    [House Hearing, 108 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY
                               PRELIMINARY REPORT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 5, 2004

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 108-57

                                   __________

                Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

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

                                     ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    93-362                 WASHINGTON : 2004
    _________________________________________________________________
    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) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                 HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 BART GORDON, Tennessee
    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas                JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
    CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania            EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
    KEN CALVERT, California              NICK LAMPSON, Texas
    NICK SMITH, Michigan                 JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
    ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         MARK UDALL, Colorado
    VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan           DAVID WU, Oregon
    GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota             MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
    GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,           BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
        Washington                       LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               ZOE LOFGREN, California
    WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland         BRAD SHERMAN, California
    W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
    TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
    MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania        ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
    J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            JIM MATHESON, Utah
    PHIL GINGREY, Georgia                DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
    ROB BISHOP, Utah                     VACANCY
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            VACANCY
    JO BONNER, Alabama                   VACANCY
    TOM FEENEY, Florida
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
    VACANCY

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  May 5, 2004

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman,
      Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............    16
        Written Statement............................................    17

    Prepared Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    19

    Prepared Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,
      Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............    20

    Prepared Statement by Representative Gil Gutknecht, Member,
      Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............   101

    Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
      Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............    21

    Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
      Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives....    21

    Statement by Representative Lynn C. Woolsey, Member, Committee on
      Science, U.S. House of Representatives.........................    18

                                   Witnesses

    Admiral James D. Watkins, U.S. Navy (Retired); Chairman, U.S.
      Commission on Ocean Policy
        Oral Statement...............................................    23
        Written Statement............................................    27
        Biography....................................................    66

    Dr. Andrew R. Solow, Director, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole
      Oceanographic Institution
        Oral Statement...............................................    66
        Written Statement............................................    68
        Biography....................................................    69

    Dr. Shirley A. Pomponi, Acting Managing Director, Harbor Branch
      Oceanographic Institution
        Oral Statement...............................................    70
        Written Statement............................................    72

    Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Professor and Director, Office of
      External Affairs, College of Physical & Mathematical Sciences,
      North Carolina State University
        Oral Statement...............................................    79
        Written Statement............................................    81
        Biography....................................................    87

    Mr. Michael H. Freilich, Associate Dean, College of Oceanic and
      Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University
        Oral Statement...............................................    89
        Written Statement............................................    91
        Biography....................................................    92
        Financial Disclosure.........................................    94

    Discussion
      Top Priorities for Ocean Research and Development..............    95
      Ecosystem-Based Management Approach............................    97
      Public Awareness of Ocean Issues...............................    99
      Specific Follow-up Questions...................................   100

                  Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Admiral James D. Watkins, U.S. Navy (Retired); Chairman, U.S.
      Commission on Ocean Policy.....................................   104

    Dr. Andrew R. Solow, Director, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole
      Oceanographic Institution......................................   108

    Dr. Shirley A. Pomponi, Acting Managing Director, Harbor Branch
      Oceanographic Institution......................................   109

    Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Professor and Director, Office of
      External Affairs, College of Physical & Mathematical Sciences,
      North Carolina State University................................   113

    Mr. Michael H. Freilich, Associate Dean, College of Oceanic and
      Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University..................   116

               U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY PRELIMINARY REPORT

                                  ----------

                             WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004

                      House of Representatives,
                                          Committee on Science,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room
    2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L.
    Boehlert (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

                                hearing charter

                              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

                               Preliminary Report

                             wednesday, may 5, 2004
                             10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
                       2318 rayburn house office building

    Purpose

        On May 5, 2004 at 10:00 a.m., the House Science Committee will hold
    a hearing on the key findings and recommendations of the Preliminary
    Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. In response to pressures
    on ocean and coastal ecosystems from increased coastal development,
    over-fishing, pollution, and a confusing patchwork of federal and State
    legal authorities for ocean and coastal activities, Congress passed the
    Oceans Act of 2000. It required the President to establish a
    nonpartisan, diverse commission of experts in ocean policy and charged
    that commission to establish findings and develop recommendations for a
    new comprehensive ocean policy, including in research and development
    (R&D). The Report is the first comprehensive review of national ocean
    policy in more than 30 years.
        The Committee plans to explore the following overarching questions:

            1.  What are the current problems in our nation's ocean and
            coastal ecosystems and why has federal policy been unable to
            effectively deal with them?

            2.  What are the recommendations from the Report and should
            they be implemented?

    Witnesses:

    Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.), Chairman, U.S. Commission on
    Ocean Policy. Admiral Watkins is President Emeritus of the Consortium
    for Oceanographic Research and Education, was formerly Chief of Naval
    Operations for the United States Navy, and was Secretary of Energy
    under President George H.W. Bush.

    Dr. Andrew Solow, Director, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole
    Oceanographic Institution. Dr. Solow was a member of the U.S.
    Commission on Ocean Policy Science Advisory Panel Governance Working
    Group. He will discuss the Report's recommendations to establish a
    National Ocean Council to coordinate federal efforts with respect to
    oceans.

    Dr. Shirley A. Pomponi, Acting Managing Director, Harbor Branch
    Oceanographic Institution. Dr. Pomponi was a member of the U.S.
    Commission on Ocean Policy Science Advisory Panel Research, Education
    and Marine Operations Working Group. She will discuss the implications
    of the Report's recommendation for increased funding for ocean
    research.

    Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Director of External Affairs, College of
    Physical and Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University.
    Dr. Pietrafesa is chair of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) Science Advisory Board. He will discuss the
    Report's recommendations to strengthen NOAA.

    Dr. Michael H. Freilich, Associate Dean, College of Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University. Dr. Freilich is a member
    of the National Research Council's Space Studies Board and chair of
    that Board's Committee on Earth Studies. He will discuss the Report's
    recommendations to transfer some programs from the National Aeronautics
    and Space Administration (NASA) to NOAA.

    Background:

        The last comprehensive review of U.S. ocean policy took place more
    than 30 years ago when a governmental panel, the Stratton Commission
    (named for its chair, Julius Stratton), issued its report Our Nation
    and the Sea. This report led to the creation of the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) by executive order in 1970.
        Since that time, more than 37 million people, 19 million homes, and
    countless businesses have been added to coastal areas. The country is
    more dependent on marine transportation of goods, and coastal
    recreation and tourism have become more significant elements of the
    national economy. These increased and sometimes competing uses of the
    ocean and coasts have caused dramatic declines in fish populations and
    increased pollution. In addition, a confusing patchwork of federal and
    State legal authorities for ocean and coastal activities has evolved to
    attempt to deal with these problems.
        Four years ago, Congress passed the Oceans Act of 2000,
    establishing the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The Commission,
    consisting of 16 members from diverse scientific and political
    backgrounds, was charged to establish findings and develop
    recommendations for a new comprehensive national ocean policy. (A list
    of the members of the Commission is provided in Appendix A.) The
    Preliminary Report of the Commission (referred to as the Report for
    purposes of this document) was delivered to the Governors of the all
    states and U.S. territories on April 20, 2004. The Governors and the
    general public can provide comments on the Report through May 21, 2004
    and in the summer of 2004 the Commission will release its final report.
    The law requires the President to submit a formal response to the
    Commission's recommendations 90 days after the final report is
    released. The Administration has remained silent on the preliminary
    report, pending the President's formal response.

    Key Recommendations of the Report:

        The Executive Summary of the Report is provided in Appendix B. The
    complete report is available at www.oceancommission.gov.
    Ocean and Coastal Research Funding
        Problem: Scientific understanding of the oceans is still fairly
    limited. While it is difficult to determine the precise amount of money
    the Federal Government has invested in ocean research, because it spans
    so many fields and agencies, spending on ocean research appears to have
    been virtually flat (even without adjusting for inflation) for the past
    two decades or so. The Report notes that in the 1960s and 1970s ocean
    research represented seven percent of the federal research and
    development budget; today it represents only 3.5 percent because other
    fields have increased at a faster rate.
        Report Recommendation: The Report recommends gradually doubling the
    level of federal funding for ocean and coastal research so that it
    would increase from the FY 2004 level of $650 million to $1.3 billion
    in FY 2009. (The Report estimates that if all of its recommendations
    were implemented (not just those related to R&D), federal spending on
    oceans would increase by $1.3 billion in the first year, and by $3.2
    billion by the third year, and then by inflation after that.) The
    Report recommends the research spending increases be used for such
    purposes as expanding NOAA's Sea Grant program and expanding ocean
    exploration efforts. The Report recommends that funding for ocean
    exploration increase from the current level of $13 million to $110
    million. The Report recommends financing all of the increases by
    tapping the royalties the Federal Government receives from off-shore
    oil and gas drilling. The Report calls for those funds to be placed in
    a ``Trust Fund'' for ocean programs, but the Report is unclear about
    whether spending from the Trust Fund would be mandatory or subject to
    annual appropriations.
        Issues: A major question is whether Congress should allocate as
    much money as the Report recommends and whether Congress should
    establish a Trust Fund for these activities. A related question is
    whether a Trust Fund would be subject to appropriations (such as the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund) or should guarantee a mandatory
    spending level (such as the Highway Trust Fund). Also, the Report does
    not provide any guidance as to which areas of research should be
    priorities, leaving that question to the National Ocean Council that it
    recommends creating (see below).
    Earth Observing Systems
        Problem: Both NOAA and NASA operate civilian, space-based Earth
    environmental observing programs. NOAA's program focuses on sustained
    operational observations for weather and climate purposes, while NASA's
    program is meant to advance research and sensor development. NASA's
    missions are generally short-lived and NASA often plans its research
    missions without considering whether its satellites could also
    contribute data to meet the longer-term climate and weather interests
    of NOAA. When NASA does develop a sensor of interest to NOAA, it often
    takes a long time to transfer the technology to NOAA.
        Report Recommendations: The Report recommends that operation of all
    civilian, space-based Earth environmental observing systems be managed
    by NOAA to provide smoother transition of research to operations. NASA
    would retain the research, engineering, and development roles for the
    research programs, but NOAA would be responsible for operations. The
    next generation of polar-weather satellites at NOAA, known as NPOESS,
    is cited as a model attempt for this idea.
        Issues: The Report is somewhat unclear in its delineation of new
    roles for NASA and NOAA. Regardless of the details, it is unclear
    whether transferring money and staff between agencies is the most
    efficient way to increase coordination for Earth observation systems,
    especially since the Report assumes that some satellite
    responsibilities would continue to be divided between the two agencies.
    Transferring people between agencies is complicated, and often Congress
    does not agree to move all funding along with a program. An additional
    complicating factor is the President's proposed new vision for NASA
    which uses cuts in NASA's Earth Science programs to fund the mission to
    land an American on the Moon.
    Ecosystem-based Management
        Problem: Currently, each ocean and coastal problem tends to be
    addressed in isolation, for example increasing populations of a single
    fish species, or improving water quality for a particular purpose, such
    as swimming. This single-issue focus sometimes results in unintended
    consequences. For example, when government agencies began restoring the
    rockfish population in the Chesapeake Bay, the number of rockfish
    became so high that the number of juvenile crabs--which rockfish eat--
    began to decrease, causing problems for the crab industry.
        Report Recommendation: The Report recommends that U.S. ocean and
    coastal resources should be managed using ``ecosystem-based
    management.'' The goal of ecosystem-based management would be to manage
    an ecosystem as a whole, rather than dividing a problem along the lines
    of political or agency jurisdictions. To obtain the data needed to
    inform an ecosystem-based approach to management, the Report recommends
    (among other suggestions) creating the Integrated Ocean Observing
    System, which would use satellites, planes, buoys, ships and other
    means to collect data. Federal agencies have already put together a
    plan for such a system, which would draw, in part, on existing
    capabilities. The Report recommends making implementation of the system
    a priority, and estimates it would cost $290 million in the first year,
    rising to $650 million annually by the fifth year. The Report
    recommends that NOAA operate the System, which would be split among a
    variety of agencies under current plans.
        Issues: The Report does not lay out how to implement ecosystem-
    based management in any detail. However, any approach is likely to
    require much better understanding of the oceans (and their interactions
    with land and the atmosphere, and of ecology) and much more data about
    them than is currently available. As a result, the success of such an
    approach will depend in large measure on how much money is invested in
    ocean science and observation.
    Government Organization: National Ocean Council
        Problem: According to the Report, more than 60 Congressional
    committees and subcommittees oversee 20 federal agencies and permanent
    commissions that are charged with implementing at least 140 federal
    ocean-related statutes. There is no clearly articulated national system
    of ocean and coastal governance.
        Report Recommendation: The Report recommends that Congress
    establish a National Ocean Council in the Executive Office of the
    President, composed of all the cabinet secretaries and independent
    agency directors with ocean-related responsibilities and chaired by a
    Special Assistant to the President. The Report also recommends that
    Congress establish a Presidential Council of Advisors and that the
    Special Assistant would also run a new an Office on Ocean Policy to
    provide staff support to these entities. The Report describes this
    reorganization as an initial step in a long-term process that should
    culminate in the creation of a single Department that would bring
    together NOAA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior
    Department and other related natural resource agencies and programs.
        Issues: White House entities have a mixed record of being able to
    foster interagency cooperation. Moreover, existing White House offices
    already try to coordinate some ocean issues across agencies. For
    example, the Council on Environmental Quality deals with ocean issues
    from an environmental perspective, and the Office of Science and
    Technology Policy deals with ocean science across agencies. In
    addition, in 1997, Congress created the National Oceanic Partnership
    Program (NOPP), headed by a National Ocean Research Leadership Council,
    to coordinate national ocean research and education policy. The Council
    is made up of the heads of 14 federal agencies with ocean research
    responsibilities. The Report argues that NOPP has not been successful
    because it lacks a mechanism to require agency participation.
    Government Organization: NOAA
        Problem: NOAA was established by Executive Order in 1970. Since
    that time new responsibilities have been added to the agency on an
    issue-by-issue basis, resulting in a complex organization where
    communication across office lines is difficult. Also, many other
    agencies perform work related to ocean and coastal issues, and there is
    not always a clear lead for civilian ocean issues.
        Report Recommendation: The Report recommends ``strengthening NOAA''
    by clearly making it the lead agency for ocean issues; by giving it
    additional responsibilities, such as managing the Integrated Ocean
    Observing System; and by ``restructuring'' the agency ``consistent with
    the principles of ecosystem-based management.'' The Report recommends
    gradually moving all federal civilian ocean and coastal activities into
    NOAA. The Report also recommends that Congress pass an organic act for
    NOAA to give the agency clear authority and organizational lines.
        Issues: Congress needs to decide what should be in a NOAA organic
    act and to what extent it should make statutory decisions about NOAA's
    organizational structure. Over the long-term, moving all ocean and
    coastal programs into NOAA would be a massive undertaking that could
    cause dislocations in many agencies without necessarily improving
    coordination or oversight.
    Education
        Problem: Currently each ocean-related agency performs its own
    education and outreach activities on a program-by-program basis. There
    is no coordinated, comprehensive ocean education and outreach program
    or plan.
        Report Recommendation: The Report recommends that the new National
    Ocean Council establish a national ocean education office to strengthen
    ocean education and coordinate federal efforts. Education programs
    should be addressed to students from kindergarten through graduate
    school and to the general public.
        Issues: The recommendation assumes that the Council will be created
    and that money will be available to augment existing programs. (The
    Report does not consider using any existing White House office with
    science education responsibilities for this purpose.) The Report
    recommends that the Council create the program, but that it be funded
    through NOAA, which would then distribute funds to other agencies.
    Other agencies might object to receiving funding through NOAA.

    Questions for Witnesses:

    Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.), Chairman, U.S. Commission on
            Ocean Policy

            1.  Please outline the key findings and recommendations in the
            Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
    Dr. Andrew Solow, Director Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole
            Oceanographic Institution

            1.  What are the major deficiencies in the way ocean and
            coastal policy is currently organized at the federal level?

            2.  Do you agree with the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
            recommendation to create a National Ocean Council to address
            theses deficiencies? If not, why not?

            3.  Are there alternative changes to the federal structure with
            respect to ocean policy that you would recommend?

    Dr. Shirley A. Pomponi, Acting Managing Director, Harbor Branch
            Oceanographic Institution

            1.  What are the major problems and issues with respect to
            national efforts in ocean and coastal research? Did the U.S.
            Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report adequately
            address the problems and issues?

            2.  Please provide examples of how ecosystem-based management,
            as recommended by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, would
            change ocean and coastal management from current methods. What
            research is needed to make ecosystem-based management feasible?

            3  If there is limited new money available from the Federal and
            State governments, what are the top three recommendations
            regarding ocean and coastal science and research you believe
            should be implemented without delay?

    Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Director of External Affairs, College of
            Physical and Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State
            University

            1.  What are the current strengths and weaknesses of ocean and
            coastal programs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
            Administration?

            2.  Do you agree with the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
            recommendations with respect to NOAA? If not, why not?

            3.  Are there limitations to NOAA's ability to carry out the
            new responsibilities the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
            recommends? If so, please explain those limitations.

            4.  Would it be helpful for NOAA to have an organic act? Why?
            What would be most important to include in such legislation?

            5.  If there is limited new money available from the Federal
            Government, what are the top three recommendations regarding
            NOAA you believe should be implemented without delay?

    Dr. Michael H. Freilich, Associate Dean, College of Oceanic and
            Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University

            1.  Do you agree with the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy's
            recommendation to transfer some of NASA's Earth observing
            programs to NOAA? Why or why not?

            2.  Are there other ways to strengthen the interaction between
            NASA's and NOAA's Earth observing programs?

            3.  Is NOAA currently doing a good job providing researchers
            data from Earth observing systems? Are data management needs
            being adequately considered in the planning for new observing
            systems?

            4.  If there is limited new money available from the Federal
            and State governments, what are the top three recommendations
            regarding observing systems you believe should be implemented
            without delay?

        Chairman Boehlert. The hearing will come to order.
        I want to welcome everyone here today, but I want to give a
    special welcome to Admiral Watkins and his team. Our nation has
    turned repeatedly to Admiral Watkins for creativity and
    leadership on a wide range of issues, and once again, he has
    risen to the occasion with energy, open-mindedness,
    thoughtfulness, and the most comprehensive approach possible.
    Admiral, we are in your debt.
        Admiral Watkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Boehlert. The Ocean Commission had before it a
    Herculean task, or perhaps our reference should be to Poseidon.
    The oceans not only cover most of the Earth's surface, they
    serve us as playground and food source, and sadly, sometimes as
    dumping ground. They help determine our climate and our
    security. We are land dwelling creatures, but we are utterly
    dependent on the oceans, and more and more of our nation's
    citizens live near a coastline.
        Yet while the oceans lap daily at our shores, they only
    intermittently lap at our consciousness. We still take the
    oceans for granted, even as they are increasingly troubled by
    over-development, over-fishing, climate change, and other human
    insults. Worse still, perhaps, we don't even know all that much
    about the oceans, certainly not as much as we would like to
    properly identify, diagnose, and remedy problems.
        The Ocean Commission report should bring focused attention
    to this predicament for the first time in decades. I don't
    think anyone can disagree with the basic thrust of this report
    that more needs to be done to understand, manage, and take
    advantage of the world's oceans, and doing so will take new
    thinking and new money.
        I have to say that message is especially timely as the
    Congress, and this committee in particular, review proposals to
    embark on a new space exploration mission. I support that
    effort, but as I have said before, I think it is more important
    to know more about our own planet than it is to know about
    Mars. Happily, I don't think we have to make an either/or
    choice, but we do have to set priorities, and I think that it
    is more important to study the water that is still visible and
    that we rely on.
        Setting and implementing those priorities is going to take
    some work, and there is only so much the Commission can do in
    that regard. I am reminded of a famous exchange in
    Shakespeare's ``Henry IV'' in which Glendower brags, ``I can
    call spirits from the vasty deep.'' Hotspur replies, ``So can
    any man. But do they come when you do call them?'' The
    Commission can call for changes, but it can't bring them into
    being. That task belongs, in the first instance, to the
    Congress.
        That is why we are having today's hearing and why we wanted
    to hear from a variety of experts. We have plenty of issues to
    raise with our panel, because while the Commission's general
    thrust is unarguable, the specific recommendations raise a lot
    of questions.
        Let me just list a few of them that I hope we can discuss
    today.
        The first, and most obvious, concerns money. Can the Nation
    afford the increases in ocean R&D being suggested, given other
    demands, even within science? Regardless of how much money is
    available, how should we set priorities for spending? That is a
    key question and one in which the report offers little
    guidance. And does it make sense to set up a ``trust fund''
    from oil royalties, giving the relatively unhappy experience
    with the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the unlikelihood
    of any new mandatory spending?
        We also have questions related to government organization.
    Do we need a new structure for oceans in the White House? How
    would such an entity interact with organizations, like the
    Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Council on
    Environmental Quality, which must deal with oceans as part of
    their own crosscutting responsibilities?
        Another set of questions. Should responsibilities that now
    reside with other agencies be transferred into NOAA? I have to
    say that I am always skeptical of such moves, which need to
    have a big payoff to make up for the disruption that they
    cause.
        And finally, I am fully behind the Commission's suggestion
    that Congress write an organic act for NOAA, and, indeed, the
    staff has been working on such a bill for months with Chairman
    Ehlers. I would like some guidance today on precisely what such
    a bill should and should not contain. I would hope that we
    could have hearings on an organic act in early summer.
        So we have our work cut out for us, and that is nothing
    new, thanks to the hard work the Commission has already put in.
    I look forward to having a conversation with all of our
    witnesses today, so that we can get some specific guidance on
    how to turn the Commission's exhortations into responsible
    public policy.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Boehlert follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
        I want to welcome everyone here today, but I want to give a special
    welcome to Admiral Watkins and his team. Our nation has turned
    repeatedly to Admiral Watkins for creativity and leadership on a wide
    range of issues, and once again, he has risen to the occasion with
    energy, open-mindedness, thoughtfulness and the most comprehensive
    approach possible. Admiral, we are in your debt.
        The Ocean Commission had before it a Herculean task--or perhaps our
    reference should be to Poseidon. The oceans not only cover most of the
    Earth's surface, they serve us as playground and food source and,
    sadly, sometimes as dumping ground; they help determine our climate and
    our security. We are land-dwelling creatures, but we are utterly
    dependent on the oceans, and more and more of our nation's citizens
    live near a coastline.
        Yet while the oceans lap daily at our shores, they only
    intermittently lap at our consciousness. We still take the oceans for
    granted, even as they are increasingly troubled by over-development,
    over-fishing, climate change, and other human insults. Worse still,
    perhaps, we don't even know all that much about the oceans--certainly
    not as much as we'd like to properly identify, diagnose and remedy
    problems.
        The Ocean Commission report should bring focused attention to this
    predicament for the first time in decades. I don't think anyone can
    disagree with the basic thrust of this report that more needs to be
    done to understand, manage and take advantage of the world's oceans,
    and doing so will take new thinking and new money.
        I have to say that message is especially timely as the Congress,
    and this Committee in particular, reviews proposals to embark on a new
    space exploration mission. I support that effort, but as I've said
    before, I think it's more important to know more about our own planet
    than it is to know about Mars. Happily, I don't think we have to make
    an either/or choice, but we do have to set priorities, and I think that
    it's more important to study the water that's still visible and that we
    rely on.
        Setting and implementing those priorities is going to take some
    work. And there's only so much the Commission can do in that regard.
    I'm reminded of a famous exchange in Shakespeare's Henry IV in which
    Glendower brags. ``I can call spirits from the vastly deep.'' Hotspur
    replies, ``So can any man. But do they come when you do call them?''
    The Commission can call for changes, but it can't bring them into
    being. That task belongs, in the first instance, to the Congress.
        That's why we're having today's hearing, and why we wanted to hear
    from a variety of experts. We have plenty of issues to raise with our
    panel because, while the Commission's general thrust is inarguable, the
    specific recommendations raise a lot of questions.
        Let me just list a few of them that I hope we can discuss today.
        The first and most obvious concerns money. Can the Nation afford
    the increases in ocean R&D being suggested, given other demands, even
    within science. Regardless of how much money is available, how should
    we set priorities for spending. That's a key question and one on which
    the report offers little guidance. And does it make sense to set up a
    ``trust fund'' from oil royalties given the relatively unhappy
    experience with the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the
    unlikelihood of any new mandatory spending?
        We also have questions related to government organization. Do we
    need a new structure for oceans in the White House? How would such an
    entity interact with organizations like the Office of Science and
    Technology Policy and the Council on Environmental Quality, which must
    deal with oceans as part of their own cross-cutting responsibilities?
        Another set of questions. Should responsibilities that now reside
    with other agencies be transferred into NOAA (the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration)? I have to say that I am always skeptical
    of such moves, which need to have a big payoff to make up for the
    disruption they cause.
        And, finally, I am fully behind the Commission suggestion that
    Congress write an organic act for NOAA, and, indeed, the staff has been
    working on such a bill for months with Chairman Ehlers. I'd like some
    guidance today on precisely what such a bill should and should not
    contain. I would hope that we could have hearings on an Organic Act in
    June or July.
        So we have our work cut out for us, thanks to the hard work the
    Commission has already put in. I look forward to having a conversation
    with all our witnesses today so that we can get some specific guidance
    on how to turn the Commission's exhortations into policy.

        Chairman Boehlert. Ms. Woolsey.
        Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank the witnesses for coming here today to
    share your expertise with us. Thank you very much. And as
    usual, Mr. Chairman, I expect this will be one of your open,
    honest, good science hearings, the kind that we just so covet
    around here, so thank you for having it.
        As you know, I represent the 6th Congressional District of
    California, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge, Marin and
    Sonoma Counties, and my District encompasses the entire
    coastline of Marin and Sonoma Counties, most of the north shore
    of the San Francisco Bay. Historically, fishing has always been
    an important part of our economy, but in recent decades, it has
    dwindled to near disappearance.
        San Francisco Bay once supported a heron rookery and was
    famed for its wild oysters, and both are completely gone. No
    longer is the bay-front city of Sausalito home to a fishing
    fleet and the commercial fishing fleet of Bodega Bay is just
    actually a remnant of past days. Once, the Russian River, which
    empties into the Pacific Ocean, supported a world-class
    Steelhead run and a large population of Coho and Chinook
    salmon. Now all three species are listed as endangered.
        These tragic depletions and disappearance of our fisheries
    are symptomatic of many things: over-fishing, inland habitat
    destruction, climatic changes, coastal development, all of
    which are addressed by the Ocean Commission's report, and all
    of which we must deal with seriously.
        On a more positive note, however, I would like to mention
    that there are many efforts going on in my District to both
    understand the marine issues to protect our fisheries and to
    restore them. The Bodega Marine Lab is at the forefront of many
    areas of marine research, including the effects of currents on
    sea life. The San Francisco Estuarine Reserve is developing
    best practices for restoration of our baylands. The Marine
    Mammal Center is researching diseases and places that affect
    marine mammals. The Fairlong's National Marine Sanctuary and
    the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary are setting aquatic
    populations on the continental shelf. And the Russian River
    Watershed Council and the Gualala River Watershed Council are
    preparing science-based watershed management plans. All of
    these efforts are so important, and all of them need and
    deserve federal support, not just in my area, but as a model
    for the Nation.
        Finally, it is important that we do no more harm to our
    marine resources, including our sparkling beaches. The Oil
    Exploration Moratorium off our California coast needs to be
    extended forever. The oceans report should be the wake-up call
    that we need to do things differently. Instead of drilling
    every last drop from the most fragile places on this planet, we
    need to make energy conservation a national priority. And we
    could do that by raising CAFE standards first and then
    husbanding our amazing technological knowledge to begin the
    necessary transition to clean, renewable energy.
        Our waters can be blue and productive, Mr. Chairman, our
    technology green and job creating. I look forward to hearing
    from all of you as today's witnesses, because you will be able
    to tell us the best ways to ensure that we leave our oceans in
    good shape for generations to come.
        Thank you very much.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Ms. Woolsey.
        Without objection, all Members shall have the opportunity
    to insert any opening statements they wish to have in the
    record at this juncture.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Representative Nick Smith
        I would like to thank Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon
    for holding this important hearing to examine the key findings and
    recommendations of the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on
    Ocean Policy. I would also like to thank the distinguished witnesses
    for joining us here today.
        While I myself do not represent a district that borders an ocean,
    the Great Lakes are a very important symbol and resource for my home
    State of Michigan. Also, as the Chairman of the Research Subcommittee,
    my Subcommittee maintains oversight over the National Science
    Foundation (NSF) which, significantly funds the Directorate of
    Geosciences for its subdivision, the Division of Ocean Sciences (OCE).
    The OCE supports basic research and education to further understanding
    of all aspects of the global oceans and their interactions with the
    Earth and the atmosphere. OCE also supports the operation, acquisition,
    construction, and conversion of major shared-use oceanographic
    facilities needed to carry out oceanographic-related research programs.
        Coincidentally, we're having a hearing in the International
    Relations committee on water shortages throughout the world. Lack of
    clean water is perhaps the world's largest humanitarian problem. Three
    billion people a year suffer from a lack of clean water and over 6,000
    of them die every day.
        Conditions in much of the world are expected to worsen in the years
    to come. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports that nearly half
    of the world's population will live in water-stressed countries by
    2015. This has led the United Nations General Assembly and the World
    Summit on Sustainable Development to call for increasing international
    cooperation to address these problems.
        A widely used rule of thumb is that a population is considered to
    be in a state of ``water stress'' if the average annual per capita
    availability of water is below 1,000 cubic meters. Israel, which has
    the most advanced water infrastructure and water management
    capabilities in the region, has an average annual availability of only
    some 250-300 cubic meters per capita. Jordan, at some 170-200 cubic
    meters per capita, and the Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza, at some
    70-90 cubic meters per capita, are under even greater water stress. By
    comparison, average annual water availability in the United States is
    on the order of 7,000 cubic meters per capita.
        The hope is that desperation for scarce water will lead to greater
    cooperation and agreement among Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians,
    as well as in other countries facing water problems. Michigan is
    blessed with having one-sixth of the entire world's supply of fresh
    water. But we see water supply problems and even rationing in the
    western United States, especially for food production. We need to
    determine and implement ways to increase the supply of water and to
    improve the distribution, utilization, and management of current and
    future water supplies.
        While it is agreed upon that our oceans and our coasts are in
    serious trouble, there remains an ability to reverse the distress on
    our oceans that have taken place for so long. On the other hand, I must
    express my concern with a more troubling problem--that is the $500
    billion debt we are facing and the unfortunate fact that we are now
    adding more new debt to our books every year. We need to re-impose
    discretionary spending caps which expired after 2002. We must cut out
    waste and abuse. And we need to make hard decisions to prioritize
    programs, reduce spending on some and eliminate others. So I think the
    question must be: what produces the best and most cost effective
    scientific research?
        Again, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for
    holding this hearing that allowed Congress to examine and question the
    Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
        I am pleased that we are here today to discuss the U.S. Commission
    on Ocean Policy's Preliminary Report. As Chairman of the Environment,
    Technology and Standards Subcommittee of the Science Committee, I
    oversee much of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (known as NOAA). I, along with many others, have been anxiously
    awaiting release of the Commission's recommendations so Congress can
    help update and improve our nation's ocean policy.
        I must commend Admiral Watkins and the other commissioners for all
    their hard work, effort, and tenacity. Their charge was vast and
    difficult, and they performed it admirably. They have given Congress
    and the Administration the foundation by which we may improve the
    health and management of our coasts, oceans and the Great Lakes.
        For example, the Commission recommends that Congress pass an
    organic act for NOAA. I strongly agree. I believe it is critical for
    NOAA's mission to be clearly defined and its internal structure
    strengthened so it can better fulfill its role in observing, managing,
    and protecting our nation's coastal and ocean resources. My
    subcommittee staff and I spent many hours working on this bill last
    year, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan
    fashion to pass this bill into law this year. This will not be an easy
    task, but it is so important to our environment, our economy, and our
    children's and grandchildren's future, that we must succeed.
        I thank the Commission for advocating increased funding for ocean
    research and focusing on science as the foundation for ocean management
    decisions. However, I am concerned that the Commission did not clearly
    specify which scientific issues and programs should be our highest
    priorities. I hope we can discuss this recommendation in more detail at
    today's hearing, because in the current budget climate I think it will
    be extremely difficult to find the $4 billion in new money for the
    oceans recommended by the Commission. I hope we can engage in a healthy
    discussion about which research areas require the most immediate
    attention.
        I am enthusiastic and optimistic that we can all work together to
    develop a strong national ocean policy that protects this resource and
    our environment for generations to come. I look forward to hearing from
    our witnesses this morning and engaging in a thoughtful discussion
    about the recommendations from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
        Good morning. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before
    our committee to discuss the key findings and recommendations of the
    Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Under the
    Oceans Act of 2000, Congress initiated a major review of ocean policies
    in this nation and took action to improve our understanding of ocean
    systems and the ocean environment as a whole. As the ranking member of
    the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, I realize the
    importance of protecting our ocean, waterways, and coasts and the
    tremendous benefits they offer all Americans. Our oceans provide us
    with jobs, food, recreational as well as educational opportunities,
    medicine, and transportation.
        We need to ensure that we have a coordinated policy to deal with
    the pressures our oceans and coastal areas face. Our last effort to
    update our national policies on oceans was in 1969 under the Commission
    on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources--known as the Stratton
    Commission. While many of the Commission's recommendations have been
    implemented, it has been far too long since we last updated our ocean
    policies.
        State and local jurisdictions have enacted numerous laws and
    policies to deal with the environmental problems that have occurred in
    our ocean and coastal communities. This has resulted in overlapping and
    conflicting rules between the federal and State levels. The
    recommendations put forth by this Commission will help to alleviate
    many of these problems by bringing ocean policy into the 21st Century
    by creating new coordinated and comprehensive policies.
        The report strongly encourages ecosystem-based management, rather
    than species-by-species or problem-by-problem management. I am
    interested to know if our students in the ocean sciences are being
    trained in ecosystem management. Further, federal research devoted to
    oceans has dropped from seven percent to 3.5 percent as noted in the
    report. However, many of the national security issues that drove
    oceanographic research have disappeared with the ending of the Cold
    War. I am interested to learn more about the Commission's reasoning for
    doubling ocean research now in such tight budgetary times.
        I welcome our panel of witnesses and look forward to their
    testimony.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend Chairman Boehlert
    for calling this very important hearing on the U.S. Commission on Ocean
    Policy Preliminary Report.
        On June 15, 2001, President George W. Bush announced his intent to
    appoint the 16 members of the new Commission on Ocean Policy, based on
    a process that included nominations by the Congress and appointment by
    the President.
        Oceans play a very significant part in all our planet's survival.
    Many are unaware that the oceans control the weather. Few would believe
    that significantly more oxygen is generated to Earth's precious
    atmosphere by oceanic photosynthesis than by all the Earth's
    terrestrial plants
        combined. Yet, today, the oceans are in serious danger from
    improper development, overuse, and pollution. Most of the world's 17
    major ocean fisheries are in serious decline. Fragile coastal habitats
    are disappearing at an alarming rate, and coral ecosystems are
    experiencing unprecedented deterioration. These facts are a sad
    testimonial to the very low importance the oceans have among the people
    of the world.
        Our challenge today is to achieve an increased public perception
    and awareness of the tremendous importance and value that the oceans
    and aquatic resources represent for all people.
        I look forward to the testimony of our distinguished witnesses
    today and I yield back my time.

        Chairman Boehlert. And now our panel, a panel of very
    distinguished Americans. And let me, first of all, thank you
    all for serving as resources to this committee. This is a
    dialogue with some interesting people, and we are going to
    learn from what we hear.
        Our first witness is Admiral James D. Watkins, the Chairman
    of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Admiral Watkins is also
    President Emeritus of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research
    and Education. He was formerly Chief of Naval Operations for
    the United States Navy, and was Secretary of Energy under
    President George Herbert Walker Bush. Admiral Watkins. Dr.
    Andrew Solow is the Director of the Marine Policy Center at
    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. That is absolutely
    beautiful up there. What a deal you have. Dr. Solow is a member
    of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Science Advisory Panel
    Governance Working Group. Dr. Shirley A. Pomponi is the Acting
    Managing Director of the Harbor Branch Oceanographic
    Institution. Dr. Pomponi was a member of the U.S. Commission on
    Ocean Policy Science Advisory Panel Research, Education, and
    Marine Operations Working Group.
        For the purpose of an introduction, the Chair now
    recognizes our distinguished colleague, Mr. Miller.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to
    introduce Dr. Leonard Pietrafesa. Dr. Pietrafesa is a
    distinguished American, but even more importantly, is a
    distinguished citizen of North Carolina, of Wade County, of the
    North Hills neighborhood, of Raleigh Creek 617, which votes at
    the fire station on Six Forks Road. I have represented Dr.
    Pietrafesa in Congress since January of last year. Before that,
    I represented him in the State Senate, and before that, in the
    State House. I am not sure exactly which house on Pitt Street
    Dr. Pietrafesa lives in, but I am sure I was in his front yard
    while banging one of my campaign signs into the ground.
        Mr. Chairman, I think all of that alone is sufficient for
    this committee to treat Dr. Pietrafesa's views, opinions with
    great defers and respect on ocean policy, or on any other
    topic.
        Chairman Boehlert. Well, thank you very much.
        Mr. Miller. But there is actually more.
        Chairman Boehlert. Well, the sign gets bigger every time,
    doesn't it?
        Mr. Miller. But Dr. Pietrafesa is, in fact, a very
    distinguished expert on this topic as well. He is a--he has a
    Bachelor's degree from Fairfield University in physics and
    math, a Masters from Chicago in fluid physics, a Ph.D. from the
    University of Washington in fluid physics. He is now the
    Director of the Office of External Affairs in the College of
    Physical and Mathematical Sciences and a professor at North
    Carolina State University. He has been the author and co-author
    of 155 peer-reviewed publications on the topics of oceanography
    and meteorology and estuary and climate dynamic impacts. He
    also serves as Chair of the Board on Oceans and Atmosphere of
    the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant
    Colleges. He is the Chair of the Council on Ocean Affairs and
    is a member of the Board of Trustees of the University--
    Corporation for Atmospheric Research. He also serves as Chair
    of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Science
    Advisory Board. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to introduce
    Dr. Pietrafesa.
        Chairman Boehlert. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Miller.
    And my colleague's pride is obvious. He wanted to introduce
    you, one, because he is proud of you, and secondly, I think he
    was afraid I might garble the name. But I just want Dr.
    Pietrafesa to know that I have an aunt who was Pietrapaula, and
    this suit was made by a Pietrafesa operation, and I am sure you
    are aware of that firm.
        So we are glad to welcome you here. And our final witness
    is Dr. Michael H. Freilich. He is the Associate Dean of the
    College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State
    University. Dr. Freilich is a member of the National Research
    Council's Space Studies Board and Chair of the Board's
    Committee on Earth Studies.
        Now if I went on and gave a longer introduction, you would
    probably let me put a sign in your lawn, too. Thank you so very
    much.
        Thank you all. And here is how we are going to proceed. We
    are going to give the Chairman, Admiral Watkins, 10 minutes for
    an opening statement and the others, we are going to give you
    five minutes. And the reason we are going to try to limit the
    opening statements is because we really want to have a good
    exchange. We are here to learn from you and hopefully we will
    learn.
        So let us start with Admiral Watkins.

     STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL JAMES D. WATKINS, USN, (RET.); CHAIRMAN,
                    U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY

        Admiral Watkins. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee,
    the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy's Preliminary Report offers
    a practical blueprint for ocean policy in the 21st century by
    laying the groundwork for a coordinated, comprehensive national
    strategy with a logical sequence of steps that can start
    immediately. The report includes almost 200 action-oriented
    recommendations that present workable solutions for some of the
    most pressing problems facing our oceans and coasts.
    Implementation of these recommendations will result in
    bountiful, sustainable oceans that benefit and inspire
    Americans for decades to come.
        Because of the time limitation today, my remarks will focus
    primarily on our recommendation in the areas of science,
    technology, and education. My written testimony submitted for
    the record covers our report in greater depth.
        What is the vision here? There are few key messages
    highlighted throughout our report. Our oceans and coasts are
    national assets that are in trouble. To reverse these negative
    trends, we must act now. And finally, our existing fragmented
    system for managing oceans and coasts combined with the
    historic under-investment in these areas leaves us unprepared
    to meet the challenge. Our vision for the future of ocean and
    coastal management acknowledges the complexities of ecosystems
    and human needs, and to move toward an ecosystem-based
    management is the hallmark of our report, and it requires
    fundamental changes in governance and greatly improved science
    and education.
        Let me focus on governance. After 21/2 years of study and
    deliberation, the Commission concluded that a national ocean
    policy framework will be necessary to reap the benefits of a
    comprehensive and coordinated ocean policy. The framework
    should include a number of components, all of which are
    explained in the report. Three elements of particular interest
    to this committee are the following.
        First, the National Ocean Council should be established in
    the Executive Office of the President to coordinate federal
    ocean activities and set national policy. The Council would
    include the leaders of all ocean-related agencies and should be
    chaired by an assistant to the President who can serve as a
    strong voice for ocean policy within the White House.
        Second, a Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy
    is also needed to provide input and advice from non-federal
    perspectives. This was probably the most highlighted of all of
    the issues we heard in the 15 site visits and hearings across
    the country: ``Please bring us to the table in the planning
    process up front. We are key players in the game, and we are
    not being heard today.'' That is a very important non-federal
    aspect to our framework.
        Third, the federal agency structure must be strengthened
    and streamlined to increase its effectiveness and minimize
    redundancies. Our report suggests the logical sequence of steps
    to achieve this. The first step is the passage of the organic
    act to strengthen NOAA followed by additional action that will
    ultimately move the Nation toward a structure that merges the
    management of land, air, water, and all natural resources. It
    touches on some of the issues raised by the Chairman in his
    opening statement.
        Let me talk about science-based decision-making. One major
    theme in our report is the need for enhanced science and
    technology. Improved understanding of our oceans and coasts
    will allow us to manage marine environments and resources
    wisely, conserving precious species and habitats while
    exploring new uses and protecting national security.
        You are probably aware that the federal budget for ocean
    research has suffered in recent decades, despite growing needs.
    As a proportion of all federal research spending, ocean science
    funding has dropped from seven percent in the 1990's to less
    than 31/2 percent today. As a result, the Federal Government is
    reluctantly turning away about one half of the highly rated
    grant proposals they receive. For the U.S. to remain an
    international leader in ocean research and for managers to
    obtain the information they need, the federal ocean research
    budget should be restored to historic levels by doubling it to
    $1.3 billion over the next five years.
        Ultimately, any increased funding should be allocated based
    on a research strategy developed by the National Ocean Council
    in conjunction with Congress and the ocean science community.
    But several specific programs discussed in our report could be
    funded immediately, including an enlarged National Sea Grant
    College Program, two, an expanded Oceans and Human Health
    Initiative, led jointly by NOAA, NSF, NIEHS with additional
    funding of $14 million over the current appropriations, and a
    social science and economics program in NOAA at a cost of
    approximately $10 million a year.
        Other research needs are discussed throughout our report in
    connection with specific issue areas, for example:
    understanding the links between upstream activities and coastal
    water quality; identifying and eradicating invasive species;
    elucidating the role of oceans and climate; conducting
    cooperative fisheries research; clarifying the breeding
    grounds, migration patterns, and feeding locations to protect a
    species; and finally, understanding the role of biological
    diversity and overall ecosystem health.
        As a complement to traditional research activities, we must
    also venture forth to explore the ocean depths for new ocean
    species and habitats. NSF and NOAA should undertake a joint
    program in ocean exploration that draws on their respective
    strengths in basic and applied science. Funding for ocean
    exploration should grow to a level of $110 million per year
    over the next five years.
        Integrated Ocean Observing System, let me focus on that for
    a minute. To achieve adequate observational and forecasting
    capabilities for the oceans and coasts, the Commission strongly
    recommends implementation of the National Integrated Ocean
    Observing System, with NOAA as the lead operational agency. The
    IOOS, as we call it, should combine a network of regional
    coastal observations with an array of open ocean observations.
    As IOOS matures, NOAA, EPA, NASA, Department of Interior, and
    others must ensure its integration with national water quality
    monitoring networks and other national and global environmental
    observing systems, leading, eventually, to a unified Earth
    observing system.
        One particularly important recommendation calls for a
    smooth transition of Earth-observing satellites from their
    design and launch at NASA to continued operations at NOAA. This
    is one of the controversial issues I think that the Chairman
    may have eluded to, and I know that Congressman Vernon Ehlers
    has brought that up in hearings in the Senate before the
    Commerce Committee there. Implementing the IOOS will require
    extensive interagency and stakeholder cooperation, as well as a
    long-term financial commitment by both the Administration and
    the Congress. The estimated five-year start-up costs for
    implementation of the National IOOS is close to $2 billion,
    with ongoing costs of approximately $750 million per year
    thereafter.
        Infrastructure and data management. The conduct of ocean
    and coastal research depends on the availability of modern
    ships, aircraft, laboratories, undersea vehicles, satellites
    and future scientific advances will require continual
    technological improvements to these tools. Long-term priorities
    for the purchase, maintenance, operations, and upgrading of
    ocean research facilities should be based on a coherent
    interagency ocean science infrastructure plan. However, several
    urgent infrastructure needs can be addressed immediately, and
    these include recapitalization of the UNOL fleet, that is the
    University National Ocean Laboratories fleet, requiring $445
    million to build 10 ships over the next 20 years. Second,
    construction of two specialized fishery research vessels
    planned by NOAA at $52 million each. And third, for vision of
    appropriate support for ocean exploration, including a
    dedicated ship and submersible, at a cost of approximately $70.
        Enhanced ocean research exploration and observing efforts
    will produce massive amounts of new data. To ensure that these
    data result in useful information that benefits scientists,
    resource managers, educators, businesses, the general public,
    our report recommends improvements in our method of processing
    large information streams, coordinating federal data
    management, and creating environmental models and information
    products from those data. Input from national, regional, and
    local users should guide this process.
        To coordinate federal activities in ocean research,
    education, and operations, we recommend expansion of the
    existing National Ocean Research Leadership Council, which was
    created by the Congress in their National Oceanographic
    Partnership Program in 1997. This new body should be placed
    under the oversight of the National Ocean Council and renamed
    the Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and
    Operations.
        Let us talk about education now. Another major theme in our
    report is the promotion of lifelong education. In the long run,
    sensible stewardship of our oceans and coasts will require
    strong public support. Our report includes detailed discussions
    about the value of boosting ocean knowledge with
    recommendations that focus on two important avenues. First, we
    outline methods for improving formal education in schools by
    integrating ocean themes into the curriculum to promote
    achievements in math and science, including the social
    sciences. In addition, we recommend federal partnerships with
    aquariums, science centers, museums, and private laboratories
    to promote broader public awareness of ocean issues, and
    instill a national sense of stewardship for the oceans.
        These goals could be accomplished by strengthening the
    existing education component of the National Sea Grant College
    Program and expanding upon the NSF-sponsored Centers for Ocean
    Sciences Education Excellence, known as the COSEE centers.
    COSEE is recognized as a model for enhancing education and
    bringing accessible ocean-related information to the public. To
    build on its success, other agencies should become involved,
    and the number of COSEE regional centers should be tripled from
    seven to 21, with each center receiving at least $1.5 million a
    year for an initial five-year period.
        How do we implement all of this? Implementation of the
    recommendations I have discussed today, along with the many
    others found in our report, will result in measurable
    improvements for our oceans and coasts. But meaningful change
    requires meaningful investments. The new cost of initiatives
    outlined in our report, including direct support to states for
    the critical role they play, is estimated to range from $1.2
    billion in the first year to approximately $3.2 billion a year
    after full implementation. We believe this is a modest
    investment when you consider the economic, aesthetic, and
    ecosystem values of our oceans and coasts.
        To cover these costs, the Commission recommends that an
    Ocean Policy Trust Fund be established in the Treasury, which
    would receive revenues generated from offshore oil and gas and
    future activities in federal waters now yet not foreseen by all
    of us. These funds would supplement, not replace, existing
    appropriations, and would support the new or expanded
    responsibilities recommended in our report. Establishment of
    such a fund would signal the Nation's recognition of our
    commitment to help ensure a healthy future for our oceans, a
    priceless national resource.
        Call to action, in closing. As a special call to action for
    the U.S. House of Representatives, we believe it is critical
    for the following actions to occur as soon as possible.
    Authorize establishment of a National Ocean Council and a
    Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy in the
    Executive Office of the President. Two, enact an organic act
    for NOAA. Three, establish an Ocean Policy Trust Fund in the
    United States Treasury. And for this committee, in particular,
    Mr. Chairman, we urge, first, authorization of a doubling of
    ocean research funding, two, support for a new era of ocean
    exploration, three, implementation of the Integrated Ocean
    Observing System, and finally, provision of the infrastructure
    needed to realize these goals.
        I thank you for holding this hearing and for the continuing
    support of the Members of this committee. It is through your
    continued leadership that the Nation will be in a position to
    realize the full potential of the oceans. We look forward to
    working with you and your colleagues in the Senate on
    implementing our report.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Admiral Watkins follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Admiral James D. Watkins

    INTRODUCTION

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
    before you to discuss the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on
    Ocean Policy, which was released to the public on Tuesday, April 20. We
    believe this report offers a blueprint for a coordinated, comprehensive
    national ocean policy for the 21st century. It includes nearly 200
    action-oriented recommendations that present workable solutions for a
    broad range of ocean- and coastal-related issues.
        As you know, the last comprehensive review of U.S. ocean policy
    took place more than 35 years ago when the Commission on Marine
    Science, Engineering and Resources--known as the Stratton Commission--
    issued its report, Our Nation and the Sea. Since then, considerable
    progress has been made, but many challenges remain and new issues have
    emerged. The value of the oceans to our nation has only grown in 35
    years, and the time to act is now.
        The simple fact is that the oceans affect and sustain all life on
    Earth. They drive and moderate weather and climate, provide us with
    food, oxygen, transportation corridors, recreational opportunities,
    energy resources and other natural products, and serve as a national
    security buffer. In our travels around the country, we heard and saw
    first-hand how communities care about the ocean and coasts, and how
    they worry about their future.

    THE VALUE OF THE OCEANS AND COASTS

        America's oceans and coasts provide ecological and aesthetic
    benefits with tremendous value to our national economy. In 2000, the
    ocean economy contributed more than $117 billion to American prosperity
    and supported well over two million jobs. More than $1 trillion, or
    one-tenth of the Nation's annual GDP, is generated within the
    relatively narrow strip of land immediately adjacent to the coast.
    Considering the economies of all coastal watershed counties, that
    contribution swells to over $4.5 trillion, fully half of the Nation's
    GDP. The contribution to employment is equally impressive, with 16
    million jobs in the near-shore zone and 60 million in coastal watershed
    counties.
        The country also remains highly dependent on marine transportation.
    More than thirteen million jobs are connected to the trade transported
    through the Nation's network of ports and inland waterways. Annually,
    the Nation's ports handle more than $700 billion in goods. The cruise
    industry and its passengers account for another $11 billion in
    spending.
        Offshore oil and gas operations have expanded into deeper waters
    with new and improved technologies. The offshore oil and gas industry's
    annual production is valued at $25-$40 billion, and its yearly bonus
    bid and royalty payments contribute approximately $5 billion to the
    U.S. Treasury.
        The commercial fishing industry's total annual value exceeds $28
    billion, with the recreational saltwater fishing industry valued at
    around $20 billion, and the annual U.S. retail trade in ornamental fish
    worth another $3 billion. Nationwide, retail expenditures on
    recreational boating exceeded $30 billion in 2002.
        In the last three decades, more than 37 million people and 19
    million homes have been added to coastal areas. Every year, hundreds of
    millions of Americans and international visitors flock to the coasts to
    enjoy the oceans, spending billions of dollars and directly supporting
    more than a million and a half jobs. In fact, tourism and recreation is
    one of the fastest-growing business sectors--enriching economies and
    supporting jobs in communities virtually everywhere along the coasts of
    the continental United States, southeast Alaska, Hawaii, and our island
    territories and commonwealths.
        These concrete, quantifiable contributions to the national economy
    are just one measure of the oceans' value. We also love the oceans for
    their beauty and majesty, and for their intrinsic power to relax,
    rejuvenate, and inspire. Unfortunately, we are starting to love our
    oceans to death.

    TROUBLE IN PARADISE

        Development comes with costs, and we are only now discovering the
    full extent of those costs. Pollution, depletion of fish and other
    living marine resources, habitat destruction and degradation, and the
    introduction of invasive non-native species are just some of the ways
    people harm the oceans, with serious consequences for the entire
    planet.
        In 2001, 23 percent of the Nation's estuarine areas were not
    suitable for swimming, fishing, or supporting marine species. In 2002,
    about 12,000 beach closings and swimming advisories were issued across
    the Nation, most due to the presence of bacteria associated with fecal
    contamination. Marine toxins afflict more than 90,000 people annually
    across the globe and are responsible for an estimated 62 percent of all
    seafood-related illnesses. Such events are on the rise, costing
    millions of dollars a year in decreased tourism revenues and increased
    health care costs.
        Experts estimate that 25 to 30 percent of the world's major fish
    stocks are over-exploited, and many U.S. fisheries are experiencing
    similar difficulties. Since the Pilgrims first arrived at Plymouth
    Rock, over half of our fresh and saltwater wetlands--more than 110
    million acres--have been lost.
        Our failure to properly manage the human activities that affect
    oceans and coasts is compromising their ecological integrity and
    diminishing our ability to fully realize their potential. Congress
    recognized this situation when it passed the Oceans Act of 2000 calling
    for a Commission on Ocean Policy to establish findings and develop
    recommendations for a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean
    policy. Pursuant to that Act, the President appointed 16 Commission
    members, including individuals nominated by the leadership in the
    United States Senate and the House of Representatives. These
    individuals were drawn from diverse backgrounds with knowledge in ocean
    and coastal activities.
        Because of the vast scope of topics the Commission was required to
    address, it sought input from individuals across the country. The
    Commission members traveled around the United States obtaining valuable
    information from diverse marine-related interests. They heard testimony
    on ocean and coastal issues during nine regional meetings and
    experienced regional concerns first-hand during seventeen site visits.
    The regional meetings also highlighted relevant success stories and
    regional models with potential national applicability.
        Four additional public meetings were held in Washington, D.C.,
    after completion of the regional meetings, to publicly present and
    discuss many of the policy options under consideration for the
    Commission's recommendations. In all, the Commission heard from some
    445 witnesses, including over 275 invited presentations and an
    additional 170 comments from the public, resulting in nearly 1,900
    pages of testimony (included as Appendices to the report).
        The message we heard was clear: the oceans and coasts are in
    trouble and major changes are urgently needed. While new scientific
    understanding shows that natural systems are complex and
    interconnected, our decision-making and management approaches have not
    been updated to reflect that complexity and interconnectedness.
    Responsibilities remain dispersed among a confusing array of agencies
    at the federal, State, and local levels. Better approaches and tools
    are also needed to gather data to understand the complex marine
    environment. Perhaps most important, people must understand the role
    the oceans have on their lives and livelihoods and the impacts they
    themselves have on the oceans.
        As the result of significant thought and deliberation and the
    consideration of a wide range of potential solutions, the Commission
    prepared its preliminary report containing bold and broad-reaching
    recommendations for reform--reform that needs to start now, while it is
    still possible to reverse distressing declines, seize exciting
    opportunities, and sustain the oceans and their valuable assets for
    future generations.

    VISION AND STRATEGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

        Any strategy for change must begin with a clear picture of the
    desired endpoint. In the desirable future we wish to create, the oceans
    and coasts would be clean, safe, and sustainably managed. They would
    contribute significantly to the economy, supporting multiple beneficial
    uses such as food production, development of energy and mineral
    resources, recreation, transportation of goods and people, and the
    discovery of novel medicines and other products, while preserving a
    high level of biodiversity and a full range of natural habitats. The
    coasts would be attractive places to live, work and play, with clean
    water and beaches, easy public access, sustainable economies, safe
    bustling harbors and ports, adequate roads and services, and special
    protection for sensitive habitats. Beach closings, toxic algal blooms,
    proliferation of invasive species, and vanishing native species would
    be rare. Better land use planning and improved predictions of severe
    weather and other natural hazards would save lives and money.
        The management of our oceans and coasts would also look different:
    it would follow ecosystem boundaries, considering interactions among
    all elements of the system, rather than addressing isolated areas or
    problems. In the face of scientific uncertainty, managers would balance
    competing considerations and proceed with caution. Ocean governance
    would be effective, participatory, and well coordinated among
    government agencies, the private sector, and the public.
        Managers and politicians would recognize the critical importance of
    good data and science, providing strong support for physical,
    biological, social, and economic research. The Nation would invest in
    the tools and technologies needed to conduct this research: ample,
    well-equipped surface and underwater research vessels; reliable,
    sustained satellites; state-of-the-art computing facilities; and
    innovative sensors that withstand harsh ocean conditions. A widespread
    network of observing and monitoring stations would provide data for
    research, planning, marine operations, timely forecasts, and periodic
    assessments. Scientific findings and observations would be translated
    into practical information, maps, and products used by decision-makers
    and the public.
        Better education would be a cornerstone of ocean policy, with the
    United States once again joining the top ranks in math, science, and
    technology achievement. An ample, well-trained, and motivated workforce
    would be available to study the oceans, set wise policies, apply
    technological advances, engineer new solutions, and teach the public
    about the value and beauty of the oceans and coasts throughout their
    lives. As a result of this lifelong education, people would understand
    the links among the land, sea, air, and human activities and would be
    better stewards of the Nation's resources.
        Finally, the United States would be a leader and full partner
    globally, sharing its science, engineering, technology, and policy
    expertise, particularly with developing countries, to facilitate the
    achievement of sustainable ocean management on a global level.
        The Commission believes this vision is practical and attainable. To
    achieve it, national ocean policy should be guided by a set of
    overarching principles including the following:

    Sustainability: Ocean policy should be designed to meet the needs of
    the present generation without compromising the ability of future
    generations to meet their needs.

    Stewardship: The principle of stewardship applies both to the
    government and to every citizen. The U.S. government holds ocean and
    coastal resources in the public trust--a special responsibility that
    necessitates balancing different uses of those resources for the
    continued benefit of all Americans. Just as important, every member of
    the public should recognize the value of the oceans and coasts,
    supporting appropriate policies and acting responsibly while minimizing
    negative environmental impacts.

    Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Connections: Ocean policies should be based on
    the recognition that the oceans, land, and atmosphere are inextricably
    intertwined and that actions that affect one Earth system component are
    likely to affect another.

    Ecosystem-based Management: U.S. ocean and coastal resources should be
    managed to reflect the relationships among all ecosystem components,
    including humans and nonhuman species and the environments in which
    they live. Applying this principle will require defining relevant
    geographic management areas based on ecosystem, rather than political,
    boundaries.

    Multiple Use Management: The many potentially beneficial uses of ocean
    and coastal resources should be acknowledged and managed in a way that
    balances competing uses while preserving and protecting the overall
    integrity of the ocean and coastal environments.

    Preservation of Marine Biodiversity: Downward trends in marine
    biodiversity should be reversed where they exist, with a desired end of
    maintaining or recovering natural levels of biological diversity and
    ecosystem services.

    Best Available Science and Information: Ocean policy decisions should
    be based on the best available understanding of the natural, social,
    and economic processes that affect ocean and coastal environments.
    Decision-makers should be able to obtain and understand quality science
    and information in a way that facilitates successful management of
    ocean and coastal resources.

    Adaptive Management: Ocean management programs should be designed to
    meet clear goals and provide new information to continually improve the
    scientific basis for future management. Periodic re-evaluation of the
    goals and effectiveness of management measures, and incorporation of
    new information in implementing future management, are essential.

    Understandable Laws and Clear Decisions: Laws governing uses of ocean
    and coastal resources should be clear, coordinated, and accessible to
    the Nation's citizens to facilitate compliance. Policy decisions and
    the reasoning behind them should also be clear and available to all
    interested parties.

    Participatory Governance: Governance of ocean uses should ensure
    widespread participation by all citizens on issues that affect them.

    Timeliness: Ocean governance systems should operate with as much
    efficiency and predictability as possible.

    Accountability: Decision-makers and members of the public should be
    accountable for the actions they take that affect ocean and coastal
    resources.

    International Responsibility: The United States should act
    cooperatively with other nations in developing and implementing
    international ocean policy, reflecting the deep connections between
    U.S. interests and the global ocean.

    Ecosystem-based Management

        Ecosystem-based management emerged as an overarching theme of the
    Commission's work. To move toward more ecosystem-based approaches,
    managers must consider the relationships among all ecosystem
    components, including human and nonhuman species and the environments
    in which they live. Management areas should be defined based on
    ecosystem, rather than political, boundaries. A balanced precautionary
    approach should be adopted that weighs the level of scientific
    uncertainty and the potential risk of damage before proceeding.
        In moving toward an ecosystem-based approach, the U.S. Commission
    on Ocean Policy considers the following actions absolutely critical.
    First, a new national ocean policy framework must be established to
    improve federal leadership and coordination and enhance opportunities
    for State, territorial, tribal, and local entities to improve responses
    at the regional level. Second, decisions about ocean and coastal
    resources need to be based on the most current, credible, unbiased
    scientific data. And third, improved education about the oceans is
    needed to give the general public a sense of stewardship and prepare a
    new generation of leaders to address ocean issues.

    IMPROVING GOVERNANCE

        Many different entities at the federal, regional, State,
    territorial, tribal and local levels participate in the management of
    the Nation's oceans and coasts. At the federal level, eleven of the
    fifteen existing cabinet-level departments and four independent
    agencies play important roles in the development of ocean and coastal
    policy. All of these federal agencies also interact in various ways
    with State, territorial, tribal, and local entities.
        A lack of communication and coordination among the various agency
    programs at the national level, and among federal, State and local
    stakeholders at the regional level, continues to inhibit effective
    action. A new National Ocean Policy Framework is needed to provide
    high-level attention and coordinated implementation of an integrated
    national ocean policy.

    National Coordination and Leadership

        A first step in enhancing management, and a central part of the new
    National Ocean Policy Framework, is improved coordination among the
    many federal programs. A number of attempts have been made to
    coordinate on particular topics, such as coral reefs or marine
    transportation, or within a broad category, such as ocean science and
    technology. Within the Executive Office of the President, three
    entities have specific responsibilities relevant to oceans: the Office
    of Science and Technology Policy that addresses government-wide science
    and technology issues and includes an ocean subcommittee; the Council
    on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that oversees broad federal
    environmental efforts and implementation of the National Environmental
    Policy Act; and the National Security Council's Policy Coordinating
    Committee that addresses international issues and also includes a
    subcommittee on international ocean issues.
        While all these coordinating bodies are helpful in their designated
    areas of interest, they do not constitute a high-level interagency
    mechanism able to deal with all of the interconnected ocean and coastal
    challenges facing the Nation, including not only science and
    technology, the environment, and international matters, but the many
    other economic, social, and technical issues that affect the ocean.
        The value of the ocean to American society also cries out for
    greater visibility and leaderships. Only the Executive Office of the
    President can transcend traditional conflicts among departments and
    agencies, make recommendations for broad federal agency reorganization,
    and provide guidance on funding priorities, making it the appropriate
    venue for coordinating an integrated national ocean policy.
    National Ocean Council
        Congress should establish a National Ocean Council within the
    Executive Office of the President to provide high-level level attention
    to ocean and coastal issues, develop and guide the implementation of
    appropriate national policies, and coordinate the many federal
    departments and agencies with ocean and coastal responsibilities. The
    National Ocean Council, or NOC, should be composed of cabinet
    secretaries of departments and directors of independent agencies with
    relevant ocean- and coastal-related responsibilities and should carry
    out a variety of functions including the following:

              developing broad principles and national goals for
            ocean and coastal governance;

              making recommendations to the President on national
            ocean policy;

              coordinating and integrating activities of ocean-
            related federal agencies;

              identifying statutory and regulatory redundancies or
            omissions and developing strategies to resolve conflicts, fill
            gaps, and address new and emerging ocean issues;

              developing and supporting partnerships between
            government agencies and nongovernmental organizations, the
            private sector, academia, and the public.

    Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy
        A Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, co-chaired by
    the chair of the National Ocean Council and a non-federal member,
    should advise the President on ocean and coastal policy matters and
    serve as a formal structure for input from non-federal individuals and
    organizations. It should be composed of a representative selection of
    individuals appointed by the President, including governors of coastal
    states, other appropriate State, territorial, tribal and local
    government representatives, and individuals from the private sector,
    research and education communities, nongovernmental organizations,
    watershed organizations and other non-federal bodies with ocean
    interests. The members should be knowledgeable about and experienced in
    ocean and coastal issues.
    Need for Presidential Action--the Assistant to the President
        Although Congress should establish the National Ocean Council and
    the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy in law to ensure
    their long-term future, the Commission is cognizant of the complex and
    often lengthy nature of the legislative process. While awaiting
    congressional action, the President should immediately establish these
    entities through Executive Order, and should appoint an Assistant to
    the President to chair the Council. As chair of the NOC and co-chair of
    the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, the Assistant to
    the President should lead the coordination of federal agency actions
    related to oceans and coasts, make recommendations for federal agency
    reorganization as needed to improve ocean and coastal management,
    resolve interagency policy disputes, and promote regional approaches.
    The Assistant to the President should also advise OMB and the agencies
    on appropriate funding levels for important ocean- and coastal-related
    activities, and prepare a biennial report as mandated by section 5 of
    the Oceans Act of 2000.
    Office of Ocean Policy
        Because the National Ocean Council will be responsible for planning
    and coordination rather than operational duties, the support of a small
    staff and committees will be required to carry out its functions. An
    Office of Ocean Policy should support the Assistant to the President,
    the National Ocean Council, and the Presidential Council of Advisors on
    Ocean Policy. The Office of Ocean Policy should be composed of a small
    staff that reports to the Assistant to the President, managed by an
    executive director responsible for day-to-day activities. Strong links
    should be maintained among the National Ocean Council, its committees
    and staff, other parts of the Executive Office of the President, and
    ocean-related advisory councils and commissions.
    Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations
        A committee under the National Ocean Council will be needed to
    assume the functions of the current National Ocean Research Leadership
    Council (NORLC), a congressionally-established government coordination
    and leadership organization for oceanographic research programs on the
    national level. By placing the NORLC under the NOC and broadening its
    responsibilities to include operational programs and educational
    activities in addition to research, it will become more visible and
    more effective. In recognition of its broader mandate, the NORLC should
    be redesignated as the Committee on Ocean Science, Education,
    Technology, and Operations (COSETO). Strong connections between the
    Office of Science and Technology Policy and the NOC (through COSETO)
    will be essential. To eliminate overlapping functions, the National
    Science and Technology Council's Joint Subcommittee on Oceans, should
    be subsumed into COSETO.
    Committee on Ocean Resource Management
        The National Ocean Council will need a second committee, to
    coordinate federal resource management policy, including the many
    existing, single-issue coordination efforts such as the Coral Reef Task
    Force, the Interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation System,
    the National Dredging Team, Coastal America, and many others. The NOC
    Committee on Ocean Resource Management (CORM) would perform high-level,
    cross-cutting oversight of these issue-specific efforts to ensure
    consideration of cumulative impacts, minimize conflicting mandates, and
    implement an ecosystem-based management approach. Because of the
    Council on Environmental Quality's role in environmental issues, this
    office should also maintain strong connections with the National Ocean
    Council and its CORM.

    A Regional Approach

        In addition to improved coordination at the national level, an
    important component of the new National Ocean Policy Framework is the
    promotion of regional approaches that allow decision-makers to address
    issues across jurisdictional lines. The Nation's ocean and coastal
    resources are affected by human activities that span cities, counties,
    States, and sometimes nations. Federal, State, territorial, tribal, and
    local governments need the ability to respond to ocean and coastal
    issues in a coordinated fashion within regions defined by the
    boundaries of ecosystems rather than somewhat arbitrary government
    jurisdictions. The voluntary establishment of regional ocean councils,
    improved coordination of federal agency efforts at the regional level,
    and dissemination of regionally significant research and information
    would enhance regional coordination and improve responses to regional
    issues.
    Creating Regional Ocean Councils
        There are many examples where concern for the health of a
    particular ecosystem (such as the Chesapeake Bay, Pacific Northwest,
    Gulf of Mexico, or Mississippi River Basin) has motivated a wide range
    of participants to create new structures for addressing regional
    concerns. There is a growing awareness that existing regional
    approaches can be strengthened and similar approaches can benefit the
    health and productivity of all the Nation's ocean and coastal regions.
        Regional ocean councils can serve as mechanisms for a wide range of
    participants to join forces to address issues of regional concern,
    realize regional opportunities, identify regional goals, and promote a
    sense of stewardship for a specific area among all levels of
    government, private interests, and the public. It will be up to the
    participants--including representatives from all levels of government,
    the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and academia--to
    determine how the council will operate in each region. Possible council
    functions might include:

              designating ad hoc subcommittees to examine specific
            issues of regional concern;

              mediating and resolving disputes among different
            interests in the region;

              monitoring and evaluating the state of the region and
            the effectiveness of management efforts;

              building public awareness about regional ocean and
            coastal issues;

              facilitating government approvals or permitting
            processes that involve several Federal, State, and local
            government agencies within the region; and

              helping to link activities located in upstream,
            coastal, and offshore areas within an ecosystem-based
            management context.

        Regional ocean councils should be created by interested parties at
    the State and local level, rather than mandated by the Federal
    Government. However, to stimulate the process, the National Ocean
    Council should develop flexible guidelines for the voluntary creation
    of regional ocean councils. Initial efforts should be encouraged in
    regions where readiness and support for a regional approach is already
    strong. The first councils can then serve as pilot projects, allowing
    those involved to learn what works in the region, building support to
    implement a regional ocean council, and paving the way for councils in
    other regions. Once established, regional ocean councils will most
    likely evolve, as participants identify the structure and functions
    that best suit their needs. Whether a council has decision-making
    authority will be up to the regional participants. National involvement
    may be necessary to implement more formal decision-making mechanisms
    such as legislation, interagency agreements, and interstate compacts.
        Regional ocean councils should encompass an area from the inland
    extent of coastal watersheds to the offshore boundary of the Nation's
    EEZ. The boundaries of the Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs)
    may be considered as a starting point, although these regions may not
    always be suitable. For example, more than one regional ocean council
    will probably be necessary within California where there is only one
    RFMC. A regional ocean council for the Great Lakes region is also
    desirable.
    Improving Regional Coordination of Federal Agencies
        While the process of planning, establishing, and testing regional
    ocean councils is underway, federal agencies should be directed to
    immediately improve their own regional coordination and provide
    stronger institutional, technical, and financial support for regional
    issues. Currently, the actions of federal agencies often overlap,
    conflict, or are inconsistent with one another at the regional and
    State levels. Although several federal agencies already divide their
    operations into regions, the boundaries of these regions differ from
    one agency to the next, the functions of regional offices vary widely,
    and it is common for the regional office of one agency to operate in
    isolation from the regional offices of other agencies. Improved
    regional coordination should be a first step, followed in time by
    federal reorganization around common regional boundaries.
    Enhancing Regional Research and Information
        Decision-makers at all levels need the best available science,
    information, tools, and technology on which to base ocean and coastal
    management decisions. However, research and data collection targeted at
    regional concerns is severely limited. Furthermore, the data that do
    exist are rarely translated into products that are useful to managers.
    Regional ocean information programs should be established to set
    priorities for research, data collection, information products, and
    outreach activities in support of improved regional management. Where
    and when they are established, regional ocean councils will be the
    logical bodies to administer these programs.

    Improved Governance of Offshore Waters

        Converging economic, technological, legal, and demographic factors
    make federal waters an increasingly attractive place for enterprises
    seeking to tap the ocean's resources. The challenge for policy-makers
    will be to realize the ocean's potential while minimizing conflicts
    among users, safeguarding human and marine health, and fulfilling the
    Federal Government's obligation to manage public resources for the
    maximum long-term benefit of the entire nation. While institutional
    frameworks exist for managing some ocean uses, increasingly
    unacceptable gaps remain.
        The array of agencies involved, and their frequent lack of
    coordination, can create roadblocks to public participation, discourage
    private investment, cause harmful delays, and generate unnecessary
    costs. This is particularly true for new ocean uses that are subject to
    scattered or ill defined federal agency authorities and an uncertain
    decision-making process. Without an understandable, streamlined, and
    broadly accepted method for reviewing proposed activities, ad hoc
    management approaches will continue, perpetuating uncertainty and
    raising questions about the comprehensiveness and legitimacy of
    decisions.
        To start, each existing or foreseeable activity in federal waters
    should be overseen by one lead federal agency, designated by Congress
    to coordinate among all the agencies with applicable authorities while
    ensuring full consideration of the public interest. Pending such
    designations, the NOC should assign agencies to coordinate research,
    assessment, and monitoring of new offshore activities.
        But better management of individual activities is only a first
    step. To move toward an ecosystem-based management approach, the
    Federal Government should develop a broad understanding of offshore
    areas and their resources, prioritize all potential uses, and ensure
    that activities within a given area are compatible. As the pressure for
    offshore uses grows, and before serious conflicts arise, coordination
    should be improved among the management programs for different offshore
    activities. The National Ocean Council should review each single-
    purpose program that regulates some offshore activity with the goal of
    determining how all such programs may be better coordinated.
        Ultimately, the Nation needs a coordinated offshore management
    regime that encompasses traditional and emerging uses, and is flexible
    enough to incorporate uses not yet foreseen. The new regime will need
    to make decisions and resolve disputes through an open process accepted
    by all parties. Congress, working with the NOC and regional ocean
    councils, should establish such an offshore management regime and
    establish principles for offshore use, including the need to:

              integrate single-purpose programs within the broader
            offshore regime;

              create a planning process for new and emerging
            activities; and

              ensure a reasonable return to the public in exchange
            for allowing private interests to profit from public resources.

        Establishing a coordinated offshore management regime will take
    time, and it will not be easy. No regime for governing ocean activities
    will eliminate all conflicts, given the complexity of the problems and
    the diverse perspectives of competing interests. However, the National
    Ocean Council, Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy,
    regional ocean councils, and other components of the National Ocean
    Policy Framework provide a promising basis for more coordinated,
    participatory management of ocean activities.

    Marine Protected Areas

        In contemplating the coordinated, ecosystem-based management of
    both near-shore and offshore areas, marine protected areas can be a
    valuable tool. Marine protected areas can be created for many different
    reasons, including conserving living marine resources and habitat,
    protecting endangered or threatened species, maintaining biological
    diversity, and preserving historically or culturally important
    submerged archaeological resources. These areas have also been
    recognized for their scientific, recreational, and educational values.
        The creation of new MPAs can be a controversial process: supported
    by those who see their benefits, while vigorously opposed by others who
    dislike the limitations MPAs impose on ocean uses. Thus, it is
    important to engage local and regional stakeholders in the design and
    implementation of marine protected areas to build support and ensure
    compliance with any restrictions. Because marine protected areas also
    have national implications, such as possible impacts on freedom of
    navigation, federal involvement and oversight will still be needed.
        With its multiple use, ecosystem-based perspective, the National
    Ocean Council should oversee the development of a flexible process--
    which is adaptive and based on best available science--to design and
    implement marine protected areas. Regional ocean councils, or other
    appropriate entities, can provide a forum for applying the process
    developed by the NOC, with broad stakeholder participation.

    Strengthening and Streamlining the Federal Agency Structure

        Although improved coordination is a vital aspect of the new
    National Ocean Policy Framework, changes to the federal agency
    structure itself will also be needed. The proliferation of federal
    agencies with some element of responsibility for ocean and coastal
    activities immediately suggests that some consolidation is possible.
    Combining similar ocean and coastal functions and programs could
    improve government performance, reduce unnecessary overlaps, facilitate
    local, State, and regional interactions with the Federal Government,
    and begin to move the Nation toward a more ecosystem-based management
    approach.
        However, the complex Legislative and Executive Branch process for
    making such changes compels a cautious, methodical, multi-phased
    approach for improving the federal structure.
    Strengthening NOAA--Phase I
        NOAA's mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's
    environment and to conserve and manage ocean and coastal resources to
    meet the Nation's economic, social, and environmental needs. Since its
    creation, NOAA has made significant strides in many areas, despite
    programmatic and functional overlaps and frequent disagreements and
    disconnects among its five line offices. Although the organization has
    evolved over time, including the recent creation of a sixth line office
    to improve integration on specific issues, these changes take time and
    results can be hard to quantify.
        There is widespread agreement that NOAA needs to manage its current
    activities more effectively. Moreover, if the recommendations in the
    Commission's preliminary report are implemented, NOAA will be required
    to handle a number of new responsibilities. A stronger, more effective,
    science-based and service-oriented ocean agency--one that contributes
    to better management of oceans and coasts through an ecosystem-based
    approach--is needed.
        NOAA's three primary functions can be summarized as follows:

            1)  Assessment, prediction, and operations for ocean, coastal,
            and atmospheric environments, including mapping and charting,
            satellite-based and in situ data collection, implementation of
            the Integrated Ocean Observing System, data information
            systems, and weather services and products.

            2)  Marine resource and area management, including fisheries,
            ocean and coastal areas, vulnerable species and habitats, and
            protection from pollution and invasive species.

            3)  Scientific research and education, including a focus on
            applied research, the availability of scientifically valid
            data, and promotion of educational activities.

        One of the critical objectives for a strengthened NOAA is improved
    performance within these categories and smoother interactions among
    them. For example, resource management decisions should be based on the
    best available science, research itself should be planned to support
    the agency's management missions, and research in different areas--sea,
    land, and air--should be connected and coordinated. Changes of this
    nature will likely require adjustments to the internal operation of the
    agency, including possible additional changes to the current line
    office structure.
        These changes can be promoted by codifying the establishment and
    functions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    through passage of an organic act for the agency. The act should ensure
    that NOAA's structure is consistent with the principles of ecosystem-
    based management and with its primary functions: assessment,
    prediction, and operations; management; and research and education.
    NOAA will require budget support commensurate with its important,
    varied, and growing responsibilities.
    Reviewing NOAA's Budget
        NOAA's placement within the Department of Commerce has an unusual
    history and continues to be questioned by many observers. If nothing
    else, this affiliation has distinct budgetary implications. As part of
    DOC, NOAA's budget is reviewed within the Office of Management and
    Budget's General Government Programs, along with other DOC programs
    with fundamentally different characteristics and missions. NOAA's OMB
    review also fails to consider its ocean and atmospheric programs in
    context with other federal resource management and science programs. To
    support the move toward a more ecosystem-based management approach,
    NOAA's budget should be reviewed within OMB's Natural Resources
    Programs, along with the budgets of more similar departments and
    agencies.
    Consolidating Ocean and Coastal Programs--Phase II
        As I have said, many agencies across the Federal Government--in
    addition to NOAA--administer ocean- and coastal-related programs.
    Although I have focused on NOAA as the primary ocean agency, the other
    agencies should also be strengthened in similar ways.
        However, even solid performance within each agency will not
    eliminate the many similar or overlapping activities. In some cases,
    programmatic overlap can provide useful checks and balances as agencies
    bring different perspectives and experiences to the table. In other
    cases, the number of separate agencies addressing a similar issue is
    not helpful. Such fragmentation diffuses responsibility, introduces
    unnecessary overlap, raises administrative costs, inhibits
    communication, and interferes with the development of a comprehensive
    management regime that addresses issues within an ecosystem-based
    context.
        The Commission's preliminary report presents specific
    recommendations on program consolidation in areas such as nonpoint
    source pollution, area-based ocean and coastal resource management,
    vessel pollution, invasive species, marine mammals, aquaculture, and
    satellite-based Earth observing. Using these recommendations as a
    starting point, the Assistant to the President, with advice from the
    National Ocean Council and the Presidential Council of Advisors on
    Ocean Policy, should review federal ocean, coastal and atmospheric
    programs, and recommend further opportunities for consolidation.
        Programs not suitable for consolidation--such as security-related
    programs that cannot be transferred without harm to the overall
    enterprise--should continue to be coordinated through the National
    Ocean Council and the regional ocean councils. However, in most cases,
    judicious consolidation of ocean- and coastal-related functions will
    improve policy integration and program effectiveness.
    Presidential Reorganization Authority
        The recommended program consolidation will not be easy within the
    current legislative process. The creation and reorganization of
    agencies is often contentious, lengthy, and uncertain, involving
    multiple committees in both houses of Congress. Recognizing this
    shortcoming, Congress has several times in the past chosen to give the
    President limited reorganization authority. Renewing this authority by
    allowing the President to propose agency reorganization, with an
    expedited and limited congressional review and approval process, would
    provide an excellent mechanism to achieve reorganization of federal
    ocean- and coastal-related agencies in a timely fashion.
    Managing all Natural Resources in an Ecosystem-based Management
            Context--Phase III
        Strengthening the performance of ocean, coastal, and atmospheric
    programs through coordination and consolidation are important steps in
    moving toward an ecosystem-based management approach. By immediately
    establishing the National Ocean Council and strengthening NOAA,
    followed by the consolidation of suitable ocean and coastal programs
    and functions, the Nation will be poised to take a further step in
    strengthening the Federal Government structure.
        Based on a growing understanding of ecosystems, including
    recognition of the inextricable links among the sea, land, air, and all
    living things, a more fundamental reorganization of federal resource
    agencies will eventually be needed. Consolidation of all natural
    resource functions, including those involving oceans and coasts, would
    enable the Federal Government to move toward true ecosystem-based
    management. This could be implemented through the establishment of a
    Department of Natural Resources or some other structural unification
    that brings together all of the Nation's natural resource programs.

    SCIENCE-BASED DECISIONS: ADVANCING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE OCEANS

        Ecosystem-based management provides many potential benefits, but
    also imposes new responsibilities on managers. The need to collect good
    information and to improve understanding is perhaps foremost among
    these new responsibilities. Despite considerable progress over the last
    century, the oceans remain one of the least explored and most poorly
    understood environments on the planet.
        Greater knowledge can enable policy-makers and managers to make
    wise, science-based decisions at the national, regional, State, and
    local levels. However, existing research and monitoring programs, which
    tend to be agency-specific and single issue oriented, will need to be
    reorganized to support ecosystem-based management. The current mismatch
    between the size and complexity of marine ecosystems and the fragmented
    research and monitoring programs for coastal and ocean ecosystems must
    be resolved.
        The Nation also lacks effective mechanisms for incorporating
    scientific information into decision-making in a timely manner. As
    knowledge improves, it must be translated into useful terms and
    actively incorporated into policy through an adaptive process. To make
    the translation effective, local, State, regional, and national
    managers need avenues to communicate their information needs and
    priorities to the research community.
        In addition to these practical needs, ocean science and technology
    will continue to be an integral part of the overall U.S. basic research
    enterprise and future discoveries will undoubtedly contribute greatly
    to society. Fundamental knowledge about the oceans is essential to
    understanding the Earth's environment and how it changes over time,
    assessing and predicting the status of marine resources, finding
    beneficial new uses of ocean resources, and protecting national
    security.

    Federal Leadership in Ocean Science and Technology

        Our Commission defines ocean science and technology broadly to
    include: exploration of new ocean environments; basic and applied
    research to increase understanding of the biology, chemistry, physics,
    and geology of the oceans and coasts, their interactions with
    terrestrial, hydrologic, and atmospheric systems, and the interactions
    between ocean and coastal regions and humans; and the development of
    new methodologies and instruments.
        Today, 15 federal agencies support or conduct diverse activities in
    ocean science, technology, assessment, and management. The heads of
    these agencies direct the National Oceanographic Partnership Program
    (NOPP), which coordinates national oceanographic research and
    education. NOPP has provided a useful venue for agencies to support a
    small number of ocean science and technology projects, but it has not
    realized its full potential as an overarching mechanism for
    coordination among federal agencies and State, local, academic, and
    private entities.
        Under the proposed National Ocean Policy Framework, the National
    Ocean Council's Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and
    Operations (COSETO) will assume leadership of NOPP to implement a broad
    national strategy for ocean research, education, observation,
    exploration, and marine operations. NOPP's existing offices and
    committees will be incorporated within this structure. Ocean.US, the
    lead office for planning the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS),
    and the Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee which provides
    advice on oceanographic facilities, will both report to COSETO.

    Creating a National Strategy for Ocean Science and Technology

        The United States needs a national strategy for ocean and coastal
    research, exploration, and marine operations that can help meet the
    ocean resource management challenges of the 21st century and ensure
    that useful products result from federal investments in ocean research.
    Much more needs to be known about how marine ecosystems function on
    varying spatial scales, how human activities affect marine ecosystems
    and how, in turn, these changes affect human health. Coordinated and
    enhanced research activities and marine operations are needed to:

              understand biological, physical, and chemical
            processes and interactions

              maintain overall ecosystem health and biological
            diversity

              observe, monitor, assess, and predict environmental
            events and long-term trends

              explore the ocean depths for new resources

              map ocean and coastal areas for safe navigation and
            resource management

        Furthermore, the ocean and coastal environment is rife with
    conflicts among competing users and between groups of people applying
    different sets of values to the same issues. To resolve these
    conflicts, information is needed not only about the natural environment
    but also about relevant social, cultural, and economic factors.
        Better coordination and increased support of ocean science and
    technology activities nationwide will help the United States to address
    numerous management challenges, and will position the Nation to quickly
    tackle new issues as they emerge.
    Advancing Ocean and Coastal Research
        The United States has a wealth of ocean research expertise spread
    across a network of government and industry laboratories and world-
    class universities, colleges, and marine centers. With strong federal
    support, these institutions made the United States the world leader in
    oceanography during the 20th century. However, a leader cannot stand
    still. Ocean and coastal management issues continue to grow in number
    and complexity, new fields of study have emerged, new interdisciplinary
    approaches are being tried, and there is a growing need to understand
    the ocean on a global and regional scale. All this has created a
    corresponding demand for high-quality scientific information. And while
    the need for increased information continues to grow, the federal
    investment in ocean research has stagnated in recent decades.
        The current annual federal investment in marine science is well
    below the level necessary to address adequately the Nation's needs for
    coastal and ocean information. Unless funding increases sharply, the
    gap between requirements and resources will continue to grow and the
    United States will lose its position as the world's leader in ocean
    research.
        Congress should double the federal ocean and coastal research
    budget over the next five years, from the 2004 level of approximately
    $650 million to $1.3 billion per year. As part of this increase, the
    National Ocean Council or Congress should:

              fund the research component of the regional ocean
            information programs to provide practical, management-oriented
            information at regional, State, and local levels;

              create a national program for social science and
            economic research to examine the human dimensions and economic
            value of the Nation's oceans and coasts, with funding of at
            least $8-$10 million a year;

              establish a joint Oceans and Human Health Initiative
            funded at $28 million a year;

              significantly increase the budget of the National Sea
            Grant College Program.

        To ensure that increased investments are used wisely and that
    important research activities continue, federal agencies will need to
    create long-term strategic plans. A mechanism is required to coordinate
    federally-funded ocean research, support long-term projects, and create
    partnerships throughout all agencies and sectors. Transparent and
    comprehensive research plans would achieve these goals and ensure that
    research results can be translated into operational products in a
    timely manner. The National Ocean Council should develop a national
    ocean research strategy that reflects a long-term vision, promotes
    advances in basic and applied ocean science and technology, and guides
    relevant agencies in developing ten-year science plans and budgets.
    Ocean Exploration
        About 95 percent of the ocean floor remains unexplored, much of it
    located in harsh environments such as the polar latitudes and the
    Southern Ocean. Experience teaches us, however, that these vast and
    remote regions teem with undiscovered species and resources. On
    virtually every expedition, oceanographers discover fascinating new
    creatures. Advances in deep-sea technologies have also made it easier
    to locate shipwrecks and historical artifacts lost in the ocean depths,
    such as the stunning discovery of the RMS Titanic in 1985. The
    continued exploration of marine archaeological sites will help us to
    better understand human history and our global cultural heritage.
        Very little is known about the ocean depths due primarily to the
    lack of a long-term, large-scale national commitment to ocean
    exploration. In 2000, recommendations from the President's Panel on
    Ocean Exploration led to the establishment of the Office of Exploration
    within NOAA, at a modest funding level of $4 million in fiscal year
    2001, and $14 million in each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003. This
    program is helping NOAA to fulfill its applied science, environmental
    assessment, and technology development responsibilities; although the
    program's small budget and agency-specific focus limit its
    effectiveness.
        NOAA and NSF, by virtue of their missions and mandates, are well
    positioned to lead a global U.S. ocean exploration effort. NOAA
    currently runs the Office of Ocean Exploration, but NSF's focus on
    basic research provides an excellent complement to NOAA's more applied
    mission. Working together, the two agencies have the capacity to
    systematically explore and conduct research in previously unexamined
    ocean environments. To succeed, coordination, joint funding, and
    interactions with academia and industry will be essential. Congress
    should appropriate significant funding for an expanded national ocean
    exploration program and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration and the National Science Foundation should be designated
    as the lead agencies. An expanded national ocean exploration program
    will require a budget of approximately $110 million annually, plus
    additional funds for required infrastructure.
    Mapping, Charting, and Assessments
        The need for routine mapping, monitoring, and assessment of U.S.
    waters has grown significantly in the past two decades. Accurate, up-
    to-date maps and charts of harbors, coastlines, and the open ocean are
    necessary for many activities, including shipping, military operations,
    and scientific research. In addition, expanded regulatory regimes rely
    heavily on routine assessments of living and nonliving marine resources
    and water quality. Modern sensor technologies, which can detect new
    variables in greater detail in the water column and sea floor, have
    improved our ability to follow changing ocean and terrestrial dynamics.
    But as these new technologies are implemented, they need to be
    calibrated against previous methods, as well as with each other, to
    provide useful environmental characterizations and ensure the
    consistency of long-term statistical data sets.
        At least ten federal agencies, almost all coastal states, and many
    local agencies, academic institutions, and private companies are
    involved in mapping, charting, and assessing living and nonliving
    resources in U.S. waters. However, different organizations use varying
    methods for collecting and presenting these data, leading to disparate
    products that contain gaps in the information they present. Ideally, a
    variety of information (e.g., bathymetry, topography, bottom type,
    habitat, salinity, vulnerability) should be integrated into maps using
    Global Positioning System coordinates and a common geodetic reference
    frame. In addition, these maps should include living marine resources,
    energy resources, and environmental data when available, to create
    complete environmental characterizations necessary for developing and
    implementing science-based ecosystem-based management approaches.
        Coordination of the many existing federal mapping activities will
    increase efficiency and help ensure that all necessary surveys are
    conducted. Drawing upon the mapping and charting abilities found in the
    private sector and academia will also be necessary to achieve the best
    results at the lowest cost.
        The National Ocean Council should coordinate federal ocean and
    coastal resource assessment, mapping, and charting activities with the
    goal of creating standardized, easily accessible national maps that
    incorporate living and nonliving marine resource data along with
    bathymetry, topography, and other natural features.

    Achieving a Sustained, Integrated Ocean Observing System

        About 150 years ago, this nation set out to create a comprehensive
    weather forecasting and warning network and today most people cannot
    imagine living without constantly updated weather reports. Recognizing
    the enormous national benefits that have accrued from the weather
    observing network, it is time to invest in a similar observational and
    forecasting capability for the oceans. This system would gather
    information on physical, geological, chemical, and biological
    parameters for the oceans and coasts, conditions that affect--and are
    affected by--humans and their activities. The United States currently
    has the scientific and technological capacity to develop a sustained,
    national Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) that will support and
    enhance the Nation's efforts for:

              improving the health of our coasts and oceans;

              protecting human lives and livelihoods from marine
            hazards;

              supporting national defense and homeland security
            efforts;

              measuring, explaining, and predicting environmental
            changes;

              providing for the sustainable use, protection, and
            enjoyment of ocean resources.

        The National Ocean Council should make the development and
    implementation of a sustained, national Integrated Ocean Observing
    System a central focus of its leadership and coordination role. The
    United States simply cannot provide the economic, environmental, and
    security benefits listed above, achieve new levels of understanding and
    predictive capability, or generate the information needed by a wide
    range of users, without implementing the IOOS.
        The IOOS is based on two components: 1) open ocean observations
    conducted in cooperation with the international Global Ocean Observing
    System (GOOS) and 2) a national network of coastal observations
    conducted at the regional level. The coastal component will include the
    U.S. exclusive economic zone, the Great Lakes, and coastal and
    estuarine areas.
        A strong national governance structure is required to establish
    policy and provide oversight for all components of the IOOS and to
    ensure strong integration among the regional, national, and global
    levels. Interagency coordination and consensus through the National
    Ocean Council and Ocean.US will be essential. While regional systems
    will retain a level of autonomy, achievement of the IOOS with
    nationwide benefits will require the regional systems to follow some
    national guidelines and standards. In addition, developers of the IOOS
    must ensure that the global component is not minimized and that the
    connectivity with the GOOS, including U.S. funding and leadership,
    remains strong and viable.
    Formalizing Ocean.US
        Ocean.US has made significant progress as the lead organization for
    the design and implementation of the national IOOS. However, a
    fundamental problem current exists in that Ocean.US has a number of
    responsibilities without any real authority or control over budgets.
    Its ephemeral existence under the Memorandum of Agreement which created
    it, its dependence on personnel detailed from the member agencies, and
    its lack of a dedicated budget severely detract from its stature within
    the ocean community and its ability to carry out its responsibilities.
    Congress should formally establish Ocean.US under the National Ocean
    Council structure so that it may effectively advise the NOC and achieve
    its coordination and planning mandates. The office requires consistent
    funding and dedicated full-time staff with the expertise and skills
    needed to ensure professional credibility. In addition, outside experts
    on rotational appointments could help Ocean.US better meet its
    responsibilities.
    Coordinating Regional Observing Systems
        Ocean.US envisions the creation of a nationwide network of regional
    ocean observing systems that will form the backbone of coastal
    observations for the IOOS. Although Ocean.US has proposed the creation
    of Regional Associations, coordinated through a national federation, as
    the governing bodies of the regional systems, this concept is
    unnecessarily narrow. To fully address the needs of coastal managers,
    ocean observations need to be integrated into other information
    gathering activities such as regionally-focused research, outreach and
    education, and regional ecosystem assessments. Thus, the proposed
    regional ocean information programs provide a more comprehensive
    mechanism for developing and implementing regional ocean observing
    systems, in coordination with their broader responsibilities. Regular
    meetings among all the regional ocean information programs and Ocean.US
    will be important for providing regional and local input into
    developing requirements of the national IOOS.
    Reaching Out to the User Community
        The IOOS must meet the needs of a broad suite of users, including
    the general public. To get the most out of the IOOS, resource managers
    at federal, State, regional, territorial, tribal, and local levels will
    need to supply input about their information needs and operational
    requirements and provide guidance on what output would be most useful.
    Other users, including educators, ocean and coastal industries,
    fishermen, and coastal citizens, must also have a visible avenue for
    providing input. Ocean.US and the regional ocean information programs
    will need to devote significant time and thought to proactively
    approaching users and promoting public awareness of the enormous
    potential of the IOOS.
    Planning Space-based Observations
        An integral part of the national IOOS are the space-borne sensors
    that provide comprehensive, real-time, widespread coverage of ocean
    conditions and features. However, implementing sustained observations
    from space requires intense planning with long lead times. Given the
    cost, the time frame for constructing and launching satellites, and the
    inability to modify satellites once in orbit, five- to ten-year plans
    are required to ensure that satellite observations will be available on
    a continuous basis and employ the most useful and modern sensors.
    Ocean.US and NOAA must work with NASA to ensure that ongoing satellite
    operations are fully integrated into the national IOOS.
        Both NOAA and NASA currently operate civilian, space-based, Earth
    observing programs that measure terrestrial, atmospheric, and oceanic
    variables. NOAA's primary mission in this area is to provide sustained,
    operational observations for monitoring and predicting environmental
    conditions and long-term changes, with a focus on weather and climate.
    In contrast, NASA's mission is to advance research efforts and sensor
    development. A NASA project can last from a few days to a few years,
    and NASA has repeatedly asserted that it is not in the business of
    providing data continuity. In many instances, the lifetime of a NASA
    satellite, and its continued ability to collect and transmit data,
    outlasts its funding, resulting in premature termination at odds with
    the pressing demands for data in the operational context. Thus NASA's
    efforts have not, and will not, result in the sustained capabilities
    needed for the national IOOS.
        Congress should transfer the operation of NASA's Earth
    environmental observing satellites, along with associated resources, to
    NOAA to achieve continuous data collection. NOAA and NASA should work
    together to plan future missions and then ensure the smooth transition
    of each Earth environmental observing satellite after its launch. By
    consolidating Earth, and particularly ocean, observing satellite
    missions in NOAA, more seamless, long-term planning will be possible,
    resulting in a smooth concept-to-operations data collection process.
    Information Product Development
        To justify large federal investments in the IOOS, the system must
    result in tangible benefits for a broad and diverse user community,
    including the general public, scientists, resource managers, emergency
    responders, policy-makers, private industry, educators, and officials
    responsible for homeland security. National Weather Service and
    commercial meteorological products have applications ranging from
    scientific research to human safety, transportation, agriculture, and
    simple daily forecasts. Similarly, IOOS products should be wide-ranging
    and based on the needs of regional and local organizations and
    communities, as well as national needs. The regional ocean information
    programs should help produce information products of benefit to
    regional, State, and local managers and organizations. These regional
    programs will also provide important feedback to national forecasters
    and modelers about ways to make national IOOS products more useful.
    Funding the IOOS
        To fulfill its potential, the IOOS will require stable funding over
    the long haul. The lack of long-term funding for existing regional
    ocean observing systems has contributed to their isolation and
    piecemeal implementation. But consistent funding will help ensure that
    the American public receives the greatest return for its investment in
    the form of useful information, reliable forecasts, and timely
    warnings. The estimated start-up costs for the implementation of the
    national IOOS over the first five years is close to $2 billion.
        Continuous improvements to IOOS observation and prediction
    capabilities will also require sustained investments in technology
    development. Considering the costs of sensor development,
    telecommunications, computer systems, and improvements in modeling and
    prediction capabilities, annual costs for operating, maintaining, and
    upgrading the national IOOS are estimated to be $650-$750 million a
    year.
    Whole Earth Observations
        The IOOS cannot exist as a stand-alone system, developed without
    considering associated observations. Rather, it should be integrated
    with other environmental observing systems to link weather, climate,
    terrestrial, biological, watershed, and ocean observations into a
    unified Earth Observing System. The National Ocean Council should
    oversee coordination of the IOOS with other existing and planned
    terrestrial, watershed, atmospheric, and biological observation and
    information collection systems, with the ultimate goal of developing a
    national Earth Observing System. Such a system would improve
    understanding of environmental changes, processes, and interactions,
    making ecosystem-based management possible.

    Enhancing Ocean Infrastructure and Technology Development

        A robust infrastructure with cutting-edge technology forms the
    backbone of modern ocean science. It supports scientific discovery and
    facilitates application of those discoveries to the management of ocean
    resources. The nation has long relied on technological innovation,
    including satellites, early-warning systems, broadband
    telecommunications, and pollution control devices to advance economic
    prosperity, protect life and property, and conserve natural resources.
    Ocean research, exploration, mapping, and assessment activities will
    continue to rely on modern facilities and new technologies to acquire
    data in the open ocean, along the coasts, in polar regions, on the sea
    floor, and even from space.
        The three major components of the Nation's scientific
    infrastructure for oceans and coasts are:

              Facilities--land-based laboratories and ocean
            platforms, including ships, airplanes, satellites, and
            submersibles, where research and observations are conducted;

              Hardware--research equipment, instrumentation,
            sensors, and information technology systems used in the
            facilities; and

              Technical Support--the expert human resources needed
            to operate and maintain the facilities and hardware as well as
            participating in data collection, assimilation, analysis,
            modeling, and dissemination.

        The number and types of assets included in the national ocean
    science infrastructure are extensive and cover a wide range of federal,
    State, academic, institutional, and private-sector entities.
        Together, they represent a substantial public and private
    investment that has made possible great strides in modern oceanography
    over the last 50 years. But a recent assessment of these assets
    revealed that significant components of the U.S. ocean infrastructure
    are aged or obsolete and that, in some cases, current capacity is
    insufficient to meet the needs of the ocean science and operational
    community. The National Ocean Council's Committee on Ocean Science,
    Education, Technology, and Operations should develop a national ocean
    and coastal infrastructure and technology strategy to achieve and
    maintain an appropriate mix of federally-supported, modern ocean
    facilities that meet the Nation's needs for quality resource
    management, science, and assessment.
    Funding Needed Assets
        There are currently several critically needed components of the
    ocean science and technology infrastructure, including:

              Surface vessels, such as new University National
            Oceanographic Laboratory System vessels and fishery research
            ships

              Undersea vehicles, including an array of manned,
            remotely operated, and autonomous submersibles

              Aircraft, both manned and unmanned

              Modern laboratories and instrumentation

              Dedicated ocean exploration platforms

              Telecommunications technology

              Environmental and biological sensors

        Congress should establish a modernization fund to support these
    critical ocean infrastructure and technology needs. Such a fund would
    be used to build or upgrade facilities and acquire related
    instrumentation and equipment. It would also provide a mechanism to
    coordinate similar equipment purchases across agencies, where feasible,
    creating significant economies of scale. Current and future spending
    priorities for the fund should be based on the National Ocean Council's
    ocean and coastal infrastructure and technology strategy.
    Transferring Technology
        The development of needed ocean technologies--whether identified by
    the national strategy or through interagency communication--requires
    directed funding and coordination. Federal agency programs will benefit
    by having a centralized office responsible for accelerating the
    transition of technological advances made by federal and academic
    laboratories into routine operations.
        NOAA should create, and Congress should fund, an Office of
    Technology to expedite the transition of experimental technologies into
    operational applications. This office should work closely with academic
    institutions, the regional ocean information programs, the National
    Science Foundation, the U.S. Navy, the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration, and other relevant agencies to achieve this mission.

    Modernizing Ocean Data and Information Products

        Ocean and coastal data are essential for understanding marine
    processes and resources. They are the foundation for the science-based
    information on which resource managers depend. But storing and
    processing large amounts of data, and converting them into information
    products useful to a broad community of end users, remains a huge
    challenge.
        There are two major challenges facing data managers today: the
    exponentially growing volume of data, which continually strains data
    ingestion, storage, and assimilation capabilities; and the need for
    timely access to these data by the user community in a variety of
    useful formats. Meeting these challenges will require a concerted
    effort to integrate and modernize the current data management system.
    The ultimate goal of improved ocean data management should be to
    effectively store, access, integrate, and utilize a wide and disparate
    range of data needed to better understand the environment and to
    translate and deliver scientific results and information products in a
    timely way.
    Interagency Coordination
        An interagency group, dedicated to ocean data and information
    planning, is needed to enhance coordination, effectively use existing
    resources for joint projects, schedule future software and hardware
    acquisitions and upgrades, and oversee strategic funding.
        Congress should amend the National Oceanographic Partnership Act to
    create and fund Ocean.IT as the lead federal interagency planning
    organization for ocean and coastal data and information management.
    Ocean.IT should consist of representatives from all federal agencies
    involved in ocean data and information management, be supported by a
    small office, and report to the National Ocean Council's Committee on
    Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations.
        Ocean.IT should coordinate the development of a viable, long-term
    data management strategy which includes:

              The implementation of an interagency plan to improve
            access to data at the national data centers, Distributed Active
            Archive Centers, and other discipline-based centers. This plan
            will need to be appropriately integrated with other national
            and international data management plans, including those for
            the Integrated Ocean Observing System and Global Ocean
            Observing System.

              Opportunities to partner with the private sector to
            enhance environmental data and information management
            capabilities.

        This organization should not have an operational role, but instead
    should be responsible solely for interagency planning and coordination,
    similar to the role of Ocean.US for the IOOS.
    Informational Product Development
        Compared to a few decades ago, an impressive array of data and
    information products for forecasting ocean and coastal conditions is
    now available from a wide range of sources. A mechanism is now needed
    to bring these data together, including the enormous amounts of
    information that will be generated by the national IOOS, and use these
    data to generate and disseminate products beneficial to large and
    diverse audiences.
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S.
    Navy should establish a joint ocean and coastal information management
    and communications program to generate information products relevant to
    national, regional, State, and local needs on an operational basis.
    This program should build on the Navy's model for operational
    oceanography and take advantage of the strengths of both agencies to
    reduce duplication and more effectively meet the Nation's information
    needs. This partnership will also allow for the prompt incorporation of
    classified military data into informational products without publicly
    releasing the raw data. A NOAA-Navy joint program would rapidly advance
    U.S. coastal and ocean analyses and forecasting capabilities using all
    available physical, biological, chemical, and socioeconomic data.
        Interactions between private companies and the NOAA-Navy national
    ocean and coastal information management and communications program
    could lead to the production of a wide range of general and tailored
    forecast and warning products. An interface between national
    forecasters at the NOAA-Navy program and the regional ocean information
    programs would also help identify ocean and coastal informational
    products of particular value at the regional and local levels.

    PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN EDUCATION

        Education has provided the skilled and knowledgeable workforce that
    made America a world leader in technology, productivity, prosperity,
    and security. However, the emergence of rampant illiteracy about
    science, mathematics, and the environment now threaten the future of
    America, its people, and the oceans on which we rely.
        Testing results suggest that, after getting off to a good start in
    elementary school, by the time U.S. students graduate from high school
    their achievement in math and science falls well below the
    international average. Ocean-related topics offer an effective tool to
    keep students interested in science, increase their awareness of the
    natural world, and boost their academic achievement in many areas. In
    addition, the links between the marine environment and human experience
    make the oceans a powerful vehicle for teaching history, culture,
    economics, and other social sciences. Yet teachers receive little
    guidance on how they might use exciting ocean subjects to engage
    students, while adhering to the national and State science and other
    education standards that prescribe their curricula.
        In addition, a 1999 study indicated that just 32 percent of the
    Nation's adults grasp simple environmental concepts, and even fewer
    understand more complex issues, such as ecosystem decline, loss of
    biodiversity, or watershed degradation. It is not generally understood
    that nonpoint source pollution threatens the health of our coastal
    waters, or that mercury in fish comes from human activities via the
    atmosphere. Few people understand the tangible value of the ocean to
    the Nation or that their own actions can have an impact on that
    resource. From excess applications of fertilizers, pesticides, and
    herbicides on lawns, to the trash washed off city streets into rivers
    and coastal waters, ordinary activities contribute significantly to the
    degradation of the marine environment. Without an acknowledgement of
    the impacts associated with ordinary behavior and a willingness to take
    the necessary action--which may incur additional costs--achieving a
    collective commitment to more responsible lifestyles and new policies
    will be difficult.
        Excellent lifelong education in marine affairs and sciences is
    essential to raising public awareness of the close connection between
    the oceans and humans, including our history and culture. This
    awareness will result in better public understanding of the connections
    among the ocean, land, and atmosphere, the potential benefits and costs
    inherent in resource use, and the roles of government and citizens as
    ocean stewards.
    Ocean Stewardship
        To successfully address complex ocean- and coastal-related issues,
    balance the use and conservation of marine resources, and realize
    future benefits from the ocean, an interested, engaged public will be
    needed. The public should be armed not only with the knowledge and
    skills needed to make informed choices, but also with a sense of
    excitement about the marine environment. Individuals should understand
    the importance of the ocean to their lives and should realize how
    individual actions affect the marine environment. Public understanding
    of human impacts on the marine environment should be balanced with
    recognition of the benefits to be derived from well-managed ocean
    resources. Because of the connection among the ocean, the atmosphere,
    and the land, inland communities need to be just as informed as seaside
    communities.
    Science Literacy
        Ocean-related education has the potential to stem the tide of
    science illiteracy threatening to undermine the Nation's health,
    safety, and security. Children have a natural curiosity about the world
    around them and this allure could be parlayed into higher achievement
    in other subjects as well. The influence of the ocean on nearly every
    aspect of daily life, and the central role it plays in the development
    of the Nation, make ocean-based studies ideal for enhancing student
    performance in areas such as geography, history, economics, policy, and
    law. Strengthening science literacy, therefore, encompasses not only
    natural sciences, but a full suite of social sciences.
    Future Ocean Leaders
        The nation needs a diverse, knowledgeable, and adequately prepared
    workforce to enhance understanding of the marine environment and make
    decisions regarding complex ocean- and coastal-related issues. The
    education of the 21st century ocean-related workforce will require not
    only a strong understanding of oceanography and other disciplines, but
    an ability to integrate science concepts, engineering methods, and
    socio-political considerations. Resolving complex ocean issues related
    to economic stability, environmental health, and national security will
    require a workforce with diverse skills and backgrounds. Developing and
    maintaining such a workforce will rely, in turn, on programs of higher
    education that prepare future ocean professionals at a variety of
    levels and in a variety of marine-related fields.

    Coordinating Ocean Education

        Although not all ocean-related federal agencies have a specific
    education mission, most have made efforts to reach out to students,
    teachers, and the public to inform them about ocean issues, sometimes
    by adding ocean-related components to larger science and environmental
    education efforts. And while it is valuable for ocean-related
    information to be included as part of broader environmental and science
    education efforts, it is also important to support educational efforts
    that focus specifically on oceans, coasts, and the human relationship
    with them.
        Federal programs can provide many opportunities for ocean-related
    education, but ultimately education is a State responsibility, and
    control is exerted primarily at the local level. Therefore, the
    interaction between education administrators at the State, district,
    and individual school levels and federal agencies will be fundamental
    to the success of any effort to use ocean-based examples to enhance
    student achievement. Aquariums, zoos, and other informal education
    centers also provide the public with opportunities to learn about the
    marine environment and should be integral components of a national
    effort to increase ocean-related education.
        Despite the existence of many positive efforts, ocean education
    remains a patchwork of independently conceived and implemented programs
    and activities. These efforts cannot provide the nationwide momentum
    and visibility needed to promote sustained ocean education for
    students, teachers, and the general public. Within the Federal
    Government, there is little discussion of ocean education, even among
    those agencies with the greatest responsibility for ocean issues.
    Different programs and funding mechanisms are not coordinated and
    resources are seldom leveraged. Even within individual agencies,
    offices that have education components often do not collaborate or
    communicate.
        To strengthen ocean education and coordinate federal education
    efforts, the National Ocean Council should establish a national ocean
    education office (Ocean.ED) under its Committee on Ocean Science,
    Education, Technology, and Operations. This office should coordinate
    and integrate federal agency programs and leverage resources; serve as
    a central, visible point of contact for K-12, university-level, and
    informal education partners; and work with all parties to develop
    coherent, comprehensive planning for ocean education efforts.
        To fulfill its coordination activities, Congress should provide
    dedicated funding for Ocean.ED operations and program implementation.
    However, this national effort is not meant to replace other successful
    programs and activities, but rather provide a mechanism for
    communication, coordination, and joining of forces.
    Developing Ocean Curricula
        The value of ocean-based learning must be recognized within local
    school districts to create a demand for ocean-related education
    products. Federal, regional, State, and local education professionals
    need to advocate for the inclusion of ocean-based examples in State and
    local education requirements and testing. Collaborative efforts will be
    needed to develop research-based, ocean-related curricular materials
    that are aligned with State and national educational standards and meet
    the needs of teachers. Ocean.ED, working with State and local education
    authorities and the research community, should coordinate the
    development and adoption of ocean-related materials and examples that
    meet existing education standards.
    Teaching the Teachers
        Higher expectations for our youth mean higher expectations for
    teachers as well. Students cannot achieve without instruction by
    capable teachers who are knowledgeable in the topics being presented.
    Thus, improving the quality of science and math education must begin
    with improving preparation of undergraduates studying to be teachers
    (referred to as pre-service teachers) and professional development for
    certified teachers in the classroom (referred to as in-service
    teachers).
        The ocean research community is brimming with potential for
    engaging K-12 educators in the excitement and satisfaction of the
    scientific enterprise, and the Nation's research infrastructure
    provides significant opportunities for formal preparation, hands-on
    involvement, and teacher certification. Although several public and
    private sector programs can provide teachers with research experience
    in ocean-related topics, access to these programs is quite limited,
    very few have long-term, stable funding, and the different efforts are
    poorly coordinated. Ocean.ED, working with academic institutions and
    local school districts, should help establish stronger and more
    effective relationships between the research and education communities
    to expand professional development opportunities for teachers and
    teacher educators.
    Bringing Oceans Education to All Students
        Through field and laboratory experiments, oceans offer a natural
    avenue for students to gain first-hand exposure to science while
    developing an awareness of the importance of the ocean. Not all
    students are near, or able to travel to, the shore, but new ocean
    research technologies represent a tremendous and virtually untapped
    avenue to overcome this limitation, allowing students anywhere to be
    involved in real oceanographic investigations. The same remote-access
    technologies that make advanced ocean research possible can also help
    students and teachers participate in collecting, analyzing, and
    distributing ocean data. Enabling students to interact with practicing
    scientists, even if they are thousands of miles away, can help create a
    lifelong affinity for learning.
        Social, economic, and cultural factors can also play an influential
    role in inhibiting a student's access to education opportunities,
    especially science-based opportunities. These factors are unusually
    strong among minority students and other groups that have been
    traditionally under-represented and under-served in scientific fields,
    including marine sciences. Repairing this broken link will depend on
    exposing minority students to ocean-related studies early in their
    education, continuing that exposure throughout their school years, and
    demonstrating the possibilities and rewards of a career in ocean-
    related fields.
        Federal agencies and academic institutions should find ways to
    provide all students with opportunities to participate in ocean
    research and exploration, virtually or in person, including summer
    programs, field trips, remote participation in ocean expeditions, and,
    most important, after-school activities. Mentoring, especially near-
    peer guidance, is critical and should be a component of any student-
    oriented program. Ocean.ED should promote partnerships among school
    districts, institutions of higher learning, aquariums, science centers,
    museums, and private laboratories to develop more opportunities for
    students to explore the marine environment, both through virtual means
    and hands-on field, laboratory, and at-sea experiences. Ocean.ED should
    also ensure that ocean-based educational programs and materials
    acknowledge cultural differences and other aspects of human diversity,
    resulting in programs that expose students and teachers from all
    cultures and backgrounds to ocean issues.
    Drawing Students into the Field of Ocean Science and Management
        The ocean community must compete with countless other professions
    in attracting the talent it needs. Success lies, in part, in promoting
    marine-related career opportunities among undergraduate students from a
    broad range of disciplines. First-hand experiences in marine fields can
    be influential in demonstrating the possibilities and rewards of an
    ocean-related career.
        Intellectually stimulating and financially attractive options for
    pursuing graduate studies in an ocean-related field must follow, so a
    student's developing interest in ocean studies is not overshadowed by
    other professions that actively pursue, encourage, and support their
    future leaders. Ocean sciences have another potentially important role
    to play at the undergraduate level. Marine science courses can be
    attractive options for non-science majors who need to fulfill science
    requirements for graduation, presenting an excellent opportunity to
    raise general ocean awareness.
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
    Science Foundation, and Office of Naval Research should support
    colleges and universities in promoting introductory marine science
    courses to expose students, including non-science majors, to these
    subjects.
    Training Ocean Professionals
        Because ocean science is fundamentally interdisciplinary, well-
    trained ocean professionals can find excellent careers in many areas
    including engineering, economics, education, law, management, policy,
    science, and technology. Individuals considering or pursuing graduate
    studies in a marine field should be aware of these options, and
    exploration of nontraditional marine areas should be encouraged.
    Equally important, professionals educated and trained in other fields
    should be made aware of the exciting opportunities available to them in
    marine-related fields.
        Ocean.ED should guide and promote the development of the Nation's
    ocean-related workforce by:

              promoting student support, diversified educational
            opportunities, and investment in innovative approaches to
            graduate education that prepare students for a broad range of
            careers in academia, government, and industry;

              encouraging graduate departments of ocean sciences
            and engineering to experiment with new or redesigned programs
            that emphasize cross-disciplinary courses of study.

        Complementing the need to create an adequate workforce is the need
    to sustain and enhance that workforce through professional development
    and continuing education opportunities. Learning does not stop once the
    formal education process is complete; ocean professionals in all fields
    must be provided the means and liberty to continually build upon their
    knowledge and skills throughout their careers.
    Informing the Public
        Public information needs are as varied as our population is
    diverse. Some individuals will benefit from detailed information on how
    specific issues directly affect their jobs or business. Others may need
    information presented in a language and media tailored to their culture
    and community. Still others seek advice on how to alter their own
    activities to support responsible ocean stewardship. This information
    is as critical for those who live in the heartland as for those who
    live near the shore.
        Informal education requires outreach programs, in partnership with
    local communities, to make contact with individuals where they live and
    work, regarding issues that affect how they live and work, in a style
    that speaks to them. Information supplied to the public should be
    timely and accurate. It should also be supported by a system that
    allows for follow-up and the acquisition of additional information or
    guidance. Ocean.ED, working with other appropriate entities, should
    enhance existing and establish new mechanisms for developing and
    delivering relevant, accessible information and outreach programs to
    enhance community education.

    Regional Outreach--Connecting the Research and Education Communities

        Collaboration between the research and education communities must
    be improved if ocean-based information, including ocean data and new
    discoveries, is to be transformed into exciting and accessible
    materials to stimulate student achievement and enhance public
    awareness. Some efforts do exist to make these connections, most
    notably through the Centers for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence
    (COSEE) and National Sea Grant College Program.
    COSEE
        The COSEE network, supported primarily through NSF, includes
    regional centers and a central coordinating office that work to
    integrate oceanographic data and information into high-quality
    curricular materials, to provide ocean scientists with opportunities to
    learn more about educational needs and requirements, to provide K-12
    teachers with the knowledge and skills they need to effectively
    incorporate ocean-related information into their lessons, and to
    deliver ocean-related information to the public. Though recognized as a
    model for enhancing education and bringing accessible ocean-related
    information to the public, COSEE currently has only seven regional
    centers, each serving a limited number of schools in its area. The
    program does not have the level of committed, long-term support
    required to fully realize it's potential.
        While COSEE is currently a National Science Foundation program,
    placing it within the National Ocean Council (NOC) structure would
    capitalize on the tremendous potential to enhance and expand the
    program. The NOC and the NSF should relocate COSEE within the larger
    NOC structure as a program to be organized, overseen, and funded
    through Ocean.ED. In addition, the number of COSEE regional offices
    should be tripled to 21 with each center receiving at least $1.5
    million a year for an initial five-year period.
    National Sea Grant College Program
        The National Sea Grant College Program was created by Congress in
    1966 as a partnership between the Nation's universities and NOAA. Sea
    Grant programs sponsor research, education, outreach, and technology
    transfer through a network of Sea Grant Colleges and research
    institutions.
        Sea Grant has forged connections between the research and education
    communities since its inception. Its programs provide K-12 teacher
    preparation and professional development programs consistent with State
    education standards, offer hands-on educational experiences for
    students, and develop research-based curricular and communications
    materials for students and the public. The Sea Grant network relies on
    longstanding local partnerships, with many connections to populations
    that have been traditionally under-represented and under-served by the
    ocean community.
        Despite its successes, however, Sea Grant is currently an under-
    utilized resource. The existing Sea Grant network requires increased
    funding to expand its roles and responsibilities, particularly in
    education and outreach. In particular, Sea Grant extension and
    communications programs, familiar to many resource managers and others
    in coastal communities, should become the primary mechanisms for
    delivering and interpreting information products developed through the
    regional ocean information programs

    Specific Federal Responsibilities

        Each federal agency with ocean-related responsibilities--most
    notably NOAA, NSF, and Office of Naval Research--has a responsibility
    to help ensure a vibrant ocean-related workforce. These agencies need
    to develop interrelated and crosscutting educational opportunities at
    the undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral levels.
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        NOAA should be particularly concerned with creating a pipeline of
    students in areas it identifies to be of critical importance to the
    agency. Opportunities should include both research experiences,
    especially exposure to mission-oriented research, and experiences
    beyond the research arena. Student exposure can begin as early as the
    junior or senior level in high school, continuing through postdoctoral
    education. A range of programs will help identify and recruit the best
    and brightest to careers in marine-related fields and ensure a
    continuing source of essential human capital. At the graduate and
    postdoctoral levels, NOAA should support fellowships and traineeships
    that emphasize interdisciplinary approaches and real-world experiences
    beyond the university setting.
        NOAA should establish a national ocean education and training
    program, patterned after the National Institutes of Health model,
    within its Office of Education and Sustainable Development to provide
    diverse, innovative ocean-related education opportunities at the
    undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral levels.
        In addition, NOAA should establish competitive ``Distinguished
    Professorships in Marine Studies'' within Sea Grant Colleges or other
    leading institutions of higher education with a demonstrated commitment
    to marine programs. Disciplines of interest to NOAA for such
    professorships could include fisheries science, climate research,
    atmospheric studies, and marine resource economics, policy,
    aquaculture, genomics, education, and ecosystem studies. The intent
    would be to create a cadre of distinguished NOAA endowed chairs at
    universities around the Nation.
    National Science Foundation
        At the undergraduate level, NSF's Research Experience for
    Undergraduates program could be expanded to include more marine-related
    experiences. At the graduate and postdoctoral levels, opportunities
    could include fellowships that encourage cross-disciplinary research,
    interdisciplinary traineeships, and master's degree fellowships.
    Programs such as NSF's Integrative Graduate Education and Research
    Training program, Centers for Learning and Teaching, and Graduate
    Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education should be supported and enhanced
    both within NSF and adopted by other federal ocean agencies. The
    National Science Foundation's Directorates of Geosciences, Biological
    Sciences, and Education and Human Resources should develop cooperative
    programs to provide diverse educational opportunities at the
    undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral levels in a range of ocean-
    related fields.
    Office of Naval Research
        The success of the Navy depends on a well-developed understanding
    of the environment in which it operates. Understanding the ocean
    environment--including the atmosphere above it, the sea floor beneath
    it, and the coastlines that encircle it--will always be a core naval
    requirement. Thus the Navy should play a central role in ensuring
    support for the education of future generations of ocean professionals.
    The Office of Naval Research should reinvigorate its support of
    graduate education in ocean sciences and engineering. This could be
    partly accomplished by increasing the number of ocean-related awards
    made under ONR's National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate
    Fellowship Program.

    SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

        Although the areas I discussed--improved governance through a new
    National Ocean Policy Framework, the incorporation of scientific
    information in decision-making, and broad public education--represent
    the overarching areas that this nation must address using the guiding
    principles I mentioned earlier, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy did
    not stop there in its deliberations and recommendations. The Commission
    also addressed a wide range of specific ocean management challenges--
    challenges that will continue to be addressed individually, but which
    now must also become part of more ecosystem based management approach,
    applying the guiding principles throughout the management process.
    These individual ocean and coastal management challenges include:
    Linking the management of coasts and watersheds; Protecting life and
    property from natural hazards; Restoring and conserving habitat; Better
    managing sediments and shorelines; Supporting marine commerce and
    transportation; Reducing water pollution from all sources, including
    from vessels and through the introduction of marine debris; Preventing
    the introduction of invasive species; Sustainably managing our
    fisheries; Protecting marine mammals and other marine species;
    Conserving corals and corals reefs; Enabling the environmentally-sound
    development of marine aquaculture; Understanding and safeguarding
    Oceans and Human Health; and, developing offshore energy resources and
    marine minerals.

    IMPROVING MANAGEMENT OF COASTS AND WATERSHEDS

        Let me begin by addressing some of the issues in our coastal areas.
    While coastal counties (located entirely or partially within coastal
    watersheds) comprise only 17 percent of the land area in the contiguous
    United States, they are home to more than 53 percent of the total U.S.
    population. Coastal population trends indicate average increases of
    3,600 people a day moving to coastal counties, reaching a total
    population of 165 million by 2015. These figures do not include the 180
    million people who visit the coast every year.
        Population growth and tourism bring many benefits to coastal
    communities, including new jobs and businesses and enhanced educational
    opportunities. The popularity of ocean and coastal areas increases
    pressures on these environments, creating a number of challenges for
    managers and decision-makers. Increased development puts more people
    and property at risk from coastal hazards, reduces and fragments fish
    and wildlife habitat, alters sedimentation rates and flows, and
    contributes to coastal water pollution.
        The pattern of coastal growth--often in scattered and unplanned
    clusters of homes and businesses--is also significant. Urban sprawl
    increases the need for infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and
    sewers, degrading the coastal environment while making fragile or
    hazard-prone areas ever more accessible to development. Because of the
    connections between coastal and upland areas, development and sprawl
    that occur deep within the Nation's watersheds also affect coastal
    resources.
        To reap economic benefits and mitigate pressures associated with
    growing coastal development, State and local governments needs more
    federal support to enhance their capacity to plan for and guide growth,
    and to employ watershed management approaches.
        A complex combination of individuals and institutions at all levels
    of government make decisions that cumulatively affect the Nation's
    ocean and coastal areas. These institutional processes determine where
    to build infrastructure, encourage commerce, extract natural resources,
    dispose of wastes, and protect or restore environmental attributes.
        Although most coastal management activities take place at State and
    local levels, coastal decision-making is also influenced by federal
    actions, including funding decisions and standard setting. Of the many
    federal programs that provide guidance and support for State and local
    decision-making, some address the management of activities and
    resources within designated geographic areas, while others address the
    management of specific resources, such as fisheries or marine mammals.
        The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) is the Federal Government's
    principal tool for fostering comprehensive coastal management. The CZMA
    created the Coastal Zone Management Program CZM Program, a unique
    partnership between the Federal and coastal State governments, whose
    goal is to balance the conservation of the coastal environment with the
    responsible development of economic and cultural interests. The tools,
    assistance, and resources provided by the CZMA have enabled States and
    territories to increase their management capacity and improve decision-
    making to enhance the condition of their coastal areas.
        However, the CZM Program can be strengthened in a number of ways,
    including by developing strong, specific, measurable goals and
    performance standards that reflect a growing understanding of the ocean
    and coastal environments and the need to manage growth in regions under
    pressure from coastal development. A large portion of federal funding
    should be linked to program performance with additional incentives
    offered to States that perform exceptionally well. In addition, a fall-
    back mechanism is needed to ensure that national goals are realized
    when a State does not adequately participate or perform. Finally, the
    land-side boundaries of State coastal management programs should also
    be reconsidered. At a minimum, each State should set the inland extent
    of its coastal zone based on the boundaries of coastal watersheds.
        In addition to the CZM Program, other federal area-based coastal
    programs include NOAA's National Estuarine Research Reserve System and
    National Marine Sanctuaries Program; EPA's National Estuary Program;
    and Fish and Wildlife Service's Coastal Program and Coastal Barrier
    Resources System. These programs have made significant progress in
    managing coastal resources in particular locations, working with
    communities and decision-makers in those areas, and fostering improved
    coordination between different levels of government. However, because
    these programs generally operate in isolation from one another, they
    cannot ensure effective management of all ocean and coastal resources
    or achievement of broad national goals. As NOAA is strengthened through
    the multi-phased approach described earlier, consolidation of area-
    based coastal resource management programs will result in more
    effective, unified strategies for managing these areas, an improved
    understanding of the ocean and coastal environment, and a basis for
    moving toward an ecosystem-based management approach.
        Federal programs related to transportation, flood insurance,
    disaster relief, wetlands permitting, dredging, beach nourishment,
    shoreline protection, and taxation also exert a profound influence on
    the coast. While these laws and policies address specific issues, and
    have each provided societal benefits, in many cases federal activities
    under their purview have inadvertently led to degradation of coastal
    environments. For this reason, policies should be re-evaluated to
    ensure consistency with national, regional, and State goals aimed at
    achieving economically and environmentally sustainable development.

    Linking Coastal and Watershed Management

        For well over a decade there has been a growing interest in
    watershed management. This approach addresses water quality and
    quantity issues by acknowledging the hydrologic connections between
    upstream and downstream areas and considering the cumulative impacts of
    all activities that take place throughout a watershed. Watersheds are
    optimal organizing units for dealing with the management of water and
    closely related resources. The benefits of a watershed focus have also
    been recognized at the State, regional, national, and international
    levels through successful efforts such as the Chesapeake Bay Program,
    the Delaware River Basin Commission, and the bi-national Great Lakes
    Commission. At the federal level, EPA has supported efforts to address
    a variety of problems at the watershed level.
        Many watershed groups are formed at the local level by community
    members concerned about water quality or the health of fish and
    wildlife populations. Often, these groups work to improve watershed
    health through partnerships among citizens, industry, interest groups,
    and government. However, the environmental and political
    characteristics of the Nation's watersheds vary tremendously, and
    watershed management initiatives can differ widely in size and scope.
    As interest in watershed management continues to grow, so does the need
    for a framework to guide such initiatives and evaluate their
    effectiveness.
        The Federal Government can play an important role by helping to
    develop this framework and by providing assistance to States and
    communities for watershed initiatives. Congress should amend the
    Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Water Act, and other federal
    laws where appropriate, to provide better financial, technical, and
    institutional support for watershed initiatives and better integration
    of these initiatives into coastal management.

    Assessing the Growing Cost of Natural Hazards

        The nation has experienced enormous and growing losses from natural
    hazards. Conservative estimates, including only direct costs such as
    those for structural replacement and repair, put the nationwide losses
    from all natural hazards at more than $50 billion a year, though some
    experts believe this figure represents only half or less of the true
    costs. More accurate figures for national losses due to natural hazards
    are unavailable because the United States does not consistently collect
    and compile such data, let alone focus on specific losses in coastal
    areas. Additionally, there are no estimates of the costs associated
    with destruction of natural environments.
        Many federal agencies have explicit operational responsibilities
    related to hazards management, while numerous others provide technical
    information or deliver disaster assistance. The nation's lead agencies
    for disaster response, recovery, mitigation, and planning are the
    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers (USACE). These agencies implement programs that specifically
    target the reduction of risks from natural hazards. NOAA and USFWS also
    have a significant influence on natural hazards management.
        Opportunities for improving federal natural hazards management,
    include: Amending federal infrastructure policies that encourage
    inappropriate development; Augmenting hazards information collection
    and dissemination; Improving the National Flood Insurance Program
    (NFIP); and Undertaking effective and universal hazards mitigation
    planning.

    Conserving and Restoring Coastal Habitat

        The diverse habitats that comprise the ocean and coastal
    environment provide tangible benefits such as buffering coastal
    communities against the effects of storms, filtering pollutants from
    runoff, and providing a basis for booming recreation and tourism
    industries. These habitats also provide spawning grounds, nurseries,
    shelter, and food for marine life, including a disproportionate number
    of rare and endangered species.
        As more people come to the coast to live, work, and visit, coastal
    habitats face increasing pressures. Most human activities in coastal
    areas provide distinct societal benefits, such as dredging rivers and
    harbors to facilitate navigation, converting forests and wetlands for
    agriculture and development, and building dams for flood control and
    hydropower. But these activities can also degrade coastal habitats and
    compromise their ability to adapt to environmental changes.
        Conserving valuable ocean and coastal areas protects significant
    habitat and other natural resources. Millions of coastal acres have
    been designated for conservation by various levels of government, and
    the tools for implementing conservation programs are found in a
    multitude of statutes. A number of federal programs aim to preserve the
    natural attributes of specific areas while providing varying levels of
    access to the public for educational, recreational, and commercial
    purposes. In addition, nonregulatory conservation techniques--including
    fee simple land acquisition, the purchase or donation of easements, tax
    incentives and disincentives, and tradable development rights--play a
    special role in enabling willing landowners to limit future development
    on their land for conservation purposes. Land acquisition and easements
    are often implemented through partnerships among governments,
    nongovernmental organizations such as land trusts, and the private
    sector. Funding and support for continued conservation of coastal and
    estuarine lands is important to ensure the ability to maintain critical
    habitats and the benefits they provide.
        Conservation is cost-effective, avoiding the much larger expense
    and scientific uncertainties associated with attempting to restore
    habitats that have been degraded or lost. Even so, once critical
    habitat has been lost, or the functioning of those areas diminished,
    restoration is often needed. Habitat restoration efforts are
    proliferating in response to heightened public awareness of and concern
    for the health of the Nation's oceans and coasts.
        Restoration efforts, particularly large-scale projects, are
    challenging in a number of ways. First, the success of these efforts
    requires an understanding about how to recreate natural systems and
    restore historical ecosystem functions, a field still in its infancy.
    Second, these efforts cross political boundaries and affect a broad
    range of human activities, requiring support and intense coordination
    among a wide range of governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders.
    While some restoration projects have been successful, continued
    progress will depend on sustained funding, government leadership and
    coordination, scientific research, and stakeholder support.
        In addition to the large-scale, regional restoration efforts, there
    are numerous small-scale efforts that collectively make significant
    contributions. These activities often demonstrate the power of public--
    private partnerships, bringing together community members, government
    agencies, and businesses to solve common problems. However, as long as
    each project continues to be planned and implemented in isolation, its
    overall impact will be constrained.
        Currently the many entities that administer conservation and
    restoration activities operate largely independently of one another,
    with no framework for assessing overall benefits in an ecosystem-based
    context. The multitude of disjointed programs prohibits a comprehensive
    assessment of the progress of conservation and restoration efforts and
    makes it difficult to ensure the most effective use of limited
    resources. An overarching national strategy that sets goals and
    priorities can also enhance the effectiveness of individual efforts and
    provide a basis for coordinating measures and evaluating progress of
    both habitat conservation and restoration activities.

    Managing Sediment and Shorelines

        Sediment in Great Lakes, coastal, and ocean waters is composed of
    inorganic and organic particles created through erosion, decomposition
    of plants and animals, and human activities. Sediment may be carried by
    wind or water from upland areas down to coastal areas, or may originate
    in the marine environment. Once sediment arrives at the ocean, it is
    transported by wind, waves, and currents in dynamic processes that
    constantly build up and wear away cliffs, beaches, sandbars, inlets,
    and other natural features.
        From a human perspective, sediment has a dual nature--desirable in
    some locations and unwanted in others. Sediment can be used to create
    or restore beaches and to renew wetlands and other coastal habitats.
    Such activities are referred to as beneficial uses. Undesirable
    sediment can cloud water and degrade wildlife habitat, form barriers to
    navigation, and contaminate the food chain for marine plants, animals
    and humans.
        The dual nature of sediment as both a threat and a resource to
    humans and the environment makes its management particularly
    challenging. To complicate matters further, the natural processes that
    create, move, and deposit sediment operate on regional scales, while
    management tends to focus on discrete locations--a single beach,
    wetland, or port. In addition, the policies that affect sediment
    location, transport, and quality fall under the jurisdiction of diverse
    programs within multiple agencies at all levels of government. This
    complex governance approach makes it difficult to manage sediment at
    the appropriate scale and in consonance, rather than in conflict, with
    natural processes.
        Coastal stakeholders have increasingly recognized the need to
    develop more proactive and preventive strategies. However, their
    absence from broad watershed planning efforts--where decisions about
    land use and water management could reduce excess and contaminated
    sediments at their source--makes such change difficult to realize. The
    nation needs both a better understanding of the interactions between
    human activities and sediment flows, and a better mechanism for
    involving all potentially affected parties.
        Moving toward an ecosystem-based management approach is a critical
    step. Participation by federal, State, and local entities in watershed
    management efforts, along with key stakeholders such as coastal
    planners and port managers, is one way to diminish upland sources of
    excess and contaminated sediment that harm the marine environment.
    Ecosystem considerations should be included in the process for
    permitting any activity that alters sediment flows.
        Dredged materials have long been used to create new land for
    commercial, residential, and infrastructure developments, as well as to
    bolster beaches and barrier islands to protect against storm and
    erosion hazards and enhance tourism and recreation. Since the 1970s,
    these beneficial uses of dredged materials have also included
    environmental enhancement, such as restoration of wetlands, creation of
    wildlife habitat, and improvement of fish habitat. Surprisingly,
    navigation-related dredged materials do not find their way into
    beneficial use projects as often as perhaps they should. This is due in
    part to sediment contamination, but also to USACE policies that favor
    disposal in open waters or in upland dump sites. These policies may be
    unnecessarily foregoing opportunities to support economic growth or
    environmental protection and may have serious unintentional
    consequences for aquatic ecosystems. A more accurate system for
    selecting and ranking projects would be based on a comparative net
    economic and environmental return for the United States rather than a
    narrow cost-benefit analysis for a specific project.
        Finally, the characterization, containment, removal, and treatment
    of contaminated sediment continue to be technically difficult and
    prohibitively expensive, and point to the importance of adopting an
    adaptive management approach to the problem. Scientifically sound
    methods for identifying contaminated sediment and developing innovative
    technologies to improve dredging and treatment of this material are
    critical steps toward improving the economic and ecological health of
    coastal areas. To be successful, these efforts will require new
    resources and effective regional planning.

    Supporting Marine Commerce and Transportation

        As the world's largest trading nation, the United States imports
    and exports more merchandise than any other country and has one of the
    most extensive marine transportation systems in the world. U.S. marine
    import-export trade is an essential and growing component of the
    national economy, accounting for nearly seven percent of the Nation's
    gross domestic product. Domestically, coastal and inland marine trade
    amounts to roughly one billion tons of cargo, worth more than $220
    billion a year. The marine transportation system itself is a highly
    complex public-private sector partnership consisting of an
    interconnected mix of waterways, ports and terminals, water-based and
    land-based intermodal connections, vessels, vehicles, equipment,
    personnel, support service industries, and users.
        For the Nation's marine transportation system to meet current and
    future demands, ongoing maintenance, improvement, and expansion will be
    required. A key prerequisite for a robust system is better
    coordination, planning, decision-making and allocation of resources at
    the federal level. In particular it will be essential to enhance the
    connections between this system and other modes of transportation, such
    as highways, railways, and airports. At the same time, in moving toward
    an ecosystem-based management approach, planning for the movement of
    cargo and passengers should be coordinated with the management of many
    other ocean and coastal uses and activities, and with efforts to
    protect the marine environment.
        Within the Federal Government, responsibilities for marine commerce
    and transportation are spread among numerous agencies, primarily the
    U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Coast Guard, USACE, NOAA,
    U.S. Customs Service, and EPA. These agencies have many roles,
    including vessel traffic management, national security, marine safety,
    waterway maintenance, environmental protection, and customs. These
    responsibilities are poorly coordinated and do not mesh well with the
    structure and function of such system. Statutory, regulatory, and
    policy differences among federal agencies with roles in marine
    transportation lead to fragmentation, competition, and in some cases,
    an inability to work collaboratively due to conflicting mandates.
    National leadership and support will be needed to achieve better
    integration within the Federal Government, better links with the rest
    of the Nation's transportation infrastructure, and coordination between
    marine transportation and other important ocean and coastal uses and
    activities. The logical agency to assume this responsibility, as it
    does for the highway, aviation, and railway systems, is DOT.
        Even with one clearly mandated lead federal agency, coordination
    will be needed among the federal and non-federal participants in the
    marine transportation system. Given the significance of domestic and
    international trade to the Nation and the complexity of the components
    that make up the system the Interagency Committee for the Marine
    Transportation System (ICMTS) should be strengthened, codified and
    placed under the oversight of the National Ocean Council. And because
    marine transportation involves many actors outside the Federal
    Government, the Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council
    should be maintained to coordinate among non-federal participants in
    the marine transportation system and a venue for providing input to the
    Federal Government on important national issues.
        An important step in allowing the U.S. marine transportation system
    to grow, while minimizing increased congestion, delays, and costs to
    U.S. businesses and consumers, is to improve the movement of cargo into
    and out of ports. Existing intermodal connections are inadequate to
    meet the expected increase in foreign and domestic trade. The nation's
    transportation infrastructure is largely an agglomeration of competing
    transportation modes, each focusing on its own priorities. While this
    approach has produced an extensive infrastructure, a national strategy
    is needed to enhance the connections among these modes, including the
    Nation's ports, and ensure greater overall effectiveness.
        DOT, working with the ICMTS, should draft a new national freight
    transportation strategy to support continued growth of the Nation's
    economy and international and domestic trade. Based on the new
    strategy, investments should be directed toward planning and
    implementation of intermodal projects of national significance. In
    developing the national freight transportation strategy, DOT should
    emphasize strategic planning with States, regions, and the public
    sector as is already being carried out for the U.S. highway system.
        Planning for the future of the U.S. marine transportation system
    requires accurate and timely information, including estimates of the
    volume of current and future cargo transportation, their origins and
    destinations, and the capacity of the various transportation modes.
    Such information is essential to understand the strengths and
    weaknesses of the current system and the challenges and opportunities
    for improving its effectiveness. DOT, working with other appropriate
    entities, should establish a national data collection, research, and
    analysis program to provide a comprehensive picture of freight flows in
    the United States and to enhance the performance of the Nation's
    intermodal transportation system. DOT should periodically assess and
    prioritize the Nation's future needs for ports and intermodal
    transportation capacity to meet expected growth in marine commerce.
        Finally, natural disasters, labor disputes, terrorist attacks, ship
    collisions, spills of hazardous materials, and many other human and
    naturally caused events can disrupt the flow of marine cargo and
    passenger services, causing severe economic and social ramifications
    nationally and internationally. Diminished port capacity could also
    affect vital military operations. In developing a national freight
    transportation strategy, DOT should work closely with the U.S.
    Department of Homeland Security and the FEMA to incorporate port
    security and other emergency preparedness requirements. The strategy
    should focus on preventing threats to national security and port
    operations and on response and recovery practices that limit the
    impacts of such events, including an assessment of the availability of
    alternative port capacity.

    COASTAL AND OCEAN WATER QUALITY

        Coastal and ocean water quality is threatened by multiple sources
    of pollution, including point and nonpoint source pollution,
    atmospheric deposition of pollutants, vessel pollution, invasive
    species, and trash being washed into the ocean and onto beaches.
    Addressing these multiple pollutants will require development of an
    ecosystem-based and watershed management approach that includes a
    variety of management tools, coordination, and ongoing monitoring.

    Addressing Coastal Water Pollution

        Coastal waters are one of the Nation's greatest assets, yet they
    are being bombarded with pollution from all directions. The heavy
    concentration of activity in coastal areas, combined with pollutants
    flowing from streams far inland and others carried through the air
    great distances from their source, are the primary causes of nutrient
    enrichment, hypoxia, toxic contamination, sedimentation, and other
    problems that plague coastal waters.
        Any solution must be founded on an ecosystem-based and watershed
    management approach involving a broad range of agencies, programs, and
    individuals. The complex array of laws, agencies, and programs that
    address water pollution, and the number of parties involved, will
    require greatly enhanced coordination among federal agencies, primarily
    EPA, NOAA, USDA, and USACE. Greater coordination is also needed between
    the Federal Government and managers at the State, territorial, tribal,
    and local levels, watershed groups, nongovernmental organizations,
    private stakeholders, and the academic and research communities.
    Solutions will also require a substantial financial investment and will
    take time.
    Reducing Point Sources of Pollution
        Over the last few decades, great strides have been made in
    controlling water pollution from point sources, although further
    improvements could be realized through increased funding, strengthened
    enforcement, and promotion of innovative approaches such as market-
    based incentives. The Commission also addresses several specific point
    sources of pollution, including wastewater treatment plants, sewer
    system overflows, septic systems, industrial facilities, and animal
    feeding operations.
    Increasing the Focus on Nonpoint Sources of Pollution
        While considerable progress has been made in reducing point sources
    of pollution, further progress toward improving coastal water quality
    will require significant reductions in nonpoint sources as well. This
    pollution occurs when rainfall and snowmelt carry pollutants over land,
    into streams and groundwater, and down to coastal waters. Ninety
    percent of impaired water bodies do not meet water quality standards at
    least in part because of nonpoint source pollution. The majority of the
    nonpoint source pollution entering rivers, estuaries, coastal waters,
    and ultimately the oceans is from agricultural and storm water runoff.
        To address nonpoint source pollution, the NOC should establish
    significant reduction of nonpoint source pollution in all impaired
    coastal watersheds as a national goal, and set measurable objectives to
    meet water quality standards. The nation has a number of opportunities
    to reduce the impacts of nonpoint sources of pollution on coastal
    waters. Because agricultural runoff contributes substantially to
    nonpoint source pollution, USDA should align its conservation programs
    and funding with other programs aimed at reducing nonpoint source
    pollution, such as those of EPA and NOAA. Other opportunities for the
    Nation to reduce nonpoint source pollution include coordination of
    federal nonpoint programs so they are mutually supportive, more
    targeted and aggressive use of State revolving loan funds, broader
    implementation of incentives and disincentives, and improved monitoring
    to assess compliance and overall progress. State and local governments
    also have important roles to play in land use planning and storm water
    management decisions.
        Watersheds are often the appropriate geographic unit for addressing
    water-related problems and collaborative watershed groups have had
    significant successes in addressing nonpoint source pollution.
    Therefore, the NOC and regional ocean councils should strengthen the
    ability of collaborative watershed groups to address problems
    associated with nonpoint source pollution by developing and
    implementing strategies to provide them with adequate technical,
    institutional, and financial support.
    Addressing Atmospheric Sources of Pollution
        Atmospheric deposition of pollutants can also harm water quality,
    aquatic resources, and human health. To address atmospheric deposition,
    EPA, States, and watershed groups should explore regional approaches
    for managing atmospheric deposition, particularly when it affects water
    bodies in states far from the source.

    Creating a National Water Quality Monitoring Network

        Pollution of the Nation's coastal waters has led to beach closures,
    oxygen depletion, health impacts from toxic contamination, and many
    other problems. Despite these threats to coastal waters, there is no
    national network in place to monitor water quality changes and their
    causes, facilitate estimates of their economic impact, and measure the
    success of management efforts. Increased monitoring is needed not only
    along the Nation's coasts, but also inland where pollutants make their
    way downstream, ultimately impacting coastal waters. A national water
    quality monitoring network is essential to support the move toward an
    ecosystem-based management approach that considers human activities,
    their benefits, and their potential impacts within the context of the
    broader biological and physical environment. An essential step toward
    controlling pollution will be to strengthen and coordinate monitoring
    efforts to provide decision makers with necessary information.
        A number of monitoring efforts are currently conducted by federal
    agencies, State governments, research institutions and academia,
    nongovernmental organizations, and individual volunteers. Existing
    monitoring programs vary in many respects, including sampling design
    and intensity, parameters tested, analytical methodology, data
    management protocols, and funding. Even when the same properties are
    measured, different data management protocols may make the integration
    of that information difficult. Consequently, while a number of
    monitoring programs exist, they are not designed to support a
    comprehensive and coordinated national monitoring network.
    Ensuring Comprehensive, Coordinated Coverage
        The nation's coastal margin is the most densely populated and
    developed region of the Nation, and its waters have been significantly
    degraded by pollution. Yet in recent years, due largely to lack of
    funding, monitoring has been extremely sparse along the coasts. Much
    remains unknown about the status of coastal waters, and increased
    monitoring will be required to make informed management decisions about
    this economically and ecologically valuable region. Yet the close
    connections between coastal and upstream waters dictate that any water
    quality monitoring network must be national in scope. NOAA, EPA, and
    USGS should lead the effort to develop a national water quality
    monitoring network that coordinates existing and planned monitoring
    efforts, including federal, State, local, and private efforts. The
    network should include a federally-funded backbone of critical stations
    and measurements needed to assess long-term water quality trends and
    conditions.
        Because of the inherent overlap between inland, coastal, and open-
    ocean monitoring and observing, the national water quality monitoring
    network should be closely linked with the Integrated Ocean Observing
    System (IOOS) and ultimately with a broad Earth observing system. NOAA
    should ensure that the water quality monitoring network includes
    adequate coverage in both coastal areas and the upland areas that
    affect them, and that the network is linked to the IOOS, to be
    incorporated eventually into a comprehensive Earth observing system.
    Creating an Effective Monitoring Network and Making Data Accessible and
            Useful
        In addition to coordinating existing monitoring efforts, an
    effective national water quality monitoring network should have
    specific goals and objectives, reflect user needs, and be helpful in
    assessing the effectiveness of management approaches. The overall
    system design should determine what and where to monitor, including
    definition of a set of core variables. Technical expertise will be
    needed to standardize procedures and establish quality control and data
    management protocols. The network should be periodically assessed and
    modified as necessary. Most important, the data collected through the
    National monitoring network should be useful to managers and
    stakeholders in evaluating management measures, determining best
    management practices, and making continual improvements in reaching
    ecosystem goals. This data should also be translated into timely and
    useful information products that are readily accessible to decision
    makers and the public. The design and implementation of the national
    monitoring network will require not only federal coordination, but also
    significant input from the States.

    Limiting Vessel Pollution and Improving Vessel Safety

        The benefits from vessel activities are significant--ships carry
    more than 95 percent of the Nation's overseas cargo--but these
    operations also present safety, security and environmental risks that
    must be effectively addressed.
        Success in addressing these concerns will depend on a broad
    domestic and international framework comprised of three key components.
    The first component is a strong voluntary commitment on the part of
    vessel owners and operators to build a workplace ethic that
    incorporates safety, security, and environmental protection as
    important and valued aspects of everyday vessel operations. Reliable
    means of measuring the success of these efforts, as reflected in crew
    and company performance, are essential and should include extensive use
    of third-party audits. The U.S. Coast Guard, through incentives and
    partnership programs, should encourage industry partners to develop
    stronger voluntary measures, particularly those that reward crew member
    contributions, as part of a continuing long-term effort that focuses on
    building a culture of safety, security, and environmental compliance.
        The second key component is effective oversight and control by the
    primary vessel regulator, the vessel's flag state. Foreign flag
    vessels, subject primarily to the jurisdiction and control of other
    governments, carry more than 90 percent of international commercial
    freight entering and departing the United States and account for 95
    percent of passenger ships and 75 percent of cargo ships operating in
    U.S. waters. Although many flag states take their responsibilities
    seriously, oversight and enforcement vary dramatically. Over the past
    decade, the International Maritime Organization has developed
    guidelines to improve flag state oversight and enforcement. However,
    implementation of these measures has met with mixed results. Mounting
    international security concerns have made effective flag state
    oversight and control more urgent today than ever before. The United
    States should work with other nations to accelerate efforts at the
    International Maritime Organization to enhance flag state oversight and
    enforcement. Initiatives should include expeditious promulgation of a
    code outlining flag state responsibilities, and development of a
    mandatory external audit regime to evaluate performance and identify
    areas where additional technical assistance can be used to best
    advantage.
        The third key framework component is effective control over vessels
    visiting U.S. ports. The Coast Guard currently carries out a port State
    control program that allocates limited inspection resources to the
    highest-risk vessels, based on an assessment of the vessel owner, flag
    state, classification society, performance history, and vessel type.
    Performance-based vessel inspections, while the most effective means of
    verifying compliance, are resource intensive. These inspections have
    played a critical role in identifying and correcting potential
    problems, and in assessing the effectiveness of overall efforts to
    improve safety and environmental compliance. Concerns have been
    expressed in Congress and elsewhere about the adequacy of Coast Guard
    resources to meet new security demands while fulfilling other important
    responsibilities. Congress should provide the U.S. Coast Guard with the
    resources necessary to sustain and strengthen the performance-based
    inspection program for marine safety and environmental protection while
    also meeting new vessel security inspection and other maritime security
    requirements. In addition, the Coast Guard should work at the regional
    and international levels to increase effective coordination and vessel
    information sharing among concerned port states.
        In addition to outlining a framework to address vessel safety,
    security and environmental concerns, our report also recommends more
    comprehensive approaches to address waste stream, oil and air pollution
    from commercial and recreational vessels. Recommendations include:
    establishing a uniform national regime to deal with cruise ship waste
    streams; ratifying and working to strengthen MARPOL Annex V1 air
    emission standards; developing comprehensive policy guidance and
    contingency plans for vessels seeking places of refuge in the United
    States; developing a long-term plan that identifies and addresses the
    greatest risks associated with marine oil transportation systems; and
    updating and accelerating efforts to reduce recreational vessel
    pollution. We also place particular emphasis on the use of market-based
    mechanisms and incentives to reduce pollution and encourage appropriate
    voluntary actions.

    Preventing the Spread of Invasive Species

        The introduction of non-native marine organisms into ports, coastal
    areas, and watersheds has damaged marine ecosystems around the world,
    costing millions of dollars in remediation, monitoring, and ecosystem
    damage. Invasive species policies are not keeping pace with the problem
    primarily because of inadequate funding, a lack of coordination among
    federal agencies, redundant programs, and outdated technologies.
    Making Prevention the First Line of Defense
        The discharge of ballast water is considered a primary pathway for
    introduction of non-native aquatic species. Exchanging ballast water in
    the middle of the ocean to reduce the risk of transferring organisms
    from one ecosystem to another is the primary management tool currently
    available for ships to control the introduction of invasive species.
        To better control the introduction of invasive species, the U.S.
    Coast Guard's national ballast water management program should: apply
    uniform, mandatory national standards; incorporate sound science in the
    development of a biologically meaningful and enforceable ballast water
    treatment standard; include a process for revising the standard to
    incorporate new technologies; ensure full consultation with EPA; and
    include an interagency review, through the NOC, of the policy for ships
    that declare they have no ballast on board.
        While ballast water is considered a primary pathway, there are also
    other important ship-related sources of non-native aquatic species,
    including ships' hulls, anchors, navigational buoys, drilling
    platforms, and floating marine debris. Other pathways include
    intentional and unintentional human introductions of fish and
    shellfish, and illegally released organisms from the aquaculture,
    aquarium, horticulture, and pet industries. There is increasing concern
    that an expanding trade through the Internet and dealers of exotic pets
    is exacerbating the invasive species problem.
        To address these pathways of introduction, the NOC, working with
    the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the National Invasive
    Species Council, should coordinate public education and outreach
    efforts on aquatic invasive species, with the aim of increasing public
    awareness about the importance of prevention.
    Accelerating Detection and Response
        Only the most draconian prevention strategy could hope to eliminate
    all introductions of non-native species and thus prevent the
    possibility of an invasion. Yet no effective mechanism is in place for
    rapidly responding to newly discovered aquatic invasions when they do
    occur. Therefore, the National Invasive Species Council and the Aquatic
    Nuisance Species Task Force, working with other appropriate entities,
    should establish a national plan for early detection of invasive
    species and a system for prompt notification and rapid response.
    Improving the Control of Invasive Species
        As biological invasions continue, there is a pressing need to
    improve the control of invasive species by reducing the overlaps and
    redundancies caused by the involvement of so many agencies with
    insufficient interagency coordination. The NOC should review and
    streamline the current proliferation of federal and regional programs
    for managing marine invasive species, and coordinate federal, regional
    and State efforts.
        The study of marine biological invasions is a relatively new
    research area and little is understood about how or why certain species
    become invasive, what pathways of introduction are most important, and
    whether certain factors make an ecosystem more susceptible to
    invasions. To better understand marine biological invasions, the NOC
    should coordinate the development and implementation of an interagency
    plan for research and monitoring to understand and prevent aquatic
    species invasions.

    Reducing Marine Debris

        The trash and other waste that drifts around the global ocean and
    washes up on the Nation's shores poses a serious threat to fishery
    resources, wildlife, and habitat, as well as human health and safety.
    Approximately 80 percent of debris is washed off the land, blown by
    winds, or intentionally dumped from shore, while 20 percent comes from
    vessels and offshore platforms.
        NOAA currently addresses marine debris as a part of several other
    efforts, but there is a need to coordinate, strengthen, and increase
    the visibility of the marine debris efforts within NOAA by creating a
    centralized marine debris program within the agency. This program
    should be coordinated with EPA's marine debris activities, as well as
    with the significant efforts conducted by private citizens, State,
    local, and nongovernmental organizations.
    Interagency Coordination
        Although strengthening NOAA's work on marine debris through
    establishment of an office within the agency is an important step, an
    interagency committee under the NOC is needed to unite all appropriate
    federal agencies around the issue. Such a committee could support
    existing marine debris efforts by agencies and nongovernmental
    organizations, and should expand and better coordinate national and
    international marine debris efforts, including: public outreach and
    education; partnerships with State and local governments, community
    groups, nongovernmental organizations, and industry; and monitoring,
    identification and research.
    Eliminating Derelict Fishing Gear
        Whether intentionally discarded or unintentionally lost during
    storms or fishing operations, derelict fishing gear poses serious
    threats, entrapping marine life, destroying coral reefs and other
    habitat, and even posing danger to humans. Although derelict fishing
    gear is a worldwide problem, currently no international treaties or
    plans of action address it. A strong need exists for the U.S.
    Department of State and NOAA, working with the United Nations Food and
    Agriculture Organization, to develop a plan of action to address
    derelict fishing gear, to be implemented on a regional, multi-national
    basis. In addition, within the United States, a public-private
    partnership program is needed to prevent, remove, and dispose of
    derelict fishing gear.
    Ensuring Appropriate Port Reception Facilities
        Under requirements for port reception facilities in Annex V of
    MARPOL, member nations must provide waste disposal facilities in their
    ports to receive waste from ships. Despite this requirement, many ports
    do not have adequate facilities. In addition, Annex V calls for the
    designation of Special Areas that receive a higher level of protection
    than is required in other ocean areas. Special Areas have been
    designated for many parts of the world, however, for a Special Area to
    receive extra protection, there must first be a demonstration of
    adequate port reception facilities. Some important Special Areas, such
    as the Wider Caribbean, are not yet eligible to receive extra
    protection because of inadequate port reception facilities. Therefore,
    the U.S. Department of State should increase efforts to ensure that all
    port reception facilities meet the criteria necessary to allow
    implementation of Special Areas protections.

    ENHANCING THE USE AND PROTECTION OF OCEAN RESOURCES

        The ocean's biological and mineral resources are of enormous value
    to the Nation, not only for their direct economic output, but also for
    their incalculable aesthetic importance.
        The commercial fishing industry's total value exceeds $28 billion
    annually, with the recreational saltwater fishing industry valued at
    around $20 billion. NOAA estimates that U.S. coral reefs cover
    approximately 7,600 square miles. In 2001, coral reefs in the Florida
    Keys alone supported $105 million in income and more than 8,000 jobs.
    Further, approximately one half of all federally managed commercial
    fish species depend on coral reefs for at least part of their life
    cycle. Currently, energy development in federal waters accounts for
    more than 30 percent of domestic oil production and 25 percent of
    natural gas, with a total annual value of between $25-$40 billion, and
    a contribution of about $5 billion in royalties to the U.S. Treasury.
        In order to provide for sustainable use, management needs to be
    strengthened in a broader context that looks at impacts of management
    decisions on the ecosystem as a whole.

    Fisheries Management

        The last 30 years has seen the evolution of an industry from being
    largely unregulated but with seemingly boundless potential, to one that
    is highly regulated and struggling to regain its potential as we move
    toward a sustainable, ecosystem-based fisheries management regime.
        In 1976, based in part on the recommendations of the Stratton
    Commission, Congress approved the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
    and Management Act to manage and assert U.S. control over fishery
    resources within 200 nautical miles of the coast. Eight Regional
    Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) were created to develop management
    plans for fisheries in federal waters. The Act required regional plans
    to be consistent with broad national guidelines, but otherwise granted
    considerable flexibility to the RFMCs. The regional flexibility that
    had been seen as a great strength of the new law now showed its
    downside as some RFMCs set unsustainable harvest levels, leading to the
    collapse or near-collapse of several important fisheries.
        In the over 30 years since the Stratton report, some fishery
    management bodies have revealed fundamental weaknesses in the system
    that led to over-exploited stocks and ecosystem degradation in some
    regions. However, the management practices in some regions,
    particularly the North Pacific, protected fisheries from over-
    exploitation and served as a model for many of the Commission's
    fisheries recommendations. The Commission fishery recommendations can
    be grouped into six areas: strengthening the link between science and
    management, clarifying jurisdiction representation, expanding the use
    of dedicated access privileges, improving enforcement, and
    strengthening international management.
        The link between fishery management decisions and peer-reviewed
    scientific info must be strengthened, including developing an expanded
    research program that is more responsive to managers' needs. To
    accomplish this, a number of management improvements are needed. RFMCs
    should be required to rely on the advice of their Scientific and
    Statistical Committees (SSCs), especially when setting harvest levels.
    RFMCs should not be allowed to approve measures less conservative than
    recommended by the SSC. SSC members should be nominated by the RFMCs
    and appointed by the NOAA Administrator. To ensure that SSC members are
    of the highest quality, their credentials and potential conflicts of
    interest should be reviewed by an external organization. To ensure
    sufficient external review of the scientific advice of the SSCs, NOAA
    should develop a standardized, independent peer-review process for
    implementation by all RFMCs. To ensure that needed conservation
    measures are implemented in a timely manner, default measures should be
    developed that would go into effect with a lack of action on the part
    of the RFMCs. Finally, to ensure that manager's have the information
    they require, NOAA's process for developing research plans should
    incorporate manager's priorities to the extent practicable. An expanded
    cooperative research program and increased emphasis on in-season
    recreational fishery data collection should be an important component
    of this effort.
        Responsibilities and jurisdiction of the various federal and
    interstate fishery management entities need to be clarified, and the
    representation on the federal regional fishery management councils need
    to be broadened. To ensure that jurisdictional confusion does not lead
    to delaying conservation measures, Congress should assign a lead
    management authority among the various federal and interstate
    management authorities, based primarily on proportion of catch
    occurring within each entities jurisdiction. To ensure that the RFMCs
    have appropriate representation, particularly as we move toward
    ecosystem-based management, the governors should be required to submit
    a broader slate of candidates to be appointed by the NOAA
    Administrator. To ensure that RFMCs members have the necessary
    knowledge to properly manage fisheries, members should be required to
    take a training course. Finally, to ensure that all interstate fishery
    commissions have the necessary means to manage the fisheries under
    their jurisdiction, Congress should grant authority similar to the
    Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act to the Gulf and
    Pacific States Commissions.
        To reverse existing incentives that create an unsustainable ``race
    for the fish,'' fishery managers should explore widespread adoption of
    dedicated access privileges to promote conservation and help reduce
    over-capitalization. Congress should amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act to affirm that fishery managers are
    authorized to institute dedicated access privileges, subject to meeting
    national guidelines; and every federal, interstate, and State fishery
    management entity should consider the potential benefits of adopting
    dedicated access programs. In addition, Congress should directly
    address over-capitalization by revising federal programs that subsidize
    over-capitalization, as well as work with NOAA to develop programs that
    permanently address over-capitalization in fisheries.
        Fishery enforcement must be improved through adoption of better
    technology, such as Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) and better
    cooperation among federal agencies and States. Funding should be
    increased for Joint Enforcement Agreements between NOAA's National
    Marine Fisheries Service and coastal states as the best method of
    restoring the enforcement presence of the Coast Guard diminished
    because of the increased need for maritime security following the 9/11
    terrorist attacks. The expanded use of VMS is another cost effective
    way of increasing enforcement capabilities.
        Fishery management needs to continue the move toward ecosystem-
    based management in order to improve management, reduce conflicts
    between socio-economic impacts and biological sustainability, and
    provide a proper forum to address difficult management issues. In
    particular, issues such as habitat damage and bycatch should be
    approached from an ecosystem basis and management plans should be
    designed to reduce impacts from these factors.
        Because many of the stocks targeted by U.S. fishermen traverse
    international waters, it will be impossible to conserve some stocks
    without the aid of other countries. In addition, many endangered
    species such as sea turtles and whales travel the high seas. To promote
    international cooperation to conserve living marine resources, the
    Commission makes the following recommendations. The U.S. should work to
    encourage other countries to adopt and enforce existing international
    agreements to promote worldwide adoption of sustainable fisheries
    practices, in particular the Fish Stocks Agreement and the United
    Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's Compliance Agreement. The
    National Ocean Council should recommend effective methods to promote
    adoption of other important international conservation agreements, such
    as the Code of Conduct for responsible fisheries. In addition, the
    United States should continue to press for the inclusion of
    environmental objectives--particularly those specified in international
    environmental agreements--as legitimate elements of trade policy.

    Marine Mammals and Endangered Species

        Because of their intelligence, visibility and frequent interactions
    with humans, marine mammals hold a special place in the minds of most
    people and are afforded a higher level of protection than fish or other
    marine organisms. The American public has also consistently been
    supportive of efforts to prevent species from becoming endangered or
    extinct from human-caused activities. Because of the concern that the
    American public has shown for marine mammals and endangered species,
    specific legislation was enacted to provide them greater protection.
    The Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act are
    landmark laws that have protected marine mammals and populations in
    danger of extinction since their passage. However, both Acts need to
    move toward a more ecosystem-based regime to improve protections for
    these populations.
        The biggest threat to marine mammals worldwide today is their
    accidental capture or entanglement in fishing gear (known as
    ``bycatch''), killing hundreds of thousands of animals a year.
    Commercial harvesting contributed to major declines in the populations
    of marine mammals but only a few nations still allow hunting for
    purposes other than subsistence. Hunters from those nations continue to
    kill hundreds of thousands of seals, whales, dolphins, and other marine
    mammals each year while legal subsistence hunting accounts for
    thousands more. Other potential causes of death and injury to marine
    mammals, such as ships strikes, pollution and toxic substances, and
    noise from ships and sonar, cause many fewer deaths than bycatch and
    hunting.
        The threats to endangered marine species such as sea turtles and
    sea birds are myriad and not easily categorized. One factor that is
    common to declines in many species is the destruction or degradation of
    their natural habitat. Thus the successful recovery of a species
    depends to a large degree on protection or restoration of this habitat.
        One of the critical components to improving protections for
    protected species is expanding the knowledge base. We know very little
    about the basic biology for these species, particularly marine mammals.
    The lack of basic scientific information has perhaps contributed to the
    frequent mismatch between causes of impacts to marine mammal
    populations and the amount of management attention paid to them. For
    example, the top two impacts to marine mammals by orders of magnitude
    are bycatch and hunting, yet most recent attention is being paid to
    other causes. Under ecosystem-based management, the most critical
    impacts should be addressed first. However, our overwhelming lack of
    knowledge of marine mammal and endangered species makes it difficult to
    properly rank and address impacts to these species. As the foundation
    to improving management, the Commission recommends an expanded
    research, technology, and engineering program, coordinated through the
    National Ocean Council, to examine and mitigate the effects of human
    activities on marine mammals and endangered species. In particular,
    Congress should expand federal funding for research into ocean
    acoustics and the potential impacts of noise on marine mammals. The
    U.S. should increase efforts to extend the benefits of the expanded
    research program to other countries.
        Another important component to improving protections for protected
    species will be to clarify and coordinate federal agency actions. The
    Commission recommends that jurisdiction for marine mammals be
    consolidated within NOAA, and that the NOC improve coordination between
    NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to the
    implementation of the Endangered Species Act, particularly for
    anadromous species or when land-based activities have significant
    impacts on marine species.
        The MMPA, with limited exceptions, prohibits the hunting, killing,
    or harassment of marine mammals. One of the exceptions authorizes the
    issuance of permits for the unintentional and incidental taking of
    small numbers of marine mammals provided it has only a negligible
    impact on the species. This provision has been problematic because
    terms such as small numbers and negligible impact are not defined in
    the Act, resulting in a lack of clarity about when a permit is
    necessary and under what circumstances it should be granted. Congress
    should amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to require the NOAA to
    more clearly specify categories of activities that are allowed without
    a permit, those that require a permit, and those that are prohibited.
    Specifically, Congress should amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to
    revise the definition of harassment to cover only activities that
    meaningfully disrupt behaviors that are significant to the survival and
    reproduction of marine mammals.
        As an adjunct to clarifying allowed and permitted activities, the
    permitting process itself should be streamlined. Specifically,
    programmatic permitting should be used where possible to simplify
    agency permitting.

    Coral Communities

        Tropical and deep water coral communities are among the oldest and
    most diverse ecosystems, rivaling tropical rain forests in biodiversity
    and economic value. But, tropical coral reef health is rapidly
    declining, with pristine reefs being rare or nonexistent and possibly
    one-third of the world's reefs severely damaged. The existing
    management structure is inadequate and agencies and laws overseeing
    coral reef management have made little progress in actually protecting
    corals. Immediate action is needed to avoid irreversible harm.
        In the short-term, the Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF) should be
    strengthened by placing it under the NOC, and adding the U.S.
    Department of Energy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
    strengthened CRTF should begin immediate development of actions to
    reverse impacts of coastal pollution and fishing on coral communities.
    The EPA and USDA, at the minimum, should be charged with implementing
    the coastal pollution reduction plan and NOAA should be charged with
    implementing the plan for reversing impacts from fishing. In addition,
    the CRTF's area of responsibility should be expanded to include deep
    water coral communities as well.
        In the long-term, the Congress should enact a ``Coral Protection
    and Management Act'' that provides direct authority to protect and
    manage corals, and provides a framework for research and cooperation
    with international protections efforts. This legislation should include
    the following elements: support for mapping, monitoring, and research
    programs; support for new research and assessment activities to fill
    critical information gaps; liability provisions for damages to coral
    reefs similar to those in the Marine Protection, Research, and
    Sanctuaries Act; support for outreach activities to educate the public
    about coral conservation and reduce human impacts; and, support for
    U.S. involvement, particularly through the sharing of scientific and
    management expertise, in bilateral, regional, and international coral
    reef management programs.
        As the world's largest importer of ornamental coral reef resources,
    the United States has a particular responsibility to help eliminate
    destructive harvesting practices and ensure the sustainable use of
    these resources. Many of these resources are harvested by methods that
    destroy reefs and over-exploit ornamental species. A balance is needed
    between sustaining the legitimate trade in ornamental resources and
    sustaining the health and survival of the world's coral reef resources.
    The U.S. should develop domestic standards for the importation of coral
    species, to ensure that U.S. citizens do not indirectly promote
    unsustainable practices in coral harvesting countries.

    Aquaculture

        Marine aquaculture has the potential to supply part of the ever
    increasing domestic and worldwide demand for seafood. However, there
    are two major concerns that need to be addressed: environmental
    problems with existing aquaculture operations, particularly net-pen
    facilities, and a confusing, inconsistent array of State and federal
    regulations that hinder private sector investment.
        To oversee a comprehensive and environmentally sound management
    regime, Congress should amend the National Aquaculture Act to designate
    NOAA as the lead federal agency for implementing a national policy for
    environmentally and economically sustainable marine aquaculture and
    create an Office of Sustainable Marine Aquaculture in NOAA.
        This new NOAA office should develop a single, multi-agency federal
    permit for the aquaculture industry and ensure aquaculture facilities
    meet State and national environmental standards to lessen impacts from
    escapement and disease and protect the sustainability and diversity of
    wild stocks.
        Furthermore, the permitting and leasing system and implementing
    regulations should: reflect a balance between economic and
    environmental objectives consistent with national and regional goals;
    be coordinated with guidelines and regulations developed at the State
    level; include a system for the assessment and collection of a
    reasonable portion of the resource rent generated from marine
    aquaculture projects that use ocean resources held in public trust;
    require applicants to post a bond to ensure that any later performance
    problems will be remedied and that abandoned facilities will be safely
    removed at no additional cost to the taxpayers; and, require the
    development, dissemination, and adoption by industry of best management
    practices that are adaptable to new research and technology advances.
        Enhanced investments in research, demonstration projects, and
    technical assistance can help the industry address environmental
    issues, conduct risk assessments, develop technology, select species,
    and improve best management practices. It is also vital for developing
    fair and reasonable policies, regulations, and management measures.
    Most of the federal research to support marine aquaculture has been
    carried out under the auspices of NOAA's National Sea Grant College
    Program, which funds primarily university-based research. Congress
    should increase funding for expanded marine aquaculture research,
    development, training, extension, and technology transfer programs in
    NOAA. The Office of Sustainable Marine Aquaculture should set
    priorities for the research and technology programs, in close
    collaboration with academic, business, and other stakeholders.
        Because the U.S. market for seafood is one of the largest in the
    world, we can use our market power as a positive force for promoting
    sustainable, environmentally sound aquaculture practices not only in
    the U.S., but the world as well. The U.S. should work to ensure that
    all countries adhere to aquaculture standards such as are in the UN FAO
    Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

    Oceans and Human Health

        Beneficial and harmful links between human health and ocean health
    exist. While several important medical treatments are based on
    chemicals discovered in marine animals, increasingly common phenomena
    such as harmful algal blooms have demonstrated ability to negatively
    impact human health. The health of marine ecosystems is affected by
    human activities such as pollution, global warming, and fishing. But in
    addition, human health depends on thriving ocean ecosystems. A better
    understanding about the many ways marine organisms affect human health,
    both for good by providing drugs and bioproducts, and for bad by
    causing human ailments, is needed.
        Congress should establish an oceans and human health initiative to
    create a competitive grant program and coordinate federal activities.
    Existing programs at NOAA, NSF and the National Institute of
    Environmental Health Sciences should be coalesced in this initiative.
    This initiative should be expanded to include other pertinent agencies
    such as the EPA and FDA.
        New knowledge and technologies are needed to detect and mitigate
    microbial pathogens. These methods must be quick and accurate so that
    information can be communicated to resource managers and the coastal
    community in a timely manner. As they are developed, technologies need
    to be integrated into biological and biochemical sensors that can
    continuously monitor high-risk sites. It is important that site-
    specific sensor data and satellite sensor data be incorporated into the
    IOOS. To accomplish this task, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, National Science Foundation, National Institute of
    Environmental Health Sciences, and other appropriate entities should
    support the development and implementation of improved methods for
    monitoring and identifying pathogens and chemical toxins in ocean
    waters and organisms.

    Offshore Energy and Mineral Resources

        Oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
    provides over a quarter of our domestic oil and gas reserves, and
    contributes thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to our economy.
    In addition to its responsibilities for living marine resources, the
    Federal Government also exercises jurisdiction over nonliving
    resources, energy and other minerals located in the waters and sea bed
    of the more than 1.7 billion acres of OCS. Offshore oil and gas
    development has the most mature and broadest management structure of
    all such resources. Although controversial in many areas, the process
    for oil and gas leasing and production is well institutionalized,
    reasonably comprehensive, and could be a model for new ocean-based
    renewable energy projects as part of a coordinated offshore management
    regime.
        MMS's Environmental Studies Program (ESP) is a major source of
    information about the impacts of OCS oil and gas activities on the
    human, marine, and coastal environments. Since 1986, annual funding for
    the program has decreased, in real dollars, from a high of $56 million
    to approximately $18 million in 2003. The erosion in ESP funding has
    occurred at a time when more and better information, not less, is
    needed. There continues to be a need to better understand the
    cumulative and long-term impacts of OCS oil and gas development,
    especially in the area of low levels of persistent organic and
    inorganic chemicals, and their cumulative or synergistic effects.
        The U.S. Department of the Interior should reverse recent budgetary
    trends and increase funding for the Minerals Management Service's
    Environmental Studies Program. The development of technologies and
    exploratory activities moving into very deep waters requires an
    increase in the MMS environmental studies program to keep track of new
    and emerging environmental issues. In addition to this program, the
    development of the IOOS could provide better information that can
    improve management of offshore resources. Industry and federal agency
    partnerships should allow use of industry facilities to be incorporated
    into the IOOS.
        To make certain that the federal-State partnership is strengthened
    and that critical marine ecosystems are protected, more investment of
    the resource rents generated from OCS energy leasing and production
    into the sustainability of ocean and coastal resources is necessary.
    Specifically, some portion of the revenues received by the Federal
    Government annually for the leasing and extraction of nonrenewable
    offshore resources need to be allocated to all coastal states for
    programs and efforts to enhance the conservation and sustainable
    development of renewable ocean and coastal resources. Congress should
    ensure that revenues received from leasing and extraction of oil and
    gas and other new offshore uses are used to promote sustainable
    development of renewable ocean and coastal resources through creation
    of a grant program to all coastal states, with a larger share going to
    OCS producing States.
        Conventional oil and gas are not the only fossil-based fuel sources
    located beneath ocean floors. Methane hydrates are solid, ice-like
    structures composed of water and natural gas. They occur naturally in
    areas of the world where methane and water can combine at appropriate
    conditions of temperature and pressure, such as in thick sediments of
    deep ocean basins, at water depths greater than 500 meters. The
    estimated amount of natural gas in the gas hydrate accumulations of the
    world greatly exceeds the volume of all known conventional gas
    resources. Conservative estimates reveal the quantity is enough to
    supply all of the Nation's energy needs for more than 2,000 years at
    current rates of use. However, there is still no known practical and
    safe way to develop the gas and it is clear that much more information
    is needed to determine if methane hydrates can become a commercially
    viable and environmentally acceptable source of energy. The National
    Ocean Council (NOC), working with the U.S. Department of Energy and
    other appropriate entities, should determine whether methane hydrates
    can contribute significantly to meeting the Nation's long-term energy
    needs. If such contribution looks promising, the NOC should determine
    how much the current investment in research and development efforts
    should be increased.
        There is continued interest in offshore renewable technologies as a
    means of reducing U.S. reliance on potentially unstable supplies of
    foreign oil, diversifying the Nation's energy mix, and providing more
    environmentally benign sources of energy. As long as federal agencies
    are forced to bootstrap their authorities to address these activities,
    the Nation runs the risk of unresolved conflicts, unnecessary delays,
    and uncertain procedures. What is urgently needed is a comprehensive
    offshore management regime, developed by the National Ocean Council,
    which is designed to review all offshore uses in a greater planning
    context. A coherent and predictable federal management process for
    offshore renewable resources that is able to weigh the benefits to the
    Nation's energy future against the potential adverse effects on other
    ocean users, marine life, and the ocean's natural processes, should be
    fully integrated into the broader management regime. Congress, with
    input from the National Ocean Council, should enact legislation
    providing for the comprehensive management of offshore renewable energy
    development as part of a coordinated offshore management regime.
    Specifically, this legislation should: streamline the process for
    licensing, leasing, and permitting renewable energy facilities in U.S.
    waters; subsume existing statutes, such as the Ocean Thermal Energy
    Conversion Act, and should be based on the premise that the oceans are
    a public resource; and, ensure that the public receives a fair return
    from the use of that resource and development rights are allocated
    through an open, transparent process that takes into account State,
    local, and public concerns.

    ADVANCING INTERNATIONAL OCEAN SCIENCE AND POLICY

        The United States has traditionally been a leader in international
    ocean policy-making and has participated in the development of many
    international agreements that govern the world's ocean areas and
    resources. That leadership must be maintained and reinvigorated. The
    international ocean challenges of the 21st century will require
    improved collaboration among domestic and international policy-makers
    to establish ambitious objectives and take the actions necessary to
    achieve them.
        The United States can best advance its own ocean interests and
    positively contribute to the health of the world's oceans by first
    ensuring that U.S. domestic policies and actions embody exemplary
    standards of wise, sustainable ocean management. The new national ocean
    policy framework will be instrumental in setting this positive tone for
    the international ocean community. The Commission also recommends
    several specific actions to maintain and reinvigorate the leadership of
    U.S. in global ocean issues:

    U.S. Accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

        The United States should accede to the United Nations Convention on
    the Law of the Sea--the preeminent legal framework for addressing
    international ocean issues. Until that step is taken, the Nation will
    not be able to fully participate in bodies established under the
    Convention that make decisions on issues of importance to all coastal
    and seafaring nations, or to assume its important leadership role and
    protect United States interests as the law of the sea evolves.

    Enhanced Coordination Among U.S. Ocean-Related Federal Agencies

        Within the U.S. Government, the U.S. Department of State is the
    lead agency for most ocean-related international negotiations. However,
    the role of more specialized agencies is extremely important due to the
    science and resource focus of many multilateral ocean issues.
    Consistent involvement of a wide range of experts is essential both to
    establish international standards that reflect U.S. interests, and to
    ensure that subsequent actions by the United States and others are in
    accordance with those standards.
        A new mechanism is needed to provide the optimum degree of
    coordination among U.S. agencies sharing responsibility and knowledge
    of international ocean issues. An interagency committee should be
    established under the auspices of the National Ocean Council to enhance
    coordination and collaboration among U.S. Government agencies,
    strengthening U.S. performance at international negotiations and
    improving implementation of international ocean policy.
        Successful national and international ocean policy depends on sound
    scientific information. It is essential, therefore, to ensure that U.S.
    policy-makers benefit from timely advice and guidance from the U.S.
    marine scientific community. This, in turn, requires procedures that
    both give scientists the opportunity to provide input and policy-makers
    the chance to carefully consider their recommendations. The State
    Department should increase its internal training and scientific support
    to ensure better integration of ocean-related scientific expertise in
    policy and program development and implementation. In addition, the
    Department should develop more effective mechanisms to facilitate input
    from other government agencies and the broader scientific community.

    Building International Capacity in Ocean Science and Management

        Implementation of international ocean policy and improved
    management of ocean and coastal resources worldwide are affected by the
    adequacy of the science and management capacity of every coastal
    nation. To maintain progress on a global scale, the United States and
    other capable nations must assist coastal nations of more limited
    means. To be most effective, assistance should be science-based and
    developed within the context of an ecosystem-based approach. The U.S.
    Department of State should offer strong support for U.S. scientists
    conducting research programs around the world. Existing international
    partnerships should be strengthened and new partnerships promoted to
    facilitate the conduct of international research.
        Capacity-building efforts should be concentrated on issues that
    have been identified as particularly critical for the health of an
    ecosystem or marine species, and have the greatest potential for
    positive impacts. In most instances, effective capacity-building will
    require long-term efforts to change detrimental practices and build
    support for new, sustainable management approaches. These efforts will
    require a funding commitment sufficient to make the changes needed to
    preserve or rebuild healthy ecosystems. As part of its international
    leadership role, the United States should increase its efforts to
    enhance long-term ocean science and management capacity in other
    nations through funding, education and training, technical assistance,
    and sharing best practices, management techniques, and lessons learned.

    IMPLEMENTING A NEW NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY

        To implement the blueprint for a new national ocean policy outlined
    in our report, several key elements are required: the will to move
    forward, the actors to carry out the changes, and the resources to
    support sustainable management of our oceans and coasts. Congress and
    the President have already demonstrated political will by enacting the
    Oceans Act of 2000 and appointing the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
    Our preliminary report specifies who should carry out each
    recommendation and discusses what the costs will be and how they can be
    covered.

    Who Should Take Action

        In our report, we make 198 specific recommendations to implement a
    more coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy. One of our
    goals was to ensure that every recommendation was aimed at a clear
    responsible party who could take action and be held accountable over
    time. As you read the report, you will see the recommendations grouped
    according to subject area. However, to highlight the assignment of
    responsibility, we also present a summary of all 198 recommendations,
    organized by the primary actors, in Chapter 31.
        In brief:

              We include 54 recommendations for Congress, 69 for
            Executive Branch leaders, and 125 for Federal Government
            agencies.

              Of the 69 recommendations for Executive Branch
            leaders, eight recommendations are for the President, 45 for
            the new National Ocean Council, 13 for the offices under the
            NOC's Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and
            Operations, two for the Assistant to the President, and one for
            the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy.

              Of the 125 recommendations aimed at Federal
            Government agencies, 44 are for NOAA, 20 for EPA, 10 for the
            U.S. Coast Guard, nine for NSF, nine for the Department of the
            Interior, eight for the U.S. Navy, eight for the Department of
            State, six for the Department of Transportation, five for NASA,
            three for the National Institute of Environmental Health
            Sciences, two for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, two for the
            Department of Agriculture, and one for the Department of Labor.

        (Note that some recommendations include more than one actor. As a
    result, the breakdown by organization adds up to more than 198.)
        Although we have avoided targeting States (and local, territorial,
    and tribal governments) as the primary actors in our recommendations,
    they have a critically important role to play in the new National Ocean
    Policy Framework--through establishment of regional ocean councils, and
    in areas such as coastal development, water quality, education, natural
    hazards planning, fishery management, habitat conservation, and much
    more. States should also participate in the design and implementation
    of regional ocean observing systems and their integration into the
    national IOOS, as well as other research and monitoring activities.

    How Can the Needed Changes Be Achieved: Costs and Revenues

        The recommendations I've just alluded to outline a series of
    ambitious proposals for improving the use and protection of the
    Nation's oceans and coasts. But meaningful change requires meaningful
    investments. In the case of the ocean, such investments are easy to
    justify.
        As I explained earlier and as we discuss in more detail in the
    preliminary report, more than one trillion dollars, or one-tenth of the
    Nation's annual gross domestic product, is generated each year within
    communities immediately adjacent to the coast. By including the
    economic contribution from all coastal watershed counties, that number
    jumps to around five trillion dollars, or fully one half of our
    nation's economy. Those contributions are threatened by continued
    degradation of ocean and coastal environments and resources.
        Modest levels of new funding will reap substantial dividends by
    supporting new management strategies to sustain our ocean and coastal
    resources and maximize their long-term value.
    Costs
        From the start, this Commission pledged to be clear about the costs
    of its recommendations. In keeping with that goal, the final report
    will include a complete accounting of the startup, short-term, and
    continuing costs associated with each issue area, including an analysis
    of federal, State, and local budget implications to the extent
    possible.
        At this stage, I am able to provide a rough estimate of overall new
    federal spending associated with the Commission's preliminary
    recommendations. The Commission continues to refine its calculations
    and the information on which they are based, and will have more
    detailed costs and revenue estimates in the final report to the
    Congress and the President.
        The total estimated additional cost for initiatives outlined in our
    report will be approximately:

              $1.2 billion in the first year

              $2.4 billion in the second year

              $3.2 billion per year in ongoing costs thereafter.

        A few special investments are worth highlighting:

              Creation of the National Ocean Council and related
            elements, with first-year costs of $1 million and ongoing
            annual costs of $2 million.

              Expansion of ocean education programs, with first-
            year costs of $7 million, second year costs of $251 million,
            and ongoing annual costs of $246 million.

              Establishment of an integrated ocean observing
            system, with first-year costs of $290 million, second-year
            costs of $312 million, and ongoing annual costs of $652
            million.

              Increased ocean science and exploration, with first-
            year costs of $230 million, second-year costs of $395 million,
            and ongoing annual costs of $760 million.

              Dedicated federal support for needed State actions,
            with first-year costs of $500 million, second-year costs of
            $750 million, and ongoing annual costs of $1 billion.

        In view of the value generated by the ocean and coastal economy, we
    believe these are very reasonable investments.
    Revenue: Creation of an Ocean Policy Trust Fund
        Mindful of intense budgetary pressures at both federal and State
    levels--and sensitive to the hardship associated with unfunded federal
    mandates--the Commission set out to identify appropriate sources of
    revenue to cover the cost of its recommendations. A logical,
    responsible funding strategy is outlined in the preliminary report and
    will be developed further in the final report.
        The Commission proposes creation of an Ocean Policy Trust Fund
    composed of rents generated from permitted uses in federal waters. The
    Fund would include Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas revenues that
    are not currently committed. It would support the additional
    responsibilities we suggest for federal agencies and prevent the
    creation of unfunded mandates to states.
        The critical nature of the Nation's oceans assets and the
    challenges faced in managing them make it clear that the time has come
    to establish an Ocean Policy Trust Fund in the U.S. Treasury to assist
    federal agencies and State governments in carrying out the
    comprehensive ocean policy recommended by this Commission.
        The Fund would include federal revenues from Outer Continental
    Shelf oil and gas development that are not currently committed to other
    funds. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, the National Historic
    Preservation Fund, and the OCS oil and gas revenues given to coastal
    states from the three mile area seaward of their submerged lands would
    not be affected. After those programs were funded, in accordance with
    law, the remaining OCS monies would be deposited into the Ocean Policy
    Trust Fund.
        Additional funds may also become available based on new offshore
    activities. In several sections of the preliminary report we discuss
    revenues that may be generated from permitted uses of federal waters.
    In general, when a resource is publicly-owned, its use by private
    profit-making entities should be contingent on a reasonable return to
    taxpayers. Creating a link between permitted activities in federal
    waters and the cost of associated regulatory and management
    responsibilities is logical and well justified by precedents in federal
    land management.
        Approximately $5 billion is generated annually from OCS oil and gas
    revenues. Protecting the three programs noted above would remove about
    $1 billion. Thus, some $4 billion would remain available for the Ocean
    Policy Trust Fund each year under current projections. At this time it
    is not possible to specify the amount of revenue that might be produced
    by emerging uses in federal waters, nor predict when they may begin to
    flow.
        The report recommends that a portion of the revenues received from
    the use of offshore resources be granted to States for the conservation
    and sustainable development of renewable ocean and coastal resources.
    OCS oil and gas producing States should receive a larger portion of
    such revenues to address the impacts on their States from extraction
    activities in adjacent federal offshore waters.
        In the Commission's view, Trust Fund monies should be used
    exclusively to support improved ocean and coastal management consistent
    with the Nation's new coordinated and comprehensive national ocean
    policy. Such funds would be used to supplement--not replace--existing
    appropriations for ocean and coastal programs, and to fund new or
    expanded duties.

    CLOSING STATEMENT

        What I have presented to you today is a broad overview of the
    Commission's preliminary report--the culmination of two and a half
    years of work by 16 dedicated commissioners, 26 world-class science
    advisors, and a tireless staff of experts. To create this report, the
    Commission heard testimony and collected other information that shaped
    our understanding of the most pressing issues facing our nation's
    oceans and coasts.
        The Commission balanced environmental, technical, economic, and
    scientific factors in making its recommendations. These bold
    recommendations for reform call for immediate implementation, while it
    is still possible to reverse distressing declines, seize exciting
    opportunities, and sustain the oceans and their valuable assets for
    future generations. Clearly, the Commission's recommendations will
    require some new investments. However, without major change, the
    tremendous potential of our oceans and coasts to American prosperity
    will continue to deteriorate.
        It has taken more than 35 years for the Nation to refocus its
    attention on these vital resources. Our report provides a blueprint for
    the 21st century to achieve a future where our oceans and coasts are
    clean, safe, and sustainably managed and continue to contribute
    significantly to the well being of all the Nation's citizens. The time
    to act is now and everyone who cares about the oceans and coasts must
    play a part. Leadership from this committee and others in Congress, and
    from the White House, will be essential and we look forward to working
    closely with all of you in the months and years to come.

                     Biography for Admiral James D. Watkins
        Admiral James D. Watkins, U.S. Navy (retired), is currently serving
    as chairman of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The Commission,
    authorized by Congress in the Oceans Act of 2000, includes 16 members
    appointed by the President. The Commission's task is to recommend a
    new, comprehensive national ocean policy to the Congress and the
    President in 2003.
        Prior to his appointment to the Ocean Commission, Admiral Watkins
    served as president of the Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI), in
    Washington, D.C., from September 1993 until October 2000. In September
    1994, Admiral Watkins led the historic effort to establish an expanded
    partnership among the more than 60 U.S. marine institutions. The effort
    resulted in a public-private corporation known as the Consortium for
    Oceanographic Research and Education, or CORE. In September 1996, as a
    result of CORE's efforts, Congress authorized and funded the National
    Oceanographic Partnership Act which implemented a new, broad ocean
    science and technology agenda for the Nation. Admiral Watkins served
    seven years as founding President of CORE, stepping down in March 2001.
        For his work with JOI and CORE, Admiral Watkins was awarded
    honorary doctor of science degrees from the College of William and Mary
    and Oregon State University in 1999. In March 2001, he was given the
    title of President Emeritus of CORE, and was awarded the Navy's
    Distinguished Public Service Award by the Secretary of the Navy for his
    contributions to the Nation in ocean science and technology matters.
        Prior to his oceanographic work, Admiral Watkins served as the
    sixth Secretary of Energy under President George H.W. Bush, from March
    1989 through January 1993. He also served as the 22nd Chief of Naval
    Operations under President Ronald Reagan. Admiral Watkins is a native
    of California and a 1949 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy.

        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Admiral.
        Dr. Solow.

      STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREW R. SOLOW, DIRECTOR OF MARINE POLICY
              CENTER, WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION

        Dr. Solow. Thank you very much. It is an honor to testify
    before this committee.
        Before I begin, I would like to say that, in my opinion,
    Admiral Watkins, Tom Kitsos, and the rest of the Commission
    staff have performed a true service to the Nation and a near-
    miracle by producing this report.
        I have been asked to address three questions about the
    recommendations of the report. The first question is: ``What
    are the major deficiencies in the way ocean and coastal policy
    is organized at the federal level?'' In broad terms the main
    deficiency in the way federal policy in this area is organized
    is fragmentation. At least six departments, Agriculture,
    Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Transportation, have
    significant responsibilities in ocean and coastal policy, as
    does the Environmental Protection Agency. Other departments and
    independent agencies have more limited involvement. This
    fragmentation tends to impede policy coordination. Policy
    coordination is especially important in this area, because the
    various biological and environmental components of the marine
    and coastal system are linked and therefore can not be managed
    effectively in isolation.
        Having said that, in my opinion, there is a tendency to
    overstate the connection between policy outcome and policy
    structure. Although federal policy structure in this area is
    fragmented, this fragmentation is not, by itself, responsible
    for the problems on the ground and in the water. Federal
    entities can, and do, communicate and coordinate, both formally
    and informally. This process is uneven and imperfect, but it is
    part of the picture. By the same token, rationalizing the
    federal policy structure is no guarantee that the problems will
    be solved. This is by no means an argument against improving
    the structure. I only wish to be realistic about what an
    improved structure, by itself, can deliver.
        The second question that I have been asked to address is:
    ``Do you agree with the Commission's recommendation to create a
    National Ocean Council?'' This Council would consist of
    secretaries and directors of departments and agencies with
    responsibilities in this area. If the Commission's only
    recommendation in the area of federal structure had been to
    create this Council, then I would not have been terribly
    enthusiastic about it. As the old adage goes, you can lead a
    horse to water, but you can't make him drink. However, the
    Commission also recommends the appointment of an assistant to
    the President to chair this Council, the formation of a group
    of non-federal advisors to work with the Council, and the
    formation of a small White House Office of Ocean Policy, headed
    by the assistant to the President, that would support the
    Council and oversee the implementations of its recommendations
    and decisions. This raises the prospect that the horses will
    drink, and I am enthusiastic about the complete package of
    recommendations for three reasons.
        First, although I do not believe that the problems on the
    ground and in the water would be solved by better coordination
    alone, better coordination could certainly contribute to the
    formulation and execution of better policies. Second, this is a
    time when new uses of the ocean, for example ocean aquaculture
    and wind power, and new methods of management, for example
    market-based approaches and multiple-use management, are being
    contemplated. At such a time, it would be good to have a
    federal structure that is light on its feet, and an enhanced
    degree of coordination would help in this regard. Third,
    enacting this package of recommendations would elevate the
    visibility of ocean issues and underline the Nation's
    determination to address them. To the extent that this will
    galvanize the people and the government, this, too, could help.
        The third question that I have been asked to address is:
    ``Are there alternative changes to the federal structure that
    you would recommend?'' Federal structure in this area has
    essentially evolved by itself over the past 30 years. In my
    opinion, it is a good time to take a comprehensive look at the
    product of this evolutionary process and make improvements
    where possible. The Ocean Commission has made an excellent
    start at this, and provided the political will is there, the
    structural changes that it recommends are a good way to see
    that the job is finished, at least for this generation. The
    only additional change that I would recommend would be to
    ensure that all federal activities relating to the ocean
    undergo common policy and budgetary review within the Office of
    Management and Budget. The Commission's recommendation to
    review the NOAA budget within the Natural Resources Program at
    OMB would be a big step in the right direction.
        I would again like to thank the Committee for giving me
    this opportunity to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Solow follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Andrew R. Solow
        Thank you very much. It is an honor to testify before this
    committee.
        Before I begin, I would like to say that, in my opinion, Admiral
    Watkins, Tom Kitsos, and the rest of the Commission staff have
    performed a true service to the Nation and a near-miracle by producing
    this report.
        I have been asked to address three questions about the findings and
    recommendations of the report. The first question is: What are the
    major deficiencies in the way ocean and coastal policy is organized at
    the federal level? In broad terms, the main deficiency in the way that
    federal policy is organized in this area is fragmentation. At least six
    Departments--Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior, and
    Transportation--have significant responsibilities in ocean and coastal
    policy, as does the Environmental Protection Agency. Other Departments
    and independent Agencies have more limited involvement. This
    fragmentation tends to impede policy coordination. Policy coordination
    is especially important in this area because the various biological and
    environmental components of the marine and coastal system are linked
    and, therefore, cannot be managed effectively in isolation.
        Having said that, in my opinion, there is a tendency to overstate
    the connection between policy outcome and policy structure. Although
    federal policy structure in this area is fragmented, this fragmentation
    is not by itself responsible for the problems on the ground and in the
    water. Federal entities can and do communicate and coordinate both
    formally and informally. This process is uneven and imperfect, but it
    is part of the picture. By the same token, rationalizing the federal
    policy structure is no guarantee that the problems will be solved. This
    is by no means an argument against improving the structure. I only wish
    to be realistic about what an improved structure, by itself, can
    deliver.
        The second question that I have been asked to address is: Do you
    agree with the Commission's recommendation to create a National Ocean
    Council to address these deficiencies? This Council would consist of
    Secretaries and Directors of Departments and Agencies with
    responsibilities in this area. If the Commission's only recommendation
    in the area of federal structure had been to create this Council, then
    I would not be terribly enthusiastic about it. As the old adage goes,
    you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. However,
    the Commission also recommends the appointment of an Assistant to the
    President to chair this Council, the formation of a group of non-
    federal advisors to work with the Council, and the formation of a small
    White House Office of Ocean Policy, headed by the Assistant to the
    President, that would support the Council and oversee the
    implementation of its decisions. This raises the prospect that the
    horses will drink and I am enthusiastic about the complete package of
    recommendations for three reasons.
        First, although I do not believe that the problems on the ground
    and in the water would be solved by better coordination alone, better
    coordination could certainly contribute to the formulation and
    execution of better policies. Second, this is a time when new uses of
    the ocean--for example, ocean aquaculture and wind power--and new
    methods of management--for example, market-based approaches and
    multiple-use management--are being contemplated. At such a time, it
    would be good to have a federal structure that is light on its feet and
    an enhanced degree of coordination would help in this regard. Third,
    enacting this package of recommendations would elevate the visibility
    of ocean issues and underline the Nation's determination to address
    them. To the extent that this will galvanize the people and the
    government, this, too, could help.
        The third question that I have been asked to address is: Are there
    alternative changes to the federal structure that you would recommend?
    Federal structure in this area has essentially evolved by itself over
    the past 30 years. In my opinion, it is a good time to take a
    comprehensive look at the product of this evolutionary process and make
    improvements where possible. The Ocean Commission has made an excellent
    start at this and, provided the political will is there, the structural
    changes that it recommends are a good way to see that the job is
    finished--at least for this generation. The only additional change that
    I would recommend would be to ensure that all federal activities
    relating to the ocean undergo common policy and budgetary review within
    the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission's recommendation to
    review the NOAA budget within the Natural Resources Program at OMB
    would be a big step in the right direction.
        I would again like to thank the Committee for giving me the
    opportunity to testify.

                         Biography for Andrew R. Solow

    Professional Experience

    1994-present--Director, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic
            Institution

    1987-present--Scientific Staff, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

    1985-1987--Post-doctoral Research Fellow, Woods Hole Oceanographic
            Institution

    Education

    1986--Ph.D., Statistics, Stanford University

    1977--BA, Economics, Harvard University

    Selected memberships

    Editorial Board, Environmental and Ecological Statistics

    Editorial Board, Ecology

    Member, National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Geosciences,
            Environment, and Resources

    Member, Scientific Working Group, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
            Change

    Member, U.S. Ocean Commission Science Panel

    Selected publications

    Solow, A.R. 1989. A randomization test for independence of animal
            locations. Ecology, 70(5): 1546-1549.

    Solow, A.R. 1990. A note on the statistical properties of animal
            locations. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 29: 189-193.

    Solow, A.R. and Helser, T. 1994. Detecting extinction in sighting data.
            In: Quantitative Methods in Conservation, Springer-Verlag.

    Solow, A.R. and Roberts, D. 2002. A nonparametric test for extinction
            based on a sighting record. Ecology, in press.

    Solow, A.R. 2002. Estimation of stratigraphic ranges when fossil finds
            are not randomly distributed. Paleobiology, in press.

    Solow, A. and Polasky, S. 1999. A quick estimator for taxonomic
            surveys. Ecology, 80: 2799-2803.

    Smith, W., Solow, A.R., and Chu, C. 2000. An index of the contribution
            of spatial heterogeneity to the species accumulation curve.
            Ecology, 81: 3233-3236.

    Solow, A.R., Bollens, S.M., and Beet, A. 2000. Comparing two vertical
            plankton distributions. Limnology and Oceanography, 45: 506-
            509.

    Solow, A.R. and Costello, C.J. 2001. A test for declining diversity.
            Ecology, 82: 2370-2372.

    Costello, C. and Solow, A.R. 2003. Discovery patterns or introduced
            species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100:
            3321-3323.

    Recent collaborators

    Stephen Bollens, San Francisco State University; Christopher Costello,
            University of California, Santa Barbara; Laura Moore, Oberlin
            College; Stephen Polasky, University of Minnesota; David
            Roberts, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Woollcott Smith, Temple
            University; Lewi Stone, Tel Aviv University

    Graduate and Postdoctoral Advisors

    Andre Journel (Ph.D. Advisor), Stanford University

    James Broadus (Postdoctoral Advisor), deceased

    Ph.D. Committee Service MIT-Woods Hole Joint Program

    Carla Curran; Michelle Durand; Masami Fujiwara; Rebecca Green; Gorka
            Sancho; Laela Sayigh

    Other Ph.D. Committee Service

    Anand Patwardhan (Carnegie Mellon); Oren Barnca (Tel Aviv University);
            Ercan Yesilinnak (University of Izmir)

        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Dr. Solow,
    particularly because you were very precise in addressing each
    of the questions.
        Now I would like you to be precise in the answer to this.
    Would you care to issue an invitation to this committee to join
    you in Woods Hole this summer?
        Dr. Solow. Mr. Chairman, I have already written on the pad
    that I--that we would like to invite you all to visit.
        Chairman Boehlert. It is one of the great places in the
    world for my colleagues who have not been there. And thank you
    for that kind invitation.
        Dr. Pomponi.

     STATEMENT OF DR. SHIRLEY A. POMPONI, ACTING MANAGING DIRECTOR
             OF THE HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION

        Dr. Pomponi. Well, I would like to invite you to come to
    Fort Pierce, Florida, but not in the summertime. You will want
    to come there in January.
        Chairman Boehlert. No, we have 12 months a year, and----
        Dr. Pomponi. Right.
        Chairman Boehlert [continuing]. And we will know when we
    will deal with----
        Dr. Pomponi. Thank you, Chairman Boehlert and Members of
    the Science Committee, for the opportunity to appear before you
    this morning. While my testimony represents my own views, I am
    also testifying today as an elected member of the executive
    committee of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and
    Education, or CORE. I have been asked to address the major
    problems and issues with respect to national efforts in ocean
    and coastal research to identify the top recommendations that
    should be implemented immediately, given a limited budget, and
    to provide an example of how ecosystem-based management would
    change ocean and coastal management from current methods.
        In the interest of time, I am providing just brief comments
    on each of these areas. My written testimony provides more
    detail for your consideration.
        I believe four of the 12 critical actions identified by the
    Commission in its executive summary are essential to ocean and
    coastal science. First, improve the federal agency structure
    and strengthen NOAA. Coordination of ocean and coastal science
    programs remains a top priority for strengthening ocean science
    and does not require enormous financial resources, but rather a
    commitment by a dozen or so federal ocean agencies to
    coordinate their efforts and implement improved mechanisms that
    will allow them to work together efficiently. Enactment of a
    NOAA Organic Act that clearly lays out an integrated agency
    structure and mission is essential if NOAA is to address the
    Commission recommendations.
        Second, double the U.S. investment in ocean research.
    Research areas where increased investment could lead to
    substantial benefits include bio-diversity and ecosystem
    research, development of ocean information systems, climate and
    ocean modeling, and discovery and development of new marine
    products. One of the most incredible scientific discoveries of
    the 20th century, in my opinion, animals that depend not on
    photosynthesis but on chemosynthesis was realized through
    exploration of deep-sea vents. Since that discovery more than
    25 years ago, we have only explored less than 50 of the
    estimated 5,000 deep-sea vents and seeps. We have explored 200
    of the estimated 30,000 sea mounds that could each provide new
    opportunities for fishery resources. A robust ocean exploration
    program will dramatically alter not only our understanding of
    life on Earth, and maybe even other planets, but also lead to
    new technologies and improved scientific understanding with
    benefits comparable, and likely even superior, to those we have
    realized as a result of space exploration.
        While the overall levels of funding should be doubled,
    increases for individual agencies and programs should be based
    on a careful and comprehensive assessment of priorities related
    to national ocean policy goals and on the role of each federal
    ocean agency in carrying out that policy. For example, doubling
    of the NSF ocean science's budget is consistent with efforts to
    double the agency's budget overall. By contrast, at NOAA, the
    report recommends new responsibilities in several areas, such
    as ocean observing systems and oceans and human health, that
    would require substantial new, competitive research
    initiatives. For the Office of Naval Research, its vibrant
    support for basic research must be restored.
        Third, implement the National Integrated Ocean Observing
    System. The ocean science community supports the Commission's
    high priority on development and implementation of an
    Integrated Ocean Observing System as well as on enhancing ocean
    infrastructure and technology development. Ensuring the future
    of the academic research fleet is one of the most acute needs
    of the marine science enterprise. Funding for an Integrated
    Ocean Observing System may be more of a challenge since NOAA is
    the logical home for much of the program. By providing
    leadership and coordination, regional pilot programs that are
    already in progress could be fully integrated into a larger
    scale effort and initiate the implementation process.
        Fourth, increase attention to ocean education. The
    Commission offers a number of recommendations to strengthen the
    role of science education as a specific part of each federal
    ocean agencies' mission. Currently, NSF and NASA are the only
    agencies that include education in their missions. Other
    agencies must support education to ensure continued agency
    capabilities.
        The concept of ecosystems-based management enjoys broad-
    based support, because it makes sense both intuitively and
    scientifically. In my home State of Florida, a Comprehensive
    Everglades Restoration Plan is being implemented. Florida Bay
    is included in the restoration plan because of its linkages
    with the Everglades. One potential scenario is that nitrogen
    and phosphorus in the freshwater runoff from the Everglades
    could increase phytoplankton blooms in the Bay, and these
    blooms could be carried out to the Florida Reef Tract. The fact
    that we lack a circulation model that would enable us to link
    changes in Everglades hydrology with Florida Bay and reef tract
    ecology is hampering resource managers and restoration
    planners.
        In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the achievement
    represented by the Commission's report. The commissioners have
    given us a wide-ranging assessment of the current status of our
    oceans and coasts. They offer us a vision and a starting point
    for addressing America's relationship to the sea. With a clear
    path to follow, the support of stakeholders around the country,
    and your commitment to make the necessary changes, we have a
    unique opportunity to develop and implement a strong ocean
    policy.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Pomponi follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Shirley A. Pomponi
        Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon and Members of the Science
    Committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    this morning and for the Committee's leadership in considering the
    recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (Commission). I
    am Shirley Pomponi, Acting Managing Director of Harbor Branch
    Oceanographic Institution. In addition, I serve on the Commission's
    Science Advisory Panel.
        While my testimony represents my own views, I also am testifying
    today as an elected member of the executive committee of the Consortium
    for Oceanographic Research and Education (CORE). The 76 member
    institutions of CORE represent the mainstream of American oceanographic
    research and education. Through CORE, an incredibly diverse, dynamic
    and independent ocean sciences community works together to develop and
    promote a common vision and goals.
        I would like to begin by acknowledging the enormous achievement
    represented by the Commission's preliminary report. This bipartisan
    panel of 16 experts from government, academia, and industry has
    released the most monumental review in three decades of how our country
    manages its vast ocean resources. Authorized by Congress and appointed
    by the President, the Commission has spent the past two years
    considering testimony from hundreds of citizens, scientists, and
    policy-makers. Over and over again, they heard that the oceans are in
    danger and that the responsible federal agencies and State and local
    governments are not working together effectively. Ultimately, they
    distilled an avalanche of material to produce a clear, step-wise plan
    for turning the situation around and developing a coherent national
    ocean policy.
        This is not to say that there is agreement within the ocean
    community, or even within the Commission membership, on each of the
    Commission's recommendations. Nor does it suggest that the preliminary
    report comprehensively addresses each of the many ocean policy
    challenges that this nation faces. What the Commission has given us is
    a wide-ranging and honest assessment of the current status of our
    oceans and coasts. Its members examined everything from stewardship of
    marine resources and pollution prevention to enhancing and supporting
    marine science, commerce and transportation, and their recommendations
    are just as far reaching. The preliminary report offers us a vision and
    starting point for addressing America's relationship to the sea. Now it
    is our responsibility to ensure that vision is implemented.

    Ocean And Coastal Research Problems And Issues

        While most Americans recognize that Earth is the only known living
    planet, few understand that its life is derived in large measure from
    its oceans. Oceanographic research to date has revealed that the seas
    play a critical role in regulating Earth's weather and climate,
    replenishing and maintaining the viability of our atmosphere, housing
    extraordinarily diverse forms of life, and significantly influencing
    the creation and ever-changing appearance of our coastlines.
        Nor does the public fully understand the essential role of the
    oceans in our economy and to our quality of life. As the Commission
    points out, our nation's ocean economy contributed more than $117
    billion and supported well over two million jobs in 2000. More than $1
    trillion, or about a tenth of the U.S. annual gross domestic product is
    generated in a relatively narrow strip of land along our coasts, and
    almost half ($4.5 trillion) is generated in coastal watershed counties.
    One out of every six jobs in the United States is marine related, and
    over half of our population lives and works next to the Atlantic and
    Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes. Overseas trade
    via U.S. ports is expected to double by 2024, and the growth in
    passenger transportation is likely to continue. Offshore areas provide
    30 percent of the oil, and 25 percent of the natural gas powering our
    economy and our homes.
        My home State of Florida is among the most reliant on healthy
    oceans. With an economy and lifestyle that is intimately tied to
    coastal proximity, Floridians can feel the effects of ocean health
    decline in the form of beach closings, decreases in tourism, and even
    poor fishing. Such consequences threaten not only a way of life, but
    also the continued favor of the 50 million tourists that visit each
    year, and the economy they support.
        It is a powerful reality that knowledge of the oceans, their
    resources and their relationship to human activities is vital to our
    existence. It is a fundamental challenge for the ocean science
    community to convey that reality both to decision-makers and to the
    American public. Our ability to address problems and issues in ocean
    and coastal research will rely in large part on our success.

    Coordinating ocean and coastal research and education programs.

        One of the most significant conclusions of the new report is that
    the patchwork of agencies and processes that have evolved over the past
    three decades to oversee the Nation's ocean interests is simply not up
    to the challenge of fixing the problems identified. To remedy the
    situation, the report recommends substantial restructuring at the
    federal level, including mechanisms for making ocean policy decisions
    through a high-level interagency governance structure.
        Focusing specifically on ocean and coastal science, more than a
    dozen federal agencies currently fund research or education activities.
    Consequently, interagency coordination is essential to avoid
    duplication and strengthen the scientific basis for ocean management.
    The Commission proposes to build on the model created under the
    National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) in 1997. NOPP
    promotes national goals of assuring national security, advancing
    economic development, protecting quality of life, and strengthening
    science education and communication through improved knowledge of the
    ocean. It creates a higher level of coordinated effort and synergy
    across the broad oceanographic community by establishing partnerships
    on two fronts. First, NOPP relies on collaboration among fifteen
    federal agencies, calling on the top official of each participating
    agency to serve on an interagency council that provides program
    oversight. Second, NOPP increases the visibility for ocean issues on
    the national agenda by facilitating projects among federal agencies,
    academia, industry, and other governmental and non-governmental
    organizations. While investment in the program to date has been
    relatively modest, it has proven to be an effective mechanism for
    building and coordinating federal ocean science partnerships.
    Consequently, the oceanographic community generally supports the
    Commission's recommendations to use NOPP as a model for coordinating
    expanded interagency ocean science investments.

    Enhancing the ocean observation and operational infrastructure.

        The Commission report places high priority on development and
    implementation of a sustained and integrated ocean observing system and
    on enhancing ocean infrastructure and technology development. There is
    broad-based agreement within the oceanographic community on the need to
    maintain and enhance our national infrastructure for ocean observation
    and to support scientific operations.
        The academic research fleet is the most crucial shared resource
    currently used by ocean and coastal researchers. Without a dependable
    seagoing capability, the flexibility and mobility needed to explore new
    areas and respond to exciting and scientifically interesting phenomena
    will be eliminated. One of the most acute needs of the marine science
    enterprise and for deploying and maintaining an integrated ocean
    observing system is ensuring the future of the oceanographic fleet.
        Over the coming decade, nearly all mid-sized vessels classified as
    Regional or Ocean Class will reach the end of their design life and
    require replacement. In 2002, a federal interagency committee on
    oceanographic facilities completed a report outlining the state of the
    fleet and suggesting a timeline for replacement. While the Navy and the
    National Science Foundation have indicated that they may provide future
    funding for fleet renewal, neither agency has made available the funds
    necessary to construct new ships in the Oceans class. The Commission
    report recommends establishment of a modernization fund to meet such
    critical infrastructure and technology needs. However, it provides
    little detail on how such a fund would be capitalized or administered.
        The Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) has been another important
    scientific platform that allows researchers to examine the past in
    order to understand the history of the ocean and climatic environment
    by retrieving and examining core samples from the ocean floor. Features
    like the North Atlantic Deep Water Formation, a driver of today's
    ocean-climate engine and the chief mechanism for the distribution of
    heat throughout the world's oceans, have fluctuated at well-defined
    intervals during the last fifteen million years. Understanding such
    abrupt changes is absolutely essential for comprehending the many
    forces affecting our world's climate. As ODP moves into a new,
    international phase, the principal drilling vessel, the JOIDES
    Resolution, will be retired, and a replacement must be secured to
    ensure continued U.S. participation in the program. The fiscal year
    2005 budget for the National Science Foundation proposes $45 million to
    initiate that process as part of its Major Research Equipment and
    Facilities Construction account.
        While ships provide an on-site, mobile, and flexible instrument
    platform for research and observation, long-term, in situ observations
    are critical to understanding ocean processes. Results from activities
    such as the tropical atmosphere-ocean buoy array that monitors the El
    Nino Southern Oscillation in the Pacific, the Pirata Array in the
    tropical Atlantic, and free-drifting ARGO profiling floats are proving
    the value of long time series observations, and developing the
    scientific foundation needed to better understand the global climate.
    Moreover, these systems demonstrate that changes in distant oceans can
    affect the coastal oceans of our nation.
        It is critical that we expand the reach of our ocean observing
    systems throughout the marine environment, including our nation's
    coastal areas. In addition, we must develop and deploy a robust data
    integration and management system and enhance our modeling capability
    to ensure full benefit and use of observational products from this
    system. Such an end-to-end approach from observations to analysis to
    modeling is critical if we are to improve both our understanding of the
    ocean as well as to develop decision support capabilities regarding
    ocean policy and management.
        In order to progress and enhance our nation's ocean observing
    abilities, supporting a strong and vigorous program of research and
    development is essential. The National Science Foundation is proposing
    an Ocean Observatories Initiative to explore new scientific questions
    that require a sustained, multi-year, real-time observation capability.
    This is an important step in maintaining our ocean science leadership.
    Other technological needs that should be examined include the
    scientific demand for deep-diving vehicles, dedicated platforms to
    support ocean exploration, and remote sensing capabilities.

    Advancing ocean education.

        The Commission has made promotion of lifelong ocean education a
    centerpiece of its preliminary report. The report stresses the central
    role of both formal and informal education efforts for Americans of all
    ages from kindergarten through retirement, stating:

             ``To successfully address complex ocean- and coastal-related
            issues, balance the use and conservation of marine resources,
            and realize future benefits from the ocean, an interested,
            engaged public will be needed.''

        The Commission proposes to accomplish this by: (1) building a
    collaborative ocean education network that links research and education
    communities; (2) integrating the oceans into elementary and high school
    education programs; (3) investing in higher education and the ocean
    workforce; and (4) strengthening informal education programs.
        I think the vast majority of my colleagues join me in supporting
    the Commission's focus on education. Moreover, I completely agree that
    a knowledgeable public is the real key to sustainable ocean policies.
    Ocean scientists need to improve our communication with the American
    public about the value of the science we do. It has been said that the
    U.S. space exploration program enjoys the support that it has because
    everyone can look up into the sky. On the other hand, not everyone
    lives on the coast and can see the ocean. Not everyone understands the
    value of ocean exploration to the discovery of new fisheries, new
    drugs, and new energy sources; to predicting phenomena such as El Nino
    and harmful algal blooms (and their impact on our health and economy);
    and to protecting our coastlines from both natural and man-made threats
    to our health and security.
        Not surprisingly, CORE has been particularly active and interested
    in the Commission's recommendations on investing in higher education
    and the ocean workforce. Graduate education in the United States is
    based upon a strong national research infrastructure at centers of
    higher education and research. The future quality of ocean sciences in
    the United States and our nation's capability to understand and manage
    marine issues related to environmental quality, economic well-being,
    and national security depend upon maintaining graduate educational
    programs of high caliber. This area of education cannot be the concern
    of a single agency. All ocean agencies depend upon a well-educated and
    well-trained workforce and need to assume responsibility for this
    endeavor.
        The Commission offers a number of recommendations to strengthen the
    role of science education as a specific part of each federal ocean
    agency's mission. Currently NSF and NASA are the only agencies that
    include education in their missions. Other ``mission-oriented''
    agencies such as the Navy, NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and
    the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) all support science education
    to varying degrees--most commonly through graduate student research
    assistantships. At the same time, such support is vulnerable to budget
    cuts if education is not perceived by the executive branch to be a part
    of the agencies' core missions. Given each agency's workforce needs, it
    is essential that they provide significant financial assistance for
    supporting graduate students in order to ensure continued agency
    capabilities as well as the future health of the profession.
        The financial aid system for graduate students in the ocean
    sciences depends primarily upon research assistantships and currently
    falls below other sciences. Over 50 percent of all graduate students in
    residence during fall 2001 were supported through research
    assistantships. In comparison, NSF and the National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration (NASA) offered an average of 15 graduate
    fellowships per year between 1995 and 2000. NSF also funded an average
    of six traineeships per year between 1995 and 2000. By contrast, the
    Federal Government supported almost 17,000 graduate traineeships and
    fellowships for all science and engineering fields during 2000.
        While research assistantships are appropriate for supporting field-
    based graduate student research, traineeships allow the best students
    to support themselves in non-traditional educational programs that are
    often interdisciplinary and can produce a masters or doctorate with the
    knowledge of science, management and communications that is so
    desperately needed in our ocean-related workforce. The National
    Institutes of Health (NIH), which funds more than 50 percent of all
    federally-funded traineeships, provides a good potential model.
    Furthermore, the creation of large-scale integrated ocean research and
    observation programs offers new opportunities to support more
    fellowships and traineeships that allow the development of multi- or
    interdisciplinary educational experiences. Recognizing that this is an
    imbalance that must be corrected, the Commission recommends
    establishment of a NOAA traineeship program; initiation of this effort
    may occur under NOAA's Ocean and Health Initiative. Although the ocean
    science community supports the need for such a NOAA program, we also
    recommend that other mission agencies examine how each could create
    such programs to support a significant number of graduate students in a
    range of marine fields to ensure we have well-educated professionals
    for the coming decades.
        Finally, a strong national research infrastructure at centers of
    higher education and research is predicated on the availability of
    talented individuals who are well-educated and well-trained in science,
    mathematics and technology. Efforts to create a pool of such
    individuals must begin during elementary and secondary school and
    continue through graduate education and on-going professional
    development. Efforts underway, such as the Centers for Ocean Science
    Education Excellence and National Ocean Sciences Bowl, have begun to
    address needs along the educational continuum. As the Commission has
    recommended, more must be done to expand learning experiences and
    professional development for future marine scientists, technicians,
    educators and resource managers.

    Increasing the investment in ocean science research.

        Much of the great progress made in marine science over the past
    several decades has been a result of federal investments made during
    the 1960s and 1970s, under the cloud of the Cold War. Under the model
    adopted by Vannevar Bush following World War II, the academic
    researcher, with public support, has been the leader in much of this
    scientific advancement. This model has led to great discoveries that
    have changed our lives, such as increased environmental predictive
    capabilities, a better understanding of the marine ecosystem and marine
    resource mapping, the ability to remotely sense ocean features from
    satellites in orbit, and national superiority in undersea surveillance
    and antisubmarine warfare.
        Today, great advances in information and communication technology,
    molecular biology and other disciplines promise astounding returns from
    investments in ocean research by offering fundamentally new means of
    analyzing and understanding the biology, chemistry, geology and physics
    of ocean dynamics and processes. There is great potential to more fully
    predict ocean processes, discover marine organisms with unique
    capabilities, understand the linkages between human and ocean health,
    and provide the scientific basis to better utilize and manage ocean
    resources.
        Unfortunately, U.S. funding for basic research in ocean sciences
    has remained stagnant for nearly two decades, effectively halving its
    buying power. At the same time, the total federal support of basic
    research has nearly doubled. While we are faced today with growing
    problems and opportunities, requiring an increased understanding of the
    Earth's oceans, resources to address them are insufficient. Society's
    increasing demands on the sea and the growing awareness of the human
    impact on the environment require ocean sciences to be at the forefront
    of scientific and social research. This requires a renewed commitment
    to marine scientific research.
        Remarkable fundamental discoveries about the natural world have
    opened the way for an even more exciting and productive future. But
    this future will be unrealized without the wherewithal to support a
    robust and vigorous research enterprise. For this reason, personally
    and on behalf of CORE, I enthusiastically endorse the Commission's
    recommendation to double the federal ocean and coastal research budget
    over the next five years. The report proposes to increase the budget
    from the fiscal year 2004 level of about $650 million to $1.3 billion
    each year. While the overall levels should be doubled, increases for
    individual agencies and programs should be based on a careful and
    comprehensive assessment of priorities related to national ocean policy
    goals and needs and on the role of each federal ocean agency in
    carrying out that policy. For example, doubling of the NSF ocean
    sciences budget would be entirely consistent with efforts to double the
    agency's budget overall. By contrast, at NOAA, the Commission
    recommends new responsibilities in several areas such as ocean
    observing systems and oceans and human health that would require
    substantial new competitive research initiatives. Completion of the
    research strategy recommended by the Commission would address this
    concern and provide a solid blueprint for agency research investment.
    Similar strategic planning completed for the U.S. Climate and Global
    Change Program was instrumental to that program's success in the mid
    1980s.

    Strengthening the NOAA research enterprise.

        The summary of recommendations in the Commission's preliminary
    report devotes almost five pages to recommendations for NOAA and its
    line office, the National Marine Fisheries Service. As the Nation's
    lead civilian oceanographic agency, NOAA clearly has a central role in
    implementing a national ocean policy and it is almost inconceivable
    that such a policy could be effective unless NOAA is successful in
    carrying out it ocean missions.
        NOAA was established in 1970 under a recommendation from the report
    of the first Stratton Commission, bringing together the ocean and
    coastal-related programs and activities of several federal departments
    and agencies. Each of those initial elements brought along its own
    bureaucratic culture and approaches and over the years, NOAA has often
    struggled to create a fully integrated agency. In addition, it has
    faced enormous growth in its mission and statutory responsibilities,
    often not accompanied by adequate fiscal resources.
        From a scientific perspective, a recent CORE survey indicated that
    NOAA currently is the third largest funder of academic marine research
    in the Federal Government. As such, it provides support for scientists
    at almost all oceanographic institutions and participates in a number
    of national research programs. As national attention to climate,
    coastal and ocean management issues grows, NOAA support for mission-
    related research at academic institutions must increase. Although NOAA
    is poised to play a central role in the ocean sciences, its current
    programmatic, organizational and administrative structure offers real
    impediments to effective partnerships with the academic community.
        In October 2003, NOAA requested that its Science Advisory Board
    establish a Research Review Team to evaluate NOAA science programs. In
    a preliminary report published in February, the team recommended
    development of an agency-wide research strategy and plan, and
    establishment of a senior-level research structure to provide more
    coherent research management and guidance for transitioning research
    into operations. A second phase of the effort is ongoing and will
    address the NOAA-wide research infrastructure including such issues as
    laboratory consolidation. The final report is scheduled for completion
    by the end of this month.
        Enactment of a NOAA organic act that clearly lays out an integrated
    agency structure and mission, including its role in ocean and coastal
    research and education, is essential if NOAA is to address the
    Commission recommendations and the findings of the Research Review
    Team.

    Ecosystem-based Management

        The concept of ecosystems-based management is a key theme for the
    Commission report. It is a concept that enjoys broad-based support
    among managers, scientists, fishers, conservationists and other
    stakeholders because it makes sense both intuitively and
    scientifically. As the report states:

             ``Ecosystem-based management looks at all the links among
            living and non-living resources, rather than considering single
            issues in isolation. This system of management considers human
            activities, their benefits, and their potential impacts within
            the context of the broader biological and physical
            environment.''

        The Commission also points out that the success of ecosystem-based
    management will rely on a balanced precautionary approach that weighs
    the level of scientific uncertainty and the potential risk of ecosystem
    damage as part of every management decision. At the present time, we
    simply do not have adequate information to reduce that scientific
    uncertainty.
        In a 2000 report on marine fisheries data, the National Research
    Council recommended that fishery managers must improve their
    ``understanding of the functioning of the marine ecosystems affected by
    fishing activities by studying important non-target species to
    determine their feeding habits, their distribution, and their prey and
    predators.'' In addition, we must shift from our current focus
    primarily on maritime activities to looking more broadly at the
    interrelationships among land-based activities, climatic and oceanic
    process, and marine ecological factors. It means, for example,
    recognizing that pollution from Central and South Florida can harm fish
    and coral as far away as the Keys and beyond.
        The implications of ecosystem-based management for ocean science
    are enormous. Federal and State resource managers typically have
    focused their support for research and monitoring on science that is
    very close to the decision at hand. Be it counting fish or mapping
    bottom habitat, the avenue of investigation has been relatively narrow.
    While we now realize the limitations of such an approach, we have just
    begun to define scientific needs and to develop strategies that will
    allow scientific inquiry to keep pace with the growing complexity of
    management needs.
        For example, a Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) is
    being implemented in my home State. Florida Bay is included in the CERP
    because of its intimate linkages with the Everglades. These include
    freshwater run-off, groundwater fluxes, and nutrient inputs. We
    currently do not know the biological and ecological effects of
    increased nutrient loading, particularly as it relates to the growth of
    phytoplankton and macroalgae in Florida Bay. One potential scenario is
    that nitrogen and phosphorus in the freshwater runoff from the Shark
    River Slough could increase phytoplankton blooms in the Bay, and that
    these blooms could be carried out to the Florida Reef Tract. The fact
    that we lack a circulation model that would enable us to link changes
    in Everglades hydrology with Florida Bay hydrology and ecology is
    hampering resource manages and restoration planners. A recent NRC
    report recommends research in several areas to remedy this situation.
        Implementation of an integrated and sustained ocean observing
    system could supply critically needed information for the transition to
    ecosystem-based management. Pilot observing systems already maintain
    the capability to monitor key physical parameters such as temperature
    and currents that control or strongly influence the impacts of human
    activities on the marine environment. The system would also provide
    longer time series needed to track climate and other sources of
    variability and to develop ecosystem forecast models.
        At present, the primary source of biological information remains
    stock assessment surveys and other ship-based sampling programs.
    However, ecosystem-based management will require development of new
    technologies to explore, discover, and exploit these biological
    resources to their full potential. Scientists are already exploring a
    variety of techniques and platforms from in situ molecular analyses to
    satellite remote sensing to sophisticated tagging programs and marine
    cable systems that will allow marine animals themselves to serve as
    data collectors.
        Without broader knowledge developed from a robust research and
    exploration effort, ecosystem-based management will be difficult, if
    not impossible. One important research need identified by the
    Commission is the study of marine biodiversity, and one effort to
    address that need is the Census of Marine Life. I currently serve on
    the U.S. national committee for the Census, an international research
    program to assess and explain the abundance, diversity, and
    distribution of marine organisms throughout the world's oceans. The
    Census is focusing on field studies that explore little known habitats
    and re-examine familiar areas using innovative technologies. The Census
    is also developing an integrated biogeographic information system with
    the potential to bring marine biodiversity information into the ocean
    observing system data network. It is unique in its focus on diversity
    through the higher levels of food webs, the discovery and
    classification of newly discovered species, and its examination of
    timelines extending back beyond the limits of modern ocean science.
    Information collected will support modeling efforts to better
    understand the response of living marine systems to environmental
    change and harvesting.
        The Census of Marine Life is just one example of cutting edge
    research conducted by academic institutions and government agencies
    throughout the United States--and in collaboration with international
    universities and government agencies--that will contribute to
    ecosystem-based management. It again reinforces the importance of
    working cooperatively to address complex management needs, an approach
    hindered, if not prevented, by current systems. Improved coordination
    will be absolutely critical if we are to begin managing the oceans in a
    way that takes into account the big picture instead of focusing
    narrowly on individual problems without regard to their
    interconnections.

    Recommendations for Immediate Implementation

        The third question posed by the Committee in your invitation letter
    is probably the most difficult. With the prospect of limited
    availability of new money, it requests that I identify the ``top
    three'' recommendations regarding ocean and coastal science that should
    be implemented immediately. As you know, the preliminary report
    includes almost 200 formal recommendations, in addition to hundreds of
    suggestions for strengthening ocean science and generating high-quality
    accessible information to inform decision-makers.
        Interestingly though, many of the most significant recommendations
    have a relatively modest price tag. What they do require is a national
    level of commitment to changing the way we do business in the oceans--
    if we do that, I am optimistic that the financial investments will
    follow more easily. In its executive summary, the Commission identified
    12 actions that its members concluded were critical, of which I believe
    four are essential to ocean and coastal science and correspond to
    problems and issues identified earlier in my testimony:

              Strengthen NOAA and improve the federal agency
            structure

              Double the U.S. investment in ocean research

              Implement the national Integrated Ocean Observing
            System

              Increase attention to ocean education

        The first of these is probably not a question of fiscal resources
    as much as structure and organization. Coordination of ocean and
    coastal science programs remains a top priority for strengthening ocean
    science and does not require enormous financial resources, but rather a
    commitment by a dozen or so federal ocean agencies to coordinate their
    efforts and implement improved mechanisms that will allow them to work
    together efficiently. At the same time, new dollars clearly will be
    required to double the ocean research investment, implement an
    integrated ocean observing system, and improve ocean education.
        With respect to research, for example, the Commission report calls
    for development of a national strategy for ocean and coastal research,
    exploration and marine operations that can ``integrate ongoing efforts,
    promote synergies among Federal, State, and local governments,
    academia, and the private sector, translate scientific and
    technological advances into operational applications, and establish
    national goals and objectives for addressing high-priority issues.''
    Other sections of the report identify research areas where increased
    investment could lead to substantial benefits including climate and
    ocean modeling, biodiversity and ecosystem research, development of
    ocean information systems, and development of marine products. We have
    already begun this effort with proposed increases in ocean research
    programs such as the new centers for oceans and human health and NSF's
    international ocean drilling program. Proposed increases should be
    spread out over several agencies--in coordinated programs--so no single
    agency would bear the full cost. Similarly, implementation of the
    education recommendations should build upon existing programs and be
    coordinated across agencies.
        Funding for the integrated ocean observing system may be more of a
    challenge since NOAA is the logical home for much of the program.
    Still, NOAA currently is making an initial investment through funding
    for a number of regional pilot programs. By providing needed leadership
    and coordination, those projects could be fully integrated into a
    larger scale effort and initiate the implementation process.

    Conclusion

        Though identifying many problems, the Commissioners and those of us
    fortunate enough to spend our lives studying the oceans recognize that
    they are still an awe-inspiring place with more than enough blue
    frontier to keep us exploring, discovering, and benefiting from those
    discoveries for the foreseeable future.
        Next month, through State of Florida funding for a program called
    the Center of Excellence in Biomedical and Marine Biotechnology, a team
    from Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution and Florida Atlantic
    University will be searching waters off Florida's east coast and the
    Florida Keys for new organisms that produce chemicals with the
    potential to cure human diseases from cancer to Alzheimer's. As
    startling as this may sound, even within a few miles of shore, our
    group will have no trouble finding places that no one has ever seen.
    And if history serves as a guide, we'll have no trouble making
    promising new discoveries.
        But such programs are just a drop in the world's largest bucket, so
    another of the report's recommendations is that this nation begins a
    serious effort to study the 95 percent of the oceans that remain
    unexplored. There is still much to discover. For example, we have
    studied only a couple hundred of the estimated 30,000 seamounts--and
    the potential new fisheries they support. One of the most incredible
    scientific discoveries of the 20th century--animals that depend not on
    photosynthesis, but on chemosynthesis--was realized through exploration
    of deep-sea vents. Since that discovery more than 25 years ago, we have
    explored less than 50 of the estimated 5000 deep-sea vents and seeps. I
    have no doubt that a robust ocean exploration program, coupled with
    development of novel techniques for in situ analyses of unique plants,
    animals, and microbes, will dramatically alter not only our
    understanding of life on Earth (and perhaps other planets), but also
    lead to new technologies and improved scientific understanding with
    benefits comparable, likely even superior, to those we have realized as
    a result of space exploration. As evidence, consider that past ocean-
    based discoveries have already advanced everything from biotechnology
    to telecommunications, and that several promising disease treatments
    from marine organisms are now in human clinical trials.
        We clearly have a great deal of work to do. The Commission
    recommends a framework that will make that work possible, but only if
    we put it to use. So, for everyone who enjoys fishing, diving, spending
    a day at a clean beach, and eating safe seafood, I would urge you to
    act quickly and decisively to carry out the Commission's
    recommendations. With a clear path to follow, the support of
    stakeholders around the country, and your commitment to make necessary
    changes, we have a unique opportunity to develop and implement a strong
    ocean policy that can reverse the downward spiral of ocean health.

        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Dr. Pomponi.
        Dr. Pietrafesa.

     STATEMENT OF DR. LEONARD J. PIETRAFESA, DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL
     AFFAIRS, COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL AND MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES, NORTH
                       CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

        Dr. Pietrafesa. Thank you very much, Chairman Boehlert.
        The subject in my testimony is related to the 198 NOAA-
    centric recommendations in the comprehensive and visionary
    report. Five questions were posed to me, and I will address
    each in order.
        Question number one was: ``What are the current strengths
    and weaknesses of ocean and coastal programs at NOAA?'' In the
    interest of time, I will mention but a few of the strengths and
    the weaknesses. First, some of the strengths.
        Number one, good, competent personnel at the agency. Two,
    great satellite-based location information, achieving one-inch
    accuracy. Three, Sea Grant's excellent job of moving the
    results of science and technology into useable information for
    the public. Four, the reliable suite of Earth-observing
    satellites necessary for monitoring weather and climate
    globally. Next, the continuous data being collected in the
    National Estuarine Research Reserve Program, which relates
    changes in coastal fish habitat water quality to storm runoff.
    Six, the ability to forecast an El Nino event, allowing nations
    to brace for the impacts. Seven, the recognition of the
    national and international importance of NOAA by way of the
    leadership roles its lead administrators are assuming, such as
    Undersecretary Lautenbacher being the lead for the U.S. in the
    Earth Observing Summit.
        Now some of the weaknesses. A serious under-sampling of
    basic variables, such as temperature in the water and in the
    atmosphere of our oceans and coastal regions. Two, the
    difficulty of squeezing the funding called for into NOAA
    appropriations. Why? Commerce, Justice, and State have many
    competing priorities. Next, the Navy and NASA appear to be
    backing away from ocean observations. NOAA simply can not go
    this alone. Next, a lack of the in-house capabilities necessary
    to provide complete leadership and technical skills called for
    in support of the Integrated Ocean Observing System. Next,
    under-funding of NOAA data centers needs to preserve and
    provide immediate access to the data necessary for ensemble
    forecasting of weather and climate. Next, the $130 million
    being spent on coastal zone management; what tangible good is
    the investment producing versus the paltry $15 million per year
    investment in ocean exploration where realistically $100
    million per year is needed? Next, using the external community
    as a testbed to quickly develop and transition science and
    technology to operations and in dealing with a not-invented-
    here syndrome within the agency. These can lead to
    Congressional earmarks, some of which are very, very ill
    conceived.
        Question number two: ``Do you agree with the
    recommendations with respect to NOAA? If not, why not?''
    Overall, I agree with and believe that the 198 NOAA-centric
    recommendations are generally on target with several
    exceptions. For example, the assessment of the outcomes of
    federal projects within coastal watersheds must be done
    independently. You can call in the academic community here.
    Another recommendation, a truly integrated IOOS must include
    the collection of atmospheric data, such as temperature at all
    sites. Next, the modeling of coastal ecosystems must include
    precipitation and rivers if we are to relate such things as
    fish-kills and harmful algal bloom outbreaks to storms or
    drought.
        Question number three: ``Are there limitations to NOAA's
    ability to carry out the responsibilities recommended? And if
    so, what are they?'' It comes down to money, money, and money.
    At a minimum, there should be an immediate doubling of the
    federal ocean research budget, as is called for by the
    Commission. Why? Increased funding will lead to more data,
    better information, and better models. Under the present and
    future conditions of greater storm impacts and climate
    variability and change, this will help for better planning and
    mitigation.
        Question number four: ``Would it be helpful for NOAA to
    have an organic act? If so, why?'' Yes, so that NOAA can have
    clear and specific responsibilities assigned to it with an
    unambiguous partitioning of these responsibilities. For
    example, NOAA should forecast the weather, the climate, and
    hydrologic impacts of the atmosphere and the oceans, not NASA.
    Alternatively, NASA should be the testbed for new satellite
    sensor technology and the operational transition of these
    systems, when successful and shown to be of value to improving
    forecasts, should be assigned to NOAA.
        Question number five: ``What are the three top
    recommendations regarding NOAA you believe should be
    implemented without delay?'' The first is full implementation
    of the end-to-end, optimal, integrated Earth-observing system
    suite of measurements of oceanic, atmospheric, and hydrologic
    physical, chemical, biological state variables all networked
    for data transmission, data receipt, data assessment, data
    dissemination, data archiving and access all in real time and
    on the fly. The data must be useable in real time. Secondly,
    development of a crosscutting oceanic, coastal, atmospheric,
    hydrologic, physical, biological, chemical, and socio-economic
    impacts integrated Earth system modeling and operational
    forecast capability. We are capable of predicting it all.
    Finally, development of a socio-economic capability that
    supports NOAA's mission to serve the citizenry for the Nation
    and builds mitigation and resilience capacity for the Nation.
    NOAA is a mission agency that serves the needs of the public.
        I thank you for this opportunity to meet with you, applaud
    you for the hosting of this important hearing, applaud the
    extraordinary efforts of the Commission, and would be happy to
    provide any additional information or personal opinions to you.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Pietrafesa follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Leonard J. Pietrafesa

    Introduction

        Good Morning. My name is Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa and I am the
    Director of the Office of External Affairs in the College of Physical
    and Mathematical Sciences and a Professor at North Carolina State
    University in Raleigh, NC. I have been author or co-author of 165 peer
    reviewed publications in the areas of oceanography and meteorology and
    estuary and climate dynamics impacts. I have served as Chair of the
    Board on Oceans and Atmosphere of the National Association of State
    Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) and as Chair of the
    Council on Ocean Affairs, the precursor to the Consortium for
    Oceanographic Research and Education (CORE). Presently, I am on the
    Board on Trustees of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
    Research, am the Chair of the Educational Advisory Committee of the
    American Meteorological Society and am the Chair of the NOAA Science
    Advisory Board, which falls under FACA.
        The subject of my testimony is related to the Recommendations which
    have emanated from the bold, visionary and long awaited, U.S. Ocean
    Commission on Ocean Policy Report (USCOP) and is detailed in five
    questions which I will address individually.
        The considerable challenges to the agency are reflected in the 198
    recommendations dealing directly with NOAA in the USCOP Report.
        Now to the questions posed.

    1.  What are the current strengths and weaknesses of ocean and coastal
    programs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?

        First (20 amongst many) strengths:

            a.  Agency Personnel

            b.  Advancing the technology for and maintaining the real time
            National Water Level Network focused on the Nation's 150 major
            ports

            c.  Continued advances in Operational Forecasting and
            evaluation metrics

            d.  Developing a large suite (119 ) of coastal environmental
            models

            e.  Advancing the facilitation of the continuously operating
            incredibly precise lateral and vertical spatial observing
            network, including more hydrographic surveys to supplement the
            GPS satellite constellation and height modernization

            f.  Advancing the robust Shoreline Mapping Program

            g.  Conducting long-term estuary specific research programs

            h.  Sea Grant Extension's terrific job of moving the results of
            R&D into information that coastal managers and other
            stakeholders can understand and utilize

            i.  The Tropical Atmospheric and Oceanic Observing Array

            j.  The visionary and reliable NOAA (and partner agencies)
            continual suite of Earth observing satellites, such as:

            k.  The Argos drifter technology and drifter network strategy

            l.  The National Estuarine Research Reserve Program

            m.  Good coordination with Coastal Managers and Emergency
            Management responders

            n.  NOAA's recent leadership of ocean observations which has
            recently grown to annual expenditures of $400M

            o.  NOAA's recent national and international leadership roles:
            such as NOAA Administrator VADM C.L. Lautenbacher Jr. being the
            lead for the U.S., and one of four in the World, in the Earth
            Observing Summit; Assistant Administrator Dr. R. Spinrad's
            roles as Co-Chair (with Dr. M. Leinen of NSF) on the Joint
            Subcommittee on Oceans within OSTP, the U.S. representative to
            the Inter-Governmental Ocean Commission and as Chair of
            Ocean.US, to name but several.

        Next (20 amongst many of) the weaknesses:

            a.  A serious under sampling of state variables in both the
            water and atmospheric oceanic, coastal, Great Lakes and estuary
            environments of the Nation. These data are important for:
            systematically documenting the spatial and temporal histories
            of the entire suite of phenomena which occur that affect and
            effect the Nation's and the Planet's weather and climate
            interactively coupled physical, biological, chemical and human
            socio-economic and health systems; to ground truth NOAA's and
            NASA's satellite sensors; and to drive to drive the development
            of interactively coupled diagnostic and predictive models, to
            assimilate data into the models, and for model validation. In
            the immediate future, these models could routinely and
            automatically forecast all environmental conditions over
            multiple time and space scales.

            b.  USCOP has outlined a bold role for NOAA in establishing and
            supporting the International Ocean Observing System (IOOS).
            There is much in house strength within NOAA. However, there are
            several principal concerns with this: NOAA does not have all
            the in-house capabilities to provide the necessary leadership
            and technical skills in these areas; herein, NOAA's budget
            process does not easily and readily permit planning for
            engagement with the extramural community. It tends to be highly
            political-centric.

            c.  It may be difficult to `squeeze' the resources needed to
            build and sustain for IOOS into NOAA appropriations. Why? NOAA,
            within its parent Department Commerce, along with the
            departments of Justice and State, two perennial Hill favorites,
            exists in the smallest of the 13 appropriations bill.

            d.  There is growing evidence that both the Navy and NASA are
            backing away from environmental observations in the oceans in
            general and the coastal environment in particular because of
            massive budget cuts to their agencies and the reprogramming of
            the resources that remain. NOAA cannot and should not go it
            alone. As such, NOAA's past and present dependence on NASA
            compromises NOAA's ability to meet its' mission.

            e.  An end-to-end no-gaps new satellite system and succession
            system network funding strategy must be conceived for NOAA.
            (The model of USGCRP's budget formulation and budget execution
            might provide some worthwhile lessons as this ball is pushed
            uphill.) NASA satellites that are absolutely critical to NOAA's
            mission include, but are limited to: EOS Aqua and Terra;
            QuikSat; SeaWifs; Acquarius; Ocean Carbon Observation; Global
            Precipitation Mission; ICES. The lost of any of these amongst
            others would be devastating.

            f.  Under-funding of NOAA Data Centers archive and retrieval
            capabilities. For example the operations budget for all NOAA
            Data Centers is $34M in total, including the costs libraries.
            By contrast, the NASA DAAC budget is $70M. NASA maintains a
            research archive but NOAA maintains operational archives to
            which there must be real time access and an ability to mine
            data on the fly.

            g.  While the weather detection signal is usually strong,
            attention to the high resolution, precision and accuracy of the
            existing and new observing system instrumentation required to
            document climate signals is sometimes overlooked.

            h.  Assessment of performance of Coastal Zone Management
            activities. $130M is being spent annually and what is there to
            show for it? Unbridled, unabated coastal development, growing
            coastal water quality degradation, further destruction of
            maritime forests, destruction of marine fish, bird and mammal
            habitats, further destruction of wetlands, ill advised dredging
            of inlets and so on.

            i.  Ocean Exploration expenditures presently are at $15M
            annually but the realistic need is for $100M annually.

            j.  Connections of ocean and coastal information to educational
            venues, from ``K to Gray.''

            k.  A perceived lack of taking more extensive advantage of
            leveraging the intellectual and physical resources of the
            academic community. NOAA does leverage its in-house scientific
            talent with universities through various programs, including
            the National Sea Grant College Program, Joint and Cooperative
            Institutes, the Educational Partnership Program with minority
            serving institutions, Ocean and Coastal Remote Sensing
            Programs, the Coastal Ocean Program, Ocean Exploration and the
            National Undersea Research Program. Herein, NOAA expended
            nearly $257M on extramural research in FY03, almost 35 percent
            of the agency's entire R&D budget. Nonetheless, the University
            community has had difficulty tracking the true pathway of the
            external monies and is viewed as being abysmally low for the
            needs and responsibilities of the agency and compromises the
            agency's ability to more fully meet its responsibilities. This
            strategy also encourages earmarks.

            l.  The lack of a robust ``test bed'' enterprise in which new
            advances in technology by the external community that could be
            of benefit to NOAA could be tested out for efficacy and
            application via more NOAA/University partnerships. These are
            potentially low cost, high return investments.

            m.  NOAA operates the largest fleet of research and survey
            vessels of any federal agency (18 ships by 2005; 14 aircraft;
            as well as global ocean observing capability from research and
            operational satellites). Albeit, NOAA funded grant researchers
            have had to pay for the use of ships out of their grants which
            has a significant impact on the viability of those grants and
            presents a huge disincentive to do field work on behalf of
            NOAA. For comparison purposes, the National Science Foundation
            and the Office of Naval Research both provide greater support
            to the academic community in ocean research than does NOAA. And
            NSF's and ONR's ship use comes at no cost to the grant. This is
            a ``sustained infrastructure'' issue.

            n.  There is a not invented here syndrome which is perceived to
            exist within NOAA so appreciation and attribution for
            University advances of science and technology of value to NOAA
            are typically ignored. Alternatively, the University community
            is perceived by NOAA to be unappreciative of the support it
            does receive and does not always acknowledge the support that
            is provided by NOAA. So, the partnership is perceived as being
            weak on both sides and could improve with better communications
            and cross-credit sharing.

            o.  Poorly conceived and structured earmarks which do not
            comport with the core NOAA mission and end up wasting valuable
            NOAA resources on parochial, process driven local science for
            which (and rightfully so) competitive grants, peer reviewed
            support is generally denied by agencies.

    2.  Do you agree with the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
    recommendations with respect to NOAA? If not, why not?

        Generally ``yes'' on most of the 198 specific to NOAA, with several
    exceptions. Overall, I believe that the recommendations are very bold.
    My exceptions are based on my perceptions of some of the
    recommendations not going far enough.
        Overall, I agree with and believe that the 198 NOAA centric
    recommendations are on target and bold with several variances.

            a.  Rec. 8.9: The Chronicle of Higher Education has already
            made a compelling case that colleges and universities consider
            the fulfillment of general education science requirements by
            introducing very relevant ``meteorology and oceanography''
            courses for Liberal Arts and other majors.

            b.  Rec. 12.4: Federal agency assessments of the outcomes of
            past federal projects within coastal watersheds and ecosystems
            will not produce an independent and thus credible evaluation.
            The University could play an important role as an independent
            referee here.

            c.  Rec. 26.2: A truly integrated ocean observing system must
            include the collection of atmospheric state variables at all
            ocean state variable observing sites as alluded to I an article
            in a recent Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
            written by a NOAA scientist.

            d.  26.7 The limited connection that presently exists between
            ecosystem system modeling and hydrologic systems in a truly
            interactively coupled suite of models including atmosphere,
            ocean, coastal ocean, estuary, river, physical, biological,
            chemical system and even human socio-economic impacts modeling
            must be highlighted and properly addressed. Herein, the
            immediate future holds for numerical models that routinely
            forecast all environmental state variables over multiple space
            and time scales; down to minutes and a few tens of yards in
            some cases.

    3.  Are there limitations to NOAA's ability to carry out the new
    responsibilities the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommends? If so,
    please explain those limitations.

        In the context of the recommendations the principal limitation is
    money.
        At a minimum, there should be a doubling of the federal ocean
    research budget from today's $630M to $1.3B over the next five years
    not only to bring it back to its seven percent parity level with the
    1980s but more importantly because of what it would do for the Nation.
    Congressional action would clearly be required in order to double ocean
    research spending. Additionally, the move to five-year science plans
    and three-year grant cycles would both be made significantly more
    feasible with Congressional cooperation. Doubling the national
    investment in oceanic research would have an immediate positive impact
    within NOAA and the academic community and thus improve forecasting and
    stewardship capabilities. An increase in research capacity in the form
    of scientific infrastructure and graduate student researchers could be
    achieved in very short order and build greatly enhanced capacity for
    NOAA.
        The most likely form of question by the public would be a question
    of why it is so important to be doubling oceanographic research at this
    moment and in the present fiscal environment. The answers should be
    framed in the context of the extreme societal demands that are being
    placed on coastal and ocean resources:

              More than half of the Nation's population lives in
            the coastal zone, including the continental U.S. coastlines,
            Alaska, Hawaii and the Great Lakes; in fact, in some coastal
            regions population growth over the past century has been
            exponential.

              While only 15 percent of the Nation's coastal areas
            are presently developed, that figure is projected to rise to 25
            percent within the next two decades; in fact, in some coastal
            areas the value of housing (adjusted to the Nation's Consumer
            Piece Index) has grown exponentially over the past half-
            century.

              Between 70-75 percent of all weather related losses
            over the past two decades have occurred in the coastal zones.

              Projected sea level rise may greatly exacerbate
            future weather related impacts in the coastal ocean regions.

              Projected shifts in climate will greatly impact the
            economies of coastal communities.

              Coastal communities have expressed great need for
            integrated oceans, coasts, and estuary centric products,
            services and delivery mechanisms for weather and climate
            related impacts. Prognostic capabilities must include
            development of high-resolution models and observations and data
            management and delivery systems that inform federal, State, and
            local agencies.

        However:

              There is only sparse information presently available
            in and over the ocean, coastal and estuary environs. Examples
            include sparse marine buoy, coastal water level, CMAN, ocean,
            coastal and estuary mooring system based data.

              NWS verifications (the NWS national forecast
            verification Program) of forecast accuracy indicates that
            weather forecasts over land are far more accurate than are
            forecasts along the coasts and out over the ocean.

              There are many boating deaths and drowning of
            swimmers that are directly attributable to the lack of accurate
            coastal zone forecasts of sea state and currents. It is
            noteworthy that ``rip currents'' are responsible for the second
            largest number of fatalities ascribed to ``weather.''

              In 2003 the NWS determined that the addition of
            several new buoys lead to a dramatic improvement of significant
            wave height forecast capability lending credence to the
            assumption that more data in coastal areas will improve
            forecasts.

              Coastal ocean and estuary academic community
            developed coupled models of storm induced surge and flooding
            have proven to be very accurate and demonstrate that an
            advanced systems modeling approach, both deterministic and
            probabilistic, will significantly improve forecast accuracy.

        Our living and non-living marine resources are in a great state of
    peril, yet there are few sustained exploratory missions to adequately
    measure, monitor, and model the great oceans. By comparison to the
    existing investment in research to understand our planet's vast oceans,
    an order of magnitude more dollars are available for fundamental
    research leading to determination of whether there is water on other
    planetary bodies. Our ocean-going fleet of ships, aircraft, and in situ
    buoy systems are numbered in the hundreds and are always over
    committed. Funds to support ocean-going research experiments are
    extremely limited and are frequently the component of research funds
    that are reduced when any funding rescissions have to be absorbed.
        Whereas the previous 50 years were the half-century of rapid
    progress in numerical weather prediction and atmospheric sciences, the
    next 50 years could be the era of even more rapid development in the
    understanding of the ocean and its major influence on everyday life
    including weather over land. Using the advances developed in the world
    weather community, the capability for highly professional operational
    ocean services that would support coastal communities, ocean-related
    industries, and ocean weather prediction is now clearly possible. In
    this sense, an expansion of the professional oceanography economic
    sector could be anticipated along the lines of the meteorological
    service industry.
        Federal funding for technology should be on a par with the
    requested increase for ocean research to ensure the Nation has the
    requisite tools, including the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observing
    and Prediction Systems, to conduct a rigorous program of ocean science.
        The Integrated Ocean Observing System and other key elements of the
    technological infrastructure that support ocean research should be
    fully funded. Moreover a robust atmospheric component should be added
    throughout the entire IOOS and should become an integral part of the
    IOOS. The Coastal Ocean Observing System should also be highlighted and
    embellished as a core component of the IOOS. It often gets overlooked.
        NOAA's satellites, ships, aircraft, buoy networks and laboratory
    facilities also provide a vital base for coastal and oceanic research
    activities. Funding to maintain this existing national asset and should
    also be considered and should be available for the conduct of NOAA
    projects.
        As a corollary to the above, there should be a federal research
    policy which urges Congress to demand the Administration develop cross
    agency coordinated five-year science plans to improve stability in the
    research base. Congress should with the Administration in developing
    this planning process as the current annual appropriations process does
    not lend itself to five-year forward funded programs.
        NOAA should partner with other federal ocean agencies to adopt a
    unified grants process within each agency, which also employs three-
    year grants. Additionally, NOAA should work ambitiously to streamline
    its grants process.
        The transition of research into operations is a critical issue for
    NOAA that is actively being addressed by the NOAA Research Council, the
    NOAA Science Advisory Board, and the Blue Ribbon Research Review Panel.
    Hopefully this issue will be properly resolved.

    4.  Would it be helpful for NOAA to have an organic act? Why? What
    would be most important to include in such legislation?

        NOAA needs to have an Organic Act so it can have clear and specific
    responsibilities assigned to it with an unambiguous partitioning of
    responsibilities. Otherwise NOAA's responsibilities are defined by a
    collection of non-connected laws and policies. These laws were often
    developed in response to specific issues rather than being in response
    to the generic, fundamental mission and role of NOAA in the context of
    its relationship to other federal agencies.

        If there is limited new money available from the Federal
    Government, what are the top three recommendations regarding NOAA you
    believe should be implemented without delay?

        I will do this by linking some of the overlapping recommendations.

              Support of the linked Recommendations 23.5, 23.6,
            26.2, 26.9, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, to fully implement an end to end
            architecture for the complete optimal suite of measurement
            sites of ocean, atmospheric and hydrologic physical, chemical,
            biological state variables, for data recovery, for data
            assessment, for data dissemination, for data archiving and for
            data access; all in real time and on the fly.

              Support for the development of a truly cross-cutting
            oceanic, coastal, atmospheric, hydrologic physical, biological,
            chemical, human socio-economic impacts integrated, complete
            Earth System Modeling and Operational Forecast capability
            (Recommendations 27.2, 27.5, 28.2).

              The development of an ambitious Socio-Economic
            capability, broadly defined, that supports and will help NOAA
            better meet its mission to serve the citizenry of the Nation,
            build capacity for the Nation and build a greatly expanded
            stakeholder network of NOAA supporters (Recommendation 25.3).

        I thank you for this opportunity to meet with you, applaud you for
    your hosting of this important hearing, applaud the extraordinary
    efforts of the USCOP, and would be happy to provide any additional
    information and personal opinions to you and your staff.

                      Biography for Leonard J. Pietrafesa

    Areas of Interest:

        Observations and Modeling of Non-Linear Couplings of Atmospheric,
    Oceanic, Estuary, Hydraulic Coupled Systems, Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Weather and Climate Phenomena and Impacts, Wind-Wave-Current Coupled
    Interactions, Precipitation and River Discharge, Relationships between
    Climate Conditions, Weather Events and Human Health, Science and Public
    Policy.

    Education:

    1965 BS, Fairfield University (Fairfield, CT) Physics & Mathematics

    1967 MS, Boston College/University of Chicago (Boston, MA/Chicago, IL)
            Geophysical Fluid Dynamics (Advisors: Fr./Dr. J. DeVane, Dr.
            L.F. McGoldrick)

    1973 Ph.D., University of Washington (Seattle, WA) Geophysical Fluid
            Dynamics (Advisors: Dr. M. Rattray, Dr. J.D. Smith)

    Industry Employment:

    1965, 1966, 1968 Weston Geophysical Engineers, Boston, MA. (Projects:
            U.S. Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Verification; New England Power
            Blackout Source; Panama Canal Expansion Assessment; West
            Australia Environmental Assessment; Preservation of Old Man on
            the Mountain, NH)

    Academic Experience:

    10/1999--Director, Office of External Affairs, College of Physical and
            Mathematical Sciences, NCSU

    7/1989-10/1999--Head, Dept. of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,
            NCSU

    5/1988-8/1989--Associate Dean for Research, College of Physical and
            Mathematical Sciences, NCSU

    7/1988-6/1989--3rd Director, University Honors Council, NCSU

    7/1992-12/1996--Director, Southeast University Consortium for Severe
            Storms (NCSU, FSU, GTU, UAL-H)

    7/1981-    --Full Professor, Department of Marine, Earth and
            Atmospheric Sciences, NCSU

    7/1976-6/1981--Tenured Associate Professor, Departments of Geosciences
            & Marine Science & Engineering. NCSU

    7/1973-6/1976--Assistant Professor, Dept. of Geosciences, NCSU

    Recent (Selected) National Committee Service and Special Recognition:

    01/2004-07--American Meteorological Society, Chair, Education Advisory
            Comm.

    01/2004-05--American Meteorological Society, Co-Chair 2005 Conference
            on Living in Coastal Region (with M. Davidson, reporting to
            President S. Avery)

    07/2003-04--Chair, National Center for Environmental Prediction Ocean
            Modeling Review Panel

    10/2002-05--Board of Trustees of University Corporation for Atmospheric
            Research (Elected)

    10/2002--Received 2002 UCAR ``Lifetime Achievement Award'' as a
            Champion for Science (Picture on the front of a ``Wheaties''
            Box of whole grain Cereal

    8/2000-    --University Member Representative to the University
            Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR)

    6/2001-02--Chair, NOAA/National Geodetic Research Program Review Team

    5/2002-    --Member, NOAA/Climate Monitoring & Diagnostics Laboratory
            Review Team

    10/2001--Received 2001 ``Cheerleader for Science Award'' from UCAR

    6/1998-07--Chair, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
            (NOAA) Science Advisory Board (FACA approved)

    3/1997-    --Member, National Water Initiative Task Force of National
            Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges
            (NASULGC)

    11/1999--Member, National Association of State Universities and Land
            Grant Colleges (NASULGC) Executive Committee on Food, the
            Environment and Natural Resources

    11/1996-11/1997--Chair, NASULGC Board on Oceans and Atmosphere

    01/2004-    --Chair, American Meteorological Society (AMS)/UCAR Board
            on Higher Education

    3/1998-3/2000--Chair, Consortium for Oceanographic Research and
            Education (CORE) Board on Education

    5/1996-    --Member, American Geophysical Union (AGU) Committee on
            Natural Hazards

    5/1999-    --Member, NASULGC/Department of Interior (USGS) Partnership
            Committee

    5/1998-1/2001--Member, IPCC Assessment of Coastal Effects of Climate
            Change

    5/1999-    --Member, NASULGC/NASA Partnership Committee

    3/1996-11/1997--Chair (the 3rd), Council on Ocean Affairs (the
            Precursor to CORE)

    3/1997-10/2001--Presented oral and written testimony before Six
            different United States Senate and House Subcommittees on
            issues related to science, technology, natural resources,
            severe storms, coastal flooding, societal impacts of severe
            storms, ocean and atmospheric observing systems, education
            reform.

    9/2002--Presentation to the U.S. House Science Committee staffers on
            the need for value of the USWRP Collaboration Fund at
            invitation of UCAR.

    Professional Organizations:

    1)  American Meteorological Society--Elected Fellow

    2)  Sigma Xi (past local chapter president)

    3)  Phi Kappa Phi

    4)  American Association for the Advancement of Science

    5)  Society for Non-Linear Mathematics

    6)  American Geophysical Union

    7)  Oceanography Society (Charter--Lifetime member)

    Five recent selected of 168 peer reviewed publications

    1)  Bright, R., L. Xie, I.J. Pietrafesa, 2003. Evidence of the Gulf
    Stream's Influence on Tropical Cyclone Intensity. Geophysical Research
    Letters, Vol. 29, No. 48, 1-4.

    2)  Pietrafesa, L.J., L. Xie, D. Dickey, S.M.C. Peng, S.W. Bao. 2003.
    Numerical Modeling of Coastal & Inland Flooding, Vol. 1, Sect. 1, 101-
    111, Ecosystems and Sustainable Development. WIT Press.

    3)  Xie, L., L.J. Pietrafesa, K. Wu, 2003. Numerical Study of wave-
    current interaction through surface and bottom stresses: Part II, Wind
    driven circulation in the South Atlantic Bight under uniform winds. J.
    Geophys. Res., 108, 16841-16856.

    4)  Pietrafesa, L.J., C. Flagg, L. Xie, G. Weatherly, 2002. Winds,
    currents, sea level and sea state in the Mid-Atlantic Bight during the
    winter/spring 1996 Ocean Margins Program. J. of Deep Sea Research, 49,
    4331-4354.

    5)  Xie, L., L.J. Pietrafesa and K. Wu, 2002. Inter-annual and decadal
    variability of land-falling tropical cyclones in the United States
    Southeastern States. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 19, 677-
    686.

    Professional and Public (Invited Only) Presentations: Total of 177

    Student Committees Supervised: Chair or Co of 22 Ph.D. (22 completed) &
            22 MS (21 Completed)

    Post Docs and Technicians Supervised: 32 Total.

    Grants: Total of 81 Awards as Principal or Co-Principal Investigator
            totaling $20,865,069.

        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Doctor.
        Dr. Freilich.

     STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL H. FREILICH, ASSOCIATE DEAN, COLLEGE
      OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY

        Dr. Freilich. Chairman Boehlert, Members, I appreciate the
    opportunity to comment on the Ocean's Committee--Commission
    report from the standpoint of research and observations. I am
    Michael Freilich.
        The report emphasizes scientific understanding as the
    foundation for wise ocean management and stewardship. It
    highlights the need to implement an Integrated Ocean Observing
    System that has global scope as well as regional focus, and it
    serves local and non-governmental as well as federal users. I
    emphatically agree.
        The report advocates a strengthened NOAA as the Nation's
    lead agency for ocean-related research, education, management,
    measurements, and predictions. I agree, with reservations. In
    an ideal world, a strong lead agency may be the correct answer,
    but such an agency must recognize the equal importance of its
    research and education, management, and prediction and
    assessment tasks. It must be able to interact effectively with
    many diverse user communities. It must be funded sufficiently
    so that it can satisfy its responsibilities and plan
    realistically for future improvements. Faced with funding
    shortfalls, yet under the unremitting pressure to produce
    regular operational forecasts, I fear that NOAA, or any agency
    in that position, might shortchange its research activities.
    Indeed, between 1997 and 2002, NOAA research support at the
    selected core institutions decreased 12 percent in inflation-
    adjusted dollars, while NASA and NSF funding increased
    substantially. In this context, a near-term transfer of
    responsibilities for ocean observing research satellites from
    NASA to NOAA is premature. I am convinced that long-term
    research quality ocean observations, especially satellite
    observations, will eventually be acquired by operational
    observing systems since NASA's charter, indeed, does not
    include responsibility for acquiring long-term ocean
    observations.
        However, NASA's Earth science enterprise has not
    prematurely terminated any ocean observing research mission as
    implied by the report. NASA continues to operate missions,
    which have both research and operational utility far beyond the
    end of their baseline lifetimes. Turning NASA's Earth science
    enterprise into a satellite engineering and launch activity
    only while levying additional research satellite
    responsibilities on an already overburdened NOAA seems to me
    needlessly risky, at least until NOAA has demonstrated its
    ability to take over those tasks.
        So what do we do? Both the National Research Council's
    Committee on NASA-NOAA Transition from Research to Operations
    and the Ocean Commission advocate formal interagency
    coordination groups to help the research to operations
    transition. Moving the Executive's review of NOAA's budget to
    OMB's Natural Resources Program should help coordinate multi-
    agency funding, especially for satellite missions, which
    support both scientific and operational activities. Stronger
    interagency coordination, not a superagency, is the answer, in
    my opinion.
        In the area of data systems and data management, it is
    costly but absolutely necessary to integrate appropriate data
    centers into an ocean information system that transforms
    measurements into useful policy guidance. I endorse the
    recommendations that an interagency coordination group, called
    Ocean.IT, be empowered to address ocean and coastal data and
    information issues and that a Presidential interagency task
    force be established to oversee the modernization, actually the
    creation, of the Nation's environmental data and information
    system.
        The challenge for Ocean.IT will be to guide the development
    of flexible and evolvable ocean information systems that can
    meet the changing needs of the research and decision support
    communities.
        I thank the Committee for your strong support of ocean
    sciences and multi-agency ocean research. I applaud you for
    taking the time to consider the Ocean's Commission report
    thoughtfully and carefully. The report's emphasis on science as
    the foundation for the Nation's ocean management and education
    policies is absolutely correct. We must increase federal
    investment in ocean-related research and education. We must
    implement an Integrated Ocean Observing System that builds on
    past technological and scientific successes that connects
    coastal measurements to open-ocean observations and that serves
    a wide range of users. We must have better interagency
    coordination. Any transition to a primarily single agency
    approach must be measured and robust. We must ensure that
    research, education, and management activities are not
    neglected in the face of operational requirements and
    constrained budgets.
        There are advantages to having multiple agencies with
    overlapping responsibilities and different approaches. One
    agency may falter, but it is likely that another will succeed.
    Concentrating ocean responsibilities in a single agency without
    strong assurances of success is an extremely fragile strategy.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Freilich follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Michael H. Freilich

    Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, Committee Members:

        I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Oceans Committee
    Report. I am Michael Freilich, Associate Dean of the College of Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University and Chair of the
    National Research Council's Committee on Earth Studies.
        I strongly endorse the Report's emphasis on science as the
    foundation for wise ocean management and stewardship. We must
    understand interdisciplinary ocean processes and the interactions
    between the ocean, the atmosphere, the sea bed, and the land.
        Implementation of the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) is
    crucial. The IOOS must have global scope as well as regional focus--
    global processes force the local ocean, just as distant storms
    influence local weather. The Report correctly advocates broadening the
    scope of data products and services to address the needs of non-federal
    and non-research users.
        Our national ocean policy is at best loosely coordinated. The
    Report advocates a strengthened NOAA as the government's lead agency
    for ocean-related research, education, measurement, management, and
    prediction.
        In an ideal world, a strong lead agency may be the correct answer.
    But such an agency must recognize the equal importance of its research
    and education, management, and prediction/assessment tasks. It must be
    able to interact effectively with many diverse user communities. It
    must be funded sufficiently so that it can satisfy its responsibilities
    and plan realistically for future improvements.
        Faced with funding shortfalls, yet under the unremitting pressure
    to produce regular operational forecasts, I fear that NOAA--or any
    agency in that position--will short-change its other (research,
    education, and management) activities. Indeed, between 1997 and 2002,
    NOAA research support at CORE institutions decreased 12 percent in
    inflation-adjusted dollars, while NASA and NSF funding increased
    substantially.
        A near-term transfer of responsibilities for ocean-observing
    satellite missions from NASA to NOAA is premature. While NASA's charter
    does not include responsibility for acquiring long-term ocean
    observations, NASA's Earth Science Enterprise has not prematurely
    terminated any ocean-observing research mission as implied by the
    Report. NASA continues to operate missions which have both research and
    operational utility far beyond the end of their baseline lifetimes.
    NASA maintains effective ties with the ocean research community.
        I am convinced that long-term research-quality ocean observations--
    especially satellite observations--will eventually be acquired by
    operational observing systems. However, turning NASA's Earth Science
    Enterprise into a satellite engineering and launch activity only, while
    levying additional space mission research support responsibilities on
    an already overburdened NOAA seems needlessly risky until NOAA has
    demonstrated its ability to take over those tasks.
        Both the National Research Council's CONNTRO report and the Oceans
    Commission advocate formal interagency coordination groups to help the
    research-to-operations transition. Moving the Executive's review of
    NOAA's budget to OMB's Natural Resources Program should help coordinate
    multi-agency funding for satellite missions which support both
    scientific and operational activities.

    Data Systems and Data Management

        Acquiring accurate ocean measurements is necessary, but not
    sufficient. The measurements must be made available to researchers, and
    the data must be transformed into useful guidance for managers, policy
    makers, and the public. Ocean information must be archived, refined,
    and distributed for decades and longer.
        The Report highlights the need for timely and consistent submission
    of ocean data sets to national data centers.
        Equally importantly, the centers must advertise their holdings to
    potential users, and be adaptable and flexible in response to changing
    user needs, technology, and understanding. It is these tasks which
    differentiate useful ``knowledge systems'' from ``data repositories.''
        It is costly but necessary to integrate our national data centers
    into a knowledge system. I endorse the recommendations that an
    interagency coordination group, Ocean.IT, be empowered to address ocean
    and coastal data/information issues and that a Presidential interagency
    task force be established to oversee the modernization--actually the
    creation--of the Nation's environmental data and information system.
    The challenge for Ocean.IT will be to guide the development of flexible
    and evolvable information systems that can meet the changing needs of
    the research and decision-support communities.

    Concluding remarks

        I thank the Committee for your strong support of ocean sciences and
    multi-agency ocean research. I applaud you for taking the time to
    consider the Oceans Commission report thoughtfully and carefully. The
    Report's emphasis on science as the foundation for the Nation's ocean
    management and education policies is absolutely correct; we must
    increase federal investment in ocean-related research and education.
        We must implement an Integrated Ocean Observing System that builds
    on past technological and scientific successes, connects coastal
    measurements to open-ocean observations, and serves a wide range of
    users. Pilot projects will help develop the organizational structures
    needed to ensure that the Integrated Ocean Observing System truly is
    integrated and useful.
        While better interagency coordination is necessary, any transition
    to a primarily single-agency approach must be measured and robust. The
    transition must ensure that research, education, and management
    activities are not neglected in the face of operational requirements
    and constrained budgets. There are advantages to having multiple
    agencies with overlapping responsibilities. Different agencies will
    address challenges in different ways. One may falter, but it is likely
    that another will succeed. Concentrating ocean responsibilities in a
    single agency without strong assurances of success is an extremely
    fragile strategy.

                       Biography for Michael H. Freilich

    Born: January 14, 1954

    Citizenship: U.S.

    Affiliation: Professor and Associate Dean, College of Oceanic &
            Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Oceanography
            Admin. Bldg. 104, Corvallis, OR 97331-5503

    EDUCATION

    1971-1975--B.S. Physics (Honors), B.S. Chemistry, Haverford College,
            Haverford, PA

    1975-1981--Ph.D. Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
            University of California, San Diego

    DISSERTATION

        Resonance effects on shoaling surface gravity waves: Ph.D.
    Dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 113 pp.

    PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

    American Association for the Advancement of Science (past member)

    American Geophysical Union

    American Meteorological Society

    The Oceanography Society (past member)

    PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

    1977-1981--Sea Grant Trainee, Shore Processes Laboratory, Scripps
            Institution of Oceanography

    1982-1983--Assistant Professor, Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY/
            Stony Brook

    1983-1992--Member of Technical Staff, Oceanography Group, Jet
            Propulsion Laboratory

    1992-present--Associate Professor/Professor/Associate Dean, College of
            Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University

    1983-1992--Project Scientist, NASA Scatterometer Project

    1985-1987--Associate Editor, JGR-Oceans

    1987-1990--Member, U.S. WOCE Science Steering Committee

    1988-1998--Member (Science PI), ESA ERS-1/2 Science Working Team (also
            Coordinating Investigator for U.S. Scatterometer Activities)

    1989-present--NASA Mission Principal Investigator, NASA EOS
            Scatterometer (SeaWinds)

    1992-1999--Member (Science PI), NASA Scatterometer Science Working Team

    1992-1999--Member, NASA/JPL PO.DAAC User Working Group

    1992-1995--Member, NAS/NRC Ocean Studies Board

    1993-1995--Member, NAS/NRC Panel on NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program
            (Chair, Coastal Hazards, Physical Oceanog. & Met. sub-group)

    1994-1996--Chair, NASA EOS Panel on Data Quality

    1994-2000--Member, NASA EOS Science Executive Committee

    1996-present--Chair, NASA EOS Oceans Panel

    1996-present--Member, NSCAT/QuikSCAT Calibration/Validation Panel

    1997-1999--Member, NASA EOSDIS Review Group

    1997-present--NASA Mission Principal Investigator, NASA QuikSCAT
            Mission

    1999-present--Member (PI), NASDA (Japanese Space Agency) ADEOS-2
            Science Team and AMSR/AMSR-E Science Team

    2000-present--Member, NASA Earth Science Data and Information Systems
            and Services Advisory Subcommittee (official FACA NASA Advisory
            body)

    2000-present--Team Leader, NASA Ocean Vector Winds Science Team

    2001-present--Chair, National Research Council Committee on Earth
            Studies

    2001-present--Member, National Research Council Space Studies Board

    2002-2003--Member, National Research Council Committee on NASA-NOAA
            Transition from Research to Operations

                                   Discussion

               Top Priorities for Ocean Research and Development

        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Watkins, you must be gratified by the very favorable
    comments this distinguished panel has about this excellent
    report, and I applaud the report.
        Admiral Watkins. I did not talk to them ahead of time, I
    assure you.
        Chairman Boehlert. Well, and let me say this. Any field,
    any discipline, is able to present a panel of very
    distinguished Americans to make a solid case for more money,
    and you make it better than most. But the reality is that we
    are faced with budgetary challenges, not like any in previous
    years. And so we are not going to be able to do everything you
    want. So we have to do some prioritizing.
        So let me ask each of you, given the reality of the
    situation that, obviously, I think, we are going to be pushing
    for more, not nearly the more that you would like to satisfy
    your defined needs, but nevertheless a little bit more, what
    would be your top priorities? And let me go from the last to
    first. You know, the last shall be first. We know that one.
        Dr. Freilich.
        Dr. Freilich. There are several top priorities, of course.
        The very top priority is for better interagency
    coordination, so that the expertise that has been developed
    already in the Federal Government can be applied to
    interaction.
        Chairman Boehlert. But that is not excessively costly. I am
    talking about dollars. We have got to have better coordination
    across the board. I mean, the intelligence community, it is
    about time. It took 9/11 to get the FBI to talk to the CIA. You
    know, I serve on the Intelligence Committee. I thought for the
    longest time that they were competitors rather than being on
    the same team. So the interagency coordination, I agree with
    that. And you won't find any dissenters up here, but that
    doesn't cost a ton of new money. But things that cost new
    money, prioritize. If you will, give me a couple of top
    priorities.
        Dr. Freilich. If we were to integrate the Integrated Ocean
    Observing System, which is absolutely the top research,
    scientific, and therefore, the foundational requirement. In an
    era of constrained budgets, we have got to spend our money
    wisely. That is a costly, but absolutely necessary initiative
    that we must implement rapidly. But given that we can't simply
    throw money at the issue, it does get back to the coordination
    problem. We have expertise spread among many agencies,
    expertise in making measurements, and expertise in dealing with
    the scientific and user communities. And that is where the
    coordination comes in so that the money that is spent on the
    Integrated Ocean Observing System is efficiently spent and not
    frittered away, if you will, building capabilities that exist
    well in one agency in another agency, which takes time as well
    as money.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you.
        Dr. Pietrafesa.
        Dr. Pietrafesa. I think the top priority should be the
    implementation and the establishment of the Integrated Ocean
    Observing System.
        Chairman Boehlert. The score is two to nothing.
        Dr. Pietrafesa. Yes. The second is the implementation of an
    end-to-end Earth system modeling capability, which is not
    highly expensive. To put my first choice in context, North
    Carolina, as a single state, has been hit with approximately 20
    billion dollar--in excess of billion dollar events, weather-
    related events, over a 22-year period. That is one state, and
    that is a great cost, not only to that state, but to the
    Federal Treasury. So by way of comparison, the investment
    called for in the Commission report pales, by comparison, to
    what that one state is having--has had to deal with over the
    last two decades.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you.
        Dr. Pomponi.
        Dr. Pomponi. I have two top priorities. My first would be a
    robust, well disciplined, ocean exploration program. I believe
    that the outcomes from an ocean exploration program would
    provide the American public with many benefits, including
    national security, mapping of our coastlines, inventory of new
    resources, and outcomes related to our health, and fisheries as
    well. My second would be an Integrated Ocean Observing System.
        Chairman Boehlert. Okay. You are an expensive date.
        Dr. Solow.
        Dr. Solow. I guess I think that observations is the top
    priority, but I am a statistician, and I think that it is
    important that observation systems be designed efficiently, and
    in this case, specifically to address scientific questions. And
    at a time when there are budget constraints, I am not as
    enthusiastic as Dr. Pomponi is about exploration. I am more
    enthusiastic about science to answer scientific questions and
    questions of importance to society.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you.
        And Admiral.
        Admiral Watkins. On page 374 of our report, we include a
    table of estimates on cost recommendations. The Commission
    decided that they are not in the right position to set
    priorities, particularly when you talk about research. From my
    experience as the Secretary of Energy, the most difficult task
    I had was to convince the physicists that chemistry was also
    important, that biology was important, that geology was
    important. And those are difficult things to do. So we say in
    our report, if you are willing to set up the less costly
    organizational structure that we have called the framework, we
    are ready to receive the kind of direction we could get out of
    the Congress. If you only have a few hundred million to give us
    instead of a billion, then give us that and tell the White
    House to come back from the National Ocean Council with a
    priority on which they can work with you. They ought to set
    priorities in concert with the Congress, not ask the Commission
    to come up and give you the line items. We can't do that.
        So if you look at that table, it costs $1 million a year to
    $2 million, maybe, to set up the National Ocean Council
    framework that we recommended. So, to get it going is not
    beyond the scope of the text here in Congress. Then we itemize
    the more expensive ones, for example, ocean science exploration
    and support for the states, to whom we give a lot of tribute to
    here, because they are the ones that have to do a lot of the
    work. And then other recommendations to take us up to the costs
    I mentioned earlier. If you gave us a fraction of the latter,
    then I would say make it proportional to costs estimated in our
    table, but tell the White House to come back to Congress with
    their list of priorities. I took this approach at Energy, and
    it worked. It worked, and instead of $800 million a year into
    waste cleanup for 50 years of nuclear bomb building, we ramped
    up to a sustained $6 billion a year. And the reason for this is
    that the President said, ``I want to do it.'' And the
    Department of Defense hated it, because it came right out of
    their budget.
        But that is the kind of direction we are talking about for
    the Assistant to the President. So let us set up an
    organization that is ready to receive the new guidance and the
    horizontal integration by ecosystems across the government and
    up here on the Hill. If we do that, then we are ready to move
    no matter how many dollars you give us.
        Chairman Boehlert. I see a lot of nodding of the heads in
    the affirmative, so thank you very much for that. You can
    understand, Admiral, that all of us, with the exception of,
    well, we have got a few exceptions, like Dr. Ehlers, a
    distinguished physicist, but most of us are laypeople, and we
    are struggling all of the time with the various subject matter
    that comes before the Committee. And we are always looking for
    some guidance on establishing priority from the experts. And we
    would look for that, but you are saying that the new
    infrastructure, or the new structure, if we implement your
    recommendations, would be the ideal person to come before us.
    Because I can remember the frustration I experienced,
    particularly as a Junior Member, and we were going through
    something that you are familiar with, the future of the
    superconducting supercollider. I mean, I would get witnesses
    after witnesses, some of them with Nobel laureates in their
    satchel. And I would say, ``Please, guide us. Give us some
    priorities.'' And I found, my experience was that one
    discipline did not want to be about another discipline, because
    then they said, you know, they saw the position they were in,
    and they said, but for the grace of God, when my turn comes, I
    don't want them saying things negative, but so thank you for
    the recommendation. Thank all of you for that input.
        Mr. Cardoza. Or Mr. Honda, the distinguished colleague.

                      Ecosystem-Based Management Approach

        Mr. Honda. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    putting this panel together, and I appreciate the report that I
    am reading and listening to. As a science teacher, your
    comments, Admiral, seem to make a lot of sense in terms of
    coming up with a global approach where you integrate all of the
    ecosystems together, unless you call the ecosystem the entire
    arena that is covered by water. And I think that those are
    important comments to make. And I guess what you are saying is
    that you gave us some of the information and you have the
    vision that we have to write it into statute and then pass it
    along so that we can get started. Is that a correct assumption?
        Admiral Watkins. Yes, it is, Congressman. And you know, a
    powerful theme in our entire report throughout is an approach
    to ecosystem-based management. We are not ready to do that
    today. We hear the buzzword around this town about science-
    based decision-making and ecosystem-based management. But, we
    are not ready for either one of them, because we don't devote
    the investment. We don't have an integrated strategy. We don't
    work together enough to accomplish that. So everything we are
    talking about is ecosystem-based management. You have 24 bills
    that are ocean-related right now in the 108th Congress here in
    the House of Representatives. If you properly handle those
    bills in a new way to demonstrate the Congress interest into
    ecosystem-based management, staffs need to talk to each other.
    You may need a select committee on the oceans to bring the
    staffs together. You will try to ensure that those individual
    bills aren't continuing the piece-mealing that you have heard
    outlined here today. So there are a lot of people that need to
    get in the act here. It is not just the Executive Branch.
        And so what I am saying is that we are recommending a new
    way of doing business. If we believe in ecosystem-based
    management, and I can't find anybody against the concept, then
    let us get on with it. We recognize that this is very
    difficult. If you take the budget process alone on ecosystem-
    based management, do you think OMB gives guidance to the
    National Ocean Partnership Program for integrated research
    packages? No way. They are not even an accepted entity by the
    Administration. They have about a $25 million budget at the end
    of seven years that the Program has been in effect. Their
    impact has been neutered, because nobody in a power position in
    the White House pays any attention. So the Congress has to say,
    ``Pay attention. We want to see an integrated budget package.
    We want to see a strategy come up here, and we will be willing
    to support you, and we will organize our Congressional
    Committees to come together in some new way so that these bills
    don't continue to be piece-mealed, and, in many cases,
    counterproductive.''
        Mr. Honda. I note to the Chair, I agree with you, and I
    think that I agree, also, if I understand it correctly, the
    reasons why you keep NOAA and NASA separate for the time being,
    because you want information to be gathered in a way that is
    going to be applicable to the ecosystem-based management. It
    sounds like this addresses all of the kinds of battles that we
    have along both coasts and along the Gulf areas where we are
    trying to manage our fisheries and yet, based on even the local
    science, it is only part of the solution and problem set,
    because we are not integrating the rest of the ocean in terms
    of looking at how you manage certain kinds of species and
    sustain them. And it appears that you have given us a pretty
    clear direction in order to come up with a statute or a policy
    that we can give to the other body and to the Administration,
    so I appreciate all of your work. And you know, it sounds like
    it makes sense to me, and I would like to support those
    positions that you have shared with us.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Ehlers. I--excuse me. Excuse me. Mr.
    Gilchrest. We have got to go in order of appearance.

                        Public Awareness of Ocean Issues

        Mr. Gilchrest. I will ask some questions with great
    appreciation to Dr. Ehlers for letting me go before his time.
        We have been talking about this, the Chairman mentioned a
    couple of times, some of you mentioned a couple times the
    physics and physicists. I just want to bring up Jacob Burnowski
    was a physicist prior to World War II. He wrote that wonderful
    book, ``The Ascent of Man'', about 30 years ago. He saw the
    importance of biological diversity, so he went from physics to
    biology. We are still trying to talk Dr. Ehlers into doing
    that, and there is some hope, I think, serving on this
    committee and listening to the witnesses. It--I think your
    testimony has been invaluable. This study is not going to go on
    a shelf and gather dust. We are going to use all of the energy
    possible to move this idea, these concepts forward. And it can
    not just be, like the Admiral has mentioned, in the Executive
    Branch. There is--all of the leadership, all of the
    organizations, all of the brains do not reside in the Executive
    Branch. It has got to be co-equal with the Legislative Branch,
    and we are going to push and hopefully create, in the next
    Congress, a Committee to deal with the oceans. And we are
    working on that right now. It won't be a Select Committee. We
    want it to be a Standing Committee, and we want the Committee
    criteria and jurisdiction to be based, pure and simple, on the
    kind of testimony you gave here this morning and also the
    outline to the Commission's report, which is broad and
    encompasses all of the real vital things that the oceans
    involve.
        The other thing is, I really think, with the help of the
    Executive Branch, and, certainly, this Congress, we have to
    raise the level of NOAA to the same level of NASA. I would
    venture to say that we ought to get Jay Leno to ask people on
    the street what NASA is. And I would hope that you get about 90
    percent of the people that he would ask those questions to
    would know what NASA is. But you wouldn't have one percent of
    the population that knows what NOAA is. That push has to come
    from us so that NOAA has the same level, I am going to say the
    same level of funding, the same level of prestige, the same
    level of importance, and the same level of direction that NASA
    has. We are constantly discussing the understanding of creation
    of the universe in the sense of what the physics are. Well, we
    need, I think, to have some understanding of the physics of the
    ecosystem before us. And a number of you mentioned, and Admiral
    Watkins just mentioned again, we can't just bust right into
    ecosystem fisheries management or ecosystem management, because
    there is not enough known on it yet. But that is the clear
    direction that we need to move.
        Chairman Boehlert. Hold on just one second, if you will. We
    have got a series of votes now, so here is what I would like to
    do. If you could come to a----
        Mr. Gilchrest. I am going to wrap it right up.
        Chairman Boehlert. Okay. And then we will have Dr. Ehlers
    and Mr. Gutknecht, both, quick questions, and then we will go
    and we will dismiss the panel. It is not fair to keep you here
    another half-hour while we wait around over there for the next
    vote. You know the system as well as I do.
        Wrap up.
        Mr. Gilchrest. 30 seconds. Not only education for those
    people in the various agencies, but we all know what the
    ``Three Rs'' are: reading, writing, arithmetic. In our public
    schools, it is essential that we add the biosphere to that,
    that you weave that curriculum, from K through 12, how life on
    Planet Earth needs to be sustained.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Ehlers.

                          Specific Follow-up Questions

        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, one of the Commission's recommendations is
    that Congress pass an Organic Act for NOAA. As you probably
    know, my staff and I have been working on this for well over a
    year, and we hope to introduce the bill fairly soon. I would be
    interested in what specific recommendations each of you have on
    the NOAA Organic Act, and I could give a number of specifics,
    but I would just be interested in your comments on that.
        Let me also say that I noticed the dearth of the ``G'' word
    during the testimony, and that is the Great Lakes. We have more
    coastline in the Great Lakes than we do on the Atlantic
    seaboard, and the interest and the comments from each of you as
    to whether or not the Great Lakes should receive a greater
    portion of the research and exploration money than it is
    getting at this time compared to the other coastline of our
    nation. And are there specific science and research needs for
    the Great Lakes that are different from those of the saltwater
    ecosystem? My understanding is that we will ask for written
    responses from you on each of these questions, so I zip through
    them fairly quickly, but I am very interested in how the Great
    Lakes fit into all of this. And I know almost everyone here
    represents the saltwater research, but let us consider the
    Great Lakes.
        The other comment, hearing the brief interchange between
    Dr. Pomponi and Dr. Solow about exploration versus research, I
    thought I was listening to a NASA panel once again. That is an
    issue that we, as the Congress, have to resolve, I think, in
    every individual case. But I appreciate both points of view. I
    think we need both. And we need substantially more funding to
    do both properly, and I think that is the real answer. So we,
    rather than fighting about which it should be, I think we all
    have to join together, as a community, to request more funding
    so we can do both.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers and Mr. Gutknecht,
    and we will submit these questions to you in writing, but we
    want to be considerate of your schedules and mindful of ours.
        Mr. Gutknecht.
        Mr. Gutknecht. Mr. Chairman, I will submit a statement, not
    so much a question. It relates to agriculture, and we realize
    that there are some bad operators, and we are, in fact, part of
    the problem. But we also want to be part of the solution. So I
    will submit this for the record.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gilknecht follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Representative Gil Gutknecht
        I want to offer a couple of words of caution and then talk about
    some good news relating to agriculture and the U.S. Commission on Ocean
    Policy Preliminary Report.
        First, a word of caution. I think that America's farmers are often
    an easy target when we talk about pollution. Many who don't come from
    rural America and don't understand how modern production agriculture
    works think of manure pouring into streams, and farmers applying five
    times the fertilizer and other inputs needed. This is not the case.
        America's farmers are the best stewards of our land and water. They
    not only care about the land because they live on it, but they also
    need to ensure it is productive for years to come. All of our producers
    voluntarily use Best Management Practices. It is also amazing to see
    how technology is being implemented to improve management practices.
    Farmers in Minnesota and around the country use global positioning
    systems and computers connected to their sprayers. Soils samples taken
    in every portion of their fields ensure that they spray just what is
    needed for that soil type. They use this to ensure that they spray the
    exact amount of inputs in every portion of their fields. Remember that
    fertilizer and other inputs cost money. Farmers know that fertilizer
    running off the field into streams wastes money and does not help their
    crops grow.
        I also want to point out that most of the recommendations in the
    report relating to agriculture have already been implemented, either
    fully or partially. You recommend more strict regulations for animal
    feeding operations. In late 2002, EPA issued updated strict CAFE
    regulations and states are quickly coming into compliance and our
    producers are doing the same. Let's not forget though that compliance
    can be a very expensive and certainly can be hardest on some of our
    smaller and mid-size producers.
        Most of your recommendations in regard to USDA conservation
    programs have already been implemented, many as part of the 2002 Farm
    Bill. The Farm Bill's unprecedented commitment to conservation
    contained more than $17 billion for conservation programs, and as you
    recommend, this funding is tied to compliance and cooperation with
    other programs. Approximately $1 billion annually is spent on the
    Environmental Quality Incentive Program, which cost shares
    environmental projects to, among other things, help producers comply
    with CAFE rules.
        In addition, you recommend a watershed approach. Minnesota and many
    other states have implemented Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs
    to tackle runoff issues on a watershed basis. The Conservation Security
    Program is a new and unique program that, while still being
    implemented, provides financial incentives for conservation practices.
        I could go on and on.
        I'll close again, with a word of caution. We need to be careful to
    consider the economic cost to our producers and also give America's
    farmers credit for the care and steps they've already taken to protect
    our oceans and environment.

        Mr. Gutknecht. Thank you.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you.
        And once again, let me stress that we will submit some
    questions to you, those outlined by Dr. Ehlers, and you will
    get the benefit of the comments of our distinguished Vice
    Chairman, Mr. Gutknecht, who will have a few other questions.
    We would appreciate a timely response, and we are mindful of
    your schedules, too. We are not the only people in town that
    claim to be busy. But let me thank all of you for serving as
    resources. Admiral Watkins, thank you, particularly, for your
    leadership, but all of you in the field of science, you know,
    you are preaching to the choir here. I mean, we are arguing all
    of the time with OMB and other agencies on the importance of
    making the investment that we all appreciate is absolutely
    necessary for our long-range future and to guarantee that we
    remain preeminent in the international community. And shame on
    us if we don't heed the call and address the need.
        Thank you very much. With that, we are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                                   Appendix:

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Admiral James D. Watkins, U.S. Navy (Retired); Chairman,
            U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

    Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

    Q1.  Dr. Freilich testified that rather than having control of research
    satellites (once in orbit) transferred from the National Aeronautics
    and Space Administration (NASA) to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA), those agencies should instead establish an
    Interagency Transition Office to better coordinate planning and
    development of satellite programs between NASA and NOAA. Such an office
    was recommended by the National Research Council in its 2003 report
    ``Satellite Observations of the Earth's Environment--Accelerating the
    Transition of Research to Operations.'' Please explain why the
    Commission did not recommend an Interagency Transition Office. What
    other options, if any, did the Commissioners discuss for improving the
    transition between NASA research programs and NOAA operational
    programs?

    A1. The Commission specifically did not recommend an Interagency
    Transition Office because we did not see that as a particularly viable
    option. It would not, in our opinion, rectify the existing problem of
    lack of transition of research satellites into operational ones. As we
    note in our report, ``The integration of space-based Earth
    environmental observing operations into one agency will greatly ease
    the implementation of a functional national system. By transferring
    Earth, and particularly ocean, observing satellite missions to NOAA,
    more seamless concept-to-operations data collection will be possible.''
        We also note in the report that NOAA and NASA need to work together
    to achieve the smooth transfer of Earth-observing satellites and we
    state very specifically in Recommendation 26.8 that, ``NOAA and NASA
    should work together to identify research satellite missions which have
    operational applications and to ensure the smooth transition of each
    Earth environmental observing satellite after its launch.''
        During our deliberations we did not consider other options for
    accomplishing the transfer of Earth-observing satellite operations from
    NASA to NOAA. Our recommendation is based on the model which is
    currently being used for the transfer of the polar orbiting and
    geostationary weather satellite operations in which NASA has research,
    engineering, and development responsibility for the satellites and
    operational control of the satellites is turned over to NOAA after the
    integrity of the satellite is confirmed in orbit.

    Q2.  What is the difference between coastal observing systems and ocean
    observing systems? If there is not enough money to completely fund both
    systems, how should Congress allocate funding between the two systems
    and their components?

    A2. While there is a differing geographic focus and varying parameters
    to be measured, coastal and ocean observing systems are integral
    components of the single Integrated Ocean Observing System, which also
    includes a global component. All three components are critical to the
    success of the IOOS. Thus, it is not realistic to consider funding one
    component, rather it must be viewed as an ``integrated'' system whose
    growth should be balanced across the three elements--coastal, ocean,
    and global. Our plan for building the IOOS is a step-wise process in
    which the first stage is implementation of two national pilot projects
    and one or two international pilot projects to link existing systems
    and produce operational applications relevant to national policy and a
    broad spectrum of users. Even with limited funding available, these
    pilot projects could still be developed. The pilot projects will
    provide important visibility and demonstrate the potential economic and
    societal benefits of the full system, while advancing research and
    development of useful technologies and applications.

    Q3.  Dr. Pietrafesa testified that NOAA does not have sufficient in-
    house leadership and technical capability to implement the Integrated
    Ocean Observing System (IOOS). Do you agree with his assessment? If so,
    how can the situation be improved to carry out the Commission's
    recommendation that NOAA be the lead agency in implementing IOOS?

    A3. The Commission clearly recognized the limitation of the current
    NOAA organization, and highlighted the need to address these issues as
    part of the process for strengthening NOAA. In Chapter 7,
    ``Strengthening the Federal Agency Structure'' the Commission states:

             ``NOAA needs both to manage its current activities more
            effectively and, if some or all of the recommendations
            discussed in this report are implemented, to handle a number of
            new responsibilities. For example, Chapter 26 discusses
            significant improvements that will be needed at NOAA to enable
            its effective implementation of the Integrated Ocean Observing
            System (IOOS), including streamlined distribution of funds to
            other involved agencies, closer partnerships with industry and
            academia, and the ability to assume operational
            responsibilities for satellite Earth observing programs. A
            stronger, more effective, science-based and service-oriented
            ocean agency--one that contributes to better management of
            oceans and coasts through an ecosystem-based approach--is
            needed.''

        Contrary to Dr. Pietrafesa's statement, we believe that NOAA has
    the necessary core capacity which can be enhanced to achieve the
    requisite management, communication and science capabilities.
    Throughout our report we call for an overall strengthening of NOAA and
    discuss in some detail specific areas in which the agency needs to
    improve to take on the increased responsibilities we recommend for it.
    Inherent in our concept of strengthening NOAA is the recognition that
    action must taken to make it more capable, effective and efficient. As
    part of this process the Commission also recognized the potential need
    for NOAA to reconsider its current organizational structure, stating in
    Chapter 7:

             ``NOAA's three primary functions can be categorized as
            follows: 1) assessment, prediction, and operations for ocean,
            coastal, and atmospheric environments; 2) marine resource and
            area management; and 3) scientific research and education. One
            of the critical objectives for a strengthened NOAA is improved
            interaction within and among these categories. It is important
            for the execution of NOAA's functions to complement and support
            each other. For example, resource management decisions should
            be based on the best available science, research efforts should
            be planned to support the agency's management missions, and all
            research--sea, land, and air--should be connected and
            coordinated. Changes of this nature will likely require
            adjustments to the internal operation of the agency, including
            possible additional changes to the current line office
            structure.''

        These changes will require Congress to pass an organic act for
    NOAA, as highlighted in recommendation 7-1, an action that I identified
    in my testimony as one of this Congresses' highest priorities. I would
    also emphasize the need for an interagency coordination mechanism, such
    as the National Ocean Council we propose, to ensure the coordination
    and cooperation of all federal agencies in integrated coastal, ocean
    and Earth observations. NOAA should have a lead role in this effort;
    however, by no means should it be the only agency, nor should it
    duplicate effort or capacity that is more appropriately housed in
    another federal agency.

    Q4.  Dr. Freilich testified that ``While better interagency
    coordination is necessary, any transition to a primarily single-agency
    approach must be measured and robust. The transition must ensure that
    research, education, and management activities are not neglected in the
    face of operational requirements and constrained budgets. There are
    advantages to having multiple agencies with overlapping
    responsibilities. Different agencies will address challenges in
    different ways. One may falter, but it is likely that another will
    succeed. Concentrating ocean responsibilities in a single agency
    without strong assurances of success is an extremely fragile
    strategy.'' What is your response to Dr. Freilich? Did the
    Commissioners consider risks, such as the one mentioned above, that a
    single agency might face?

    A4. Yes, in our recommendations to strengthen NOAA we did consider the
    potential risks that concentrating certain ocean responsibilities in a
    single agency might pose. And, quite frankly, we found those risks to
    be minimal; they paled in comparison to the limited capacity for
    coordination and communication of the current bureaucratic system. I
    appreciate Dr. Freilich's concerns in this regard, but I believe the
    National Ocean Policy Framework we outline in Chapter 4 of the report
    will go a long way towards alleviating any significant concerns
    regarding the strengthening of NOAA and concentration of additional
    responsibilities within the agency. As an example, even though NOAA
    would have budgetary and operational responsibility for the IOOS
    including satellites, it would be required to coordinate with other
    federal agencies and gain prior approval for proposed actions and
    expenditures from the National Ocean Council. Having an interagency NOC
    with that level of authority and chaired by an Assistant to the
    President would virtually eliminate any risks of NOAA or any other
    federal agency ``going it alone'' on ocean science, education and
    management policy actions. The key to strengthening NOAA and giving it
    additional responsibilities is to make sure it is also given the tools
    and the resources necessary to get the job done right.

    Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

    Q1.  Are there specific science and research needs for the Great Lakes
    that are different from those of saltwater ecosystems?

    A1. In a word, no. We explicitly included the Great Lakes in our
    deliberations and in the writing of our report and treated them as the
    United States' northern ocean and northern coastline from the very
    beginning. Our early adoption of a holistic ecosystem-based management
    strategy as one of our guiding principles unequivocally dictated that
    the Great Lakes had to be considered in the same manner as we did for
    the oceans. The exact same categories of problems facing the Nation's
    salt oceans--point and non-point source pollution, over-fishing, dead
    zones, coastal development, contaminated seafood, natural hazards,
    invasive species, dredging, commerce and transportation, education and
    stewardship, and coastal development to name but some of them--face the
    Great Lakes. Thus, the broad science and research needs are the same.
    The site specific issues obviously do differ, for example zebra mussels
    are not a saltwater problem, but the same type of site-specific
    differences occur among the different ocean and marine coastal
    ecosystems. However, we believe that the national and regional
    strategies and processes we discuss and recommend in our report will
    serve the needs of the Great Lakes just as well as they do the open and
    coastal ocean areas.
        The potential impact of increased water diversion for domestic,
    industrial and agricultural purposes at first glance would appear to be
    unique to the Great Lakes. But in reality it is not since aquifer
    drawdown and diversion of riverine waters are issues impacting marine
    coastal areas as land development and population growth continue to
    occur at high rates and as more and more marine coastal communities
    seriously consider turning to desalination of seawater to meet growing
    demand.
        One good way for the Great Lakes governmental bodies to ensure that
    their issues and concerns and those of their constituencies are not
    overlooked by the National Ocean Council is to work together to develop
    and implement a Great Lakes Regional Ocean Council as the Commission
    outlines in its proposed National Ocean Policy Framework.

    Q2.  Given that the coastline of the Great Lakes is longer than the
    entire U.S. Atlantic coastline, is the Great Lakes basin receiving a
    fair portion of coastal research and management funds?

    A2. This is a very difficult and subjective question to answer. It
    could just as easily be asked for the other coastal areas as well. To
    make a judgment simply based on miles of shoreline is not a valid or
    credible approach. To address the question knowledgeably and adequately
    and based on real need would almost require a task force or committee
    of its own. The Commission did not address the question of regional
    funding distribution. Rather, we recommended that one of the functions
    of the National Ocean Council would be to, ``guide the effective use of
    science in ocean policy and ensure the availability of data and
    information for decision-making at national and regional levels.'' We
    also recommend that the Assistant to the President ``. . .consult with
    the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director and NOC members to
    identify programs that contribute significantly to the national policy
    for oceans and coasts, advise OMB and the agencies on appropriate
    funding levels for ocean- and coastal-related activities.'' In other
    words, the needs of the Great Lakes must be considered in the context
    of national ocean and coastal objectives, and an appropriate balance
    will need to be struck. Probably the best answer I can give is to
    iterate the value of creating a Great Lakes Regional Ocean Council to
    ensure that the coastal research and management and other needs of the
    Great Lakes are recognized and considered by the National Ocean
    Council.

    Q3.  You support increasing funding for ocean exploration from $10
    million to $100 million annually. Given the difficult budgetary
    situation, why should we spend so much money on ocean exploration when
    our coastal regions face enormous problems with pollution and declining
    fish populations?

    A3. As the Commission notes in its report, 95 percent of the ocean
    floor remain unexplored and unmapped and yet past experience has taught
    us that these vast areas are teeming with unknown numbers of new
    species and untold natural and cultural resources that we can only
    begin to imagine. Hydrothermal vents in the Pacific, chemosynthetic
    communities in the Gulf of Mexico, numerous new species of fish and
    invertebrates, and important archaeological sites are but a few of the
    important discoveries made in the past thirty years alone. There is
    much more out there that remains to be discovered and which will make
    significant contributions to humanity in areas such as archaeology,
    marine-derived medicines, understanding the ocean's role in climate,
    and new energy sources. We see exploration as a critical component of
    the national ocean science strategy we lay out in our report.
    Exploration and research compliment each other; discovery leads to new
    research and research findings lead to new discovery. Both are
    important to advancing our scientific understanding of the oceans.
        Ocean exploration also offers an unprecedented opportunity to
    engage the general public in marine science and conservation.
    Exploration missions to the depths of the ocean provide images of
    ancient human artifacts, amazing creatures, and never-before-seen
    ecosystems. These images stimulate the imagination of people of all
    ages and can be used in both formal and informal educational settings.
    It is the exploration activities of oceanographers like Dr. Bob
    Ballard, a member of our Commission, that kindles the desire to learn
    in young and old people alike and that helps to foster and galvanize a
    stewardship ethic in them.
        When considering the importance of the world's oceans in human
    history and in regulating climate change, guaranteeing food security,
    providing energy resources, and enabling worldwide commerce, I find it
    astounding that we still know so little about the oceans and devote so
    little resources to exploring them and making new discoveries for the
    benefit of humankind. One hundred million dollars is not a lot of money
    to commit to gaining a better understanding of the 95 percent of the
    oceans we know virtually nothing about. I find it astounding that we
    know more about the surface of Mars than we do about the bottom of our
    oceans or that maps of Mars' surface are of higher resolution than maps
    of our ocean sea floor. We need to focus greater attention on the
    planet we live on and on the oceans which cover more than 70 percent of
    it and in doing so we will reap scientific, economic and cultural
    rewards beyond those associated with the space exploration program.
                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Dr. Andrew R. Solow, Director, Marine Policy Center, Woods
            Hole Oceanographic Institution

    Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

    Q1.  In your testimony you expressed support for the Commission's
    recommendation to establish a National Ocean Council. Why do you think
    this is a better approach to coordination than the existing (or a
    strengthened) National Oceanic Partnership Program (NOPP)?

    A1. The National Oceanic Partnership Program (NOPP) provides a good way
    to integrate science and technology across agencies. However, it is not
    set up to integrate ocean policy, as is the intent of the proposed
    National Ocean Council. I believe that both are needed.

    Q2.  The Commission recommends transferring several responsibilities
    from other agencies to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA). Do you agree with these recommendations? If not,
    which programs should not be transferred? Are there programs not
    mentioned by the Commission that should be transferred to NOAA?

    A2. I believe that it is first and foremost important to strengthen
    NOAA as it now exists before transferring new responsibilities to it.
    There is a need to modernize the way that NOAA is structured and
    operates so that it can perform its current mission effectively and
    efficiently. An important part of this modernization would be to
    strengthen procedures for external advice and review. It does not make
    sense to me to transfer new responsibilities to NOAA before its ability
    to meet its current responsibilities are strengthened.

    Q3.  What is the difference between coastal observing systems and ocean
    observing systems? If there is not enough money to completely fund both
    systems, how should Congress allocate funding between the two systems
    and their components?

    A3. Although the line between coastal and ocean observing systems is
    not always clear, the former tends to focus on processes that occur
    over the continental shelf and the latter tends to focus on processes
    beyond the shelf. In some ways, coastal processes are of more immediate
    importance to human society--for example, through connections to
    fisheries, pollution, erosion, etc. However, processes that occur
    beyond the shelf can have profound impacts on society through their
    connection to climate. In my opinion, how to allocate resources not
    only between coastal and ocean observing systems but also within each
    system has not been adequately addressed by the oceanographic
    community. If it were up to me, I would establish a process for doing
    this--for example, administered through the Consortium for Ocean
    Research and Education (CORE)--with a clear charge and a relatively
    short lifetime.

    Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

    Q1.  One of the Commission's recommendations is that Congress pass an
    organic act for NOAA. The Committee is currently developing this bill.
    Are there specific structural components of NOAA that you believe
    should be written into law? If so, should an organic act reflect the
    current structure of NOAA or a different one? Are there specific
    missions for NOAA that should be in law?

    A1. One important change that the organic act should include is an
    explicit statement that basic scientific research and education are
    part of NOAA's mission. On the structural side, I believe that it is
    critical that a functional external scientific advisory board be
    established to provide substantive advice and review on both planning
    and execution.

    Q2.  Given that the coastline of the Great Lakes is longer than the
    entire U.S. Atlantic coastline, is the Great Lakes basin receiving a
    fair portion of coastal research and management funds?

    A2. I am embarrassed to say that I do not know what proportion of funds
    are allocated to the Great Lakes. As a general proposition, I do not
    believe that funds should be allocated on the basis of coastline
    length. There are other, more sensible criteria connected to the
    scientific and societal problems that funds are used to address.
                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Shirley A. Pomponi, Acting Managing Director, Harbor
            Branch Oceanographic Institution

    Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

    Q1.  In your testimony you expressed support for the Commission's
    recommendation to establish a National Ocean Council. Why do you think
    this is a better approach to coordination than the existing (or
    strengthened) National Oceanic Partnership Program (NOPP)?

    A1. Agencies tend to look out for their own, wholly-owned priorities
    first, leaving promising, cooperative programs such as NOPP to
    languish. NOPP's National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC) was
    intended as a forum that would bring together the leaders of the
    participating agencies to discuss the great challenges and
    opportunities that faced the ocean science community.
        This has not happened because NORLC meetings are rarely attended by
    agency leaders, thus making NORLC a forum that can only present and
    discuss ideas and programs, but cannot make decisions. Moreover,
    agencies do not budget major project funds to NOPP, because to do so
    would be relinquish those funds to collective use rather than perhaps
    better defined, more urgent programs that indeed are congressionally-
    mandated.
        The U.S. Commission of Ocean Policy recommends establishing a
    National Ocean Council (NOC) precisely to remedy many of NOPP's
    shortcomings. Chief among them is the lack of attention ocean issues
    get from the highest levels of the Executive branch. Establishing the
    NOC within the Executive Office of the President will immediately
    elevate the visibility and relevance of ocean issues within the
    Executive Branch. While Congressional support is necessary for the
    creation of policies and programs, the Executive branch has far-
    reaching influence on the vitality and importance policies and programs
    subsequently enjoy. It was Vice President Hubert Humphrey's support and
    personal interest in ocean policy that elevated the importance of the
    Stratton Commission Report and gave it such lasting impact.
        Likewise, a 1997 National Research Council report recommended
    creating an office at the highest level of the Executive branch for the
    purpose of coordinating the Nation's ocean policies. Given that at
    least 15 federal departments and agencies have some jurisdiction over
    ocean issues, a high-level coordinating entity must exist that can
    provide leadership and break bureaucratic log jams between competing
    interests and between federal departments and agencies. If the NOC is
    created, the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, and Homeland
    Security, to name a few, as well as NOAA, EPA, Navy, Interior and other
    agencies, will have to coalesce around important ocean issues and
    policies because leadership will come from the very highest levels of
    the Executive Office.

    Q2.  What is the difference between coastal and ocean observing
    systems? If there is not enough money to completely fund both systems,
    how should Congress allocate funding between these two systems and
    their components?

    A2. The differences between coastal and ocean observing systems can
    best be defined by the purposes they serve. Coastal observing systems
    will be most helpful in describing and monitoring human impacts on
    natural systems and resources within the US EEZ. Therefore, coastal
    observing systems will tend to be most useful in gathering data:

              to develop models and management practices to
            mitigate the harm caused by human impacts;

              for predictive models that can improve the efficiency
            of navigation and maritime transport;

              for national security intelligence assessments and to
            bolster homeland security;

              for basic research in coastal, estuarine and
            continental slope systems; and

              to develop products and services of commercial and
            societal value, much like the National Weather Service does
            with its weather forecasts.

        For the most part, coastal observing systems will return benefits
    on a regional and national scale.
        Ocean observing systems on the other hand will serve economic,
    scientific and social purposes on a continental and global scale.
    Systems that can measure physical, chemical, biological, geological and
    atmospheric variables will in essence be taking the pulse of the oceans
    and will enable scientists to:

              understand and model climate change;

              accurately track fisheries trends and better manage
            fish stocks;

              predict storm events;

              understand and model circulation patterns; and

              understand the interactions at the land-sea interface
            and at the atmosphere-sea interface.

        Beyond these benefits, ocean observing systems will play an
    integrative role in helping scientists understand the entire Earth
    system. Taken to its logical conclusion, a global ocean observing
    system should become a component of an all-inclusive Earth observing
    system that will gather data on land, in the ocean and in the
    atmosphere.
        Defense, Homeland Security and Intelligence gathering would gain
    new surveillance and intelligence gathering capabilities, allowing
    coverage and tracking of most maritime activity taking place within the
    system's coverage area.
        It is difficult and somewhat arbitrary to argue for the development
    of either a coastal observing system first, followed by an ocean
    observing system later on, or vice versa, but considering that several
    incomplete and poorly inter-connected coastal observing systems already
    exist, this might be the place to start. Also, coastal observing
    systems might provide greater immediate societal benefits, giving these
    systems the appearance of being more immediately valuable.
        Given that numerous coastal observing systems already exist, it
    would possibly require a smaller investment to bring all of these
    systems up to shared acceptable standards and then to interconnect all
    existing systems. If any obvious location gaps exist between systems,
    it would be necessary to fund the construction of enough systems to
    create a seamless web of coastal sensors from Alaska to Maine.
        If this course of action is pursued it should be coupled with a
    comprehensive effort to improve and standardize data management among
    all existing coastal observing systems because the potentially biggest
    pitfall would be to have a system that lacks interconnectedness and the
    necessary data management protocols to make the collected data widely
    accessible.

    Q3.  Dr. Pietrafiesa testified that NOAA does not have sufficient in-
    house leadership and technical capability to implement the Integrated
    Ocean Observing System (IOOS). Do you agree with this assessment? If
    so, how can the situation be improved to carry out the Commission's
    recommendation that NOAA be the lead agency in implementing IOOS?

    A3. As recommended in the Ocean Commission report, NOAA, as the
    Nation's lead agency for the collection, analysis and dissemination of
    atmospheric and oceanic data, should be the lead agency for the
    implementation of the IOOS. However, equally important to note is that
    NOAA cannot develop IOOS on its own. Given that the IOOS is a very
    diverse system of systems, its development and implementation must be
    coordinated using the best federal, academic and private resources
    available. Furthermore, overall direction and oversight must be
    provided from above, perhaps in the form envisioned by the Commission,
    the National Ocean Council.
        While it is important that NOAA lead the implementation of the
    IOOS, successful implementation may require significant restructuring
    of NOAA. If IOOS is to be successfully implemented NOAA will need to be
    reorganized according to its primary, or mission-dictated, functions.

    Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

    Q1.  One of the Commission's recommendations is that Congress pass an
    organic act for NOAA. The Committee is currently developing this bill.
    Are there specific structural components of NOAA that you believe
    should be written into law? If so, should an organic act reflect the
    current structure of NOAA or a different one? Are there specific
    missions for NOAA that should be in law?

    A1. The Commission is substantially right in recommending a
    reorganization and codification of NOAA's functions. NOAA needs to be
    restructured to carry out its three most important functions.

            a.  Observing systems (atmospheric and oceanic)

                Because the scientific frame of reference has shifted to
            ecosystem-based approaches, and as we embrace the notion of
            looking at interactions between large scale systems, it is no
            longer useful to delineate research according to where it is
            carried out, i.e., in the atmosphere or in the ocean. Add to
            that the urgency with which we need to develop observing
            systems and it becomes quite clear that NOAA's current
            structure which separates atmospheric science from oceanography
            is no longer productive.

                  Rather, the future lies in seamlessly moving across the
            atmosphere-ocean interface by building new tools, instruments
            and facilities that will allow scientists to ask a fresh set of
            questions about the interactions between these systems. NOAA's
            greatest contribution over the next decade will be to implement
            and coordinate the operation of the Nation's observing systems.
            Consolidating observing technologies and operations in this
            fashion will yield more scientific insight and will enhance the
            efficiency of NOAA's operations.

            b.  Resource protection, management, restoration.

                There is little doubt anymore that the Nation's coasts,
            including its wetlands, estuaries, Great Lakes, and coral reefs
            are in considerable peril. For that reason, resource protection
            and restoration must become a central theme for NOAA if it
            wishes to remain relevant and be trusted to provide solutions
            to the restoration, management and remediation issues that now
            impact our coastal areas.

            c.  Research and Education.

                Research and education are very important functions if we
            as a society wish to overcome the challenges that now overwhelm
            us and escape our understanding. NOAA should make research and
            education a foundational component of their mission. The reason
            for this to both advance scientific knowledge and improve
            humankind's and Earth's condition, but also to increase the
            U.S. public's awareness of, and appreciation for, the state of
            our oceans. A general public that understands the costs and
            consequences of inadequate stewardship of our ocean resources
            will demand corrective action and will also more readily
            understand the need for conservation and remediation.
                  Research and education are functions that can very well
            be coordinated by NOAA, while allowing a large proportion of
            the actual work to be done by the best qualified extramural
            applicants for those research or reading programs. Open,
            competitive and merit-based processes for awarding research and
            education grants are very effective ways of making sure that
            public money is spent on the best available research and
            education products.

    Q2.  You support increasing funding for ocean exploration from $10
    million to $100 million annually. Given the difficult budgetary
    situation, why should we spend so much money on ocean exploration when
    our coastal regions face enormous problems with pollution and declining
    fish populations?

    A2. As a member of the panel that developed the National Research
    Council report titled Exploration of the Seas (2003, National Academy
    Press) and as a member of the committee that recommended the original
    framework of what was to become the Ocean Exploration program within
    NOAA, I have been involved in lively discussions regarding the risks
    and rewards of exploration. I have also had the opportunity to conduct
    missions of exploration using Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution's
    Johnson-Sea-Link submersibles for the collection of novel specimens
    with pharmaceutical potential.
        Bringing my experience to this debate, I am firmly convinced that
    if exploration is to be undertaken it needs to be done in a manner that
    allows investigators to:

              access new and truly unexplored sites (which may
            require more expensive transits to and from the exploration
            sites);

              utilize, within reason, the most appropriate tools to
            carry out the mission, rather than the cheapest compromise
            solution;

              engage in truly interdisciplinary exploration, thus
            creating conditions for new and creative ways of looking at
            new, as well as established research questions; and

              develop new tools and technologies for exploration.

        Upon pondering resource allocations for research and exploration
    programs, it might be useful to establish the smallest possible funding
    amount that would return worthwhile results. Starting with the $10
    million figure for current exploration efforts, allow me to list what
    does not get funded:

              post-cruise science is not funded; not all
            discoveries are made during the actual off-shore effort;

              data management is not funded; so no one else in the
            community has access to data collected with public funds;

              only limited technology development is funded.
            Completely new technology and sensors capable of measuring
            unsampled properties at novel sites are beyond financial reach;

              ship, ROV, and HOV costs are leveraged in an ad hoc
            manner with other investigators who are not necessarily doing
            work that is relevant or complementary to one's own work, thus
            emphasizing time at sea rather than productive collaborations;

              international cooperative efforts are not supported;
            and

              scientific community does not see a small exploration
            program as a promising or stable source of funding.

        Therefore, in a sense, one could argue that spending $10 million on
    an inadequate program is a waste of public funds.
        While coastal pollution is a very real and dire threat that
    requires immediate and aggressive attention, and while the budgetary
    picture gives plenty of reasons to say, ``the Nation can't afford a
    $100 million exploration program,'' we should nonetheless pause to
    recognize that the term ``exploration'' is loaded with excitement,
    adventure, and optimism. Pollution remediation, on the other hand,
    conjures up images of oil soaked birds, floating trash and other
    unpleasant reminders of man's carelessness and indifference. No matter
    how important and pressing it is to spend money on reversing the
    effects of coastal pollution, it is still a depressing message, unlike
    the positive, expectant, can-do spirit of the exploration message.
        $100 million is the cost of running an exploration program that can
    not only carry out its mission, but can also infect the general public
    with the excitement and anticipation of delving into the unknown. In
    the greater scheme of things, exploration symbolizes hope and optimism:
    and, as we often find out when we take our ships and submersibles to
    new, unexplored locations, we discover new life forms, some of which
    hold promising compounds that could someday be used to fight human
    diseases. Finally, it is important to consider ``exploration'' as the
    first step in the continuum of research--allowing us to formulate the
    questions we ask and the hypotheses we test.
                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Director of External Affairs,
            College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina
            State University

    Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

    Q1.  You testified that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) does not adequately use the external community as
    a resource to quickly develop and transition science and technology
    research into operations. Please provide specific examples of cases
    where NOAA neglected to take adequate advantage of expertise in the
    external community. What could Congress do to encourage NOAA to work
    more closely with the external community?

    A1.

            a.  The concept of ``helicity'' which basically means the
            condition of the atmosphere favorable to support spinning
            motions (like counterclockwise during a thunderstorm; thereby
            creating a tornado). This concept was introduced in about 1972
            by a university scientist and it took until the mid 1990's to
            be accepted within the NWS as a useful operational forecast
            concept.

            b.  Operational forecast wave modeling at NOAA is a generation
            old and not in keeping with the state of university science.

            c.  Coupled ocean--atmospheric modeling has been done
            successfully at universities and could be made operational at
            NOAA but this has not been done.

            d.  Ocean buoy development is sorely lagging at NOAA. NOAA's
            technology, which is well tested and highly durable, is also
            out of date for much of the Nation's waters. Other
            technologies, developed by industry and universities is also
            highly durable, far less expensive than NOAA's technology, more
            portable, more modern and more cost-effective.

            e.  River/Estuary/Ocean Coupled modeling is being done in the
            university community but lags badly at NOAA.

            f.  Highly advanced Ecosystem modeling is being done in the
            university community and private industry but lags badly at
            NOAA.

            g.  Injesting of precipitation data into coastal and estuary
            models is now being attempted by the university community but
            NOAA is not engaged.

            h.  Socioeconomic data analyses and modeling, which has never
            been a NOAA activity, but is needed by the agency, will best be
            done by the university community. However, as the NOAA
            socioeconomic enterprise within NOAA is beginning to take root
            and emerge, there does not appear to be much university
            engagement.

            i.  Tropical cyclone modeling within NOAA has traditionally
            ignored the importance of the ocean. While NOAA resisted
            including the ocean in its TC modeling, it finally was forced
            to by the university community, but it still remains a NOAA
            centric activity.

            j.  Storm surge and coastal and inland flood inundation
            modeling at NOAA is several decades out of date. The university
            is well ahead of NOAA but NOAA chooses to maintain the status
            quo.

            k.  Socioeconomic data analyses and modeling at NOAA was
            essentially non-existent but following strong recommendations
            of the NOAA Science Advisory Board, NOAA created an internal
            activity. However, NOAA does not have the core competency to
            conduct this in-house without engaging the external community
            and there is no evidence that this is being done.

            l.  Congress could empower and authorize the NOAA Science
            Advisory Board to assess NOAA's science and technology to
            ensure that NOAA is supporting the creation and utilization of
            the best science and technology available to meet its mission.
            The NOAA SAB could evaluate program progress, with metrics,
            sponsor external reviews and make recommendations on how NOAA
            should proceed; either internally, externally or some
            combination of both.

    Q2.  The Commission recommends transferring several responsibilities
    from other agencies to NOAA. Do you agree with these recommendations?
    If not, which programs should not be transferred? Are there programs
    not mentioned by the Commission that should be transferred to NOAA?

    A2.

            a.  NASA satellite sensors and satellites that have NOAA
            applications, particularly with regard to operations, should be
            transferred to NOAA; including the necessary resources and
            assets required to maintain and advance the capability.

            b.  The NASA data archives that have value for NOAA's mission
            as relates to weather, water, climate, fisheries, etc., should
            be transferred to NOAA's National Climatic data Center with all
            assets.

            c.  USGS's river and estuary modeling program assets should be
            transferred to NOAA. USGS should focus on maintaining the
            Nation's river gage monitoring network and leave the modeling
            to NOAA.

    Q3.  Please expand on your statement that NOAA does not have sufficient
    in-house leadership and technical capability to implement the
    Integrated Ocean Observing System. Please provide specific examples and
    any recommendations you may have to remedy the problem.

    A3.

            a.  NOAA does not have the necessary experience in designing,
            deploying, maintaining and upgrading ocean monitoring systems.
            The TAO-TOGA Array was a university-NOAA partnership. That is
            how the IOOS system architecture/infrastructure should be
            designed up front.

            b.  Regionally focused and global scale focused teams of
            university and NOAA scientists, engineers and technical staff
            should be brought together and then these teams should work
            together to create the TAO Array analogues.

    Q4.  What is the difference between coastal observing systems and ocean
    observing systems? If there is not enough money to completely fund both
    systems, how should Congress allocate funding between the two systems
    and their components?

    A4. From the East Coast U.S. perspective the difference is establishing
    a more robust capability to monitor and make forecasts of weather and
    ecosystem variability in the marine, coastal environments of the Gulf
    of Mexico, the U.S. East Coast and the Great Lakes. Deeper ocean
    observing systems are necessary on the West Coast of the U.S. because
    weather systems over the Pacific Ocean generally move east across the
    Pacific Ocean towards the U.S. Pacific Coast. In the GOM, along the
    U.S. East Coast and in the Great Lakes, the most expedient and
    productive investments would be in the coastal observing array;
    especially since the waters are so shallow on the broad continental
    shelves. On the West Coast an optimal deep water array along with a
    near coastal array are both required.

    Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

    Q1.  One of the Commission's recommendations is that Congress pass an
    organic act for NOAA. The Committee is currently developing this bill.
    Are there specific structural components of NOAA that you believe
    should be written into law? If so, should an organic act reflect the
    current structure of NOAA or a different one? Are there specific
    missions for NOAA that should be in law?

    A1.

            a.  NOAA should have more responsibility in the monitoring and
            modeling the hydrologic, i.e., water systems of the Nation. The
            mention of ``hydrologic systems'' is done because this is a
            vastly overlooked responsibility that NOAA has that no one
            seems to really pay attention to but it should be part of this
            document which details NOAA's reason for existence. Water,
            i.e., hydrologic systems include the water in the Oceans, the
            Atmosphere and then what's on land. Now, one could argue that
            land water is overseen by USGS but USGS really only is good at
            the river monitoring network and underground water. NOAA is
            responsible for satellite estimates of precipitation, the
            National Doppler Radar Network, from which precipitation
            estimates can be derived, and for river, estuary and coastal
            (including the Great Lakes) flood forecasts. So, hydrologic
            system responsibilities need to part of the NOAA Organic Act.
            In fact, one of NOAA's four core areas is ``weather and
            water.''

            b.  The most rapid advances from targeted research to the
            creation of new operational forecast tools at NWS WFOs has
            occurred where WFOs are co-located on university campuses. So,
            identifying weather forecast challenges/issues that are really
            regional to local in nature, and for which there is core
            competency at the local WFO and university, could be addressed
            in a formal way via the creation of ``test beds'' where the
            problem(s) could be addressed, solutions found and then tested
            out to ensure that the forecasts improve. Once proven, the new
            tool becomes part of the routine operations of that particular
            WFO specifically and probably part of the NWS in general. In
            summary, NOAA needs to partner better with the university
            community and work with the latter to improve its ability to
            better meet its mission. The NOAA SAB should be more like the
            National Science Foundation's National Science Board (the NSB).
            The point is that the NSB is a fiduciary board and the NOAA SAB
            should be more like the NSB. In fact, if NOAA ever became an
            independent agency, then the NOAA SAB should be almost exactly
            like the NSF NSB. The purpose of the Science Advisory Board
            should be expanded beyond just advising the Administrator and
            should be to also provide independent oversight of NOAA to
            Congress on long-range and short-range strategies for research,
            education, budget assessments, major project and program
            evaluation, policy directions and the application of science to
            resource management and environmental assessment and
            prediction. Science Advisory Board members who have rotated off
            of the Board could become ex-officio members of the board and
            be invited to regular meetings of the Board. Staffing support
            of the Science Advisory Board could be hired by and report to
            the Board.

            c.  No real changes in agency mission; which is quite broad and
            deep as it is.

    Q2.  You support increasing funding for ocean exploration from $10
    million to $100 million annually. Given the difficult budgetary
    situation, why should we spend so much money on ocean exploration when
    our coastal regions face enormous problems with pollution and declining
    fish populations?

    A2. Actually this is a good point. The coastal issues of the Gulf, East
    Coast, Great Lakes, Alaska, Hawaii, and West Coast are challenging and
    sufficiently demanding enough that if there were additional investments
    to be made this is where the money should go first. My comment was with
    regard to monies I believe are being wasted in coastal zone management
    for coastal zones that are being mismanaged, in my estimation. I would
    rather see this money be reprogrammed for Ocean Exploration where new
    pharmaceuticals and life forms, etc., will likely be discovered
    ultimately for the betterment of the human species and other life forms
    of our planet.
                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Submitted to Mr. Michael H. Freilich, Associate Dean, College of
            Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University

        These questions were submitted to the witness, but were not
    responded to by the time of publication.

    Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

    Q1.  The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has
    proposed cutting some of its Earth Science projects to fund the
    President's exploration vision. Are there any of these projects that
    you think it would be particularly detrimental to cut? How important is
    it, for example, to restore funding for the Global Precipitation
    Mission?

    Q2.  Is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    adequately preparing for data management in its new satellites programs
    (the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
    System, NPOESS, and the next generation of Geostationary Operational
    Environmental Satellites, GOES-R)?