. As a state, this takes that right away. 

With that, we call up our first panel. Mr. Doug Vincent-Lang, 

Acting Director of Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. We have The Honorable Reggie Joule, 

a Member of the House of Representatives, Mr. Rick Rogers, Executive Director, Resource Development Council for Alaska, and I believe Ms. Madsen, National Committee Chair, United Fishermen of 

Alaska. 

I think you all know this. I’m pretty lenient as far as time goes, 

but you’re actually supposed to take five minutes. When the panel 

is finished, we’ll ask questions. 

Mr. Lang, you’re first. 

STATEMENT OF DOUG VINCENT-LANG, ACTING DIRECTOR, 

DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 

Mr. VINCENT-LANG. Good morning Representative Young, Senator Murkowski. Thanks for coming to Alaska to hear all the testimony on Ocean Policy. My name for the record is Doug VincentLang. I’m testifying on behalf of the State of Alaska. 

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 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 $6 billion 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 the ocean and coastal resources cannot be overstated. 

The implementation of the President’s National Ocean Policy institutes a new Federal framework to govern our marine and coastal 

activities. Upon inspection, it Federalizes decision process 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 

8 

Federal regulatory oversight is needed and we oppose creation of 

additional Federal bureaucracy and regulation and view it as an 

unnecessary threat to our sovereignty. 

We also do not support the use of this process for zoning or alternatively for regulated marine use planning purposes. Instead, we 

support achieving efficiency by relying on the effective proven resources processes and authorities that are already in place. Any establishment of further authority should be through direct congressional action. 

Congress has a keen awareness of the current multi-jurisdictional structure and respect for the traditional role of states in 

managing our 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 wetlands, uplands, tidal 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 and restricts activities 

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 

and not relegated to stakeholder status in any planning effort. Any 

new policies affecting coastal areas must be developed and implemented from the ground up, not from the top down as currently 

proposed. 

The best policies are those that are local, not made by bureaucrats over 3,000 miles away. We believe state-driven efforts are 

best suited to addressing these stakes in Alaska, not new Federal 

programs. Alaska’s experience and record demonstrates that a 

strong state model can be very effective when implemented responsibly and therefore national policies must recognize the need for 

state-based decision-making. 

Our record of sustainable management of Alaska’s marine and 

coastal resources has led to national and international recognition 

of Alaska as a leader in these fields. A prime example is fisheries 

management, which is shared between the Alaska Board of Fisheries and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. 

Rather than develop an implementation of new regulatory programs, a better focus would be in investment 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 use its resources on the 

many needs in the Arctic and to focus on the much needed and research and monitoring rather than expending resources on an unnecessary and duplicative planning effort. 

9 

Finally, to ensure an effective outcome, it is critically important 

that any planning effort have clearly defined, expected outcomes, 

an appropriate timeline, and provides both the states and users of 

marine and coastal resources with the primary authority to develop 

ocean and coastal policies. Despite numerous requests by the State 

to provide such specifics, they have yet to be provided. 

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. 

Until requested details are provided, especially with respect to governments and regulated use, the State cannot support this effort as 

currently described. We urge Congress to directly 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. 

I thank you for the opportunity to present these remarks on behalf of Governor Parnell and the State. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Lang. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vincent-Lang follows:] 

Statement of Douglas S. Vincent-Lang, Acting Director, 

Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

Good morning Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Doug VincentLang. I am the Acting Director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Today I am testifying on behalf of the State of 

Alaska. 

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. The Alaska 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is a large area, roughly the size of Texas and California combined, and is largely untapped as a natural resource. This area holds an 

estimated 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and is 

a key to our nation’s energy security. With 44,500 miles of shoreline—more mileage 

than the other eight proposed planning areas combined—and an expansive Exclusive Economic Zone, Alaska’s interest in managing ocean and coastal resources cannot be overstated. 

The implementation of the President’s National Ocean Policy appears to be focused on developing a new federal regulatory framework to govern marine and 

coastal activities. Upon inspection, it appears to federalize decision processes regarding marine and coastal activities and to embed authority into regional governance boards dominated by federal agencies and federal decision processes. What is 

most troubling is that this governance overlays state lands and waters and directly 

threatens our sovereign authorities. 

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 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 

sovgerinity. We also do not support use of this process for zoning or regulated marine use planning purposes. Instead, we support achieving efficiency by relying on 

the effective proven processes and authorities that are already in place. 

The State is not aware of a single law granting the President authority to amend 

or supplement existing statutes with a new National Ocean Council to be guided 

by the conservation principles of Executive Order 13537 while controlling the deciVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:29 Apr 12, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\73693.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
10 

sions of federal agencies and seeking to limit resource development to certain designated ocean or coastal zones. On its face, the Executive Order does not cite any 

federal statute as a source of such authority. If the Executive Order is based on existing authority the legal cite(s) should be provided. Otherwise, the authority to proceed should be through Congressional action. We urge that before imposing any new 

regulations, policies or strategies the federal executive branch seek express and 

clear authority for such changes through the passage of a bill by Congress. 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. 

Congress has already ‘‘occupied the field’’ of management of the nation’s coastal 

and ocean resources with the many laws now in place. In so doing Congress has 

already decided what laws and requirements apply to coastal and ocean development and what policies and criteria federal agencies should use to decide whether 

to grant a permit for a particular project. Overlaying the President’s national ocean 

policy on top of the existing statutory and regulatory framework creates uncertainty 

and conflict, both of which are problematic if the goal is to encourage economic development, jobs, and certainty in permitting. 

Section 5(b) of the Executive Order says that ‘‘executive departments’, agencies’ 

or office’s decisions and actions affecting the oceans and coasts. . .will be guided by 

the stewardship principles and national priority objectives set forth in the Final 

Recommendations’’. As such, the Executive Order mandates that agencies follow the 

President’s policies and objectives when making decisions. This mandatory language 

is followed by language in the Executive Order that says ‘‘to the extent consistent 

with applicable law’’ but what does that mean? This raises the question as to whether a permitting agency deciding whether to grant a permit needs to follow the policy 

of the regional ocean plan or the direction of Congress in the Outer Continental 

Shelf Lands Act which sets out a policy with Congressional direction to promote development and to work with States and local communities in making permitting and 

leasing decisions on a case by case basis. Specifically, how would a permitting agency with that Congressional statutory framework fit that framework with the President’s Executive Order which says the policy federal agencies should be following 

are the stewardship principles designed to protect oceans and bolster conservation, 

(Section 1 of Executive Order) and to follow the guidance of the National Ocean 

Council (Section 1 of the Executive Order) not Congress, or States or local communities or stakeholders. 

If the Executive Order did not mandate federal agencies to follow the direction 

and policy, if it said federal agencies ‘‘may’’ apply the policies and principles of the 

Executive Order if the action they are contemplating is not already covered by an 

act of Congress, and if the Executive Order said federal agencies must continue to 

give deference to, and cooperate and coordinate with states, local communities, and 

stakeholders as set out in current laws and regulations, then the Executive Order 

avoids conflict and uncertainty in federal decision-making. But it does not say that. 

It uses mandatory language and while it contains some catch all language ‘‘consistent with applicable law’’, the language is not enough to save the Executive Order 

from becoming authoritative and stipulative. 

Given this, how would any member of the public or industry supportive of a permit or development know if the federal agency made its decision based on the policy 

and requirements in statute or those set out in the Executive Order, or how much 

weight it gave to specific factors in its decision making process? If an entity does 

not know which factors were relied on and to what degree, then federal agencies 

can just follow the principles of the Executive Order and give lip service to the actual laws and regulations that are on the books now. And states and companies 

looking to invest and create jobs are going to be concerned at a minimum that it 

is uncertain what factors will be brought to bear on their project. 

The federal government should also be required to follow the procedures of the 

Administrative Procedure Act which require federal agencies to follow rules and provide an opportunity for the public to comment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act which 

requires an estimate of the impacts on businesses from federal agency action, and 

the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires studies and analysis of any 

major federal action, which a new national ocean policy certainly qualifies for. 

(Since a timber sale for 10 acres qualifies.) All these protections should apply to this 

federal action in this Executive Order because it imposes a new national ocean policy which is significant action. 

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 fedVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:29 Apr 12, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\73693.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
11 

eral and local agencies, permits or restricts activities on them that could impact the 

environment. Alaska shares a common responsibility with the federal government 

to maintain healthy, resilient, and sustainable marine and coastal resources. Any 

adopted program must recognize and respect Alaska’s jurisdiction and sovereign authorities. 

State government is in a good position to evaluate how proposed national marine 

and coastal policies will work, or not work, in different ecosystems and communities 

around the state. With a state as large and diverse as Alaska, it will be critically 

important to capture the experience and knowledge of the state in developing and 

implementing marine and coastal policies. We encourage that these policies be developed from the ground up, and not top down as is currently proposed. Durable, 

reliable, and implementable national policies require an understanding of local 

issues and a public process sufficient to ensure local support. 

There are already numerous successful partnerships in Alaska among federal, 

state, and local governments, tribes, organizations, and concerned citizens. National 

policies should recognize and build upon these existing partnerships and avoid supplanting them with management or direction coming from outside the state. The 

best decisions are those that are local, not made by bureaucrats 3,000 miles away. 

We believe state driven efforts like those of the Northern Waters Task Force are 

best suited to addressing the issues facing Alaska, not new federal programs. 

Alaska’s experience and record demonstrates that a strong state model can be 

very effective when implemented responsibly and, therefore, national policies must 

recognize the need for state-based decision-making. Our record of sustainable management of Alaska’s marine and coastal resources has led to national and international recognition of Alaska as a leader in these fields. A prime example is fisheries management which is shared between the Alaska Board of Fisheries and the 

North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. The management of fisheries by these 

bodies is perhaps the best in the world. In Alaska, significant progress has been 

made to strengthen and enhance marine research, coastal and marine observing, 

and habitat protection. 

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. This effort is draining agency resources at a time when core 

agency functions are struggling for funding due to declining federal budgets. We 

would prefer to see the federal government focus its resources on the many needs 

in the Arctic and to focus on much needed fisheries research rather than expending 

resources on an unnecessary and duplicative planning effort. 

Needed infrastructure include aids to navigation, new polar-class icebreakers, 

ports in the Bering Sea and the Arctic Ocean, and forward basing for the U.S. Coast 

Guard (USCG) and Air National Guard aircraft. We also encourage the development 

of safe, secure, and reliable shipping regimes envisioned by the U.S. Arctic Policy. 

A national commitment to provide adequate and sustained funding for Arctic research and infrastructure is also needed. Alaska would benefit greatly from access 

to high resolution mapping and imagery. For example, much of Alaska’s coastline 

lacks complete navigational and bathymetric data. Resources are also needed to increase our knowledge of ocean acidification and the effects of climate change on the 

marine environment and fish stocks, for stock assessments, and improved observing 

and monitoring of oceans conditions. We endorse the Sustained Arctic Observing 

Network and urge full U.S. participation. 

We also strongly recommend allocation of resources for enforcement and monitoring, especially full funding for the USCG to fulfill its responsibilities in international boundary enforcement and emerging responsibilities in the Arctic. The 

USCG’s ‘‘High Latitudes’’ study and recommendations need to be released by the administration and key infrastructure recommendations presented to Congress for 

funding. Alaska is unique among states in that we share maritime boundaries with 

multiple foreign nations and manage fish stocks and marine mammals that migrate 

across international boundaries. 

From an international perspective, implementation of marine and coastal policy 

must recognize that different legal regimes, with their associated freedoms, rights 

and duties, apply in different maritime zones of foreign countries. Due to our shared 

boundaries with Canada and Russia in the Arctic this is a very important issue. For 

example, activities in the adjacent Canadian Beaufort Sea currently operate under 

the jurisdiction of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. While we do not have 

a specific proposal to endorse at this time, we encourage discussion of an Arctic 

high-seas fisheries agreement. 

Rather than direct implementation of the provisions of an international treaty 

through executive order, we urge the Senate to ratify the United Nations ConvenVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:29 Apr 12, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\73693.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
12 

tion on the Law of the Sea. Once ratified, this treaty will allow the U.S. to claim 

jurisdiction over the offshore continental shelf beyond the 200-mile limit. As a result, U.S. boundaries could grow into areas that may hold large deposits of oil, natural gas, and other resources. Russia, Canada, Denmark, and Norway already have 

claims to Arctic territory and the U.S. needs a seat at the table to protect its interests. 

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. The health and management of 

our marine and coastal resources is simply too critical to engage in a process that 

does not provide clear policy direction and a meaningful avenue for both state and 

public input and support. Also, the process, including all decision processes, must 

be locally driven and not vested in federal bureaucrats in Washington DC. 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. 

In closing, while well-intentioned, this policy is simply not ready for implementation. Until requested details are provided, especially with respect to governance and 

regulated use, the State cannot support this effort as currently proposed. We urge 

the National Ocean Council to delay implementation of this policy and to have more 

meaningful dialogue to address state and other affected users concerns. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Reggie Joule. 

STATEMENT OF HON. REGGIE JOULE, MEMBER, 

ALASKA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. JOULE. Thank you, Congressman Young, Senator Murkowski. 

For the record my name is Reggie Joule. I represent House District 40. I have represented this district for the last 16 years. My 

district stretches from the Canadian border on the northern and 

eastern coast down to Shishmaref. Within that district lies Prudhoe 

Bay, ANWR, the Red Dog Mine and countless unfounded other 

mineral and oil and gas resources. 

The coastline of my district sits squarely on the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Sea, an area which for thousands of years has supported 

and provided for the Inupiat people and their food sources. It is 

this same area that holds potentially vast amounts of oil and gas. 

Today everything seems to be happening at an accelerated rate. 

Ten years ago we were talking about the likelihood of drilling. This 

summer that’s going to happen. There are new possibilities that 

are being discussed with northern shipping, mineral extraction, offshore commercial fishing and tourism. 

With this in mind, in 2010 the Alaska Legislature formed the 

Northern Waters Task Force and that’s what I’m here to talk about 

today, those recommendations. This task force was made up of 

State legislators, leaders from Alaska communities and representatives of the State and Federal agencies. We held meetings in Juneau, Anchorage, Barrow, Wainwright, Kotzebue, Nome, Wales, 

Bethel and Unalaska. We had experts from the universities and 

military, nongovernmental organizations, the oil and gas industry 

and dozens of State and Federal agencies. 

Additionally, and for me when we went to some of these communities, most of them, we heard from people who live in those communities. The message that they gave was pretty uniform and 

13 

ended up being one of our top priorities that came out of the Northern Waters Task Force, and that was that communications was 

going to be a key in all of this and that local communities need to 

be included in the discussions, in the planning, the timing, and the 

decision-making of all of these things that are happening because 

if something goes awry, it is they who will pay the price. 

We focused on issues of Arctic governance, oil and gas development, marine transportation, Arctic infrastructure, Arctic fisheries 

and Arctic research. I’ve already highlighted one of our top recommendations and that was communications. 

One of the other recommendations that we came up with was the 

establishment of an Arctic Policy Commission. Now, we put together a resolution which passed the House of Representatives and 

is currently sitting in the Senate Finance Committee. This Commission, this Arctic Policy Commission, would be made up of stakeholders from across Alaska, from the Legislature to the Administration, the Federal Government, oil and gas industry, tribes, municipalities, corporations and a broad array of Alaskans. 

A couple other recommendations that we made that are already 

in play, the Law of the Sea Treaty. We passed that resolution a 

year ago. The Senate just passed—and the House just passed the 

resolution for ice breakers and forward base landing for the United 

States Coast Guard. So you will have those in front of you. One you 

do; one is coming. 

We need to pay attention to international agreements, shipping, 

fisheries, oil and gas and other transboundary issues. There’s the 

search and rescue agreement that’s already been made. 

But in closing, Mr. Chairman, one of the things I think that we 

need to do as a recommendation from the Northern Waters Task 

Force is the Arctic Council. In 2013 Canada will take the chair. 

Two years after that the United States will take the chair of the 

Arctic Council. We have an opportunity, I believe, for North America to make a great impact with the Arctic Council. 

There’s much to look forward to. There’s many challenges. We 

have one time to do this right, with the right research, with the 

right kinds of communications with the people that we serve, we 

can put our best foot forward. You have the rest of my written testimony in hand. Thank you for the opportunity to come here and 

we have forwarded the full report to both of your offices. Thank 

you. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Joule. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Joule follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Reggie Joule, State Representative, 

Alaska State Legislature, Chair of the Alaska Northern Waters Task Force 

SUMMARY OF THE MAIN FINDINGS OF THE ALASKA NORTHERN 

WATERS TASK FORCE 

The United States is an Arctic Nation because of Alaska. Diminishing sea ice and 

the intensifying worldwide race for natural resources has rapidly increased international interest in the Arctic. Arctic Nations are anticipating the development of 

northern shipping routes, mineral extraction, oil and gas exploration, commercial 

fisheries, and tourism. For Alaska, the economic benefits over the long term could 

be substantial. But how will we confront the challenges and opportunities awaiting 

us in the Arctic while also providing for sustainable communities and protecting the 

environment? 

14 

In 2010, the Alaska State Legislature established the Alaska Northern Waters 

Task Force (ANWTF) to identify opportunities to increase the state’s engagement 

with these issues. The task force is comprised of state legislators, leaders from Alaskan communities, and representatives of key state and federal agencies. The task 

force held twelve hearings in Juneau, Anchorage, Barrow, Wainwright, Kotzebue, 

Nome, Wales, Bethel, and Unalaska. Over 65 experts from universities, U.S. military, non-governmental organizations, and dozens of state and federal agencies testified. Additionally, the task force heard public testimony from local communities 

and residents. On both the state and federal level, the task force has identified numerous urgent needs. The following are its top three recommendations: 

1. State-wide public testimony gathered by the task force made it clear that the 

state and federal governments must provide Alaskans with meaningful opportunities to participate in Arctic policy and Outer Continental Shelf development decisions. Many local government officials, tribal government representatives, and individuals expressed a need for timelier, more frank, and 

more thorough information from state and federal authorities regarding policies and activities off Alaska’s coasts. The task force believes that consistent, 

structured communication and consultation—particularly with those Alaskans likely to be most impacted by evolving conditions—is the best way to 

build consensus, advance responsible policies, and stimulate broadly beneficial economic development. 

2. The state of Alaska has only just begun to grapple with the challenges and 

opportunities developing in the far north. It is imperative the state be strategically involved and in a leadership role in the development of policies affecting the state, its communities, and citizens. It is therefore among the task 

force’s highest priorities to press for the creation of a commission to develop 

a comprehensive state strategy for the Arctic. As the Arctic changes, the decisions Alaska faces will continue to evolve and grow in complexity. An Alaskan Arctic Commission will enable Alaska to more effectively respond to unfolding developments and will jumpstart Alaska’s preparations to ensure that 

the interests of the state and its people are protected. The commission will 

also provide a means for communities and residents to remain engaged and 

be heard. To further this recommendation, the legislative task force members 

submitted House Concurrent Resolution 23 (HCR 23) to the legislature for 

consideration. HCR 23 creates a 17 member commission whose purpose is to 

develop an Alaskan Arctic Policy. HCR 23 has passed the House of Representatives and is now in the Senate for consideration. I am hopeful that 

it will pass the legislature this session. 

3. The NWTF supports the Alaska State Legislature and the state of Alaska 

continuing to encourage the United States Senate to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Joining the more than 

165 other nations that have ratified UNCLOS will enable the U.S. to peacefully legitimize its claims to resources in areas of the Continental Shelf that 

extend beyond the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. To quote President 

George W. Bush, who, like President Barack Obama, supports U.S. ratification of the convention, ‘‘It will give the United States a seat at the table 

when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted.’’ 

The following pages include additional priorities, among the many findings of the 

task force, in areas including Arctic governance, oil and gas development, marine 

transportation, infrastructure, fisheries, and research. The in-depth recommendations of the task force can be found at www.anwtf.com. 

Arctic Governance: 

Changes in the Arctic make it necessary to evaluate the adequacy of existing 

Arctic governance structures and to consider adjusting these systems or creating 

new ones to better suit developing needs. At the international level, Arctic nations 

must strengthen their relations and enhance regulatory frameworks and policy 

mechanisms to address pressing issues. We in Alaska must ensure that our Arctic 

residents and the State of Alaska have a strong voice in these matters. 

1. The NWTF supports the development of a comprehensive U.S. Arctic policy 

that is adequately funded to carry out its mission. This policy should ensure 

that national interests are balanced with Alaska state interests, so that commitments to safeguard the environment and the wellbeing of the region’s 

communities and cultures accompany all strategies for economic development. 

2. The NWTF recommends that the State of Alaska and the United States participate in the adoption of international agreements for shipping, fisheries, 

15 

oil and gas development, and other transboundary issues. It is in our interest 

to ensure all parties develop resources in the region safely and responsibly. 

3. The NWTF recommends the State of Alaska and the Alaska State Legislature support greater international cooperation through the Arctic Council. 

Having recognized that the Arctic Council is the world’s predominant intergovernmental forum for Arctic governance, the NWTF recommends greater 

state engagement with the council and encourages its member countries to 

support expanding its mandate as an institution for forging multilateral 

agreements among Arctic nations. In May 2011, the Arctic Council formalized a search and rescue agreement detailing plans for Arctic emergency response. The Arctic Council also created a task force on oil spill preparedness 

and response. The task force is co-chaired by Russia and the United States, 

and is meeting for the third time in Anchorage on March 20–22, 2012. More 

agreements of this nature need to be finalized before development increases. 

Should the Council’s mandate expand further into economic development 

issues in the Arctic, the Alaska Arctic Policy Commission’s usefulness will 

only increase. Additionally, Canada will chair the Arctic Council in 2013 and 

the United States will assume the chairmanship in 2015. The two countries 

should partner closely during their respective chairmanships to further mutual goals. The United States and Alaska should begin working together now 

with Canada to begin the collaborative process. The Arctic Policy Commission’s deliberations and recommendations will be vital in assuring that Alaska makes the most of any partnership. 

Arctic Oil and Gas Development: 

A warming Arctic provides new opportunities and challenges for oil and gas 

development. A 2008 U.S. Geological survey estimates that 13 percent of the earth’s 

undiscovered oil reserves and 30 percent of the undiscovered gas reserves are in the 

Arctic. 

1. The NWTF recommends that the State of Alaska and the United States develop a framework for the identification, acquisition and sharing of data and 

other information to support leasing, permitting, and other agency decisions. 

2. The NWTF recommends that the State of Alaska and the United States support continued improvement in the ability of industry and the government 

to prevent, contain, control, clean-up and remediate spills in the Arctic. 

These measures should include contingency plans and response capabilities 

for all vessels operating in Arctic waters. 

3. The NWTF recommends that the University of Alaska establish an oil spill 

research center. The University of Alaska has requested funding of approx. 

$2 million to establish an oil spill research center but it is not currently in 

this year’s budget. 

Arctic Marine Transportation: 

Maritime powers have been searching for a shorter route from the Atlantic to 

Asian waters for centuries. The warming Arctic raises the feasibility of two such 

routes: the Northern Sea Route, north of Russia, and the Northwest Passage, north 

of Canada and Alaska. Shipping traffic—already increasing—is expected to surge in 

the decades ahead. We must take steps to establish secure and environmentally 

sound marine transportation in the region as soon as possible. 

1. The NWTF recommends that the United States, with the participation of the 

state of Alaska, work with the international community to finalize the Polar 

Code for ships operating in Arctic waters and examine whether to establish 

an offshore vessel routing scheme for circumpolar marine traffic, including 

through the Aleutians. 

2. The NWTF supports increasing short- and long-range navigational aids in 

the North American Arctic and extending Automatic Identification System 

(AIS) vessel tracking across the North Slope waters to Tuktoyaktuk, in the 

Northwest Territories. 

3. The NWTF endorses completing the Aleutian Islands Risk Assessment and 

recommends that the state of Alaska support and participate in the United 

States Coast Guard Port Access Route Study. 

Arctic Fisheries: 

As sea ice diminishes and some commercial fish species move into northern 

waters, interest in Arctic fisheries has increased. However, currently there is not 

nearly enough information available to make sustainable management of commercial fisheries possible there, and in 2009 the North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council approved a moratorium on commercial fishing in Alaskan waters north of 

the Bering Straits. The NWTF believes the state of Alaska and the U.S. government 

16 

should continue in its precautionary policy, but the moratorium should not cause 

Alaska to postpone research into viable Arctic commercial fisheries. 

1. The NWTF recommends greatly increasing fisheries-related research and 

monitoring in the region. 

2. The NWTF encourages the state of Alaska and the U.S. government to continue actively negotiating fisheries-related transboundary accords with other 

nations. 

3. The NWTF recommends that the state of Alaska and federal authorities prepare strategies to maximize the degree to which local communities and resident Alaskans will benefit from the development of commercial fisheries in 

Arctic waters. 

Arctic Infrastructure: 

Immediate investment in Arctic infrastructure is a foremost priority for Alaska 

and the entire United States. Increased human activity related to shipping, oil and 

gas development, commercial fishing, and tourism will require, at a minimum, new 

ports and safe harbors, equipment and facilities for oil spill response, additional 

Polar Class icebreakers for the U.S. fleet, and improved charting and mapping. 

1. The NWTF recommends the Alaska State Legislature and the state of Alaska continue to urge the federal government to forward base the United 

States Coast Guard in the Arctic and to fund the construction of additional 

ice breakers and ice-capable vessels for the U.S. fleet. To further this effort, 

the legislative members of the task force submitted House Joint Resolution 

34 (HJR 34) for consideration. This resolution urges the U.S. Congress to 

fund all the facilities and vessels necessary for the U.S. Coast Guard to fulfill 

its Arctic missions, including funding more icebreakers and forward basing 

the Coast Guard to the Arctic. HJR 34 has passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate. 

2. The task force recommends the state of Alaska and the federal government 

continue efforts to develop deep-water ports and additional safe harbors in 

northern waters as soon as possible. The State of Alaska and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers is currently undergoing a ports study. The task force 

strongly urges that these efforts be fast tracked and that the development 

and construction of at least one Arctic port be undertaken in the next several 

years. 

3. The NWTF supports increased funding to expedite the National Ocean and 

Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Hydrographic Arctic mapping. The 

task force particularly supports updated mapping of coastal navigation 

routes and entrance routes to coastal villages. 

Arctic Research: 

Worldwide climate change is having an outsized impact on the Arctic, where temperatures are rising twice as quickly as those in more southern latitudes. Profound 

transformations are underway in the Arctic’s complex ecosystems. These changes 

are expected to trigger unprecedented degrees of human activity in the region. As 

a consequence, transformation in the far north will accelerate all the more, not just 

environmentally, but also on socioeconomic levels. Under these circumstances, the 

need for wide-ranging scientific research and monitoring in the Arctic has never 

been more pressing. We must continue to gather essential baseline information 

about the environment and its dynamics in order to become better able to discern 

shifting conditions. In turn, we will grow more proficient at grasping the implications of changes there, and we will improve our ability to prepare for and mitigate 

impacts. The NWTF recommends: 

1. The NWTF recommends that the state of Alaska and the federal government 

identify priorities for Arctic research. By ranking priorities funding can be 

targeted more effectively and research can be better coordinated. Major 

knowledge gaps will be closed far more quickly. 

2. The NWTF recommends improving the exchange of research information and 

integration of data management. Faster and more extensive integration of 

data collected by state and federal agencies, academics, and industry would 

yield enormous benefits for all stakeholders. 

3. The NWTF recommends increased long-term monitoring of the Arctic, including routine surveys of key chemical, physical, and biological parameters of 

the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. In order to better understand, quantify, and 

predict the effects of on-going changes in both marine and terrestrial Arctic 

ecosystems, Alaska must increase our long-term monitoring of a wide range 

of environmental characteristics. Funding for Arctic Ocean monitoring is 

17 

under consideration in the Alaska State Legislature but is not currently in 

any budget. 

There are many issues facing the Arctic. Many need attention and action now. 

Working together we can develop the Arctic in a manner that benefits the state 

while maintaining healthy sustainable communities. The Arctic conversation is really just beginning but the dialogue must continue and engage all stakeholders. The 

forum for the dialogue isn’t as important as the opportunity for consistent, meaningful dialogue and input. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Rogers. 

STATEMENT OF RICK ROGERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FOR ALASKA 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Congressman Young, Senator Murkowski for traveling back home to hear our views on this important 

national issue. I really appreciate it. 

For the record, my name is Rick Rogers. I’m the Executive Director of the Resource Development Council for Alaska. RDC is a 

Statewide membership-funded nonprofit trade association and we 

represent the combined interests of forestry, fishing, tourism, mining, and oil and gas industries in Alaska. Our membership is truly 

a broad cross-section of Alaska businesses, including the aforementioned industries as well as local communities, all twelve Alaska 

Native Regional Corporations, organized labor, utilities and support businesses, all of whom recognize the important role resource 

development plays in our economy. For the record I have submitted 

a copy of our most recent annual report to better reflect who I represent today. 

The National Ocean Policy will have a disproportionate impact 

on Alaska’s resources and industries and our economy as a whole. 

It is appropriate that the Subcommittee chose to hold a field hearing here in Alaska. At approximately 34,000 miles—and I think 

that’s—the State found an additional 10,000 miles—anyway, we 

have a lot of coastline here in Alaska and we have more coastline 

than the rest of the country combined. So this policy has a disproportionate impact on Alaska. 

The National Ocean Policy adds uncertainty and anxiety to an 

already cumbersome and complex regime of state and Federal permitting and oversight. Increased bureaucracy could hamper the already slow processes with no added benefit to the environment. In 

our view. the Coastal Marine Spatial Planning/Regional Planning 

Body structure is an unauthorized new regulatory program that 

suggests a Federal level ‘‘top down’’ approach to the management 

of resources with minimal local input. 

The ecosystem-based management goal requires a vast amount of 

scientific data to be fully implemented. The lack of sufficient information is often the basis for third-party legal claims by environmental nongovernmental organizations, eNGO’s, to block development projects and their corresponding jobs. Natural resource managers need to use the best available data to move forward and 

make the best decisions with information available. We’re concerned that ecosystem-based management runs the risk of paralysis by analysis. 

The National Ocean Policy’s stated goal of reaching to onshore 

activities adds to the uncertainty and anxiety for upland uses and 

18 

resource development. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the 

ubiquitous nature of wetlands means upland activities are already 

highly regulated in Alaska. Ever increasing and stringent clean air 

standards are already burdensome offshore and inland. A plethora 

of petitions to list additional species under the Endangered Species 

Act on and offshore add burden to landowners and resource industries. 

The hardrock mines in Alaska require over 60 state and Federal 

authorizations to proceed with development. The National Ocean 

Policy adds yet another hurdle to overcome and may serve to provide an additional platform for third-party eNGO’s to litigate 

against projects that appear to lack the informational requirements 

or expectations for the National Ocean Policy. 

RDC is concerned that Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning may 

lead to far-reaching use restrictions on marine waters that will 

override social and economic needs of Alaskans. Broad swaths of 

submerged lands could be restricted in exclusionary zones for a 

nebulous national agenda of ecosystem-based management. 

Even if restricted zones were more modest in size and scope, use 

restrictions in strategic marine corridors necessary for resource 

transport and shipping could be devastating to our marine-dependent industries. 

One of the key justifications for Coastal and Marine Spatial 

Planning is to resolve conflict among diverse resource interests, yet 

RDC members representing mining, tourism, forestry, oil and gas 

and fisheries interests are firmly aligned. These industries are all 

concerned that the National Ocean Policy will create far more difficulties than it will resolve. 

RDC is concerned that funds used in implementing National 

Ocean Policy will come at the expense of congressionally mandated 

activities. RDC’s member companies require mandatory permits 

and often Federal leases to operate and declining Federal resources 

should not be expended on National Ocean Policy at the expense 

of these congressionally mandated obligations. 

RDC members also require the best scientific data to address the 

impacts of their activities and funding diverted to National Ocean 

Policy could come at the expense of these needed scientific efforts. 

We urge Congress to maintain an integral role in these broad efforts to change the way ocean and coastal resources are managed 

and the power of appropriations should be considered in restraining the premature implementation of the National Ocean Policy. 

Congressional oversight is needed to ensure implementation of 

the National Ocean Policy does not constrain the ability of Federal 

agencies to fulfill their congressional mandates to adjudicate needed Federal permits and leases. 

RDC is concerned with the process being used to roll out this farreaching policy. We have repeatedly requested meaningful stakeholder engagement without the suspected bias toward conservation 

and blocking of responsible resource access and development. These 

concerns are underscored by the fact that the Regional Planning 

Bodies charged with developing zoning plans will be comprised 

solely of government officials. 

Detailed economic analysis of the impacts of the policy should be 

completed and available for full public and congressional review beVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:29 Apr 12, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\73693.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
19 

fore policy implementation. The Handbook for Coastal and Marine 

Spatial Planning must be subject to public input, review and comment before implementation. 

We have urged the National Ocean Council to utilize pilot 

projects in geographic areas where National Ocean Policy and 

Coastal Marine Spatial Planning has broad acceptance, before 

large swaths of ocean and marine areas, such as Alaska, have the 

policy imposed upon them. 

In this time of tenuous economic recovery and high unemployment, Congress and the Administration should be untangling the 

complex web of statutes and regulations that are strangling our 

productive resource sectors of our economy. The National Ocean 

Policy does the exact opposite by adding complexity and jurisdictional ambiguity. Congress, the states, and the private sector 

should have a more meaningful role in the development and implementation of such far-reaching policies for state and Federal waters 

and upland resources. 

I really appreciate the opportunity to comment. For the record I 

do have some additional backup that adds to your emphasis on our 

Constitution and the importance of our resources and our economy. 

Thank you for the opportunity. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:] 

Statement of Rick Rogers, Executive Director, 

Resource Development Council for Alaska 

Good morning Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Rick Rogers, Executive 

Director of the Resource Development Council for Alaska (RDC). RDC is a statewide 

membership-funded non-profit trade association representing the combined interest 

of the Forestry, Fishing, Tourism, Mining, and Oil and Gas industries in Alaska. 

Our membership is truly a broad cross section of Alaska businesses, including the 

aforementioned industries as well as local communities, all twelve Alaska Native 

Regional Corporations, organized labor, utilities and support businesses that recognize the important role resource development plays in our economy. I have submitted a copy of our most recent annual report for the record. 

The National Ocean Policy will have a disproportionate impact on Alaska’s resource dependent industries and our economy as a whole. It is appropriate the Subcommittee chose to hold a field hearing here in Alaska. At approximately 34,000 

miles, Alaska has more coastline than that of all other states in our nation combined. 

The National Ocean Policy adds uncertainty and anxiety to an already cumbersome and complex regime of state and federal permitting and oversight. Increased bureaucracy could hamper the already slow processes with no added benefit 

to the environment. In our view the Coastal Marine Spatial Planning/Regional Planning Body structure is an unauthorized new regulatory program that suggests a federal level ‘‘top down’’ approach to management resources with minimal local input. 

The ecosystem-based management goal requires a vast amount of scientific data 

to be fully implemented. The lack of sufficient information is often the basis for 

third party legal claims by Environmental Non-government Organizations (eNGOs) 

to block development projects and their corresponding jobs. Natural resource managers need to use best available data to move forward and make the best decisions 

with information available. Ecosystem Based Management runs the risk of ‘‘paralysis-by-analysis.’’ 

The National Ocean Policy’s stated goal of reaching to onshore activities adds to 

the uncertainty and anxiety for upland land use and resource development. Section 

404 of Clean Water Act and ubiquitous nature of wetlands means upland activities 

are already highly regulated in Alaska. Ever increasing and stringent clean air 

standards are already burdensome offshore and inland. A plethora of petitions to 

list additional species under the Endangered Species Act on and offshore add burden to landowners and resource industries. The hardrock mines in Alaska require 

over 60 State and Federal authorizations to proceed with development. The National 

20 

Ocean Policy adds yet another hurdle to overcome, and may serve to provide an additional platform for third party eNGOs to litigate against projects that aooear to 

lack the informational requirements or expectations for the National Ocean Policy. 

RDC is concerned that Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning may lead to far 

reaching use restrictions on marine waters that will over-ride the social and economic needs of Alaskans. Broad swaths of submerged lands could be restricted in 

exclusionary zones for a nebulous national agenda of ‘‘ecosystem-based-management’’. Even if restricted zones were more modest in size and scope, use restrictions 

in strategic marine corridors necessary for resource transport and shipping could be 

devastating to our marine-dependent industries. 

One of the key justifications for Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning is to resolve 

conflict among diverse resource interests, yet RDC members representing Mining, 

Tourism, Forestry, Oil and Gas, and Fisheries interests are firmly aligned. These 

industries are all concerned that NOP will create far more difficulties than it will 

resolve. 

RDC is concerned that funds used to implement National Ocean Policy will come 

at the expense of congressionally-mandated activities. RDC’s member companies require mandatory permits and often federal leases to operate, and declining federal 

resources should not be expended on National Ocean Policy at the expense of these 

congressionally mandated obligations. RDC members also require the best scientific 

data to address the impacts of their activities and funding diverted to National 

Ocean Policy could come at the expense of needed scientific efforts. 

We urge Congress to maintain an integral role in these broad efforts to change 

the way ocean and coastal resources are managed, and the power of appropriation 

should be considered in restraining the premature implementation of the National 

Ocean Policy. Congressional oversight is needed to ensure implementation of the 

National Ocean Policy does not constrain the ability of federal agencies to fulfill 

their congressional mandates to adjudicate needed federal permits and leases. 

RDC is concerned with the process being used to roll out this far-reaching policy. 

RDC has repeatedly requested meaningful stakeholder engagement without the suspected bias toward conservation and blocking responsible resource access and development. These concerns are underscored by the fact that Regional Planning Bodies 

charged with developing zoning plans will be comprised solely of government officials. 

Detailed economic analysis of impacts of the policy should be completed and available for full public and Congressional review before policy implementation. The 

Handbook for Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning must be subject to public input, 

review, and comment before implementation. 

We have urged the National Ocean Council to utilize pilot projects in geographic 

areas where NOP and CMSP has broad acceptance, before large swaths of ocean 

and marine areas, such as Alaska, have this policy imposed upon them. 

In this time of tenuous economic recovery and high unemployment, Congress and 

the administration should be untangling the complex web of statutes and regulations that are strangling our productive resource sectors of our economy. The National Ocean Policy does the opposite by adding complexity and jurisdictional ambiguity. Congress, the states, and the private sector should have a more meaningful 

role in development and implementation of such far-reaching policies for state and 

federal waters and upland resources. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this far-reaching initiative. We 

thank the members of this Subcommittee for watching out for the best interests of 

Alaskans and all Americans. 

Additional Background to Augment RDC verbal testimony. 

Natural resources are vital to the economic survival of Alaska and its residents. 

In part, Alaska was granted statehood due to our vast natural resources; the federal 

government expected Alaska to utilize its bounty of natural resources to build and 

sustain its economy. Alaska’s constitution includes a unique provision, Title 8, the 

preamble of which states ‘‘It is the policy of the State to encourage the settlement 

of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest.’’ To fulfill the vision of Alaska’s Constitution, we must have access to our resources, and avoid uncertainty and unnecessary regulations that offer no added benefit to the environment. 

The National Ocean Policy will have a disproportionate impact on Alaska’s resource-dependent industries and our economy as a whole. It is appropriate the Subcommittee chose to hold a field hearing here in Alaska. At approximately 34,000 

miles, Alaska has more coastline than that of all other states in our nation combined. 

21 

RDC members know that Alaska’s economy is based on responsible resource development conducted in accordance with existing local, state, and federal environmental protections and laws. Alaskans must continue to have access to our valuable 

and traditional resources. The responsible development of these resources creates 

jobs in communities throughout Alaska, many of which have few other jobs available. Many of these communities will disappear if overly burdensome regulations 

are added to existing and new projects. 

Alaska fisheries provide over half of the commercial seafood harvested in U.S., 

and these sustainably managed fisheries are a model for the world. Oil and Gas reserves in the Beaufort/Chukchi Seas alone could result in 26 billion barrels of oil 

and 32 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over next 50 years, yielding 54,700 new jobs, 

$145 billion in payroll, and $193 billion in government revenue. All Alaska industries, forestry, tourism, oil and gas, fisheries and mining, are highly dependent on 

ocean access and marine transportation. 

For the record, RDC submits four publication summaries highlighting the economic significance of oil and gas, mineral, tourism and fisheries resources. Unfortunately we do not have a similar report of our timber industry, except to report that 

it is a mere shadow of its former self, having precipitously declined due to what 

RDC views as failed federal public land policy constraining timber supply. The decline of the timber industry in Alaska highlights our need to be ever vigilant regarding the unintended consequences of policy initiatives such as the National Ocean 

Policy and Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. 

The policy raises significant concerns from the fisheries community regarding the 

future role of the stakeholder driven Regional Fishery Management Councils. The 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council is a model for sustainable and adaptive 

management of this renewable resource. The old adage, ‘‘if it isn’t broke, don’t fix 

it’’ should apply and it needs to be abundantly clear that the decision authority of 

the stakeholder driven Regional Fisheries Management Councils is not compromised 

by a new National Ocean Policy structure. The Regional Fishery Management Councils are working well and should not be coopted by a new regional planning and 

management structure. 

RDC is concerned that Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning may impose disproportionate restrictions on the ability of Alaskans to have a balanced and robust 

resource based economy. Consider that 58.6% of uplands in Alaska are federally 

managed lands, 65% of which are in restrictive conservation system units such as 

parks, Wilderness Areas, refuges and wild and scenic rivers. For the record, we have 

submitted an RDC publication entitled ‘‘Who Owns Alaska’’ which highlights the 

dominance of federal management of uplands in Alaska with priorities that are 

often in direct conflict with the economic interest of Alaskans. 

RDC shares the concerns expressed by Alaska Governor Sean Parnell and the six 

other Governors in the Outer Continental Shelf Governors Coalition in their letter 

to President Obama dated March 13, 2012. In that correspondence, the Governors 

raise concerns of unintended consequences for all types of energy development. RDC 

notes that the same unintended consequences are likely to also affect fisheries, forestry, mineral development and tourism activities. 

RDC has weighed in on this important policy initiative several times. We have 

asked that the National Ocean Council improve coordination of existing protection 

measures, such as the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act instead of adding another layer of 

bureaucracy. In reference to the other Strategic Action Plan objectives not addressed 

in RDC verbal testimony, included are copies of two detailed letters RDC wrote to 

the NOC in 2011, and our most recent written input on March 28, just last week. 

Attachments submitted for the record include: 

2011 Annual Report of the Resource Development Council for Alaska. Available online at http://akrdc.org/membership/annualreport/annualreport2011.pdf 

Economic Report Overview, Potential National-Level Benefits of Oil and Gas Development in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea, University of Alaska Institute of Economic Research and Northern Economics. Available online at http:// 

www.northerneconomics.com/pdfs/ShellOCS/National%20Effects%202- 

page%20brochure%20FINAL.pdf . 

The Economic Benefits of Alaska’s Mining Industry, Alaska Miners Association, January 2012. http://www.alaskaminers.org/mcd11sum.pdf 

The Seafood Industry in Alaska’s Economy, Prepared by Northern Economics for the 

Marine Conservation Alliance, available online at http:// 

www.marineconservationalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ 

SIAE_Feb2011a.pdf 

22 

Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VI, Summer 2011, Executive Summary, Prepared 

by The McDowell Group for Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and 

Economic Development. Available online at http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/ 

ded/dev/toubus/pub/2011AVSP–ExecSummary-StandAlone.pdf 

Who Owns Alaska, A Special Issue of Resource Review, A periodic publication of the 

Resource Development Council for Alaska. Available online at http://akrdc.org/ 

newsletters/2009/whoownsalaska.pdf 

RDC written comments to the National Ocean Council dated April 29, 2011, July 

1, 2011 and March 28, 2012. 

Mr. YOUNG. Ms. Madsen. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE MADSEN, NATIONAL COMMITTEE 

CHAIR, UNITED FISHERMAN OF ALASKA 

Ms. MADSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Subcommittee for taking time to hear our State’s concerns about 

the Administration’s National Ocean Policy. I’m Stephanie Madsen, 

the Executive Director of the At-sea Processors Association, a trade 

association representing fishing companies that participate in Federally managed ground fisheries in waters off Alaska. 

Today I am testifying on behalf of the United Fishermen of 

Alaska, an umbrella organization composed of 37 Alaska commercial fishing organizations, whose members account for more than 

half of the seafood landed annually in the United States. 

Alaska’s commercial fishing industry has participated at every 

step of the public process as the Administration has rolled out its 

NOP, which includes the ocean zoning concept. To date, virtually 

none of the concerns that we’ve articulated have been addressed. 

My testimony will focus on three key areas of the NOP initiative. 

One, the threat to NOAA’s Fisheries’ core science programs from 

the diversion of funds to an unauthorized initiative; 2, the usurpation of the role of expert fishery managers to manage fishery resources by a new Federal bureaucracy comprised; and 3, the possible proliferation of unnecessary and unwise regulations under the 

NOP process and the resulting threat posed to Alaska’s largest private sector private, the commercial fishing industry. 

Alaska’s commercial fishing industry appreciates the efforts of 

Chairman Hastings, Subcommittee Chair Fleming, Mr. Young and 

other members of the Natural Resources Committee, as well as our 

Senator Murkowski, in continuing to press the Administration to 

disclose how much money is actually being spent on various Federal agencies on NOP implementation. The linchpin of successful 

fisheries management in Alaska is good science. We are already 

worried about possible impacts on fisheries science and management programs given the grim budget picture. 

The NOP initiative, which is diverting untold sums from NOAA 

and other agencies, further reduces the resources available for 

NOAA Fisheries. Using a precautionary approach to fisheries management, as scientific uncertainty from lack of research goes up, 

the allowable harvest level is reduced, which means fewer fishing 

and fish processing jobs and less income for those still working. We 

cannot afford to continue to divert funding from NOAA Fisheries’ 

core science programs to support a grandiose NOP initiative. 

Much of what is contained in the NOP initiative was contemplated in bills introduced in the 108th through the 111th ConVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:29 Apr 12, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\73693.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
23 

gresses. Congress repeatedly refused to enact this legislation. Now, 

without congressional authorization or dedicated appropriations, 

the Administration states that NOP/CMSP funding will come from 

repurposing existing resources. We do not favor repurposing core 

NOAA Fisheries’ programs to establish Federally dominated Regional Planning Bodies that could supplant the regional fishery 

management councils. It is a hollow argument advanced by the Administration that repurposing funds creates efficiencies when, at 

least for fisheries management, it creates confusing, overlapping, 

jurisdictional lines and duplicates existing processes. 

Until Congress acts to authorize NOP/CMSP activities and provides the necessary funding amounts, we urge Congress at a minimum to prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds to establish Regional Planning Bodies or to develop any plans established within 

the scope of the E.O. 

Since its inception, the NOP initiative has called for establishing 

eight Regional Planning Bodies composed of primarily Federal officials with some provision for state, local and tribal interests. The 

Administration opposes including members of the public on RPBs 

to avoid triggering the Federal Advisory Committee Act. These 

RPBs are tasked with developing CMS plans for sustainable use 

and long-term production of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great 

Lakes. 

With regard to fisheries, the Commerce Department is obligated 

to integrate fishery management regulations so that they’re consistent with elements of any Federally developed CMSP plan. All 

members of the North Pacific Council, our regional council, are required by law to be knowledgeable and experienced in the fisheries 

under council jurisdiction. The Federal fishery management process in Alaska has been an unqualified success. What would an RPB 

with no fisheries expertise have over the Fishery Management 

Council? 

The commercial fishing industry has asked repeatedly in public 

comments and meetings with Administration officials for assurances that CMS plans will not affect fishing activities. Those calls 

have gone unheeded. 

I think my written testimony is complete in there, but five minutes goes fast. I guess, Congressman Young and Senator Murkowski, under a plain reading of the NOP, provisions of the CMS 

plans can affect fishing activities. By Executive Order the Secretary of Commerce is required to promulgate regulations to good 

effect in set provisions. 

If the Administration wants to convince the commercial fishing 

industry that it does not intend to supersede the Regional Fishery 

Management Councils’ authority, it should explicitly exempt fishing-related provisions from CMS plans. 

That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again 

for the opportunity to testify. I’d be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Ms. Madsen. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Madsen follows:] 

24 

Statement of Stephanie Madsen, At-sea Processors Association, 

on Behalf of the United Fishermen of Alaska 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee for taking the time 

to travel to Alaska to hear our State’s concerns about the Administration’s National 

Ocean Policy (NOP). 

I am Stephanie Madsen, the executive director of the At-sea Processors Association (APA), a trade association representing fishing companies that participate in 

federally managed groundfish fisheries in waters off Alaska. Today, I am testifying 

on behalf of the United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), an umbrella organization composed of 37 Alaska commercial fishing organizations whose members account for 

more than half the seafood landed annually in the United States. 

Alaska’s commercial fishing industry has participated at every step of the public 

process as the Administration has rolled out its NOP, which includes the ocean zoning concept of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP). To date, virtually none 

of concerns that we have articulated have been addressed. The Administration appears intent on pursuing a pre-determined course of action without regard for the 

views of the public, and just as troubling, represents a course of action that lacks 

legislative authority and expends federal funds intended for other purposes. 

My testimony will focus on three key areas of the NOP initiative: 1) the threat 

to NOAA Fisheries’ core science programs from the diversion of funds to an unauthorized NOP/CMSP initiative; 2) the usurpation of the role of expert fishery managers to manage fishery resources by a new federal bureaucracy comprised of individuals without relevant expertise, and 3) the possible proliferation of unnecessary 

and unwise regulations under the NOP/CMSP process and the resulting threat 

posed to Alaska’s largest private sector employer—the commercial fishing industry. 

Budgetary and Fiscal Impacts of the NOP/CMSP Initiative 

Alaska’s commercial fishing industry appreciates the efforts of Chairman Hastings, Subcommittee Chairman Fleming, Mr. Young, and other Members of the Natural Resources Committee, in continuing to press the Administration to disclose how 

much money is being spent by various federal agencies on NOP implementation. 

The linchpin of successful fisheries management in Alaska is good science. We are 

already worried about possible impacts on Congressionally-authorized federal fisheries science and management programs given the grim budget picture. The NOP 

initiative, which is diverting untold sums from NOAA and other agencies, further 

reduces the resources available for NOAA Fisheries’ science and management programs. Using a precautionary approach to fisheries management, as scientific uncertainty from lack of research goes up, the allowable harvest level is reduced, which 

means fewer fishing and fish processing jobs and less income for those still working. 

We cannot afford to continue to divert funding from NOAA Fisheries’ core science 

programs to support a grandiose NOP initiative. 

From the issuance of the NOP Executive Order 13547 and the Final Recommendations of the Ocean Policy Task Force in July 2010 to the Draft National 

Ocean Policy Implementation Plan published in January 2012, the NOP initiative 

has consistently called for a costly new expansion of federal ocean-related programs. 

The draft NOP implementation plan issued in January, for example, proposes 53 

federal government actions and nearly 300 milestones. And, of course, the NOP/ 

CMSP program establishes a new federal bureaucracy by creating a National Ocean 

Council, a Governance Coordinating Committee, eight new Regional Planning Bodies each consisting of two dozen federal officials, and myriad other committees and 

consultative bodies. 

Much of what is contained in the NOP initiative was contemplated in bills introduced in the 108th through the 111th Congresses. Congress repeatedly refused to 

enact this legislation. Now, without Congressional authorization or dedicated appropriations, the Administration states that NOP/CMSP funding will come from 

‘‘repurposing’’ existing resources. We do not favor ‘‘repurposing’’ core NOAA Fisheries science and management programs to establish federally dominated Regional 

Planning Bodies that could supplant the stakeholder driven regional fishery management councils. It is a hollow argument advanced by the Administration that 

repurposing funds creates efficiencies when, at least for fisheries management, it 

creates confusing, overlapping jurisdictional lines and duplicates existing processes. 

Until Congress acts to authorize NOP/CMSP activities and provides the necessary 

funding amounts, we urge Congress at a minimum to prohibit the expenditure of 

federal funds to establish Regional Planning Bodies or to develop any plans identified within the scope of E.O. 13547. 

25 

NOP/CMSP Seeks to Usurp the Role of Regional Fishery Management 

Councils 

Since its inception, the NOP initiative has called for establishing eight Regional 

Planning Bodies (RPBs) to be composed primarily of federal officials with some provision for state or local government representatives, and tribal interests. The Administration opposes including members of the public on RPBs to avoid triggering 

transparency requirements under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). 

RPBs are tasked with developing ‘‘National Ocean Council-certified regional CMS 

Plans for the sustainable use and long-term protection of the ocean, our coasts, and 

the Great Lakes.’’ Provisions of such plans are to be implemented by regulation. 

Moreover, all federal agencies are required under the NOP program to ‘‘endeavor, 

to the maximum extent possible, to integrate their actions with those of other partners to a CMS Plan.’’ With regard to fisheries, the Commerce Department is obligated to ‘‘integrate’’ fishery management regulations so that they are consistent 

with elements of any federally developed CMS Plan. 

Federal fisheries off Alaska are managed currently under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, or MSA. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is 

one of eight regional councils established under the MSA, and it is charged with developing management measures for fisheries occurring from 3 to 200 miles off the 

coast of Alaska. The North Pacific Council is composed of 11 voting members, which 

includes one federal official, three state officials, and seven private citizens nominated by Governors and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. All Council members are required by law to be knowledgeable of, and experienced in, the fisheries 

under Council jurisdiction. The Councils involve affected users directly in the decision making process. The federal fishery management process in Alaska has been 

an unqualified success. All federally managed fish stocks in the Alaska region are 

harvested at sustainable levels, and a comprehensive set of regulations is in place 

to minimize fishing impacts on the environment. The management process is noted 

for its transparency and for the opportunities afforded to all stakeholders to have 

their views given due consideration. 

The commercial fishing industry has asked repeatedly in public comments and 

meetings with Administration officials for assurances that CMS Plans will not affect 

fishing activities. Those calls have gone unheeded. We are left to conclude from a 

plain reading of the documents giving force to the NOP that the Secretary of Commerce will be obligated to promulgate new rules, or amend existing rules, to ensure 

implementation of any provisions of CMS Plans that might relate to fishery closures, mitigation measures, or catch limits. 

The Proliferation of New Regulations Under the NOP Threatens 

Commercial Fishing and Fish Processing Jobs—Alaska’s Largest 

Private Employment Sector 

Regional plans developed by RPBs that are populated by dozens of federal officials 

and certified by the Cabinet-level National Ocean Council will be broad in scope and 

receive substantially less public input than management measures developed 

through the MSA regional fishery management council process. The various NOP/ 

CMSP documents issued by the Administration contain contradictory statements 

that this program anticipates no new regulations and that all federal agencies are 

obligated to issue or amend regulations to be as consistent as possible with regional 

CMS Plans. Given that the NOP is given force through Presidential decree, we fully 

expect federal agencies to follow specific guidance to conform to provisions of regional plans. 

Fisheries regulations are designed most often to address complex resource management problems. Almost all management rules have allocation impacts on fishery 

participants and even with the benefit of detailed analysis cannot always avoid unintended consequences. In short, even in a fisheries management system populated 

with highly qualified resource management scientists and managers with decades 

of experience and benefiting from expert analysis and the knowledge derived from 

stakeholders’ input at every meaningful stage of the regulatory process, it is still 

difficult to minimize economic harm and avoid unintended environmental consequences. 

It is not difficult to envision a provision in a CMS Plan that calls for a sizable 

area closure to fishing, or network of closed areas. The purpose could be to create 

marine reserves or to set aside areas for another commercial activity. How informed 

will an RPB be—especially one composed primarily of federal agency officials without fisheries experience—about the effects of displacing fishing activity? Will there 

be an analysis of the economic consequences of losing access to valuable fishing 

grounds? Will there be a sophisticated analysis of the effects on habitat, bycatch, 

etc. if fishing activity is redirected? Given the projected scope of CMS Plans and the 

26 

lack of fisheries experience of those voting on CMS Plan provisions, it is highly unlikely that conservation benefits will be realized but highly likely that jobs and income will be lost. Where is the public policy rationale for creating jurisdictional confusion where none exists, duplicating federal regulatory processes, and, most importantly, distancing stakeholders from federal decisions that affect their livelihoods? 

On this topic, the Administration argues that the NOP does not confer new authority upon federal agencies but simply operates within existing statutory requirements. We agree. However, existing law, most notably for our purposes Section 304 

of the MSA, confers authority upon the Secretary of Commerce to promulgate fishery management rules when the regional fishery management councils do not act. 

Under E.O. 13547, the Secretary is obligated to issue, or amend, regulations to the 

maximum extent possible to give effect to National Ocean Council-certified CMS 

Plans. In fact, many NOP advocates are environmental organizations that favor dismantling the regional fishery management council system. Their intent is for the 

NOP processes to override the regional fishery councils and hand over decision making to federal agencies. 

Under a plain reading of the NOP, provisions of CMS Plans can affect fishing activities, and by Executive Order, the Secretary of Commerce is required to promulgate regulations to give effect to such provisions. If the Administration wants to convince the commercial fishing industry that it does not intend to supersede the regional fishery management councils’ authority, it should explicitly exempt fishingrelated provisions from CMS Plans. 

That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify. I am glad to answer any questions. 

Mr. YOUNG. According to my rules, I always look to other members of the panel to ask questions first and I’ll ask questions last. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

to the members of the panel. I appreciate the perspective. 

As I look out, we’ve got representation from all sectors of the industries that are making things happen in the State. It’s more 

than a little bit disconcerting to hear that the unifying theme is 

that there is no communication. 

Ms. Madsen, to hear you state that UFA has been involved every 

step of the way and yet you feel that there has been no response 

to your input, no response to your participation in this process and 

yet recognizing the industry that UFA is involved with, that’s more 

than a little bit disconcerting. 

Representative Joule, you have indicated that within the Northern Waters Task Force report that one of the prime considerations 

or recommendations from that was the need for communication. I 

think this is where we’re all coming from with this oceans policy, 

this Executive Order, this dictate from on high in Washington, 

D.C., coming at and being essentially forced upon a state like 

Alaska without that two-way communication going back and forth. 

I guess the first question I would ask would be directed to you, 

Representative Joule, and that is whether or not you believe that 

the principles, the considerations that have been outlined in the 

Northern Waters Task Force report can be coordinated with the 

proposal of the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan or 

whether or not you think the efforts that are under way with the 

task force will be, I guess, compromised under a proposal such as 

being considered. 

Mr. JOULE. I don’t know if I’m going to get right to your question, Senator Murkowski. 

When we put this recommendation forward to establish an Arctic 

Policy Commission, this was with the recognition that other countries around the circumpolar north had put together their policy 

27 

plans for their countries and for their provinces in the case of Canada. The United States and Alaska have not done so. 

Former President Bush initiated a directive before exiting his 

presidency. That policy is there, but what we haven’t seen, Senator, 

is any plan of implementation of that policy and we feel that this 

is an opportunity for our state with our stakeholders with an eye 

on the future to put our policy together prior to the Arctic Council 

grabbing the chair and Canada and then again the United States 

years later. 

We did that independent of the National Oceans Council or the 

Coastal Marine Spatial Planning. I guess we want to have the ability with Alaskans, together with this state administration and 

somebody from the Federal Government, to sit with us and begin 

that process. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. But to this point in time, from what I’m 

hearing from all of you, that level of communication, that sit-down, 

that’s not happening. 

Mr. Vincent-Lang, let me ask you. From the State’s perspective, 

you have been very clear in stating the State of Alaska’s concern 

and opposition. I think the comment that we need more resources 

directed, not necessarily more rules, some set out quite aptly. But 

it’s my understanding from what you have outlined that in fact 

there has been no coordination. There has been no effort to attempt 

to work together, state to Federal, that it has instead been a directive to the State that this is in fact what it will be. 

The question that I would have you focus on is: Given what you 

have received from the Federal level, is there any effort to work 

with the existing authorities in the state based on what you have 

received to date from this Executive Order? 

Mr. VINCENT-LANG. Senator, through the Chair, the State really 

feels like we’ve been a stakeholder in this process, not being treated as a sovereign entity in this entire process. We’ve really been 

relegated to providing written comments on a variety of different 

documents rather than being treated as an equal partner in the development, for instance, of the nine strategic plans. 

So we constantly are forced into the position of, just like anybody 

else, providing comments rather than being treated as a sovereign 

entity with sovereign roles and responsibilities and authorities in 

this process. We’ve asked some pretty fundamental questions regarding this National Ocean Policy. We’ve asked them in several 

letters. I think Mr. Young put them into the record here. We still 

don’t feel we’ve gotten adequate answers or adequate—or that the 

issues we’ve raised have been addressed throughout that entire 

process. So as such, we don’t feel that we’ve been treated as an 

equal entity. 

We do appreciate that the National Ocean Council is considering 

making the decision process consensus based in Alaska, but they 

also acknowledge that failure of reaching a consensus will result in 

minority reports and, of course, the State is a minority member of 

that body, and then subsequently the decision will be made 3500 

miles away in D.C. by the National Ocean Council. 

So, again, we’re very troubled with that, that we’re not being 

treated as an equal in this process and will ultimately potentially 

be treated as a minority as this moves forward. 

28 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Of course, Mr. Chairman, that’s what we’re 

all concerned about here is the diminishment of the State’s role 

most certainly. 

One final question and I’ll direct this to you, Mr. Rogers. We recognize that within the oil and gas sector it’s not easy; it’s not cheap 

to do business here in the State of Alaska. It’s not cheap or easy 

to do it here in this country. But let me ask what happens to the 

added cost when you inject a level of uncertainty as this National 

Oceans Policy Initiative, the CMSP, would put in play? 

When you add that level of uncertainty to an already uncertain 

industry, trying to figure out what’s going on with taxes, what is 

happening with national and international pricing, give me your 

30,000-foot view of the potential impact of a policy like this on an 

industry that we’re so heavily reliant on here in the State of 

Alaska. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thanks for the question, Senator. 

Through the Chair, the debate here in Alaska, as you well know 

in Juneau this year, is on the competitiveness of our oil and gas 

industry and how we’re competing for capital on a global scale. I 

think, to your question, the added uncertainty and the added burden that any of these policies put on that industry or other resource industries in Alaska just adds to reducing the competitive 

nature of Alaska with respect to other jurisdictions. 

For example, last year a delegation of elected leaders and business leaders went on a tour to Norway to look at how Norway does 

business in oil and gas. Unfortunately I was not fortunate to be 

among them, but I did learn when they came back and reported. 

One thing that really struck me is I’m told that in Norway from 

start to finish it takes them about six months to permit off-shore, 

very complex oil and gas exploration and development activities. 

Here in Alaska, as you know, we had Federal leases on the OCS 

in 2008 and the leaseholders have yet to drill a single exploration 

well. Now, we’re seeing progress and thanks in much part to your 

help we’re getting closer and we’re encouraged, but adding more 

burden to that already difficult and complex structure is not going 

to make Alaska more competitive. It’s going to reduce the level of 

resource development in our state. 

As many economists have already studied, both from ISER and 

other organizations, oil and gas and resource development is a key 

underpinning to our economy. So all of Alaska will suffer if we add 

more burdens and then make our state less competitive. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to be part of this 

field hearing this morning. I appreciate what the witnesses have 

provided. I’m not going to be able to stay for the second panel. I 

know, I’m going to have to let you carry the burden here. I’ve got 

another scheduling item that I must attend to. But I thank you for 

this. 

I think this is extraordinarily important that we hear from not 

only the State, the Legislature, the industries that are the underpinning of our state’s economy and fully understand how the impact of this wrong-handed proposal coming out of the Administration could negatively impact our success here in the economy. 

So I appreciate your focus on this. 

29 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Senator, for joining us. It was a pleasure 

to have you for a short period of time. If nothing at all, I’ll see you 

this afternoon on the Park Service issue. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Senator. You’re excused. 

This is to the panel. Have any of you been, other than, say, commenting, have any of you been asked to appear or sit down and discuss this and who’s heading this thing up? Does anybody know? 

Ms. MADSEN. Congressman Young, we have had conversations 

and they have traveled to Alaska. They have met with the seafood 

industry. 

Mr. YOUNG. Who are ‘‘they’’? 

Ms. MADSEN. CEQ. 

Mr. YOUNG. CEQ. But they’re not even—you know, we had them 

before the Committee. They will not tell us who’s the driving force 

other than the President behind this and where they’re getting 

their money. That’s why, Madam Senator, I hope you’re aware on 

your committee you cut their funds off, squeezed their you know 

what until they start explaining where they’re taking the money 

from. 

I know with NOAA, Ms. Madsen, I believe they’re not going to 

have, for instance, a stock assessment every year like they should. 

They’re going to now try to go to every two or three years. How 

does that affect the industry and the science which is so important? 

Ms. MADSEN. Well, you’ve hit the nail on the head. I think that 

I just heard this week that fortunately, thanks to Senator Murkowski and having the Secretary in front of you, I think they found 

a million dollars for our stock assessment this year. But that’s one 

year. The continuing diversion of funds, I think we’ve got a BandAid this year. 

But as I mentioned, if there’s any uncertainty in the science, 

then we’re going to get lower quotas, and that affects all of us. 

Again, I appreciate your vigilance in making sure that they come 

to the table and explain to you how they’re getting these funds and 

using them. 

Mr. YOUNG. Reggie, you did it right. You got the stakeholders involved. From what I hear from all of you and what our testimony 

back in D.C. is, they have not communicated with the State other 

than say: Give comment. They haven’t had any stakeholders at the 

table. They’re coming out with these grandiose ideas and then say, 

what do you feel about it? Yet they don’t listen to you, if I understand it. They’ve never listened to anything you’ve suggested; is 

that correct. 

Mr. JOULE. Mr. Chairman, when we were back in Washington, 

D.C. recently—when I say ‘‘we,’’ I’m talking about Speaker 

Chenault, Representative Fairclough, Representative Saddler, myself—we were back there for the purpose of trying to drum up support for the passage of the ANWR legislation. 

Mr. YOUNG. We did that in the House. The Senate is a little neglectful. 

Mr. JOULE. Yes, you did, once again, for the twelfth time. 

We did meet with some of the folks from the National Oceans 

Council. Those of us from Alaska that went back there together 

met with them and the issues that came up were pretty clear. One, 

30 

we raised the same issue. Congress is not supportive of this effort. 

Where are you getting your funds? What’s going to be the buy-in? 

How does this all work? 

Those answers, I think, were fairly vague other than to say it’s 

going to come from across agencies. But I think that the group that 

I was with were very pointed in their discussions with them that, 

like what’s being said here, conveyed the concerns with what was 

going on with the National Oceans Council and in particular the 

Coastal Marine Spatial planning. 

Mr. YOUNG. Again, my understanding, this is not only this area. 

When we bring outside agencies in, we became a state with 103 

million acres of land. We had the Native Land Claim Settlement 

Act with 44 million acres of land. 

If they implement this policy, Mr. Lang, do you believe under 

this policy that we will lose control over our state land? 

Mr. VINCENT-LANG. Mr. Chairman, I believe there’s a potential 

for that, yes, because I think that the decision-making processes 

are basically being governed by potential Federal bureaucracies 

that are going to numerically dominate these regional planning 

boards. In the event their consensus is not reached at the local 

level or the regional level, that decision process will be sent back 

to Washington, D.C. by CEQ to make decisions. 

So I think there’s a real potential that especially as this planning 

effort potentially goes into state waters and upland into areas of 

territorial into navigable waterways, it has a real potential to affect 

the state authority to govern its activities within its jurisdictions. 

Mr. YOUNG. Again, for the audience, CEQ was created by Congress. I don’t know what we were thinking, but it’s under the President. It really hands the President, this group right here, control 

over the State of Alaska regardless of the President. I want everybody to know this is not partisan. This is in fact being proposed 

by this President, but it gives the next President the same jurisdiction over the utilization of our lands and to me that’s quite disturbing. 

I would like to see this—if this thing was to go forth, and I was 

serious with Senator Murkowski, a letter should be sent into the 

appropriators to try to eliminate the dollars. If we have to duplicate from every agency that’s under this provision that we stand 

on this issue until we find out what they’re trying to achieve. 

I feel sort of like the father that’s the father of a beautiful baby 

boy and has great potential—and my staff is worried about where 

this is going. But he ends up in jail. We created the 200-mile limit. 

You know, up until that time the State had 12 miles of our waters 

and the rest was international waters. Think about that, international waters. 

We created this for an economic zone. Now we have an economic 

zone and we lost nine miles of our water and we kept three miles. 

Now they’re taking three miles away from us and adding it to the 

Federal waters under this program, which takes away the right of 

the State. I’m thinking, what a mistake in the way this has happened. ‘‘They’’ being the Federal Government and the Congress 

that supported them and funded them, maybe we ought to go back 

to the drawing board and just defund the whole operation. 

31 

Mr. Rogers, we all know the answer to this, but how many permits do you think we have to go through now for any resources in 

Alaska? Do you have a count of how many permits? Let’s say for 

mining. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yeah, Congressman Young, it’s between 60 and 70, 

for example, for large hardrock mining projects in Alaska, like Fort 

Knox or some of those. That’s a combination of state and Federal 

authorizations and permits. So it’s not a simple process. It’s very 

complex; it’s very thorough. 

I guess our point is we don’t need to add additional complexity 

and layers onto that already. We should be trying to simplify it or 

at least streamline it and make it more efficient. 

Mr. YOUNG. You just added something. I like that term. There’s 

nothing in this that says there will be less regulations. We have 

to have 55 permits and after you get those permits, these people 

might say, no; is that correct? 

Mr. ROGERS. It may be correct. Congressman, it’s very difficult 

to truly conceptualize how this would play out. But on the one 

hand you read the policy, they talk about not adding any additional 

regulations and yet they talk about convening groups to do legal 

analysis to figure out what regulations may be necessary or what 

new statutes. So it seems kind of duplicitous in what they’re trying 

to achieve. 

Mr. YOUNG. They had a hearing up here, I believe, last December. When was that hearing? Were any of you involved in that 

hearing? You were? Who was the panel? I mean, not you guys. Who 

was up here. 

Mr. VINCENT-LANG. I think the Alaska one was held by a lady 

from the Department of the Interior, like an Under Secretary. I 

can’t remember her name. 

Mr. YOUNG. None of the rest of you participated. 

Ms. Madsen, I will tell you if I was a suspicious person, with 

NOAA and the Endangered Species Act, this proposal for ocean 

zoning, I would say, is another attempt at the fishing industry. I 

believe that’s really behind this whole thing. They want to raise 

their fish commercially in big farms. This has been NOAA’s dream 

the whole time and get away from the wild-caught fish, which is 

the key to our society in Alaska. That’s our biggest strength. You 

might want to comment on that. I really think this is where this 

is headed. 

Ms. MADSEN. Congressman, you have also pointed out another 

issue that we have constantly had a battle with different administrations on farming and open ocean farming. That’s something that 

Alaska won’t tolerate. So you’re exactly right. As you well know, I 

think our concern is that the North Pacific has been, thanks to 

your help, the premiere council. 

We have taken steps to protect not only the areas of importance, 

we’re concerned that that’s going to be undermined by a Regional 

Planning Body that has no expertise that will totally undermine 

that open, transparent stakeholder process that we’ve all become 

dependent on and it’s an important process. That’s our main concern. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

32 

Mr. Lang, I’m sure you’re aware of the Executive Order. Many 

people—I have yet to figure out who are these many people—say, 

all we’re doing is implementing the findings of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. But the Commission recommended the ocean 

planning process be done through a voluntary process and a stakeholder involvement. 

Do you—there’s been no stakeholder involvement. It hasn’t been 

voluntary. This is an Executive Order. That was the Commission’s 

recommendation not to do that, yet here we have the Administration just doing the opposite. I go back to, other than yourself, has 

anybody else been involved in this? 

Reggie, you’ve been involved in that committee. Did they talk to 

your committee at all? 

Mr. JOULE. We had invited State Department persons that’s senior adviser to the Arctic Council, but I don’t think any of them from 

the National Oceans Council made any of our task force meetings. 

MR. LANG: Mr. Chairman, I think I can probably give an example to exemplify the process that’s been used here and what the 

State concerns are. 

One of the nine strategic plans is an Arctic strategic plan. Really 

the only reason the United States is an Arctic nation is because of 

the State of Alaska. It would be very critical in my eyes if you’re 

going to have an Arctic policy be developed that the State would 

be at the table, part of that writing team, preparing that document 

rather than just being asked to comment on that document as it 

comes out for a series of public release opportunities and, again, 

being treated as a stakeholder and providing comments into it. 

Again, we weren’t provided that opportunity to sit down and be 

part of that writing team and actually develop that Arctic policy 

that’s going to greatly affect our state. Again, our view of this thing 

is it’s largely been a Federal effort throughout all those different 

nine strategic plans where we have an opportunity to provide comments just like anybody else in this process, rather than being 

treated as an equal in that process as it goes forward and those 

documents are developed. 

You’re right, those documents have significant policy issues associated with them and they have significant milestones placed into 

them. We’re starting to see these things end up in Federal documents. For instance, we just recently reviewed a document that the 

Bureau of Oceans put out that said future NEPA opportunities will 

be somewhat sideboarded by the policies that are developed by the 

Regional Planning Boards. 

So, for instance, the range of alternatives could be sideboarded 

into the future as the Regional Planning Boards make decisions 

and a variety of other recommendations regarding the marine environment. 

Mr. YOUNG. I’m singing to the choir here. Our job is to try to use 

your testimony to really try to show that there hasn’t been the involvement there should be. This is—you know, this is the mark and 

the group of policy and philosophy of the individuals now that work 

for the Federal Government, that they know what’s best for every 

state. I’ve always said, we’re not supposed to be the United States 

of the Federal Government. We should be the United States of 

America. 

33 

For stakeholders not to be involved in something that directly affects not only their livelihoods, but their lives in total, is dead 

wrong. This is not the government that I know and dearly love. 

This is a government that’s gone far beyond. Like I said, we’re supposed to be—I got a big kick, and I will pick on this President. 

The day he says to the press, well, if the Supreme Court rules 

against health care, that’s the wrong thing to do because Congress 

passed the legislation. Here we have, you know—the Congress has 

chosen not to touch this ocean policy, big brother BOB thing, and 

yet they’re going and making an Executive Order affecting stakeholders. We’re sensitive in Alaska. Probably nobody cares in Montana or Iowa or Kansas City or something like that. But Alaska is 

a coastal Arctic nation and to have this happen is, I think, inappropriate. 

I hope the state and government and legislative body takes a 

positive position and thumbs their nose at the Federal Government 

if they continue to do this and we’re not, you know, have the courage to stop funding. That’s the key, to stop funding. 

I want to thank this panel. We could go on with questions. You 

will probably get some questions from me submitted to you and I’d 

like to have them back. You’re dismissed. 

We have now the second panel: Ms. Kara Moriarty, Executive Director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association; Fred Parady, Executive Directive of the Alaska Miners Association; John Sturgeon, Director of Alaska Forest Association; Dr. John Farrell, Executive Director of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission. 

Please sit down. I think you all know the regulations, rules and 

those things. 

Ms. Moriarty, you’re up. 

STATEMENT OF KARA MORIARTY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ALASKA OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION 

Ms. MORIARTY. Good morning, Congressman. For the record, my 

name is Kara Moriarty and I am the Executive Director of the 

Alaska Oil and Gas Association, commonly referred to as AOGA. 

We are the business trade association for the oil and gas industry 

here and our membership does represent the breadth and scope of 

the industry. We represent both onshore and off-shore companies 

here in Alaska. So, welcome home. We appreciate you having the 

field hearing here today and for the opportunity to testify. 

Before I discuss some of our specific concerns with the National 

Ocean Policy proposal, I first want to remind you, Congressman, 

and others that AOGA would agree that a more streamlined permitting and regulatory process is needed in the Federal Government, but we believe that this should and could be accomplished 

through improving existing statutory and regulatory regimes which 

already encompass National Ocean Policy concerns, including the 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the National Environmental 

Policy Act, or NEPA, the Clean Air and Water Acts, the Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Action, just 

to name a few. 

There is no need to reinvent the wheel or add additional layers 

to an already complex and lengthy project approval process. We 

34 

have submitted testimony in more detail about the National Ocean 

Policy, but I’d like to emphasize some of our main concerns today. 

First, the draft plan contains very little information on how 

Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning will be implemented even 

though marine spatial planning is the crux of the issue for National Ocean Policy. The public, including AOGA, has been asking 

from the very beginning for details since this policy was rolled out 

two years ago and we have yet to receive them. 

According to language contained in the draft plan, details will be 

included in the Handbook for Regional Coastal and Marine Spatial 

Planning. However, to date, this handbook has not been released, 

nor is there any real indication as to exactly what details the handbook will contain. This lack of detail creates huge uncertainties for 

the industry I represent. At a minimum, public comment on the information to be contained in the handbook should be collected and 

incorporated into the final Implementation Plan before Coastal and 

Marine Spatial Planning moves forward. 

Second, no information—and the first panel talked about this— 

but no information on Regional Planning Bodies has been provided 

beyond basic information on membership, which right now is to include only Federal, state and tribal representatives. Stakeholders 

such as my industry will have no direct representation. 

Third, we are concerned that the National Ocean Policy could 

reach far inland beyond oceans and coasts based on vague language 

included in the draft plan and saying that inland areas could be 

included, but there is no defining or clarifying language. 

Fourth, we are concerned that spatial planning will add to rather 

than streamline statutory and regulatory processes for oil and gas 

exploration and development in Alaska, as you have said, Congressman. The Administration has said the policy will not change 

existing Federal authorities and responsibilities; however, the draft 

plan includes contradictory language that Senator Murkowski already outlined. 

Fifth, we are justifiably concerned that the National Ocean Policy and Coastal Marine Spatial Planning will result in exclusionary 

zoning of Alaska’s oceans and coasts. 

Sixth, we are concerned about how the implementation will be 

funded. You’ve already mentioned that, especially given scarce resources across all Federal agencies. We do not believe National 

Ocean Policy should be given a priority or have funds diverted from 

already existing programs. 

Last, we are concerned that the policy will be used as a tool for 

litigation. This is a real concern given the extreme attention already on Alaska oil and gas projects and one that should be acknowledged before pursuing implementation much further. 

The importance of oil and gas development in Alaska’s OCS cannot be overstated. Implementation of a National Ocean Policy 

should not hinder efforts to develop the resources contained in 

Alaska’s OCS. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and we look forward to 

the questions at the end of the panel. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Ms. Moriarty. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Moriarty follows:] 

35 

Statement of Kara Moriarty, Executive Director, 

Alaska Oil and Gas Association 

My name is Kara Moriarty and I am the Executive Director of the Alaska Oil and 

Gas Association. AOGA is a business trade association whose membership represents the breadth and scope of the oil and gas industry in Alaska, from new explorers, small independents and legacy development and production companies, to 

companies involved in the transportation, refining and marketing of oil and gas in 

the state, from Cook Inlet to the North Slope, onshore and offshore, including companies with both federal and state interests. We appreciate you holding a field hearing in the state and the opportunity to testify today. 

First of all, AOGA agrees that more streamlined permitting and regulatory processes are needed, but believe that this should be accomplished through existing statutory and regulatory regimes which already encompass National Ocean Policy concerns, including the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air and Water Acts, the Endangered Species Act, and 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act. There is no need to reinvent the wheel or add 

additional layers to an already complex and lengthy project approval process. Instead, focus should be on streamlining these existing processes to reduce the delays 

and uncertainties synonymous with permitting oil and gas activities in Alaska. 

My testimony this morning will now focus on the three primary areas of concern 

AOGA has with implementation of the National Ocean Policy as currently envisioned by the National Ocean Council. First, the lack of detail surrounding Coastal 

and Marine Spatial Planning and the policies and procedures of the Regional Planning Bodies charged with creation and implementation of the regional CMS plans. 

Second, the additional layer of bureaucracy the National Ocean Policy in general, 

and Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning in particular, could add to an already established and complex statutory and regulatory regime. And finally, concerns about 

how the National Ocean Policy will be implemented throughout the federal agencies 

in a time of fiscal restraint and scarce federal resources. 

The Draft National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan contains very little information on how Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning will be implemented even 

though it is the crux of the National Ocean Policy. The public, including AOGA, has 

continued to express concern about the lack of detail about CMSP since the policy 

was rolled out in 2010, yet the National Ocean Council has once again failed to address these concerns. According to language contained in the Draft Implementation 

Plan, details will be included in the Handbook for Regional Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. However, to date, the Handbook has not been released nor is there 

any real indication as to exactly what details the Handbook will contain. Importantly, there is no assurance that public comment on the Handbook will be collected. 

This lack of detail creates huge uncertainties regarding how CMSP will impact the 

oil and gas industry. We would like to provide meaningful, substantive input, but 

this is impossible without comprehensive information. At a minimum, public comment on the information to be contained in the Handbook should be collected and 

incorporated into the final implementation plan before CMSP moves forward. 

Similarly, no information on Regional Planning Bodies has been provided beyond 

basic information on membership to include only federal, state and tribal representatives. Under the Draft Implementation Plan, stakeholders will have no direct representation on the planning bodies, despite the fact that the planning bodies are 

charged with creation and implementation of regional CMS plans encompassing all 

ocean and coastal uses. If CMS plans are to be effective and useful tools for ocean 

and coastal management, we believe membership should be expanded to include 

representatives from stakeholder groups, including the oil and gas industry. Without such involvement, the potential is real for prohibitions against activities such 

as oil and gas without the involvement of the most impacted parties. 

At this point, the Draft Plan does not even include information on how stakeholders would be engaged in the CMS planning process by the regional planning 

bodies. Apparently, this information will be included in the Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Handbook, but again, it is not clear whether public comment will be 

collected. Furthermore, there is some indication that the Handbook will contain 

‘‘guidance’’ for regional planning bodies only, rather than mandatory procedures, 

which would result in even more uncertainty and potential delay or prohibitions 

against oil and gas activities. At the very minimum, the final implementation plan 

should specify the processes and procedures for stakeholder and public engagement 

with the planning bodies on CMSP issues. 

In addition, no information has been provided on how disputes among members 

of the regional planning bodies will be handled. Who is the final arbiter on applicable law and policy with regard to a particular project? It is easy to see how this 

36 

could also delay or prohibit oil and gas projects in Alaska due to numerous interested parties and potentially overlapping jurisdiction and authority. 

In this same vein, we are concerned that the National Ocean Policy could reach 

far inland beyond the oceans and coasts. Once again, vague language is included 

in the Draft Implementation Plan stating that the geographic scope of Coastal and 

Marine Spatial Planning could include ‘‘inland’’ areas but no defining or clarifying 

language. Such a policy could have huge impacts on the oil and gas industry in 

Alaska as the North Slope still contains significant oil and gas resources. 

Our next point concerns the potential for CMSP to add to rather than streamline 

statutory and regulatory processes for oil and gas exploration and development in 

Alaska. According to statements by the National Ocean Council and other senior 

level officials in the Administration, National Ocean Policy will not change existing 

federal authorities and responsibilities. However, the Draft Plan includes contradictory language. For example, one of the milestones identified in the Draft Plan is for 

the Legal Working Group to complete review of Ecosystem Based Management-relevant statutes and regulations to identify ‘‘potential legislative changes that would 

fill gaps and support full implementation of EBM.’’ This type of contradictory language only creates confusion and needs to be removed from the final implementation plan. 

Additionally, messaging by the National Ocean Council and the Administration 

must clarify that the National Ocean Policy will fit within existing statutory and 

regulatory regimes. To reiterate my earlier testimony, there is no need for a National Ocean Policy that would reinvent the wheel or add new layers to the complex 

and lengthy project approval process for Alaska oil and gas projects. Rather, focus 

should be on streamlining existing processes to reduce the delays and uncertainties. 

As I have mentioned during my testimony, we are justifiably concerned that National Ocean Policy and CMSP will result in exclusionary zoning of Alaska’s oceans 

and coasts. Though the National Ocean Council and others have made statements 

that this will not be the case, our fear is already being realized in environmental 

planning documents. For example, in the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the 2012–2017 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, the U.S. Department of Interior stated that Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning ‘‘has emerged as a new paradigm and planning strategy for coordinating all 

marine and coastal activities and facility constructions within the context of a national zoning plan. Clearly, zoning of Alaska’s oceans and coasts, in advance of specific project proposals, coupled with a lack of stakeholder involvement in the CMSP 

process, could severely and adversely impact economic and resource development 

projects in Alaska, including oil and gas activities. 

Finally, AOGA is concerned about how implementation of the National Ocean Policy will be funded, especially given scarce resources across all federal agencies. Implementation of the National Ocean Policy should not be given priority over existing 

regulatory and permitting programs necessary for approval and oversight of resource and economic development projects in Alaska, including oil and gas activities, 

or funds diverted away from these programs. 

Given the lack of detail described above and prevalent throughout the National 

Ocean Policy Implementation documents, AOGA is concerned that the Policy, particularly CMSP, will be used as a tool for litigation. This is a real concern given 

the attention on Alaska oil and gas projects and one that should be acknowledged 

before pursuing implementation much further or so broadly. AOGA does not believe 

that the National Ocean Policy should be implemented without detailed information 

on the important aspects of implementation I have described. At a minimum, AOGA 

believes implementation should not occur until there has been adequate opportunity 

to provide input on these issues. 

The importance of oil and gas development on Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf, 

to Alaska and the nation, cannot be overstated. Developing these resources is essential to any effort to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil and should not 

be unjustifiably impeded by unclear project regulation and development procedures. 

Alaska’s OCS is estimated to hold 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet 

of natural gas, the development of which would translate into an annual average 

of 54,000 new jobs over 50 years, $145 billion in payroll throughout the U.S. and 

$193 billion in revenues to state, local and federal governments. These resources are 

also vital to stemming the decline of oil flowing through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 

System, identified by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as critical national 

infrastructure, which is currently operating at one-third capacity and will face continued operational challenges without additional supply. Implementation of the National Ocean Policy should not hinder efforts to develop the resources contained in 

Alaska’s OCS. 

37 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and I am happy to answer 

any questions you may have about AOGA’s views on the National Ocean Policy and 

the impacts it may have on the oil and gas industry in the state. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Fred Parady. 

STATEMENT OF FRED PARADY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. PARADY. Good morning. My name is Fred Parady. I serve as 

the Executive Director of the Alaska Miners Association. The 

Alaska Miners Association is a nonprofit membership organization 

established in 1939 to represent the mining industry in Alaska. It 

is composed of more than 1,400 individual prospectors, geologists, 

engineers, vendors, suction dredge miners, small family mines, junior mining companies and major mining companies. Our members 

look for and produce gold, silver, platinum, diamonds, lead, zinc, 

copper, coal, limestone, sand, gravel, crushed rock, armor rock and 

other materials all across Alaska. 

Turning to the proposed National Ocean Policy. It will have a 

substantial and negative impact on Alaska’s resource-dependent industries and Alaska’s economy. The existing regulatory regime is 

already overly complex, a blend of state and Federal permitting 

and oversight that’s anything but a streamlined, sensible process. 

The National Ocean Policy simply adds by stealth a layer of increased bureaucracy that will virtually stop processes that already 

crawl with no concomitant benefit to the economy. 

It is our strong view that the Coastal Marine Spatial Planning 

and Regional Planning Body structure is an unauthorized regulatory program with no basis in statute and is an end run by the 

executive branch around Congress. Lack of sufficient information 

itself is a primary basis for third-party legal claims by environmental groups seeking to block development projects. These new 

requirements of the National Ocean Policy will generate yet another round of endless study and halt common-sense decisions in 

their tracks. 

Our state’s natural resource managers need to use the data 

available to them and make decisions with the detailed information 

that’s already in the public records. Clearly permitting uncertainty 

is increased by the National Ocean Policy’s stated intention to 

reach the onshore activities that may have impacts on marine 

waters. The National Ocean Policy is simply another obstacle and 

will provide an additional platform for third-party environmental 

groups to litigate against projects that fail to meet the vague and 

overly broad informational requirements of the proposed policy. 

AMA is further concerned that Coastal Marine Spatial Planning 

will lead to far-reaching use restrictions on marine waters that will 

override the social and economic needs of Alaskans. 

No one present at the signing of the original wetlands legislation 

anticipated that it would be anything more than a mechanism to 

ensure that ducks had sufficient wetlands for breeding. Yet look at 

the ways in which the regulatory interpretation has broadened 

from that date, particularly through the expansion of the definition 

of what constitutes a wetland and then contemplate the use of 

phrases—I lost track of my thought here—the use of the phraseoloVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:29 Apr 12, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\73693.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
38 

gies that are in the National Ocean Policy. No net loss of wetlands 

should have a parallel Alaskan goal of no net loss of access to our 

resources. 

One specific example where the National Ocean Policy would 

slow projects is in regards to recovery of gold resources off the 

shores of Nome, which the State recently successfully leased. Such 

activity would be slowed, if not stopped, by the proposed policy. 

Please note that a justification for the CMSP is supposedly to resolve conflict among diverse resource interests, yet every resource 

interest that’s presented testimony today stands firmly aligned in 

opposing this overreaching effort. 

In closing, AMA strongly urges Congress to maintain a laser 

focus on the broad efforts to change the way ocean and coastal resources are managed. Congressional oversight is needed to prevent 

premature implementation of this policy and keep Federal agencies 

at home fulfilling their core job of processing Federal permits and 

leases. 

There has not been meaningful stakeholder engagement. In fact, 

to most Alaskans, today’s hearing is going to be their first comprehensive look at this Federal rulemaking by stealth. 

Finally, during this very weak economic recovery with weak job 

creation, the Administration should be looking to reduce regulations, not to create another lair of job-killing regulation. The National Ocean Policy is the wrong idea at the wrong time. It adds 

complexity and jurisdictional ambiguity to what is already a very 

difficult permitting environment. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this far-reaching, 

poorly conceptualized and inadequately prepared initiative. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Parady. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Parady follows:] 

Statement of Fred Parady, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association 

Good morning members of the committee. My name is Fred Parady, Executive Director of the Alaska Miners Association (AMA). The Alaska Miners Association is 

a non-profit membership organization established in 1939 to represent the mining 

industry in Alaska. The AMA is a 501 C–6 International non-profit composed of 

more than 1400 individual prospectors, geologists and engineers, vendors, suction 

dredge miners, small family mines, junior mining companies, and major mining 

companies. Our members look for and produce gold, silver, platinum, diamonds, 

lead, zinc, copper, coal, limestone, sand and gravel, crushed stone, armor rock, and 

other materials. Our members live and work throughout Alaska, Canada, Russia, 

Mongolia, and the lower 49 states. We have submitted the required documents for 

the record. 

The proposed National Ocean Policy will have a significantly disproportionate impact on Alaska’s resource dependent industries and our economy as a whole, for the 

simple and straightforward reason that at approximately 34,000 miles, Alaska has 

more coastline than all of the lower 48 states combined. 

The existing regulatory regime is already cumbersome and complex, a blend of 

State and Federal permitting and oversight that reflects tangled history but is not 

a streamlined, sensible process. The National Ocean Policy simply adds a layer of 

increased bureaucracy that will further slow already slow processes with no concomitant benefit to the environment. It is our strong view that the Coastal Marine 

Spatial Planning/Regional Planning Body structure is an unauthorized new regulatory program. 

The ecosystem-based management goal as specified will undoubtedly require vast 

quantities of scientific data. Given that the purported lack of sufficient information 

itself is often the basis for third party legal claims by Environmental Non-government Organization (eNGOs) to block development projects, this new requirement 

will generate another endless round of study and halt common sense decisions in 

39 

their tracks. Natural resource managers need to use best available data to move forward and make the best decisions with information available. 

Clearly, uncertainty is heightened by the National Ocean Policy’s stated policy of 

reaching to onshore activities that may have impacts on marine waters. Section 404 

of clean water act and the ubiquitous nature of wetlands means upland activities 

already are highly regulated in Alaska. A plethora of petitions to list additional species under ESA onshore and off are adding substantial burdens to landowners and 

resource industries, without resulting in any recognizable progress for the underlying species. But one example is that hardrock mines in Alaska require over 60 

State and Federal authorizations to proceed with development. The National Ocean 

Policy adds yet another another hurdle to overcome, and will serve to provide an 

additional platform for third party eNGOs to litigate against projects that fail to 

meet the informational requirements or expectations for the National Ocean Policy. 

AMA is further concerned that Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning will likely 

lead to far reaching use restrictions on marine waters that will over-ride the social 

and economic needs of Alaskans. No one present at the signing of the original wetlands legislation anticipated that it would be anything more than a mechanism to 

insure ducks had sufficient wetlands for breeding. Yet look at the ways in which 

regulatory interpretation has broadened from that date. Broad swaths of submerged 

lands could be restricted in exclusionary zones for a nebulous national agenda of 

‘‘ecosystem based management’’. One specific Alaska example regards the recovery 

of gold resources off the shores of Nome, which the State recently successfully 

leased. Such activity would be slowed if not stopped. Even if restricted zones were 

more modest in size and scope, use restrictions in strategic marine corridors necessary for resource transport and shipping could be devastating to our marine dependent industries. 

One note worth making is that a justification for Coastal and Marine Spatial 

Planning is to resolve conflict among diverse resource interests, yet AMA and other 

resource associations are firmly aligned in opposing this overreaching effort. We are 

all concerned that NOP will create far more difficulties for these industries than it 

will resolve. 

In closing, AMA strongly urges Congress to maintain an integral and substantial 

oversight role in these broad efforts to change the way ocean and coastal resources 

are managed. The power of appropriation could and should be used to restrain the 

premature implementation of the National Ocean Policy. Congressional oversight is 

needed to ensure implementation of the National Ocean Policy does not prevent 

Federal Agencies from fulfilling their core congressional mandates to adjudicate 

needed federal permits and leases. 

AMA notes that there has not been meaningful stakeholder engagement. Detailed 

economic analysis of impacts of the policy should be completed and available for full 

public and Congressional review before policy implantation. The Handbook for Regional Coastal Marine Spatial Planning must be subject to public input, review, and 

comment before implementation. 

At best, we believe the National Oceans Council should utilize pilot projects in 

geographic areas where NOP and CMSP has some acceptance, before broad swaths 

of ocean and marine areas, such as Alaska, have this policy imposed upon them. 

Finally, during this very tenuous economic recovery with accompanying high unemployment, Congress and the administration should be untangling the complex 

web of complex statutes and regulations that are strangling our productive resource 

sector of our economy and killing job creation. National Ocean Policy does exactly 

the opposite—it adds complexity and jurisdictional ambiguity. Congress, the States 

and the private sector should have a more meaningful role in development and implementation of such far-reaching policies for State and Federal waters and upland 

resources. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this far-reaching initiative. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Sturgeon, Is there any forestry left in Alaska, 

by the way? 

Mr. STURGEON. Pardon? 

Mr. YOUNG. Is there any forestry left in the State of Alaska? 

Mr. STURGEON. We’re definitely the last of the Mohicans, but 

there’s a few of us left. We’re trying to stay alive. 

Mr. YOUNG. One of the disappointments in my career has been 

the fact that at one time there were 15,000 high-paying jobs in the 

State of Alaska and I think we may have maybe 80. 

40 

Mr. STURGEON. That may be a little bit of an exaggeration, but 

not many of us left. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN STURGEON, DIRECTOR, 

ALASKA FOREST ASSOCIATION 

Mr. STURGEON. Good morning, Representative Young. I’d like to 

thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the National 

Ocean Policy’s program. I’m here today representing the Alaska 

Forest Association. The Alaska Forest Association has represented 

Alaska’s forest products industry since 1955. 

Alaska has operated our forestry businesses in a responsible 

manner for many years. I was a member of the tasks force that developed Alaska’s original Forest Practice Act. That Act was designed to ensure that both water quality and fish habitat were 

maintained at or above State standards during and after road construction and logging operations. The Forest Practice Act has 

worked very well for Alaska. 

We have maintained excellent water quality and our fisheries 

have been maintained in many areas and even improved. For example, the Harris River watershed in Southeast Alaska was heavily logged between 1985 and 1995 by Forest Service contractors in 

conformance with state and Federal rules and management practices. 

We are happy to report to you that salmon returns in these two 

heavily logged watersheds have doubled since logging operations 

commenced many years ago. That area of our state has been developed and the developed areas are already managed responsibly. 

Our state’s streams, rivers and coasts do not need restoration. 

Expanding existing Federal regulations and permitting functions is 

not necessary in Alaska, and a through cost-benefit analysis should 

be performed prior to making any decision to expand any of the existing Federal programs. 

The state and Federal agencies have already developed methods 

of coordinating their various permitting and regulatory programs. 

An expansive Federal program to coordinate permitting and regulatory issues is not needed. For example, we ended our Coastal 

Zone Program last year and we have experienced no environmental 

impacts. Instead, we have eliminated the cost of that program and 

have reassigned most of the former Coastal Zone Program staff to 

more meaningful work. It would seem that this new program flies 

in the face of the general mood of the country for less government 

rather than more. 

Climate change issues seem to dominate much of the draft Implementation Plan for the National Ocean Policy. While there is 

still considerable debate about the climate issue, we would like to 

note that Alaska’s coastal streams are not sensitive as those in the 

Lower 48. Studies have shown that some warming would actually 

be beneficial. 

What is needed in Alaska is a more business-friendly regulatory 

climate. Endless regulatory creep makes it very difficult to maintain profitable businesses and the jobs those businesses support, 

particularly in small communities where most timber operations 

take place. If the Federal Government truly wants to help in 

Alaska, the draft National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan 

41 

should be revised to concentrate on eliminating redundant or unnecessary programs, regulations and permitting functions. 

The number of regulations small logging companies already have 

to deal with is truly mind boggling. Unlike large companies, small 

businesses cannot afford to hire an environmental manager just to 

assure they’re in compliance with the many, many environmental 

regulations that they have to face today. We urge you not to add 

yet one more layer of unnecessary environmental regulations on 

top of what we already have to deal with. 

Once again, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify 

today and we appreciate your attention to this important issue. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Sturgeon. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sturgeon follows:] 

Statement of John Sturgeon, Director, Alaska Forest Association 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the potential impacts of the new National Ocean Policy. 

My name is John Sturgeon and I am a Director for the Alaska Forest Association. 

The AFA is the statewide association representing companies engaged in forest 

practices including support companies. We have 115 members and represent timber 

companies, loggers, trucking and towing companies, suppliers, and other members 

who have a stake in the future of a vital and hopefully healthy timber economy in 

Alaska. 

We have several concerns with President Obama’s ocean zoning executive order. 

The lands in Alaska are mostly undeveloped and the lands that have been and 

are being developed are managed responsibly and in conformance with State and 

federal regulations. There is no need for ‘‘restoration’’ of the lands in our State; we 

have abundant wetlands, excellent air and water quality, we have increased our 

fisheries and our wildlife is doing well. This new Policy will likely result in new regulatory burdens without significant environmental improvements for our State. 

The National Oceans Policy purports to be a framework for coordinating the efforts of many federal agencies, but the draft Implementation Plan appears to encourage significant changes in federal regulations and programs. For instance, the 

‘‘ecosystem-based management’’ concept in the implementation Plan seems to assume there is some critical need to address climate change issues and sequester carbon. Yet the plan seems to mostly ignore the costs impacts of taking dramatic action 

on this hypothetical crisis. The draft Plan indicates that implementation will require grants, new funding for National Ocean Policy priorities and directs that new 

management practices be developed; but there seems to be no mention of any costbenefit analysis for these expenditures. Additionally, the draft Plan promotes the expansion of the Coastal Zone Management Act, but that Act is not currently utilized 

in Alaska. 

The draft Plan discusses improved efficiency of permitting, but it would be a more 

helpful plan if it were more clearly aimed at reducing the permitting requirements 

and eliminating redundant permitting and regulatory processes. The draft Plan indicates there will be a ‘‘special-planning’’ effort, but we don’t need additional land 

planning help in Alaska. Instead, we need to foster a more friendly business climate 

so we can continue to develop our resources in a responsible manner. The loss of 

thousands of timber industry jobs in Southeast Alaska is a good example of federal 

planning gone awry. In the Southeast region of our State, the federal government 

has monopoly power over the timber resources, but excessive environmental zeal in 

the national forest planning process has resulted in the loss of 90% of our timber 

supply from federal lands. Since the State and private lands in the region are very 

limited, we have lost about 85% of our industry employment due to the loss of access to federal timber resources. 

The summary in the draft Plan states that this planning ‘‘will be done without 

creating new bureaucracy and without negative economic impacts’’, but that doesn’t 

seem likely. This new Policy appears to be headed toward more costly, restrictive 

rules and regulations. 

Congress has already decided what laws and requirements apply to coastal and 

ocean development and what policies and criteria federal agencies should use to decide whether to grant a permit for a particular project. Overlaying the President’s 

ocean zoning policy and plan on top of the existing statutory and regulatory frameVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:29 Apr 12, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\73693.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
42 

work creates uncertainty and conflict. Both of which are problematic if you are trying to encourage economic development, jobs, and certainty in permitting. 

Section 5(b) of the Executive Order says that ‘‘executive departments’, agencies’ 

or office’s decisions and actions affecting the oceans and coasts. . .will be guided by 

the stewardship principles and national priority objectives set forth in the Final 

Recommendations’’. So the Executive Order says agencies must follow the President’s policies and objectives when making decisions. This mandatory language is 

followed by language in the Executive Order that says ‘‘to the extent consistent with 

applicable law’’ but what does that mean? 

Does that mean that a permitting agency deciding whether to grant a permit follows the direction of Congress in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act which sets 

out a policy with Congressional direction to promote development and to work with 

States and local communities in making permitting and leasing decisions on a case 

by case basis? How does a permitting agency with that Congressional statutory 

framework fit that framework with the President’s EO which says the policy federal 

agencies should be following are the stewardship principles designed to protect 

oceans and bolster conservation, (Section 1 of EO) and to follow the guidance of the 

National Ocean Council (Section 1 of the EO) not Congress, or States or local communities or stakeholders. 

If the EO did not mandate federal agencies to follow the direction and policy, if 

it said federal agencies ‘‘may’’ apply the policies and principles of the EO if the action they are contemplating is not already covered by an act of Congress and if the 

EO said federal agencies must continue to give deference to, and cooperate and coordinate with states, local communities, and stakeholders as set out in current laws 

and regulations then the EO would avoid conflict and uncertainty in federal decision-making. But it does not say that. It uses mandatory language and while it contains some catch all language ‘‘consistent with applicable law’’ the language is not 

enough to save the EO from becoming a problem. 

How would any member of the public or industry supportive of a permit or development know if the federal agency made its decision based on the policy and requirements in statute or those set out in the EO, or how much weight it gave to 

specific factors in its decision making process? If you do not know which factors 

were relied on and to what degree, then federal agencies can just follow the principles of the EO and give lip service to the actual laws and regulations that are on 

the books now. And companies looking to invest and create jobs are going to be concerned at a minimum that it is uncertain what factors will be brought to bear on 

their project. 

This EO is trying to act in an area Congress has already acted in and given direction to federal agencies. If the President wants to create a new framework for federal action in the ocean and coastal areas he should follow the proper procedure and 

introduce a bill that sets a national policy on oceans like H.R. 21 was introduced 

in the 110th Congress and allow the issues to be openly debated. 

The federal government should also be required to follow the procedures of the 

Administrative Procedure Act which require federal agencies to follow rules and provide an opportunity for the public to comment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act which 

requires an estimate of the impacts on businesses from federal agency action, and 

the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires studies and analysis of any 

major federal action, which a new national ocean policy certainly qualifies for. 

(Since a timber sale for 10 acres qualifies) All these protections should apply to this 

federal action in this EO because imposing a new national ocean policy is very 

significant. 

Mr. YOUNG. Dr. Farrell. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. FARRELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

U.S. ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION 

Mr. FARRELL. Good morning, Chairman Young. Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. Fran Ulmer, the Chair of the 

Arctic Research Commission, sends her greetings and regrets that 

she could not be here to testify today. She’s attending her son’s 

wedding. 

My name is John Farrell and I am the Executive Director of the 

Commission. My principal duty is to develop and help implement 

a National Arctic Research Policy and to recommend goals and obVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:29 Apr 12, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\73693.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
43 

jectives for Arctic scientific research in service to the nation. I’ve 

submitted my full statement, which I ask to be made part of the 

hearing record. 

I last testified before this Subcommittee in favor of your bill. 

That was H.R. 2864 to amend the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act. The Commissioners have asked me to pass along their 

congratulations to you on the passage of the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, an Act that you sponsored and worked on with 

the Commission. 

My message today to you is simply this: The five Arctic-related 

actions in the National Ocean Policy will improve safe operations 

in the Arctic for both the public and private sectors and will boost 

our economic growth and enhance security. These five actions will 

create a unifying framework that will do the following: Improve coordination and integration for those who operate in the Arctic, reduce conflicts and delays that hinder economic development, increase operating efficiencies and reduce uncertainty in the marketplace while at the same time ensuring that our oceans will remain 

productive for future generations. 

These actions were selected with considerable input from Alaska 

stakeholders and from others with Arctic experience, and we will 

continue to refine these actions based on further public comment 

and input. The first action is to advance marine mapping and 

charting as you’ve previously called for. 

Charts are central to our understanding of the region and are essential to ensuring, in the words of Lieutenant Governor Mead 

Treadwell and Commissioner Dan Sullivan, a quote, a safe, secure 

and reliable Arctic marine transportation system. That’s the first 

action. 

The second is to enhance communications systems in the Arctic. 

Improved early warning and emergency response systems will 

speed our ability to assess and respond to emerging events and 

therefore minimize downtime. An example is implementing the 

automatic identification system, the AIS. 

The third action will be to augment our basic oceanographic observations in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. A greater understanding of how the ecosystem is changing will serve as a guide for 

resource managers and provide subsistence-based communities 

with information they need to adapt to variable conditions. 

Fourth, we aim to improve preparation and response management to emergencies that might arise from resource development 

and marine transportation. While greater international cooperation 

has already begun, there’s room for more coordination, planning 

and training. 

Finally, the fifth action from the Arctic Strategic Action Plan is 

to better observe and forecast Arctic sea ice, a topic whose importance and significance is well known to the people in this room. Improving sea ice maps, analyses and forecasts will support homeland 

and national security, safe ship operation and navigation and resource development. 

These five actions I’ve discussed are part of a comprehensive National Ocean Policy that has been called for by two bipartisan commissions for over a decade. 

44 

In closing, the Policy’s emphasis is on more efficient and effective 

uses of existing authorities and resources. The Policy is implemented under existing law and does not impose any new regulations or alter any existing Federal authorities, inland or otherwise. 

The Policy does not impose any restrictions on ocean activities or 

direct that any area be designated for specific use or be off-limits 

to specific activities. 

The Commission supports the Federal Government’s commitment 

to continue to engage state, local, tribal partners, industry, the 

public and other stakeholders in refining and implementing these 

five actions. 

Thank you again for considering the Commission’s views on this 

policy. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Doctor. I thank the panel. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Farrell follows:] 

Statement of John Farrell, Executive Director, 

U.S. Arctic Research Commission 

Good morning Chairman Young. Thank you for inviting me to speak on National 

Ocean Policy, and the relevance to Alaska. 

My name is John Farrell, and I am the Executive Director of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC), a small, independent Federal agency, created by the 

Arctic Research and Policy Act (ARPA) of 1984. I testify today on behalf of Commission Chair Fran Ulmer and the other presidentially appointed Commissioners. 

As the Executive Director of the Commission, my principal duty is to work with 

the Commissioners to develop and recommend an integrated national Arctic research policy and to put forward a biennial report identifying goals and objectives 

for Arctic research. In addition, I assist the Interagency Arctic Research and Policy 

Committee (IARPC), also created by ARPA, to establish a national Federal Arctic 

research program plan to implement the policy and to fulfill the research goals. 

I’m here today to speak about the Arctic component of the draft Implementation 

Plan for National Ocean Policy. This policy was created by the National Ocean 

Council in response to President Obama’s Executive Order 13547, titled ‘‘Stewardship of the Oceans, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes,’’ that was released on July 

19, 2010. 

The National Ocean Council asked me and Robert Winokur, the Deputy Oceanographer of the U.S. Navy, to help lead a team to draft the Arctic portion of this policy, and that’s what I’ll testify about today. 

Please note that the actions I will discuss today are not final. I look forward to 

reviewing the comments recently submitted by the public on the draft plan, so that 

we can adjust the Arctic section to better reflect the needs and concerns identified 

by the public. 

Draft Implementation Plan for National Ocean Policy 

A draft Implementation Plan has been created for National Ocean Policy. This 

Plan lays out the initial steps required to achieve the vision and charge of the Policy, and addresses the most pressing marine challenges that face our nation. The 

Plan describes the specific actions within the scope of the National Ocean Council’s 

charge that the Federal Government will undertake to deliver tangible results to the 

American people. 

The Plan does not encompass all Federal actions relating to oceans. Instead, it 

focuses on nine priority objectives. For each, a suite of actions and their intended 

outcomes are described. For each action, key milestones are outlined, lead agencies 

or other responsible entities are identified, and timeframes are listed. This structure 

is designed to provide a clear layout of what will be accomplished, by whom, and 

when. 

The purpose of the plan is to help unify Federal efforts within the scope of the 

National Ocean Policy around clearly articulated priorities and to identify a path 

to achieve them, to help meet the essential needs of Americans, and to ensure positive outcomes in addressing some of the most pressing challenges facing our ocean 

and the many Americans who rely on keeping our oceans healthy and productive. 

The National Ocean Policy is structured around nine priority objectives, and one 

of these, ‘‘Changing Conditions in the Arctic,’’ pertains directly to Alaska. The Arctic 

Ocean is identified as a priority region—the other priorities refer to issues rather 

45 

than regions—because rapidly diminishing sea ice is presenting opportunities and 

challenges with great implications for Alaska and the nation as a whole. 

Scope and focus of testimony 

Today, I will limit my testimony to the Arctic portion of the Implementation Plan, 

because I am familiar with it. I will not discuss other, broad themes in the Plan, 

such as ecosystem-based management, and coastal and marine spatial planning. 

They are beyond my area of expertise and the Commission has not developed a position on those elements of the Plan. 

Robert Winokur and I led a team of experts, from a wide range of Federal Departments and Agencies, to draft this Plan objective titled, ‘‘Changing Conditions in the 

Arctic.’’ Our goal was to address environmental stewardship needs in the Arctic 

Ocean and adjacent coastal areas in the face of climate-induced and other environmental changes. 

‘‘Changing Conditions in the Arctic’’ 

The United States has broad interests in the Arctic. These range from national 

security and territorial sovereignty to sustainable management of domestic energy 

and living resources, environmental protection, cultural heritage, and scientific research. These interests must be addressed within the context of change, environmentally, market-driven, and otherwise. The Nation, the State of Alaska, Tribal 

governments, and coastal communities are faced with critical decisions about how 

best to manage natural resources and sustainable human activities in this region. 

They must do so in cooperation with other countries that also have equities in the 

Arctic. 

One of the most dramatic changes is the decrease in the areal extent and thickness of Arctic Ocean sea ice. Diminishment of the ice, and thawing permafrost leave 

large areas of coastal Alaska vulnerable to threats from rising sea level, stronger 

storms, and increased erosion. Marine and terrestrial ecosystems, regional weather 

patterns, and even the global climate system are affected by the retreat of sea ice. 

Ice-diminished transit routes in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas and other 

regions of the Arctic invite increased international resource development, commerce, 

and transportation, which will bring both new socioeconomic and environmental opportunities and stressors. 

Such rapid changes underscore the need for improved and timelier information 

across diverse scales and disciplines to provide effective stewardship, to ensure that 

natural resource management and economic development in the region are environmentally sustainable, and to support effective early warning and emergency response systems. Improved science and technology are needed to help the scientific 

community forecast changes with greater certainty and provide guidance for local 

communities, resource managers, and commercial interests in this remote region. 

Improvements in daily and weekly sea ice forecasts, for example, will benefit local 

community activities and safety, while also helping to provide a safe, secure, and 

reliable Arctic marine transportation system. 

Improved hydrographic mapping and bathymetric charting for mariners and for 

other users of marine transportation systems are also needed. Such products will 

reduce the risks of maritime incidents and will facilitate more resilient ocean and 

coastal economies. 

Another crucial resource will be a distributed biological observatory that will 

allow us to collect and share baseline ecosystem data, and better monitor, assess, 

and forecast environmental conditions under changing climate scenarios. 

For the Arctic region, this draft Implementation Plan strives to balance economic 

growth, community resilience, and environmental stewardship. By working through 

interagency structures, and by placing an emphasis on improved coordination with 

the State of Alaska and other stakeholders with common equities, the draft Plan 

will ensure that initiatives to advance national priorities are informed by the latest 

developments in science and technology. 

The transboundary effectiveness of all of these activities, including considering 

the needs of the indigenous people and communities of Alaska, can be enhanced 

through sustained cooperation with the State of Alaska and the Arctic Council. 

Five actions in ‘‘Changing Conditions in the Arctic’’ 

Action 1: Improve Arctic environmental response management. 

The melting of sea ice and global market forces will encourage natural resource 

development in the Arctic. A commensurate rise in marine traffic will likely increase 

the potential for significant accidents and pollution incidents. 

Alaska’s Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell recently pointed out the need to 

pay ‘‘close attention to communities, the coastal communities, people who depend on 

46 

subsistence resources, people who depend on whaling or sealing, or going after walrus to make sure that any oil spill response in the arctic works very closely with 

community members.’’ 

Preparing and responding to emergencies related to resource development and 

marine transportation in the Arctic requires improved coordination, planning, and 

training; stronger interagency research; and enhanced State, Federal, and international cooperation and collaboration. 

In the event that responsible private parties fail or are unable to meet their statutory responsibilities for prevention, mitigation, and cleanup of marine pollution 

events in the Arctic, this action addresses development and implementation of response coordination, procedures, and decision support systems to protect communities and ecosystems from oil spills and other incidents associated with resource 

extraction (e.g., oil and gas) and Arctic marine transportation (e.g., commercial shipping and tourism). 

Specifically, this action supports the development and implementation of response 

coordination and decision-support mechanisms to support agency responsibilities, 

such as NOAA’s Arctic Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA®), 

Alaska Joint Assessment Team, State–Federal Alaska Data Integration Working 

Group, and Alaska Regional Response Team (ARRT). A number of Federal departments and agencies are charged with ensuring that resource development projects 

and marine transportation comply with health, safety, and environmental protection 

standards. Implementation of this action will require close coordination with a number of existing entities, including the Arctic Interagency Policy Committee, the 

Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and 

Permitting in Alaska, and internationally with the working groups and task forces 

of the Arctic Council. 

Action 2: Observe and forecast Arctic sea ice. 

Sea ice forecasting is one of the most urgent and timely ocean issues in the Arctic 

region. Continued rapid loss of sea ice will be a major driver of changes throughout 

the Arctic, creating opportunities and challenges. Polar regions, although physically 

remote from major population centers, have profound significance for the global climate. They act not only as regulators of global temperature, but also as barometers 

of change. The loss of sea ice affects marine access, regional weather, global climate, 

marine and terrestrial ecosystems, and coastal communities. For example, a better 

understanding of how loss of sea ice in the Bering Sea (the location of the largest 

commercial fishery in the United States) will influence the entire marine ecosystem 

is of critical importance. 

All-season observations from spaceborne and airborne platforms, ships and ice 

camps, and instruments on and under Arctic sea ice provide short-term information 

on ice conditions for tactical users. Such observations also support research into understanding Arctic processes and environmental variability and in improving forecasts. This action will improve daily to weekly sea ice models and provide forecasts 

and new seasonal predictions in formats that are amenable to a wide variety of government agencies and regional users. 

Action 3: Implement a distributed biological observatory. 

Changes in location and timing of the seasonal ice edge can have profound effects 

on benthic and pelagic marine ecology and human activity. These changes affect the 

distribution and abundance of baleen whales, and the ability of ice-dependent marine mammals to reproduce and rear young on ice. Likewise, stranding of ice-dependent species on land reduces their likelihood of survival or reproductive rate, 

and may make the animals less available to subsistence hunters. The effects of 

these changes on Arctic ecosystems and Alaska Natives who depend on these species 

are poorly understood. 

Continued observations are needed to form the basis of understanding the changing processes in the Arctic region. A distributed biological observatory is one distinct 

component of the integrated Arctic Observing Network. A distributed biological observatory will improve our understanding of how changes in climate and the Arctic 

ecosystem will affect subsistence cultures in the region. New collaborations and 

partnerships will increase our capacity to monitor and assess changing environmental conditions. In addition, all participating agencies will be better able to determine and mitigate the effects of their decisions on marine resources, resulting in 

improved conservation, protection, and management of Arctic coastal and ocean resources. 

Action 4: Enhance communication systems in the Arctic. 

Communications are essential to implementing the Arctic priorities in the National Ocean Policy. Early warning and emergency response systems would improve 

47 

our ability to assess the timing and nature of emerging events in the Arctic region, 

such as environmental disasters, and will improve responses to them. 

The Federal Government will advance two aspects of communications: technical 

capabilities and outreach. On the technical side, the Federal Government will 

strengthen existing communication systems to allow vessels, aircraft, and other 

users to effectively communicate with each other and to receive information (e.g., 

real-time weather and sea ice forecasts) that will significantly decrease the risk of 

environmental damage and loss of life and property at sea. On the outreach side, 

special emphasis will be placed on communications with native communities. This 

is in addition to enhancing the technical capabilities in these areas. The enhancements described here will build upon and support the guidelines and responsibilities 

in the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement, to which the United States is a signatory. 

Action 5: Advance Arctic mapping and charting. 

Lt. Gov. Treadwell, who is also the former Chairman of the U.S. Arctic Research 

Commission, has long been a proponent of additional and higher-resolution imagery, 

mapping and charting of Alaska’s lands, both on and offshore. He and other Alaska 

State leaders, such as Cora Campbell, Commissioner of the Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, and Doug Vincent Lang, Acting Director of the Division of Wildlife 

Conservation, have underscored the importance of such activities to Alaskans. 

As I too stressed in my testimony before this Subcommittee on May 6, 2010, in 

the hearing on H.R. 2864 titled, ‘‘Charting the Unknown: America’s Arctic 

Seafloor,’’ that maps and charts are central to our understanding of the Arctic region, and are essential for effective stewardship of this rapidly evolving environment. Knowledge of Arctic marine ecosystems, marine transportation, Arctic sovereignty and governance, and climate change adaptation strategies that coastal communities must develop to sustain their cultures and traditions all fundamentally 

rely on maps to visualize and depict critical aspects of the operating environment. 

While ocean and coastal mapping in general is part of the ‘‘Observations, Mapping, and Infrastructure’’ priority objective in the draft Plan, this action will support 

the unique needs for accurate hydrographic surveys and shoreline mapping essential 

to modernizing nautical charts of U.S. Arctic waters and the Alaskan coastline. The 

action will enhance maritime commerce and help coastal communities develop adaptation strategies and disaster preparedness plans. It will increase the effectiveness 

of decisions regarding permitting, future ecosystem studies, and environmental 

stewardship. Mapping also supports biological habitat characterizations for ecosystem stewardship and restoration, development of storm readiness adaptation 

strategies for coastal communities facing the impacts of climate change, and emergency preparedness and response tools such as Arctic ERMA®. 

How was the draft Plan developed? 

The plan was drafted with the involvement of stakeholders and sought significant 

input, at various stages of development, from national, regional, and local stakeholders and the general public. 

Two public comments periods (from January through April, and from June 

through July) on a full-content outline of the plan were held in 2011. Another comment period, on the draft Plan, has just closed. 

Public listening sessions were held in Barrow on June 9, 2011 and in Anchorage 

on June 10th. And to reach even further, a webinar, co-sponsored by the U.S. Arctic 

Research Commission and the National Ocean Council, and hosted by the Alaska 

Center for Climate Assessment & Policy, of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, was 

held on April 19, 2011, and included a Q&A session. 

Furthermore, the Governance Coordinating Committee, composed of State, Tribal, 

and local government officials, such as Mark Robbins, from the Alaska Governor’s 

Office, and the Ocean Research Advisory Panel, including the Anchorage-based Director of the Alaska Ocean Observing System, Molly McCammon, provided input for 

the Plan. 

Comments and suggestions from these efforts, such as from the State of Alaska, 

from industry organizations, from non-governmental organizations and from individuals were duly considered and in many cases incorporated into what we drafted. 

Fiscal Responsibility 

In developing the Arctic component of the draft Plan, we were instructed by the 

National Ocean Council to consider three questions: 

1. What activities can be accomplished with existing Federal and partner resources? 

2. How can existing resources be re-purposed for greater efficiency and effectiveness? 

48 

3. Where do we need to include activities that with minimal additional resources may allow for additional truly transformative and far-reaching impacts? 

These questions are addressed in the actions developed in the draft Implementation Plan, and are specifically detailed in the milestone section. 

How will the Implementation Plan increase efficiencies? 

The Plan identifies not only resource requirements, but also expected efficiencies 

to be gained in plan implementation among Federal agencies, and with State, tribal, 

and local government partners. Through increased communication, coordination, 

and integration across all levels of government, agencies will streamline processes 

and reduce duplicative efforts, while better leveraging limited resources. 

How will the draft Plan be used? 

Once final, each participating Federal agency will begin implementing the actions 

contained in the Implementation Plan. Federal agencies will coordinate and collaborate with State, Tribal, and local authorities, regional governance structures, academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations, recreational users, private enterprise, and other stakeholders. The Plan will be adaptive and allow for modifications. The Plan will be reviewed annually and modified, as needed, based on new 

information or changing conditions. Given the uniqueness of Alaska, regional coordination, planning and implementation of the Plan will be critical. Actions will need 

to be tailored to regional needs and priorities. 

In summary, the U.S. Arctic Research Commission supports the draft Implementation Plan for National Ocean Policy and specifically the actions proposed in the 

national priority objective, ‘‘Changing Conditions in the Arctic.’’ These actions are 

not yet final. But if properly supported, the Commission thinks these actions should 

significantly advance our knowledge and understanding of the Arctic Ocean, and 

these will be of great use to resource managers and policy makers responsible for 

the overall economy of the State of Alaska, the focus of this field hearing. 

Thank you for considering the Commission’s views on the National Ocean Policy. 

Mr. YOUNG. Ms. Moriarty, if the Administration continues to tell 

us that the National Ocean Policy and Marine Spatial Planning is 

not zoning, isn’t that exactly what the Department of the Interior 

called it in the draft five-year plan? 

Ms. MORIARTY. Congressman Young, yes. In fact, in the draft 

programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for this next year’s 

leasing program, they said—the Department of the Interior stated 

that Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, quote, has emerged as 

a new paradigm and planning strategy for coordinating all marine 

and coastal activities and facility constructions within the context 

of a National Zoning Plan, unquote. 

So to us that is a concern because clearly zoning of Alaska’s 

oceans and coasts in advance of projects could severely impact resource development. 

Mr. YOUNG. That was my interpretation. I’m glad you brought it 

up and clarified that. 

Mr. Parady, if the reach of the Marine Spatial Planning Initiative goes to the head of each watershed in Alaska, that’s another 

concern. This is not just about oceans. Is there anywhere in the 

state that your operation would not be affected? 

Mr. PARADY. I believe it reaches to every mining operation in the 

state, including those that are in advanced stages of exploration, 

such as Donlin or Pebble or any of the advanced exploration 

projects that are currently ongoing in the state. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. Again, do you have any sense of what criteria 

a potential mining operation will face when they get all the state 

and Federal permits? I heard it was 55 permits. 

What do you think this will add? 

49 

Mr. PARADY. Mr. Chairman, I think it will add, say, at least a 

year to a permitting timeline that already stretches through the 

five—the Pebble Project Limited Partnership, I think, has invested 

over $120 million in their environmental studies and has yet to 

reach the permitting process, and I think it’s duplicative. The number I have on the number of permits required is 68. So somewhere 

between your 55, Eric’s 60 to 70 and my 68 is an enormous amount 

of environmental baseline data produced under NEPA and the 

Clean Water Act, et cetera. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Sturgeon, the draft National Ocean Policy Plan 

says that one of the national priorities and objectives is to address 

the major impacts of urban and sub-urban development on agriculture, including forestry and animals, on ocean, coastal and 

Great Lake waters. That sounds like your industry may be facing 

new restriction on forestry operations. I think in your testimony 

you already followed everything that’s been required by you, right. 

Mr. STURGEON. Representative Young, I certainly think so. What 

really concerns us about this when we talked earlier about the 

Coastal Zone Program when it first started, we thought it would 

be something that would protect waterfowl habitat and that kind 

of thing. But what happened very quickly is that they said anything that went inland, like salmon spawning, for example, and 

birds, migratory birds would go from the oceans to inland or anything that would transition in between would be part of the regulatory process. So this concerns us really a lot because we think 

this will affect our operations directly, so it’s definitely something 

that’s going to affect our industry. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, Mr. Sturgeon, again, I think the broad plan 

states that one of the action items is to protect 2 billion acres of 

land and to identify the high conservation priorities with at least 

35 percent being forest lands of the highest value for maintaining 

water quality. 

Do you have any idea where these high conservation priority 

lands will be identified and who will identify them? 

Mr. STURGEON. Well, I don’t know, but I can guess from past 

practices that if there’s high-value timber there, it obviously will 

end up in the priorities. So I don’t know where those are. 

Mr. YOUNG. Again, do you think it will be—does anybody have 

any idea under this plan who would identify it. 

Mr. STURGEON. No, we have no idea. It’s one of the problems of 

the plan. It’s really hard to evaluate it because it’s vague in a lot 

of areas and the vagueness certainly concerns us right now. 

Mr. YOUNG. Dr. Farrell, with all due respect, you said there 

wouldn’t be any more regulations. They have already started implementing regulations. On what basis did you make that statement. 

Mr. FARRELL. Well, just from my understanding and from what 

the Administration has been giving us. 

Mr. YOUNG. You’ve got to respectfully question the Administration. 

I want to ask all of you: We’re sitting here banging this Executive Order. There’s been a reason why the bills, more than four 

bills that have been introduced on ocean policy haven’t even got the 

light of day regardless of who’s in control. You notice we took over 

control just a few years ago or two years ago. Before that, why 

50 

didn’t the Congress act? Do you think there can be a bill that 

would be beneficial, but still address some of the issues of the policies of the ocean? 

I’m one that believes in protecting the ocean, but this thing is so 

large and broad and the regulations—and by the way, rarely do 

lawsuits occur against the permittee, the permit person that applies for it. It occurs on the action of the agencies and did they do 

it right. That’s what happens. It’s never about—against the mining 

industry, against the oil industry or against the forestry industry; 

it’s done against the agencies. 

With this many agencies it looks to me that this would be a great 

feeding ground for lawyers against the agency with the issue of the 

permit. Do you think we can write a bill—could there be a bill written that would solve the problems and concerns you have? Instead 

of just saying no, I’m always worried about—remember I said 

about the boy that ended up in jail. Sometimes it might be better 

if we wrote some legislation. Do you think as stakeholders you 

could be able to write something that would protect your interests 

and still get something done? Anybody, I don’t care. 

Mr. PARADY. I would only respond that I think clearly that’s 

what’s needed. Having a stakeholder engagement process in the 

concept of Federal rulemaking without having had the necessary 

legislative debate and creation of a balance of interest through 

statute is what’s exactly missing here, is that chance for back and 

forth give and take so that we all get to put our views on the table 

and pound out some sort of reasonable compromise. 

These regulations are created in a—it’s almost like the old-time 

convention environment, the back-room environment where they 

hadn’t seen sufficient light of day. They need a legislative debate. 

Mr. YOUNG. Anybody else? 

Ms. MORIARTY. I would only add that I agree with Mr. Parady 

that, first of all, the stakeholders, if you’re going to have an effective policy to regulate something as broad as our oceans, ocean is 

different here Alaska and across the Nation. We as stakeholders 

have not been invited to participate. 

I guess I would just go back to my original statement in my testimony that before we try and develop a brand new policy, why don’t 

we try and improve the existing policies that we already have that 

protect several aspects of the oceans. We think that should be the 

first place to start. If there are gaps, then maybe there can be a 

piece of legislation to protect the oceans, but unless all the stakeholders are engaged and involved from the very beginning through 

all the details, I don’t see how it would work. 

Mr. YOUNG. Anybody else? 

Dr. Farrell, U.S. Arctic Research, I’m going to make a suggestion. 

I’m one that believes we are an Arctic nation because we’re in the 

Arctic. And I would like suggest respectfully that the Commission 

stay in the Arctic. Don’t get below it. That’s just a little bit of advice. Because we do have challenges in the Arctic. It is an unknown 

area. 

But when I see the forest industry involved, the mining industry 

involved, the oil industry involved, the fishing industry involved, I 

get a little bit concerned when they haven’t been at the table. Your 

table is relatively new, I mean, with all due respect. Climate 

51 

change is happening. We probably have a navigational lead or we 

have a lot of different issues up there, which we did not have before. But these other ones are a known quantity. That’s why I’m 

really looking for a possibility—I’ve asked staff maybe to look at 

it—that will offset this proposal. 

I really think this is just breeding a total standstill of any activities and not only in the ocean, I think this thing is so far-reaching. 

Again, I said that’s why Congress hasn’t acted because this will affect the farmers in Iowa, anything. They’re not quite aware that 

this is a stealth attack. That’s exactly what it is. I am very concerned. You. 

You may ask why we had these hearings up here today. We’re 

building a record. We’re going to—we sent a letter yesterday. Dr. 

Hickston is sending a letter from the Chairman to cut the funding. 

We’re going to have letters now to all the different agencies requesting more information on what’s happening here and we’ll go— 

we already have one to the CEQ. We’re going to have more members get involved because we do think this is a great encroachment 

on our individual states, our coastal state and existing law. Existing law. I’m pretty proud of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I’m pretty 

proud of what it’s been named to do. We are a nation and this is 

a state that relies on resources. 

A lot of our Congressmen don’t understand that you can’t recover 

in this nation the natural resources to manufacture it from. That 

is reality. You can’t do it by buying all your clothes from China and 

our oil from overseas. You have to have a development of resources. 

So we’re establishing a record. I have no more questions for the 

Subcommittee. We will probably submit some questions to you 

down the line establishing this record about where we’re going 

along this issue. If there’s no other comments from anybody, I 

would like to adjourn this hearing at this time. It lasted exactly 

about two hours. Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

[A letter submitted for the record by the Alaska Federation of 

Natives follows:] 

Alaska Federation of Natives 

April 6, 2012 

The Honorable John Fleming, Chair 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs 

U.S. House of Representatives 

416 Canon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

RE: Comments of Alaska Federation of Natives on ’Alaska’s Sovereignty In Peril: 

The National Ocean Policy’s Goal to Federalize Alaska’’ 

Dear Chairman Fleming: 

I am submitting the comments of the Alaska Federation on the oversight hearing 

on ‘‘Alaska’s Sovereignty In Peril: The National Ocean Policy’s Goal to Federalize 

Alaska’’ in form of a letter to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and 

Insular Affairs that was held in Alaska recently. 

By way of background, AFN is the largest Alaska Native organization in Alaska. 

Our membership includes 178 villages (both federally recognized tribes and village 

corporations), 13 regional for-profit Native corporations (established pursuant to the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act), and 11 regional non-profit and tribal conVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:29 Apr 12, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\73693.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
52 

sortia that contract and run federal and state programs that provide a broad range 

of human services to their member villages. AFN’s over-arching mission is to enhance and promote the cultural, economic and political voice of Alaska Natives. 

The United States Constitution provides that ‘‘Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce. . .with the Indian Tribes.’’ With this in mind, we ask you to include Alaska Natives as you move forward in addressing ‘‘Alaska’s Sovereignty In 

Peril: The National Ocean Policy’s Goal to Federalize Alaska.’’ The subcommittee 

must ensure that the voices and concerns of Alaska Natives, Alaska Native Tribes, 

Alaska Native Regional and village corporations and Alaska Native tribal consortia 

are considered when it addresses the nation’s oceanic policies. 

We urge the subcommittee to consider the following: 

• Congress must continue to support the Alaska Natives’ rights of exemption 

under the Marine Mammal Protection Act as the oceans off the coast of Alaska are a source of food security for our people. 

• Funding Alaska Native in the management of marine mammal mammals including their full involvement in research activities regarding these resources. 

• Recognition by the federal government that Title VIII of ANILCA IS Indian 

Legislation. 

• Amending ANILCA to replace the current rural priority with a ‘‘rural plus 

Native’’ priority. 

• Expanding tribal compacting and contracting of subsistence programs. 

• Exempting the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) from the Federal Advisory 

Committees Act (FACA). 

• Ensuring Alaska Native communities are protected throughout implementation of Department of Interior Secretary Salazar’s directives to the Federal 

Subsistence Board following his review of subsistence management, to include 

at least the following: 

Æ Adopting the ‘‘criterion-referenced’’ methodology (developed by the University of Alaska, Anchorage’s Institute of Social and Economic Research 

or ISER) for making rural v. non-rural determinations. 

Æ Deferring to Regional Advisory Committees regarding the subsistence 

needs of the Alaska Natives including but not limited to rural/non-rural 

determinations as they are intimately familiar with local conditions in 

their regions. 

Æ Excluding Military bases from consideration—when military installations 

are in an area that otherwise would be considered rural, the fact that a 

military installation is present should not alter an area’s rural status. 

We ask that you add the comments of the Alaska Federation of Natives into the 

hearing record of the oversight hearing on ‘‘Alaska’s Sovereignty In Peril: The National Ocean Policy’s Goal to Federalize Alaska,’’ 

We thank you for your consideration of protecting the rights of the people of Alaska, and in particular, the rights of the Alaska Natives who have lived off the land 

and waters within the State of Alaska long before the arrival of Western Society. 

Sincerely, 

Nelson N. Angapak, Sr. 

Senior Vice President 

cc: The Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan The Honorable Don Young The 

Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Æ