[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)?