[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OCEAN POLICY PRIORITIES IN THE UNITED STATES; AND H.R. 21, OCEANS
CONSERVATION, EDUCATION, AND NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
ACT
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT AND LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE
AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
March 29, 2007, and April 26, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-10
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-377 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Ken Calvert, California
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Chris Cannon, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Islands Jeff Flake, Arizona
Grace F. Napolitano, California Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Carolina
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Jim Costa, California Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Louie Gohmert, Texas
George Miller, California Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Rob Bishop, Utah
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Dean Heller, Nevada
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Bill Sali, Idaho
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Lois Capps, California Vacancy
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel
Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman
HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Samoa Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Bill Sali, Idaho
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, March 29, 2007......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of South Carolina, Prepared statement of......... 38
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 3
Kennedy, Hon. Patrick J., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Rhode Island.................................. 5
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey.................................... 5
Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from
the State of West Virginia................................. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska, Prepared statement of........................... 39
Statement of Witnesses:
Glackin, Mary M., Assistant Administrator for Program
Planning and Integration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce................ 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Panetta, Hon. Leon, Co-Chair, Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative................................................. 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Watkins, Admiral James D., U.S. Navy (Retired), and Co-Chair,
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative.......................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, April 26, 2007......................... 61
Statement of Members:
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam 61
Prepared statement of.................................... 62
Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of South Carolina................................ 63
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from
American Samoa............................................. 70
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, Prepared statement of............... 95
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey.............................................. 64
Prepared statement of.................................... 65
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska, Statement submitted for the record.............. 104
Statement of Witnesses:
Allen, Hon. Thomas H., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maine............................................. 68
Prepared statement of.................................... 69
Benton, David, Executive Director, Marine Conservation
Alliance................................................... 133
Prepared statement of.................................... 135
Chasis, Sarah, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense
Council.................................................... 116
Prepared statement of.................................... 118
Dunnigan, Jack, Assistant Administrator, National Ocean
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce................................ 71
Prepared statement of.................................... 73
Farr, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 66
Prepared statement of.................................... 67
Grader, W.F. ``Zeke'' Jr., Executive Director, Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations..................... 107
Prepared statement of.................................... 109
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 111
Leyden, Kathleen, Chair, Coastal States Organization Regional
Ocean Governance Work Group and Director, Maine Coastal
Program.................................................... 81
Prepared statement of.................................... 83
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 86
Rosenberg, Andrew A., Ph.D., Member, U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy and the Joint Oceans Commission Initiative.......... 124
Prepared statement of.................................... 126
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 129
Additional materials supplied:
Cousteau, Philippe, Co-Founder, President and Chief Executive
Officer, and Board Member, EarthEcho International,
Statement submitted for the record......................... 148
Vinick, Charles C., President and CEO, Alliance to Protect
Nantucket Sound, Statement submitted for the record........ 149
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON OCEAN POLICY PRIORITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
----------
Thursday, March 29, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Madeleine Z.
Bordallo [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bordallo, Brown, Gilchrest, Sali,
Rahall, Pallone, Kennedy, Capps, Farr, and Allen.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM GUAM
Ms. Bordallo. The hearing by the Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife, and Oceans will now come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
ocean policy priorities in the United States, and the
recommendations of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative.
Before recognizing the witnesses, I would like to extend a
very warm welcome to my boss, the overall Chairman of the
Resources Committee, the Hon. Nick Rahall, and of course, the
former Chairman of this Subcommittee, Mr. Wayne Gilchrest. It
is very nice to have both of you. And Mr. Sam Farr, a long-time
friend of mine who is also with us. Thank you very much.
Under Committee Rule 4[g], the Chairman and the Ranking
Minority Member can make opening statements. I will also
recognize our Chairman and Ranking Member of the full committee
who are with us this morning, as I just did. If any other
Members have statements, they can be included in the hearing
record under unanimous consent.
I ask unanimous consent that Representatives Farr and Allen
have permission to sit on the dais and participate in the
hearing. Without objection, I so order.
This morning's hearings will focus on priorities for ocean
policy reform in the United States, and the recommendations of
the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative. This collaborative
effort merges the findings of two separate national commissions
that made a broad range of ocean policy recommendations to
Congress and other government entities in 2003 and 2004.
The importance of these recommendations cannot be
overstated. As the very first page of the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy's report illustrates, the United States is an
ocean nation. Our exclusive economic zone, which extends 200
miles out from our coasts, is the largest in the world,
spanning over 13,000 miles of coastline, and containing 3.4
million square nautical miles of ocean.
My own district, the Territory of Guam, has more than
60,000 square nautical miles of ocean, and as an island
community, the oceans are a critical aspect of everyday life.
I first became more acutely aware of the many challenges
that we face in sustaining our ocean environment when I
attended the Year of the Ocean Conference in Monterey,
California in 1998. That watershed meeting laid the groundwork
for the legislation passed by Congress to establish the U.S.
Ocean Commission, chaired by Admiral Watkins. That commission,
along with the Pew Oceans Commission, worked tirelessly to
explore the full breadth of threats our oceans face, and to
develop a framework for moving forward in addressing these
threats.
Now it is incumbent upon us, as policymakers, to move
forward in the implementation of these recommendations.
According to the National Ocean Economics Program, our ocean
economy generated $138 billion and 2.3 million jobs in 2004. It
is up to us to provide the leadership needed to ensure the
sustainability of our ocean ecosystems and all that they
provide for us in the long term. And I look forward to working
with my colleagues on the committee in the Ocean Caucus to
provide that leadership.
Since the Ranking Member, Congressman Brown, has been
delayed--he will be here later--I would like at this time to
recognize Mr. Wayne Gilchrest.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo,
Chairwoman Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
This morning's hearing will focus on priorities for ocean policy
reform in the United States and the recommendations of the Joint Ocean
Commission Initiative. This collaborative effort merges the findings of
two separate national commissions that made a broad range of ocean
policy recommendations to Congress and other government entities in
2003 and 2004. The importance of these recommendations cannot be
overstated.
As the very first page of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy's
report illustrates, the United States is an ocean nation. Our Exclusive
Economic Zone, which extends 200 miles out from our coasts, is the
largest in the world, spanning over 13,000 miles of coastline and
containing 3.4 million square nautical miles of ocean.
My own district, the territory of Guam, has more than sixty
thousand square nautical miles of ocean, and as an island community the
oceans are a critical aspect of every day life.
I first became more acutely aware of the many challenges we face in
sustaining our ocean environment when I attended the Year of the Ocean
Conference in Monterey, California in 1998. That watershed meeting laid
the ground work for the legislation passed by Congress to establish the
U.S. Ocean Commission chaired by Admiral Watkins. That Commission,
along with the Pew Oceans Commission, worked tirelessly to explore the
full breadth of threats our oceans face and to develop a framework for
moving forward in addressing those threats.
Now, it is incumbent upon us as policy makers to move forward in
the implementation of those recommendations. According to the National
Ocean Economics Program, our ocean economy generated 138 billion
dollars and 2.3 million jobs in 2004. It is up to us to provide the
leadership needed to ensure the sustainability of our ocean ecosystems
and all that they provide us for the long term.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee and
in the Ocean Caucus to provide that leadership role.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Madame Chair. And I
want to thank the witnesses here this morning for their
testimony, and also for their extraordinary dedication to this
issue, which is fundamental to present and unseen future
generations to come, life on the planet, and the attention that
they have paid, that all of you have paid in an extraordinary
manner, to the oceans.
Sam Farr has worked for a number of years now on a bill
called Oceans 21, which is the essence of the Pew Ocean Report
by Leon Panetta, and the Ocean Commission Report by Admiral
Watkins. And both of you have collaborated to produce what we
think will be the fundamental design for ocean policy for
generations to come.
Your report has laid out before the Nation and the world
what the book Silent Spring did in the early 1960s. And we are
at the very early stages of understanding the full
ramifications of human activity on the planet, and this
degradation of nature's design. And so your blueprint, the
collaboration of your two organizations, will lay out the kind
of legislation that will carry us probably through the rest of
this century.
And so we will work very hard on this side, and with the
Senate side, and with the Administration, to get this kind of
legislation passed. It deals with fundamental things like NOAA
Organic Act; sanctuaries, which are so critical to habitat and
to sustaining our fisheries; coral reefs that are under assault
from things as primitive as hand grenades to fishing hooks, to
the acidification of the oceans because of climate change.
Ocean governance is pretty fundamental. Fisheries issues, ocean
research, mapping. All of these things and more you have laid
out before us. We have a strong sense of appreciation for your
dedication, and we will work hard to make this thing become a
reality in this particular Congress.
And I also want to make one other comment about your effort
to make us, the scientific community, and the public-at-large
aware that climate change is not something that just happens in
the atmosphere. It is just not something that melts the polar
ice cap, the greenhouse ice cap, and the West Antarctic. It is
something that has a fundamental effect on the ocean chemistry.
And if we are not careful, and if we are not bold, the
chemistry of the ocean can become as primitive as it was
millions of years ago.
So to all of you, I want to give a hearty thanks. And
unfortunately, like most Members, I have another hearing and
some other things to do, and I wanted to come down and make
those comments on your behalf.
Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Ms. Bordallo. I wish to thank the gentleman from Maryland,
Mr. Gilchrest. And now I would like to recognize the
distinguished Chair of the Resources Committee, Mr. Rahall.
STATEMENT OF NICK RAHALL, II, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Madame Chair. I do appreciate the
opportunity, as Chair of the Natural Resources Committee, to be
here this morning, and commend you for conducting these
hearings on the findings of the Pew Ocean Commission and the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
It is certainly a delight to see our former colleague and
former Chief of Staff to the White House, Leon Panetta, back on
his old stomping grounds, and to see Admiral Watkins, both of
these individuals so dedicated, as the gentleman from Maryland
has stated, and so committed to this issue and to doing what is
right for our ocean policy in this Congress, and their
expertise over such a long period of time on this issue.
I do also want to commend Mary Glackin from NOAA for being
with us, and appreciate her dedication at NOAA, as well, and am
looking forward to her testimony.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Farr, once a Member of
this committee, and the gentlelady of California, Ms. Capps,
now a Member of this committee, have also been very
instrumental and dedicated in their leadership on this issue.
And I appreciate that as well.
As you each know, when I assumed the Chair of the Natural
Resources Committee in January, I pledged to work with you to
review the recommendations of these two bipartisan commissions,
and to move forward with the legislative and policy changes
needed to better protect and manage our oceans and their vast
resources. And I remain committed to that pledge.
I feel compelled to note, Madame Chair, that while these
two reports were both released more than three years ago, this
is the first hearing that the committee with jurisdiction over
our ocean resources, our committee, has held to fully explore
their findings. It is unfortunate that it has taken so long,
but I do commend you, Madame Chair, for your quick action and
leadership in this regard.
And again, I thank Leon and Admiral Watkins for their
continued leadership, as well as their continued strong
advocacy on behalf of our oceans. Too often commissions are
formed, much effort is put into developing recommendations,
then they sit on a shelf and collect dust and don't even get
dusted off.
These two leaders have refused to let that happen. They
have worked together to form the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative. They have signaled their commitment to achieving
real change in our ocean management regime, and I thank them.
And with that, Madame Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this important hearing
today on the findings of the Pew Ocean Commission and the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy.
As you know, when I assumed the Chair of the Natural Resources
Committee in January, I pledged to work with you to review the
recommendations of these two bipartisan commissions and to move forward
with the legislative and policy changes needed to better protect and
manage our oceans and their vast resources. I remain committed to that
pledge.
I feel compelled to note, Madam Chairwoman, that while these two
reports were both released more than three years ago, this is the first
hearing that the Committee with jurisdiction over our ocean resources--
our Committee--has held to fully explore their findings. It is
unfortunate that it has taken so long, but I commend you for your quick
action and leadership in this regard.
I also would like to thank my former colleague, Leon Panetta, and
Admiral James Watkins for their continued leadership on this issue as
well as their ongoing advocacy on behalf of our oceans. Too often,
Commissions are formed and much effort is put into developing
recommendations that then sit on a shelf and collect dust.
These two leaders have refused to let that happen. By working
together to form the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, they have
signaled their commitment to achieving real change in our ocean
management regime. My thanks to you both, and I look forward to working
with you.
With that Madam Chairwoman, I again thank you for taking the first
real and important step toward ensuring that our oceans and our coasts
remain healthy and productive and that the use of their resources is
sustainable.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rahall, who is
the Chair of the Natural Resources Committee.
I would like to also recognize Mr. Frank Pallone, who has
joined us this morning.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I will be very
brief. But I just wanted to express my thanks to you for
holding this long-overdue hearing.
The Pew Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
both painted a pretty bleak picture of the state of our oceans,
but unfortunately we didn't really do much with this
information during the past two Congresses. And your focus on
the Commission's recommendations is badly needed, given how
much our coasts and oceans are suffering.
I want to thank Admiral Watkins and Mr. Panetta for being
here today. I also should point out that two members of the
U.S. Ocean Commission from my district, Paul Gaffney, who is
now the President of Monmouth University, and Lillian Borrone,
believe me, over the last few years they did not ever let me
rest, and kept constantly pointing out that this Congress
needed to address your recommendations. I don't think they are
here today, but I want you to know that they literally talked
to me every week about the Commission.
I would just say we have one simple message. We have a lot
of work to do. Oceans and coasts are particularly valuable to
my district along the Jersey shore, and we can't continue to
sit idly by knowing what is happening out there. But I know
that under our new Chairwoman's authority here, that we will
see action.
So thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much. I would also
like to welcome Congressman Patrick Kennedy, who has joined us.
Thank you, Congressman.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. KENNEDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Madame Chair. It is a pleasure to
be here. I know, Leon, that you are going to be up in my State
of Rhode Island in just a couple of weeks, presenting at URI,
and we are looking forward to having you.
I represent the ocean state, so obviously we have been very
excited about the work of the Ocean Commission, the fact that
you have been trying to bring together the multitude of various
budgets here in government and how they ought to be more
coordinated as they impact one another. And as a committee that
funds NOAA, you know, I have been very concerned about how we
don't get enough support from the Agriculture Committee, for
example, because they have a great stake in whether we are
adequately funding the funding of NOAA because of the work that
we are doing in the weather program.
And I also believe that we are not getting enough support
from NASA for satellite launches, and for the life sciences
through NASA. We are spending way too much money on mission to
planet Mars, and reestablishing a station on the moon, as
opposed to the life sciences and mission to planet Earth. And
yet, those are resources that can be refocused on our own
planet. And of course, that is, again, impinges upon our own
ability to understand our own planet. And on and on and on.
We have to understand the interrelationship between all of
our various agencies and budgets on one another, and how they
affect our coastal zone and our world, particularly as it
results to climate change and our national security, and the
fact that in the next many years, we are going to see the
impact of global warming, and the fact that most of the world's
population lives on the coastal zone. And if we do not get
about protecting our natural resources, we jeopardize those
delicate ecosystems, and that could really put our earth in an
unstable position and lead to further instability around the
world.
So what you are doing is more than meets the eye, and I
appreciate the fact that you are here today to make that case
again, as you always do so effectively. So I am glad to be
here, and I thank you very much, Madame Chair, for giving me a
chance to speak.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, thank the gentleman from Rhode
Island, Mr. Kennedy. And Sam, would you like to say a few
words, too?
Mr. Farr. I just want to thank you, Madame Chair. We have
been long waiting for this hearing. Admiral Watkins and
Congressman Panetta and all of us on this team of trying to
merge the recommendations of both reports have been introduced,
as Mr. Gilchrest said, in H.R. 21.
But I really want to thank you and Chairman Rahall. Because
I think with this hearing and with your dedication to try to
move this legislation, we really will see the work long
overdue, about five years ago, that all this stuff was
recommended to the Congress, and I would like to see us put it
into law. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Congressman Farr. I would now like
to recognize our witnesses, and give particular recognition to
the first two, who have served their country in many important
positions during their long and distinguished careers.
Admiral James Watkins is the former Chair of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy, and currently serves as the Co-
Chair of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative. And The
Honorable Leon Panetta is the former Chair of the Pew Oceans
Commission, and also is the current Co-Chair of the Joint Ocean
Commission Initiative.
I would like to welcome both of you. Thank you for your
leadership on this important issue, and for taking the time to
be here today. It is unfortunate that it has taken this long
for Congress to invite you to testify about the findings of
your commissions, but we are very pleased to have you here now.
And I also recognize our final witness, Ms. Mary Glackin,
the Assistant Administrator for Program Planning and
Integration at NOAA. Welcome, Ms. Glackin.
The Chairwoman now recognizes Admiral Watkins to testify
for 10 minutes. And I would note for all witnesses that the
timing lights on the table will indicate when your time has
concluded, and we would appreciate your cooperation in
complying with the limits that have been set. Be assured that
your full written statement will be submitted for the hearing
record.
And now it is my distinct pleasure to recognize Admiral
Watkins.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL JAMES D. WATKINS, U.S. NAVY, RETIRED, CO-
CHAIR, JOINT OCEAN COMMISSION INITIATIVE
Admiral Watkins. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman,
Members of this Subcommittee. Mr. Panetta and I are pleased to
appear before you today in our capacities as Co-Chairs of the
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative. It was a collaborative
effort that we felt we needed to set up just two years ago to
make sure that we did everything possible to accelerate the
outcome of our proposals to establish a new national ocean
policy, in accordance with the Oceans Act 2000.
We also appreciate the opportunity to discuss the two
commissions' recommendations, and to share our thoughts about
priorities for legislative action.
Your letter of invitation references the Joint Ocean
Commission Initiative, From Sea to Shining Sea. It was
transmitted to the Senate last June, at the request of a
bipartisan group of 10 of its Members, and that report outlined
our priorities for action in the 109th Congress, actions that
were urgently needed to address the many pressing issues we are
facing regarding our oceans.
Most of the actions identified in that report remain
relevant today. Thus, we request that a copy of the report be
accepted as part of the public record for this hearing, along
with our formal written statements.
Ms. Bordallo. Without objection.
Admiral Watkins. Leon and I have decided to divide our
speaking responsibilities this morning by having me put into
context the current situation surrounding our oceans' coasts
and Great Lakes by briefly reviewing the work of the two
commissions, our collaboration establishing the Joint
Initiative and the state of our oceans.
Leon's remarks will focus on priorities actions that we
feel this committee and Congress must take in the near term to
make progress addressing the multitude of challenges facing our
oceans.
The precedent for establishing a national ocean policy was
set back in the mid-sixties, when Congress established the
Stratton Commission. Their report, entitled Our Nation and the
Sea, released in 1969, was the most comprehensive look at our
oceans, and the needs and opportunities inherent in better
management of the seas.
Thirty years later, there was a growing sense that our
nation needed to revisit the issue. The result was
establishment of the privately funded Pew Ocean Commission in
the year 2000, and enactment of the Oceans Act of 2000, which
created the publicly funded U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy,
which I chaired.
The Pew Ocean Commission released its report in June of
2003, while the U.S. Commission delivered its report to
Congress and the President in September 2004. The net result
was two remarkably similar reports with over 240 combined
recommendations supporting an ecosystem-based approach to
managing our marine resources.
Let me take a minute to briefly outline some of the key
shared recommendations of the two commissions, details of which
are in our written statement.
We need a new governance regime guided by principles of
ecosystem-based management to strengthen the capacity of the
Federal government to integrate resources of the multitude of
agencies with ocean-related responsibilities and expertise. As
I recall, there is some eight to nine funding agencies, and
there is another half-dozen policy agencies that are very much
involved.
We need to restore American fisheries, a major focus area
for both commissions requiring a greater emphasis on the role
of science in the decision-making process, and much better
cooperation among stakeholders. And thanks to the Congress, the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management
Act was passed last year, a great step forward, and one very
important to both commissions. In fact, it was the longest and
most difficult chapter to deal with in the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy.
We need to preserve and protect our coastal waters. Non-
point source pollution is a major problem, and strengthening
the link between coastal and watershed management is essential
if we are to respond to cumulative impacts assaulting marine
ecosystems. And that gets back to the governance issue. This is
why a governance regime change is absolutely mandatory.
We must significantly enhance our commitment to ocean
science and education, building on the National Ocean Science
Plan released by the Administration in January of this year.
Finally, we have to overcome the stagnation of funding that
has crippled our capacity to modernize ocean science management
and education. An investment of $3 billion to $4 billion over
current levels is called for by the two commissions, and
includes a doubling of the research base from the rather paltry
$650 million today to $1.3 billion tomorrow. It is a modest
increase, given the consequences if we allow the current rate
of degradation to continue.
Now, that represents, by the way, that $650 million, all
Federal agencies doing basic research. It used to be about 7
percent of the research and development budget; today it is
only 3.5 percent. So we have allowed it to degrade, thinking
because the Russian submarines went away, that the oceans were
no longer important. They were doing the deep ocean research,
and today the Navy is now, instead of being 40 percent of the
research base in the oceans, is down around 15 percent. That
has to change. And I have talked to the Navy about that, to
their Research and Advisory Committee, saying don't lose
control of the seas.
To control the seas you have to understand the seas. To
understand the seas, the Navy has got to stay in the game and
be a leader in the research base.
So let me take a minute to clarify why there is an urgent
need for Congress to act. Here is the state of our oceans
report that both commissions have come up with.
Enormous human, environmental, and economic impacts
associated with hurricanes and other increasingly intense
coastal storms plagues us. Massive dead zones in the Gulf of
Mexico, Chesapeake Bay, and most recently off Oregon. Continued
loss of coastal wetlands, which is the natural protection
against the encroachment of these incredible storms that we are
going to see gain in intensity over the years.
Increasing frequency and size of harmful algal blooms.
Polluted runoff contaminating coastal waters, resulting in over
20,000 annual beach closings and swimming advisories. Mounting
problems due to the introduction of invasive species. Loss of
coral reefs and other underwater habitat. Over-exploitation of
fish stock, and acidification of the global ocean, which is a
huge issue in the global climate change.
We have both met Mr. Markey; we hope to appear before that
Committee on Global Climate Change, and make sure that oceans
are mentioned in the climate change debate. They have not been
mentioned to date by almost anybody. The media never includes
the oceans as the first victim, and probably houses our hope
for the future if we understand how it operates in the
processes there.
So the government's flaws are many. We have fragmented
laws, overlapping jurisdictions, absence of a coherent national
ocean policy, and this committee has the opportunity, with H.R.
21, which is probably the only going bill in either House of
Congress that addresses a national ocean policy.
Lack of Federal support for emerging regional ocean
governance. Absolutely critical part of an ecosystem-based
approach, where we have a collaborative effort between the
states and the Federal government. Absence of a coherent
management regime to guide activities in Federal offshore
waters.
We seriously need legislation from the Congress that talks
about aquaculture in the deep water, in the Federal waters.
Renewable energy sources, such as windmills. Bioprospecting,
which is gaining tremendous support from the pharmaceuticals in
this country.
We need a regime, and it needs to talk about the revenue
stream that has got to come back to the states and the Federals
to carry out the very policies that we are talking about this
morning.
So what are we putting in jeopardy by allowing the health
of our oceans to decline? Much more than people realize, I
think. With an offshore ocean jurisdiction larger than the
total land mass of the continental United States, U.S. Federal
waters support important commerce, trade, energy, and mineral
resources. The economic contributions the oceans and coasts and
their watersheds make are staggering.
I think the Chairman this morning talking about the
economic aspects of this are not trivial. More than a trillion
dollars, or one-tenth of the annual GDP, come out of what we
call the near-shore areas, which are defined in our report,
very carefully defined, because people tend to be very loose
about the coasts. What makes up the coast? We said there is
near shore, there is the watershed counties, and the ocean
itself and the rivers that feed them, as well.
The contributions swell to over $6.1 trillion, more than
half the GDP, when considering all coastal watershed counties,
thereby putting tremendous burdens on the coastal water health.
Ocean-dependent economic activity--the Chairman pointed out
very accurately of what it contributes to the economy, almost
$120 billion annually. And annually, the nation's ports handle
more than $700 billion in goods. The cruise industry accounts
for $11 billion in spending, and the retail expenditures on
recreational boating exceed $30 billion.
While the recent progress has been somewhat encouraging,
following the release of the two reports, the President issued
the U.S. Ocean Action Plan and established the Committee on
Ocean Policy in December of 2004. And that committee spawned
numerous subcommittees and working groups to lay the foundation
for an ecosystem-based approach to the input from the
Administration.
The release of the ocean research priorities plan and
implementation strategy of this year by the Administration
represents a watershed moment for the ocean science community,
and designation of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands as a national
monument is another noteworthy achievement.
At the state level, a number of Governors demonstrated
strong leadership by initiating regional strategies for
coordinating ocean and coastal science and policy, including
the Great Lakes, the Northeast, Gulf of Mexico, West Coast, and
integral state strategies in California, Washington,
Massachusetts, New York, Florida, New Jersey, Alaska, and
Hawaii.
We have just returned from a regional ocean conference in
Monterey that Leon and I hosted, and were encouraged by the
enthusiasm of the representatives of so many organizations for
regional partnership. They are looking to the states to
continue their efforts, and hope their work will stimulate a
similar level of commitment to change at the national level.
Congress also made some progress last year by
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation
and Management Act, enactment of the Marine Debris Research,
Prevention, and Reduction Act, and enactment of the Tsunami
Warning and Education Act. At least a dozen additional
important ocean bills benefitted from considerable attention by
various committees, and this provides a reservoir of
opportunity for this Congress to make great strides this year,
moving toward a new national ocean policy.
Conclusion, I would like to say that while expectation for
significant progress toward ocean policy reform have been high,
the collective results have been relatively slow in coming.
Granted, it has only been two years since the release of the
commissions' report to Congress and to the Administration, and
we have been struggling at the national level with other
challenging issues, of course of national importance, as well.
Yet it is the urgency of the situation surrounding the
state of our oceans that have driven Leon and me and our
commissioners to establish this initiative. A concern regarding
the health of our oceans and coasts cuts across every sector of
our society, and, as Leon and I have clearly demonstrated, they
drive people toward bipartisan cooperation, which is hard to
come by these days.
Oceans provide an opportunity for this committee to forge a
lasting legacy by helping secure passage of legislation that
fundamentally reforms ocean governance at the Federal level.
Modernizing ocean science, management, and education in
preparation for the inevitable transition that will accompany a
change in climate is a relatively modest initiative, yet it
languishes for the lack of a few strong champions. You are the
champions in this committee now. You have within your grasp the
opportunity to enact a handful of laws that will earn you the
lasting appreciation of our children, grandchildren, and
countless future generations.
With that plea for progress, I will turn now to Leon to
outline for you some of the most important steps Congress must
take to move forward on implementing a new national ocean
policy.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Admiral Watkins. And now
the Chair recognizes Mr. Leon Panetta.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. LEON PANETTA, CO-CHAIR,
JOINT OCEAN COMMISSION INITIATIVE
Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Madame Chair, Mr. Chairman, Members
of the Subcommittee, other Members who are attending and who
have shown great interest in oceans issues. I am really honored
to be here, honored because you have taken the time to have a
hearing on these ocean issues, and honored as a former member
of this body to be back here and having the chance to be with a
lot of my former colleagues.
I am pleased that Admiral Watkins and I have come together
in this Joint Oceans Initiative to try to bring together the
work of both commissions. As the Admiral has pointed out, we
have two commissions that had hearings across the country, and
both came to the same findings: that our oceans are in crisis.
We are in danger not only of damaging what is obviously one
of the greatest natural resources of our planet--after all, 70
percent of our planet is blue--but we are in danger of
impacting on life itself. And I think that is what needs to be
brought home to the American people.
This is about life itself. It is about our health, it is
about our nutrition. It is about our climate, it is about our
recreation, it is about our economy. And it is about our very
spirit. That is what the oceans are all about.
As a boy growing up in Monterey, as Sam knows, Monterey was
the sardine capital of the world. They used to catch about a
billion tons of sardine each year. In the late forties, the
sardines were basically fished out. I can't tell you the
economic impact that that had in that community. There were
literally thousands of families that were impacted by that.
And yet we have seen the same story with cod in the
Northeast, we have seen it with shrimp in the Gulf, we are
seeing it with tuna. As the National Geographic pointed out
just this last week, 90 percent of the big fish in the ocean
are gone. So those fisheries could be lost.
It is our obligation--your obligation as elected leaders,
our obligation as citizens, and all of us as stewards of this
resource--to insure that that never happens again, and that we
protect the legacy of our oceans for ourselves and for our
children.
How do we do that? Obviously this Subcommittee, the
Committee, this Congress need to work together to develop a
comprehensive approach to ocean policy in terms of reform and
funding.
The good news is that it is not too late. The bad news is
that the clock is still ticking.
Let me summarize six areas where I think it is important to
take action. We did this in a presentation that we made for the
Senate last year, From Sea to Shining Sea, and we do this in
our testimony. Let me just summarize the six areas where I
really urge you to take action.
Number one, you have to strengthen national ocean
governance. As the Admiral pointed out, we cannot deal with the
problems of our oceans if we rely on the present confused,
fragmented, and conflicting set of regulations, rules, and laws
that deal with our oceans. We have 140 different laws if you
combine state laws and local laws. What happens is that a
Federal District Court Judge ultimately has to decide policy
with regard to our oceans, and that is not a good way to manage
our oceans.
So we urge you to do the following. Adopt a statement of
national ocean policy that commits this country to protecting
our oceans. That establishes a coordinated and comprehensive
program of research, and conservation, and management, and
education, and monitoring and assessment.
This country has made that commitment with regards to clean
air; we have made it with regards to clean water; we have made
it with regards to our land. We have not done that with regards
to our oceans. So I strongly urge that you pass legislation
making that national commitment to protecting our oceans.
Establish NOAA in law. NOAA was established by an Executive
Order. They need to have the core mission of managing our
oceans and trying to promote ecosystem-based management of our
oceans and our coastal areas and their resources, and to
incorporate the use of good science in that effort.
In addition, you need to do oversight of the
Administration's Committee on Ocean Policy Action Plan. They
developed a good action plan. Frankly, you need to do oversight
to make sure that it is being implemented.
I would make the Federal, and we recommend that you make
the Federal Coordinating Committee something that exists in
law, and not just by Executive Order. And in addition to that,
the President ought to appoint an Assistant to the President in
charge of ocean policy.
Second, you need to promote and encourage regional ocean
governance. We have a lot of regions that are doing good things
in this area. We have a lot of states that understand the
importance of operating with our oceans on a regional basis.
But unfortunately, the Federal government doesn't provide the
encouragement and support that is necessary in order to ensure
that the feds, the state, local government, the stakeholders,
fishermen, are at the table working on a common plan to protect
our oceans. If we can set those kinds of targets and have
everybody agree to that, that is the most effective way to deal
with planning for our oceans.
We need legislative action that will provide a national
framework to support these regional approaches, and that will
encourage everybody to be at the plan, integrate a management
approach that looks at the entire ecosystem of an area, and
that combines land and sea.
Third, we need to expand and improve our ocean science
research and education. There is no way we can deal with these
issues without expanding the science involved there. We need to
incorporate oceans into the President's Innovative and
Competitiveness Initiative, we need to establish a national
ocean education strategy, and we need to support the
Administration's effort to develop research priorities with
regards to our oceans.
We need to establish an integrated ocean observing system
so that we get the kind of information that we need in order to
protect our oceans.
And last, we need to expand ocean exploration. I was amazed
that a figure that said 1500 people have climbed Mount Everest,
300 people have gone into space, 12 have actually walked on the
moon, but only two people have gone to the deepest part of our
oceans. Ninety-five percent of our oceans are virtually
unexplored. So we need to expand that effort.
Fourthly, we need to include oceans in any legislation that
deals with climate change. Oceans are the engine that drives
climate change. And we have to recognize that the impact of
global warming is affecting our oceans: acidification, it is
changing the currents so we have rising sea levels, we have the
bleaching of coral reefs. All of that needs to be dealt with in
the context of global warming.
Fifth, we need to--and it is not something that you have
jurisdiction over, but I want to bring it to your attention--we
need to approve the Law of the Seas Treaty. This is a treaty
that we established in order to provide some jurisdiction in
the world, where the world community can sit down and deal with
common issues. We are the only industrialized nation that has
not ratified that treaty.
We are not sitting at the table. When there are
jurisdictional issues that come up, and there are a lot of them
coming up now with regards to questions regarding our
Continental Shelf, questions regarding our jurisdiction,
scientific research, sea lanes, we are not even at the table
because we haven't ratified that treaty. I would urge you to
ask your Senate colleagues to ratify that treaty.
And last, we want you to increase obviously funding for
core science, core ocean and coastal programs. The last two
years we have seen funding go down in the ocean area. It is a
tragedy, particularly at a time when we need to have that kind
of information to protect our oceans.
We urge you to increase funding to $750 million above the
2007 level. You have done a letter to the Budget Committee, and
we commend you for that, urging that those funds be approved.
We ask that the Appropriations Committee follow through.
We also ask that you consider establishing an ocean trust
fund to support these ocean programs, and that you direct the
Administration to develop an integrated ocean budget so that we
look at all of the oceans' issues in the budget.
Those are some of the issues I would bring to your
attention. I want to thank you for this hearing. I want to
thank you for your leadership.
A hundred years ago, Madame Chair, Teddy Roosevelt
committed this country to protecting our land so that we would
preserve it as a legacy for the future. A hundred years later,
we need to do the same thing for our oceans. You have that
opportunity, for the sake or our planet and for our children,
to accomplish that.
Thank you.
[The joint prepared statement of Admiral Watkins and Mr.
Panetta follows:]
Statement of Admiral James D. Watkins, U.S. Navy (Ret.), and The
Honorable Leon E. Panetta, Co-Chairmen, Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative
Madam Chairman and Members of the Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans
Subcommittee, we are pleased to appear before you today in our
capacities as the Co-Chairs of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, a
collaborative effort of members of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
and the Pew Oceans Commission. The purpose of the Joint Initiative is
to advance the pace of change for meaningful ocean policy reform, and
we are delighted to have the opportunity to join a discussion about how
to improve ocean policy and governance and to share some of our
thoughts about priorities for legislative action.
In addition to the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission, your letter of invitation made
specific reference to the Joint Initiative's report, From Sea to
Shining Sea, transmitted to the Senate last June at the request of a
bipartisan group of ten of its Members. That report outlined our
priorities for action by the 109th Congress, actions that were needed
to address the many pressing issues we are facing with regard to our
oceans. Most of the actions identified in this report remain relevant
today. Thus we request that a copy of our report be submitted as part
of the public record for this hearing. We welcomed the opportunity to
provide that input to the Senate, just as we welcome the opportunity to
share some of our findings and recommendations with this House
subcommittee this morning.
Background on the Two Commissions
The precedent for a national commission to examine ocean policy was
set back in the mid-1960's when Congress established the Commission on
Marine Sciences, Engineering, and Resources, commonly referred to as
the Stratton Commission after its chairman, Dr. Julius Stratton, the
chairman of the board of the Ford Foundation and retired president of
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Commission's report, Our
Nation and the Sea, was released in 1969 and, at that time, was the
most comprehensive look at our oceans and the needs and opportunities
inherent in better management of the seas. A number of ocean laws were
enacted in the years following the report, but the most immediate
action was the establishment by a presidential reorganization order in
1970 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in
the Department of Commerce.
In the 30 years that followed the Stratton Commission report and
the creation of NOAA, many individual ocean and coastal statutes were
enacted. However, there was a growing sense in and outside of Congress
that this nation needed a more coordinated and comprehensive ocean and
Great Lakes policy than the individual and fragmented laws and
regulations that had evolved. In the late 1990's, stimulated by an
obvious deterioration in the health of our oceans and strong concerns
about our ability to govern them, a public dialogue began to emerge
that supported the idea of a new ``Stratton II Commission.''
Legislation to establish a new oceans commission or interagency ocean
council was considered in the 98th, 99th, 100th and 105th Congresses,
but it failed to pass.
In 2000, in part because of the failure of Congress to enact this
legislation and the growing concern about our oceans, the Pew
Charitable Trusts established the privately funded 18-member Pew Ocean
Commission to focus primarily on the conservation of living marine
resources. Shortly thereafter, the 106th Congress enacted the Oceans
Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-256), which created the 16-member publicly-funded
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The commissioners were appointed by
President Bush in 2001, four directly by the President and twelve from
lists of nominees submitted by the majority and minority leaders in the
Congress. The U.S. Commission was given a broader mandate by Congress,
and its members addressed economic activities as well as a wide array
of ocean science and funding needs.
On June 4, 2003, the Pew Ocean Commission released its report,
America's Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change. On September
20, 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, under its statutory
mandate in the Oceans Act, delivered An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st
Century to the President and Congress in ceremonies at the White House
and Capitol Hill. The net result was the release of two remarkably
similar reports and over 240 recommendations specific to moving toward
an ecosystem-based approach to managing our marine resources;
modernizing our antiquated system of ocean governance; and encouraging
a much stronger national commitment to enhance our marine science,
research, and educational efforts.
As is made clear in the reports of the Pew Oceans Commission, U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy, and now the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative, our nation must move toward ecosystem-based management,
balancing the long-term health and sustainability of the ecosystem
while also supporting economic prosperity. Doing so will require our
nation's leaders to take action to reform ocean governance, enhance the
role of science in making management decisions, increase our commitment
to education and outreach, and adequately fund ocean and coastal
programs. The following is a summary of the key recommendations
reflecting the shared conviction of the two Commissions that our nation
can change its course and achieve a new ocean blueprint for the 21st
century.
Governance, guided by the principles of ecosystem-based management:
Adopt a comprehensive and coordinated national ocean
policy
Establish by law a National Ocean Council in the
Executive Office of the President, chaired by an Assistant to the
President
Create a President's Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy
Strengthen NOAA and improve the structure and
coordination of all federal ocean agencies
Develop a flexible process for creating regional ocean
councils, facilitated and supported by the National Ocean Council
Create a coordinated management regime for federal waters
Restoring America's Fisheries:
Reform fisheries management by enhancing the role of
science in the decision-making process and strengthening scientific
cooperation and enforcement.
Support the establishment of guidelines to facilitate the
use of dedicated access privileges
Develop a regime that can support sustainable aquaculture
practices
Preserving Our Coasts and Cleaning Our Coastal Waters:
Strengthen the link between coastal and watershed
management with an emphasis on increasing incentives, technical
assistance, and other management tools and policies that address
nonpoint source pollution and support sustainable coastal development.
Increase protection for critical coastal habitat and
preserve marine biodiversity
Enhance laws to address the growing influx of invasive
species, including those associated with ship ballast water
Science and Education
Develop a comprehensive national ocean science strategy
Implement a national water quality monitoring network,
which would contribute significantly to the broader Integrated Ocean
Observing System
Increase attention to ocean education through coordinated
and effective formal and informal programs
Beyond our Borders:
Manifest international leadership in global marine
policies
Accede to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea
Increase funding for a new and comprehensive ocean policy:
Double the nation's investment in ocean research
Increase base funding for core ocean and coastal programs
and associated infrastructure at both the state and federal levels.
Establish an Ocean Policy Trust Fund based on revenue
from activities in federal waters, including new and emerging offshore
uses to support state and federal implementation of the two
Commissions' recommendations.
A more detailed history of the two Commissions, including summaries
of their recommendations and responses and implementation efforts by
the Administration, can be found in the excellent and recently updated
report by the Congressional Research Service 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Harold F. Upton, John R. Justus, and Eugene H. Buck, Resources,
Science, and Industry Division, Congressional Research Service, ``Ocean
Commissions: Ocean Policy Review and Outlook'', updated February 1,
2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of our Oceans
In asking us to focus on the reports of the two Commissions and the
Joint Initiative that has followed, it is clear that this subcommittee
essentially wants to know ``What is the state of our oceans?''
Unfortunately, we have to report to you that the state is not good, and
it is getting worse. There continue to be many problems besetting our
oceans and coasts, including:
Enormous human, environmental, and economic impacts
associated with hurricanes and other increasingly intense coastal
storms that account for over 70 percent of recent U.S. disaster losses.
Massive dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and the
Chesapeake Bay and, most recently, off the coast of Oregon in each of
the last five years (which had never happened before in the Pacific
Northwest as far as we know).
Continued loss of coastal wetlands despite conservation
commitments.
Increasing frequency and size of harmful algal blooms in
many of our coastal areas, including the Northeast, Hawaii, and
Florida.
The continuation of polluted runoff contaminating coastal
waters, resulting in over 20,000 beach closings and swimming advisories
annually and reducing the ecological and economic productivity of
coastal resources.
Mounting economic and ecological problems due to
introduction of invasive species.
Continuing loss of coral reefs and other ecologically
important underwater habitat.
Overexploitation of fish stock, although the recent
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act will help strengthen measures aimed at addressing this
perpetual problem.
Acidification of the global oceans due to the uptake of
carbon dioxide, resulting in a change in ocean chemistry and its
negative impact on species with carbonate-based skeletons susceptible
to deterioration.
Moreover, these ocean and coastal problems are confronted by a
dysfunctional, out-of-date, and inadequate system of governance guiding
the activities of the ocean community. For example:
Fragmented laws, confusing and overlapping jurisdictions,
and the absence of a coherent national ocean policy that hinder our
management efforts.
A lack of federal support for emerging regional ocean
governance efforts that hamper the ability of such initiatives to help
solve important ocean and coastal problems.
The absence of a coherent and coordinated management
regime to guide existing and emerging activities in federal offshore
waters, such as aquaculture, renewable energy generation, and
bioprospecting.
U.S. failure to accede to the U.N. Convention on the Law
of the Sea, compromising the nation's leadership in international ocean
and coastal forums and threatening our national economic and security
interests.
Dwindling U.S. investment in ocean and coastal research,
science, and education limiting our ability to tackle such problems as
global warming, resource depletion, harmful algal blooms, invasive
species, and nonpoint source water pollution, to name just a few.
The Ocean and Coastal Economy
The two reports bring into sharp focus the importance of our oceans
and coasts to our nation's natural heritage, security, and economy.
With an offshore ocean jurisdiction larger than the total land mass of
the United States, U.S. waters support rich and diverse systems of
ocean life, provide a protective buffer, and support important
commerce, trade, energy, and mineral resources. The economic
contributions the oceans make are staggering:
More than $1 trillion, or one-tenth, of the nation's
annual gross domestic product (GDP) is generated within nearshore
areas, the relatively narrow strip of land immediately adjacent to the
coast.
When considering all coastal watershed counties, the
contribution swells to over $6.1 trillion, more than half of the
nation's GDP.
In 2003, ocean-related economic activity contributed more
than $119 billion to American prosperity and supported well over 2.2
million jobs.
More than 13 million jobs are related to trade
transported by the network of inland waterways and ports that support
U.S. waterborne commerce.
Annually, the nation's ports handle more than $700
billion in goods, and the cruise industry and its passengers account
for $11 billion in spending.
The commercial fishing industry's total value exceeds $28
billion annually, 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.
Of course, these figures capture only a small part of our oceans'
worth and potential. Consider, for example, that born of the sea are
clouds that bring life-sustaining water to our fields and aquifers and
drifting microscopic plants that generate much of the oxygen we
breathe. The oceans host great biological diversity with vast medical
potential and are a frontier for exciting exploration and effective
education. Other ocean assets, such as functioning coastal habitats,
contribute to the health of our environment and the sustainability of
commercial and recreational resources. Still others assist in what our
nation's founders referred to as the ``pursuit of happiness.'' Clearly,
a new approach to governing our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes is
needed to protect and enhance the multitude of benefit they provide to
the nation.
Recent Progress
Upon the release of the reports by the two Commissions, the
President and Congress publicly embraced the major recommendations of
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission. The
President issued the U.S. Ocean Action Plan and established the
Committee on Ocean Policy. Congress held hearings on select issues and
introduced ocean-related legislation. At the state level, several
Governors demonstrated strong leadership by initiating strategies for
coordinating ocean and coastal science and policy in regions that
include the Great Lakes, Northeast, Gulf of Mexico, West Coast, and
individual states that include California, Washington, Massachusetts,
New York, Florida, New Jersey, Alaska, and Hawaii. We have just
returned from a regional ocean governance conference in Monterey,
California, and were heartened, to say the least, at the diligence,
efforts, and enthusiasm of the representative of so many organizations
and coastal state governors in addressing the recommendations for
regional partnerships advocated by the two Commissions and the Joint
Initiative.
However, while the expectations for significant progress toward
ocean policy reform have been high, results, particularly at the
federal level, have been slow in coming. There was some dedicated
attention to ocean and coastal issues by the 109th Congress, and a
number of bills made significant progress through the legislative
process (see list below). However, with the exceptions of the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and the enactment of the Marine Debris Research,
Prevention, and Reduction Act (P.L.109-449), which gave NOAA and the
Coast Guard authority to identify and reduce debris in the marine
environment, no other ocean bills were enacted. The ocean-related bills
that made some substantial progress in the last Congress but did not
reach final passage included:
Ballast Water Management Act of 2005
Coastal Estuarine Land Protection Act
Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act
Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act
Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2006
National Ocean Exploration Program Act
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act
Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act
Ocean and Coastal Observing System Act of 2005
Tsunami Preparedness Act
As the Joint Initiative asserted during the last Congress, these
bills, had they been enacted, would have addressed important issues and
demonstrated that Congress was serious about restoring the vitality of
our oceans. Their passage would also have provided some needed near
term successes while the community continued the essential work of
achieving the broader comprehensive reforms necessary to reverse the
decline of our oceans. We remain hopeful that the 110th Congress can
capitalize on the hard work that has already gone into these bills, and
we are pleased to see that this Subcommittee has reported out the Coral
Reef Conservation Amendments Act of 2007 and has plans to move
aggressively on other ocean-related legislation.
Next Steps
Looking forward, we are here to report to you that we are in a time
of unprecedented opportunity. Today, as never before, we recognize the
links among the land, air, oceans, and human activities. We have access
to advanced technology and timely information on a wide variety of
scales. We recognize the detrimental impacts wrought by human
influences. We can and should act now to ensure that the ocean, coasts,
and Great Lakes are healthy and productive and that our use of their
resources is both profitable and sustainable. The next critical step
will be for Congress to work together to advance comprehensive ocean
policy reform and funding.
The opportunities before the 110th Congress are enormous and
daunting. However, the action by this Subcommittee in holding this
hearing today and the conversations that we have had with the Chairman
and Ranking Minority Member of the full Natural Resources Committee,
along with discussions with members of the House Science Committee and
the key Senate Committees, give us reason to hope that the work of our
two commissions--and their legacy of ocean policy reform that is now
being carried out by the Joint Initiative--will be more fully addressed
and implemented by this Congress. And the Joint Initiative has crafted
an agenda that we hope can help guide this effort.
From Sea to Shining Sea
Almost one year ago, in mid-March of 2006, a bipartisan group of
ten Senators asked for a report from the Joint Initiative on the ten
steps Congress should take to address the most pressing challenges and
funding priorities to establish a more effective and integrated ocean
policy. Approximately three months later, we issued recommendations for
immediate attention by Congress. As noted, a copy of From Sea to
Shining Sea: Priorities for Ocean Policy Reform, is included in its
entirely with this statement for the record.
Outlined below are additional legislative proposals, many drawn
from our report, that we believe provide a solid framework for action
by Congress. Many of these actions can and should be acted upon in this
Congress, as soon as possible. Such action will clearly signal progress
and pave the way for further progress on some of the more challenging
and long-term measures that will be needed to achieve meaningful ocean
policy reform.
Governance Reform
Congress should adopt a statement of national ocean policy,
acknowledging in legislation the importance of oceans to the nation's
economic and ecological health and adopting a national policy to
protect, maintain, and restore marine ecosystems so that they remain
healthy, resilient, and able to deliver the services people want and
need. A statement of national ocean policy should include recognition
that it is the policy of the United States to establish and maintain
for the benefit of the nation a coordinated, comprehensive, and long-
range national program of ocean and atmospheric research, conservation,
management, education, monitoring, and assessment. A new declaration of
national ocean policy should incorporate provisions relating, but not
limited to, the following concepts:
Acknowledge the linkages among ocean, land, and
atmospheric systems
Protect, maintain, and restore the long-term health,
productivity, and diversity of the ocean environment
Ensure responsible management and sustainable use of
fishery resources and other ocean and coastal resources held in the
public trust, using ecosystem-based management and a balanced
precautionary and adaptive approach
Assure sustainable coastal development based on
responsible state and community management and planning, including
protection of life and property against natural and manmade hazards
Develop improved scientific information and use of the
best scientific information available to make decisions concerning
natural, social, and economic processes affecting ocean and atmospheric
environments
Facilitate a collaborative approach that encourages the
participation of diverse stakeholders and the public in ocean and
atmospheric science and policy
Congress should establish the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) in law and work with the Administration to
identify and act upon opportunities to improve federal agency
coordination on ocean and coastal issues. Congress should pass a strong
organic act establishing NOAA as the lead civilian ocean agency and
restructuring the agency to enhance its ability to fulfill its core
mission to further our understanding of oceans and coasts and apply
that knowledge to effectively manage our marine resources on an
ecosystem basis. Specifically, a NOAA organic act should:
Establish NOAA as the lead civilian ocean agency by
statute
Set forth core missions of: assessment, prediction, and
operations; ecosystem-based management of ocean and coastal areas and
resources; and science, research, and education
Call for reorganization of the agency along functional
lines to better equip it to carry out its core mission and remain
science-based, but with its management programs better connected to
make use of that science in decision making
Establish leadership roles and accountability mechanisms
for implementation of major elements of the agency's mission
NOAA was established in 1970 by a presidential reorganization order
and has operated under that authority since that time. Over the years,
several bills have been introduced that could provide the basis for an
act that would codify NOAA. Before his retirement from Congress,
Senator Hollings of South Carolina introduced a number of bills. His
most recent was S. 2647 in the 108th Congress, that would, among other
provisions, codify NOAA. The Bush Administration has put forward simple
organic act language, and Congressman Vernon Ehlers of Michigan
recently reintroduced his National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Act, H.R. 250, which is identical to the bill that was
passed in the House last year (H.R. 5450) but was not taken up by the
Senate. The Ocean Conservation, Conservation, and National Strategy for
the 21st Century Act (OCEANS 21), introduced by Representative Sam Farr
of California in this Congress, is a multi-title bill that addresses a
range of governance issues, including the codification of NOAA,
borrowing language from Mr. Ehlers' H.R. 250. No matter which vehicle
Congress chooses, it can and should codify and strengthen NOAA and
thereby enhance its mission, improve its structure, and better enable
it to carry out existing and new responsibilities in a manner that is
consistent with ecosystem-based management.
Although NOAA plays a very important role and should be
strengthened to carry out its mission, there are a number of other
federal agencies with ocean and coastal responsibilities and important
ocean science and research programs, including the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA). Congress should take action to enhance federal agency
coordination and leadership by conducting oversight of the
Administration's implementation of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. On
January 26 of this year, the Administration's Committee on Ocean Policy
released its U.S. Action Plan Implementation Update covering what it
asserted was progress in six general areas, from ocean leadership and
coordination to coasts and watersheds and international ocean policy.
We urge this Subcommittee and others in the House and Senate to conduct
an oversight hearing on the Update and the Administration's
implementation of its Ocean Action Plan to identify opportunities to
strengthen the interagency processes for coordinating ocean and coastal
issues. Based on the results of the oversight hearing, the Joint
Initiative recommends that Congress pass legislation that would:
Codify a permanent federal coordinating committee with
staff support provided by an Office of Ocean Policy in the Executive
Office of the President to oversee the federal government's
implementation of a national ocean policy, resolve interagency
disputes, and coordinate ocean budgets (or manage the integrated oceans
budget)
Call upon the President to appoint an Assistant to the
President to provide leadership and support for implementation of the
national ocean policy
Establish a nonfederal Council of Advisors to provide
advice on ocean and coastal issues
Congress should foster ecosystem-based regional governance.
Congress should pass legislation to create a national framework to
support regional approaches and collaboration and enable coordinated,
integrated ecosystem-based management that builds on existing regional
and ecosystem-based efforts. This framework should guide the
development and implementation of processes that involve federal,
state, tribal, and local governments, as well as the private sector,
nongovernmental organizations, and academic institutions, working
together toward regional actions that advance national ocean and
coastal interests. Regional governance mechanisms will vary to meet
needs of different regions, but should be encouraged to possess the
following characteristics:
Regional governance entities that are manageable in size
(approximately 20-25 representatives) with a mix of federal agency and
state representatives
Regional entities that are advised and supported by a
citizens' advisory committee
Development of regional ocean strategic plans that:
Identify short and long term goals
Assess the region's social, economic, and ecological
characteristics to guide progress toward those goals
Determine priority issues and solutions to address them
Identify indicators of management efforts
Analyze gaps in authority
Identify and prioritize research, data, and information
needs
Commit to dedicated public education and outreach
efforts
Implement solutions or policies to address priority
problems
In addition, Congress should improve federal coordination of
regional activities by calling upon the President to direct federal
agencies to identify opportunities to further coordinate existing
programs and activities in order to assist and support more effective
implementation of regional approaches. Improving coordination among
federal agency activities at the regional level would be an important
complement to state, local, and tribal efforts to address ocean and
coastal resource management issues on a regional basis. Enhanced
coordination would enable federal agencies to better address state and
local needs while also furthering national goals and priorities.
Congress can further enable the transition toward an ecosystem-
based approach by expressly acknowledging that management of marine
resources should be carried out with an ecosystem-based approach and by
calling upon federal agencies to develop guidelines that enable
improved coordination and analysis to assist in the transition toward
an integrated management approach that considers the entire ecosystem.
Such an express acknowledgment can and should be part of individual
ocean, coastal, and related laws currently up for reauthorization.
These include the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Clean Water Act, and other statutory
regimes governing the use and management of ocean and coastal
resources.
Through reauthorization or other amendments to specific statutes,
Congress can, in a sense, collectively provide that management goals
are set to ensure that ocean and coastal ecosystems remain productive
with respect to most if not all resources. For example, through
reauthorization of the CZMA, Congress can require that state coastal
programs work with federal, state, and local agencies to provide for
periodic assessments of the state's natural, cultural, and economic
resources, and, based on those assessments, set specific, measurable
goals that reflect the growing understanding of ocean and coastal
environments and the need to manage growth in regions under pressure
from coastal development. Congress can also direct that states redefine
the landward reach of their coastal zones to include coastal
watersheds, thus better enabling coastal programs to look across
political boundaries and incorporate a coastal watershed focus and the
basic tenets of ecosystem-based management.
Statutory acknowledgment of the need to incorporate ecosystem-based
management into marine resource management regimes is intended be a
first step toward ecosystem-based management by enabling improved
coordination and analysis among agencies managing marine resources and
providing for a transition toward an integrated management approach
that considers the entire ecosystem.
The United States should accede to the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea. Although this is a matter that is not pending
before the House, the Joint Initiative wanted to highlight one of the
most serious international ocean policy issues that remain unresolved
for our nation. The United States Senate should provide its advice and
consent to U.S. accession to the Convention so that we can once again
assume a leadership position in international forums deciding such
vital ocean matters as jurisdictional claims over the continental
margin and its vast energy resources, deep seabed mining, scientific
research, environmental protection, and fisheries and habitat
conservation.
The Joint Initiative agrees with the President that accession
supports vital U.S. national security, economic, and international
leadership interests and that rapid Senate approval is needed. As a
party, the United States would be in the best position to lead future
applications of this framework for regional and international
cooperation in protecting and preserving the marine environment. U.S.
accession to the Convention would send a clear message in support of
our efforts to foster international approaches while significantly
furthering our own national interests. As the lone industrialized
nation not part of the Convention, we jeopardize our role as a world
leader by failing to join.
The Convention has been thoroughly reviewed in Senate hearings and
public forums, and U.S. accession is supported by a broad coalition of
ocean interests. The Navy and Coast Guard have testified that joining
the convention will strengthen our ability to defend freedoms of
navigation and overflight essential to military mobility and our
homeland security efforts. All major U.S. industries, including
offshore energy, maritime transportation and commerce, underwater cable
communications, and shipbuilding support U.S. accession to the
Convention because its provisions help protect vital U.S. economic
interests and provide the certainty and stability crucial for
investment in global maritime enterprises. Environmental organizations
strongly support the Convention as well.
Ocean Science and Education
Growing awareness of the important economic, environmental, and
aesthetic benefits that our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes provide to
our nation has spurred a greater appreciation for the need to improve
our understanding and conservation of the health and productivity of
these resources. We now recognize that the processes that drive these
ecosystems and their interactions with the atmosphere and land are
complex and interrelated. Given this knowledge, multidisciplinary
science and education are frontiers that offer great potential for
significantly advancing our understanding of oceans and coastal
processes and provide increased opportunities to address cumulative
impacts that are compromising the economic, ecologic, and social
benefits they provide. As discussed earlier, major changes are needed
in the existing ocean governance regime to realize the full potential
that a more robust ocean research and education programs can offer. The
Joint Initiative recommends that Congress focus on the following action
to reform the ocean science and education enterprise.
Congress should acknowledge the two-way links between Climate
Change and Oceans. Through their capacity to absorb and transport heat
and carbon dioxide, oceans are a key driver of climate change
processes. In addition, they are also undergoing significant short- and
long-term change over both large and small areas as evidenced by the
increasing acidification of the oceans, climatic shifts associated with
El Nino, dramatic changes in the amount of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean,
rising sea level rise, and concern about possible abrupt climatic and
ecological changes, particularly associated with shifts in ocean
circulation.
Unfortunately, chronic underfunding of ocean-related science has
prevented us from capitalizing on new technology and innovative ideas
that would help address huge information gaps and significantly advance
our understanding of ocean processes. Improved understanding of these
processes will greatly enhance our ability to predict, mitigate, and
adapt to the economic and ecological ramifications associated with
climate change. This information will be essential as Congress balances
competing demands in the development of new national policies to
minimize and adapt to climate changes in the coming years and decades.
Developing coherent strategies for adapting to a changing
environment will be as important as efforts to address future carbon
emissions. We strongly suggest that that legislation being developed in
Congress include provisions that recognize and enhance ocean science,
management, and education as important elements of a comprehensive
approach to understanding and addressing climate change.
The Innovation and Competitiveness Initiative should be expanded to
incorporate ocean science and education. The innovation and
competitiveness initiative being driven by the National Academies
report Rising Above the Gathering Storm has highlighted the importance
of maintaining strong research and education programs. The ocean
community can clearly make significant contributions towards these
goals. Thus, this initiative should be expanded beyond its current
focus on the physical sciences to incorporate ocean-related sciences
and education. Our oceans are rich in energy resources, marine
biotechnology is a rapidly growing industry that is capitalizing on the
vast biological and genetic diversity of marine life, and advanced
underwater vehicles are opening up an era of ocean exploration that has
captured the imagination of a new generation of school-aged children.
Cutting-edge research using massive oceanic and atmospheric data sets
and a new focus on promoting multi-disciplinary studies in support of
ocean science are laying the groundwork for technological advances and
a sophisticated workforce that will allow our nation to be a leader in
the global shift toward a service sector that will demand
environmentally sensitive technologies and policies. The oceans offer a
new frontier of economic opportunity and are capable of generating
interest of young scientist from all scientific disciplines. We must
capitalize on the attractions of the oceans and use it to harness the
potential of the next generation.
Congress should use the Administration's Ocean Research Priorities
Plan to guide its implementation of an expanded ocean science
enterprise. In January, the Administration released its Ocean Research
Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy, as called for in the
President's U.S. Ocean Action Plan. This strategy, developed with input
from the ocean community and subject to a comprehensive review by a
special National Academies review committee, identifies ocean-related
research and education priorities government-wide and nation-wide. The
plan, still subject to a final review by the National Academies,
represents the first ever community-wide identification of ocean
science priorities. It provides a clear assessment of the challenges
facing the community as it struggles to integrate across scientific
disciplines and across the land, sea, and air interface. It identifies
opportunities and approaches to help us understand and respond to the
growing ecological and economic implications associated with a changing
environment.
The plan also highlights the need to make progress towards
ecosystem-based management, including the adoption of scientific
approaches and policy strategies that more clearly address short- and
long-term harm associated with cumulative impacts. While there has been
general recognition and agreement that the global environment is
changing, our lack of understanding of the underlying processes,
particularly in the oceans, and their interrelationships is limiting
our capacity to model this change and forecast how the system will
change in coming years and decades. Thus, support is needed across the
spectrum of ocean science--basic and applied research, monitoring and
analysis, and modeling/forecasting--to understand how the system
operates and how it will change over time, as well as to be able to
more accurately evaluate the effectiveness of policies intended to
modify human impact on the system. There are difficult policy choices
to be made in the coming years, and they must be grounded in good
science if they are to be accepted by the public and targeted at the
problems that offer the greatest potential for success.
Legislation should be enacted to implement the Integrated Ocean
Observing System and Ocean Observatories Initiative. The ocean and
coastal community has rallied behind the implementation of an
Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) and Ocean Observatories
Initiative (OOI). Together, this combination of research and monitoring
systems offer scientists and managers a more complete view of
atmospheric, terrestrial, and oceanic interactions occurring at the
global, national, and regional scales. IOOS is the ocean-focused
domestic element of the broader Global Earth Observing System of
Systems and provides the infrastructure and tools needed to acquire
data and translate science into products and services needed by
decision makers. IOOS supports the hardware, software, data management,
synthesis, and modeling activities that integrate the data and
information generated by the research community. IOOS also helps ensure
that applied research efforts are directed toward issues and questions
that are limiting the capacity of decision makers to make informed
policy and regulatory decisions. For example, IOOS supports activities
such as the enhanced water quality monitoring system called for in the
President's Ocean Action Plan, ecosystem modeling that supports multi-
species management of our ocean fisheries, and forecasting and tracking
harmful algal blooms. IOOS is also where disparate data sets are
integrated to detect short- and long-term shifts in the health and
productivity of key ecosystems and where socioeconomic trends are
analyzed. This information is then synthesized and translated into
products that are understandable to decision makers, who then use it to
guide their decisions. The successful implementation of IOOS requires
Congress to pass authorizing legislation that will guide the activities
of federal agencies and the numerous regional, state, and private
sector partners who are also deeply vested in the system.
OOI, which can be considered a research arm of IOOS, is an NSF
initiative that will construct networks of ocean observatories. These
observatories will be linked to the internet via seafloor cables or
satellites, allowing scientists to develop knowledge of topical issues
such as earthquake and tsunami dynamics, fisheries and coastal resource
management, and natural and human influences on the ocean and climate
systems. The initiative will fund three major components, including a
regional observatory, several deep-sea moored buoys, and an expanded
network of coastal observatories. As these efforts mature, the
research-focused observatories enabled by the OOI will be networked,
becoming an integral part of the proposed Integrated and Sustained
Ocean Observing System. Again, a balanced system of research,
monitoring and assessment, and modeling and forecasting represents the
continuum of ocean science that is at the foundation of a new national
ocean policy.
Congress should support an enhanced National Ocean Exploration
Program. A robust exploration program that coordinates, enhances, and
strengthens activities across federal agencies is a missing link in a
national strategy to better understand the Earth's environment.
Exploration focuses on curiosity-driven research of ocean-related
processes, properties, and places that are poorly known or understood.
Put into context, more than 1,500 people have climbed to the summit of
Mount Everest, more than 300 have journeyed into space, and 12 have
walked on the moon, but only 2 people have descended and returned in a
single dive to the deepest part of the ocean, spending less than 30
minutes on the ocean bottom, 95 percent of which remains unexplored.
The opportunity is ripe to develop a multi-agency exploration
initiative given the placement of NOAA, NSF, and NASA in the same
Congressional appropriations subcommittee, augmented by the support and
guidance provided by the Navy. Such an initiative should work across
the spectrum of the biological, chemical, and geological sciences and
be guided by a competitive process coordinated by NOAA and NSF with
strong guidance from the research community. It should ensure that
resulting technological and scientific advances, like other basic
research programs, will generate returns far in excess of their costs.
The discovery of new ecosystems and species has the potential for
accelerating our understanding of the origin of life and evolutionary
processes on Earth and possibly on other planets as well. An expanded
national ocean exploration initiative will allow Congress and the
Administration to create a legacy that will be recognized by future
generations as a turning point in the development of a national ocean
policy.
Congress should establish an Ecosystem Research Initiative. Such
an initiative in needed to foster scientific cooperation and
integration by rewarding interagency and multidisciplinary research
that addresses ecosystem questions. Decision makers need information
that will help them manage human activities and natural resources in a
manner that provides the greatest benefit to the nation. While there is
broad agreement among scientists and natural resource managers that the
United States must transition toward ecosystem-based management, there
is considerable confusion about what this process entails. Will
specific ecosystem concerns, such as the fate or habitat needs of an
endangered species, or a regime-wide phenomenon, such as climate
change, take precedent over human priorities? Are we headed toward
dramatic ecological regime shifts induced by human activities, or are
these changes being driven by natural processes?
These are legitimate questions that require the government to
develop a more coherent and broad-based research program. Such a
program must be based on multidisciplinary approaches and the
cooperation of scientists from differing disciplines within and outside
the government. An Ecosystem Research Initiative should integrate
ongoing basic and applied ecosystem research across the spectrum of
federal agencies currently engaged in such research. The consolidation
of ecosystem-related research activities under a broad interagency
cross-cutting initiative--perhaps modeled on the Climate Change
Research Program--is key to delivering usable information to managers
and policy makers. For the initiative to be successful, it must be
granted an appropriate level of discretionary funding authority to
direct existing and new resources toward high priority research areas
through a competitive process.
Education
Congress should support a National Ocean Education Strategy.
Congress should mandate the development of a national ocean education
and outreach strategy that coalesces and integrates the existing array
of independently conceived and implemented education and outreach
programs and activities. There are growing numbers of ocean-related
education and outreach activities occurring at all levels of government
and within the nongovernmental sector.
The lack of a coherent strategy for aligning these activities is
compromising their effectiveness and limiting their capacity to
generate additional funding support. Congress should work with the
President to establish a governing body responsible for developing a
national ocean education and outreach strategy. The strategy should
enhance educational achievement in the natural and social sciences,
increase ocean awareness, include a five-year plan for formal and
informal activities, and facilitate links among federal, state, local,
and nongovernmental programs. NOAA and NSF should be given the lead for
this activity, and Congress should look for opportunities to increase
support for successful programs within these and other agencies, such
as the NSF Centers for Ocean Science Education Excellence.
Funding
Establish an Ocean Trust Fund in the U.S. Treasury. Both
Commissions addressed the need for stable funding for implementing
their recommendations, making the case that our oceans, coasts, and
Great Lakes are major contributors to the U.S. economy, with half the
nation's GDP generated in coastal watersheds. Maintaining the economic
and ecological viability of our oceans and coasts requires decision
makers at the national and state governmental levels to have access to
unbiased, credible, and up-to-date information to make informed
decisions. Unfortunately, chronic under-investment has left much of our
ocean-related infrastructure in woefully poor condition. In addition,
federal and state ocean and coastal agencies need more financial
resources to meet the challenges that were so clearly documented in the
reports of the two Commissions.
Given this acknowledged under-investment, each Commission was well
aware of the budget implications inherent in its set of
recommendations. Implementation costs outlined in the two reports
arrived at similar projections--it will cost approximately $3.4 billion
in new funds annually to meet the needs of a comprehensive ocean
policy, a modest sum given the criticality of our oceans and Great
Lakes and their resources. A portion of those funds should be allocated
to all coastal states to help sustain their renewable coastal
resources. The other portion should be used to support the programs and
activities of the various federal agencies with ocean and coastal
responsibilities. To address these needs and to demonstrate a national
commitment to a new national ocean policy, each Commission recommended
that an Ocean Trust Fund, composed of dedicated resources, be
established in the U.S. Treasury.
The 109th Congress missed a number of opportunities to dedicate a
portion of federal revenues derived from offshore activities to
establish a trust fund. The Joint Initiative has noted that the 110th
Congress is considering certain modifications to the offshore oil and
gas royalties program that could result in additional revenues being
made available to the federal government and provide an opportunity for
this new Congress to dedicate a modest portion of those revenues to
establish an Ocean Trust Fund. The Joint Initiative stands ready to
engage the 110th Congress in an ongoing discussion about the sources
and uses of such a fund. In the end, establishing a dedicated Ocean
Trust Fund is one of the most important early steps Congress could take
to demonstrate its commitment to a new national ocean policy.
Congress should increase base funding for core ocean and coastal
programs. The loss of funding for some key ocean and coastal programs
in FY 2006 and FY 2007 and the lack of enhanced funding to address
high-priority challenges identified in the Commissions' reports must be
reversed if we are to preserve the economic benefits derived from
ocean-dependent activities and protect the health and productivity of
ocean and coastal ecosystems. Congress should increase funding for
ocean and coastal activities throughout the federal government in FY
2008 and beyond, with an initial focus on enhancing core base programs
and support for a few broad initiatives. To this end, the Joint
Initiative would like to convey our deep appreciation for the support
provided for ocean-related programs in the Committee on Natural
Resources' Views and Estimates letter submitted to the Budget Committee
at the beginning of this month. In particular, we are heartened by the
Committee's specific support for the funding numbers recommended by the
Joint Initiative and for the direct reference to the Joint Initiative
and its efforts on behalf of a new, comprehensive, and coordinated
ocean policy. In particular, we remain hopeful that the House can
overcome the growing difficulties it has experience in recent years
regarding funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Recent funding levels for the agency have been well
below the President's request and even further below the annual enacted
level of funding appropriated to the agency. While NOAA is one of many
federal agencies that support ocean and coastal activities, its role as
the nation's lead ocean agency merits greater support for the multitude
of science, management, and education programs it carries out.
Further, Congress should direct that the Administration develop an
integrated ocean budget. The lack of a coherent listing and analysis of
ocean and coastal programs distributed throughout the federal
government hampers the ability of Congress and the Administration to
evaluate, coordinate, and integrate ocean- and coastal-related science,
management, and education programs within agencies across the federal
government. To address this problem, either as separate legislation or
as part of an appropriations bill, Congress should direct the President
to submit an integrated ocean budget, making it easier to track support
for and analyze the progress of departmentally isolated but highly
interactive ocean and coastal programs, and thus facilitating greater
coordination among federal programs. This recommendation was first made
in a letter to the head of the Office of Management and Budget by the
Chairman and Ranking members of the Senate Appropriations and Budget
Committees in 2005, in which they strongly urged the establishment of
an ocean funding baseline to monitor progress towards fulfilling
financial objectives. To date no such effort has been undertaken to our
knowledge.
Conclusion
We close by commending the Committee on Natural Resources and this
Subcommittee and its staff for your bipartisan commitment to making
meaningful change in the way we manage our oceans and coasts. The time
is ripe and the time is now for Congress to act boldly to transform a
dysfunctional federal management regime into a truly effective and
farsighted system for managing our magnificent oceans and coasts to
benefit current and future generations.
If there was any uncertainty about the need to take bold action, we
would turn your attention to the U.S. Ocean Policy Reports Card that
the JOCI issued in early in 2006 and, again, at the beginning of this
year. Copies of both report cards are included as attachments to this
testimony. Essentially, for 2005 and 2006, we assessed the nation's
progress in implementing the recommendations of the two commissions in
six categories:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4377.001
Although there has been some very modest improvement in most of the
categories, the record in moving toward a vigorous implementation of a
new comprehensive and coordinated national ocean policy as recommended
by the commissions is, at best, uneven and far too slow and cautious
given the state of our oceans. As we pointed out above, the most
notable progress is being made in our coastal regions and states.
Nevertheless, notwithstanding the importance of these local
initiatives, they cannot be sustained without the support and
assistance of the national government. Further, in the report card that
we issued at the end of January 2007, we particularly emphasized the
need to dramatically improve our understanding of the relationship
between our oceans and climate change, an area of marine science
neglected for far too long.
New ecosystem-based management policies; the modernization of ocean
governance structures, and a renewed commitment to science, education,
and research; are all built on more robust legislation and higher
levels of funding. We strongly believe that dedicated levels and
sources of ocean and coastal funding are critical to meeting the
responsible and balanced goals set by our two Commissions. The members
of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, in our bipartisan effort to
catalyze needed ocean policy reform, stand ready to assist the Congress
in every way possible to meet this formidable challenge.
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today, look forward to working with
you on addressing the ocean and coastal issues that we have raised in
this hearing, and would be happy to answer any questions that you may
have.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I wish to thank former Congressman Panetta
and the very distinguished witness, Admiral Watkins, for their
very informative discussion here today. And it looks as if we
have a very ambitious agenda ahead of us. Thank you very much.
And now the Chair wishes to recognize Ms. Glackin. She is
here to testify on behalf of the Administration.
STATEMENT OF MARY M. GLACKIN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
PROGRAM PLANNING AND INTEGRATION, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Ms. Glackin. Good morning, Madame Chair and Members of the
committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today.
I want to express my gratitude to the Members of this
committee. Your continued support of NOAA and our programs and
missions is vital to this country.
We have heard, eloquently spoken by my colleagues this
morning, about the commission report and the urgency with which
we have to address these issues. And in response to the
commission report, the President established a Cabinet-level
Committee on Ocean Policy that provides a framework to
coordinate ocean and coastal-related activities of more than 20
Federal agencies that administer more than 140 laws.
The committee conducts its operational work through an
interagency subcommittee that looks at ocean science, resource
management, and integration; and they, in turn, have
subordinate bodies that address management specifically, and
then ocean science and technology.
NOAA has a unique position within the Federal government as
being the only agency that has a co-chair of both of these
important subcommittees, so we are certainly central to this.
As part of his response, the President also released the
U.S. Ocean Action Plan, which identifies immediate short-term
and longer-term actions that are necessary to more effectively
manage coastal and ocean resources.
In the two years since the plan was released, substantial
progress has been made in completing our commitments, as
documented in the plan. And we have an Ocean Action Plan
implementation update that was released in January, and I would
like to ask that this report be submitted into the record.
Significantly, 83 percent of the actions in the Ocean
Action Plans have been met, and the remaining 17 percent are on
schedule to be completed by their target date. NOAA is the lead
or co-lead on 45 of these tasks.
I want to highlight for you this morning just a few of
NOAA's many notable accomplishments in support of the plan. In
June, the President designated the Northwest Hawaiian Islands
as a national marine monument, encompassing nearly 140,000
square miles. On March 2, First Lady Laura Bush announced the
new Hawaiian name, Papahanaumokuakea. And I did practice that,
I have to tell you. For the first time in history, NOAA is
playing a leading role in managing a national monument.
Improving the coordination and effectiveness of marine
fisheries management is also an important part of the Ocean
Action Plan. Thanks to the hard work and efforts of this
committee and our friends in Congress, the Magnuson-Stevens
Fisheries Conservation and Management Act was reauthorized, and
is now law.
Two primary goals of the Act, ending over-fishing and
increasing the use of dedicated access and limited access
privilege programs, were embodied in the Ocean Action Plan.
In my role as Co-Chair of the Subcommittee on Integrated
Management of Ocean Resources and a NOAA employee, one of the
things I am most proud of is our work with our partners to
support regional ocean governance, such as the activities with
the Gulf of Mexico Alliance. In response to regional priorities
articulated by the states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Texas, this initiative brought together 13
Federal agencies under the leadership of NOAA and EPA.
The alliance formally released the Governor's action plan
for healthy and resilient coasts in March of 2006. The plan
includes key actions across the alliance's priority areas that
will result in healthier beaches and shellfish beds,
restoration and conservation of coastal wetlands, and a
regional environmental education program.
Similar regional initiatives exist elsewhere and are
emerging in other areas like the South Atlantic and other
coastal regions of the U.S. The Ocean Action Plan also
identifies the importance of improving our understanding of
ocean coasts and Great Lakes by seeking greater collaboration,
coordination, cooperation, and synergies.
The plan called for the development of a research
priorities and implementation strategy. This was undertaken and
recently released in January of 2007. This plan provides
strategic directions for future research, and it most
importantly articulates priorities among the competing demands.
Improved ocean management requires an ocean-literate
public, as we have heard here this morning. And to this end,
NOAA is committed to advancing lifelong ocean education. We are
participating with our Federal partners on the inter-agency
working group on ocean education to identify opportunities and
articulate priorities for enhancing ocean education, outreach,
and capacity building.
Our formal and informal activities include scholarships and
fellowship programs, education and research grants, and
strategic partnerships with education institutions and
industry.
While the Administration continues to make significant
progress in implementing the Ocean Action Plan, Congress has a
critical role to play, as well. In addition to providing
funding and oversight, as discussed here today, we are hopeful
that Congress will pass several key pieces of legislation.
The passage of the NOAA Organic Act would authorize and
consolidate into one law NOAA's divergent roles and
responsibilities that now reside in more than 200 separate
statutes. The Act should accomplish the full spectrum of NOAA's
mission, while providing the Agency flexibility in determining
how to best structure itself to address current and future
needs.
The Administration will transmit a proposal for such
legislation to Congress shortly. We appreciate your interest in
the bill, and want to work with you to pass this legislation.
Another important legislative priority is the passage of
the National Offshore Aquaculture Act. This bill, unveiled by
Secretary Gutierrez earlier this month, would provide the
Department of Commerce the authority to regulate aquaculture in
Federal waters. NOAA looks forward to working with this
committee to move this legislation forward.
Also this session, we hope to see the passage of the
National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act, which will update,
strengthen, and clarify the Sanctuaries Act to allow NOAA to
improve its mission in this area. We also want to work with you
on reauthorization of the Coral Reef Conservation Act, to be
able to promote wise management, conservation, and protection
of these vital ecosystems.
Continued implementation of the President's action plan
remains a priority for the Administration. The Fiscal Year 2008
budget requests $123 million in increases for NOAA to support
the plan. This includes $38 million to protect and restore
marine and coastal areas, including $8 million for enforcement
and management in the new Northwest Hawaiian Islands monument.
Also in this request is $25 million to ensure sustainable
use of ocean resources, including $6.5 million to implement the
new and expanded requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This
includes $16 million for the integrated ocean observing system,
as mentioned earlier, and support of our new IOOS program. The
components of this budget request will allow NOAA to further
the responsible use and stewardship of ocean and coastal
resources.
Finally, in closing, I would like to note that in 2007,
NOAA is proud to be celebrating 200 years of science, service,
and stewardship to our nation. From the establishment of the
survey of the coast in 1807 by Thomas Jefferson to the
formation of the Weather Bureau and the Commission of Fish and
Fisheries in the 1870s, much of America's scientific heritage
is rooted in NOAA. We will continue to honor this legacy as we
follow the roadmap that the Ocean Action Plan has provided to
us to foster more effective management and conservation of our
coastal and ocean resources.
We look forward to continuing to work with you on this
journey, and we are happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Glackin follows:]
Statement of Mary Glackin, Assistant Administrator for Program Planning
and Integration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
Good afternoon Chairwoman Bordallo, Congressman Brown, and Members
of the Committee. I am Mary Glackin, Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Program Planning and Integration at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in the Department of Commerce. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify before you today on Ocean Policy
Priorities in the United States, and NOAA's role in implementing
components of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan.
On September 20, 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
fulfilled its congressional mandate to submit recommendations for a
coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy to the President
and Congress. The Commission's final report, An Ocean Blueprint for the
21st Century, contains 212 recommendations addressing a broad range of
ocean and coastal topics. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy outlined
the need for enhancing ocean leadership and coordination, developing
the institutional capacity to coordinate across jurisdictional
boundaries, and strengthening the agency structure in phases in order
to enhance the goal of addressing management needs through an
ecosystem-based approach.
In response to the Commission's findings and recommendations, the
President issued Executive Order 13366, on December 17, 2004,
establishing a Cabinet-level Committee on Ocean Policy, whose
membership includes the Secretaries of Commerce, State, Defense, the
Interior, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Transportation,
Energy, and Homeland Security, and the Attorney General. Other members
of the Committee on Ocean Policy include the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, the Director of National Intelligence, the
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Director
of the National Science Foundation, and the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of
Staff; and the Assistants to the President for National Security
Affairs, Homeland Security, Domestic Policy, Economic Policy, and an
employee of the Office of the Vice President. The Committee on Ocean
Policy created a framework to coordinate the ocean and coastal related
activities of over 20 federal agencies that administer over 140 laws,
and facilitates coordination and support to the numerous state, tribal,
and local programs with the overall goal of improved ocean governance.
At the same time, the President released the U.S. Ocean Action Plan,
which identifies immediate short-term and long-term actions necessary
to more effectively manage coastal and ocean resources.
In the two years since the U.S. Ocean Action Plan was released, the
federal agencies, together with their state, local, territorial, and
tribal partners, have made substantial progress in meeting their
commitments to the actions in the Plan. To identify specific areas of
progress and opportunities that have led agencies to move beyond the
Plan, the Committee on Ocean Policy released the U.S. Ocean Action Plan
Implementation Update in January 2007 (http://ocean.ceq.gov/oap--
update012207.pdf). Given the significant progress the Administration
has made in completing the commitments of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan
(83% of the actions have been met, the remaining 17% are on schedule to
be completed by their target dates), federal agencies are moving
forward with new activities in these areas to continue to improve our
management and protection of ocean resources.
Both the final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and
the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, recognize that partnerships are vital to
halting the degradation of our oceans, and to our realizing their full
potential. Thus, an underlying theme of my testimony today is
``partnerships are essential for success,'' as NOAA fully supports
Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation. There
are many agencies with important ocean and coastal responsibilities
with which NOAA partners, and we take great pride and place great
importance in continuing to strengthen our role as the lead civilian
ocean agency.
NOAA is at the center of the federal government's understanding,
awareness, and stewardship of our ocean resources and has been given a
lead role in carrying through on the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. Because of
the size and breadth of NOAA's involvement in the implementing
activities, today I will highlight just a few results from the six
sections of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. These will demonstrate how NOAA
is actively working with federal, state, tribal, and international
partners, as well as Congress and other stakeholders, to meet our
nation's challenges with respect to the oceans. I will begin by
highlighting a few of the legislative priorities that would allow NOAA
to improve its effectiveness at addressing issues raised by the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy.
NOAA'S LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES IN THE 110TH CONGRESS
NOAA has a number of ocean-oriented legislative priorities in the
110th Congress. In addition to the priorities listed below, NOAA is
also working with our interagency partners on Administration bills that
address hydrographic services, marine mammal protection, and
cooperative conservation.
Legislative Priority--National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007
On March 12, 2007, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez unveiled the
Administration's National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007. Enactment
of this bill will provide the Department of Commerce the authority to
regulate aquaculture in federal waters and to establish a coordinated
process among the federal agencies and affected coastal states. We
envision a one-stop regulatory shop for authorization that is required
from within the Department of Commerce. NOAA will coordinate the
regulatory process for the Commerce Department as a part of its
environmental stewardship responsibilities, working closely with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NOAA looks forward to
working with this Committee to move legislation forward to allow us to
begin a public rulemaking process to produce a comprehensive,
environmentally sound permitting and regulatory program for aquaculture
in federal waters.
Legislative Priority--NOAA Organic Act
An ocean leadership priority identified in both the final report of
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the U.S. Ocean Action Plan is
the passage of a NOAA Organic Act. We believe it is necessary to
consolidate into one authorization NOAA's myriad purposes and
responsibilities, which now reside in over two hundred separate
statues. It should encompass the full spectrum of NOAA's
responsibilities, including programs to protect and restore the
nation's fisheries, and its responsibilities to provide products that
foster safe transportation on marine highways. The Administration plans
to transmit a proposal for such legislation to Congress, and we are
hopeful that the Members of this Committee will play an integral part
in its passage. Most importantly, NOAA believes the agency must
maintain its current flexibility in determining how best to structure
itself to address current and future needs. In responding to the
recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy thus far,
flexibility has proved to be a vital tool for NOAA leadership. An
organizational structure that serves the nation well today may not be
the best structure to serve the nation in the future. We believe that
specific programmatic changes should be made through authorization
bills that are revisited every few years. We would be happy to work
with the Committee on such bills.
Legislative Priority--National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) provides for the
protection of nationally significant areas of the marine environment by
designating them as national marine sanctuaries. The NMSA is unique
among the suite of federal laws aimed at protecting or managing marine
resources in that its primary objective is to set aside marine areas of
special national significance for their protection and to conserve and
manage them as ecosystems to maintain their natural biodiversity and
historical and cultural heritage. Like National Parks and National
Wildlife Refuges, sanctuaries are intended to endure for the benefit of
current and future generations. One of our legislative priorities this
Congress will be a National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act, which
will update, strengthen, and clarify the NMSA to allow NOAA to be more
effective and efficient in meeting its mandates.
Legislative Priority--Coral Reef Ecosystem Conservation Amendments Act
The Coral Reef Conservation Act (CRCA) established a national
program to conduct activities to conserve coral reefs, leading to the
creation of the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP). The CRCA
authorizes NOAA to carry out a number of activities to promote the wise
management and sustainable use of coral reef ecosystems, to develop
sound scientific information on the condition of coral reef ecosystems,
and to assist in the preservation of coral reefs by supporting external
conservation programs.
In the six years since its inception, the CRCP has worked to build
capacity locally within U.S. coral jurisdictions and internationally in
key areas: to map, monitor, characterize, restore, research, and assess
the condition of coral reef ecosystems; provide management support;
understand the threats to healthy coral reef ecosystems; and promote
public awareness and education on the value of and threats to coral
reef ecosystems. Another legislative priority for NOAA and our partners
is the Coral Reef Ecosystem Conservation Amendments Act, which will
improve the ability of NOAA's Coral Reef Conservation Program to better
integrate and work more effectively with our partners in the U.S. Coral
Reef Task Force, including our co-chair the Department of the Interior,
to provide the most effective and efficient protection of coral reef
ecosystems.
U.S. OCEAN ACTION PLAN--ENHANCING OCEAN LEADERSHIP AND COORDINATION
Coordinated Ocean Governance Structure
The Committee on Ocean Policy conducts its operational work through
the Interagency Committee on Ocean Science and Resource Management
Integration (ICOSRMI) and its subordinate bodies, the Subcommittee on
Integrated Management of Ocean Resources (SIMOR) and the National
Science and Technology Council's (NSTC) Joint Subcommittee on Ocean
Science and Technology (JSOST). Within this new coordinated ocean
governance structure (fig. 1), ICOSRMI is incorporating the mandate and
functions of the National Oceanographic Partnership Program's National
Ocean Research Leadership Council into its broader ocean and coastal
policy mandate, which now includes ocean resource management. The
purpose of a high-level group like the ICOSRMI is to provide oversight
to the implementation of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, and direct further
actions to advance ocean science and resource management activities.
The ICOSRMI is comprised of Under/Assistant Secretaries or their
equivalents from the executive branch agencies and departments of the
Committee on Ocean Policy, and is co-chaired by the White House's
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and Office of Science and
Technology Policy. The White House involvement in this effort has been
critical to providing the high-level guidance and support necessary to
focus the group on achievable goals, and to maintain its momentum.
NOAA has taken a leadership role in both SIMOR and the JSOST,
serving as co-chair on each respective group and further supporting
their activities. SIMOR seeks to identify and promote opportunities for
collaboration and cooperation among agencies on resource management
issues, and to build partnerships among federal, state, tribal, and
local authorities, the private sector, international partners, and
other interested parties.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4377.002
SIMOR's counterpart in the new coordinated ocean governance
structure is the JSOST. The principal roles of JSOST are to identify
national ocean science and technology priorities and to facilitate
coordination of disciplinary and interdisciplinary ocean research,
ocean technology and infrastructure development, and national ocean
observation programs. The JSOST was created through expansion of the
former NSTC's Joint Subcommittee on Oceans in 2005 to include the
issues of science and technology. Because of this evolution, the JSOST
continues to report to the NSTC Committee on Science and the Committee
on Environment and Natural Resources, in addition to the ICOSRMI.
ICOSRMI seeks advice from its federal advisory committee, the Ocean
Research and Resource Advisory Panel, comprised of 18 members from
academia, as well as the public and private sectors, with interest and
expertise in ocean science and resource management. ICOSRMI also
coordinates with the National Security Council's Global Environment
Policy Coordinating Committee and its Subcommittee on Ocean Policy.
NOAA's Implementation of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan
The tenets of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan include developing
management strategies that ensure continued conservation of our ocean,
coastal, and Great Lakes' resources, while at the same time ensuring
that the American public enjoys and benefits from them. It also
includes employing the best science and data to inform decision-making;
working toward an ecosystem-based approach to management, and, where
possible, employing economic incentives over mandates.
CEQ designated NOAA as lead, or co-lead, on 45 items from the U.S.
Ocean Action Plan. The diverse range of actions undertaken by NOAA to
date include developing a status report on deep-sea corals in the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone, working jointly with EPA to conduct community
workshops to improve watershed protection, and improving navigation by
updating the National Water Level Observation Network. NOAA also
continues to emphasize the importance of local and regional leadership
in ocean management, co-leading with EPA the federal working group
supporting the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, participating in the Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration, and joining other SIMOR members in
working with interested states to move forward to new regional
initiatives such as the Northeast Regional Ocean Council. These
regional bodies possess the unique ability to focus discussion on areas
of most need, and provide lasting commitments to the stewardship of
regional resources by those most affected by them.
In my view, progress on implementing the U.S. Ocean Action Plan has
been significant as highlighted below and NOAA will continue to work to
enhance its partnerships in order to meet present and future
challenges.
U.S. OCEAN ACTION PLAN--ADVANCING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE OCEANS,
COASTS, AND GREAT LAKES
Ocean Research Priorities Plan
As outlined in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, an important role of the
JSOST within the interagency process is to improve our understanding of
oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes by seeking enhanced collaboration,
coordination, cooperation, and synergies. JSOST's recent efforts
focused on developing an Ocean Research Priorities Plan and an
Implementation Strategy. This plan provides strategic direction for
future research and articulates priorities among competing demands for
scientific information. These documents were prepared in an open and
transparent manner with advice from the ocean research community
(government, academic, industry, and other non-government entities),
including SIMOR and the National Academy of Sciences. A national
workshop with several hundred participants from academia, as well as
the public and private sectors, convened in the spring of 2006 to
solicit input, and a draft version of the documents was available to
the public for review and comment from September 1-October 20, 2006.
The plan, entitled Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United
States for the Next Decade, was released on January 26, 2007, and is
now available at http://ocean.ceq.gov/about/sup--jsost--
prioritiesplan.html.
NOAA has undertaken a number of other activities in partnership
with external partners or other agencies to enhance our scientific
knowledge of marine ecosystems. These have included a review of
ecosystem science, integrating U.S. ocean observations, ocean and
coastal mapping, coordinating ocean education, and hosting a conference
on ocean literacy.
Integrating U.S. Ocean Observing Efforts
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan and the final report of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy endorse implementation of a sustained
Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). IOOS is the U.S. component of
the Global Ocean Observing System, and is the key ocean component of
the U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS) now being
developed. Both IOOS and IEOS will become part of GEOSS--the Global
Earth Observation System of Systems. IOOS is envisioned as an
interagency, end-to-end system designed to meet seven societal goals by
integrating research, education, and the development of sustained ocean
observing capabilities. The need to integrate data derives from NOAA's
core missions. The challenges society faces today (coastal populations
at risk, compromised ecosystems, climate change, increased maritime
commerce) threaten jobs, revenue, and human health. Answers to these
problems require access to better information. Developing IOOS is a top
priority for NOAA. In December 2006, NOAA reconfirmed its commitment to
IOOS by establishing an IOOS Program. The IOOS Program advances IOOS
through improved organization, management, and focus. The new IOOS
Program has two major functions:
Project Management: including IOOS budget formulation,
planning, and programming within NOAA's program structure; and
Program Operations: includes IOOS office execution,
outreach, and education.
The NOAA IOOS Program will not subsume other programs within NOAA,
but rather coordinate and leverage capabilities found in NOAA in
building the U.S. IOOS. The initial focus of the IOOS Program is to
build an initial operating capability for IOOS. This will be
accomplished by integrating five core IOOS variables (temperature,
salinity, sea level, surface currents, and ocean color). The
integration of these variables will be used in four priority NOAA
models: coastal inundation, hurricane intensity, harmful algal bloom
forecasts, and integrated ecosystem assessments. These models will be
tested, evaluated and benchmarked for success in order to show the
value of integration.
The IOOS Program will continue to support development of regional
infrastructure and management to enable a fully configured and scalable
U.S. IOOS. Ocean.US, the National Office for Integrated and Sustained
Ocean Observations, has the lead for planning the multi-agency IOOS
effort. NOAA is heavily involved in this planning, and has been
designated by the Administration as the lead federal agency for
administration and implementation of IOOS. Coordination between
agencies continues to grow with the Interagency Working Group on Ocean
Observations established under the JSOST and chaired by NOAA with vice
chairs from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
the Navy, and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Ocean and Coastal Mapping Activities
Improved information on our ocean and coastal areas is essential to
improved management and advances in ocean and coastal management and
science. NOAA is working with its interagency partners to advance our
nation's capabilities in this area, taking advantage of technologies
such as LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and autonomous underwater
vehicles. Among its efforts, NOAA is working to ensure the most
effective use of our fleet of vessels and aircraft by integrating our
multiple program mapping requirements, developing new techniques for
data acquisition, working with other agencies, and making seamless the
use of our mapping missions. We are building a Geographic Information
System support tool to be able to better plan and integrate mapping
efforts in order to narrow the gaps between current program mapping
capability, and a modern fully integrated ocean mapping system. The
goal is to meet the broadest range of program needs and eliminate
duplicative efforts in NOAA's ocean and coastal mapping activities. In
addition, NOAA is working with other agencies to develop an inventory
of coastal and ocean mapping programs, their existing data, and planned
acquisitions, along with a web-based system to search and display
records from the inventory. The FY 2008 Budget Request includes $8
million for NOAA--in conjunction with our interagency partners--to
define the outer limits of the U.S. continental shelf (areas beyond 200
miles from the U.S. coast that meet certain geological criteria).
Defining those limits will allow the U.S. to confirm its resource
rights, which contain an estimated $1.2 trillion worth of resources.
Increased Ocean Education Coordination
Together, SIMOR and the JSOST have formed the joint Interagency
Working Group on Ocean Education, to identify opportunities and
articulate priorities for enhancing ocean education, outreach, and
capacity building. Ocean management is more effective with an ocean
literate public and to this end NOAA leverages many opportunities to
advance ocean education in support of its mission goals. Our formal and
informal activities include scholarship and fellowship programs,
education and research grants, and strategic partnerships with
education institutions and industry. In 2006, NOAA's Education Office
provided scholarship and internship opportunities to over 230
undergraduate students. NOAA's education investment is also geared
towards hiring students trained through these scholarship and
internship opportunities. Through December 31, 2006, NOAA has hired 32
students trained through its Graduate Sciences Program. Also in 2006,
33 teachers participated in NOAA's Teacher at Sea Program.
To raise national attention to the need for ocean literacy, NOAA,
with EPA, the Department of the Interior (DOI), NSF, NASA, and the
National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, co-hosted CoOl--the Conference on
Ocean Literacy--on June 7-8, 2006, in Washington, D.C., as part of the
presidentially proclaimed National Oceans Week, June 4-10. The
conference brought together key participants to discuss the essential
principles of ocean literacy, and the current challenges and
opportunities for both formal and informal education efforts in
educating the public to make informed, responsible decisions about the
ocean and its resources. This partnership event also identified
priority next steps we can take to advance ocean literacy. The
conference extended beyond Washington, D.C., through five regional
workshops hosted by aquariums across the country including: Aquarium of
the Pacific, Long Beach, CA; John G. Shedd Aquarium, Chicago, IL; J.L.
Scott Aquarium, Ocean Springs, MS; National Aquarium in Baltimore,
Baltimore, MD; and National Mississippi River Museum and Aquarium,
Dubuque, IA. Each site viewed portions of the presentations via
satellite and discussed regional challenges and opportunities for
promoting ocean literacy principles.
Implementing the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research Control Act
Highlighted in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, the Harmful Algal Bloom
and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2004 (HABHRCA) reaffirmed and expanded
the mandate for NOAA to address harmful algal blooms (HABs) and
hypoxia. HABs and hypoxia are two of the most scientifically complex
and economically significant coastal issues facing our nation today.
NOAA, in collaboration with federal, state, and academic partners, is
helping coastal managers lessen or prevent the detrimental effects of
these phenomena on human health and on valuable coastal resources.
HABHRCA supported research was critical in helping coastal communities
in the Gulf of Maine and Florida mitigate the damage of historic blooms
in 2006 and ongoing research promises major advancements in other
regions such as the Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes. HABHRCA research
activities are also providing the foundation for NOAA's efforts to
develop an operational HAB forecast system around the U.S. coast.
U.S. OCEAN ACTION PLAN--ENHANCING THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF OCEAN,
COASTAL, AND GREAT LAKES RESOURCES
SIMOR Work Plan
Established as part of the Committee on Ocean Policy, SIMOR
provides a strong mechanism to coordinate federal activities and
respond to regional concerns, and is jointly co-chaired by NOAA, EPA,
DOI, and CEQ. It has fostered mutual interest and proactive dialog
among agencies in addressing difficult resource management issues that
cross jurisdictional boundaries. SIMOR has developed a Work Plan with
21 actions in four priority areas that build on the U.S. Ocean Action
Plan. NOAA has a leadership role in 12 of these actions and
participates in nearly all of the others. Examples of the benefits of
SIMOR activities include: improved understanding of an ecosystem
approach to management through regional workshops; development of
educational standards for resource managers; coordinated federal
support to new and ongoing regional partnerships; formation of a
federal/state team of resource managers to provide timely input into
the JSOST's development of the Ocean Research Priorities Plan.
Implementing Coral Reef Local Action Strategies
The federal agencies, freely associated states, and seven
jurisdictions (Florida, Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the
U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas
Islands) that comprise the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force have developed
and begun implementing Coral Reef Local Action Strategies to address
key threats to coral reefs in their respective jurisdictions. The
Strategies provide a framework for Task Force member agencies to
identify, and collaboratively address, these threats and additional
local needs, connect local priorities to national goals, and coordinate
federal agency actions with local management of reef resources. This
effort is a significant step forward in advancing the goal of
cooperative conservation between the federal, state, territorial, and
commonwealth governments. NOAA, DOI, EPA, and the Department of
Agriculture have been key partners in implementing the action strategy
effort and building local capacity for coral reef conservation and
management. For example, agencies organized a successful Caribbean
Coral Reef Grants and Funding Opportunities Workshop in August 2005 to
help island jurisdictions and local partners identify and pursue
funding opportunities for local action strategy support. Additional
Coral Reef Grants Funding Workshops were held in June and July of 2006
in Hawaii, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
A final workshop is being planned for American Samoa in August or
September 2007.
Implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act
A bill reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) was signed by
the President on January 12, 2007. The MSA strengthens a number of key
fisheries management provisions. Two primary goals of the MSA--ending
overfishing and increasing the use of dedicated access and limited
access privilege programs--are hallmark positions of the Administration
and were embodied in the President's U.S. Ocean Action Plan and
elsewhere. The MSA includes several hundred specific tasks and meets a
number of Administration commitments in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. The
National Marine Fisheries Service is currently finalizing a detailed
tracking and implementation plan for the new MSA. Implementation teams
will be developed to address specific provisions or related sets of
requirements. Successful implementation will require extensive
interaction with our constituents and interagency partners.
Designation of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument
Recognizing the continuing need for resource protection, President
Bush designated the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands as a marine national
monument on June 15, 2006. Encompassing nearly 140,000 square miles,
this monument is more than 100 times larger than Yosemite National
Park, larger than 46 of our 50 states, and more than seven times larger
than all our national marine sanctuaries combined. The designation
builds upon the public sanctuary designation process, the State of
Hawaii's Marine Refuge, and the National Wildlife Refuge System's 98-
year presence here to provide lasting protection to this important
resource. The creation of the largest fully-protected marine
conservation area in the world is an exciting achievement and
recognizes the value of marine resources to our nation.
On March 2, 2007, First Lady Laura Bush joined Hawaii Governor
Linda Lingle, U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Dirk
Kempthorne, U.S. Department of Commerce Deputy Secretary David Sampson,
and James Connaughton, Chair of the White House Council on
Environmental Quality in announcing the new Hawaiian name for the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. The name is
Papahanaumokuakea, which refers to Hawaiian genealogy and the formation
of the Hawaiian archipelago.
For the first time in its history, NOAA is a partner in managing a
national monument. This is an exciting opportunity and one that will
present many challenges. Thankfully, we have great partners in DOI and
the State of Hawaii to help us co-manage this unique area.
I think President Bush said it best: ``You know, in America,
there's a great consensus that we have an obligation to be good
stewards of the environment. Success of a generation is not defined by
wealth alone. We also will be measured by the respect we give to the
precious creatures of our natural world. We have great choices before
us in this country. And with the designation of the Northwestern
Hawaiian Island Marine National Monument, we are making a choice that
will leave a precious legacy.''
Coordinating and Integrating the Existing Network of Marine Managed
Areas
Two national initiatives are currently working to enhance
coordination among existing marine protected areas (MPAs) programs in
the U.S. in order to improve their efficiency and effectiveness in
protecting the nation's natural and cultural marine resources. These
two efforts are the development of the national system of MPAs, led by
NOAA's MPA Center, and the creation of a ``Seamless Network'' among
three federal and one federal/state partnership MPA programs. While
each initiative has its own distinct goals, the efforts complement one
another and we are working together to ensure coordination.
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan calls on National Parks, National
Wildlife Refuges, National Marine Sanctuaries, and National Estuarine
Research Reserves to promote coordination of research, public
education, and management activities at neighboring parks, refuges,
sanctuaries, and estuarine reserves. Many of these sites overlap or lie
adjacent to each other, and have a history of collaboration that
provides a model for this expanded network. Although these sites were
created under separate agency authorities and statutory mandates, they
are united by their proximity and similar science and management
priorities. These actions to coordinate and better integrate are
referred to as the ``Seamless Network'' initiative. Two federal
interagency agreements will help implement this effort. The first is a
general agreement signed in August 2006 that enables site-based,
regional, and national collaborations among the partner agencies, and
is currently being implemented. The second is a separate cooperative
law enforcement agreement signed in August 2005 between the National
Wildlife Refuge System, National Park Service, National Marine
Sanctuary Program and National Marine Fisheries Service.
As an example of the ``Seamless Network'' initiative, a partnership
among DOI, the State of Florida, and NOAA's Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary focuses on the management of the Dry Tortugas in the
Florida Keys, and creating a unique management plan that balances
conservation, research and recreational use. The Dry Tortugas National
Park has established a no-take marine reserve in the park, while
leaving more than half the park open to recreational fishing. The
reserve, called a Research Natural Area, is 46 nm2 set aside to protect
a pristine area, provide a sanctuary for species that have been
affected by harvest or habitat degradation, and foster scientific
research. The reserve will also offer outstanding opportunities for
non-consumptive recreation and education.
U.S. OCEAN ACTION PLAN--MANAGING COASTS AND THEIR WATERSHEDS
Gulf of Mexico Alliance
One example of SIMOR's role in enhancing coordination on managing
coasts and watersheds is providing an integrated federal response to
support the state-led Gulf of Mexico Alliance, a regional partnership
of the states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.
The Alliance formally released the Governors' Action Plan for Healthy
and Resilient Coasts at the Gulf of Mexico Summit in March 2006, which
includes 11 key actions--detailed by 73 specific steps--across the
Alliance's five priority issues: water quality, restoration,
environmental education, habitat identification for management
purposes, and reductions in nutrient loadings. In order to capture
local community input during the development of the Governors' Action
Plan, the Gulf Alliance hosted a series of eight Community Workshops
across the five Gulf States from June 2005 to February 2006. SIMOR
brought together 13 federal agencies, led by NOAA and EPA, to respond
to regional priorities articulated by the states in the Governors'
Action Plan. Collaborating state and federal agencies have already
produced several tangible outcomes as called for in the Governors'
Action Plan, and have committed to continue working together on these
regional priorities. Some of the expected outcomes from this effort are
healthier beaches and shellfish beds; restoration and conservation of
Gulf coastal wetlands; and a regional environmental education campaign.
Cooperative Conservation Executive Order
The Administration remains committed to the tenets of Cooperative
Conservation, as outlined in the Executive Order from 2004. In 2005, at
the White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation, NOAA announced
a new grants program to aid communities in removing small obstructions
to their rivers. The goal of the Open Rivers Initiative (ORI) is to not
only improve habitat for diadromous fish populations, but also foster
new economic development opportunities. In addition to ORI, NOAA will
continue to find new and innovative ways to advance Cooperative
Conservation throughout the agency.
On June 26, 2006, the White House hosted top Administration
officials, including Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher, and conservation
leaders to discuss concepts for proposed cooperative conservation
legislation. The meeting brought the cabinet members together with
approximately 50 representatives of organizations that attended the
2005 White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation in St. Louis,
Missouri. Participants included conservationists, public land users,
ranchers, farmers and others.
u.s. ocean action plan--supporting marine transportation
Interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation System
Consistent with the final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy, the U.S. Ocean Action Plan called for strengthening the
previous federal interagency marine transportation effort--the
Interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation System--and directed
the creation of a Cabinet-level interagency committee on marine
transportation. As a result the Committee on the Marine Transportation
System (CMTS), chaired by the Secretary of Transportation with
membership from 14 other federal agencies, was established in April
2005. I am proud to say that the Department of Commerce, with strong
representation by NOAA, is a charter member of the CMTS, and actively
supports its mission. NOAA currently chairs the Coordinating Board,
which is the chief policy advisory board to the CMTS. The purpose of
the CMTS is to promote a partnership of federal agencies with
responsibility for the Marine Transportation System (MTS)--waterways,
ports, and their intermodal connections--to ensure the development and
implementation of national MTS policies, and to communicate to the
President its views and recommendations for improving the MTS.
The CMTS is executing a work plan that will provide a comprehensive
assessment of the MTS; development of an MTS national strategy;
improved collection and management of MTS data; and development of a
decision making matrix for improved coordination and response to
natural disasters affecting the nation's MTS.
U.S. OCEAN ACTION PLAN--ADVANCING INTERNATIONAL OCEAN POLICY AND
SCIENCE
Advancing the Use of Large Marine Ecosystems
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan included a chapter on implementing
international efforts. Several of the action items in the U.S. Ocean
Action Plan include international components. However, as many of
today's challenges to our oceans and coasts are transboundary and
international in nature and scope, the U.S. Ocean Action Plan also
includes a section that addresses the advancement of international
ocean policy and science. One example of these efforts is a recent
partnership that has been developed to link the United Nations
Environment Programme Regional Seas Programme and the use of the NOAA-
originated concept of Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs). This partnership
facilitates the management of an ecosystem that crosses national
boundaries. This effort has attracted funding from the Global
Environmental Facility and various donor countries, specifically
focusing on capacity building in the developing world. NOAA has
contributed in-kind technical expertise to assist the planning and
implementation of the related programs.
Protecting Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems from Destructive Fishing
Practices
The United States has taken significant steps to protect vulnerable
marine ecosystems (VMEs), including seamounts, hydrothermal vents, and
cold-water corals, from destructive fishing practices within our
domestic waters. For example, in July 2006, NOAA established the
Aleutian Islands Habitat Conservation Area, more than 950,000 km2 in
size, protecting deep corals, sponges and other sensitive features that
are slow to recover from disturbance. The United States is a leader in
promoting the need for similar conservation and management measures
internationally, through various for a including the United Nations
(UN) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). In October 2006,
President Bush issued a memorandum to Secretary of State Rice and
Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez, which promoted the sustainable
management of global fisheries resources and called for an end to
destructive fishing practices on the high seas. The U.S. delegation to
the 2006 UN General Assembly fisheries resolution negotiations promoted
the position as outlined in the Presidential Memo, specifically urging
nations to prohibit their vessels from engaging in destructive fishing
practices on the high seas until applicable conservation and management
measures, or a Regional Fisheries management Organization (RFMO), are
in place. The ultimate consensus-based language of the resolution
includes management provisions for not RFMOs and States to prevent
bottom fishing from causing harm to VMEs and calls upon the FAO for
further management guidance. At the recent session of the FAO Committee
on Fisheries, held March 5-9, 2007 in Rome, Italy, a major topic of
discussion was the role of the FAO in implementing the UN General
Assembly resolution. Among the requests made of FAO, a priority for the
U.S. was the development of standards and criteria for use by States
and RFMOs in identifying VMEs and the impacts of fishing on such
ecosystems. As a result, the FAO plans to develop technical guidelines
for the management of deep sea fisheries on the high seas by early
2008.
2008 BUDGET PRIORITIES
The President's Budget for FY 2008 includes a $143 million for
NOAA, DOI, and NSF to support the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, and to build
on the successes in implementing the Plan thus far. Of the $143 million
total, $123 million in increases is requested for NOAA oceans programs.
NOAA's portion of this initiative includes $38 million to protect and
restore marine and coastal areas, including $8 million for enforcement
and management activities in the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National
Monument. Also in this request is $25 million to ensure sustainable use
of ocean resources, including $6.5 million to implement the new and
expanded requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Reauthorization Act. Lastly, this oceans initiative
dedicates $60 million to advance ocean science and research, which
includes $16 million for IOOS. The components of the request will allow
NOAA to further the responsible use and stewardship of ocean and
coastal resources as identified in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan.
The overall FY 2008 President's Budget for NOAA supports NOAA's
priority to advance mission-critical services and is $3.815 billion,
which represents a $131 million or 3.4% increase over the FY 2007
request.
NOAA and its partner agencies appreciate your continued support for
our programs as we execute our responsibilities under the U.S. Ocean
Action Plan and work together to improve our products and services for
the American people. These resources are vital to meeting the
challenges facing our nation's oceans.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the importance of the
efforts of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and stress that NOAA is
strongly committed to continued implementation of the related
recommendations of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. NOAA will continue to
work with its partners in a collaborative and systematic fashion, as we
believe collaboration is critical to make our ocean, coasts, and Great
Lakes cleaner, healthier and more productive. We look forward to
continuing to work with the Members of the Committee in raising the bar
for the long-term conservation and management of our coastal and ocean
resources.
Thank you again for your time and I am happy to answer any
questions that the Members of the Committee may have.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mrs. Glackin. And again,
thank you all for your testimony.
The Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Mr. Brown, the
gentleman from South Carolina, has just arrived, so I am asking
him if he has any opening statements to make.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madame Chairman. And I certainly
would like to apologize to the presenters for my lack of being
here, but I was called away on a very special meeting. And so I
apologize for being late.
But Madame Chairman, thank you very much for allowing all
three members of the panel to make their presentation at one
time. I think that will expedite things, particularly since we
have a vote coming up pretty shortly, that instead of I guess
delivering my opening statement, I would like to just submit it
for the record.
Ms. Bordallo. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Henry E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Republican
Member, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Madam Chairwoman, I would like to compliment you for inviting
Admiral James Walkins and former California Congressman Leon Panetta to
give us their prospective on how the Congress should implement an ocean
policy for this nation.
As the representative of the 1st Congressional District in South
Carolina, I have long recognized the vital importance of the Atlantic
Ocean and its tremendous impact on my constituents. As a lifelong
resident of Charleston, which we affectionately call the Holy City, I
appreciate the fact that coastal communities provide over 27 million
jobs nation-wide, 14 million Americans visit South Carolina beaches
each year and $740 billion dollars is directly related to waterborne
commerce nation-wide. Charleston is one of the nation's top container
seaports in North America and we provide some of the finest seafood in
the world that is enjoyed by millions of Americans.
While this is our second ocean-related hearing this year, this is
not the beginning of the story. In fact, during the last Congress, this
Subcommittee conducted more than a dozen hearings on various chapters
contained within the ``Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century''. More
importantly, the 109th Congress enacted a number of significant ocean
related bills.
At the top of that list was the comprehensive reauthorization and
modernization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. This was the first time in a decade that this
preeminent conservation law was extended.
In addition, the President signed into law the Marine Debris,
Research, Prevention and Reduction Act, the Tsunami Warning and
Education Act, the implementing legislation for the U.S.-Russia Polar
Bear Treaty, the International Monitoring and Compliance Act to end
illegal, unreported and unregulated international fishing and nearly a
dozen reauthorizations of important fishery statutes including the
Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act.
While this may not represent every recommendation contained within
the Blueprint, this was a remarkable effort and it occurred in one-
third less time than the Commission used to finalize their
recommendations.
Let me also state for the record that the recommendations of the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy were just that: recommendations. For
some reason, these have become mandates on Congress and the President.
While I don't want to belittle the Commission's work, I want to remind
my colleagues that these are recommendations for us to deliberate and
debate. We should not blindly accept everything that has been
recommended without a thorough discussion.
Many here will use the Stratton Commission as the example to be
held aloft and revered. For all of the good things that came out of
that Commission, were all of the recommendations followed?
The Commission also noted that the structure and overlapping
jurisdictions for Congressional Committees and the Federal agencies
make it difficult to implement new oceans policy or to make meaningful
changes to existing policies. The wheels of government grind slowly.
Finally the costs of the recommendations are not trivial--close to
$4 billion per year. While the Commission recommends using oil and gas
revenues derived from the outer continental shelf, I believe these
revenues are already funding other Federal programs. To move these
funds to new uses would require an offset--an offset of up to $4
billion per year. This alone may be the biggest hurdle to implementing
many of the Commission's recommendations.
In terms of today's hearing, I am disappointed that the head of the
President's Council on Environmental Quality, James Connaughton, who is
also the Chair of the Committee on Ocean Policy, was unable to attend
this hearing. This hearing is a perfect platform for the Administration
to outline how they have used the Commission's recommendations to
develop ocean policies and forge greater coordination between Federal
agencies at the highest levels within the Administration.
Nevertheless, I am pleased that Ms. Mary Glackin is here today to
testify for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We all
are aware of NOAA's commitment to the oceans. I look forward to hearing
from our three witnesses today. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
______
Mr. Brown. And also, Congressman Don Young would like also
to submit an opening statement, too. So if I could just have
unanimous consent to submit it.
Ms. Bordallo. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Don Young, Ranking Full Committee Member,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for holding today's hearing on ocean
policy priorities in the United States. It is a timely hearing which
will allow us to highlight how Congress has responded to the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy report.
As the representative for All of Alaska, I am a huge supporter of
the oceans. Many, if not all, of my constituents rely on the oceans for
some part of their needs, be it the shipment of goods, or for fishing
for subsistence or commercial needs.
I want to thank Admiral Watkins and Mr. Panetta for being with us
today and commend them for all of the hard work they put into their
respective Commissions. These two gentlemen traveled around the country
to hear from individuals affected by our nation's ocean policies.
Having been Chairman of two separate committees, I understand the
difficulty in getting members to unanimously support bills or reports.
These gentlemen were able to guide their respective Commission members
in the development of recommendations to Congress and the nation.
I appreciate your efforts and congratulate you on how successful
you were in your duties. It is now up to Congress, the Administration,
and the States to follow up on the Commission recommendations with
careful deliberations to determine how and which recommendations should
be implemented.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released its report in
September, 2004. In the two years after its release, Congress passed a
number of recommended initiatives. The biggest achievement for ocean
issues in the 109th Congress was the passage of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act reauthorization.
As we all remember, the bill was passed in the last few hours of
session. Many were betting that it would not pass, but it did pass and
it included at least 18 of the Commission recommendations for fisheries
management.
However, even after this major action, the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative issued a grade of B+ for fisheries management. The reasoning
given for the B+ grade was due to the lack of implementing regulations.
If you review the time line of when the bill was signed into law, the
Administration would have had 3 weeks to develop these regulations.
In an earlier stage of my life, I was a school teacher. Teachers
have many tools available to them, one of which is the use of a report
card. As we all know, having received report cards at some stage of our
life, report cards hold a certain level of mystique. So I can
understand the temptation to use such a tool with respect to keeping
attention to ocean issues. However, to what end will the report card be
used?
In the case of the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization, I think
the Commission was mixing apples and oranges. The Commission report
issues recommendations for Congress and others for the Administration
and the states. I do not think it is appropriate to tie the action of
one branch of the Federal government to another. In addition, while I
can relate to the importance of report cards in the school system, I do
not think it is appropriate to issue a report card for followup on
recommendations. In this case, the report card is subjective and
diminishes the actions that were completed.
I will raise one other issue recommended in the Commission report.
I have very strong concerns about the regional governance
recommendation that is being promoted. I do not agree that more federal
bureaucracy is necessary when it comes to ocean issues. In the worst
case scenario, I have heard that the federal government should dictate
what should be occurring at the regional level. There are a handful of
regional initiatives moving forward to create better coordination on
the west coast, the Great Lakes, and in the Gulf of Mexico. These
regional efforts should continue and not be stymied by people within
the beltway that think they know better.
In closing, Madame Chair, I would to thank Ms. Mary Glackin, the
representative from NOAA for taking the time to be with us today. While
I have had issues with the ocean agency from time-to-time, it is clear
that NOAA is dedicated to its mission of promoting and supporting ocean
issues, as was originally envisioned by the Stratton Commission.
However, as the ocean Commissions have noted, ocean issues go
beyond NOAA and involve many agencies and departments in the
Administration. This hearing was the perfect opportunity for the
Administration to send James Connaughton, the Chairman of the Council
on Environmental Quality, who is also the Chair of the Committee on
Ocean Policy, to highlight how he is leading all of the effected ocean
agencies in a coordinated fashion. I believe the Administration missed
the boat. This hearing was the perfect forum for the Administration to
highlight all of its ocean-related efforts, not just those within NOAA.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I look forward to hearing from our
three witnesses today.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. And now, consistent with
Committee Rule 3[c], the Chairwoman will now recognize Members
for any questions they may wish to ask the witnesses,
alternating between the majority and the minority, and allowing
five minutes each for each Member.
Should the Members need more time, we do have a second
round of questions. However, I think there is a vote coming up,
and I do have one question. We will see how long we can
proceed, and then we will recess until Members return.
My first question is for Mr. Panetta or Admiral Watkins. In
response to the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy, the Administration established by Executive Order a
Committee on Ocean Policy to coordinate the ocean-related
activities of various Executive Branch departments and
agencies.
You advocate the need to codify this committee and enhance
its status and its responsibilities. Yet it sounds like the
Administration thinks we have all the coordination we need.
Do you feel progress has been made in the area of inter-
governmental coordination? And what, if any, additional
legislation or policy changes are necessary to ensure that the
coordination you think is needed is occurring?
Mr. Panetta. Madame Chair, I think the Administration has
taken an important step in trying to provide some degree of
coordination on ocean policy, as both commissions determined.
Prior to the establishment of that committee, there literally
was nowhere, nowhere in the Administration was there any effort
to try to coordinate all of the different policies. And as you
know, ocean policies are spread out among a number of
departments and agencies.
And so this was a very important step to do that, and I
commend the Administration for taking that step.
The reason that we suggest codifying it is because in my
experience, although this was established by Executive Order,
there is no binding responsibility on future presidents to
continue this. And so it would seem to me that because of our
concern about the oceans and the need to coordinate policies,
that the Congress ought to legislate and codify this committee
so that it is ongoing, and so that it has the proper staffing
and support that is necessary for this committee to be able to
do the kind of work that we think is important in bringing
these policies together. And that is why we support codifying
the existence of that committee.
Ms. Bordallo. Are there any remarks, Admiral, that you
would like to make?
Admiral Watkins. Yes. I think one of the key elements of
that is that my experience as Secretary of Energy was that you
would visit the White House on important issues. An advisor to
the President is critically important. We have kind of
relegated the advisor to the President for science and
technology to third string. He is no longer called the advisor
to the President for that. But we lose something in the science
and technology coordination through the Office of Management
and Budget Process.
We do the same thing here. It is OK to have this
organizational setup, and I have told Mr. Connaughton of CEQ
that I give him an A-minus for planning. But the execution,
doing more than we have done in the past, hasn't happened yet.
Even with the Administration's $134 million that Ms. Glackin
talked about here a minute ago, that is a fine initiative, but
the total budget is $100 million less than last year's
appropriated. We have been in status quo for three years.
So if there is a Committee on Ocean Policy doing something,
it is hard to see it in terms of new initiatives, along the
lines of our recommendations. So that is another reason why we
think it is important to codify, and that they come forward
with an integrated ocean budget each year. This can be in
guidance from the Office of Management and Budget to the
agencies that are funding agencies. They can come up with their
individual recommendations, but somebody needs to horizontally
integrate those. And that could be done at the White House
level with this Committee on Ocean Policy.
So the groundwork is laid. But I think to codify it and to
give it strength and meaning from president to president right
now is extremely important. And I don't think that would go
over well with the Administration, but nevertheless, we have
recommended that as being an absolutely positive step. And I
think that in your H.R. 21 you try to do that.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Admiral. Point well
taken.
I would like to call on the Ranking Member now to ask a
question. There is a vote ongoing, but we will try to keep the
committee going if we can stagger our votes, hopefully.
Otherwise we will take a short recess. But for now, Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madame Chairman. This question would
be to the Admiral or Mr. Panetta.
Would you consider the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative an
advocacy group?
Mr. Panetta. I think we are advocates for the reports that
both of our commissions came forward with. I mean, the reason
we developed the joint initiative effort was because both
commissions pretty much came to the same findings and same
conclusions, and we felt it was important to bring both
commissions together to try to push for their recommendations
to be acted on by the Congress.
Mr. Brown. And could you tell me how the commission is
funded?
Mr. Panetta. The Meridian Institute is the institute that
supports the joint initiative effort. And they, in turn, I
believe receive some grants as well to help support in that
funding.
But the Meridian Institute is an institute that has been
involved in bringing together opposing parties on a number of
environmental issues, and bringing them together to try to find
consensus. And so we thought it was a good fit to try to bring
both of these commissions together on a bipartisan basis, to
try to advocate.
Mr. Brown. And so it does qualify for some Federal--were
those Federal grants you were talking about?
Mr. Panetta. I don't believe so. I don't believe we
received any Federal grants, no.
Mr. Brown. So there is no Federal funds involved at all? Or
is any Federal government staff working for the joint
committee?
Mr. Panetta. No.
Mr. Brown. OK. All right, thank you, Madame Chairman.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
Mr. Brown. Do you want me to go vote now, and then come
back?
Ms. Bordallo. Yes, please. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.
And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I wanted to ask
both the Admiral and also Congressman Panetta about the global
warming issue. You know, I think, Admiral, you said that the
sea level rise and the issues of global warming as they affect
the oceans and the coasts hasn't received enough attention, and
I would agree.
But I will tell you that in my home state of New Jersey, it
has received a lot of attention. I think there is more focus on
that aspect than on any other aspect of global warming.
But just give me an idea. I mean, what do you think the
most serious impacts will be? Is it just sea level rise? And I
am not denigrating that, but I mean, give us some indication of
what the impacts would be on the oceans, the coasts, and marine
life.
Admiral Watkins. Well, I think, Mr. Pallone, there are many
things that Leon brought up earlier in his oral testimony that
summarized some of these issues.
Oceans and human health has not gotten much attention. One-
degree temperature rise off of Bangladesh, for example, is
directly correlative with malaria shore. We have huge problems
that have come out of the El Nino event, that we have learned
about worldwide.
If we are interested in Third World developing nations and
our foreign policy, then we ought to be interested in their
survival. There is no clean water for a billion people in the
world. We have the melting in the Arctic; that is a freshening
of the water that changes the thermohaline driving force for
the so-called belt that gives us the climate around the world,
bringing the coal water down in the oceans, under the Atlantic
Ocean into the Indian Ocean, over into the Southwest Pacific
and back to the Arctic.
If you change that pattern, as we have 8,000 and 10,000
years ago the geologists tell us, you can stop it. Now, it
doesn't stop tomorrow; it is not that kind of a thing. But we
are talking in decadal terms here. And we have to worry a lot
about what is going on out there. This is why we want the
integrated ocean observing system. As part of the climate
change understanding, we have to understand the oceans. We are
making decisions based on data that could be faulty.
Scientists agree that we need to move in that direction. So
we have oceans and human health. We have the bleaching of the
reefs, which is the nurturing grounds for our fisheries. We
have the pollution that we have been talking about. The oceans
can no longer be considered to be the cesspool of mankind that
are going to be able to recover themselves. Today we are
showing that they can't recover, unless we do something about
it.
So all of these issues are related to climate change. And
we don't have the understanding that we need.
For example, if I tell you that one of the most important
things is to have a virtual common database bringing disparate
data, thousands of different databases together at a place
generating good products for people like you in decision-making
roles, this is a very important element of our recommendations.
Is that sexy politically? No.
Mr. Pallone. I will tell you, though, this, because I did
want to ask another question, and I have to go vote. But I will
tell you, the whole issue of ocean exploration and research,
you know, I know both of you have stressed that, it really is
important. And it gets a lot of attention again, I would say,
in New Jersey. You know, people talk about the need to expand
that and more funding for it.
So I want you to be optimistic about your impact out there
on the public. I mean, particularly young people are very
concerned. And I even know of my own kids, you know, they talk
to me about exploration and research issues.
But I have to get in my question about CZMA to the two of
you. I notice that Ms. Glackin did not mention reauthorization
of CZMA. I hope that doesn't mean you don't want to do it, but
I am concerned that you didn't mention it. But the two others,
Leon and the Admiral, did mention reauthorizing the CZMA.
What do you think we need to do legislatively to strengthen
this law? I would like to see it reauthorized. It is very
important to New Jersey, and I think nationwide. If you wanted
to talk about that briefly.
Mr. Panetta. Well, it is very important, and we do urge
that CZMA be reauthorized.
I think one of the ways it could be strengthened is to
incorporate the kind of elements that we advocated in terms of
regional approach into the CZMA. For example, ecosystem
planning. We were able to get ecosystem planning built into
Magnuson-Stevens. We think it ought to be part of some of the
reauthorized bills, like the Clean Water bill and other bills,
to emphasize the relationship between the land the sea.
New Jersey has been very good at developing approaches that
recognize that relationship. Because, you know, as the
Chesapeake Bay plant makes very clear, the streams that flow
into the ocean, the streams that flow into the Chesapeake Bay,
if we don't deal with those it can impact on our fisheries.
So I would recommend strongly supporting ecosystem
planning, supporting and encouraging regional governance that
encourages everyone working at the table, and developing a plan
to deal with the oceans. CZMA I think could be very effective
at promoting that kind of effort.
Admiral Watkins. And I think another important contribution
you could make would be to set up this regulatory regime that
we talked about earlier for emerging new uses in Federal
waters.
The states have made it very clear, as we went around the
country listening to them, that they want to be involved in the
offshore waters. Even though they are not in control of those
Federal waters, they are very germane to the coastal management
that they are responsible for.
So again, I would encourage the upgrading of CZMA, the
reauthorization, to include the provisions that set up the
regulatory regime for new and emerging uses of the Federal
waters, such as in bioprospecting, and deep water aquaculture.
And make sure--and to the energy generation, such as the wind
farms. And to make sure that those revenue streams are
identified the way Congress thinks they should be identified,
and roll into this trust fund we are talking about to carry out
these various provisions.
Unless there is some kind of a stable requirement and law
by the Congress to set up such a fund, it is not going to
happen. We simply have to have such a fund. And therefore, I
think that CZMA, which is such a powerful tool, is the very,
very important reauthorization opportunity to carry out many of
these provisions that we talked about, and what Leon emphasized
here in the regional council approach and their involvement. So
that we, at the Federal level, can get the feeling of what they
want to do out there.
And each region is different. Each region has its own
priorities. New Jersey has different priorities than others.
They need to be recognized. And so it has to be a flexible
system; it can't be rigid.
And the Governors have made it very clear to us, they don't
want unfunded mandates. They want to be a partner.
Ms. Glackin. Just to clarify----
Mr. Pallone. I am just going to, I apologize that I have to
go run for the vote. But I was hoping we could have a second
round, because I wanted to follow up again. I apologize.
Mr. Panetta. As a former Chair of the Budget Committee, I
urge you to go vote.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Glackin. If I could just introduce, just for the record
here, to make the statement that the Administration is working.
We have a partnership activity going on now with Coastal States
Organization that is visioning what the future Coastal Zone
Management Act should look like. We have had a document out for
public comment, and we have been taking in that comments and
having a number of workshops. So we are interested in
reauthorizing this, but not in a position to promise that
legislation in the short term.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. One small advantage of
being a representative from a territory is we only vote the
committee as a whole. And so I can keep this going.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bordallo. I told the Members to get back as quickly as
possible after their vote.
I have a couple of questions here on funding. The Joint
Ocean Commission is very specific in outlining the new funding
that you believe is necessary to truly advance the national
interest in managing our ocean and our coastal resources.
At the same time, the President's proposed budget for NOAA
actually cuts the agency budget from 2007 appropriated levels.
As you both understand, and I am speaking to Mr. Watkins
and Mr. Panetta, in these tight budgetary times, important
tradeoffs must be made as Congress decides where funding should
be directed. Why do you think funding for the oceans should be
made a priority for Congress? And do you feel the budget the
President has requested is sufficient to address the needs you
have identified?
Admiral Watkins. Madame Chair, obviously----
Ms. Bordallo. I am sorry, I guess there is an amendment
that I have to vote on.
Mr. Panetta. Well, God bless you, you are going to have a
role to play.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bordallo. So the committee stands recessed for about 10
minutes.
[Recess.]
Ms. Bordallo. We will now resume this hearing. We will
return to my question, but at this time the Chair wishes to
recognize Congresswoman Lois Capps from California.
Ms. Capps. I wasn't aware I was going to be right up front.
That is great, I am happy to have the opportunity.
Thank you first, Madame Chairwoman, for holding this
hearing. And it is one that many of us have anticipated for a
very long time.
I am sorry, would you like to go across the aisle?
Ms. Bordallo. Congresswoman, you go ahead.
Ms. Capps. Oh, I am happy to wait. All right, I will
proceed.
It is hard to know where to start on asking questions. This
is a wonderfully big topic. And as you said, Mr. Panetta, it is
life itself.
I live in an area, many of us are here out of our personal
experiences with the coastline, 200 miles-plus that I am so
honored to represent in Congress on the central coast of
California.
And we know that even of my constituents, people love the
ocean, but they don't always understand what goes on beneath
its surface. These threats, including pollution, over-fishing,
even the impacts of global warming. Your commissions did
excellent work to identify these challenges, and now I think we
have a responsibility to begin to implement and work out.
I am pleased that both of you, all three of you I should
say, are engaged in the public dialogue through the Joint Ocean
Commission Initiative. There are so many issues to discuss, as
I said. But one issue that I am going to focus on is NOAA's
budget.
A budget, of course--and we are dealing with budget on the
Floor of the House today--is a blueprint of priorities. And of
course, I was disappointed with the President's request for
NOAA. I believe it provides inadequate funding levels, and is
inconsistent with the recommendations of the Joint Ocean
Commission.
For example, the overarching commission recommendation is
that the United States needs to implement ecosystem-based
protections for our oceans. Arguably, the existing NOAA program
that best exemplifies this approach is the National Marine
Sanctuary Program. Unfortunately, for the past few years the
program has seen its budget fall from approximately $51 million
in 2005 to $36 million in 2006 and 2007.
In 2008, the President requested $44 million, with $8
million of this dedicated to the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
Marine National Monument. So I believe, I hope we can all agree
that increased funding is critical for the management of the
monument.
However, I am concerned about the funding needs for the 13
remaining sanctuaries, which the President's budget leaves
level-funded. I know I just posed a question. I will start with
you, Hon. Leon Panetta. Doesn't this seem contradictory to a
principal Joint Ocean Commission recommendation?
Mr. Panetta. Well, obviously, as we pointed out in our
testimony, we are very concerned about the level of funding in
the ocean area. I mean, the last two years have literally been
a disaster in terms of retreating on the funding levels that
are essential for dealing with some of the ocean issues that we
talked about.
And let me just for a moment put on my former hat, both as
a Chair of the Budget Committee and also as Director of OMB, I
know what the tradeoffs are. I know that there are some tough
tradeoffs. And I know what, you know, the decisions that have
to be made; Appropriations Committees has to make these
decisions, everyone has to make the decisions.
But you also have to decide what are the priorities that
you have to invest in for the sake of the country. I mean, at
the toughest time in the first Clinton budget, where we cut
almost $500 billion in the budget--actually, $250 billion on
the spending side--we made some very difficult cuts on a lot of
programs.
And yet at the same time, we were able to invest in some of
the President's priorities. We invested in education, we
invested in R and D, we invested in healthcare, we invested in
student loans, we invested in some of the areas that the
President identified. Those are the kinds of decisions that
have to be made.
This is a priority. This is a priority. This is about
whether or not our oceans are going to be around for the
future. And the damage that is being done is something that,
you know, we just simply cannot afford.
And let me tell you something. When it comes to our oceans,
I think our oceans generate about $138 billion in income and
economic activity to this country: $138 billion. Now, it seems
to me $750 million is not a bad investment for the return you
get from our oceans. We are talking about jobs, we are talking
about economic activity. This is an investment that is
worthwhile.
Ms. Capps. Are there some specific priorities you would
recommend to us? I know we have to make the tough decisions, as
you did. But as we consider reauthorization of the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act, should we--and I know I see the red
light on, but maybe real briefly you would respond to one or
two, or however many--what shall we put at the top of our list?
Mr. Panetta. Admiral, what should we identify as the key
areas?
Admiral Watkins. We have a detailed listing of what that
$750 million, which is a one-year augmentation that we would
hope would continue until we reached the $3.9 billion that we
said were necessary to augment the current expenditure, which
is around $9 billion for all matters connected with the oceans
from all agencies. And that includes the operational fleet: the
NOAA fleet and other fleets for deep seabed research.
So we know exactly what that $3.9 billion that we are
asking to add over the next five to seven years, at $750
million a year, will do. It is not just throwing money at
researchers. It is specifically targeted to the kinds of things
we think are the highest priorities that we have laid out in
our Sea to Shining Sea report to the Senate last year. And
those are still valid, except for Magnuson-Stevens
reauthorization, which was passed. And that is a commendable
thing for the Congress.
There are some questions raised on our report card. Well,
why didn't you give more than a B-plus? Well, it is not just
the Congress we are voting on. We are voting on the
Administration, the Congress, the states. Are we carrying it
out?
We are in the implementation strategy side of this thing
now. We are trying to say we love the rhetoric, we love the
planning; you get an A-minus for planning, that is terrific.
Now let us do it. And we haven't done it yet. We haven't moved
off top dead center. We are still at, in NOAA, a $3.9 billion.
And even then, with the President's good initiative, $134
million, it is still $100 million under last year's
appropriation.
But all we have done all the time up here is fight over the
Senate to restore the $500 million that was cut out by
Congress, by the Appropriations Committee here in the House
last year. So we have to add a billion bucks on the other side
to come out with just a status quo win.
Everybody says gee, you ought to be thankful for that. We
are not thankful for that. We are not getting anywhere. So we
have to move out. And the $750 million is well identified in
our statement as to what you are going to do with that.
And that doesn't come from just Leon and me; it comes from
a body of science advisors, a body of the National Academy, the
other national academies of the world. We read what is going on
in the European Union, the IPCC work of the U.N. This is good
stuff. We just need to do it now.
And so that is why we are in this. And so $750 million is
the start. And we have told the Senate Appropriations Committee
last year we want to approach a top line for you, NOAA, $4.4
billion for NOAA, not $3.9 billion. That is $500 million of the
$750 million would go to NOAA new activities, in education, in
ocean observing system.
And one of the worst things that has happened is we have
cut $500 million out of NASA's earth sciences budget. What are
we doing? That is essential to the earth's observing system.
How are we going to make good decisions if we don't have the
data flowing in that can then be converted by analysts into
useful tools for decision makers like you? We have to have that
money.
So we can't be trading off like this. We either believe
this is a high priority for the future of our country, or we
don't. We think it is, and that is why we are staying in the
game. We don't get anything out of it, except the satisfaction
that you are listening this morning. We haven't had that
before, and so we are----
Ms. Capps. I know I have gone way over my time.
Mr. Panetta. Lois, if I could, for the record, and we will
submit this for the record, we basically lay out how the $750
million ought to be spend: $85 million for governance and
coastal management, $299 million for ocean science and
research, $289 million for monitoring, observing, and mapping,
and $42 million for ocean education and outreach. And we
actually break that down into specific programmatic areas, if
you will look at that.
Ms. Capps. Excellent, and that will be part of the record,
Madame Chairwoman.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much. And the Chair
would like to also tell the Members that we will halve possibly
a second round if you have further questions.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Idaho,
Congressman Sali.
Mr. Sali. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Mr. Panetta, one of
the appendices in the U.S. Oceans Commission Report lists all
the Congressional committees which will have ocean or coastal
jurisdiction. I understand that there are 8 of the full
committees and 22 subcommittees.
If we are going to implement your recommendation to create
this new off-budget trust fund, do you have any idea how many
committees would get jurisdiction? And specifically within
that, what will be the role of this Subcommittee and the full
committee?
Mr. Panetta. Too many, if you want to know the truth. I
mean, I think part of the problem, we talk in both of our
reports about how you coordinate ocean policy. And it is not
only split up obviously within the Administration and the
departments and agencies.
If you look at Capitol Hill, almost all of the committees
up here in one way or another have some relationship to ocean
issues. And there has to be a way--when I was here, and I
believe you are a new Member to the Congress--when I was in the
Congress, there was a committee that dealt with fisheries. And
Merchant Marine Fisheries Committee was the name of that
committee. And basically all ocean policy came under their
jurisdiction, and it made a lot of sense.
At some point it just seems to me, in order to deal with
the various aspects of what we are recommending here, it may
make sense for the institution of the Congress to develop a
more coordinated committee that has----
Mr. Sali. Isn't that really the answer to the Admiral's
question of when are we going to do something, is that we have
to have a process in place in this institution to be able to
actually deal with that. There really would be some kind of a
first step. And best wishes to both of you to bring that about,
I guess.
Talking about financing some of this, how much do we have
paid in annually for offshore oil and gas activities at this
point? Do you know how much that is?
Mr. Panetta. Our staff indicates it is about $8 billion to
$9 billion that flow in as a result of that.
Mr. Sali. And do you know where that revenue ends up? In
which pot within the Federal Treasury?
Mr. Panetta. Part of it goes into Land and Water, and part
of it now, I think as a result of legislation last year, goes
to the Gulf States.
Mr. Sali. Is there something that is coming in the future
that would cause those revenues to increase at all?
Admiral Watkins. Well, one of the things that we are
promoting, and we talked about it this morning, is the fact
that there are new and emerging things happening in Federal
waters, such as wind farms, bioprospecting, deep water
aquaculture, none of which have a regulatory regime. So we
don't know what the revenue stream will be, if any. It needs to
be balanced, and it needs to be somewhat based on the
experience we have had with the oil and gas revenue streams.
And that should be, we know it has to be appropriated.
There is about a billion dollars that are now set aside out of
this $8 billion to $9 billion that comes in from the oil and
gas revenue stream, that go into land and water conservation
and historic preservation.
OK, that is fine. Leave that alone. But we are saying it
makes sense to set up a trust fund that has to be appropriated
by the Congress each year, that really allocates some of these
dollars back to carry out the very things we are talking about
that emanate from the coastal regions of the states.
Mr. Sali. Thank you, Admiral. Mr. Panetta, does the Pew
Commission have a position that you advocate on offshore oil
and gas activities with respect to this, the oceans?
Mr. Panetta. No. It was something we decided to stay away
from because it was controversial within the commission. We
actually focused on four areas. One was dealing with life under
the oceans, dealing with coastal development, dealing with the
issue of fisheries, and then also the issue of governance.
Those were the areas we focused on.
Mr. Sali. So if there are new leases that are put in place,
if there is new exploration, new production within the oceans
for oil and gas, the Pew Commission would not have any problem
with any of that?
Mr. Panetta. Well, what we would recommend--I mean,
obviously those are decisions that are going to be made by the
Administration, and obviously in part by the Congress.
But revenues we think, and we have recommended, and others,
I think the U.S. Commission recommended as well that revenues
ought to be put into a trust fund in which money is then used
for ocean areas.
Mr. Sali. Well, we have a pretty good fight going on over
on the House Floor right now over the budget, and you know,
whether we are going to have enough money to----
Mr. Panetta. I know.
Mr. Sali.--pay for our Federal government. I know you have
been through that.
I guess my point is, if we divert some of this revenue into
this trust fund, isn't that just going to increase the deficit?
Where are we going to come up with the money to pay for the
suggestions that you are making?
Mr. Panetta. Well, look, I think that a trust fund
developed where funds flow into that from those kinds of
activities makes a lot of sense. If people are going to be able
to use our offshore areas for whatever reason, those areas are
owned by the Federal government. They ought to pay for it, and
frankly that is one of the ways to pay for some of the
mitigation that has to take place as a result of those
activities.
Mr. Sali. And if it results in deficit spending to finance
the rest of the Federal----
Mr. Panetta. That is not deficit spending. If the money
that is coming in from those operations that is being spent for
mitigation in those areas, that is the way you balance the
budget. That is not the way you got into deficits.
Mr. Sali. Well, your explanation of where the money ends
up, I think all that money is being appropriated and used
today. And so at some point, if you want money that we have
today put into a trust fund, it is going to have to be made up
somewhere else, it would seem to me. Maybe I don't understand
all of the math that is involved in the Federal budget like you
do.
But I know that that fight that is going on over on the
House Floor right now is not going to cease any time soon, and
this is going to be an ongoing concern, it would seem to me.
Mr. Panetta. No, listen, you are absolutely right. And the
one thing I learned in all of my budget experience is that
there is no simple answer, or no magic answer when dealing with
that.
If you care about the deficit, you are going to have to cut
spending or raise taxes, or both.
Mr. Sali. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. I thank the gentleman from Idaho,
Mr. Sali.
And now the Chair recognizes Mr. Sam Farr from the State of
California.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Madame Chair. Mr. Sali, none of us
want to get into a discussion like this with Leon Panetta. Not
only was he Chairman of the Budget Committee for a record
number of years--nobody had a tenure as long in the Budget
Committee--but he was also Director of OMB. So he understands
his budget better than anybody in the entire building. Maybe in
the entire city.
I want to ask Mary Glackin a question about, do you support
the codification of NOAA?
Ms. Glackin. I very much support, and the Administration
supports, the passage of an organic act for NOAA. We introduced
one in the last Congress, and we will introduce one in this
one, as well.
Mr. Farr. OK. Well, the reason I ask that is because you
recognize that things have to be codified; yet in your
testimony, you point out that 83 percent of the actions have
been met. Of course, those were the actions that the
Administration set up. They weren't good enough, at least for
our Senate colleagues and a lot of our former colleagues here.
I mean, Jim Greenwood authored the bill that I have
introduced called H.R. 21 this session. Curt Weldon was very
active in it, obviously Senator Lugar has been very outspoken,
Olympia Snow. Ted Stevens signed this letter asking the Joint
Commission to prioritize. John Sununu.
I mean, the Senate asked you two to come back with the
report you have given us today, isn't that correct? The letter
to the Senate? No, I am talking now to Leon and Admiral
Watkins. The letter to the Joint Oceans Commission Initiative
to both of you, signed here in your report. It is saying give
us the priorities, 10 actions Congress should take, highest
priorities for funding. And that is what you have come back
with in this report that is the Sea to Shining Sea.
And I would just, I really appreciate your recommendations
on here. I would just say that all of them, except for the
convention of the sea, the integrated oceans observing systems,
which Mr. Allen is introducing today, Mr. Saxton introduced the
National Ocean Exploration Program. And I would hope Mr. Sali
is still here, because he is one of the few people we haven't
yet gotten as a co-sponsor of H.R. 21. But all of your
recommendations otherwise are in H.R. 21.
And what I would like to just ask you, I think the most
difficult part of this legislation is the--and you had it, as
well--is the legislation dealing with regional governance. We
have taken your recommendations in here, but I just wanted you
to express what, how important it is to have that governance
structure that you recommended. You could have just skipped it,
because it does get to the political hot ball. But you pointed
out that it is really necessary to have the interaction,
although we have a new word. It is called interoperability.
And I just thought you might share with us what your
thoughts were on how important this governance provision is.
Mr. Panetta. Well, look. The problem, as you know, is that,
you know, and I think it is both commissions looked at these
issues, that if you look at the issues that are impacting on
the oceans and on the fisheries, whether it is coastal
development, whether it is pollution, whether it is runoff,
whether it is invasive species, whether it is all of these
elements that are impacting on the ocean, you have to bring
together the issues of the land and the sea together in order
to be able to deal with those issues.
I mean, the best example we had of that was in the
Chesapeake Bay, where you had six or seven states that were
involved. And the Chesapeake Bay was basically being totally
wiped out as a result of pollution. So they put together a
compact in which you brought together the Federal, state, and
local governments, developed common targets, developed common
goals, and they all were working together in order to achieve a
restoration of some of the fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay.
We have seen that in the Northeast, up in Maine, the states
have come together to try to bring together again Federal,
state, and local authorities to try to deal with ocean issues.
We are seeing California--California, Washington, Oregon--
coming together to deal with common issues involving the oceans
off their coastline.
We see the Gulf States doing the same thing, coming
together to deal with common issues in their area.
So the best way to deal with this is when you have
everybody at the table. And you know, they are going to have
different views. Nobody says that there is some kind of
boilerplate approach to dealing with these issues. You are
going to have fishermen at the table, you are going to have
stakeholders at the table, you are going to have people,
conservationists, scientists. All of them need to be at the
table in order to develop the kind of plans in which everybody
says OK, now let us do what we have said we have to do.
That needs to be encouraged. That needs to be promoted.
Now, as I said, look, there are a lot of very good efforts
that are taking place out there in the states. What we need to
do is to have the Federal government, to have the Congress
basically say to the Federal government you play a role in
this, and encourage these kinds of regional efforts. Because by
doing that, that is the best way to deal with the problems
facing our oceans.
Ms. Glackin. And let me just follow on that, and just make
the point that the Administration really agrees and encourages,
and is supporting these regional ocean governances. As I have
just alluded to in my testimony, the Gulf of Mexico is probably
the most mature, but we are working in the Northeast.
I, myself, met with my Federal partners in the states of
Washington, Oregon, and California last week on plans that we
expect to be rolled out in the fall.
So I think it is the idea of maintaining flexibility that
we address the problems we have on the scales that the problems
impact, and not dictate solutions one size fitting all.
Mr. Farr. I think there needs to be some statutory glue to
keep it together.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from California. And
now the Chair recognizes Congressman Allen from the State of
Maine.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Madame Chair. I appreciate the
opportunity to be with this committee, and to participate in
the questioning. And I do want to thank all the members of the
panel for their very good work in these areas.
I thought I would concentrate--I will soon be reintroducing
an integrated ocean observing bill like the one they introduced
last year. It is being, we are working with this committee, and
also with the Science Committee, to make sure we have as much
input as possible before we do that.
But the GoMOOS, the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System in
the Gulf of Maine, has been an enormous success. And it is
having commercial value, it has scientific value. And we, in
Maine at least, think of that as the model for all the other
efforts that should be integrated. It is one of the top 10
Congressional priorities highlighted in the Sea to Shining Sea
report. And it is also an important theme in the
Administration's plans, as well.
So given what I take to be a broad bipartisan consensus for
an integrated ocean observing system, the question really is,
can you talk in some detail about the benefits from such a
system, and how those benefits relate to other recommendations
of the committee?
Admiral Watkins. Congressman Allen, this is probably the
most important single program that I think, if it were to be
implemented properly, authorized by the Congress, funded to the
extent we have recommended in our report, it will be one of the
most important things we can do for future decision making.
From that observation system, which is a system of systems,
the Administration has sponsored, proposed, went back to Europe
to reinvigorate the global earth observing system of systems.
OK. This means that we integrate land, atmosphere, and oceans
together.
The land and atmosphere side have been fairly well
researched, and are in pretty good shape. The oceans are not.
We are not even in the game yet. And so part of the emphasis on
science and technology in our report was to let NOAA do the
kind of referral out to industry, to get the Boeings and the
Lockheed Martins and the others really interested in this, and
to move out, because we need architectural design that makes
some sense. We need to integrate it internationally. We need to
have a common data center, where we can take disparate
databases and pull them together. We need to have at those
centers an analyst who can respond to the regional needs, as
well as other needs.
It is not just researchers, it is not just education. It is
what do the counties need, what do the local officials need.
They need a lot of understanding, too, and they are crying for
information we can't provide them today.
So the integrated research package, for example, that we
are saying let us collaborate with the fishermen, let us have
their database and the NOAA database come together in better
harmony. We better listen to the fishermen. They are saying
sometimes when they get out there, we don't see, the model is
not reflecting what we are seeing out here. So we need their
input. Those are all inputs into a system. The system has to
have protocols. We have to deal with the issue of royalties and
property rights, intellectual property; who owns the property.
But those can all be ironed out. There are things that can
be done. So it is part of the integrated ocean observing
system. To build something that is in real time giving us
information on acidification, what is the health of the
phytoplankton, the zooplankton out there. What is happening in
the strategic algal blooms around the world? What about dead
zones? We can monitor life in the water column if we put the
research into the RNA- or DNA-related bases that they need to
do on sophisticated buoys such a NOAA has in the Argo floats.
This needs to all be coordinated. And it is extremely
important that we have a mechanism set up to allow decision
makers to receive information they need, and they are all
different.
When you look at the authority that local governments have,
counties have, state governments, it is amazing to see the
display on one of NOAA's boards over there as to who has got
responsibility. Who are the stakeholders in all these.
And as Leon says, these have to be brought together in some
way, and we need to let the regions design their systems to be
regionally organized in a way that they feel meet their
priorities. And we should be flexible enough to receive that.
So all of these things are involved in the integrated ocean
observing system. And I would say if we did that, we would
probably cover somewhere around 75 percent to 80 percent of our
recommendations, just in that one major program alone. It is
the glue--if you want glue to bind us together, then put us
together into that database. Put us together into the analysis
of that database.
My experience in the Navy is how we recently won the Cold
War is because we did that. We had all sorts of information
flowing in to analysts. They gave us good information in the
fleet that we needed. We didn't want the raw data; we wanted to
have analysts say this is what it means, these are the risks,
this is, you know, if we take the high end of the uncertainty
bar every time and say we are going to flood the world to 20
feet, OK. But take it easy. That is not what the scientists are
saying. They are saying here is the range of uncertainty that
we have.
The ocean observing system can help us monitor that. This
is why I am such a nut on the subject of keeping NASA's
satellite system going, their NPO satellites and others. They
have been underfunded badly. In fact, NASA themselves did not
get in the ocean research priority plan that the President put
in in January. They were out of it. Can you imagine? We
desperately need them in. They are a key part of an integrated
ocean observing system. And to underfund earth sciences there
is a grave mistake.
And so I think, you know, if you can move this thing
through the Congress, it will probably be one of the most
important initiatives since the Stratton Commission, in my
opinion, just that one program. Because it covers so much of
what we are talking about. The analysis of the fisheries
population, it is all in there. Everything is there. The
pollution monitoring, what is happening in the Arctic and what
does it mean to world circulation.
All of these things are part of this observing system,
which needs to be built, architecturally designed properly, the
database integrated, and that will pull so many of these
entities together. It will force them together, just as you
have done with the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System, the
California Ocean Observing System. Now the Gulf Alliance is
putting in a Gulf Ocean Observing System. We are coming alive,
but it is happening out there because they are really worried
about the fact the feds aren't doing their job back here to
make sure the coupling and the collaborative effort is
organized to the point where this all makes sense.
Mr. Allen. Thank you. After that ringing endorsement, I
hesitate to ask anybody else if they----
[Laughter.]
Admiral Watkins. Take that and go home.
Mr. Allen. They can take that and go home. Thank you very
much.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentlemen. Our Ranking Member has
returned. Do you have any questions before we conclude?
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I do have some
questions to submit for the record for, Mr. Saxton is it? Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. All right, without objection.
Mr. Brown. OK, thank you. And I also have some questions to
submit to Madame Chairwoman. I know we are going to be voting
pretty shortly, and so we will, I guess we will just submit the
questions.
Ms. Bordallo. For the record. I want to thank all of the
Members here for their questions. Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Pallone.
I would like to recognize Mr. Pallone. This can be the second
round. Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. Again, I thank you all for being
here. I notice some questions were asked about the money, and I
know about that because I am on the Appropriations Committee,
and we went through this when the NOAA administrator was in
before our committee a week ago.
And you are absolutely right. The budget is so short we
asked the administrator where the budget was when OMB was
marking it up. If this is such a priority, why isn't it
reflected in the President's budget?
And if I could, I would like to ask the question, where are
we going to be in 20 years if we don't, if this budget
continues along the lines that it is? Anemic and falling very
short of where it should be. Where are we going to be? What are
going to be the costs of us not fully funding these
recommendations? Just if you could, how are we going to be
paying for it? What ways are we going to be paying for the lack
of investment?
Mr. Panetta. Well, Congressman, as you know probably better
than anyone, if we have, you know, if our body is affected in
some way, and we don't have the investment in technology and
knowledge and science and skills to deal with that problem,
then we will never begin the healing process.
And the same thing is true for our planet. We know that
there is a crisis affecting our oceans. But if we don't make
the investment in technology and science and knowledge and
skills to deal with it, we will never heal our oceans.
And we are seeing the consequences of it now. I mean, my
goodness, 90 percent of the big fish in the ocean are gone.
Ninety percent of the big fish in the ocean are gone. You know,
look at National Geographic, this last edition, and it
basically shows that.
Now, when 90 percent of those fish are gone, when we lose
those fisheries; and if we are not in the process of trying to
restore them, if we are not doing things to figure out what is
going on; there is a real possibility we could lose all of our
wild fisheries. And that is a real possibility.
And it just seems to me that is a hell of a legacy to leave
our children. So that is why it is important to try and make
that investment now, to try to see if we can begin the healing
process.
And we can. I mean, I think the good news here is it can be
done. It is going to take a lot of work and a lot of effort,
but it can be done. But if we walk away from it, if we don't
make the investment, if we don't develop the skills and the
science we need, make no mistake about it, our children will be
asking the question where were we.
Ms. Bordallo. I wish to thank the Congressman from Rhode
Island.
Congressman Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I just wanted
to, first of all I had to apologize to Ms. Glackin, because I
had to vote, as Leon said, on the budget resolutions. But I
did, my staffperson did relate to me what you said, so thank
you for your response.
But I wanted to follow up on the CZMA question again, and
just get a little more detail. The big issue--well, not
really--it really is the biggest issue, I think, facing New
Jersey along the coast now is the overdevelopment issue. And I
know when you talked about the regional plans, Congressman
Panetta, you were talking about that as part of it.
And then the other issue is this whole issue of the
consistency determination. New Jersey always wants to, you
know, exercise this consistency to say that they are not
necessarily happy with Federal developments along the coast or
out in the ocean.
In terms of the reauthorization of CZMA, if you would just
address that: you know, the overdevelopment issue, and how
maybe those regional plans relate to that. And whether you have
any suggestions with regard to that Federal-state relationship
in terms of consistency.
And I mean, you may not. I am just asking.
Mr. Panetta. Well, you know, it is interesting. When you
were asking your last question on CZMA, I recall that Bill
Hughes--he used to sit on the Committee on, well, he chaired
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries--was concerned
at the time because there was medical waste that was washing up
on the New Jersey coastline as a result of dumping off coast.
And it brought home the fact that if we are not
coordinating these efforts between the Federal government and
the state government, we will never be able to deal with those
kinds of problems. The Federal government will say it is OK to
dump whatever you want out there, and the states will have to
deal with the consequences of that when it washes up on shore.
That is the very reason we need to have that relationship.
CZMA, when it was established, I thought was a very, I
mean, it is a very good working law that allows for the
development of a coordinated approach. The problem is it
doesn't have a hell of a lot of teeth. And so what you have to
do is provide the funding and provide the support systems to
make sure that it can be a viable approach, and that plans can
be developed that everybody has to abide by. I mean, that is
the key, it seems to me. That if you are going to develop
plans, if you are going to develop an approach between the
Federal and state governments, that you need to have, either
through funding or through some kind of support system, a way
to ensure that it is getting done. That is what I would
really----
Mr. Pallone. No, I appreciate that. Thank you. And then I
was going to ask Admiral Watkins again, when you answered my
question before you talked about, you know, energy-related uses
offshore. And of course, one of the big issues now of course is
the windmills; I think you specifically mentioned that.
Do you have an opinion on the Mineral Management Service's
ongoing work to develop regulations governing these alternative
energy-related uses of offshore on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Do you think those are sufficient, or do we need to do more? If
you want to comment. I think you got into it a little bit.
Admiral Watkins. Not at all sufficient, Mr. Pallone. We are
relying on old laws with very little framework to them, and we
are beginning to make moves in the Federal waters which are
very significant. And the wind farms are one. And I am for wind
generation. When I was Secretary of Energy we pushed
alternative fuels, alternative means of generating energy a
great deal. We spent hundreds of millions of dollars each year
to investigate and move into hybrid cars and so forth. So I am
all for that.
But on the other hand, having said that, I think to
commence these offshore activities without some kind of
regulatory framework which the Congress has put together and
said this makes sense based on our experience with oil and gas
over the last 50 years, we do a great deal to lay the framework
that would allow, then, the Coastal Zone Management Act to be
linked somehow with a new offshore regime which captured these
things, which addressed the revenue streams that would come in
and go back into conservation and other practices that are very
important that we have recommended here, and so forth.
So I really think that you are focusing on an extremely
important issue. And I think the reauthorization of coastal
zone management is probably one of the key pieces of
legislation, and we would certainly be willing to work with you
in any way we can to bring our members, our expertise, our
outreach to the scientific community and to the business
community.
We have been hooked up locally across the nation. In fact,
we put our emphasis there because we saw so little activity at
the Federal level; we decided we had better go work with the
Governors a lot more. And we have done that. Did it in New
Jersey. We have held some wonderful sessions up there at
Monmouth University and so forth. And I know the work that
Rutgers has done, fabulous stuff offshore, on remote vehicles,
autonomous vehicles and the like, getting information that
would again feed the ocean observing system kind of mechanism.
So all of these things, every time we talk about these
things they cry for this cross-cutting pollenization between
the activities that are going on out there and the Federal
government, and call for this ecosystem-based approach which we
have all accepted, and the Administration has accepted. But you
just can't accept that in rhetoric and not do something. That
is a very major course change for governance in this country.
We don't take advantage of the IT world we live in today to
bring groups together that are so disconnected today. And we
can do that.
So all of that really gets right down into this regional
councils, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and everything else,
and the coupling at the Washington level that makes them
sensitive that we are all partners in this together.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank Mr. Pallone, the gentleman from New
Jersey. And the Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member,
Congressman Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Admiral, following
through on that same line of thought, there has been much
discussion about harvesting other resources at the floor of the
ocean, and particularly natural gas, where there is an abundant
supply of alcoves. And recognizing the significance of 62
percent of our energy being imported from foreign countries,
have you been able to use the model down in the Gulf and other
parts of the nation, the negative impact of fisheries and other
ecosystems out in the ocean, the impact of natural gas
drilling?
Admiral Watkins. We didn't, in our commission work, we were
carrying out the edict under Ocean Act 2000, which more or less
we had to walk carefully on the energy generation issue, as
opposed to other issues regarding the ocean. And Ocean Act 2000
basically kept us out of the energy business.
Because I was Secretary of Energy, I kept trying to get in
it, but all my commissioners said stay away. Because if you get
into that, you are into a whole other regime. And so we didn't
get into that.
But we looked at what had been done over the last, let us
say the year since the blowout at Santa Barbara or Exxon Valdez
and all those other things, not because we were into that, but
we wanted to know the impact of those kinds of things. Where
was the oil coming from that is in the ocean, for example?
The National Academy of Science has done a fantastic study
of that----
Mr. Brown. I was just asking a question on natural gas.
Admiral Watkins. On natural gas? Natural gas is good.
[Laughter.]
Admiral Watkins. And we love it, and we were delighted to
see the recent action off in the Gulf Coast on the new dome
that is going to be allowed beyond the 200-mile EEZ. We think
it makes sense. Obviously we are on the side of anything that
is non-polluting on the front end of the greenhouse gas
mitigation. And that is a tremendous source.
And now that we have gone into the utility business with
natural gas, and with the natural gas prices that are 10 times
higher than they were when I was Secretary of Energy 15 years
ago, they really boomed up there, that is a deterrent unless
there is support for it. And the utilities are actually closing
down some gas-fired plants because they are too expensive to
operate. And that shifts over back into coal-fired plants and
whatever is left of the nuclear game, which is about 105
plants.
So gas is very important, a very important element. And I
applaud what is going on in the Gulf. They are sensitive. We
have gone to hearings down there. They are very sensitive to
the environmental issues. You can't take a rig out of the Gulf
today, because they are sanctuaries for a lot of live animals
in the ocean. So you have to get approval from the Federal
government and everybody else if you want to even take out a
rig, let alone put in a rig.
And so I think that what we are seeing now is a more
rational approach to extracting those kinds of resources. And
the Gulf Coast should be given great credit for what they do
for this country, giving us one-third of our oil and gas side
of the energy equation.
So I think we haven't taken--the trouble is, we get into
this old mode of thinking that past is prologue. Well, what
about Exxon Valdez, or what about this, or aren't they going to
do--we have 25 years of research and technology that have given
us much better approaches than this. And we know how to stop a
blowout. We know how to do those things today. And we ought to
get realistic about it, because we want to move toward a much
less dependent energy sector than we have had.
Mr. Brown. And that raises a real question to me. I mean,
we have these mega oil tankers plying our oceans holding as
much as 3 million barrels of oil. That is much larger than, you
know, the Valdez.
And so, anyway, I don't have much time left.
Admiral Watkins. They carry ballast water which are filled
with invasive species, which are doing great damage in all of
our estuaries and our bays, like Chesapeake Bay. The Great
Lakes are greatly infected by it. These are serious issues. So
there are many related issues to that shipping that we needed
to worry about in our ports.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the Ranking Member, and I will call
on the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. I just wanted to follow up with Mr.
Pallone's comment to Admiral Watkins regarding the wind
turbines. And the comment you made, as I took your comments,
you are basically reemphasizing this whole idea of governance
of the oceans and the coastal zone ought to be in place before
we go down this road of siting these wind turbines all over the
place. We ought to be putting in place our energy policy, and
it ought to be consistent, so that it is not a hodgepodge of
various approaches. Am I correct?
Admiral Watkins. You are absolutely right, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. So I appreciate that. I agree that it----
Admiral Watkins. You know, I think that one of the things
when we talk about governance, people say well, if that is all
you are going to do, is that going to solve the problem, the
answer is of course not.
If the only thing you are going to do is throw money at
research, is that going to solve the problem? No.
So when people say well, what is the one key thing,
Admiral, that you want to see accomplished, we want to see all
of these elements--there are about four or five different
principles that need to be applied here. We have to go on
education, science education as well as ocean education. We are
an ocean-illiterate nation, and we have proven that. Even the
White House has held conferences on it.
We need to have more science and technology involvement. We
need to have these regional councils that now can interface
better through the Committee on Ocean Policy, and the Congress
of the United States, so when we are drafting these things up
we bring in the right stakeholders.
We know how to gather those stakeholders together. We have
done it now for five years, so we are ready to help in any way
we can. And we want to be, we want to take our experience in
this area over these many years of study, and help you all at
this point in saying governance needs to be there, too. So it
is one of the essential ingredients.
Otherwise, I think we are going to continue the
piecemealing, and that is not going to get us to the kind of
results that we want for our kids and grandchildren in the next
20 to 25 years.
Ms. Bordallo. OK. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island.
And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Allen from the State of Maine.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Madame Chair. I have a question. I
think the best thing to do would be just to submit this for the
record, but let me say what it is.
Whenever you list the things that need to be done, you
always list having a national oceans policy first. And so the
question would be if you can explain why that is so important,
and talk a little bit about that.
But we do have a vote. I am happy to have----
Mr. Panetta. Let me keep this short. I think the problem is
that, you know, look, there are lots of laws out there. There
is CZMA, there is NOAA, there is other pieces.
But what we have never done as a nation is made a
commitment that we have a responsibility to protect our oceans.
And I think that needs to be done in national policy. We do
that, we say we care about our air, we care about, you know,
our water, we care about protecting our land. We have not done
that with our oceans. And it just seems to me that this country
has to make a clear statement that we are committed, as a
national trust, to protecting our oceans.
And what that will do is it will give you the leverage then
to begin to push these other pieces of legislation that are so
important to ocean governance. That is why we keep emphasizing
that.
Mr. Allen. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman. I thank all the
Members for their questions. And Members of the Subcommittee
may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we
will ask you to respond to these in writing. The hearing record
will be open for 10 days for these responses.
And I wish to take this opportunity to thank Ms. Glackin
for her testimony today, and in particular Admiral Watkins and
Hon. Panetta for their passionate interest in our oceans and
its resources.
If there is no further business before the Subcommittee,
the Chairwoman again thanks the Members of the Subcommittee and
our witnesses, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
NOTE: The following documents submitted for the record have
been retained in the Committee's official files:
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative: U.S. Ocean
Policy Report Card 2006
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative: From Sea to
Shining Sea, Report to the United States Senate, June 2006
U.S. Ocean Action Plan Implementation Update
prepared by The Committee on Ocean Policy, January 2007
Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine
Ecosystem-Based Management, prepared by scientists and policy
experts to provide information about coasts and
oceans to U.S. policy-makers, released on March 21, 2005
* * * * *
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 21, THE OCEANS CONSERVATION, EDUCATION, AND
NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ACT
----------
Thursday, April 26, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Madeleine Z.
Bordallo [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bordallo, Brown, Faleomavaega,
Pallone, Kennedy, Capps, Saxton, and Gilchrest.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Ms. Bordallo. The legislative hearing as the Subcommittee
on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans will come to order. The
Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R. 21, the
Oceans Conservation, Education and National Strategy for the
21st Century Act. Pursuant to Committee Rule 4(g) the Chairman
and the Ranking Minority Member will make opening statements.
If any other members have statement I invite you to submit them
for the record.
This morning's hearing will focus on H.R. 21, the Oceans
Conservation, Education and National Strategy for the 21st
Century Act. This forward looking legislation seeks to
establish a comprehensive national ocean policy in the United
States in full Federal agency coordination with respect to our
ocean resources, encourage and support regional ocean
governance, codify the functions of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration in law, and establish an open trust
fund to support improved conservation and management of our
oceans.
During a hearing that we held in March, this Subcommittee
heard about priorities for ocean policy reform in the United
States from former Congressman, Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, and White House Chief of Staff Leon
Panetta and former Secretary of Energy, Admiral James Watkins,
the Chairs of the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy respectively.
Determined to ensure that the recommendations of their two
commissions do not simply collect dust on a shelf, they have
joined forces to establish the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative, and together they offered significant evidence and
justification for action on the part of Congress to reform and
improve the management and the conservation of our oceans.
The United States is the custodian of over 13,000 miles of
coastline and 3.4 million square nautical miles of ocean. Sixty
thousand square nautical miles of ocean surround my home
district of Guam alone, and according to the National Ocean
Economics Program our ocean economy generated $138 billion and
2.3 million jobs in 2004. While providing these many benefits,
our oceans also face many threats in the form of pollution,
over fishing, coastal development, oil and gas development, and
climate change.
Addressing these threats is complicated by the fact that we
manage our oceans under a patchwork of uncoordinated laws and
policies implemented by numerous Federal and state agencies. So
it is time for us to formally recognize the importance of the
ocean to this nation's economic, environmental, and social
well-being by implementing legislation to reform the
shortcomings of our current management system.
It is our duty as representatives of the American people to
ensure that the ocean and its resources will be managed in a
way that allows for their continued use and enjoyment for all
the generations to come. H.R. 21 is an important step forward
in that effort, and I do look forward to hearing from its
sponsors and our other witnesses here today. The Chairwoman now
recognizes Mr. Brown, the Ranking Republican Member, for any
statement that he may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:]
Statement of Madeleine Z. Bordallo, a Delegate in Congress from Guam
This morning's hearing will focus on H.R. 21, the Oceans
Conservation, Education, and National Strategy for the 21st Century
Act. This forward looking legislation seeks to establish a
comprehensive national ocean policy in the U.S.; improve federal agency
coordination with respect to our ocean resources; encourage and support
regional ocean governance; codify the functions of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration in law; and establish an ocean trust
fund to support improved conservation and management of our ocean
resources.
During a hearing we held in March, this Subcommittee heard about
priorities for ocean policy reform in the United States from former
Congressman, Director of the Office of Management and Budget and White
House Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, and former Secretary of Energy
Admiral James Watkins--the chairs of the Pew Oceans Commission and the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy respectively. Determined to ensure that
the recommendations of their two commissions do not simply collect dust
on a shelf, they have joined forces to establish the Joint Ocean
Commission Initiative. Together, they offered significant evidence and
justification for action on the part of Congress to reform and improve
the management and conservation of our oceans.
The U.S. is the custodian of over 13,000 miles of coastline and 3.4
million square nautical miles of ocean--60,000 square nautical miles of
ocean surround my home district of Guam alone. According to the
National Ocean Economics Program, our ocean economy generated 138
billion dollars and 2.3 million jobs in 2004.
While providing these many benefits, our oceans also face many
threats in the form of pollution, over-fishing, coastal development,
oil and gas development and climate change. Addressing these threats is
complicated by the fact that we manage our oceans under a patch-work of
uncoordinated laws and policies implemented by numerous Federal and
state agencies.
It is time for us to formally recognize the importance of the ocean
to this nation's economic, environmental, and social well-being by
implementing legislation to reform the shortcomings of our current
management system. It is our duty as Representatives of the American
people to ensure that the ocean and its resources will be managed in a
way that allows for their continued use and enjoyment for generations
to come. H.R. 21 is an important step forward in that effort, and I
look forward to hearing from its sponsors and our other witnesses hear
today.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. HENRY E. BROWN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chairman. We are here today to
discuss H.R. 21, the Ocean Conservation, Education National
Strategy for the 21st Century Act which was sponsored by our
colleague, Congressman Sam Farr, from California. While better
coordination is certainly needed with regard to the management
of our ocean and its vital resources, H.R. 21 mandates far too
many regulatory requirements in one piece of legislature. One
area of concern is the creation of the national ocean policy
and standards. The national policy and standards would apply to
any Federal action authorized including the issuance of Federal
licenses and permits, carried out and funded by a Federal
agency affecting U.S. waters.
Even if there are existing legislature authorizing the
Federal agency action, H.R. 21 would require the Federal agency
to certify that action and question would be conducted in a
manner that is consistent with the protection, maintenance and
restoration of healthy ecosystems. In addition, the bill
requires administration of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration to make a determination on the action, including
a detailed assessment of the effects the action will have on
the marine environment and recommendations to remedy any
identical deficiencies.
We currently have a law governing environmental impacts of
Federal actions on the environment, the National Environmental
Policy Act. I find it unnecessary to create an overreaching new
law which would duplicate existing statutes. I support better
coordination to ensure the conservation and best management
practice of our coastal areas, the ocean and its resources, but
we should be able to do so without creating a newly overly
burdensome process.
Another area of concern with H.R. 21 deals with the
creation of an Ocean and Great Lakes Conservation Trust Fund.
While I find the creation of a special stamp an instant way to
add public assured support for ocean conservation activities
based on the outcome of previous semipostal still it will not
generate enough revenue to support even some of the myriad of
activities prescribed in H.R. 21.
The author of the bill must also recognize this limitation
since the bill would direct the Secretary of Treasury to
deposit $1.3 billion in general revenue every year after Fiscal
Year 2007 into the trust fund. General revenue in the Treasury
are allocated to existing programs. As well know, the House
reinstated the pay-as-you-go rule this Congress which will
require a budget offset for the use of these general revenues.
Existing programs would have to be reduced or the American
taxpayers would be hit with a staggering new tax bills to raise
the money to be transferred to the Ocean Trust Fund. Madam
Chairman, I do not agree with the approach taken in H.R. 21
which is objectively over prescriptive. Instead I would
recommend looking at each chapter of the Ocean Commission
Report and the specific piece of legislation it references to
develop specific changes to each law instead of creating a new
overreaching bill that supersedes existing authorities.
Congress initiated a review of our ocean policies when we
passed the Ocean Act of 2000. The U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy released its report in September 2004, and the Congress
started its deliberation on the recommendations in the 109th
Congress. I would be pleased to work with you, Madam
Chairwoman, as we develop ocean legislation that will benefit
your constituents in Guam and mine in South Carolina and the
nation.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and
deliberating further on what action Congress should take with
regards to the Ocean Commission recommendation, and I thank
you, Madam Chairwoman, for conducting this hearing today, and I
really look forward to listening to the witnesses. Thank you
very much.
Ms. Bordallo. The Chair thanks Mr. Brown, the gentleman
from South Carolina. And now I would like to recognize Mr.
Saxton, an original cosponsor of this legislation for a brief
opening statement. Mr. Saxton.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. First let
me welcome our great friends and colleagues, Mr. Farr and Mr.
Allen, this morning as our first witnesses, and I must say as
you just said, Madam Chairlady, I am very proud to have been
able to join with these two gentlemen and a few others in
cosponsoring this legislation, and thank you, Madam Chairlady,
for holding this hearing today. I think it is a great start.
Various versions of the Oceans 21 bill have been introduced
in each Congress since the 108th Congress. As a Co-Chair of the
House Oceans Caucus and as someone with a great interest in the
health of our coastal and ocean areas, I have been pleased to
work with the other Co-Chairs of the Caucus in drafting and
refining the legislation that is the subject of our hearing
today.
We do need to make progress on the big picture, Madam
Chairlady. Reforms highlighted by the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy, establishing a national ocean policy for Federal
coordinated framework, passing a NOAA Organic Act, and
supporting regional governance initiatives are extremely
important. This bill I must say--like every other bill that
comes before this committee--may not be perfect but that is why
the committee is here to work the imperfections and to make
them as good as we can.
I remain concerned about the effect of a number of
provisions contained in the bill but let us work on it. I do
believe that the Oceans 21 represents a very good starting
point for discussions and will help us make progress
implementing much needed reforms. Let me just make one other
comment, Madam Chairlady. I am working on another related
project, and maybe it can become part of this project.
The gentleman to my right represents much of the beautiful
eastern short of Maryland which borders on the Chesapeake Bay,
and I prefer to look at the ocean, its tributaries and the
estuarine areas as one system, and to the extent that we can
deal with issues like those that confront my colleague from
Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay, recognizing that the issues
involved in these subjects are extremely important, we can make
real progress.
So I look forward to working with you, Madam Chairlady, the
other cosponsors of the bill and with interested parties to
bring this bill to the Floor. I think it is high time we did
so, and I hope that we can do it in a coordinated, amicable
way. Thank you, Madam Chairlady.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jim Saxton, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey
Thank you Madam Chairman. And thank you for holding this hearing
today. Versions of the OCEANS-21 bill have been introduced each
Congress since the 108th. As a co-chair of the House Oceans Caucus--and
as someone with a real interest in the health of our coastal and ocean
areas--I have been pleased to work with the other co-chairs of the
Caucus in crafting and refining the legislation that is the subject of
our hearing today.
We do need to make progress on ``big picture'' reforms highlighted
by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy--establishing a national ocean
policy and federal coordination framework, passing a NOAA Organic Act
and supporting regional governance initiatives. I have joined with Mr.
Farr and my colleagues in the leadership of the House Ocean Caucus as
an original sponsor of OCEANS-21 to get the discussion moving and make
progress.
The bill is still not perfect. I remain concerned about the effect
of a number of provisions contained in the bill. But I do believe
OCEANS-21 represents a very good starting point for discussions--and
will help us make progress implementing much-needed reforms. Thank you.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Saxton. I would now like to
recognize our witnesses, and our first panel includes members
who have asked to testify on the legislation and includes the
lead sponsors of the bill but before I do that, I would like to
welcome the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps, and also
Mr. Wayne Gilchrest from the State of Maryland.
And before I do that, I have one special guest in the
audience. I would like to take just a moment to recognize
Sedoni Bexton. Sedoni is a senior of Georgetown Visitation High
School. She is shadowing me today as part of a program
sponsored by the Women's Caucus, the Women's Policy
Incorporated, Girls Incorporated and the National Capitol
Console of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America.
Would you please stand, Ms. Bexton?
Ms. Capps. May I do the same? I apologize to request going
out of order but I also have a daughter here today, and her
name is Micki, and she is a part of the Take Your Daughters to
Work, and I want to thank our Chairwoman for acknowledging this
wonderful program and the sponsoring organizations, and the
fact that we have two budding leaders in our audience should
make our witnesses do even a better job of testifying today.
Ms. Bordallo. It just further proves women's power. Now it
is my great distinction to be able to introduce The Honorable
Sam Farr, Congressman from the 17th District of California, and
The Honorable Tom Allen, from the 1st District of the lovely
State of Maine. The Chairwoman now recognized Congressman Farr
to testify for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Farr. I am delighted to be here with you and the
committee and the Ranking Member, Mr. Brown, as a
representative of a team effort. There are two of us sitting at
this table, and there are two members of this team sitting on
the dais who are all the cosponsors of this bill. This bill
that you are reviewing today started here in this committee in
year 2000 with the creation of an Oceans Commission, for the
same reasons that Mr. Brown talked about is that there is sort
of chaos in the sea, and what we were learning in Congress is
that the oceans are dying, and have been dying for years
because we dump everything that we do not want on land into the
oceans, and that is having a consequential effect.
When you try to solve the problems, they become very
complex because the U.S. Government has created a multiplicity
of agencies and jurisdictions more so than in any other area,
and when you think about it on land and in the air, we have
created a governance system with the air traffic control so
that we can at least have some coordination of what is going up
into the air, and on land we have created a national
transportation program that integrates national, state and
local policy and road building.
When it comes to the seas, it is just a chaos between the
responsibilities of the Federal government, the
responsibilities of state government and local government, and
many times conflicts that hurt the economic well-being of those
users of the sea. So how do you put all this together? This
committee, along with the Senate, created a Commission, which
you mentioned that Admiral Watkins--not only a former head of
Naval Operations but Secretary of Energy--was the Chair of.
That bill was signed into law by President Clinton. The members
of that Commission were appointed by President Bush.
That Commission worked alongside of a private commission
called a Pew Charitable Trust that had the original chair was
Christie Todd Whitman, former Governor. She had to resign when
she became head of EPA. Leon Panetta, former Chief of Staff,
took over and chaired it, and you have had the co-chairs of
both of those Commissions present their collective report.
This bill is that product, and for all of us who are
lawmakers, I have to say that I do not think in my lifetime I
have ever seen a piece of legislation that has had more
national scrutiny because these Commissions held hearings all
over the United States from all aspects and put together their
collective interests in what they thought would address the
concerns of having a national ocean policy.
So we are very fortunate that a lot of that work that
usually has to be done here has been done, and we were able to
glean and we did this by using a bipartisan process created in
an Oceans Caucus that all the participants in that caucus and
their staffs gleaned through these reports, pulled out what
they thought would be appropriate legislation.
What is not in this bill is the issues relating to
fisheries. That is in the Magnuson Act, and our Congress
updated the reenactment of the Magnuson Act last year. What is
not in this bill is marine mammal protection but what is in
this bill is an ability to create at the regional level, at the
local level, not top down but a bottoms up that meets a
national policy standard. That is very, very exciting because
it brings certainty which is what we do not have now. Brings
certainty to the governance of the sea, and this country has
the responsibility for all the waters around it and the Great
Lakes. The waters of the sea as you know in Guam out to 200
miles.
And the only way we are ever going to be able to create a
national policy on that is to adopt legislation such as this. I
commend you. This bill has been introduced by Jim Greenwood
many years ago. We worked on that. Never got a hearing. Later
by Curt Weldon. Never got a hearing because it was not the
priority of this committee in the past.
It is the priority of the Nation right now, and I
congratulate you for allowing us to have this hearing, and I
congratulate all my copartners that are in this room today for
the hard work that they have done in bringing this legislation
to you, and with that the other cosponsor of this bill, Tom
Allen from Maine who represents a fishing state.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Farr follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Sam Farr, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Brown, and distinguished Members
of this Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 21,
the ``Oceans Conservation, Education, and National Strategy for the
21st Century Act'' (also known as ``OCEANS-21'').
H.R. 21 is the product of years of work from a wide range of
people. Before I address the content of the bill, I want to describe
the process leading up to today, because I believe this will
demonstrate the dire need and public support for action on this issue.
In June of 1998, the White House held its first National Oceans
Conference in my district in Monterey. President Clinton and Vice
President Gore spoke, and three Cabinet members attended. This event
provoked Congress to pass the Oceans Act of 2000. The Oceans Act
created the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy to review this nation's
management of the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes, which had not been
done since the Stratton Commission in 1965.
The Commission was tasked with making recommendations for a
coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy. At the same time,
the Pew Charitable Trust founded the Pew Ocean Commission to
independently review this nation's ocean policy. Both commissions were
comprised of highly respected scientists, politicians, corporate
executives, and coastal community representatives. Between these two
commissions, they visited more than forty cities around the country and
took comments from thousands of citizens.
These reports were conducted simultaneously, but independently. The
Pew Ocean Commission released their report in May of 2003 and the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy in July of 2004. Both reports highlight the
importance of the oceanic, coastal, and Great Lake resources to the
U.S. economy, the degraded state of these resources and the ecosystems
that support them, and the need to change the way we manage these
resources. The reports and recommendations were so similar, the Chairs
of both commissions agreed to form the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative in 2005 to advocate the adoption of a consolidated version
of their commissions' recommendations. The report entitled ``Sea to
Shining Sea'' was released in June 2006.
As the commissions were finishing their reports, I worked with Mr.
Allen and Mr. Saxton and the commissions' staff to author a bill that
would implement their recommendations. That first version was
introduced jointly by several co-chairs of the House Oceans Caucus
shortly after the U.S. Commission released their report. The bill that
is before you now is the third time we've introduced it, and I am the
third Member of Congress to carry it.
H.R. 21 was significantly revised before it was introduced this
year. Most importantly, we removed the ocean science, education, and
exploration components and focused on ocean governance. All that
remains now is a meaningful national ocean policy and the governance
structures necessary to implement it. Some highlights of the bill are:
Title I: Establishment of a National Oceans Policy
Establishes a national oceans policy ``...to protect,
maintain, and restore the health of marine ecosystems...'',
Establishes standards for applying this policy to federal
activities that impact the oceans and coasts, and
Includes an implementation mechanism to ensure that the
standards are met.
Title II: NOAA Organic Act
Establishes NOAA as an agency within the Department of
Commerce,
Includes a section on resource management, and
Adds Education to NOAA's mission.
Title III: National Ocean Leadership and Coordination
Creates a system to advise the President on ocean issues
and coordinate Federal agency activities that effect the ocean, and
Codifies the Committee on Ocean Policy, which has been
authorized by executive order.
Title IV: Regional Coordination and Ecosystem Planning
Establishes a system of regional partnerships for
coordinating federal activities that impact the ocean, and
Establishes a network to share information about the
ocean ecosystem in each region.
Title V: Ocean and Great Lakes Conservation Trust Fund
Creates a pool of money to fund the activities required
by this act, and
Authorizes the money to come from General Revenue, an
Ocean Stamp, money that hasn't been spent in previous years, and
interest.
Title VI: Administration Funding
Authorizes NOAA to receive appropriated funds, and
Allows those funds to be available until they have been
spent.
In closing, thank you again for holding this hearing today. I look
forward to continuing to work with the committee, nongovernmental
partners, federal agencies and others to pass this bill this Congress.
______
Ms. Bordallo. The Chair thanks The Honorable Mr. Farr for
his testimony, and your entire statement will be entered into
the record. I now recognize our colleague from Maine, Mr. Tom
Allen.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. THOMAS H. ALLEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you and
Ranking Member Brown for holding this hearing. It is a pleasure
to be here with my friend, Sam Farr, who along with Mr. Saxton
and Mr. Gilchrest have been working on this legislation for
some period of time, and now we have a product, and as I think
Mr. Saxton said, it may not be perfect but it can be made
better by this committee.
Madam Chair, my home state of Maine is a coastal state, and
our way of life is profoundly connected to the ocean. Many of
my constituents depend directly on the ocean for their
livelihoods through ocean related industries such as commercial
and recreational fishing, aquaculture, tourism, transportation,
and other industries. However, all Americans from Maine to
Oklahoma to Alaska--not forgetting Guam, Madam Chair--are
connected to the oceans in many additional ways.
We depend on the oceans for food, transportation and
protection. The oceans are closely connected to weather and the
effects of oceanographic fluctuations are felt from the
farmlands in our interior to the coastal plains. We need to
understand oceanographic patterns in order to understand,
predict, and protect ourselves from weather patterns, ocean
related natural disasters, and climate change.
The U.S. ocean economy is valued at over $115 billion per
year and supports over 28 million jobs. Oceans are culturally
important to Americans in ways that simply cannot be easily
quantified. There is a critical need to effectively coordinate
use of the oceans by all the diverse interest groups that
depend on them, from fishermen to oil and gas companies to
those in the tourism industry. At the same time, it is critical
that we keep our oceans health and protect the marine
ecosystems upon which we all depend.
This bill, H.R. 21, is an important first step. It will do
several things but I want to mention four. One, it will
establish a national ocean policy and standards for management
of U.S. oceans and coasts. It is critical that we have a
comprehensive management plan for this valuable resource. Two,
it will promote ecosystem based regional ocean governance.
Every region has specific economic and ecological needs and
management must be responsive to those needs. This regional
structure will be collaborative and facilitate communication
among Federal, state and local management agencies.
Three, it will enhance national oceans governance structure
by strengthening important existing functions and facilitating
communication at the national level. This includes codification
of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
Four, it will establish an Oceans and Great Lakes Conservation
Trust Fund. This fiscally responsible step will help to fund
local, state and Federal efforts to develop and implement this
Act.
I believe that this bill will be good for my home state of
Maine, and obviously for all other states but for Maine, just
to give an example, it will first sanction, lend credibility,
and provide structure and consistent funding for the Gulf of
Maine Council. Second, it will help us to accomplish state
goals that require a regional response. And third, it will make
the Federal government more responsive to and focused on
regional needs.
The bottom line is that cooperation and coordination are
essential in order for us to protect our ocean resources and
also for us to profit from them. Our own economic well-being
and the health of our oceans depend on our ability to
successfully share these resources. H.R. 21 is the first step
toward securing for present and future generations the full
range of benefits of healthy marine ecosystems.
And I just want to congratulate all those who have been
involved in this bill. We look forward to hearing the results
of this hearing. I yield back my time. Thank you very much,
Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Thomas H. Allen, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Maine
My home state of Maine is a coastal state, and is deeply connected
to the Ocean. Many of my constituents depend directly on the Oceans for
their livelihoods through ocean-related industries such as commercial
and recreational fishing, aquaculture, tourism, transportation, and
other industries.
However, all Americans, from Maine to Oklahoma to Alaska, are
connected to the Oceans in many additional ways.
1. We depend on the Oceans for directly for food, transportation,
and protection.
2. The Oceans are closely connected to weather, and the effects of
oceanographic fluctuations are felt from the farmlands in our interior
to the coastal plains.
3. We need to understand oceanographic patterns, in order to
understand, predict, and protect ourselves from weather patterns,
ocean-related natural disasters, and climate change.
4. The U.S. Ocean Economy is valued at over $115 billion per year,
and supports over 28 million jobs.
5. Oceans are culturally important to Americans in ways that
cannot be easily quantified.
There is a critical need to effectively coordinate use of the
Oceans by all the diverse interest groups that depend on them, from
fishermen to oil and gas companies to those in the tourism industry. At
the same time, it is critical that we keep our oceans healthy and
protect the marine ecosystems upon which we all depend.
This bill, H.R. 21, is an important first step. It will:
1. Establish a National Ocean Policy and standards for management
of U.S. Coasts and Oceans. It is critical that we have a comprehensive
management plan for this valuable resource.
2. Promote ecosystem-based, regional ocean governance. Every
region has specific economic and ecological needs, and management must
be responsive to those needs. This regional structure will be
collaborative and facilitate communication among federal, state, and
local management entities.
3. Enhance national oceans governance structure by strengthening
important existing functions and facilitating communication at the
national level. This includes codification of the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
4. Establish an Oceans and Great Lakes Conservation Trust Fund.
This fiscally responsible step will help to fund local, state, and
federal efforts to develop and implement this Act.
I believe that this bill will be good for my home state of Maine.
For example, it will:
1. Sanction, lend credibility, and provide structure and
consistent funding for the Gulf of Maine Council
2. Help us to accomplish State goals that require a regional
response
3. Make the federal government more responsive to and focused on
regional needs
The bottom line is that cooperation and coordination are essential
in order for us to protect our ocean resources, and also for us to
profit from them. Our own economic well-being and the health of our
oceans depend on our ability to successfully share those resources.
H.R. 21 is the first step toward securing, for present and future
generations, the full range of benefits of healthy marine ecosystems.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I would like to thank my two colleagues for
their testimony and to give them an A plus. They stayed within
the five-minute limit. And I would like to invite you to be
here on the dais for the remainder of the hearing, and ask
unanimous consent from my colleagues that they be allowed to do
so. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
The Chairwoman now recognizes our second panel of
witnesses, and before that I would like to recognize the
representative from my sister territory, American Samoa, The
Honorable Eni Faleomavaega, who has joined us.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I certainly
want to thank you for your initiative, and certainly with our
Ranking Member, the gentleman from South Carolina, for having
this hearing this morning. I think the last 100 years that I
have been member of this committee I do not know how much more
I need to say about the value of oceans. As I have always
complained over the years, our national interest involving
oceans or marine resources, the tremendous potential as it is
demonstrated already in terms of how much our economy depends
so much on the oceans and the coastal states that provide for
that need, whether it be for commercial purposes or whether it
be for conservation.
As you know, we both live in the largest ocean in the
world. You are in the northern Pacific, and I am in the South
Pacific. My little jurisdiction is about 2,400 miles directly
south of Hawaii, and I seem to notice that there is a lot of
question marks and some of the people there in the audience are
saying where in the world is this guy from?
But as I have said, Madam Chair, I have always said that if
it was possible for the Congress and if you want to know the
priorities of our country, look in the budget, and I have the
utmost respect of the fact that each year we allocate about a
billion dollars for the needs of our land grant colleges and
institutions because in those days as it is true the value of
agriculture, the mainstay and the heart and soul of one of our
economic bases, and my question is: Why can we not provide the
same kind of resources to develop and conserve what we have out
there in the oceans?
And I think this is a direct interest not only for all our
coastal states but those of us who live right in the middle of
the ocean. Now we have said that coral reef is the farm or I
say the ocean is our farm, and so I want to thank my good
friend from California and the gentleman from Maine for their
sponsorship of this legislation.
My only disappointed, Madam Chair, is that my name is not
on it as an original cosponsor of this legislation. As I
totally agree with my good friend, Mr. Saxton, it is a good
start. The only concern that I may have is that if we might be
overlapping or duplicating some other aspects of other councils
and other organizations that still deal also with marine
resources, conservation of our oceans, and this is something
that I think our Subcommittee has to look at very carefully.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Faleomavaega, and the Chair also welcomes another member to the
committee, and that is Mr. Frank Pallone. And now our witnesses
on this second panel include Mr. Jack Dunnigan, Assistant
Administrator for Oceans Services and Coastal Zone Management
at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Ms.
Kathleen Leyden, Chair of the Regional Ocean Governance Work
Group for the Coastal State Organization and Director of the
Main Coastal Program.
I would like now to recognize Mr. Dunnigan to testify for
five minutes, and I would note for all witnesses that the red
timing light on the table will indicate when your time has
concluded, and we would appreciate your cooperation in
complying with the limits that have been set as we have many
witnesses to hear from today. So be assured that your full
written statement will be submitted for the hearing record, and
now Mr. Dunnigan.
STATEMENT OF JACK DUNNIGAN, NOAA ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
OCEAN SERVICES AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning members
of the Subcommittee. I am Jack Dunnigan from NOAA. I am in that
great title that the Chairlady recognized. That makes me the
Director of the National Oceans Service, and I have a great
opportunity to work with many wonderful people who are
passionately concerned about the oceans and about protecting
the heritage that they represent.
Madam Chair, since you indicate that the statement will be
included in the record, I think I would just like to highlight
a couple of important ideas that we think are in the
Administration's testimony. I think if you read the testimony
you can tell that there are some major concerns that the
Administration has with many provisions of this legislation.
I think, however, you should not take that to indicate that
we do not share much of the passion and the goals that the
sponsors of this legislation would like to see us move toward,
and from our standpoint we would certainly look forward to
continuing to have the opportunity to talk to the committee and
talk to your staff about these important issues of the oceans
and the environmental and economic security that they imply for
our country. So we look forward to continuing to have those
discussions.
Over the past three years, the Administration has been
working to address many of the priority areas that are
contained in H.R. 21 and that have been identified by the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy, the Pew Oceans Commission, and the
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative. Through the President's
ocean action plan and the existing Committee on Ocean Policy,
the Administration has taken significant steps to improve the
effective management of our nation's ocean and coastal
resources.
The Administration has also supported strengthening NOAA,
and taking better steps to coordinate all of our programs
regionally with a broad array of our partners. H.R. 21 seeks to
implement many of the U.S. Ocean Commission's recommendations
by establishing a national oceans policy and national standards
for actions that affect U.S. ocean waters and ocean resources.
The concerns that we have with the approach as proposed in the
bill as it currently stands are that it may actually create
some conflicts with a vast array of legislation that Congress
has passed and that we already administer.
Congress did a lot of work last year to get the Magnuson-
Stevens Act reauthorized, and we are working very hard to
implement that. We think that the best way to see the statutes
get coordinated is for those parts of the agencies that have
that responsibility to sit down and work these things out. We
are not sure that the way the bill approaches it to establish a
lot of structure around that is really the best way for us to
go forward.
At the same time that the President released his ocean
action plan which identifies many actions which are needed to
more effectively ocean and coastal resources, NOAA was
designated the lead by the Council on Environmental Quality or
the co-lead on 45 different items, and we have been working
very hard under the ocean action plan to address those items.
As of today, 36 of them have been completed, and we are still
working on nine. So there is very much that is ongoing on the
part of the Administration in following up on the report of the
U.S. Commission and on implementing the President's oceans
action plan.
H.R. 21 would reestablish NOAA, stipulating its mission and
functions through an Organic Act. NOAA has long believed and
the Administration has long believed that there should be
organic legislation for establishing NOAA. We had legislation
that was proposed in the 109th Congress, and the Administration
will shortly be delivering legislation to you for the 110th
Congress that will do much the same as we proposed. So we would
like to make sure we have the opportunity to discuss those
issues when that bill is available from the Administration.
This bill would do a lot for regional collaboration. You
should know that NOAA has been spending tremendous efforts to
help support the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, the Governors'
Initiative in the Northeast, the Three Governors' Initiative
along the West Coast, California, Washington and Oregon. We
think there is a lot of energy that is in the system that has
really percolated up from the bottom that is giving us an
opportunity to move forward in the same direction that the bill
would like to take us.
Madam Chair, the last point that I will make here in my
oral testimony has to do with an integrated ocean observing
system which is referred to in the legislation. It has long
been a priority of NOAA and of the Administration to integrate
our ocean observing systems and have agencies working more
collaboratively with each other, with stakeholders, with
regional partners, in order to make better use of the data that
is available and to fill gaps, and we appreciate the
opportunity to work with you and with your staff on legislation
that can get that done.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dunnigan follows:]
Statement of John H. Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator, National Ocean
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
Good afternoon Chairwoman Bordallo, Congressman Brown, and Members
of the Committee. I am John H. Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator for
Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in the Department of Commerce. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify before you today on H.R. 21: the
Oceans Conservation, Education, And National Strategy For The 21st
Century Act.
In 2007, NOAA is very proud to be celebrating 200 years of science,
service and stewardship to our nation. Much of America's scientific
heritage is rooted in NOAA and its predecessor agencies--from the
establishment of the Survey of the Coast in 1807 by Thomas Jefferson,
to the formation of the Weather Bureau and the Commission of Fish and
Fisheries in the 1870s. We continue to honor this legacy as we work
with federal, state, tribal, and international partners, as well as
Congress and other stakeholders, to fulfill our mission to conserve,
manage, and protect our nation's ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes'
resources. Understanding the linkages between the oceans and atmosphere
regarding climate, weather, and ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes'
processes is necessary for NOAA to meet the interests of the nation
While we acknowledge and appreciate the intent of the Committee to
formulate a bill that provides guidance on ocean policy and governance,
the Administration has serious concerns with H.R. 21 and therefore must
oppose it in its current form. Over the past few years the
Administration, including NOAA, has worked hard to address each of the
priority areas contained within H.R. 21. We are committed to continuing
these efforts and look forward to working with Congress to provide,
amend, or reauthorize statutory authorities as appropriate to further
these purposes. Many of the provisions in this bill are inconsistent
with the President's Ocean Action Plan, are impractical, or are
inconsistent with existing laws, some of which are quite recently
enacted or amended.
In particular, the Administration opposes the provisions to create
a national ocean policy that over reaches on ocean stewardship,
possibly to the detriment of other significant national interests. The
Administration also objects to the creation of a Ocean, Coastal, and
Great Lakes Trust Fund, which circumvents the annual process to
evaluate and make trade offs among different priorities for funding on
an annual basis. In addition, Title III of H.R. 21 would statutorily
create a number of positions and mechanisms within the Administration
to provide high-level guidance and coordination for ocean issues. While
the Administration supports the goals of these provisions, we believe
there are effective mechanisms currently in place to achieve these
purposes. Therefore the Administration objects to Title III, because it
would limit and interfere with the President's flexibility to pursue
these goals, because it would statutorily establish entities in the
Executive Office of the President, and because it would statutorily
establish a new Council of Advisors on Oceans Policy. Finally, while we
support the passage of a NOAA Organic Act, we have strong concerns with
the provisions in H.R. 21 that would constrain the agency's ability to
best organize itself to meet current mission priorities. The
Administration supports many of the principles embodied in this bill--
such as, ecosystem-based approaches to management, the need for a
strengthened NOAA, and regional ocean governance--however, our concerns
with the specific provisions in H.R. 21 are serious enough that we
would oppose its passage in its current form.
The Administration has too many comments to discuss each one in
detail in this statement, but we look forward to working with you,
Chairwoman Bordallo, other Members of the Committee, and the sponsors
of this legislation, to fashion a bill that addresses our mutual desire
for ocean conservation and appropriate use of our oceans and coasts. I
would like to review each of the main purposes of the bill and
highlight key efforts the Administration has already undertaken, and
continues to conduct, to advance our nation's ocean programs, policy,
governance, and structure.
Establish in Law a National Policy Framework for Our Oceans
The bill, H.R. 21, seeks to establish a national oceans policy and
national standards for actions affecting U.S. ocean waters or ocean
resources. On September 20, 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
fulfilled its congressional mandate by submitting recommendations for a
coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy to the President
and Congress. The Commission's final report, An Ocean Blueprint for the
21st Century, contained 212 recommendations addressing a broad range of
ocean and coastal topics. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy further
outlined the need for enhancing ocean leadership and coordination,
developing the institutional capacity to coordinate across
jurisdictional boundaries, and strengthening the multi-agency structure
in phases in order to enhance the goal of addressing management needs
through an ecosystem-based approach to ocean and coastal resources.
In response to the Commission's findings and recommendations, the
President issued Executive Order 13366 on December 17, 2004,
establishing a Cabinet-level Committee on Ocean Policy, whose
membership includes the Secretaries of Commerce, State, Defense, the
Interior, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Transportation,
Energy, and Homeland Security, and the Attorney General. Other members
of the Committee on Ocean Policy include the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, the Director of National Intelligence, the
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Director
of the National Science Foundation, and the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of
Staff; and the Assistants to the President for National Security
Affairs, Homeland Security, Domestic Policy, Economic Policy, and an
employee of the United States designated by the Vice President.
Executive Order 13366 also provides the following guidance: ``It
shall be the policy of the United States to
A) coordinate the activities of executive departments and agencies
regarding ocean-related matters in an integrated and effective manner
to advance the environmental, economic, and security interests of
present and future generations of Americans; and
B) facilitate, as appropriate, coordination and consultation
regarding ocean-related matters among Federal, State, tribal, local
governments, the private sector, foreign governments, and international
organizations.''
At the same time, President Bush released the U.S. Ocean Action
Plan, which identifies immediate short-term and medium-term actions
necessary to more effectively manage coastal and ocean resources. The
U.S. Ocean Action Plan includes a set of Guiding Principles (in the
introduction) that set the stage for activities of the Committee on
Ocean Policy. To summarize, these principles include:
Balancing continued conservation with public use,
Employing the best science to inform decision-making,
Continuing to work towards an ecosystem-based approach to
management that does not erode local and state authorities,
Encouraging innovation and employing economic incentives
over mandates where possible, and
Establishing strong partnerships between federal, state,
tribal, and local governments, the private sector, international
partners, and other interests.
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan additionally identifies six National
Ocean Priorities:
1) Enhancing Ocean Leadership and Coordination,
2) Advancing Understanding of Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes,
3) Enhancing the Use and Conservation of Ocean, Coastal and Great
Lakes Resources,
4) Managing Coasts and Their Watersheds,
5) Supporting Maritime Transportation, and
6) Advancing International Ocean Science and Policy.
The Administration believes these are bold steps in the right
direction toward the intent of the Commissions' recommendation, and
these steps have had a broad impact on how NOAA operates. There are
many agencies with important ocean and coastal responsibilities with
which NOAA partners, and we take great pride and place great importance
in continuing to strengthen our role as the lead civilian ocean agency.
In the two years since the U.S. Ocean Action Plan (the Plan) was
released, the federal agencies, together with their state, local,
territorial, and tribal and private sector partners have made
substantial progress in meeting their commitments to the actions in the
Plan. Examples of the progress made in a banner year for oceans
conservation include:
The recent release of the report Charting the Course for
Ocean Science in the United States in the Next Decade: An Ocean
Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy, discussed in more
detail below, which presents research priorities that focus on the most
compelling issues in key areas of interaction between society and the
ocean;
Creation of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National
Monument--the largest single conservation area in our Nation's history
and the largest fully-protected marine area in the world;
Reauthorization the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act;
Support of state-led regional management partnerships,
including the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, the Northeast, Northeast
regional ocean council, Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, West Coast
Regional Effort;
Finalization of a conservation plan with the State of
Florida for the Dry Tortugas in the Florida Keys; and
Enhancement of ocean literacy initiatives and interagency
cooperation, including a national Conference on Ocean Literacy during
National Oceans Week.
For a complete list of elements of progress and opportunities
beyond the Plan, the Committee on Ocean Policy released the U.S. Ocean
Action Plan Implementation Update in January 2007 (http://
ocean.ceq.gov/oap--update012207.pdf). I am happy to report that the
Administration has made significant progress in completing the
commitments of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan (83% of the actions have been
met, the remaining 17% are on schedule to be completed by their target
dates), and that federal agencies are moving forward with new
activities in these areas to continue to improve our management and
protection of ocean resources.
In addition to codifying the Committee on Ocean Policy structure
within the Administration, H.R. 21 would also impose an ecosystem-based
mechanism to review impending management actions. The standards
proposed in H.R. 21 would require that no federal action, including
federally permitted and federally funded actions, that may
significantly affect U.S. ocean waters or ocean resources proceed until
a determination is made that it will not significantly harm the health
of marine ecosystems. It would also have to be determined that it is
not likely to significantly impede restoration of the health of any
marine ecosystem.
Within a year of enactment, NOAA would be required to issue
regulations that implement the new national standards, in consultation
with the newly authorized Committee on Ocean Policy. Within 180 days
prior to taking action that may significantly affect U.S. ocean waters
or ocean resources, an agency would be required to certify, in
consultation with NOAA, whether such actions comply with the national
oceans policy and national standards and submit the certification to
NOAA for review. NOAA would be required to determine whether it concurs
with the agency's finding and provide a written analysis within 90
days.
These standards differ significantly from, and may conflict with,
the national standards in many regulatory authorities, such as the
recently reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Reauthorization Act and the Energy Policy Act. The review
could delay urgent actions. Requiring federal agencies to certify that
federal actions are consistent with this National Ocean Policy and then
requiring NOAA to issue written opinions on each of these federal
actions would overwhelm the federal system, delay urgent actions, and
reduce NOAA's and other agencies' abilities to meet existing mandates.
In addition, the Administration does not support vesting the sole
authority to regulate all ocean-activities with any one agency. In
short, these provisions may actually weaken our ability to manage
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources.
We believe that any new mandates should be consistent with existing
federal laws and regulations and international law, as well as consider
competing interests including freedom of navigation, on which the
global economy depends, homeland security and national defense. The
Administration supports a framework for regional collaboration among
agencies, states, and tribes that would allow for coordination of
mandates under various legislative structures and that would provide a
basis to assess research priorities, share information, and allow for
coordinated management actions. NOAA has taken steps to coordinate its
various science and management actions in 10 regions of the country and
we believe this to be a valuable model if extended government-wide.
Strengthen NOAA: A NOAA Organic Act
A priority identified in both the final report of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy and the Ocean Action Plan is the passage of
a NOAA Organic Act. H.R. 21 seeks to reestablish NOAA, stipulating its
mission and functions and requiring a plan for NOAA's reorganization
within 18 months of enactment. We believe it is necessary to
consolidate NOAA's many responsibilities, which now reside in over two
hundred separate statues, into one authorization. An Organic Act should
encompass the full spectrum of NOAA's responsibilities, for example
including programs to protect and restore the nation's fisheries, and
its responsibilities to provide products that foster safe
transportation on marine highways. The Administration transmitted a
proposal for such legislation to the 109th Congress and will be doing
so again in the 110th. We are hopeful that the Members of this
Committee will play an integral part in its passage.
Most importantly, the Administration believes that NOAA must
maintain its current flexibility in determining how best to structure
itself to address current and future needs. In responding to the
recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy thus far,
flexibility has proved to be a vital tool for NOAA leadership. This
will continue to be the case as state and regional initiatives continue
to evolve, and as science and management matures to address existing
mandates for ecosystem based management. An organizational structure
that serves the nation well today, or in 18 months, may not be the best
structure to serve the nation in the future. We believe that specific
programmatic changes should be made through current authorization bills
that are revisited every few years.
Establish a National Governance Structure
Title III of H.R. 21 would statutorily create a number of positions
and mechanisms within the Administration to provide high-level guidance
and coordination for ocean issues. The Administration believes in
enhancing coordination of the ocean-related activities of the Federal
Government and has placed a high importance on providing advice to the
President on ocean issues. We believe there are effective mechanisms
currently in place to achieve these purposes. The Administration
objects to Title III, because it would limit and interfere with the
President's flexibility to pursue these goals, because it would
statutorily establish entities in the Executive Office of the
President, and because it would statutorily establish a new Council of
Advisors on Oceans Policy.
For example, H.R. 21 authorizes a Committee on Ocean Policy to
succeed the Committee on Ocean Policy established under Executive Order
13366. The existing Committee on Ocean Policy created a framework to
coordinate the ocean and coastal related activities of over 20 federal
agencies that administer over 140 laws. While still young, the
coordinated ocean governance structure under the existing Committee on
Ocean Policy has demonstrated significant progress in enhancing ocean
leadership and coordination, developing the institutional capacity to
coordinate across jurisdictional boundaries, and strengthening the
agency structure in phases in order to enhance the goal of addressing
management needs through an ecosystem-based approach.
The existing committee conducts its operational work through the
Interagency Committee on Ocean Science and Resource Management
Integration (ICOSRMI) and its subordinate bodies, the Subcommittee on
Integrated Management of Ocean Resources (SIMOR) and the National
Science and Technology Council's (NSTC) Joint Subcommittee on Ocean
Science and Technology (JSOST). Within this new coordinated ocean
governance structure, ICOSRMI is incorporating the mandate and
functions of the National Oceanographic Partnership Program's National
Ocean Research Leadership Council into its broader ocean and coastal
policy mandate, which now includes ocean resource management. The
ICOSRMI is comprised of Under/Assistant Secretaries or their
equivalents from the executive branch agencies and departments of the
Committee on Ocean Policy, and is co-chaired by the White House's
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and Office of Science and
Technology Policy. The White House has continued to demonstrate
leadership and support in this effort, which has been critical to
providing the high-level guidance and support necessary to focus the
group on achievable goals, and to maintain its momentum. NOAA has taken
a leadership role in both SIMOR and the JSOST, serving as co-chair on
each respective group and further supporting their activities.
SIMOR seeks to identify and promote opportunities for collaboration
and cooperation among agencies on resource management issues, and to
build partnerships among federal, state, tribal, and local authorities,
the private sector, international partners, and other interested
parties. SIMOR's counterpart in the new coordinated ocean governance
structure is the JSOST. The JSOST seeks to identify national ocean
science and technology priorities and to facilitate coordination of
disciplinary and interdisciplinary ocean research, ocean technology and
infrastructure development, and national ocean observation programs.
The role of the JSOST is exemplified in the recently released
report Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States in
the Next Decade: An Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation
Strategy. Reflecting input from a diverse group of federal agencies,
state and local governments, academic researchers, non-governmental
organizations and private citizens who share interest and
responsibility for ocean science and management, Charting the Course
for Ocean Science identified 20 national ocean research priorities,
which are oriented round the most compelling scientific challenges and
opportunities we face, including stewardship of natural and cultural
resources, increasing resilience to natural hazards, enabling marine
operations, understanding the ocean's role in climate, improving
ecosystem health, and enhancing human health.
Most importantly, JSOST accomplished the exceedingly difficult task
of identifying among the full range of opportunities, four critical
research areas where the need is highest and potential benefits
greatest. These four areas constitute the near-term opportunities which
will be pursued vigorously over the next few years, and it is these
areas that the President is supporting in his FY08 Budget Request to
Congress, including:
1. Response of Coastal Ecosystems to Persistent Forcing and
Extreme events. This topic focuses on improving forecasts of coastal
response to a variety of natural events and human influenced processes.
2. Comparative Analysis of Marine Ecosystem Organization. This
area focuses on understanding complex marine ecosystems in ways that
will allow us to improve resource management.
3. Sensors for Marine Ecosystems. This area focuses on the
development of new data collection tools and technologies to better
understand various biological and chemical processes.
4. Meridional Overturning Variability. This area emphasizes the
importance of improving our ability to observe, understand and predict
changes in Atlantic ocean circulation, a key driver of climate
variability and potentially of rapid climate change.
The JSOST was created through expansion of the former NSTC's Joint
Subcommittee on Oceans in 2005 to include the issues of science and
technology. Because of this evolution, the JSOST continues to report to
the NSTC Committee on Science and the Committee on Environment and
Natural Resources, in addition to the ICOSRMI. This dual reporting
mechanism ensures that actions undertaken by JSOST are both influenced
by and influence broader agency actions involving environmental and
natural resource policy; thus strengthening ties with programs designed
to address land use, fresh water quality and quantity, and air quality.
ICOSRMI seeks advice from its federal advisory committee, the Ocean
Research and Resource Advisory Panel, comprised of 18 members from
academia, as well as the public and private sectors, with interest and
expertise in ocean science and resource management. ICOSRMI also
coordinates with the National Security Council's Global Environment
Policy Coordinating Committee and its Subcommittee on Ocean Policy.
Establish a Regional Governance Structure
H.R. 21 instructs NOAA and appropriate states to establish nine
Regional Ocean Partnerships comprised of federal, state, tribal,
international, Regional Fisheries Management Council, and local
government representatives; and it ensures that each Partnership
contains an equal number of non-federal voting representatives on each
Partnership. There are several concerns with the partnerships as
proposed in the bill. For example, the strategic plans could create
significant overlap with existing management plans. It is unclear how
these existing activities would be taken into consideration and how the
transition will be made to the proposed strategic plans.
The Administration recognizes that regional bodies possess the
unique ability to focus discussion on areas of most need, and provide
lasting commitments to the stewardship of regional resources by those
most affected by them. Through existing authorities, the Administration
is currently supporting the formation of regional collaborative
partnerships to advance region-specific science and management needs,
including the West Coast Governors' Partnership for Healthy Oceans,
Northeast Regional Ocean Council, Gulf of Mexico Alliance, and Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration. Using the coordinated ocean governance
structure of the existing Committee on Ocean Policy, SIMOR has led the
development of regional teams to serve as the federal mechanism to
engage the state and regional initiatives. In addition, SIMOR and JSOST
have jointly gained from federal-state task teams that provide linkages
on specific issues, such as identifying regional science priorities for
the Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States for the
Next Decade: An Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation
Strategy.
As an example of the success currently possible under Executive
Order 13366 and existing authorities, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance is a
state/federal collaboration made up of the Governors of the five Gulf
States and supported by the Gulf of Mexico Federal Work Group (a sub-
group of the Subcommittee on Integrated Management of Ocean Resources),
consisting of 13 agencies/departments. The Alliance, working in
partnership with the Federal Work Group, developed the Governors'
Action Plan for Healthy and Resilient Coasts. This Plan, released in
March 2006, identifies five regionally significant issues. These
priorities represent an initial focus for action through the Alliance:
water quality for healthy beaches and shellfish beds, wetland and
coastal conservation and restoration, environmental education,
identification and characterization of Gulf habitats, and reductions in
nutrient inputs to coastal ecosystems. Work is underway to implement
the Action Plan. The Federal Work Group will continue to support the
Gulf States in several specific areas including: increasing federal
participation where appropriate; addressing interagency coordination
and identifying opportunities to streamline intra- and inter-agency
functions; promoting opportunities for bilateral coordination with, and
participation by, Mexico and its Gulf Coast states; and promoting
regional collaboration including identifying needs for observations and
management tools that could be forwarded to the JSOST.
In addition to supporting the formation of regional collaborative
partnerships, NOAA is expanding on previous regional capabilities in
order to provide a framework that will draw together NOAA capabilities
to better respond to customer needs in the field. Regional Teams were
recently established under this initiative to provide a NOAA-wide
mechanism for addressing geographically-specific, multi-line office,
multi-disciplinary environmental problems that the agency has been
asked to address (Integrated Ecosystem Assessments, Integrated Water
Resource Services, and Hazard Resilient Coastal Communities). In
addition, each regional team will assess NOAA activities in the context
of existing regionally-distinct priorities. In this regard, NOAA should
be well prepared to address priorities identified at the regional
level.
The Administration's position, articulated in the U.S. Ocean Action
Plan, supports regional collaboration and supports continued movement
towards ecosystem-based management approaches. Of particular importance
is the respect for initiatives that are state-led and focus on state/
regional priorities, in the spirit of cooperative conservation, and
allow for flexibility in approaches to development of the initiatives
and in the allocation of funding. The Administration supports the
concept that regional ocean partnerships should be a forum for
coordination. We believe that several of the principles outlined in the
National Governors Association policy statement on ocean and coastal
policy are closer to our position than that of H.R. 21. Specific
examples include:
Regional ocean partnerships should be voluntary,
flexible, and state-driven,
Regional ocean partnerships should be a forum for
coordination, not a new large bureaucracy, and
There should be an open and transparent process for
stakeholder and citizen participation.
Promote Ecosystem-Based Management
H.R. 21 would require the use of ecosystem-based approaches to
management, which has been an operating model for NOAA under its
various mandates for a number of years. The use of ecosystem-based
management is a principal that the Administration supports. Most
recently, the Administration has taken significant steps to protect
vulnerable marine ecosystems, including coral reefs, seamounts,
hydrothermal vents, and cold-water corals, from fishing and other
impacts within our domestic waters within existing and expanded
authorities. In June 2006, President Bush designated the
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (in the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands), which is a fully protected marine area co-managed by
NOAA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the State of Hawaii.
Encompassing nearly 140,000 square miles, this monument is more than
100 times larger than Yosemite National Park, larger than 46 of our 50
states, and more than seven times larger than all our national marine
sanctuaries combined.
The reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provided new
authorities for NOAA to implement ecosystem approaches to management
through the identification and protection, as appropriate, of unique
deep coral habitats, the ability to provide incentives to reduce
seabird interactions under federal fishery management plans, and the
authority to provide technical advice and assistance, including grants,
to fisheries management councils for the development and design of
regional ecosystem pilot projects. These initiatives are important
expansions of existing authorities necessary to realize the goal of
ecosystem-based management. Coordination of these efforts with NOAA and
interagency authorities is an important additional step.
The United States is also a leader in promoting the need for
similar conservation and management measures internationally, including
through the United Nations (UN) and its Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO). In October 2006, President Bush issued a memorandum
to Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez, which
promoted the sustainable management of global fisheries resources and
called for an end to destructive fishing practices on the high seas.
The U.S. delegation to the 2006 UN General Assembly fisheries
resolution negotiations promoted the position as outlined in the
Presidential Memorandum, specifically urging nations to prohibit their
vessels from engaging in destructive fishing practices on the high seas
until applicable conservation and management measures, authorized by a
competent Regional Fisheries Management Organization (RFMO), are in
place. The ultimate consensus-based language of the resolution includes
management provisions for RFMOs and nations to prevent bottom fishing
from causing harm to vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) and calls upon
the FAO to develop further management guidance. At the recent session
of the FAO Committee on Fisheries, held March 5-9, 2007 in Rome, Italy,
a major topic of discussion was the role of the FAO in implementing the
UN General Assembly resolution. Among the requests made of FAO, a
priority for the U.S. was the development of standards and criteria for
use by nations and RFMOs in identifying VMEs and the impacts of fishing
on such ecosystems. As a result, the FAO plans to develop technical
guidelines for the management of deep-sea fisheries on the high seas by
early 2008.
Because H.R. 21 would require an ecosystem-based approach to the
management of fisheries, marine mammals, protected species, coral
reefs, and protection and management of ocean and coastal areas, it
could affect many regulatory programs currently administered by federal
agencies and would create an additional regional layer of ecosystem
administration. The steps to enable cross-legislative and cross-agency
collaboration, consistent with ecosystem-based approaches to
management, are not detailed in the bill. We believe that a non-
mandatory, nonstatutory regional consultative mechanism can accomplish
much of the intent of the bill, without delaying necessary management
actions required under existing law, and is the preferable approach.
Consideration should be given to reconciling any new consultation
process with the requirements for interagency consultation pursuant
with existing mandates.
The additional layer of regulatory review proposed by this bill
could significantly distract us from our goal. We suggest that any bill
designed to promote ecosystem-based management follow a more step-wise
approach--one based on expanding the mission, enhancing capabilities to
provide technical advice and collaboration, and encouraging
discretionary development of pilot projects.
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan and the final report of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy endorse implementation of a sustained
Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). IOOS is the U.S. component of
the Global Ocean Observing System, and is the key ocean component of
the U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS) now being
developed. Both IOOS and IEOS will become part of GEOSS--the Global
Earth Observation System of Systems. IOOS is envisioned as an
interagency, end-to-end system designed to meet seven societal goals by
integrating research, education, and the development of sustained ocean
observing capabilities. The need to integrate data derives from NOAA's
core missions. The challenges society faces today (coastal populations
at risk, compromised ecosystems, climate change, increased maritime
commerce) threaten jobs, revenue, and human health. Answers to these
problems require access to better information.
Developing IOOS is a top priority for NOAA. In December 2006, NOAA
reconfirmed its commitment to IOOS by establishing a NOAA IOOS Program.
Responsibilities of the new NOAA IOOS Program include serving as the
central focal point for the administration of NOAA's IOOS activities,
interface to regional partners, establishing an initial operating
capability for data integration, requirements definition, conducting
system acquisition and closely coordinating and collaborating with
federal partners through the National Office for Integrated and
Sustained Ocean Observations (Ocean.US). The NOAA IOOS Program and
Ocean.US will be co-located to improve communication, coordination, and
information exchange.
Capacity that can contribute to a U.S. IOOS currently exists within
NOAA. This capacity includes observing platforms, communications lines,
computers and people that manipulate and distribute data, and people
that develop data products. The IOOS Program will focus on identifying
this internal capacity and coordinating this capability through an
Initial Operating Capability for data integration to serve U.S. IOOS
goals. The initial focus will be integration of five core IOOS
variables (temperature, salinity, sea level, surface currents, and
ocean color). These integrated data will be accessible in useful
formats for ingest into four priority NOAA data products: coastal
inundation, hurricane intensity, harmful algal bloom forecasts, and
integrated ecosystem assessments. These data products will be tested
and evaluated to measure improvements to baseline conditions resulting
from access and ingest of integrated data. Once improvements are
demonstrated, product enhancements will be benchmarked for operational
use.
The NOAA IOOS Program will continue to support development of
infrastructure and management to enable a fully configured and scalable
U.S. IOOS. NOAA recognizes it is nationally important to have
infrastructure in place to characterize, understand, predict and
monitor changes in coastal-ocean environments and ecosystems. This
infrastructure is necessary to help states and regions more efficiently
and effectively manage resources and meet federal environmental and
natural resources compliance requirements. This infrastructure is also
critical to understanding and mitigating the effects of severe weather,
global-to-regional climate variability, and natural hazards. NOAA
intends to continue supporting the development and integration of the
regional coastal components of IOOS. This includes supporting effective
regional management structures required to achieve development and
integration of operational regional coastal ocean observing systems.
NOAA's goal is to demonstrate value in this integration, and extend
this integrated data capability across the country by enabling our
regional partners to contribute their data, and also access the full
suite of existing integrated data through distributed and coordinated
data integration and communication networks.
The National Office for Integrated and Sustained Ocean Observations
(Ocean.US) has the lead for planning the multi-agency IOOS effort. NOAA
is heavily involved in this planning, and has been designated by the
Administration as the lead federal agency for administration and
implementation of IOOS. Coordination among all contributing agencies
continues to grow through participation in the Interagency Working
Group on Ocean Observations established under the JSOST and chaired by
NOAA with vice chairs from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), the Navy, and the National Science Foundation
(NSF).
Ocean Stewardship Through Education
The Administration supports efforts to enhance responsible ocean
stewardship through ocean education and outreach, information
collection, and citizen involvement. Ocean education is an important
component of the President's U.S. Ocean Action Plan and together, SIMOR
and the JSOST have formed the joint Interagency Working Group on Ocean
Education, to identify opportunities and articulate priorities for
enhancing ocean education, outreach, and capacity building. Ocean
management is more effective with an ocean literate public, and to this
end, NOAA leverages many opportunities to advance ocean education in
support of its mission goals. Our formal and informal activities
include scholarship and fellowship programs, education and research
grants, and strategic partnerships with education institutions and
industry. In 2006, NOAA's Education Office provided scholarship and
internship opportunities to over 230 undergraduate students. NOAA's
education investment is also geared towards hiring students trained
through these scholarship and internship opportunities. Through
December 31, 2006, NOAA has hired 32 students trained through its
Graduate Sciences Program. Also in 2006, 33 teachers participated in
NOAA's Teacher at Sea Program.
To raise national attention to the need for ocean literacy, NOAA,
EPA, the Department of the Interior, NSF, NASA, and the National Marine
Sanctuary Foundation, co-hosted CoOl--the Conference on Ocean
Literacy--on June 7-8, 2006, in Washington, D.C., as part of the
presidentially proclaimed National Oceans Week. The conference brought
together key participants to discuss the essential principles of ocean
literacy, and the current challenges and opportunities for both formal
and informal education efforts in educating the public to make
informed, responsible decisions about the ocean and its resources. The
conference extended beyond Washington, D.C., through five regional
workshops hosted by aquariums across the country including: Aquarium of
the Pacific, Long Beach, CA; John G. Shedd Aquarium, Chicago, IL; J.L.
Scott Aquarium, Ocean Springs, MS; National Aquarium in Baltimore,
Baltimore, MD; and National Mississippi River Museum and Aquarium,
Dubuque, IA. The conference resulted in a Conference on Ocean Literacy
Report, which makes recommendations for future efforts in formal
education, informal education, and for creating diversity in the ocean
workforce.
Funding
Finally, H.R. 21 would provide significant new funding,
particularly to coastal states through the Ocean, Coastal, and Great
Lakes Trust Fund. We recognize the important role states, tribes, and
local governments play in managing these important resources. Through
ICOSRMI, the Administration is finding ways to partner more effectively
with our state, tribal, and local partners so that the significant
federal and non-federal resources that are already devoted to ocean and
coastal issues are used more efficiently and produce better outcomes.
Any additional resources for ocean and coastal issues should be
considered within the full context of the different priorities for
federal spending. As such, we strongly oppose the establishment of an
Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes Trust Fund that would circumvent the
Administration's and Congress's ability to evaluate and modify federal
funding priorities on an annual basis.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the importance of the
efforts of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and stress that the
Administration is strongly committed to continued implementation of the
recommendations of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan and sound ocean
stewardship. The federal agencies involved in ocean and coastal
conservation management activities will continue to work with its
partners in a collaborative and systematic fashion, as we believe
collaboration is critical to make our ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes
cleaner, healthier and more productive. We look forward to continuing
to work with the Members of the Committee in raising the bar for the
long-term conservation and management of our coastal and ocean
resources.
Thank you again for your time and I am happy to answer any
questions that the Members of the Committee may have.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Dunnigan, and now the Chair
would like to recognize Ms. Leyden.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN LEYDEN, CHAIR, COASTAL STATES
ORGANIZATION REGIONAL OCEAN GOVERNANCE WORK GROUP AND DIRECTOR,
MAINE COASTAL PROGRAM
Ms. Leyden. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Brown and
distinguished members of the Subcommittee, my name is Kathleen
Leyden, and I am here today representing the Coastal States
Organization. CSO, as Coastal States Organization is known,
represents the 35 states and territories in Washington D.C.
relative to issues of ocean policy and legislation that affects
the coast. With my written testimony in the record and this
being the first time that I am doing this, I am going to pray
that I meet the five-minute mark and therefore just focus on a
few things.
I would like to begin by thanking Representative Farr and
Representatives Allen, Gilchrest and Saxton for their
leadership in putting forward such a comprehensive approach as
is reflected in Oceans 21. My colleague from CSO, our current
chair Brian Baird from California, could not be here today but
he wanted to make sure that I recognized the early efforts of
Mr. Farr in California when as a State Assemblyman he was
responsible for developing the California Ocean Resources
Management Act which launched comprehensive ocean management in
that state. So thank you for your ongoing commitment to the
oceans, and we are thrilled that a national dialogue has begun
on Oceans 21.
So what is the problem? I am not here today to reiterate
the things that you have already heard in recent weeks about
the crisis in the health of our oceans and coasts but what I
would like to say, as Representative Allen said, is that ocean
and coastal resources are the lifeblood of coastal states, and
degradation of them affects local people in very real ways. At
the state level we are facing increasingly complex coastal
challenges, and we cannot deal with them on our own, and we
need a new way of working together to accomplish results.
If I had to choose three phrases to describe our current
ocean management regime I would choose fragmented, reactive,
and largely lacking an opportunity for real cooperative
management between Federal, state and local entities in
effectively managing resources. So what is the solution? If the
states were to design a solution ourselves, I know that we
agree that the components as reflected in Oceans 21 are the key
things. That is a structure for regional ocean governance, a
statement of national ocean policy, improved coordination of
Federal action, a coordinated management regime for Federal
waters, and a much needed ocean and coastal trust fund.
These types of things really lay the groundwork for us to
begin to actually do ecosystem based management which we talk
about a lot but need to really advance our efforts in. Our
concerns about Oceans 21 track two general themes that we think
are solvable through additional conversations, and those are
the need for flexibility and the need to build on work that is
already being done.
CSO remains committed to working with the bill's sponsors
and other interested parties over the coming months to resolve
the differences. First, the regional ocean governance piece of
the bill. The coastal states have been working together through
the work group that I chair to develop a proposal for regional
ocean governance legislation, and this work is grounded in a
policy statement that the National Governors' Association put
forward in 2007 which is attached to my written testimony.
In short, we agree that a national framework is needed to
develop and implement integrated ecosystem plans. In fact, 20
states are already involved in these efforts. Some of them were
mentioned by Jack Dunnigan. We need to recognize and build off
the success of these voluntary state-led efforts and avoid
being overly prescriptive and creating new bureaucracies.
We think that regional plans should be action oriented and
directed toward achieving shared goals and priorities, but that
the requirements for them need to be realistic and phased and
perhaps greater requirements could be phased in over time. We
agree that we need more information to improve the management
of our coasts and oceans, and we agree that a mechanism is
needed to develop, fund, and implement regional plans. If
funding is accompanied by other incentives, states will do this
work without additional requirements to do so.
Second, the statement of national ocean policy while we
think that one is needed we have some concerns about the way
this provision is currently drafted and look forward to working
together to resolve it. In terms of the funding, as you can
tell from our comments we need new funding to be able to do
this, and I think there are several pieces of Oceans 21 that
need to work hand-in-hand. It is all coordinated.
With two seconds remaining, I will thank you for your
leadership on these issues and for inviting me to testify.
Again, we look forward to resolving any outstanding differences
or concerns on this bill, and I would be happy to answer any
questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Leyden follows:]
Statement of Kathleen Leyden, State of Maine's Delegate to the Coastal
States Organization and Chair to the Coastal States Organization Ocean
Governance Work Group and Director of the Coastal Program, Maine State
Planning Office
Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, my name is Kathleen Leyden and I am here
today on behalf of the Coastal States Organization, usually referred to
as CSO. Since 1970, CSO has represented the interests of the Governors
of the 35 coastal states and territories in Washington, DC on
legislative and policy issues relating to the sound management of
coastal, Great Lakes, and ocean resources. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify to the issues of improved ocean governance and
please include my written testimony in the record.
I would like to begin by thanking Representative Farr and
Representatives Allen, Gilchrest and Saxton for taking up the charge of
improved ocean and coastal governance and for their leadership putting
forward the comprehensive approach reflected in Oceans 21. Ocean
governance reform is critically needed and I commend you all for your
hard work. CSO's Chair, Brian Baird from California, could not be here
today, but he wanted to acknowledge the long-standing commitment of
Congressman Farr on this issue. As a state Assemblyman, Mr. Farr
authored the California Ocean Resources Management Act, which launched
comprehensive management in California. Thank you for your ongoing
commitment to the oceans.
As you are well aware, there is a crisis in health of our nations'
coastal and ocean waters and the sustainability of the species they
support. Experts around the country agree that aggressive actions,
including reforms in governance, can help solve the complex coastal and
ocean challenges before us.
Our current management of our nation's coast and oceans, is
characterized as (1) fragmented--dominated by sector-by-sector
management authorities, (2) reactive in its response to ocean
development, and (3) largely lacking in opportunity for federal-state
cooperative resource management. A national framework for improved
governance, as envisioned by Oceans 21, will allow both federal and
state partners to be better positioned to respond to the numerous
emerging uses of our public trust resources.
The coastal states have been actively discussing opportunities for
improved ocean and coastal management, and these discussions continue.
In addition, the nations' Governors are on record as supporting reforms
in ocean and coastal governance, including a strengthened and
reauthorized Coastal Zone Management Act, renewed attention to coastal
non point pollution, implementation of an ocean science strategy,
development of a robust ocean observing system, and targeted support
for ocean literacy.
In my time this morning, I'll highlight areas where coastal states
have reached consensus on Oceans 21's approach, and touch on areas
where states have recommendations that they believe will make the
legislation stronger. Some themes you will hear throughout my testimony
are the need for flexibility, the desire to build on work that has
already been done, and acknowledgment that ocean management should
include all of the relevant government agencies and stakeholders.
The coastal states believe that Oceans 21 has the components needed
to reform ocean governance and improve the health of our oceans and
coasts, namely a structure for regional ocean governance, a statement
of national ocean policy, improved coordination of federal action, a
NOAA Organic Act, a coordinated management regime for our federal
waters, and a much-needed ocean and coastal trust fund. Also, overall,
the bill would help reorient government to formalize the practice of
ecosystem-based management. The specific issues I will address today
include regional ocean governance, a trust fund, a statement of
national ocean policy, and improved coordination of federal action.
I. Regional Ocean Governance
Over the last number of months, the coastal states have been
working to develop a proposal for regional ocean governance
legislation; this work is grounded on a series of principles agreed to
by the National Governors Association in their February 2007 policy
statement on Ocean and Coastal Zone Management (NR-10) which I've
attached to my testimony and request to be put into the public record.
The states agree with much of Title IV of Oceans 21, the regional
governance section of the bill. We agree that:
A national framework is needed to advance and support
regional efforts by the state and federal governments to develop and
implement integrated ecosystem-based plans;
Regionally-based plans should be action-oriented and
directed toward achieving shared goals and priorities;
There should be significant opportunities for public
input and involvement;
More information is needed to improve management of our
oceans and coasts, and
A mechanism is needed to develop, fund and implement
regional plans.
There are areas, however, where we would like to work together to
craft changes that we think will improve the legislation--these include
seven broad categories of comments as follows:
A. Acknowledge and Support Existing Efforts
As acknowledged by the recent Policy Report Card issued by the
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, states are leading the way in
regional ocean governance. According to a recent accounting, twenty
states have launched state initiatives or participated in regional
alliances to protect the significant economic and natural resources of
coasts, oceans and Great Lakes. Across the nation, states have been
fostering collaborative relationships to tackle transboundary issues,
such as the long-standing Gulf of Maine Council, Chesapeake Bay and
Long Island Sound efforts, as well as the recent efforts of the
Northeast Regional Ocean Council, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy, and the West Coast Governors'
Agreement on Ocean Health.
Oceans 21 can add value to these existing efforts by
building off of their successes, creating a national framework that
supports them and by creating long-term, consistent funding for them.
It should be noted that some of these efforts, although they are
subregional in scope, contribute to broader management goals for large
marine ecosystems.
B. Establish Stronger State Involvement
Both the states and the federal government share sovereignty for
our ocean and coastal resources, and we are responsible for the wise
management of this public trust. The states believe that management
will best be accomplished through a partnership between the states and
federal agencies using processes that provide for stakeholder input and
involvement.
Ocean's 21 should articulate a strong and meaningful
partnership with states, acknowledging states as owners of submerged
lands and managers of the public trust.
C. Support Voluntary Partnerships
We believe regional ocean partnerships should be voluntary,
flexible and state-driven. We do not believe you can ``mandate''
collaborative partnerships, and we do not believe a uniform, one-size-
fits-all approach to regional governance is the best way to proceed. We
think that it is best to enable robust partnerships around common goals
and then let them flourish, each in its own way.
Ocean's 21 should include a voluntary, rather than
mandatory approach to establishment of regional partnerships and should
clarify that these partnerships will not supplant existing legal
authorities.
D. Avoid Creation of New Bureaucracy When Establishing Regional
Partnerships
We believe regional ocean partnerships should perform primarily a
coordination function and not create a new large bureaucracy. Each
member of the partnership should be enabled to pursue the common goals
of the region under existing legal authorities.
Ocean's 21 should increase the flexibility for the
membership and the formation of partnerships. While some structure is
key, existing regional efforts have demonstrated that new bureaucracy
may drain resources. Regional Ocean Partnerships should facilitate, not
unnecessarily burden, federal, state and other players.
F. Avoid Overly Prescribing the Requirements for Regional Strategic
Plans
The purpose of the regional ocean planning processes should be to:
reach agreement on regional priorities; create strategic plans to solve
priority problems; develop implementation plans that identify specific
steps to be taken to address those priorities; and assign
responsibility for action.
Ocean's 21 should utilize a less prescriptive approach to
establishment of regional strategic plans, allowing for the early
identification of key priority issues, actionable items and a movement
towards implementation. As partnerships mature, expectations might be
increased.
While ensuring that federal funds are well spent, the
federal approval process for regional plans should be minimized. A
partnership approach to the plans' development, involving both
governmental and stakeholders throughout, calls for a streamlined
approval process.
G. Provide Funding and Incentives to Reach Goals
While federal agencies have been extremely responsive to new
partnerships with regional efforts, these approaches have proceeded
with minimal federal resources, relying with a few exceptions, on in-
kind support from federal agency staff with no new dedicated funds. In
addition to basic support, including targeted in-kind assistance from
federal staff and long-term and consistent new funding for regional
efforts, other incentives for the state participation in regional ocean
councils should be created. Examples of these incentives might include:
Streamlined federal processes;
Federal assistance for the development of integrated
ecosystem assessments;
Application of federal research and monitoring
capabilities to regional needs;
Federal-state co-management of resources;
Advance identification (and resolution) of state/federal
conflicts; and
A new joint approach to siting of energy and other
emerging uses.
H. Employ Reasonable Accountability Measures
The States support the inclusion of accountability measures and
benchmarks for success in Oceans 21. These accountability measures
could include benchmarks for implementation of individual projects as
well as overall success of regional partnerships.
Oceans 21 should recognize the different stages of
partnership building, with accountability measurable for each stage and
realistic timeframes for each.
II. Ocean and Great Lakes Trust Fund
Oceans 21 proposes to create a trust fund to provide resources for
ocean and coastal protection. The coastal states strongly support a
trust fund to improve the management of ocean, coastal and Great Lakes
resources. The U.S. Commission recognized that we are at a crisis stage
for our oceans and fixing these problems will require more resources.
We do have a suggestion for improvement of this section of the bill.
Many of the threats facing our oceans start on the land, such as
nonpoint pollution. We believe the trust fund should recognize this
fact. The coastal states, therefore, would recommend changing the title
to explicitly include ``coastal'' in the title and to include coastal
management activities as an appropriate use of the funds.
III. Statement of National Ocean Policy
The coastal states believe it is important for Congress to enact a
statement of national ocean policy. We do have questions, however,
about the intent and impact of the language currently in the bill. For
example, requiring that the NOAA Administrator approve all covered
federal actions of the agencies (as defined in the bill) has the
potential to create a serious bottleneck for government action. The
coastal states look forward to working with the sponsors so we can
better understand the intent of this section of the bill and offer some
potential alternatives.
IV. Improve coordination of the federal government
The coastal states also agree that legislative provisions would be
helpful to improve coordination of the federal agencies. As the U.S.
Ocean Commission recognized in its final report, the management of our
ocean resources is badly fragmented. Currently, the uses of our ocean
are all regulated separately, fisheries in one agency, energy in
another, sediment management in another, shipping and maritime
activities in yet another. No government agency or body is charged with
looking across the stovepipes of programs to see how all of the
different uses of our oceans fit together. If we want to improve the
health of our oceans this needs to change, and Oceans 21 takes this
challenge on.
We do have some suggestions for possible improvement for your
consideration. Since the U.S. Commission report was released, the
federal government has taken steps to improve federal interagency
coordination, such as the creation of Subcommittee on Integrated
Management of Ocean Resources (SIMOR) and the Interagency Committee on
Ocean Science and Resource Management Integration (ICOSRMI). We
recommend that federal legislation incorporate and build on this
existing structure. As included in Oceans 21, we support the inclusion
of a state presence on these interagency bodies.
V. Complement existing legal structures
As you continue to work on improving the management of our oceans,
I would like to acknowledge that there are many pieces to the puzzle
that currently forms our coastal and ocean management framework. As we
reform governance, we need to ensure that these existing laws are well
integrated and complementary to any new structure that is established.
The primary example I have in mind is the Coastal Zone Management Act.
For over 30 years, this Act has been the primary state/federal
partnership for managing our country's coastal resources. Ecosystem-
based approaches to governance should acknowledge the interrelationship
between coastal watersheds and the ocean, which means new ocean
governance mechanisms like Oceans 21 need to fit ``hand in glove'' with
existing structures like the CZMA.
Closing
In closing, thank you again for your leadership on these issues and
for inviting me to testify today. The coastal states look forward with
enthusiasm to continued work with committee staff, nongovernmental
partners, federal agencies and others to improve this bill to ensure
healthy oceans in the future. I'd be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
______
[NOTE: Attachments to Ms. Leyden's statement have been retained in
the Committee's official files.]
Response to questions submitted for the record by Kathleen Leyden
QUESTIONS FROM THE HON. MADELEINE BORDALLO, CHAIRWOMAN
Improving regional governance
Your testimony states that Title IV of the bill can be improved by
articulating a strong and meaningful partnership with the states in
ocean governance. At the same time, you argue that regional
partnerships should be voluntary and cannot supplant any existing legal
authorities.
1. Has it been the experience of the states thus far that the
federal government has treated them as equal partners in the management
of our ocean resources?
RESPONSE: Whether a federal agency treats the states as a partner
often depends on the agency, the circumstances, and the decisionmaking
and consultation processes established in law. The coastal states
believe that because they are sovereign governments, the federal
agencies should nearly always see the states as partners. The coastal
states believe that effective management of our ocean resources will
only be accomplished through a partnership with the federal agencies.
2. Do you really expect to be treated as partners without some
sort of requirement that this be the case?
RESPONSE: The coastal states believe that Congress should express
its intent that the federal government should work with the states as
equal partners in managing ocean resources. Without such a statement
from Congress, the state/federal partnership will continue to be
variable. Some federal agencies incorrectly place states in the
``stakeholder'' category. The states are not ``stakeholders''; the
states are sovereign governments and should be treated as full partners
in decision making.
Incentives to improve governance
You mention several incentives--other than just money--to encourage
state participation in regional governance. One, is a joint approach to
the siting of energy projects and other emerging uses of the ocean.
3. Can you elaborate on how this might work? Would the states want
the responsibility for planning the siting of such projects in federal
waters off their coasts? How do you envision this would fit with the
federal responsibilities?
RESPONSE: In state jurisdictions, the states and federal government
should share the responsibility for energy siting, and states should
always maintain decision-making authority over the siting of facilities
and their associated infrastructure within their jurisdictions. In
federal waters, the primary responsibility should rest with the federal
government but the federal government should be required to partner
with the states on identification of areas the states believe are most
appropriate for siting of energy facilities and infrastructure. Working
hand in hand with states earlier in the energy siting process will
improve decisionmaking.
4. The Administration seems to be of the opinion that we have all
the coordination and partnerships that we need. Do you agree?
RESPONSE: While we have many robust partnerships and opportunities
for coordination, these need greater federal support, additional
resources, and continuity over time, especially at the regional level.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy clearly and comprehensively
described the crisis facing our marine resources. The nation cannot
expect to fix the problems facing our oceans without additional laws
and resources.
QUESTIONS FROM THE HON. HENRY BROWN, MINORITY RANKING MEMBER
1. Much of your testimony relates back to the issue of funding.
While many in Congress support additional funds for ocean programs,
Federal funds are spread across many programs. Have the states come up
with recommendations on where the money should come from for the Trust
Fund?
RESPONSE: While the coastal states do support a trust fund, we have
not developed specific proposals for the sources of funding for such a
trust fund.
2. What are the existing funding requirements of the states? Do
these funding needs justify $1 billion as authorized in H.R. 21?
RESPONSE: Participation in existing regional entities has been
maintained using existing funds and shifting responsibilities between
existing staff. Cutbacks in coastal program funding and the lack of
specific funding for regional activities has limited the extent to
which states can develop and implement robust regional plans. H.R. 21
funding for Regional Ocean Partnerships should be at a level
commensurate with the requirements of the act. For example, ecoregional
assessments and development of ecosystem indicators and large scale
implementation projects (i.e. landscape scale restoration) are
anticipated to be high cost items.
3. How are the coastal states funding state ocean programs?
RESPONSE: Each state is different in how it funds its ocean
programs. Some states fund some activities with state dollars; some
fund activities with a mix of federal and state dollars.
4. Can you elaborate on accountability measures for the different
stages of partnership building that you refer to in you testimony? What
specifically would you like included in the bill and what specific
benchmark successes would you require?
RESPONSE: Building in meaningful accountability provisions will be
one of the more challenging aspects of developing ocean governance
structures. Each region is uniquely different and their plans will
include a variety of priority actions. Thus the accountability measures
will be based largely on the specifics of each regional plan.
Ocean governance needs to be accomplished through a partnership
between the state and federal governments but large inter-agency
efforts can need to clearly assign responsibility for outcomes to
ensure success. The coastal states believe that regional plans should
be developed with actionable items that identify which regional
partnership member is responsible for that project or section so that
agency or agencies can be held accountable for results
The experience of states that are already working in regional
partnerships is that there are stages of development and maturity of
these efforts and reasonable accountability measures should be
cognizant of that. Appropriate measures that reflect stages of progress
might include a) convening initial state and federal representatives b)
formalizing the ROCs through Governors' agreements, c) completing a
public participation effort, d) scoping and agreeing on priorities, e)
creating a regional plan, f) receiving approval of the plan,
g)implementing an ongoing monitoring program, and h) documenting
progress on selected environmental indicators.
5. You mention in your written testimony that current management
of our nation's coasts and oceans is lacking in opportunity for
federal-state-cooperative resource management. Are there specific laws
that you can cite that have hindered this type of cooperation? Any that
have supported or promoted cooperation?
RESPONSE: The U.S. Ocean Commission identified many examples of
overlapping and confusing jurisdictions and legal authorities. The real
crux of the problem is not that any one or two laws impede management
but that no agency or regional body is responsible for coordinating all
of the government activity in the ocean.
One of the major impediments to efficient management is the
restrictions put on how federal agencies are impeded from transferring
money between them. For example, recently the USDA had conservation
money it wanted to transfer to the USCOE to implement a habitat
restoration project. However, transferring the money from USDA to USCOE
has proven to be impossible. So we are left with the circumstance of
one agency having the funding, the other agency having the expertise
and willingness to perform the work but the two cannot be put together.
For inter-agency ocean governance to be effective and efficient, new
mechanisms for funding need to be explored.
The interstate fisheries commissions (established in the 1940's)
are an example of excellent federal state cooperative resource
management. While the mandates of the Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf state
commissions vary, they all involve cooperation across jurisdictions and
all levels of government on a large scale. Each provides a forum for
development of interstate catch statistics and fisheries management
plans.
6. You suggest adding land-based or ``coastal'' measures to the
list of activities that could receive funding from the Trust Fund.
Isn't that part of the existing funding problem for oceans, funds
getting redirected for other activities, even if they would have a
beneficial effect on the ocean? How are the states currently funding
coastal land-based management activities?
RESPONSE: As the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recognized, many
of the problems in the oceans are caused by land-based activities, such
as nonpoint source pollution and coastal development. We cannot divorce
the land from the ocean and the funding should recognize that fact so
we can address the priority problems facing our oceans, wherever their
source.
7. What proactive management measures are the states taking with
regard to land-based activities to prevent adverse affects on coastal
waters?
RESPONSE: While each state program for preventing land-based
sources of pollution may differ, some common efforts include: land
conservation and development restrictions in sensitive areas such as
stream corridors, and watersheds of shellfish growing areas; grant
programs for coastal municipalities to develop and implement creative
rules for new community designs; using education and outreach with a
variety of potential polluters to inform them about practices they can
use; working with the marine trades industry to reduce or eliminate
discharges to coastal waters through incentive programs such as the
Clean Marina certification; (2) working with towns on new solutions to
stormwater management such as innovative financing methods; and working
with volunteers on enhanced water quality monitoring and watershed
surveys.
8. While the bill's main goal is to provide for better management
of the ocean and its resources, many of the definitions in the bill,
including the ecosystem-based management definition, reach far inland
due to the impacts inland activities could have on the ocean. In your
assessment what areas would not fall under the jurisdiction of this
legislation?
RESPONSE: The legislation should primarily help state, federal,
local and tribal governments to better address priority problems that
affect our oceans, wherever they occur. The states do not believe,
however, that this bill should be used to expand the regulatory reach
of the federal government, but enable the federal and state government
to address problems with their current legal authorities. The inland
extent should be determined by individual states within a Regional
Ocean Partnership.
9. The bill charges NOAA with reporting on the status of ocean
ecosystems and resources two years after enactment of the bill and
every three years thereafter. The Regional Ocean Partnerships are also
required to develop regional ocean strategic plans which will include
an assessment of its ocean region. What changes can we make to the bill
to ensure there is limited duplication between the two reports? Can you
also make recommendation on how to limit duplication in other areas of
the bill?
RESPONSE: The states believe that the bill probably requires that
NOAA prepare too many reports too frequently. We would defer to NOAA on
the appropriate scope and frequency of the reporting.
10. At the oversight hearing on renewable energy opportunities and
issues on the Outer Continental Shelf, Ted Diers, the Coastal State
Organization representative said ``I am not sure I am in favor of any
new bureaucracies.'' Do you agree with this statement? Is this a CSO
position?
RESPONSE: While the coastal states do not support unnecessary and
duplicative new bureaucracies, we do believe ocean governance reform is
needed. There need to be formal mechanisms for improved integration of
government activities in the ocean. The coastal states believe that
Congress should pass legislation to enable and support Regional Ocean
Partnerships (ROPs) made up of representatives of the coastal states
and the relevant federal agencies. These ROPs should not be another
layer of government but a forum for coordination of joint and
collaborative actions to address shared priorities. The work of the
ROPs should be accomplished through the states' and federal agencies'
existing legal authorities, and ROPs should determine the level of
``process'' to serve their needs. Since coastal states do not believe
the ROPs should have any independent regulatory authority, we would not
consider them to be ``new bureaucracies.''
11. Some have argued that the new level of approval required in
H.R. 21 could overturn local and state zoning decisions on specific
projects and require a new set of standards that need to be met for any
project or activity--even inland projects or activities--that might
affect the ocean environment. Do you agree with that concern? Do you
agree that new Federal requirements that might be seen to overturn or
pre-empt local and State authorities should be approached very
carefully?
RESPONSE: While the coastal states do not have a legal position on
the impact of the national standards provisions of H.R. 21, we are very
concerned that the potential impact of these provisions may be
exceedingly broad. The coastal states do not support any new standards
that would preempt state or local authorities.
12. Does CSO support efforts to enact a new Federal offshore
aquaculture authority statute? Do you think enactment of H.R. 21 might
require an additional level of approval even if a new aquaculture
authority were enacted?
RESPONSE: The coastal states do agree that a regulatory framework
is needed for aquaculture, but it must be integrated in a larger
management framework to allow for planning of competing uses.
Currently, state response to aquaculture proposals is on a case-by-case
basis and certain projects would be addressed through CZMA Federal
Consistency Review, which presents a reactionary framework. Instead, we
believe that ocean governance reform should include regional
partnerships or mechanisms to comprehensively and proactively look at
the competing uses in the ocean so the various activities can be
managed in a coordinated way. We do not, however, support the concept
of the regional partnership being another layer of approval authority.
QUESTIONS FROM THE HON. JIM SAXTON
1. I have been excited to see regional ocean collaborations
popping up around the country. Do you believe that these collaborations
can be improved with support and guidance from Congress?
RESPONSE: Yes, absolutely. The states have been leading the way on
regional ocean governance initiatives with little new resources. To
make these initiatives as effective as they can be, Congressional
action and support is needed.
2. OCEANS-21 contains National Standards to guide implementation
of ``covered actions'' and a timeframe for interagency comment. What
sort of effect would this have when combined with current National
Standards and timelines contained in other laws such as the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act?
RESPONSE: The coastal states do have concerns about the national
standards provisions in the current draft of the bill. We suspect that
requiring all ``covered actions'' of federal agencies to go through
NOAA for approval will lead to a major bottleneck and impede processing
of federal permits.
3. Our oceans cover an area that is 23% larger than the land area
of the U.S. and, according to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy,
contribute roughly $117 billion to the U.S. economy, mostly from
tourism and recreation revenues. Given the expanse and importance of
our oceans to people of the United States, do you believe that it is
appropriate for Congress to issue guidance on how our oceans as a whole
should be managed--as we have done with all of our other major systems?
RESPONSE: Yes, absolutely. The oceans are a public trust and we as
a nation are not currently fulfilling our trust responsibilities.
Congress needs to act to improve management of these invaluable
resources.
4. The NOAA organic act title of H.R. 21 makes NOAA the lead
federal agency for oversight of all U.S. coastal, ocean, and Great
Lakes waters and resources. Currently, though, NOAA shares this
responsibility with agencies like USGS (for example, USGS manages
fisheries in the Great Lakes). While the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy did recommended consolidating oversight of ocean resources into
one federal organization, they recommended a slower, step-wise approach
that first provides an organic act for NOAA with its current
responsibilities and then over the course of a few years considers
transferring the responsibilities of other agencies to NOAA. Do you
agree with the Commissions step-wise approach to consolidating ocean
oversight, or do you believe this significant change in federal
oversight should be made immediately as proposed by H.R. 21?
RESPONSE: The coastal states do support an Organic Act for NOAA,
but we do not have a position on whether programs from other agencies
should be transferred into NOAA, either all at once or stepwise.
5. Many experts have stated that NOAA is too ``stovepiped'',
leading to inefficiencies and duplications across its five current line
offices. The NOAA organic act title of H.R. 21 proposes to consolidate
these offices into three primary functions--assessment, prediction and
operations; management; and research and education. I believe it is
important for research and education to be closely tied to and support
the other two functions of the agency, but under H.R. 21 things could
remain stovepiped having research as a separate function. In another
NOAA organic act proposal, H.R. 250 from Mr. Ehlers, there is a
leadership position that oversees all science at the agency to ensure
the best science is incorporated into all agency activities. Would you
recommend a similar position in H.R.21? If not, would you recommend
other changes in H.R. 21 to ensure that the research function of NOAA
continues to serve the needs of the operations and management functions
of the agency?
RESPONSE: The coastal states agree that it is important to ensure
that the research NOAA performs is addressing resource managers'
science and informational needs. In other words, NOAA research should
provide scientific services to the other NOAA functions. While we
entirely agree with your sentiment, the coastal states do not have a
position on what the best organizational structure is to accomplish
this goal.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mrs. Leyden.
And the Chairwoman will now recognize members for any questions
they may wish to ask the witnesses, alternating between the
majority and the minority, and allowing five minutes for each
member. And should members need more time, we can go into a
second round of questions. My first question is for Mr. Jack
Dunnigan. In your testimony you go into great detail describing
the Committee on Ocean Policy, established by the President
under Executive Order and how it represents one of the bold
steps the Administration is taking to implement the
recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
In that regard, I have two questions. First, if this
Committee is having such great success then why are you opposed
to codifying it in law? As you know, Mr. Dunnigan, Executive
Orders come and go, and if we want to ensure the Committee
continues it needs to be codified, is that not right?
Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you. I think that is an issue that we
need to talk about. I think there is perhaps an advantage to
moving forward and providing a stronger legislative basis for
what the President has done in the current structure. I think a
lot of the concerns that we have with that portion of the bill
are not just the questions of the codification of the Committee
on Ocean Policy but all of the other structural elements that
the bill would bring in to be a part of the overall scheme for
managing that we think could be duplicative and end up taking a
lot of our time away from actually doing the job of saving the
oceans.
Ms. Bordallo. Well I would certainly you know understand
your situation and the committee would like to have
recommendations as to how we can smooth this out. My next
question is at our hearing in March Admiral Watkins said that
despite the establishment of this Committee, it was difficult
to identify what the Administration was doing in terms of new
initiatives that were consistent with their recommendations. So
can you identify specifically what NOAA and other Federal
agencies are doing that truly implement the recommendations of
the Commission? In other words, how are things different than
they were before the release of the report of the U.S.
Commission?
Mr. Dunnigan. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that
there are a couple of things that can be pointed to, and what I
would like to be able to do is to give back to the committee a
very detailed response of the items that the various agencies,
the Administration have underway where we have been seeing a
lot of collaboration between the agencies. Let me talk about
just a couple of what those might be.
First of all, we are seeing in my experience--the long time
that I have been in government--an unprecedented amount of
collaboration where agencies are sitting down and actually
talking about how they can do their jobs better together. This
is being done through the various structures under the
Commission on Ocean Policy, the Subcommittee on Integrated
Management of Ocean Resources, the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean,
Science and Technology are the two main operational arms.
We have produced ocean research priorities document that
lays out over a long-term what all of the agencies together are
seeing as the critical research priorities for our government
to be able to move forward productively in the future. We
worked very hard as an Administration with the Congress to see
the enactment of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act reauthorization last year, and that was a very
important part of the priorities that we brought forward.
Last June 15 the President declared the largest marine
protected area on the planet, the Northwest Hawaiian Islands
National Marine Monument, and we are working aggressively now
with partners and other agencies to implement that so that we
can safeguard the heritage and the value of those resources for
the people of our country.
We are doing a better job of coordinating on marine
transportation policy through the Committee on Marine
Transportation Systems where once again we are seeing a suite
of agencies sit down and work together in ways that we have not
in the past. So those are just a few examples, Madam Chair, of
where things are working better right now.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Dunnigan, and now
the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, the gentleman from
South Carolina.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Dunnigan, the
Administration had 90 days to respond to the U.S. Ocean
Commission Report and its recommendations. The Administration
viewed these as recommendations, not mandates, is that correct?
Mr. Dunnigan. Yes sir.
Mr. Brown. How did the various departments discuss the
recommendations and determine which would be included in the
President's action plan?
Mr. Dunnigan. There was a very broad collaboration that was
led by the Council on Environmental Quality that included an
array of civilian and noncivilian agencies focusing on the
important items that we all saw, and there was a realistic
ranking we thought of things that could actually be
accomplished because the Administration did not want to just
see this report end up being something that sat on a shelf. So
we came forward with a specific set of actions that we thought
we be achievable within a reasonably recognizable timeframe,
and the President took those recommendations and implemented
the oceans action plan.
Mr. Brown. Thank you very much. Ms. Leyden, in his written
testimony Mr. Dunnigan mentioned existing regional
collaboration efforts, the Northeast Regional Ocean Council,
the West Coast Governor's Partnership, the Gulf of Mexico
Alliance and the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. You have
been involved in the Northeast Regional Council. Was it
developed voluntarily, and has it worked well, and would the
states support a continuation of these type of cooperative
efforts?
Ms. Leyden. Yes, the Northeast Regional Ocean Council was
developed voluntarily through the efforts of Rhode Island
Governor Carcieri who really corralled the region's Governors
and made it an agenda item that was considered at the New
England Governors' Conference. We are just getting off the
ground. We have identified four key priority areas. I have to
say that the Federal agencies, primarily through NOAA, were
extremely responsive in coming to our initial meetings and
helping us work through what the Federal agencies thought the
priorities were and how those corresponded to what the state
view was.
We are having our first oceans Congress on May 24 bringing
together people around the issues of coastal hazards, maritime
security, ecosystem health, and energy. Yes, I----
Mr. Brown. Where will that be? Where is that located? Where
will that be located?
Ms. Leyden. It is going to be located in Durham, New
Hampshire at UNH.
Mr. Brown. OK. Thanks. One other question. I have concerns
with the creation of the ocean trust fund and its budget
implications. Your comments regarding the need to retain
flexibility to fund programs and priorities was important.
However, the President has not asked for full funding for many
ocean programs leaving ocean programs as a low priority.
Without dedicated funding, how will the agency and the
Administration work toward getting more funding for ocean
programs?
Mr. Dunnigan. Would you like me to respond, sir? This is an
issue that comes up continually to Congress in a wide variety
of circumstances. Ocean funding is what we have in front of us
today. We are concerned that we establish a system that takes
flexibility away from the President and the Congress to be able
to address priorities as you have to face them every year and
as they change, and when you get into a system where you have
dedicated funding that is not run through the budget process,
to that extent the President and the Congress are losing their
flexibility to be able to deal with problems as they arise, and
that is typically why many Administrations over the years have
tended not to like the kinds of proposals that are included in
the bill.
I would point out though that the President's budget for
Fiscal Year 2008 includes significant new funding for the
oceans that has not been in the President's budget before, and
we think that this came about as a result of all of the
activity of the U.S. Commission and following up on the ocean
action plan, and we would strongly hope that Congress would be
able to provide that funding that is in the President's budget.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Mr.
Brown, and now the Chair recognizes Mr. Faleomavaega from
American Samoa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to
thank Mr. Dunnigan and Ms. Leyden for their fine testimonies
this morning. I had indicated earlier in my opening statement
about the concern of duplication, overlappings. Now you know we
only have 280 Federal agencies here in Washington, D.C. with
some 220,000 people working under these 280 agencies already in
existence.
Now I realized that you had indicated, Mr. Dunnigan, you
have to give the President or the Administration some sense of
flexibility but sometimes also flexibility could also be to the
point where we get nothing done, and this is the reason and the
purpose why we pass legislation to make sure that we are on
target. That we know exactly what the policy is, and I am sure
you will agree with me oceans can sometimes be abstract in
form.
When you talk about three miles out in the ocean, we have a
different set of laws for that problem. If you talk about 12
miles out in the ocean, it is another set of laws, and then
when you talk about 200 miles, that is what you call an
economic exclusive zone, an entirely different body of law also
has to be figured into this whole process. So if I wanted to
ask you what do you mean by ocean? I know the Pacific Ocean
because I live in the middle of it, and I can appreciate all of
our coastal states around the United States.
So I have a real deep appreciation of what an ocean is
because I live right in the middle of one. So can you tell me
if I am being abstract about when you define what is the ocean
that you are talking about?
Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you, sir. No, I do not think you are
being abstract at all. I think you are hitting on a critically
important point that we are beginning to understand a lot more
about than we have in the past, and that is how interconnected
everything is. It is not just a question of blue water or green
water or brown water. It is a question of systems that engage
each other and that people have to interact with and live among
in a wide variety of values that different people have with
respect to those oceans.
We are active, for example, in a Gulf of Mexico hypoxia
task force, which is an interagency task force that works with
states, and recognizing that the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of
Mexico is fed by things that come down the Mississippi River
from a very wide part of our country. So I think the point you
are making is that things are interconnected and ecosystems
approaches toward considering them are essential if we are
going to be effective.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And you had indicated earlier, and I do
want to give credit to the President for his initiative in
establishing by Executive Order the Commission on Oceans
Policy. May I ask how long have we been dealing with this on
the Commission? I mean on the question of as you had indicated
there will be an Administration proposal by way of legislation.
When do we expect to have that proposed bill?
Mr. Dunnigan. There will be an Administration proposal on
the Organic Act for NOAA I think was what I said, and I think
that you will see that within a couple of weeks, and I think
that it will not be all that different from the one that the
Administration brought forward in the 109th Congress.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Ms. Leyden, I want to thank you for being
the outstanding leader of our coastal states and territories,
and I hope we will continue this organization to kind of keep
an eye on what we are doing here too in Washington. I wanted to
ask you in terms of dealing with coastal states you talk about
the health of the oceans and the coastlines.
When we are talking about coastal states, how many people
are we talking about in terms of how does this impact or affect
people who live along the coastal states? I mean what are we
talking about? Twenty million? A hundred and fifty million
Americans affected by the kind of policies that come from
Washington that affects not only the ocean but our coastlines.
Ms. Leyden. My staff member tell me that it is actually 53
percent of the United States' population is within the coastal
zone.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Fifty-three. That is a little over 150
million being half, right, since we are about 300 million
people living in this country?
Ms. Leyden. Right.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. So it is a substantial number of
people whose lives are impacted for those who live in the
coastlines and again in terms of those that relates to our
oceans policy. If I were to define what an oceans policy is,
you are talking about marine resources. You are talking about
fisheries. You are talking about the regulatory agencies that
regulate and the other agencies like NOAA that promotes
commercial fishing, if you will, recreational aspects that I
know my good friend from New Jersey is very sensitive about and
rightly so.
And so we have a whole mix of issues and things that we put
it all together it becomes chop suey, and I am just wondering
if it is going to be delicious or if it is going to end up sour
in terms of how we are trying to solve this problem.
Ms. Leyden. Is that a question, sir?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes, it is. If I could maybe state it
better. Ten more seconds or is it past? I am sorry. My time is
up. I have to obey my Chair or she is going to kill me. I will
wait for the second round. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Let us just say we run a tight ship. The
Chair now recognizes Mr. Gilchrest from the State of Maryland.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I ask unanimous
consent that my full statement be submitted into the record,
and I would also like to invite the entire committee--certainly
with the people that are testifying today I keep forgetting to
ask you this--we did it several years ago to come over to
Maryland to go canoeing on the Sassafrass River which is a
tidal basin to the Chesapeake Bay and show you a number of
things that we are trying to do over there on the local level
to meet this integrated system that we are talking about this
afternoon. So some time late spring, early summer the whole
committee is invited to the Turner's Creek.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Maryland
Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo and Ranking Member Brown, for the
opportunity to share with the Committee my views on oceans policy and
H.R. 21, the Oceans Conservation, Education, and National Strategy for
the 21st Century Act (OCEANS-21).
It was my pleasure to work with both of you during my tenure as
chairman of the Subcommittee, and I am very pleased to participate as a
Subcommittee member in an increased interest in broader ocean policy
issues by the Natural Resources Committee. It has also been my pleasure
to work with my colleagues, the co-chairs of the House Oceans Caucus,
on this legislation. I believe it has been greatly improved.
Establishing and implementing a comprehensive oceans policy is complex,
and its gravity and importance--equal to the vast importance of our
oceans and coasts to our economy and quality of life--deserves careful
consideration.
As the Subcommittee knows, I have long advocated for greater review
and implementation of the two ocean commissions' recommendations to
Congress, including an effort to establish a select committee on
oceans. I joined my distinguished colleagues in supporting OCEANS-21,
because it is my hope that it can generate the policy discussion
necessary to accomplish this goal. I see that process toward beginning
here, with OCEANS-21. This hearing will provide valuable information
toward refining OCEANS-21 through our distinguished witnesses. I also
want to recognize the work of my House Oceans Caucus colleagues, Rep.
Sam Farr, Rep. Tom Allen, and Rep. Jim Saxton on OCEANS-21.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy report and the Pew Oceans
Commission Report represent the most comprehensive review of the
challenges facing the health of our oceans, summary of existing federal
ocean authorities and programs, and recommendations to restore our
oceans. The most striking comments woven throughout the documents are
those pointing to the need to raise the visibility of oceans and to
more efficiently and effectively coordinate federal ocean policy and
programs to fully utilize and protect them. As the reports points out,
gaps in ocean policy and protections are rooted in either overlapped or
disconnected jurisdiction of governmental institutions at all levels,
including Congress.
As both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans
Commission have reported, our oceans and coasts are in trouble. Among
other threats, harmful algal blooms, invasive species, and pollutants
threaten the health of our coastal waters and essential fish and
wildlife habitat are being significantly degraded or lost. Now, we are
also acutely aware of the effects of climate change exacerbating the
already serious state of the oceans. Rising sea levels and severe
coastal storms are eroding our coasts, changing ocean temperatures and
the absorption of CO2 is likely to alter the basic chemistry, food web,
and distribution of ocean resources. Changes in ocean temperatures are
affecting ocean currents that are important to the regulation of our
climate.
While our oceans contribute $117 billion annually to the U.S.
economy and support more than two million jobs--2.5 times the total
economic output and 1.5 times the employment of the farm sector--ocean
policy issues are spread out among over 30 standing committees in
Congress and multiple federal agencies. The diversity of committee
jurisdiction in Congress over ocean issues illustrates the complexity
of this single topic; however, greater coordination and visibility for
ocean policy in Congress will improve both the benefits we receive from
the oceans and our stewardship of them.
Currently, ocean resource issues are primarily the jurisdiction of
the House Committee on Natural Resources and its Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans. It is my hope that the Committee will
lead the way toward comprehensive, national ocean policy across all
relevant committees that addresses the multi-dimensional and cross-
jurisdictional nature of our oceans and coasts.
During our March 2007 hearing, we heard testimony from leadership
of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative's (JOCI) two leaders, Admiral
James Watkins (Ret.) of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and The
Honorable Leon Panetta of the Pew Oceans Commission, on the state of
our oceans and policy priorities. They reiterated the priority ocean
policy recommendations from JOCI to Congress, which were taken from the
original reports from both commissions. OCEANS-21 directly reflects
several of the top ten of these recommendations, including adopting a
statement of national ocean policy, establishing NOAA in statute,
fostering ecosystem-based regional governance, and establishing an
Ocean Trust Fund. I believe OCEANS-21 is a significant starting point
toward restoring and strengthening the health of our coasts and oceans.
I strongly support development of legislation that addresses these
recommendations and look forward to working towards the continued
improvement of the policies proposed in OCEANS-21.
Again, I thank Chairwoman Bordallo and Ranking Member Brown for
recognizing the importance of our oceans and taking action to more
sustainably manage this irreplaceable resource.
______
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Gilchrest. For a picnic and a canoe ride.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Gilchrest. I will.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would like to invite all my colleagues
to come and visit my territory.
Mr. Gilchrest. We will be there, Eni.
Mr. Faleomavaega. With the only exception you pay your own
fare coming down there. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. And I will round that out with a visit to
Guam. No objection.
Mr. Gilchrest. Visit to Guam. Three places, Turner's Creek,
American Samoa and Guam. OK. First of all, I want to compliment
the Administration on its effort with Magnuson and basically
helping us create this language that ended over fishing and a
number of other things were built on top of that. So we can
conclude that that was a first big step in the right direction
with our oceans, and I want to compliment all the NGO's that
are in the room for the years of service to this issue. It has
been pretty extraordinary.
And I want to start by giving a quote that I just read
recently in the last couple of days. This was a quote
associated with Vietnam and Iraq, but I think it also can apply
here, and that is, ``History is a vast early warning system'',
and we do not have to go back too far in history to know the
abundance that our oceans supply with a fragment of the
population that we have today, and then we see the huge
explosion of the human species across the planet now relying on
a minuscule of the resources that were there available to them
as little as 100 years ago.
And so when we look at that and there is numerous examples
that we can give, whether it is the Gulf of Mexico, whether it
is the Chesapeake Bay, whether it is the Gulf of Maine or the
Gulf of Alaska or almost anywhere you go. And I recently read
an article. I think it was Palo, an island in the South
Pacific, and a number of other islands are going to follow this
discretion. The ancient tradition in these atolls or islands
was that you follow the natural cycles of the fish, and you had
certain areas that were isolated that you did not fish because
you knew that is where they spawned.
And then when the larger fishing boats came in and
traditions changed, they saw a drastic reduction in the fish
population that they depended upon, and so the elders have
reinstituted that understanding of the integrated processes
that they can observe every single day. So, Jack, you mentioned
the huge marine protected area in the Hawaiian Islands region,
and that is excellent, and we have protected areas in a number
of places around the planet.
Not only the United States but we cannot sustain life on
the planet by hoping those isolated marine protected areas are
going to do that. They are not going to do that. The entire
planet is a protected area for the species that are ongoing
that are growing. A recent scientist said, ``It is a virtual
impossibility for the rest of the world to have the lifestyle,
the standard of living in the United States with available
resources.'' A virtual impossibility.
So to find some ability to understand the integrated affect
of the air, the sea, and the water, and its impact by us who up
until recently had no understanding of nature's engineering
design, but now we do. And so what I would like to continue,
which is what both of you are suggesting, that we have Oceans
21, a bill, that reflects the two public and private
commissions about the need to look at the big picture, the
ocean, the atmosphere, the land, how human activity degrades
and is not compatible with nature's design.
The big picture. Not fragmentations in various committees
or various agencies but the big picture, and then for all of us
to work together to create that structure that is reflective of
the big picture. People assume--my constituents, constituents
around the country--assume that the government is competent.
Now we know that we would like the government to be competent
but we know all of the other various issues that enter the
interplay of when we do our work from various interest groups,
whether they want the whole world to be a marine protected area
or whether they want the whole world to be a facility where we
can extract resources for the immediate present and not the
overall future.
So, Jack, you mentioned 46 action items of which most of
them are done. I am done? OK. Anyway, let us sit together and
work up a bill, a piece of legislation, statutes that are
worthy of all of us here. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Gilchrest, your witness can answer the
question on the next round. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Frank
Pallone, State of New Jersey.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I wanted to start
out by saying that you know I commend Mr. Farr and Mr. Allen
for following up on the recommendations of the Pew Commission
and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy in putting together
this Oceans 21 legislation which I do think is a good bill, and
this idea of setting a national ocean policy to protect our
marine ecosystems and resources is critical, and we also need
to pass the NOAA Organic Act, which I understand is also
incorporated in this.
I think we need to find ways to increase coordination
amongst the myriad agencies that address ocean and coastal
issues because too often those agencies are making decisions in
a vacuum without considering the complexity of ocean systems.
My questions though relate to fisheries management because I
mentioned to Congressman Farr before that in my district--and I
suppose nationally--but I will only speak for my district, a
lot of the recreational fishermen are concerned and saying that
this is going to have a major impact and create a huge
bureaucracy, and make it more difficult to make fisheries
management decisions.
And I do not know if that is true. I mean it may very well
be that there is very little impact on fisheries here but let
me just give you an example, and I will ask Mr. Dunnigan from
NOAA these questions. In Section 101 of the bill, it sets a
national ocean policy and requires the Federal agencies approve
certain actions only if they will not significantly impact the
health or restoration of marine ecosystems.
Now what I am getting from the fishermen are statements
like this: That this provision would basically mire fisheries
management officials in new requirements and mandates that
would make it difficult for the industry, hurt the commercial
sector, make it less competitive, you know create a whole level
of new bureaucracy, and they used an example for example of you
know would you be able to approve a quota for fishing you know
with a species that is not currently at maximum sustainable
yield?
I will give you an example right here. They say the
National Marine Fisheries Service and the Mid-Atlantic Council
could not set a minimum size on fluke or allow a limited
harvest on spiny dorkfish you know because of that. Do you see
it impacting that in any way? I mean you know Congressman Farr
tells me that is not the case. So I do not want to get into it.
I am not trying to relate it to him. I am just asking your
opinion.
Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you, sir. I am trying not to do
fisheries these days but every once in awhile----
Mr. Pallone. Well maybe we could all----
Mr. Dunnigan.--I run back into it. I think that the point
you are making, Congressman, is one of the ones that causes us
to have some concerns about the language of the legislation.
The Congress and the Administration worked so hard last year to
get the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorized, and we are working
very hard to get it implemented, working with the regional
fishery councils, that it would be difficult, we think, to have
to work in a whole other set of standards that come in on top
of it, and it creates this next level of worry, this perhaps
next level of litigation possibilities that we are afraid are
going to get in the way of effectively moving forward with the
implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and that is one
example.
There are lots of other pieces of legislation where this
similar kind of issue could play out. So the concern that we
have had in reviewing the bill is that it could lead to those
kinds of problems, and we would not want to see that happen.
Mr. Pallone. Now what about Section 402 that sets up the
regional ocean partnerships to help facilitate communications
and collaborations? I mean would they have any decisionmaking
authority over fisheries management? Would they be able to step
in and prevent a permitting decision in your opinion?
Mr. Dunnigan. I am not sure how it would play out, sir. I
think our belief----
Mr. Pallone. You have the Committee on Ocean Policy too.
Mr. Dunnigan. Right.
Mr. Pallone. These are all different you know.
Mr. Dunnigan. You know our view is that fisheries ought to
be managed through the council process, and we want to be able
to support that. It is a difficult job, as you know, and they
require the resources and the attention that they could get. So
I think you know while the idea of having a national ocean
policy is one thing that we should talk about----
Mr. Pallone. Let me just ask this because I know the time
is gone. You would probably suggest that we do some changes to
avoid the possibility that these fishery management decisions
would be impacted?
Mr. Dunnigan. I think we would want to have the chance to
talk to you about that. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pallone. All right. That is all I am asking at this
point. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Chair thanks the gentleman. And now I would
like to recognize Mr. Saxton from New Jersey.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Madam Chairlady. I have some
questions which I would like to submit to this panel in writing
for their answers, but I would like to pursue the subject and
perhaps invite Mr. Farr to express his views on this as well
during my time, but it seems to me that there ought to be a
way. I mean that is what this committee is for to finalize
language or to improve language.
And we all worked together last year on Magnuson trying to
develop an Act, a law that would work to help conserve fish and
at the same time make sure the door stays open for harvest of
seafood, both recreational and commercial, and the last thing
that I will tell you what after Mr. Gilchrest and I and others
went through--and my knuckles are still healing up from that
fight--and I want to make sure Magnuson continues to go forward
and work.
And so let us work together to see if we cannot solve some
of these problems. If in fact the people who are bringing up
these problems have a real problem, then we ought to fix it. We
should not do something to emasculate what we did just last
year. Let me yield to Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much for yielding, Mr. Saxton. Let
me point out that the next panel has a fisherman on it, Zeke
Grader, and I worked with Zeke for 25 years. One of the things
that we have seen is that fishery councils only have the
authority to deal with fisheries. So what happens is if you
have an threat, they cut the quota because they do not have any
other ability to deal with other factors that may be related to
but not in the fishery itself. That is why they are here to
testify that we need a much broader policy and a coordination.
In addition to that, the legislation--and you had a lot to
do with this--you put in the bill that nothing in this Act
shall be construed to supersede or diminish the authority of
responsibility under any other provision of law of any Federal
agency or state or political subdivision thereof to establish
or implement more stringent requirements to concern the ocean
resources. So that still leaves it up to local management and
existing laws to do that.
What is key to this bill is this national policy. Think
about it. I mean we are the only government that has
jurisdiction over all this ocean mass. There is no state
responsibility out to 200 miles, and if we are going to try to
reduce this sort of conflict issue, which is what everybody is
into, you have to have a governance structure.
Mr. Saxton. Madam Chairlady, believe me this is a subject
that we need to deal with, and I look forward to working with
Mr. Farr and Mr. Dunnigan and Mr. Pallone and others to try to
do something that will assure us that we will have a workable
process when we are finished. Thank you and I yield.
Mr. Pallone. I was going to ask him to yield.
Mr. Saxton. Sure.
Mr. Pallone. But he just gave back his time.
Mr. Saxton. I will yield my time left.
Mr. Pallone. I just wanted to indicate that I totally agree
with what Mr. Saxton said, and I did talk to Congressman Farr
briefly, and you know I know that it is not the intention here
to you know change the fisheries management system but I also
think it is necessary for us to sit down and to address it
because we literally are you know getting you know all kinds of
attacks directly on the legislation.
So we need to address it but I understand that that is--you
know after talking to Congressman Farr--that there is no
intention here to you know change the way the councils act or
the way the fisheries management agencies proceed at this
point. So I think that is significant but I still think we need
to talk about it a little more. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest. Will the gentleman yield? He has 15 seconds.
I think part of what Sam is talking about with ocean governance
is what has been mentioned a couple of times about what is
local responsibility and what is local opportunity. Ocean
governance has a way of pulling in people to have some sense of
obligation and responsibility and an opportunity to recognize
the ocean issues from an ecosystem perspective. Everything
impacts the ocean.
If you look at oysters, it is not only that they were over
harvested in the Chesapeake Bay so there is 99 percent of them
gone compared to what it was 100 years ago, but it is also all
the human activity and all the soil runoff and all the other
degradation activities that have caused the oysters to drop
down. So I think what we are doing in this bill is to deal with
it in a holistic approach. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much. The Chair
wishes to ask Mr. Saxton, did you have some questions you
wanted to submit for the record? Yes, with no objection. And
now the Chair recognizes Ms. Capps from the State of
California.
Ms. Capps. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I have not had a
chance to formally thank you for holding this hearing and
particularly appreciated the first panel, one of whom is
sitting next to me, and I am a cosponsor of the Oceans 21
legislation. My district is contiguous with Mr. Farr's on the
Pacific coast, and have enormous respect for the four coauthors
of that legislation, and I am proud to be part of the Caucus
from which it has come to, and so pleased that this
Subcommittee is dealing with these issues, and thank you to all
of our witnesses today in the three panels that we are having
on this topic.
Ms. Leyden, I would like to start with you, and actually my
questions to you are part of the context of the conversation we
have been having already but I want to frame it in just a
little different way. I am hesitant to release it into a
conversation because I want to ask a question of our witness.
But you mentioned in your testimony several incentives other
than just money to encourage state participation and regional
governance. That is what we are talking about right now.
One is the joint approach to the sighting of energy
projects and other emerging uses of the ocean. I have a
particular interest in your flushing this discussion out a bit
on how this might work. We had a discussion on this topic
earlier this week at a hearing on renewables on the OCS, and I
immediately think of CZMA and how important it was, is and I
hope will still be because it has let California have a say in
whether or not new drilling would be allowed off our coast. We
have had experience with this, and if so, under what
conditions.
You know just recently our coastal commission used this
very law to reject a proposed LNG terminal in my area that
would have polluted our air and water. I have two questions for
you, and then I do want to go to our other witness too. Would
the states want the responsibility for planning the sighting of
such projects in Federal waters off their coasts, and how would
it fit with Federal responsibilities?
Ms. Leyden. I think that there has certainly got to be a
better way to site energy facilities that we all acknowledge
that we need and to not end up in the situation that we are in
now of going through extremely lengthy permitting processes and
having facilities' permits denied. So I think that this
comprehensive approach to sighting would be an extreme
incentive of the regional ocean partnership type of framework,
and I think states would look forward to that. It could be a
streamlined approach where issues of concern could be
identified early on and perhaps resolved.
Ms. Capps. We had such strong impression locally during
this recent application and the vote of the coastal commission
that the role of the Coastal Zone Management Act was so key in
allowing local communities which after all are the most
directly affected by any Federal policy or decision to affect
even within Federal waters both the states' jurisdiction and
the local communities, and I think the streamlining is affected
in a positive way by having all of those players, stakeholders
if you will, at the table.
Now it seems like from the Administration, I will let you
answer that briefly and go to Mr. Dunnigan, but we have all the
coordination and partnership that we need. Do you agree?
Ms. Leyden. That we have the partnership and coordination
that we need? I think that it is more creating a formalized
framework around it and a system to get additional resources
into the partnerships. I think the question was mentioned, I
think it was raised by Mr. Brown about the voluntary nature and
would these efforts continue, I think they are subject to the
whim and the energy of the states right now.
Ms. Capps. Right.
Ms. Leyden. And the beauty of formalizing them is to get
additional resources toward them and so we are all meeting a
common mark of achievement.
Ms. Capps. Right. And that harks back to the importance of
the Federal role in making sure that this is done. I see the
yellow light. Mr. Dunnigan, I want to ask for your written
reply because I just want to highlight a very important part of
the education budget through NOAA because we have this B-WET
program in my district which is proven to be such a valuable
piece, and I want to see how you respond to the President's
budget signaling education as a priority and what ways can we
guarantee that that is going to stay a priority through your
administration. If there is a second for him to respond now and
he can send me more in writing.
Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you, Congresswoman, and of course in
the National Marine Sanctuary that is in your district, the
education and outreach has been a major priority for us. The
Merido Program to get education and outreach to non-English
speaking people.
Ms. Capps. Right.
Mr. Dunnigan. And it has been a major priority for Admiral
Lautenbacher as the Undersecretary of NOAA to focus on
education.
Ms. Capps. Right. The budget has to reflect that too
otherwise it does not work.
Mr. Dunnigan. Understand, and we will be glad to follow up
with a more complete response.
Ms. Capps. Thank you very much. I yield.
Ms. Bordallo. The Chair thanks the gentlelady from
California. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Farr from California.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is just a
privilege to be back on this committee, one I used to serve on
many years ago. I have to respond to Mr. Dunnigan's comments.
Mr. Dunnigan, I think you are very disingenuous to come and say
the President has really upped the ocean's budget and we all
ought to be thankful to the President when in reality he has
cut the amount that Congress appropriated and enacted last year
and has done that every year.
In the hearing in Mr. Mollohan's subcommittee, I am on the
Appropriations Committee, not on that subcommittee, but in that
subcommittee I got to sit in on it, and after hearing from
Admiral Lautenbacher about what NOAA is up to in looking at
their budget which is not only oceans, it is also the
Atmosphere Administration, the majority of the money goes into
the A side, the atmosphere. The minority of the money goes into
the oceans. And they have never been able to come in and lobby.
They just do not lobby for it.
And one member of the committee said, we ought to just take
the O out of NOAA. They do not care about the oceans anymore.
And my point is that I think to come here and say you know just
give us our statutory authority in the Organic Act, which is in
this bill, but ignore everything else in there is really
disingenuous because the very commissions that went out and
looked at the activities of the Federal government, including
that of NOAA and the joint chairs Admiral Watkins and
Congressman Panetta reported to this committee and Congress
just a few months ago about they put out a report card, U.S.
ocean policy report card.
National ocean governance, C minus. Regional and state
oceans governance, an A minus. Regional and state. That is not
NOAA. International leadership. NOAA ought to be part of that.
D minus. Research science and education, D plus. Fisheries
management reform, primarily because of the work of Mr.
Gilchrest and Saxton who led that effort last year, a B plus
because of the passage of the Magnuson Act. And here is the
last one which is so key to it that we would not need this bill
if indeed we had enough money to carry out the responsibilities
and develop this interaction. We never have because NOAA has
not done it. New funding for ocean policy and programs, which
this bill is about and which Mr. Brown talked about, an F. An
F.
That report card explains why we are here today and why we
need to have a national ocean policy to bring all these things
in a coordinated fashion, and you know I guess what I am so
upset about is we worked so hard on this bill. There is not an
advocate in the Appropriations Committee that works harder to
get money for the O in NOAA, and today you come and bite the
hand that feeds you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank the gentleman from
California. He took away my subject matter. I was going to read
the report card but I just want to ask, Mr. Dunnigan, you
mentioned earlier in your testimony that the funding was up to
par. Is not the 2008 budget request actually lower than the
2007 appropriated level?
Mr. Dunnigan. Madam Chair, the overall levels of funding
that the country can make available for all kinds of programs
are decisions that you get to make, and Mr. Farr as a member of
the Appropriations Committee I know understands these things
completely, and it is limited funding. I think what is
important to recognize is that for what the Administration has
proposed in the past, there has been tremendous movement, and
this bill, this appropriation request for 2008 in some very
important areas for oceans and for ocean research, and it is
not just NOAA. There are other agencies that are participating
in this as well.
So is it the perfect answer at the end? That is a question
that you all are going to get an opportunity to work out
through your appropriation processes over the next couple of
months.
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Dunnigan, just an answer to my question
though. Is not the budget request for 2008 lower than the 2007
appropriation?
Mr. Dunnigan. For the specific areas that we are in?
Ms. Bordallo. NOAA.
Mr. Dunnigan. For NOAA? That is true.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much. The Chair now
recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair, and let me continue
those same questions. So the bill appears to require a new
level of approval and the requirement of any new ocean
activities meet a new set of standards. How will this affect
offshore aquaculture, and would individual permits be likely to
face litigation if those opposed to aquaculture wanted to block
new permits?
Mr. Dunnigan. I do not think we have a clear answer to that
question yet, sir. The Administration's Aquaculture bill which
the Secretary has signaled is a high priority for the
department and for the Administration is going through its
final steps of interagency clearance right now, and we will
have that you know to bring up to Congress in the very new
future, and I think we will have a better opportunity at that
point to look specifically at the questions relating to
aquaculture.
Mr. Brown. And I might ask Mr. Farr this question and you
might know it too. What would be the fiscal impact on the
receipts of the new permits or license? How much would that
generate in this bill?
Mr. Farr. We do not have any authorization in here. What we
create is a Federal stamp.
Mr. Brown. Right. How much would that generate?
Mr. Farr. We do not know.
Mr. Brown. OK.
Mr. Farr. But that money would go back into the program. It
would recycle back into.
Mr. Brown. Do you know how H.R. 21 might affect
aquaculture?
Mr. Farr. Well I think the fisheries expert is sitting
right to your right.
Mr. Brown. I am sorry. I missed him.
Mr. Farr. I mean we have a lot of fisheries too but
certainly not like the Chesapeake has in aquaculture but what
you have I mean this is the difficulty. We have created a lot
of stovepipe agencies throughout the years to deal with you
know one thing, and what we find is when you try to solve a
problem it is comprehensive. It requires a lot more, and the
laws some of them are conflict, and frankly where you get the
advantages for filing lawsuits is when the law is not clear and
you have not been able to work out these things.
We have found in the coastal zone management, at least in
California because we have one stop in that requirement, one
stop for Federal agencies, for private sector, for local. I
mean usually governments that are exempt from these all come
and are required to be at the same table and come up with the
same outcomes to meet the standards. That is kind of a model
but it is not what we are doing here. We are not as strict as
that.
It is going to be difficult to answer your question but I
cannot think that it would not be better, be more helpful to
have because then you can say this is where aquaculture ought
to occur and give it a green light.
Mr. Brown. OK. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, before I
yield back the balance of my time, I would like to ask for
unanimous consent to submit Mr. Young's statement for the
record.
Ms. Bordallo. No objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Don Young, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Alaska
Madame Chairwoman, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on H.R.
21, the Oceans Conservation, Education, and National Strategy for the
21st Century Act.
Without a doubt, every Member of this Committee and probably every
Member of Congress wants healthy, productive oceans. My state relies on
its natural resources and its ocean resources more than any other
state. The waters off Alaska provide this nation with about half of all
the seafood produced in the United States and we have managed our
natural resources in a sustainable manner. However, we also believe
that man is an integral part of the natural processes and that we can
use our natural resources. We do not see a need to lock away those
resources, but rather, we believe in appropriate management.
I do not doubt that the authors of this legislation have noble
intentions, but as always, the devil is in the details.
Madame Chairwoman, this legislation will require--let me repeat
require--a new level of Federal bureaucracy and a totally new set of
standards that have to be met for every project or activity that
affects or is likely to affect the ocean or coastal area. Image going
through every hoop that is currently in place including the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act, the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, the Clean Water Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act
and a host of other laws only to find out that you now had to get the
Administrator of NOAA to make a determination that your activity met a
whole new set of standards--standards which are totally different than
those currently in any other law. Not only that, but the determination
by the Administrator could be challenged by anyone who didn't like your
activity and tie you up in Federal court.
At a time when this Subcommittee is examining potential new sources
of renewable energy in the ocean environment and may be looking at
moving legislation to authorize offshore aquaculture, it is interesting
that some Members would like to force these new technologies and new
programs to a new set of standards in addition to all of the existing
standards. They would like us to create a new regulatory structure for
these new technologies and then subject them to an additional level of
scrutiny. Is it any wonder that the OTEC law has been on the books for
more than 20 years and NOAA says that they have not received a single
license request?
If Members think that the Endangered Species Act has caused
gridlock, just wait until this new, additional level of review and
approval is required.
At a time when many Members are concerned about funding issues for
NOAA and are concerned that NOAA seems incapable of meeting its current
obligations under existing law, it is ironic that they are asking the
Administrator to now review every single project or activity that is
likely to affect the ocean--even those projects on land.
Yes, that is right. On land activities that are likely to affect
the coast or ocean would now be reviewed by the Administrator of NOAA.
Local and state zoning decisions could be reviewed, challenged or pre-
empted by this legislation. In addition to prohibiting at-sea
activities, military activities which are conducted on land, but which
could affect the coast would now be subject to review and could be
rejected if they don't meet these new standards. Agricultural
activities in Missouri would now have to get approval and meet these
new standards if someone makes a determination that farm runoff affects
the health of the Gulf of Mexico. It is possible that any farm that
receives any Federal farm subsidies would have to get a permit before
they use fertilizer on their private lands.
Yes, I am looking at this from the worst case scenario. I am one of
the only Members on this Committee who remembers the debate on the
original Endangered Species Act. The unintended consequences of that
legislation have totally changed what was a well-intentioned bill into
a bureaucratic and litigation nightmare.
Let me repeat that we all want healthy, productive oceans but not
at the expense of all human related activities.
______
Mr. Brown. OK. Thank you very much.
Ms. Bordallo. I did----
Mr. Dunnigan. Madam Chair, can I clarify something? I made
a mistake. I understand that the aquaculture legislation has
been sent to the Hill and was introduced yesterday by Chairman
Rahall.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. I
just want to announce to the panel here and to the witnesses
that are coming up on the second panel we have three votes. I
think we have committee of the whole. We have one vote, is that
correct? So I will recess for about----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Our symbolic vote.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes, our symbolic vote. For about 15 minutes
and excuse and thank the witnesses, the first panel, and we
will then begin after the 15-minute recess with the second
panel, and I wish to thank you all.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair, can I just ask one or two
questions to Mr. Dunnigan if it is all right with you?
Ms. Bordallo. OK. But everybody else is excused. Mr.
Kennedy too. I am sorry. Yes. I would like to recognize Mr.
Kennedy from Rhode Island. Mr. Kennedy, would you like to ask
questions?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. If I could ask, Ms. Leyden, if you would
in terms of a regional need for accountability measures we are
seeing in my state the adoption of kind of the national
standards in the Magnuson in terms of the ocean governance for
fish species and lobstering, privatization basically of those
fishing permits you know, and it is leading so that you have to
sell your rights to your licenses to fish so that the only
people who are fishing are people who can purchase the
licenses. So we are now having our commons, which are our
oceans, it is our commons, it is the people and it is the
oceans. It is public. The only people who get rights to that
are the people who have the highest bid.
What can we do? I mean I know we have to protect our
oceans, and I know this bill is going to be doing a lot to try
to develop policy in that area but maybe you could give us some
guidance as to what your opinions are on this difficult issue.
I know it has been debated a million times.
Ms. Leyden. Well, I think the beauty of Oceans 21 it is not
focused on any one sector like fishing and does not attempt to
change fisheries regulation. We have talked about that quite a
bit. It is the intersection of fishing and oil development and
et cetera, et cetera, and the intent is not to negatively
affect commerce. It is to do additional proactive planning that
personally I believe is a way to perhaps achieve more equitable
distribution or balance of development and conservation and
perhaps you know make it easier for offshore aquaculture if we
can direct it to the right locations.
Mr. Kennedy. But like I am trying to figure out--we are
trying to figure out--do you shorten the season? Do you change
the gear? I mean when you say benchmarks and accountability
measures, I mean we are trying to get our hands around some
specifics.
Ms. Leyden. In this particular legislation my testimony was
referring to benchmarks and accountability measures for the
regional ocean strategic plans that the bill talks about what
needs to in a regional ocean plan, developing actionable items
that may or may not include fisheries and making steps toward
achieving each of the strategies identified by the regions.
Mr. Kennedy. I appreciate you know that you are talking in
broad strokes on oceans protection but you know it is
particular. When you are talking about the oceans, you are
talking about the natural resources in the oceans. I am
bringing this up because it is a hot topic now in my state, the
ocean state, and we have just had our own state Governor limit
the three-mile state waters to adopt the Federal standards.
So it is the perfect reason as to why we need to pass this
bill is because it has absolutely alienated all the local
fishermen because if they were not already alienated by the
Federal law which they feel has you know further limited their
historic right to the commons, now they feel doubly put down by
the state effort to imitate the Federal rules, and so the point
I am making is that this is the reason why we need this Oceans
21 law is that we need to get to put down these benchmarks that
you are talking about and these level playing fields and not
have an arbitrary where the State of Rhode Island has one set
of rules and another state has another set of rules.
But that is what I was trying to get you to talk about a
little bit in context of this fishing issue because that is
clearly where the rubber meets the road so to speak with
contention with the fishing issue is where the most contentious
issues are I am sure you have seen managing natural resources.
Maybe you could talk about how it applies. You see these
policies applying at the local level.
Ms. Leyden. I think an example would be where a regional
ocean council gets formed and decides that they want to improve
water quality, reduce nutrients by X percent by a certain
target date because nutrients are having a particularly bad
effect in that region on marine habitats and species. So the
accountability measure would be did each of the jurisdictions
adopt the necessary rules and regulations to achieve that goal?
Mr. Kennedy. I see. So they all have to adhere to the same
standards? I got you. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island. We
do have to vote so the Chair wishes to recess this committee
for 15 minutes, and thank the witnesses of the second panel and
bring up the third panel right after the 15-minute recess.
[Recess.]
Ms. Bordallo. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and
Oceans will now commence, and I want to thank the panel, the
third panel witnesses who are here with us today. Thank you for
being patient and the rest of the members should be coming in
soon. Since I represent the territory of Guam, I can only vote
on the committee of the whole. So that is why I am back first.
I want to thank and welcome Dr. Andy Rosenberg, the
Professor of Natural Resources, Institute for the Study of
Earth, Oceans and Space at the University of New Hampshire, Ms.
Sarah Chasis, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense
Council, and Mr. Zeke Grader, Executive Director of the Pacific
Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association. He is with us,
right? Yes. All right. And Mr. David Benton, Executive Director
of the Marine Conservation Alliance.
I want to thank you all for being here today, and I would
now like to recognize Mr. Grader to testify for five minutes
and once again I remind the witnesses that the timing lights on
the table will indicate when your time has concluded, and we
would appreciate very much your cooperation in complying with
the limits that have been set. The rest of your full statement
will be entered into the record. Mr. Grader.
STATEMENT OF ZEKE GRADER, PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF
FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS
Mr. Grader. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I wish to thank
the Subcommittee for inviting us to be here to speak today in
regards to H.R. 21 and also to thank Congressman Farr and
Congressman Allen for introducing this bill. Among the other
fishing groups that we represent on the west coast are
commercial salmon fishermen, most of them in California as well
as members in Oregon and Washington, and this really gets to
the root of our interest in this issue of overall ocean
governance, and it dates back really 30 years now.
We had worked for the passage in 1976 of the Fishery
Conservation and Management Act but as we began implementing it
one of the things we quickly saw--and this was in particular
with regards to Pacific Coast salmon--is that well it was
fairly extensive and we have continued to improve upon it over
the past 30 years, the Magnuson Act, is the fact that all it
does is regulate fishing, and that for a number of our fish
stocks the problems confronting those were not fishing related
but related say for example to the loss of water in streams,
loss of coastal wetlands.
As we are most recently seeing within the Gulf of Mexico,
the brown shrimp fishery is being affected by the dead zone. So
it became pretty obvious to us and we began clamoring in 1977
to try and see what could be done to expand upon it so that the
councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service could have
more say over not just the fishing impacts but the non fishing
impacts as well.
We were met with a great deal of frustration during the
Magnuson Act reauthorization of 1985, 1986 for example. We
actually came in with a package of language that we suggested
that be looked at to try and expand upon the authority of the
councils but that was thwarted. I think about all that we got
in at that time was finally a recognition of habitat and I
think they wrote the word in during that reauthorization but
that is about as far as it went.
It has become fairly obvious to us that something had to be
done to be able to get at the other factors affecting our fish
stocks other than just fishing. Now obviously that is important
but for many fish stocks it is not the only factor affecting
the health or conservation of those stocks, and for that reason
we have become very interested and worked with the Pew Oceans
Commission, in particular my former President who had served on
it as one of the commercial fishermen members on there in
developing an overall oceans program that we felt could then
help us do a better job of conserving and managing our fish
stocks.
In regards to H.R. 21, I think there are probably four
particular parts to that that I note we are particularly
interested in and very supportive of. First of all is the
development and creation of a national ocean policy. I do not
need to go into this. I think former Congressman Leon Panetta
who now chairs the Pew Commission has done I think a great job
in explaining the need for a comprehensive national ocean
policy.
The second issue has to do with regional governance. Here
again we think it is going to be very important that we
establish regional--some have called them ecosystem councils.
There has been a great deal of fear that somehow this is going
to create a new bureaucracy for fisheries. That is something
that we are not interested in. We have enough bureaucracy
already but rather the way we view this is these would not
diminish the authority of the regional councils but actually
enhance them, enhance them that they could then take the issues
that do not relate directly to fishing activities, bring them
before these councils and maybe get something done.
The great example was where we saw the salmon closures the
last two years off the Pacific Coast. Those closures had
nothing to do with fishing. They had everything to do with
water use policy but we had no way of getting at those so I
think that is important. Two other important parts of this of
course are I think the creation of an ocean ecosystem resource
information system and also the trust fund. We have to have
more money if we are going to protect our oceans.
We have attached to our testimony a copy of a proposal we
have for fishery trust fund but we need to develop an ocean
trust fund as well. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grader follows:]
Statement of W.F. ``Zeke'' Grader, Jr., Executive Director,
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
Madam Chairwoman, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Zeke
Grader and I am the Executive Director for the Pacific Coast Federation
of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA), a position I have held for the
past 30 years. PCFFA represents working men and women in the West Coast
commercial fishing fleet, engaged in a number of different fisheries
and utilizing many different gear types. Individuals belonging to our
member organizations are primarily owner/operators or crew of small to
mid-sized fishing vessels--the ``family fishermen.''
I was pleased to be asked by the Subcommittee to testify this
morning on H.R. 21. Let me just say at the outset that the biggest
problem I have with the bill is its name, which, will all due respect
to members, is kind of clunky. Name aside, however, the bill has a
number of features that are innovative and should be adopted in our
national effort to protect our oceans and ensure sustainable fisheries.
As an organization, PCFFA has taken considerable interest in the
development of national ocean policy. Our former president, Pietro
Parravano, was one of two commercial fishermen members on the Pew
Oceans Commission and he has remained active with the Joint Oceans
Commission Initiative (JOCI). Mr. Parravano still serves as the
President of our non-profit research and education arm, the Institute
for Fisheries Resources.
Our interest in the development of an overall ocean policy goes
back to the early days of the Fishery Conservation & Management Act,
now called the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and our frustration with not being
able to address non-fishing factors, such as land and water use
practices and pollution impacts as they affected the conservation and
management of fish stocks. While it was true at that time most of the
impacts on fish stocks came from fishing, a few species such as salmon
were being ravaged by factors well beyond the control of either the
regional fishery management council, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, or even the state fishery agencies. Indeed, the only way at
all we've been able to effectively get at non-fishing impacts on fish
stocks has been through the Endangered Species Act. The problem is, it
only kicks in well after any directed fishery has been stopped and
stocks are in deep trouble, even threatened with extinction. We've had
no similar statute at hand for protecting healthy fish stocks from non-
fishing factors.
Thus, any measure that can help to protect fish habitat and fish
stocks from non-fishing activities--those activities the fishery
councils and agencies have no authority over--is welcomed. A national
ocean policy to coordinate the activities of the various federal
departments and agencies whose activities affect our oceans will help
the regional councils and NMFS be effective in carrying out their
conservation and management mandates.
There are five specific areas I'd like to touch on here today in
regards to H.R. 21.
Establishment of a National Oceans Policy
Reviewing Title I of H.R. 21 in its current draft, the language I
believe captures the recommendations of both the Pew Oceans Commission
and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Moreover, I believe it will be
helpful to our national efforts to better manage our fish stocks--
restoring and protecting them--and ensuring their sustainable use.
We do have concern regarding the application of the precautionary
approach and what that could mean in situations where we are data poor
with the potential for severe restrictions or closures in such
instances. However, we also recognize the need for caution when little
is known to prevent potential fishery collapses through inadvertent
over-harvest. The precautionary approach needs to go hand-in-hand with
a well-funded program for research and regular and comprehensive data
collection. This is why we believe the creation of a fishery trust
fund, as well as one for ocean research and management generally, is
urgent
There is one bit of caution we would add here, however. In our
experiences in working with departments such as Interior, there are
those agencies with an alpha dog complex that tend to dominate, e.g.,
the Minerals Management Service, the Bureau of Reclamation that too
often override sister agencies charged with the conservation of
resources, i.e., the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Thus, simply
creating an ocean policy and calling for agencies to coordinate their
activities affecting oceans and marine life will not by itself work
unless there is constant diligence--by the Congress and non-
governmental organizations, both conservation and fishing--to ensure
development does not override conservation and the protection of
natural resources, including the fish stocks fishing men and women rely
on for their livelihoods.
Fisheries Can No Longer Be a Poor Stepchild in a Science Agency
A change we would suggest to H.R. 21 in its Title II would be in
adding sections prior to the existing Section 204 Resource Management,
setting forth the role of a fishery agency, perhaps a Bureau of
Fisheries & Aquaculture--recalling the history of the old Bureau of
Fisheries with an acknowledgment of the need for regulation over
aquaculture in coastal and ocean waters. The charge here is broader
than just resource protection--to also include the preservation of the
nation's fishery heritage (commercial, recreational, tribal), its
fishing communities, and abundant and healthful, not merely
sustainable, fish populations. We also need to provide direction to
aquaculture development to ensure it is conducted in an ecologically
sound manner and does not threaten, but compliments our wild capture
fisheries.
Additionally we need a fishery agency that has its own
identification and that is viewed internationally on its own and not a
mere subset of NOAA. We don't need a ``NOAA Fisheries'', no more than
we'd tolerate a DOD Navy. That's why we think it may be time, with the
reorganization called for in H.R. 21, to finally establish a U.S.
Bureau of Fisheries & Aquaculture.
Congress may also wish to do the same for the national system of
marine sanctuaries, estuarine reserves, monuments and protected areas,
creating a stand-alone with its own clear identification. Among other
things, stand alone identification (as opposed to the demeaning NOAA
Sanctuaries of whatever on what day they chose to call themselves) lets
the public know clearly who is in charge. With the growing importance
of our sanctuaries, reserves and protected areas, a stand-alone entity
with its own identification is probably warranted.
National Ocean Leadership and Regional Coordination
PCFFA is pleased that fisheries have been included in Section 304,
the Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, along with the tribes. The
establishment of a system of regional coordination in Title IV of H.R.
21 is also welcomed. I felt the regional ecosystem panels, that were
recommended by the ocean commissions, had considerable merit and was
somewhat taken aback by the negative reaction and vehemence from the
regional fishery management councils. Regional ecosystem panels, I
believe, will actually enhance the authority of the regional fishery
councils, not diminish it. For the first time, they would have say over
non-fishing activities that may impair the implementation and
effectiveness of fishery management plans.
Resource Information System
PCFFA is very supportive of the language in Section 405 to create
Ocean Ecosystem Resource Information Systems. We have become solid
converts to this method of gathering, organizing and presenting data,
including research, graphs, photographs, etc., based on the Klamath
Resource Information System (KRIS) that was developed for watershed
management in Northern California watersheds, as well as some in
British Columbia and Maine.
It strikes us that if ecosystem based management is to go beyond
hype and press releases it must have a solid foundation and that is a
knowledge base. A resource information system serves as a repository
for all types of data for a specified place (place-based) and organizes
and integrates it in such a way as to be useful. Moreover, it can
provide the ``so-what'' of the data, making it meaningful to both
policy makers and the public, by posing hypothesis in a peer-reviewed
fashion regarding the meaning of various data. Further, a resource
information system, such as proposed in H.R. 21, provides an inventory
of research to better identify data gaps and prioritize research needs.
Trust Fund
Finally, we wish to commend the authors for including a trust fund
to support our nation's ocean activities. For at least a decade our
organization has recognized the inadequacy of funding sources for
fisheries and oceans and has been pushing for both a fishery trust fund
(an article and draft legislative language is attached to this
testimony) and a larger ocean trust fund. I am concerned about the
funding source for the trust fund put forward in H.R. 21, but at the
very least the bill is raising the issue and it would be a start.
Indeed, the trust fund language established in the recently
reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act is
from a small source, but it is an important beginning. We believe it
can be built on with the funding source we have suggested together with
a detailed method for the distribution of the monies to ensure the
funds are appropriately applied and well-spent. The same we think could
be true with what is being proposed in H.R. 21--that it is a beginning
to be expanded upon.
Conclusion.
Thank you again Madam Chairwoman and Subcommittee members for this
opportunity to provide this perspective from a commercial fishing
organization. We look forward to working with the authors and this
Subcommittee in the development and passage of legislation that will
further our efforts to better protect our oceans as well as the living
marine resources that depend on them--the fish and fishermen. I will be
happy to answer any question members may have.
***
Attachments:
1. Fishermen's News, August 2003
2. Fishery Research, Development & Conservation Fund
______
[NOTE: Attachments to Mr. Grader's statement have been retained in
the Committee's official files.]
Response to questions submitted for the record by Zeke Grader
QUESTIONS FROM THE HON. MADELEINE BORDALLO, CHAIRWOMAN
Regional Ecosystem Panels
There is has been some concern expressed by the fishery management
councils that Regional ecosystem panels might somehow impede or usurp
their authority.
1. Do you share this view?
No. If anything, regional ecosystem panels should afford fishery
management councils a ready means of addressing non-fishing impacts
(e.g., pollution, coastal wetland loss, offshore energy development)
that impair their ability to effectively conserve and manage the
nation's fisheries. If the fishery councils exert leadership, looking
beyond mere fishing regulation and allocation, the Regional Ecosystem
Panels will provide a mechanism for addressing the myriad of factors
affecting fish stocks that are currently outside of the authority given
the fishery councils and National Marine Fisheries Service under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act. If I were a
fishery council member I would see the Regional Ecosystem Panels as an
opportunity, not a threat.
2. What effect do you believe Regional Ecosystem Panels would have
on the fishery management councils' ability to manage fisheries?
I think this question is answered in part in Number 1 above.
Overall, I believe, the Regional Ecosystem Panels will allow the
fishery councils to force other agencies whose activities may have, or
are having, adverse affects on fish resources or fishing to address
those impacts. Under the MSA as recently reauthorized--particularly the
prohibitions on overfishing, requirements for stock rebuilding, the
mandates for science-based management, and the directive to move to
ecosystem-based management--it is hard to envision how the fishery
councils would lose any authority.
Indeed, the greatest threat, I believe, to fishery council and NMFS
authority, will be from a failure to adhere to the MSA and being sued
as a result. The lawsuits--that will occur if there is a failure by the
councils and NMFS to follow the law--will happen whether or not
Regional Ecosystem Councils are established. In that sense, the ability
of the fishery councils and NMFS to protect their existing authority is
in their own hands.
The one concern I have is that the fishery councils be provided the
additional staffing required to fully participate on the Regional
Ecosystem Panels. The representatives of the fishery councils should be
selected by the councils themselves--not NMFS, NOAA or Commerce--and
funding should be sufficient for these positions to assure the fishery
councils have strong, effective advocates for fish and fisheries on the
Regional Ecosystem Panels.
QUESTIONS FROM THE HON. HENRY BROWN, MINORITY RANKING MEMBER
1. In your written testimony you discuss the need for a stand
alone agency for fisheries, specifically a U.S. Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquaculture. In addition, you mention a stand alone agency for
Sanctuaries. How will creating additional separate agencies help create
better coordination?
First and foremost, I think its important that there be clear lines
of authority, so we know who is responsible--where ``the buck stops.''
In recent years that has been muddled by NOAA which has taken to
referring to all of its line agencies as ``NOAA Fisheries,'' ``NOAA
Weather Service,'' ``NOAA Sanctuaries,'' etc. and it's difficult to
know just who is in charge. Also, frankly, it's an insult to our
nation's fisheries--America's oldest industry--and our nation's fishing
men and women to have the agency responsible to them so denigrated to
have the term U.S. or National removed and replaced with the NOAA
moniker. Our nation's fishery agency, as well as its weather service
and, perhaps the growing sanctuary and reserve system, need to have
their own identity nationally and internationally as the responsible
authority, respectively, for fisheries, weather services, as well as
marine and estuarine protected areas.
Whether we decide to keep our national fishery agency within NOAA,
or give it a separate status within Commerce or even move it to
Agriculture or Interior, it needs to have its own clear identification.
The recommendation to remove the Nixon-era name, NMFS, with something
like a U.S. Bureau of Fisheries & Aquaculture is to recognize both the
historic roots of our nation's fishery agency and a part of its future
with the growth of cultured fish products. The name issue may not be
important from a policy standpoint, but it is a matter of pride. We'd
never think of calling the U.S. Navy, the ``DOD Navy,'' or the U.S.
Coast Guard the ``Homeland Security Coast Guard.'' Why should the
resource and the industry that helped make this nation be treated with
any less respect? I would hope this is considered in any NOAA Organic
Act legislation.
As far as coordination is concerned, I don't think this is a
problem. Congress just needs to direct federal agencies to coordinate
specific ocean functions (e.g., research), and provide the funding
necessary to carry out those coordination mandates. As a nation, when
we sought to improve our intelligence capabilities, Congress did not
meld the CIA with the FBI, but Congress gave the intelligence gathering
agencies clear direction to coordinate intelligence functions. If we
can do that for national intelligence, surely we can provide similar
direction for agencies whose actions affect our oceans without melding
them into one huge bureaucracy.
2. There are concerns that the regional ocean partnerships will
overshadow any existing entity. Yet you believe the regional
partnerships could enhance the regional fishery management councils.
Can you elaborate on why you think they will be enhanced and not
diminished?
Yes. I've responded in part to this question with my answers to the
questions posed by Chairwoman Bordallo above, stating how I believe the
conservation and management of fisheries function of the fishery
councils and NMFS would be enhanced. Another example would be the
national marine sanctuaries being able to raise issues of water quality
affecting sanctuary resources at a Regional Ecosystem Panel level, in
instances where the sanctuaries have no permitting authority over a
discharge or inflow from a river. Regional Ecosystem Panels would allow
the sanctuaries to raise these issues that neither they, nor other NOAA
line agencies, have authority over with agencies having that authority,
such as the EPA.
3. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy report contained a
definition of the precautionary approach which included language urging
decision makers to follow a balanced precautionary approach, applying
judicious and responsible management practices based on the best
available science and on proactive, rather than reactive policies. H.R.
21 does not contain reference to using science. How do you think this
changes the definition of ``precautionary approach.''
It has been my belief, based on my years of experience, that our
decisions should be science based. However, in recent years, the lack
of scientific ``certainty'' has been used as an excuse to ignore
problems, to do nothing, even where there was scientific evidence, or
just common sense, telling us that there was a problem needing to be
addressed. Thus, I understand the reason for the definition provided in
H.R. 21. I might suggest a slight rewrite as follows (the new language
is in bold)
PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH--The term ``precautionary approach''
means the approach used to ensure the health and sustainability
of marine ecosystems for the benefit of current and future
generations, and is based on the best scientific information
available, when such information is available; however, a lack
of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a
justification for postponing action to prevent environmental
degradation.
The definition above then makes clear that the precautionary
approach is to be based on science, but will not be held up to a
standard of ``full scientific certainty'' which is probably an
impossibility. It also allows for action where there may be no
scientific information and we have to rely on experience and common
sense.
4. What specific measures would you recommend Congress enact to
allow the Federal agencies to be more proactive in managing ocean
activities (shipping, fishing, etc) or development (aquaculture or
alternative energy platforms) in coastal waters?
First, I think we need clear a directive that it is the policy of
the nation to protect its oceans and their functions, water quality,
habitats and living marine resources. To that end, federal agencies are
directed to coordinate their activities, including research, in
furtherance of that policy.
Second, federal agencies should be directed, consistent with the
protection policy above, to foster:
a) preservation of the history and culture of the oceans,
including protection of traditional uses and ocean-resource dependent
communities;
b) protection, restoration and development of sustainable and
healthful food production;
c) opportunities for marine recreational uses
d) expansion of marine research and education programs;
e) maintenance and enhancement of safe ocean transportation;
f) development of renewable energy sources;
g) development of affordable and accessible pharmaceuticals and
medicines from ocean resources; and
h) development of safe fresh water drinking supplies from ocean
waters (desalination)
5. If you could pick portions of H.R. 21 to move forward, what
would you choose?
I identified five portions, in the testimony I presented on the
26th, of H.R. 21 that I'd recommend Congress move ahead on with some
modification. Those are:
a) Establishment of a National Ocean Policy. I think the responses
to question 4 above provide the rationale behind this;
b) NOAA Organic Act With Language Providing, Among Other Things,
Clear Identity and Statement of Responsibility for the Nation's Fishery
Agency. I've explained the rationale behind this in response to
question 1 by Mr. Brown. In my testimony, I suggested amending H.R. 21
to include specific language for the nation's fishery agency;
c) National Ocean Leadership and Regional Coordination. My
rationale for this is reflected in the responses to Chairwoman
Bordallo's questions and questions 1 and 2 posed by Mr. Brown;
d) Ocean Ecosystem Resource Information System. The establishment
of such a system, most likely on a regional basis, is critical for
coordination of research, providing an inventory and organization of
existing research and data, placing the information in a transparent
and accessible format, developing scientific hypothesis on the meaning
of the information and, finally, identifying ``data gaps'' and
establishing research priorities. It is particularly important, I
believe, such a system be developed as an essential step on the path to
ecosystem-based management. Such a system would the natural repository
for data collected from offshore instruments, and satellites;
e) Ocean Trust Fund. Finally, all the talk about ocean action
plans is just blather if there is no money to carry it out. I have
believed for over a decade now that both a national fisheries trust
fund as well as an ocean trust fund were needed to provide an ample and
stable funding source for carrying out the programs required for the
protection and wise utilization of our fish and oceans. In my
testimony, I attached a draft that has been developed (prior to the MSA
reauthorization) that could amend the newly established trust fund in
the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide the funding needed for our nation's
fishery and aquaculture programs. H.R. 21, is important, therefore,
establishing a trust fund that could then be built upon (as the MSA
reauthorization did for a fishery trust fund).
The truth of the matter is, with the competing national needs
Congress has to deal with in the appropriations process, fisheries and
oceans will continue to get short shrift unless an off-budget account
is created with its own funding source. This concept has worked
successfully for the Sportfishing Restoration Fund, and I think the
same thing is needed here for our fisheries and oceans.
I share the concerns of many that the annual appropriation called
for in H.R. 21 could diminish funding for current ocean programs. I
would recommend, instead, Congress consider royalties on existing OCS
uses, similar to what was recommended by the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy. However, I worry about the competition for OCS revenues and
would recommend instead, or in addition to, Congress consider a per
barrel fee on all oil sold in the U.S. California, for example, used
that concept--in this instance a $.05 per barrel fee on all oil shipped
into the state--to provide an ample and stable funding source for its
Office of Oil Spill Response. Given the impact on the ocean from oil
(both spills and urban run-off), the acidification that is occurring
due to ocean sequestration of carbon from greenhouse gasses in the
atmosphere, and the record profits enjoyed by the oil industry, such a
fee, I believe is warranted. It may make more sense than the excess
profits tax being proposed for the oil industry.
6. Prior to enacting an overarching bill such as H.R. 21 and its
ecosystem-based management approaches, Congress should review existing
legislation, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
Endangered Species Act, and either repeal or amend these laws to adhere
to the ecosystem-based management approach. What are your views on this
statement?
I don't agree with it. Basically it's a stalling tactic. I've had a
great deal of experience with the ESA--we used it to prevent the
extinction of a number of salmon runs--and I don't see any substantive
conflicts between it and the ecosystem-based management approach. The
identification of critical habitat under the ESA, in a way, is a form
of ecosystem-based management. The better course is go ahead with some
version of H.R. 21, and direct an independent third party (e.g.,
National Research Council) to report back to Congress in five years
after enactment on the progress and any conflicts that have actually
arisen with existing statutes (e.g., ESA, MMPA, NEPA, MSA, etc.) with
recommendations for changes.
7. Does the Marine Mammal Protection Act and its focus on
protecting marine mammals above other species fit into the ecosystem-
based approach to management?
The Marine Mammal Protection Act is 35 years old, enacted at a time
when there were few protections for marine mammals and a real fear some
populations, such as porpoise, which were being taken in the then newly
established (since about the mid-1960's) tuna purse seine fishery. The
MMPA has given us fits at times, particularly with regard to California
sea lions and, to a lesser extent, harbor seals. One of the reasons my
organization drafted and sponsored state legislation to protect white
sharks (California was the first government in the world to do so) was
to at least protect this apex predator to help control sea lions
populations in lieu of the loss of the on-shore predators (e.g.,
mountain lions, bears) as well as hunting by native Americans.
However, that said, there is, as we've found, tremendous public
support for marine ``charismatic mega-fauna.'' We'd like to see some
changes made to the MMPA, but those should be discussed in a stand-
alone setting and not be used as a roadblock on the path to ecosystem-
based management. Indeed, as we begin to better understand marine
ecosystems and their functioning, it may be possible to bring some
rationality to the issue of marine mammal protection.
8. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended voluntary
regional partnerships, yet H.R. 21 requires them. Is this appropriate?
Does making the regional partnerships mandatory, and potentially a one-
size fits all approach, limit the flexibility of the state and regions
to develop partnerships that respond to specific regional needs?
My experience with ``voluntary'' means nothing ever happens. There
is nothing voluntary about fishing regulations and frankly we're fed up
with a lot of other interests, many whose activities impair the
resources our members depend upon for their livelihoods, constantly
clamoring for volunteerism. In most instances this is simply code for
doing nothing. No, when my Pacific Fishery Management Council comes to
a Regional Ecosystem Panel with a fishery problem they have, I don't
want the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the EPA, the
MMS or any of the others who conduct or authorize projects that can be
detrimental to fish populations, to opt out because it's voluntary.
As far as one-size fits all, I suppose one could make the same
argument for just about every federal statute. My reading of H.R. 21 is
that it provides general goals and some specific requirements, but
there is nothing there to prevent some regional adaptation within the
context of the goals and some of the specific requirements.
9. H.R. 21 ignores existing laws, such as the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
which guide how activities will affect the ocean and conserve ocean
resources. It would seem to be more productive for this Committee to
review these and other existing statutes to determine how to best
modify them to create better coordination of conservation and
management efforts instead of enacting a new law that would supersede
all existing laws. Can you comment on this?
I don't read H.R. 21 as ignoring CZMA, NEPA or other statutes. I
think it's simply too early to know where conflicts might arise with
other statutes, as I mentioned above. Trying to speculate or what those
conflicts may be or trying to change existing statutes before finding
out if, in fact, there are any problems is premature. As I recommended
above, I think Congress should direct an independent third party to
conduct a review and report back within five-years, with
recommendations, on where there are actual conflicts between the
ecosystem-based management called for in H.R. 21 and existing
environmental statutes.
10. The bill charges NOAA with reporting on the status of ocean
ecosystems and resources two years after enactment of the bill and
every three years thereafter. The Regional Ocean Partnerships are also
required to develop regional ocean strategic plans which will include
an assessment of its ocean region. What changes can we make to the bill
to ensure there is limited duplication between the two reports? Can you
also make recommendation on how to limit duplication in other areas of
the bill?
I don't see a problem here. I think it's best that there be
separate reports from NOAA and the Regional Ocean Partnerships to give
Congress a true feel of what progress is actually being made, as
opposed to receiving a single self-serving, self-congratulatory report
from the agency. Moreover, as I suggested above, I think an independent
third party, such as the National Research Council, should be asked to
give an assessment at the end of five-years with recommendations.
QUESTIONS FROM THE HON. JIM SAXTON
1. OCEANS-21 contains National Standards to guide implementation
of ``covered actions'' and a timeframe for interagency comment. What
sort of effect would this have when combined with current National
Standards and timelines contained in other laws such as the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act?
I didn't see an immediate problem here. I would be curious to see
what problems staff may have identified with the timelines in NEPA and
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and what is called for in Oceans 21. If, in
fact, there are such conflicts, it should be easy enough to deal with
them through amendments in mark-up.
2. Our oceans cover an area that is 23% larger than the land area
of the U.S. and, according to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy,
contribute roughly $117 billion to the U.S. economy, mostly from
tourism and recreation revenues. Given the expanse and importance of
our oceans to people of the United States, do you believe that it is
appropriate for Congress to issue guidance on how our oceans as a whole
should be managed--as we have done with all of our other major systems?
Absolutely. See the response above made to Mr. Brown's question 4.
3. The NOAA organic act title of H.R. 21 makes NOAA the lead
federal agency for oversight of all U.S. coastal, ocean, and Great
Lakes waters and resources. Currently, though, NOAA shares this
responsibility with agencies like USGS (for example, USGS manages
fisheries in the Great Lakes). While the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy did recommended consolidating oversight of ocean resources into
one federal organization, they recommended a slower, step-wise approach
that first provides an organic act for NOAA with its current
responsibilities and then over the course of a few years considers
transferring the responsibilities of other agencies to NOAA. Do you
agree with the Commissions step-wise approach to consolidating ocean
oversight, or do you believe this significant change in federal
oversight should be made immediately as proposed by H.R. 21?
First of all, the management of fisheries for the Great Lakes,
excepting that which is state regulated, should be transferred to the
National Marine Fisheries Service, or whatever we ultimately decide to
call our nation's fishery agency (see the response to Mr. Brown's
question 1 above), from USGS to NMFS, recognizing NMFS is currently
housed in NOAA. Aside from the transfer of fishery authority on the
Great Lakes, however, my concern is that I don't think consolidation
necessarily gets us where we want to go as much as mandated
coordination.
4. Many experts have stated that NOAA is too ``stovepiped'',
leading to inefficiencies and duplications across its five current line
offices. The NOAA organic act title of H.R. 21 proposes to consolidate
these offices into three primary functions--assessment, prediction and
operations; management; and research and education. I believe it is
important for research and education to be closely tied to and support
the other two functions of the agency, but under H.R. 21 things could
remain stovepiped having research as a separate function. In another
NOAA organic act proposal, H.R. 250 from Mr. Ehlers, there is a
leadership position that oversees all science at the agency to ensure
the best science is incorporated into all agency activities. Would you
recommend a similar position in H.R.21? If not, would you recommend
other changes in H.R. 21 to ensure that the research function of NOAA
continues to serve the needs of the operations and management functions
of the agency?
From my experience with NOAA, including serving on MAFAC, is not so
much that functions are ``stovepiped'' as opposed to a lack of
leadership at the top--through a number of administrations over the
past 35 years--willing to demand cooperation and coordination among the
various NOAA entities--and that doesn't mean putting NOAA's moniker all
over the various services. As for Mr. Ehlers bill, the problem is not
with NOAA using the best science, the problem, as you well know, is
having NMFS and NOAA scientists being overridden for political reasons
within and outside of the agency. That has certainly been the case with
salmon. I think the issue you raise regarding research is a valid one
that can be solved by ensuring there is language in H.R. 21 requiring
that research is there to support the functions of NOAA, including the
national fishery agency, the weather service, and the sanctuaries and
reserves program. Moreover, I believe the establishment of an Ocean
Ecosystem Resource Information System will help to ensure research is
there to support the functions of the agency--as well as improve
cooperation and coordination among the agencies housed in NOAA.
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to your questions.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Grader, and you can
submit your entire statement for the record. The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Chasis. You are recognized to testify for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF SARAH CHASIS, SENIOR ATTORNEY,
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Ms. Chasis. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. We very much
appreciate this opportunity to testify today on Oceans 21. The
overall message delivered by both the Pew Oceans Commission and
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy is clear. Our oceans are in
trouble. We rely too heavily on our oceans for food, jobs,
recreation, climate regulation, and our overall quality of life
to ignore their decline. We lack some of the fundamental
mechanisms and structures to address these declines, and urgent
action is needed now to rectify these gaps. Oceans 21 is a
direct response to that message and to that call for action.
It provides a stronger, more coherent governance system for
our oceans, both at the national and regional levels. We thank
Congressman Farr for introducing it, the 29 cosponsors for
supporting it, and the Subcommittee for holding this hearing.
We have a better understanding now than ever before of the
threats facing our oceans. Moreover, the seriousness of the
threats is increasingly being communicated to the general
public by the popular media, and I would like to cite to the
fact that there was an important series in the Los Angeles
Times which just won a Pulitzer Prize, and it had to do with
altered seas and the April issue of National Geographic, the
cover story was saving the seas bounties, and there have been a
series of programs on the Discovery Channel and PBS about what
is happening to our oceans. So I think you know the public is
really coming to understand this.
Scientific study after scientific study is showing that our
oceans are in trouble and that because ocean life is
interconnected impacts on one species can set off a chain of
impacts and further shift the dynamics and composition of ocean
ecosystems. Dr. Myers and others drove home this idea in a
recent Science Magazine article. Over exploitation of large
sharks driven by demand for shark fins and meat as well as
bycatch and other directed fisheries resulted in the functional
elimination of great sharks along the United States east coast
between 1970 and 2005.
This in turn resulted in an explosion of great shark prey,
such as rays, skates and small sharks. These population
increases, particularly of a particular kind of ray called the
cow nose ray, resulted in a jump of predation of bay scallops,
and that increase was sufficient to essentially terminate a
century long scallop fishery. It is not at all surprising that
removing major players in ocean life would have impacts
cascading down and across what is actually an interconnected
web of ocean life. In fact, this basic pattern has been well
documented in the scientific literature.
Both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans
Commission found that a key reason our oceans are in trouble is
the vastly inadequate governance regime. The U.S. Commission
stated, and I quote, ``The nation is not now sufficiently
organized, legally or administratively, to make decisions, set
priorities, resolve conflicts, and articulate clear and
consistent policies that respond to the wealth of problems and
opportunities ocean users face.'' The Pew Oceans Commission
sounded a similar theme. ``We have continued to approach our
oceans with a frontier mentality. The result is a hodgepodge of
ocean laws and programs that do not provide unified, clearly
stated goals and measurable objectives. Authority over marine
resources is fragmented geographically and institutionally.
Principles of ecosystem health and integrity, sustainability
and precaution have been lost in the fray.''
Both commissions called for major reform. The U.S.
Commission called for a new national ocean policy framework.
The Pew Commission called for a national ocean policy act.
Oceans 21 directly responds to the recommendations. It
establishes a national ocean policy. It provides a mechanism to
implement that policy. It promotes effective coordination
within the Federal government and between states and the
Federal government. It establishes an ocean trust fund.
Mr. Dunnigan raised the issue about whether there really
was a need for legislation. We need legislation to provide an
overarching policy direction to the numerous agencies that
authorize the many different activities affecting the ocean and
to ensure that action on behalf of the oceans will be taken not
just by one administration by every administration. The
President's Executive Order that established the Committee on
Ocean Policy is not a substitute for this.
Federal interagency coordination without a specified
directive for that coordination is not enough, and the recent
testimony of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative recognized
this very specifically. An issue also came up in the earlier
discussion about the relationship of Oceans 21 to other laws.
This legislation does not minimize the importance of
legislation addressing individual sectors or issues. The bill
before you today, Oceans 21, does not seek to replace other
legislation but rather provide a means by which individual laws
and activities can be woven together into a more cohesive and
effective whole that preserves the integrity of the systems.
In conclusion, the ocean area under U.S. jurisdiction is 23
percent greater than the entire land mass of the United States.
It is time to respond to the call of the two national
commissions and give this part of our national heritage the
attention it deserves. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chasis follows:]
Statement of Sarah Chasis, Senior Attorney and Director of the Natural
Resources Defense Council's Ocean Initiative
Introduction
Madame Chairwoman, Ranking Member Brown and distinguished Members
of this Subcommittee, thank you for this invitation to testify on H.R.
21, the ``Oceans Conservation, Education, and National Strategy for the
21st Century Act'' (also known as ``OCEANS-21''). My testimony is
presented on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a
national environmental organization with over a million members and
online activists, dedicated to the protection of the earth--its people,
plants and animals and the natural systems on which all life depends.
The overall message delivered by both the Pew Oceans Commission in
May 2003 and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy in July 2004 is clear:
1) our oceans are in trouble; 2) we rely too heavily on our oceans for
food, jobs, recreation and our quality of life to ignore their decline;
3) we lack some of the fundamental mechanisms and structures to address
these declines; and 4) urgent action is needed now to rectify these
gaps. This continues to be the message of the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative--the combined effort of these two Commissions--delivered
most recently by The Honorable Leon Panetta and Admiral James Watkins
to this Subcommittee on March 29th.
OCEANS-21 is a direct response to that message and to that call for
action. It reflects the key recommendations of the two Commissions
regarding the need for a stronger, more coherent governance system for
our oceans ``both at the national and regional levels. We thank
Representative Farr for introducing OCEANS-21, the 29 co-sponsors for
supporting this important legislation and the Subcommittee for holding
this hearing.
What we know about the state of our oceans
We have a better understanding now than ever before of the threats
facing our oceans. Moreover, the seriousness of the threats is
increasingly being communicated to the general public by the popular
media. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, for example, Ken Weiss' July 2006, Pulitzer Prize winning
series in the LA Times, Altered Oceans, the April 2007 issue of
National Geographic, Special Report: Saving the Sea's Bounty, the two
oceans episodes of the Discovery Chanel's Planet Earth series (``Deep
Oceans'' and ``Shallow Seas'') and PBS' Journey to Planet Earth: ``The
State of the Ocean's Animals.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific study after scientific study is showing that our oceans
are in trouble and that, because ocean life is interconnected, impacts
on one species can set off a chain of impacts and further shift the
dynamics and composition of ocean ecosystems.
In 1998, we learned from Dr. Daniel Pauly and other scientists that
the persistent targeting of top ocean predators, like tuna and cod, has
resulted in a fundamental shift in the make-up of ocean life and
therefore the types of organisms able to support ocean systems and
available to fishermen. 2 This ``fishing down of the food
web'' has meant fewer types and numbers of large ocean fish and
relatively more smaller ocean fish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Pauly, Daniel, Villy Christensen, Johanne Dalsgaard, Rainer
Froese and Francisco Torres, Jr. 1998. Fishing down marine food webs.
Science 279(5352): 860-863.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2003, Dr. Ram Myers and Dr. Boris Worm quantified the type of
loss behind Dr. Pauly's theory. Drs. Myers and Worm reported that 90%
of the large ocean fish--the tunas, blue marlins, swordfish, and
others--are gone from the world's oceans due to industrial fishing
practices. 3 Drs. Myers and Worm highlighted that this was
not just about the staggering loss of large fish, but the loss of top
predators which play a key role in the health of the overall ecosystem.
This is a point often forgotten--our oceans are not just water, but a
vibrant home for a vast amount of life, estimated by one source to
total 80% of life on Earth. 4 That life--the total amount,
the balance across species, and the services that they provide to each
other and to us--depends on species interactions and habitat
conditions. The presence or absence of key players--and the shifting
relationships between and among these players--affects the ability of
our oceans to weather change and absorb impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Myers, Ram and Boris Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of
predatory fish communities. Nature 423: 280-283.
\4\ http://marinebio.org/MarineBio/Facts/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Myers and others drove home this idea of the interconnectedness
of ocean life in a recent 2007 Science article. 5
Overexploitation of large sharks--driven by demand for shark fins and
meat as well as bycatch in other directed fisheries--resulted in the
functional elimination of great sharks along the U.S. east coast
between 1970 and 2005. This in turn resulted in an explosion of great
shark prey, such as rays, skates, and small sharks. These population
increases--particularly of the cownose ray--resulted in a jump in
predation of bay scallops ``sufficient to terminate a century-long
scallop fishery.'' 6 According to this paper, this cause and
effect pairing--fewer sharks, more rays ``may also result in crashes of
other prey types besides bay scallops, and to the degradation of sea
grass habitats, crucial habitat for marine life, as ever hungrier rays
aggressively pursue additional food.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Myers, Ransom A., Julia K. Baum, Travis D. Shepherd, Sean P.
Powers, and Charles H. Peterson. 2007. Cascading effects of the loss of
apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science 315(5820): 1846-
1850.
\6\ Ibid. pg. 1846.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not at all surprising that removing major players in ocean
life would have impacts cascading down and across what are actually
interconnected webs of ocean life. In fact, this basic pattern has been
well documented in the scientific literature. 7 Although
exact consequences may be difficult to quantify and express precisely,
the basic result is predictable and in and of itself concerning. Dr.
Worm summarized it this way in a 2006 Nature article: loss of the
amount and variety of ocean life ``is increasingly impairing the
ocean's capacity to provide food, maintain water quality, and recover
from perturbations'' ``change or stress. 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Duffy, J.E. 2002. Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the
consumer connection. Oikos 99:201-21, Crooks, K. R. and M. E. Soule.
1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented
system. Nature 400:563-566, Paine, R.T. 1980. Food Webs: Linkage,
Interaction Strength and Community Infrastructure. Journal of Animal
Ecology 49(3): 666-685, Pace, M.L., J.J. Cole, S.R. Carpenter, and J.F.
Kitchell. 1999. Trophic cascades revealed in diverse ecosystems. Trends
in Ecology and Evolution 14: 483-488, and Estes, J.A., M.T. Tinker,
T.M. Williams, and D.F. Doak. 1998. Killer Whale Predation on Sea
Otters Linking Oceanic and Nearshore Ecosystems. Science 282(5388):
473-473.
\8\ Worm, B. E.B. Barbier, N. Beaumont, J.E. Duffy, C. Folke, B.S.
Halpern. J.B.C. Jackson. H.K. Lotze, F. Micheli, S.R. Palumbi, E. Sala,
K.A. Selkoe, J.J. Stachowicz, and R. Watson. 2006. Impact of
biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314(5800): 787-
790.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another major impact on ocean health is from increasing levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide from the combustion of
fossil fuels is altering the basic chemistry of the oceans.
Specifically, our oceans are becoming more acidic. Since pre-industrial
times, the pH of our oceans has declined by 26%. 9 If CO2
emissions continue on a ``business as usual'' course, researchers
predict that average surface water pH will decline by an additional 2-
2.5 times. 10 This will have a significant impact on ocean
life, particularly carbonate-based life, such as coral reefs, that may
not be able to withstand more acidic conditions. In addition, rising
CO2 levels are expected to bring a variety of other changes to marine
ecosystems including warmer waters, sea level rise, and altered
salinity levels and current patterns. 11 These changes
will--of course--spur even further change and affect already altered
ocean ecosystem composition and dynamics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Caldeira, K. and M.E. Wickett. 2003. Anthropogenic carbon and
ocean pH. Nature 425(6956): 365-365.
\10\ Caldeira, K. and M.E. Wickett. 2005. Ocean model predictions
of chemistry change from carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and
ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans 110:C9, Orr. J.C., V.J.
Fabry., O. Aumont. L. Bopp. S.C. Doney. R.A. Feely. A. Gnanadesikan. N.
Gruber. A. Ishida. F. Joos. R.M. Key. K. Lindsay. E. Maier-Reimer. R.
Matear. P. Monfray. A. Mouchet. R.G. Najjar. G.K. Plattner. K.B.
Rodgers. C.L. Sabine. J.L. Sarmiento. Schlitze. 2005. Anthropogenic
ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on
calcifying organisms. Nature 437(7059): 681-686.
\11\ IPCC. 1995. Impacts, Adaptations, and Mitigation of Climate
Change: Scientific-Technical Analysis. Cambridge University Press,
IPCC. 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. IPCC, Geneva,
Switzerland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another major impact on ocean health is water pollution,
principally from land-based sources. One form of particular concern is
nutrient pollution. In Part 1 of the 2006 LA Times Series, Altered
Oceans, Ken Weiss explains how activities on land are producing
nutrients that runoff off the land and precipitate out of the air,
fertilizing excessive growth of harmful algae and bacteria. The impacts
of nutrient pollution are magnified by overfishing and wetland
destruction, which have diminished the presence of competing sea life
and the natural buffers that once minimized runoff. While algal blooms
cause a number of problems directly--including human health impacts,
fish and marine life kills, and severe light deprivation for submerged
vegetation and corals--they also cause problems indirectly. After they
die, algal blooms sink to the bottom of the ocean, where they are
decomposed by bacteria that pull oxygen out of the water. This results
in hypoxic conditions--areas unable to support many forms of marine
life--that have resulted in dead zones around the country. There is a
dead zone that swells to the size of Massachusetts (roughly 8000 square
miles) in the Gulf of Mexico and 39 smaller dead zones around the
country. 12 Ken Weiss summarizes the point in one sentence:
``Fish, corals and marine mammals are dying while algae, bacteria and
jellyfish are growing unchecked.'' 13 This is what the
Scripps Institution of Oceanography scientist, Jeremy Jackson, refers
to as ``the rise of slime'' and while perpetuated by declining
populations of marine life, also causes declining populations of marine
life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Weiss, Ken. July 30 2006. Part One, Altered Oceans, A Primeval
Tide of Toxins. LA Times, Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America's Living
Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change. pgs. 22, 54, and 62.
\13\ Weiss, Ken. July 30 2006. Part One, Altered Oceans, A Primeval
Tide of Toxins. LA Times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The effects of nutrient pollution are also compounded by chemical
pollution. For instance, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy reported
on a recent study of 70% of the nation's estuarine area (excluding
Alaska) that 99% of the sediments contained 5 or more toxins at
detectable levels and that 30% of the sites tested had contamination
levels high enough to harm fish and other marine life. 14 In
addition, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy highlighted that 28
million gallons of oil pour into American oceans each year as the
result of human activities. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for
the 21st Century. Final Report. Washington, DC. pg 39.
\15\ U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for
the 21st Century. Final Report. Washington, DC. pg 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also simultaneously losing marine habitat. For instance,
according to the Pew Oceans Commission, the United States, excluding
Alaska, lost more than half of its original wetlands between the 1780s
and the 1980s, predominantly as the result of agriculture and
commercial and residential development. Wetlands provide crucial
habitat to marine life and serve as natural buffers against runoff,
erosion, and storm damage. 16 Wetland loss may be
exacerbated by rising sea levels, which could drown wetland areas and
shift the tide line to developed/paved areas that cannot host new
wetlands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America's Living Oceans: Charting
a Course for Sea Change. pg 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The economic value of our oceans
When oceans fail and marine resources disappear, local and national
economies falter. According to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, in
2000 the ocean economy contributed more than $117 billion to American
prosperity and supported well over two millions jobs. Roughly three-
quarters of the jobs and half the economic value were produced by
ocean-related tourism and recreation. Our aim should be to sustain and
restore the marine ecosystems upon which so much of this value depends.
For instance, we know that harmful algal blooms cost our country
millions of dollars each year as the result of fisheries closures, loss
of tourism and recreation dollars, and increased health care and
monitoring expenses. 17 These types of losses are largely
avoidable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for
the 21st Century. Final Report. Washington, DC. pg 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant recommendations of the two national Commissions
Both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans
Commission found that a key reason that our oceans are in trouble is a
vastly inadequate governance regime. The U.S. Commission found that our
nation's management approaches have not been updated to reflect new
scientific findings that demonstrate the complexity and
interconnectedness of natural systems, with responsibilities remaining
dispersed among a confusing array of agencies and no overarching
direction. As the Commission stated:
[T]he nation is not now sufficiently organized legally or
administratively to make decisions, set priorities, resolve
conflicts, and articulate clear and consistent policies that
respond to the wealth of problems and opportunities ocean users
face. 18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for
the 21st Century. Final Report. Washington, DC. pg 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pew Oceans Commission sounded a similar theme:
[W]e have continued to approach our oceans with a frontier
mentality. The result is a hodgepodge of ocean laws and
programs that do not provide unified, clearly stated goals and
measurable objectives. Authority over marine resources is
fragmented geographically and institutionally. Principles of
ecosystem health and integrity, sustainability, and precaution
have been lost in the fray. 19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America's Living Oceans: Charting
a Course for Sea Change. pg viii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both Commissions called for major reform. The U.S. Commission
called for a new ``National Ocean Policy Framework'' to improve
decision-making, promote effective coordination, and move toward an
ecosystem-based management approach. 20 The proposed
Framework has four major elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for
the 21st Century. Final Report. Washington, DC. Pgs. 5-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, at the federal level, there would be a National Ocean
Council (NOC) within the Executive Office of the President, chaired by
an Assistant to the President and composed of cabinet secretaries of
departments or administrators of independent agencies with relevant
ocean and coastal related responsibilities. The NOC would provide high-
level attention to ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes issues, develop and
guide the implementation of appropriate national policies, and
coordinate the many federal departments and agencies with ocean and
coastal responsibilities. A President's Council of Advisors on Ocean
Policy would be established to ensure nonfederal input into the NOC and
the President on ocean and coastal policy matters. A small Office of
Ocean Policy would provide staff support to the Council, the Assistant
to the President, and the Council of Advisors.
Second, at the regional level, states would be encouraged to form
regional ocean councils to respond to issues that cross jurisdictional
boundaries and to address large-scale connections and conflicts among
watershed, coastal, and offshore uses. To complement this effort,
Federal agencies would be directed to improve their regional
coordination.
Third, in light of the increasing number of economic uses being
proposed for Federal waters, a comprehensive offshore management regime
would be established. As part of this regime, a lead federal agency for
each offshore activity would be designated.
Fourth, the existing charter for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would be codified in legislation.
There would be a follow-up process to determine if additional ocean
related responsibilities should be consolidated into NOAA or whether
some other form of reorganization should occur.
At the heart of the Pew Oceans Commission report was its
recommendation that we extend an ethic of stewardship toward the oceans
and manage it on an ecosystem basis. To that end, the Commission
recommended that Congress enact a National Ocean Policy Act that would
do the following:
Establish a national policy to protect, maintain and
restore the health of marine ecosystems and require that marine
resources be used in an ecologically sustainable manner.
Provide that federal agencies conduct their activities in
a manner consistent with that national policy and with national
standards that implement that policy.
Create an independent national ocean agency that would be
tasked with helping implement the National Ocean Policy Act.
Create a National Ocean Council within the Executive
Office of the President to coordinate interagency action on ocean
issues and, among other things, ensure that all agencies comply with
the National Ocean Policy Act.
Form regional ocean ecosystem councils of appropriate
state, federal and, where appropriate, tribal representatives that
would develop regional ocean governance plans. These plans would
establish clear and measurable management and restoration goals that,
once approved, would guide states and federal decisions affecting the
oceans.
The need for a legislative solution
While we have crucial pieces of legislation targeted to individual
components of the ocean ecosystem, we lack the legislative mandate or
mechanisms to ensure that these components are well-coordinated and
that the health and functioning of the overall system is maintained.
Ocean life rests on other ocean life and habitat conditions. If you
remove too many pieces or the wrong pieces, the system collapses. The
problem is that right now we are looking at each sector individually.
We lack the mechanisms and the responsible entities necessary to judge
how these separate activities will affect each other and the system as
a whole. We know enough about how our oceans function and the threats
that they face to know that this is not the right approach.
Laws geared to individual sectors or problems, while clearly and
undeniably important, are not a substitute for a mandate targeted to
maintaining the function, health, and productivity of the system as a
whole. We need a National Ocean Policy Act for our country in order to
provide an overarching policy direction to the numerous federal
agencies that authorize the many different activities affecting the
oceans and to ensure that action on behalf of the oceans will be taken
not just by one administration, but every administration. The
President's December 2004 executive order that established the
Committee on Ocean Policy and the actions of the Federal and state
governments to date are not a substitute for this. Federal interagency
coordination without a specified direction for that coordination is not
enough. As the Commissions recommended, we need a legislatively
established policy and a mechanism to implement that policy, consistent
with current law, leaders at all levels of government to implement that
policy, and the funding to do it.
This legislation does not minimize the importance of legislation
addressing individual sectors. For example, we applaud Congress'
reauthorization last year of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act and believe that important reforms were made to the
fishery management process in that legislation. Again, the bill before
you today, OCEANS-21, does not seek to replace that or other
legislation, but rather to provide a means by which individual laws and
activities can be woven together into a more cohesive and effective
whole that preserves the integrity of the ecosystems upon which these
activities depend.
In the past years, we have seen an explosion of activity at the
regional and state level geared toward grounding management in an
ecosystem perspective. It is time for action at the Federal level.
OCEANS-21: An ecosystem level solution for an ecosystem level problem
OCEANS-21 responds to the recommendations of the two national ocean
Commissions in a number of important ways: 1) by establishing a
national ocean policy to protect, maintain, and restore the health of
marine ecosystems, 2) by providing a mechanism to implement that
policy, 3) by promoting effective coordination within the federal
government and between states and the federal government; and 4) by
establishing an oceans trust fund.
Title I: Establishment of a National Oceans Policy
Title I establishes a national policy to protect, maintain, and
restore the health of marine ecosystems and a mechanism to implement
that policy. Title I requires that, to the fullest extent possible,
U.S. laws, regulations and policies be interpreted and administered in
accordance with this policy. A federal action that may significantly
affect ocean waters or resources may proceed only if the action agency
certifies that the action, individually and in combination with other
federal actions, is not likely to significantly harm the health of the
marine ecosystem or significantly impede its restoration. See Section
101(b) (2) (b). This does not mean that any action that impacts the
ocean is prohibited. Rather, it means that actions are reviewed with an
eye to ensuring the health of the overall system. Certification
decisions, in the case of incomplete information, must be made using
the precautionary approach and must be implemented, to the extent
practicable, so as to minimize adverse social and economic impacts,
while remaining consistent with the other requirements of the Act. The
NOAA Administrator is to provide expert advice to the action agency but
it is the action agency that makes the final decision. This title is
key to ensuring government accountability for the overall health of our
oceans.
Title II: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Organic Act
NOAA was established by executive order in 1970 and has never had a
legislatively defined mission or structure. OCEANS-21, Title II
rectifies this gap by providing an organic act for NOAA. Title II takes
some important steps. Specifically it:
Establishes NOAA as the lead, civilian Federal agency
with responsibility for providing oversight for all U.S. coastal,
ocean, and Great Lakes waters and resources
Establishes a legislative mission for NOAA, including to
protect, maintain, and restore the health of coastal, ocean, and Great
Lakes ecosystems
Ties all of NOAA's functions to the policy and standards
outlined in Title I
Instructs the NOAA Administrator to submit annual budget
requests to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, giving
NOAA a stronger voice to advocate for ocean funding needs within the
Federal government
Acknowledges the Administrator as the Department of
Commerce official for all ocean and atmosphere issues in dealings with
other elements of the Department of Commerce and with other Federal
agencies, State, tribal, and local governments, and the public
Establishes no more than 3 Deputy Assistant Secretary
positions and stipulates that the functions of these Secretaries must
be consistent with at least one of three focal areas: assessment,
prediction, and operations, management, especially ecosystem-based, and
research and education 21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ These focal areas were outlined in USCOP Recommendation 7-1,
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st
Century. Final Report. Washington, DC. pg 111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishes no more than 5 Assistant Administrator
positions and stipulates that the functions of those position must be
consistent with the three focal areas listed above and must be
structured to minimize overlap 22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Right now, NOAA has 6 Assistant Administrators and 4 Program
Goal Leads, established because of noted overlap and misplacement of
activities in the line offices managed by the Assistant Administrators
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructs the Administrator to develop and implement a
reorganization plan for NOAA in accordance with the national ocean
policy and standards and to maximize efficiency and effectiveness
around the three focal areas listed above
Shifts responsibility for examining NOAA's budget within
OMB from General Government Programs to Natural Resources Programs
23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ This was suggested by USCOP Recommendation 7-2, U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st
Century. Final Report. Washington, DC. pg 112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legislation would: 1) establish NOAA as the clear voice for our
oceans within the Federal government and provides them with the
necessary stature and autonomy--including in terms of advocating for
their own budget priorities--to fill this role, 2) instructs NOAA to
carry out its functions in a manner that will promote the protection,
maintenance, and restoration of ocean health, and 3) directs NOAA to
restructure in a meaningful way, preferably at the line office level,
around the focal areas of assessment, prediction, and operations,
ecosystem-based management, and research and education. Allowing NOAA
to function as is without an organic act leaves it too open to shifting
political whims, impedes NOAA from taking a true leadership role within
the Federal government, and diminishes NOAA's overall effectiveness as
a steward for ocean ecosystems because of the lack of a clear, stable
mission and authority.
Title III: National Ocean Leadership and Coordination
Title III outlines positions and functions crucial to ensuring that
the purposes and provisions of this Act guide Federal activities and
funding decisions, across Federal agencies and the Executive Office.
Specifically, Title III:
Establishes a National Oceans Advisor in the Executive
Office, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the
Senate, and stipulates a variety of functions for that position
including coordinating Federal agency actions related to marine
ecosystem health
Codifies the Committee on Ocean Policy established by
executive order on December 17, 2004. Beyond giving the Committee
permanence, title III makes a number of important changes, particularly
1) giving the committee a clear purpose and set of responsibilities,
targeted toward promoting the protection, maintenance, and restoration
of the health of marine ecosystems consistent with the policy and
standards in section 101, 2) adding six governors to the Committee to
represent State and local interests, and 3) shifting responsibility for
Committee coordination from the Chair of CEQ, the assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President
for Homeland Security, and ``with respect to the interagency task force
established by Executive Order 13340 of May 18, 2004'' the
Administrator of EPA to the Chair of CEQ and the National Oceans
Advisor.
Establishes a Council of Advisors on Oceans Policy,
including qualified representatives from governmental and non-
governmental entities (appointed by the President, in consultation with
the National Ocean Advisor), to advise the President, the National
Oceans Advisor, and the Committee on Ocean Policy on policies to
promote the protection, maintenance, and restoration of the health of
marine ecosystems on a regional and national basis.
Title IV: Regional Coordination and Ecosystem Planning
Title IV provides that the Administrator of NOAA, in consultation
with the Committee on Ocean Policy and appropriate states, establish
Regional Ocean Partnerships organized according to identified U.S.
large marine ecosystems. Each partnership would be made up of an equal
number of Federal and state representatives and would be tasked with
developing strategic plans that analyze the health of ocean ecosystems
in that region and identify key actions and policy changes needed to
promote the protection, maintenance, and restoration of marine
ecosystem health. The NOAA Administrator, in consultation with the
Committee on Ocean Policy, would review and approve these plans on the
basis of consistency with policy and standards of the Act. Once
approved, entities with a representative on a regional ocean
partnership would implement activities in a manner consistent with the
approved regional ocean strategic plan. This title promotes a federal/
state partnership for ocean management that is place-based and leads to
the creation of specific targets, goals and implementation strategies
for a particular ecosystem.
Title V: Ocean and Great Lakes Conservation Trust Fund
Title V provides the funding necessary for the development and
implementation of Regional Ocean Strategic Plans (Title VI covers
appropriations more generally, authorizing appropriations to NOAA ``as
necessary for the functions and activities carried out by the
Administration in accordance with this Act''). Specifically, Title V:
Establishes a fund in the Treasury, known as the ``Ocean
and Great Lakes Conservation Trust Fund''.
Requires the Secretary of the Treasury to deposit $1.3
billion into the fund each year from general revenues, profits
generated from the sale of a Healthy Oceans Stamp, amounts not
disbursed from the Fund in previous years, and interest earned on the
account (general revenues are intended to make up the difference
between $1.3 billion and revenues from the other three sources).
The Secretary is authorized to transfer amounts deposited
into the Fund to the Administrator to make payments to coastal states
for the development and implementation of Regional Ocean Strategic
Plans and to the Administrator to allocate, in concurrence with the
Committee on Ocean Policy, for activities of the Federal government to
develop and implement Regional Ocean Strategic Plans. States can only
receive funds if they participate in the development and implementation
of Regional Ocean Strategic Plans, if the proposed activities are
consistent with the national standards outlined in section 101, and if
the Administrator approves a state's spending plan, in consultation
with the Committee on Ocean Policy.
Amounts made available by the Fund are intended to
supplement, not replace, annual appropriations at the Federal level as
well as State and local investments.
Instructs coastal states to hold 50% of their allocable
share in a state ocean grants fund to issue, on a competitive basis, in
the form of grants to coastal political subdivisions for the
development and implementation of an approved Regional Ocean Strategic
Plans, consistent with the national standards outlined in section 101.
Conclusion
The ocean area under U.S. jurisdiction is 23% greater than the
entire land mass of the United States. 24 The ocean economy
generates revenues twice as great as the farm sector and employs more
people. 25 It is time to respond to the call of the two
national Commissions and give this part of our natural heritage the
attention it deserves. Enactment of legislation such as OCEANS-21 would
do just that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America's Living Oceans: Charting
a Course for Sea Change. pg 2.
\25\ U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for
the 21st Century. Final Report. Washington, DC. pg 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Ms. Chasis. We would
like now to recognize Dr. Rosenberg, and you are recognized to
testify before the committee for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW A. ROSENBERG, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you, Madam Chair and to members of the
committee I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today concerning the future of U.S. ocean policy. I am Andrew
Rosenberg from the University of New Hampshire. I am a member
of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Joint Oceans
Commission Initiative. I would like to compliment the committee
and the sponsoring members of H.R. 21, and today I would like
to address five major areas in my testimony that are relevant
to your deliberations on this bill.
Those five areas are ecosystem based management as a
guiding principle for ocean policy, the creation of a
consistent policy for new uses of the ocean, strengthening the
Coastal Zone Management Act, the importance of integrated ocean
observing systems, and an ocean policy framework that help
address the ocean effects of climate change.
Part of the mission of the lead ocean agency must be
ecosystem based management of the U.S. coastal and ocean areas.
The essence of an ecosystem based approach focuses on five
basic principles: Focusing on the ability of an ecosystem to
continuously provide a full range of services to support human
well being; recognizing that management actions must be framed
with respect to natural boundaries; recognizing the various
sectors of human activities on the oceans interact and their
management must be integrated; and recognizing that the impacts
of human activities are cumulative on ocean ecosystems both in
time and in space; and that tradeoffs and services among
sectors must be explicitly addressed in policymaking.
The nation's ocean policy should recognize these principles
and seek to integrate management within regional ecosystems
with a result of healthier ecosystems and more coherent
management systems that work better for the public and for
business. NOAA will best take on the challenge of ecosystem
based management with a new structure that integrates across
the currently fragmented functions of the agency.
A NOAA Organic Act should begin that work of reducing
program fragmentation but I know that this is not just a NOAA
problem. It is fragmentation across the government so we need
to give NOAA the tools to work with other agencies in order to
reduce that fragmented management system.
A whole new set of challenges are rapidly emerging for
coastal ocean of the U.S. because of the development of
offshore energy facilities, aquaculture, desalination plants,
among others. These new uses require an allocation of dedicated
ocean space in many cases and conflicts are rapidly emerging.
To take two examples near my home, the citing of an offshore
LNG port near Gloucester, Massachusetts and the proposal to
build an offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound.
While of course there are NEPA requirements for such
activities but what are the standards for deciding where a wind
farm should be located to the benefit of the Nation or an LNG
port? How should the conflicts with fishermen, recreational
users, coastal landowners and residents and the public be
resolved? What are the policy elements that businesses should
be mindful of as they plan investments, and how do we end up
with a predictable system for both business and the public so
they know what they can do and how to do it?
Right now we do not have that framework and H.R. 21 begins
to establish it but it is an urgent need because these new uses
are moving very rapidly. The Coastal Zone Management Act is
need of revision to meet the challenges of ecosystem based
management. State coastal management plans are the appropriate
means to improve land use planning in the coastal zone but a
consistent set of strong guidelines are needed. Planning must
be integrated with the management of many activities occurring
in the coastal and ocean areas, and the example given by Mr.
Grader is an excellent one of why that is so important.
Coastal management does not need uniformity but it does
need coherence around the country. Again predictability is
important and the ability to adapt to changing conditions. This
means a stronger criteria as the basis for management plans
including a watershed focus, not just a narrow coastal zone.
With respect to the integrated ocean observing system, we need
more coastal and ocean science urgently but we need to bring
together the fragmented data sets that currently exist.
There must be a system of real time ocean observations of
the environment but it must include the biology and ocean based
activities to be a tool for policymaking. We must relate ocean
conditions to living resources directly and to the human
activities on the ocean, and to me it seems a bit absurd that
we create a high technology system for ocean observing but we
still monitor fisheries and other ocean activities by passing
around little slips of paper.
Congress needs to fund a comprehensive and sustained ocean
observing system that will support ecosystem based management,
and then finally anthropogenic climate change is occurring, and
it is affecting the oceans, and a new policy direction for the
ocean, new agency mandates, coordination and structure and new
tools for ocean research management and education must be
implemented quickly, and they must be able to include the
concerns about climate change issues. We cannot set an ocean
policy today, a new ocean policy today, that does not think
about climate change as a major factor affecting the oceans.
Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you
for the opportunity to testify today, and I would be pleased to
respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenberg follows:]
Statement of Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D., Member, U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy and the Joint Oceans Commission Initiative, and Professor,
University of New Hampshire
Madam Chair and members of the Committee: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today concerning the future of NOAA
and U.S. ocean policy. I am Andrew Rosenberg, Professor of Natural
Resources in the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space at
the University of New Hampshire and a member of the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy. I was formerly the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries at NOAA, a Regional Administrator for NOAA Fisheries, and a
scientist working at NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
The Ocean's Act of 2000 formed the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
and directed us to ``make recommendations for coordinated and
comprehensive national ocean policy...'' The Act set out eight specific
objectives for this policy paraphrased here:
1. protection of life and property;
2. responsible stewardship of ocean and coastal resources;
3. protection of the marine environment;
4. enhancement of marine-related commerce, resolution of conflicts
among diverse users of the marine environment and engagement of the
private sector in developing approaches to the responsible use of
marine resources;
5. expansion of knowledge of the marine environment and the
advancement of education in fields related to the ocean and coasts;
6. development and improvement in technological capability for
ocean related activities;
7. cooperation among all government agencies to ensure coherent
regulations, appropriate use of funding, efficient operation of federal
agencies, and enhancement of partnerships with state and local
governments; and
8. leadership by the United States in ocean and coastal
activities.
I believe the Commission's recommendations truly meet the spirit
and intent of the Oceans Act. Further, I believe that we must
immediately begin to make changes in U.S. ocean policy to reverse an
alarming, widespread degradation in the health of the oceans and
coasts, vital living marine resources, and coastal communities. I
believe that our ocean environment is at risk and a change of course is
needed to reduce that risk. We must reinvigorate and fully fund our
leadership in ocean science and our understanding of the life-support
system of the earth.
I would like to compliment the Committee and sponsoring members of
H.R. 21. The bill acknowledges the problems facing our oceans, coasts,
and Great Lakes, and sets strong new direction for the Nation's ocean
policy by incorporating many of the governance recommendations made by
the Commission and the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative. As this
Committee and Congress continues its consideration of this legislation,
I would like to address five major areas in my testimony today that are
relevant to these deliberations:
ecosystem-based management as a guiding principle for
ocean policy in the context of H.R. 21,
the creation of a strong and consistent policy for
addressing new, emerging activities on the ocean, particularly those
that need an exclusive use of ocean space,
strengthening the Coastal Zone Management Act during
reauthorization,
the importance of an integrated ocean observing system
that is can truly impact ocean policy, and
setting an ocean policy framework that can address the
ocean effects of climate change.
Ecosystem-based Management: H.R. 21 will put in place an organic
act for NOAA, establish it as the lead ocean agency and enable the
restructuring of NOAA to better accomplish its mission. Part of that
mission, and the Nation's ocean policy, should be the ecosystem-based
management of marine resources. The Nation must have a lead ocean
agency, as well as the White House level advisor and council included
in the bill. NOAA is clearly the most appropriate lead agency. But to
accomplish the mission of ecosystem-based management, the agency needs
to be restructured. I had the privilege of working for NOAA for ten
years. The NOAA personnel are talented and dedicated but they don't
have all the tools they need to do the job. Nor do they have an
overarching framework to effectively implement the conflicting mandates
that the various statutes and demands of the day bring. Fisheries,
protected species, habitat, coastal zones, sanctuaries, estuarine
research reserves, restoration programs and so on are all addressing
parts of an interconnected ecosystem, but are based in separate
programs in two different line offices. There needs to be true program
connectivity with shared planning, a sense of shared mandates, and a
coordinated strategy for funding high-priority science, management, and
education activities.
Ecosystem-based management is not just the latest buzzword or a
small change in direction for policy-making, it is a fundamental shift
in how we view and manage our interactions with natural resources.
Ecosystem-based management sets a different process for policy-making,
starting from a different perspective on goal-setting through to the
basis for resolving conflicts. NOAA will best take on this challenge
with a new structure that integrates across the currently fragmented
functions of the agency. In my view, NOAA has remained a collection of
agencies rather than a lead ocean agency. In some ways, within NOAA
there is a mirror of the problem that the Commission found across the
federal ``ocean'' agencies, that is, program fragmentation and
conflicting authorities. A NOAA organic act should begin the work of
reducing program fragmentation by focusing NOAA on its core
competencies and mandates; assessment, prediction and operations,
ecosystem-based management of ocean and coastal areas and resources,
and science, research and education.
The essence of an ecosystem-based approach to management rests on
five basic principles:
1) Focus on the ability of the ecosystem to continuously provide
the services that support human well-being including recognition that
humans are inherently part of the ecosystem. Ecosystem services go
beyond simple extractive uses such as fisheries harvest and mining to
services that play major roles in supporting life, regulating change
and providing a vital cultural resources for society;
2) Recognize that natural boundaries are more relevant to the
conservation of ecosystem services than artificial boundaries between
legal jurisdictions;
3) Various sectors of human activity with a particular marine
ecosystem can affect one another and require some level of management
integration;
4) Impacts of human activities on an ecosystem are often
cumulative across time and space resulting in ecosystem change that
must be addressed by policy action;
5) Policy decisions will not have the same effect on all services
and tradeoffs in services among sectors must be made. If management is
not integrated across the sectors of human activities, these tradeoffs
are often implicit or completely ignored with potentially problematic
results.
The Nation's ocean policy should recognize these principles and
seek to integrate management within regional ecosystems. The results,
if we are successful, should be healthier ecosystems and healthier
coastal communities and businesses. If management and science can be
integrated, it can also become more coherent and more understandable.
We can no longer afford to create complex rules for each sector of
human activity as if it operates in isolation.
Coordinated Ocean Management: The need to change to an ecosystem-
based focus is a very high priority in my view. But this doesn't just
apply to the existing sectors of activities on the ocean. A whole new
set of challenges are rapidly emerging for the coastal ocean of the
U.S., because of the development of offshore energy facilities,
aquaculture, and water desalination plants, among others. Notably, many
of these new uses require the allocation of dedicated ocean space and
conflicts are emerging rapidly. A consistent management structure is
urgently needed for these new uses of the ocean that considers
ecosystem impacts, interactions with other activities, and appropriate
siting for such facilities. Take two recent examples near my home, the
siting of offshore LNG ports off of Gloucester, Massachusetts and the
proposal to build an offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound. Of course
there are NEPA requirements for such activities, but what are the
standards for deciding where a wind farm should be located to the
benefit of the Nation? Or an LNG port? How should conflicts with
fishermen, recreational users, coastal landowners and residents, and
the public be resolved? What are policy elements that businesses should
be mindful of as they plan investments in the coastal ocean? We are
behind the curve as these new uses of the ocean emerge, and more
coherent and coordinated policy priorities and implementation
strategies must be instituted if ocean ecosystems are to be maintained
and protected.
Coastal Zone Management: The Coastal Zone Management Act was
groundbreaking when it was enacted in 1972, but it is in need of
revision to meet the challenges of ecosystem-based management. It can
serve as an important part of the effort to integrate management across
sectors of human activity and as a primary vehicle for managing land-
sea interactions. State coastal management plans are the appropriate
means to improve land-use planning in the coastal zone, but a
consistent set of strong guidelines are needed. Planning must be
integrated with management of the wide array of other activities in
coastal and ocean areas including fisheries, energy infrastructure,
telecommunications, recreation, transportation and others. Coastal
management doesn't need uniformity, but it does need coherence around
the country and it needs to adapt to changing conditions. Coastal zone
management should be a critical part of an ecosystem-based approach to
policy. This means stronger criteria as a basis for the plans, and it
means significant increases in resources to make coastal zone
management what it needs to be, a major component of the Nation's
environmental policy structure. An essential component should be
periodic assessments of the state's natural, cultural, and economic
resources. Based on these assessments, management plans should then set
specific, measurable goals that reflect the growing understanding of
ocean and coastal environments and the need to manage growth in regions
under pressure from coastal development. It is also essential to
redefine the landward reach of state coastal zones to include coastal
watersheds, thus better enabling coastal programs to look across
political boundaries and incorporate a coastal watershed focus and the
basic tenets of ecosystem-based management.
Integrated Ocean Observing System: Make no mistake, we currently
have sufficient scientific information to move forward with an
ecosystem-based approach to management. Of course, we need more and
better coastal and ocean science and I strongly believe this is a
critically underfunded area of the Nation's scientific enterprise. But,
that doesn't mean we can't do a better job of management with what we
have, nor that an ecosystem-based approach is too complex. An urgent
need, however, is to bring disparate and fragmented datasets together
in a comprehensive system. This system must incorporate real-time ocean
observations of the environment including the biology of the oceans. It
must also include real-time observations of ocean-based activities. An
ocean observing system is critically needed, but it can't just be
observing the physics and chemistry. To be a tool for policy it must
relate observations to living resources and to human activity. We have
the tools for monitoring fishing, shipping and other activities, but
the data collection system must be modernized. To me it seems absurd to
create a high-technology system for ocean observations including
satellites, radar, buoys with sophisticated instruments, and ship borne
observations, and still collect information on fisheries on little
slips of paper under confidentiality rules that make little sense.
The ocean and coastal community has rallied behind the
implementation of an Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) and Ocean
Observatories Initiative (OOI). Together, this combination of research
and monitoring systems offer scientists and managers a more complete
view of atmospheric, terrestrial, and oceanic interactions occurring at
the global, national, and regional scales. IOOS supports the hardware,
software, data management, synthesis, and modeling activities that
integrate the data and information generated by the research community.
It should have the capacity to integrate a broader range of data than
just from the monitoring systems themselves. Technologically it is
possible to integrate comprehensive ocean data. I often think of this
as a dynamic version of Google Earth for the oceans. One should be able
to focus on any location in the U.S. coastal and ocean regions and find
out all we know about that location: the environment, habitat, recent
changes, and the human activities that occur within that area. Congress
should authorize and fund such a comprehensive and sustained national
system that will support and enhance our ability to understand and
manage ocean and coastal resources in a number of ways, including:
protecting lives and livelihoods from natural hazards; supporting
national defense and homeland security efforts; safeguarding public
health; developing new energy resources; adapting to climate change;
and conserving biodiversity.
Oceans and Climate Change: Finally, anthropogenic climate change is
occurring and it is affecting the oceans. The ocean effects are more
than sea level rise, and some are here now, not fifty years in the
future. More severe storms, changing regional climate and rainfall
patterns, temperature changes, shifting species distribution patterns,
and ocean acidification are all happening right now. The Nation must
make efforts to understand the impacts, mitigate the increase in
greenhouse gases, adapt to changing conditions, as well as research and
monitor the changes. I understand Congress is considering climate
change related legislation. The relationship between oceans and climate
is direct and significant, and I strongly urge the Committee to take a
leadership role developing language to incorporate into the legislation
that significantly enhances support for ocean and coastal programs
throughout the federal government. I believe this relates directly to
H.R. 21. The new policy direction for the oceans, new agency mandates,
coordination and structure, and new tools for ocean research,
management, and education must be implemented quickly to ensure that
Congress and other policy makers are provided with the information
necessary to make informed and balanced decision to deal with the
formidable challenges of the ocean effects of climate change.
Madame Chair and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased to respond to
questions and am also available to discuss these and other matters with
Members at their discretion.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Dr. Andy Rosenberg
QUESTIONS FROM THE HON. MADELEINE BORDALLO, CHAIRWOMAN
Coordinated ocean management
You argue for ecosystem based management that addresses existing
and new activities in the oceans--particularly the development of new
offshore energy sources.
1. Do you believe the existing framework and governance structure
adequately address the impacts of such activities and balance them with
existing uses? What needs to change in our governance structure to
truly achieve a coordinated and coherent approach toward ocean
ecosystem management and protection?
I do not believe the current system is sufficient to deal with
emerging uses of the ocean. There are four issues that should be
addressed directly in governing new uses of the ocean: a) what are the
criteria for determining whether a new activity is appropriate in a
particularly location with respect to it's impacts on the ecosystem
including other activities, b) how will exclusive allocation of space
be decided upon and what will be the obligations of holders of that
space including fees, monitoring, compensation, etc.; c) under what
framework and standards will the impacts of new uses be analyzed
including cumulative impacts on the environment (note: of course NEPA
applies but gives no guidance on which options should be preferred); d)
what will be the ongoing monitoring and evaluation required for new
uses. MMS is currently developing some guidelines for alternative
energy but not clearly related to these points above and not for other
uses such as aquaculture, desalination, etc.
H.R. 21 and the JOCI recommendations
Dr. Rosenberg, you served on the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
and now work with the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which reported
to the Senate its priorities for Congress.
2. In your opinion, does H.R. 21 address the most pressing
recommendations put forth by that Initiative?
Yes, with the exception of funding and revision of CZM, which are
critical priorities. While the bill addresses funding in part, it does
not go far enough in identifying a mechanism.
National Ocean Policy
You have written extensively and focused heavily on fisheries
management and conservation.
3. Do you believe that establishing a goal of protecting,
maintaining, and restoring ocean health--the habitats, community
dynamics, and environments that support our fisheries--will complement
the goals of fisheries management?
Yes I do believe the bill is complimentary to fisheries management
goals, not in competition with them. It is vital to recognize that
other activities effect fisheries productivity beside fishing itself.
Keeping fisheries in isolation is not a successful strategy in my view.
QUESTIONS FROM THE HON. HENRY BROWN, MINORITY RANKING MEMBER
1. You mention in your written testimony the importance of
integrated ocean observation systems and the need to relate the
observations to living resources and to human activity. H.R. 21 would
require the creation of regional ocean ecosystem resource information
systems. How would you compare the integrated ocean observation system
to the regional resource information systems? Would you consider the
regional information systems a subset of an integrated ocean
observation system or is it the other way around? Are these two
separate systems? Is there a need for both?
I believe there is a need for both an integrated ocean observing
system as a national (and international) effort and a regional
information system. I view the ocean observing system as a subset of
the regional information. Ocean observing is to take real time
measurements. There are lots of other data that need to be integrated
in order to provide a comprehensive picture of the ocean. It makes
sense to create regional information systems because the ecosystems are
regional and state and local data needs to be included. But some
efforts, like the ocean observing system need to be created and
management as a national program.
2. In your written testimony you discuss the need for coordinated
ocean management to address the emerging conflicts with regard to users
of ocean areas in U.S. waters. You reference the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for activities, such as liquid natural
gas ports or offshore wind farms, and the lack of standards on where to
place these facilities. While many support the idea of alternative
fuel, many do not want the facilities in their backyard. How would you
recommend we address these conflicting views and create standards? Does
H.R. 21 address them?
NEPA requires analysis of impacts but doesn't give guidance on the
basis for decisions. There is a need to create a set of standards, as
in the fisheries law, for citing new facilities. H.R. 21 could provide
a vehicle for doing this but it doesn't contain such standards at
present. I think the standards need to address minimizing the
disruption of other activities such as shipping and fishing, minimizing
environmental impacts, ensuring the public receives fair return for the
allocation of public space to private enterprise, monitoring
requirements and compatible uses. But the setting of standards is an
important public policy matter that needs full discussion.
3. You referenced in your written statement the issue of
fragmentation and conflicting authorities in NOAA and in the
Administration. How does H.R. 21 correct these problems?
H.R. 21 calls for reorganizing NOAA around it's core functions. It
also calls for a new coordination structure with other federal agencies
and the creation of an ocean policy advisor in the White House. These
changes should reduce fragmentation by bringing NOAA programs together
and tasking a high level appointee specifically with coordination on
ocean issues.
4. You mention the need to revise the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)and cite it as way to integrate management across sectors of
human activity and as the primary vehicle for managing land-sea
interactions. If Congress were to enact H.R. 21 would we need the
Coastal Zone Management Act?
We need stronger coastal zone management, whether it should be in a
separate act or not is more of a legal issue. Strengthening coastal
zone management including making it more comprehensive, ecosystem-
based, extending further into the watersheds, with strong guidance on
how to connect together management of the activities in the coastal
areas, and full funding coastal management activities are critically
important. H.R. 21 can provide a vehicle for some or all of these
needs, while other parts may be best left to revision of the CZMA.
5. What specific measures would you recommend Congress enact to
allow the Federal agencies to be more proactive in managing ocean
activities (shipping, fishing, etc) or development (aquaculture or
alternative energy platforms) in coastal waters?
As indicted in my testimony, I feel that an organic act for NOAA
which calls for reorganization is essential. I also feel better
coordination must be set up between agencies. Further, a management
structure for new uses of the ocean is needed, particularly those that
lease ocean space to an exclusive use. For that, we need standards and
guidelines that will ensure conflicts are addressed and the public
receives fair compensation as well as public interests are served.
6. If you could pick portions of H.R. 21 to move forward, which
provisions would choose?
The Organic Act, establishment of a structure for new uses of the
ocean with exclusive allocation of space, and establishment of an ocean
observing system that will meet policy needs in future.
7. Prior to enacting an overarching bill such as H.R. 21 and its
ecosystem-based management approaches, Congress should review existing
legislation, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
Endangered Species Act, and either repeal or amend these laws to adhere
to the ecosystem-based management approach. What are your views on this
statement?
I do not agree with the statement. I think the goal of setting an
ecosystem based management policy is to knit together the management of
the ocean under these laws and others in a coherent way. I think after
the principles and structure are established Congress should, in an
ongoing way, consider if any of these and other laws should be amended
to enable better integration of ocean policy.
8. Does the Marine Mammal Protection Act and its focus on
protecting marine mammals above other species fit into the ecosystem-
based approach to management?
It can if that is the goal that Congress wants to maintain for the
Nation. What it means in an ecosystem based management context is that
we should integrate the management of marine mammals with other uses in
a way that provides very strong protection for marine mammals. Just
because they are strongly protected doesn't mean that the management
measures ignore other uses. It just means that the goal of protecting
marine mammals receives high weight in evaluating tradeoffs.
9. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended voluntary
regional partnerships, yet H.R. 21 requires them. Is this appropriate?
Does making the regional partnerships mandatory limit the flexibility
of the state and regions to develop partnerships that respond to
specific needs?
The Commission recommended pilot programs as an initial step and
some progress has been made in that regard. Regional partnerships can
be flexible whether they are mandatory or voluntary (e.g. the fishery
management councils are all different in character). It depends on what
they are asked to do, more than the issue of voluntary or mandatory. I
think most if not all regions have begun to develop these partnerships
anyway.
10. H.R. 21 ignores existing laws, such as the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
which guide how activities will affect the ocean and conserve ocean
resources. It would seem to be more productive for this Committee to
review these and other existing statutes to determine how to best
modify them to create better coordination of conservation and
management efforts instead of enacting a new law that would supersede
all existing laws. Can you comment on this?
I don't agree the bill ignores these, but builds upon them. I think
the CZMA does need revision to improve and strengthen its management
provisions and adhere to ebm principles. I think NEPA does not need to
be modified but that the guidelines for implementing NEPA probably do.
I do not see Oceans 21 as superseding all existing laws. I think it is
intended to integrate existing laws so that the policy is less
fragmented and works better.
11. The bill charges NOAA with reporting on the status of ocean
ecosystems and resources two years after enactment of the bill and
every three years thereafter. The Regional Ocean Partnerships are also
required to develop regional ocean strategic plans which will include
an assessment of its ocean region. What changes can we make to the bill
to ensure there is limited duplication between the two reports? Can you
also make recommendation on how to limit duplication in other areas of
the bill?
I think NOAA should be developing a report that is based on
Regional reporting and provides a national overview. To do this,
integrated assessments of the regional ecosystems are needed and must
be funded adequately. This will also bring together a lot of the data
and information across sectors as called for in the bill, which is not
happening now. It also has the great potential to reduce duplication in
analyzing impacts on ecosystems in the course of NEPA analyses and
other but providing and integrated ecosystem assessment as the basis
for NEPA EIS statements for all proposed actions (instead of each
sector doing them independently).
Additional streamlining can be accomplished if an integrated data
set is created as called for in the bill, if CZMA plans can be
developed and strengthened as the basis for regional ocean plans, and
if the work across programs and agencies is integrated to reduce
fragmentation and duplication. All of these are called for in the
Commission report and are reflected in the bill.
12. You made statements at the hearing to the effect that it is
important to determine cumulative effects of actions on the ocean
environment. There are a number of disparate activities occurring on
the ocean. How do you envision the effects of cumulative impacts be
determined and by which agency?
Cumulative effects should be analyzed in the course of an
integrated ecosystem assessment as indicated above. NOAA as the lead
agency for the oceans should lead the integrated assessment but other
agencies should be required to participate and contribute. The analysis
of cumulative impacts is challenging and will develop over time. It is
possible to evaluate cumulative impacts for some parts of the ecosystem
now, such as cumulative impacts on fisheries productivity and on
habitat from multiple sectors. It may also be possible for severe storm
protection. For example, there was such an analysis done for the Gulf
coast prior to Hurricane Katrina, as referred to in the Commission
report, but it was not acted upon. For other ecosystem services and
functions it may be more difficult but substantial scientific work is
being done in many areas to evaluate cumulative impacts. Without a
clearer programmatic effort to do so, this work will not be brought to
bear on policy decisions with potentially disastrous results as seen in
the Gulf.
13. With the national standard language and the definition of
precautionary approach in H.R. 21, these provisions would limit or
prohibit actions if it could not be proven that the cumulative actions
have no significant impact on the ocean. This is a very protectionist
approach. Congress needs to find a balance between conservation actions
and allowing necessary actions to occur. How do you suggest we move
forward and beyond these very protectionist provisions?
The interpretation of a precautionary principle given in the
question is an extreme view that has been largely rejected within the
scientific community and is not used in policy discussions
internationally. A precautionary approach as more appropriately
defined, calls for being more cautious in the face of uncertainty,
rather than prohibiting actions unless there is no impact. A
precautionary approach calls for avoiding irreversible changes and
developing measures that can be implemented quickly if negative impacts
are observed to avoid delays. There is a substantial literature on the
precautionary approach applied to pollution, fisheries and other
sectors that can be relied upon here and does not take an extreme
protectionist view.
QUESTIONS FROM THE HON. JIM SAXTON
1. OCEANS-21 contains National Standards to guide implementation
of ``covered actions'' and a timeframe for interagency comment. What
sort of effect would this have when combined with current National
Standards and timelines contained in other laws such as the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act?
I view the standards as integrated the other laws under a
consistent policy rather than over-riding existing standards. For
example, the fisheries standards clearly call for preventing
overfishing and ensuring equity among user groups among other things.
These still pertain under an ecosystem based approach but now are
integrated with the actions of other sectors. The benefits are that it
will be possible to address impacts on fishery resources other than
fishery impacts and to make the rules across sectors fit together more
coherently.
2. Our oceans cover an area that is 23% larger than the land area
of the U.S. and, according to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy,
contribute roughly $117 billion to the U.S. economy, mostly from
tourism and recreation revenues. Given the expanse and importance of
our oceans to people of the United States, do you believe that it is
appropriate for Congress to issue guidance on how our oceans as a whole
should be managed--as we have done with all of our other major systems?
I believe it is critical that Congress do so. The oceans are a
hugely important public resource and fragmented management has put that
resource at risk.
3. The NOAA organic act title of H.R. 21 makes NOAA the lead
federal agency for oversight of all U.S. coastal, ocean, and Great
Lakes waters and resources. Currently, though, NOAA shares this
responsibility with agencies like USGS (for example, USGS manages
fisheries in the Great Lakes). While the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy did recommended consolidating oversight of ocean resources into
one federal organization, they recommended a slower, step-wise approach
that first provides an organic act for NOAA with its current
responsibilities and then over the course of a few years considers
transferring the responsibilities of other agencies to NOAA. Do you
agree with the Commissions step-wise approach to consolidating ocean
oversight, or do you believe this significant change in federal
oversight should be made immediately as proposed by H.R. 21?
I am a Commissioner and support the recommendations of the
Commission report. I think that in any case, it will take some time to
work through program consolidation across agencies. It cannot be done
with the stroke of the pen.
4. Many experts have stated that NOAA is too ``stovepiped'',
leading to inefficiencies and duplications across its five current line
offices. The NOAA organic act title of H.R. 21 proposes to consolidate
these offices into three primary functions--assessment, prediction and
operations; management; and research and education. I believe it is
important for research and education to be closely tied to and support
the other two functions of the agency, but under H.R. 21 things could
remain stovepiped having research as a separate function. In another
NOAA organic act proposal, H.R. 250 from Mr. Ehlers, there is a
leadership position that oversees all science at the agency to ensure
the best science is incorporated into all agency activities. Would you
recommend a similar position in H.R.21? If not, would you recommend
other changes in H.R. 21 to ensure that the research function of NOAA
continues to serve the needs of the operations and management functions
of the agency?
I agree that NOAA is too stovepiped and restructuring is warranted.
I also agree that oversight of science and research across the agency
is needed as recommended in the NOAA External Research Review Panel
report (I was also a member of that panel). I think H.R. 250 reflects
this need. It is essential that the research functions not be separated
from operations and management but it is also essential that the
different areas of operations and management be more integrated. A lead
scientist position with real authority could help make the NOAA science
program an integrated whole, not a collection of programs.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Dr. Rosenberg. And now
the Chair recognized Mr. Benton to testify for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVE BENTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
MARINE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE
Mr. Benton. Thank you, Madam Chair. I too want to
congratulate the committee for holding this hearing and
providing this opportunity to provide you our views about H.R.
21. You have my written statement. For the record, I am David
Benton with the Marine Conservation Alliance. I just want to
respond to some of the things that I have heard here today in
the hearing.
I think my written statement speaks for itself, although I
have one mea culpa, Madam Chair. In the last edit while I was
on the airplane it was supposed to be addressed to Madam Chair
not to Mr. Chairman, and we will make a change to that and
submit it accordingly.
Ms. Bordallo. You are excused.
Mr. Benton. Thank you. But do I get an extra two minutes?
Anyway, Madam Chair, the Marine Conservation Alliance
represents about 80 percent of the seafood production in
Alaska. Alaska represents about half the seafood production in
the country. Our members come from all walks of life in the
seafood industry, harvesters, processors, coastal communities
and our interests are in finding practical solutions to real
world conservation problems and do that in a timely and cost
effective manner.
And we share a lot of the kinds of concerns you have heard
here today about bringing management systems together, making
them more cohesive, making them more effective and making them
more efficient, and we are very supportive of moving toward
ecosystem based fisheries management or management of other
marine resources and doing so in a way that is based on good
science and a transparent public policy.
The problem that I see with H.R. 21 is that because of the
way the bill is presently constructed--that does not mean we
cannot fix it--but because of the way the bill is presently
constructed it does not achieve those goals and in fact our
concern is that it could get in the way of making the kinds of
progress that we need to get accomplished in this country, and
I will give you an example. The national standard that is in
this bill is fine enough for certain kinds of activities in the
marine environment but it is basically a monofocused national
standard around ecosystem management.
There are other things that go on in the marine and coastal
environment that also should be part of a national policy.
Transportation policy. Energy policy. A national defense
policy. This policy does not get to that. It gets to one aspect
of marine events and uses.
The standards for implementing the national policy are very
rigid and very prescriptive. They do not provide the kinds of
flexibility that you need to have in a real world management
sense. All Federal actions that are covered under this bill
would be required to demonstrate that they are not likely to
harm a marine ecosystem, any marine ecosystem, and that is
going to be a very difficult challenge to make, and managers
are going to have a very difficult time meeting that standard
and doing it in a timely fashion.
Our concern is the interaction between the national
standards and the definitions in this bill are going to cause a
system of gridlock and not do what I think the proponents of
the bill are trying to get done which is to streamline things
and make them more effective and to bring a different level of
conservation ethic into how we make decisions. We think it is
going to get in the way.
The other kind of concerns that we have here is the
creation of a fairly large and elaborate and expensive
bureaucracy. We have a lot of bureaucracy now. The U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy pointed this out very well, and they
laid out some steps that could be taken but those steps were
largely built upon improving existing programs and making the
best use we can of what we have instead of a new bureaucracy
that lays over the top.
The third thing I want to touch on really quickly is
funding. The bill sets up the trust fund. We think having an
oceans trust fund might be a very good idea. The difficulty is
that the only new source of money is the national stamp. Nobody
seems to know how much money that would generate. We do not
think that is going to generate a billion three hundred million
dollars a year. So the money is going to have to come out of
the general treasury.
With the fiscal realities that this country is facing--and
you face this all the time here in this town--unless you can
identify a new source of money that means that those general
treasury funds that are going to go into that trust fund are
going to come and be scored against some program, and we are
concerned it is going to scored against oceans, science and
management programs that already exist. Without a new source of
money, the trust fund is simply moving money around and
shuffling the decks on the Titanic, and we cannot afford to do
that, and with that, Madam Chair, I am going to beat the clock,
and thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Benton follows:]
Statement of David Benton, Executive Director,
Marine Conservation Alliance
Thank you Madam Chair. For the record, my name is David Benton, and
I am the Executive Director of the Marine Conservation Alliance (MCA).
MCA is based in Juneau Alaska, and represents harvesters, processors,
coastal communities, Community Development Quota organizations, and
support services businesses involved in the groundfish and shellfish
fisheries of Alaska. MCA was formed to promote the sustainable use of
North Pacific marine resources by present and future generations
through the application of sound science, prudent management, and a
transparent open public process. MCA supports research and public
education regarding the fishery resources of the North Pacific, and
seeks practical solutions to resource conservation issues to protect
the marine environment and ensure sustainable fisheries. Our members
collectively represent roughly 80% of the production of North Pacific
fisheries.
I want to thank you and the committee for this opportunity to
testify before you today regarding H.R. 21, the Oceans Conservation,
Education, and National Strategy for the 21st Century Act.
Although the bill has much broader implications for oceans
conservation and management, I want to speak to H.R. 21 mostly from a
fisheries perspective. While MCA supports efforts to move towards an
ecosystem based approach to fisheries management, we are concerned that
several provisions in H.R. 21 will actually impede efforts to improve
conservation of our nation's marine resources.
To put our concerns into perspective, let's first examine Alaska's
record for fisheries management.
Alaska produces roughly half of the nation's commercial fisheries
landings by volume. Fisheries account for about 35,000 jobs in Alaska,
and are valued at over $1.3 billion dollars in ex-vessel value. In
2005, the ex-vessel value of groundfish alone was $740M with $138.4M
from the Gulf of Alaska and $601.8M from the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands. The gross value of the 2004 groundfish catch, after primary
processing, was approximately $2.0B (F.O.B. Alaska). In addition to
groundfish, halibut and shellfish generated $170.1M and $159.2M ex-
vessel values respectively.
Most importantly, the majority of Alaska's coastal communities are
built around a fisheries based economy, and without a stable fishery
resource base many of these communities would not exist. It is because
of this dependence upon the sea and its renewable resources that
Alaskans work hard to ensure that conservation comes first, and that
fishery resources are managed for their long term sustainability.
The record speaks for itself. There are no overfished stocks of
groundfish in Alaska. Fisheries are managed under hard caps and close
when harvest limits are reached. Federal observers, Coast Guard, NOAA
Enforcement, and Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) monitor the fisheries
to ensure compliance with closures. Over 380,000 square nautical miles
are closed to bottom trawling to protect marine habitat. Ecosystem
considerations are taken into account in fishery management plans. For
example, fishing on forage fish species is prohibited, and measures are
taken to protect endangered species, marine mammals, and seabirds. For
depressed crab stocks, aggressive rebuilding plans have been in place
for many years. Most scientists believe that these stocks are depressed
because of oceanographic changes that happened in the late 1970's, and
that these stocks will not rebound until oceanographic conditions
become more favorable for these species.
We have also worked hard to address oceans conservation on the
international level. Because of the combined efforts of the seafood
industry, the States of Alaska and Washington, and the federal
government, several new treaties were put in place that established one
of the world's most effective multi-lateral surveillance and
enforcement regimes, a comprehensive multi-national science program,
and institutional arrangements that have the management tools to
protect the region's marine resources from illegal and unregulated high
seas fishing. As a result, high seas salmon interception has all but
been eliminated, incidental mortalities of marine mammals and seabirds
dramatically reduced, and vulnerable fish stocks in large areas of the
North Pacific outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone are no longer
subject to unregulated fishing pressure.
Because of this record, Alaska has been cited by the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy and other groups as a potential model for
the rest of the nation. Recent articles in National Geographic identify
Alaska as one of three areas in the world where management is being
done right.
But, we also know that nothing is perfect, and in the ever changing
world of oceans conservation and fisheries management you cannot rest
on your laurels. We are constantly working to improve our understanding
of the marine environment, and the factors affecting it. For example,
in Alaska the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) is
developing a Fisheries Ecosystem Plan for the Aleutian Islands. This is
the first such plan for Alaska waters. In addition, the North Pacific
Research Board, in cooperation with the National Science Foundation is
funding a multi-disciplinary multi-year ecosystem research program for
the Bering Sea. A second, similar program is planned for the Gulf of
Alaska. On a broader scale, the NPFMC spark plugged an effort to bring
together all the relevant state and federal agencies to discuss and
address activities such as shipping safety, marine pollution, offshore
oil development, land use in the coastal zone, fisheries, and other
factors that are or might have an effect on Alaska's marine
environment.
In a similar vein, Alaska's seafood industry has instituted several
major cooperative research programs to partner with federal, state, and
university scientists in numerous scientific projects to reduce
bycatch, improve fishery monitoring and accountability, and mitigate
the effects of fishing on seafloor habitat. We are also operating one
of the nation's largest marine debris clean-up programs in partnership
with NOAA and local communities and citizens groups.
All of these efforts are improving our management and conservation
of fisheries and related marine resources. Most importantly, while
quite similar to some of the concepts in H.R. 21, these efforts are
being carried out under existing authorities within the context of well
understood legal mandates and public participation processes. The
results are practical and timely measures to improve resource
conservation.
This record also provides the context from which we look at the
provisions of H.R. 21. And it is because of our practical experiences
in the North Pacific that we believe that some of the major provisions
of H.R. 21 will actually impede efforts to improve conservation of our
coastal and oceans resources.
Our concerns center on three basic aspects of the bill:
Establishing a broad national policy with poorly
conceived national standards;
Far reaching mandates for ecosystem based management with
little or no recognition of the realities of the status of the science
involved, the conflicts that will arise between the new policies and
current and ongoing conservation and management programs, the impacts
of the policies on existing ocean related uses, the increased potential
for unnecessary litigation, and the gridlock that will ensue;
The expense of the new bureaucracy called for by the
bill, and the attendant weakening of ongoing conservation efforts due
to scarcity of funding and personnel resources.
Title I of H.R. 21 purports to establish a national oceans policy.
However, instead of enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of our
nation's oceans management regimes through a comprehensive approach to
oceans policy, H.R. 21 further complicates an already daunting array of
laws, regulations and policies that currently govern ocean uses. It
does so by focusing on only one aspect of the nation's ocean interests,
and by adding yet another layer of broad, far reaching, but poorly
defined policies and standards. The bill establishes U.S. policy to
``protect, maintain, and restore the health of marine ecosystems'' and
then a national standard that, ``to the fullest extent possible, the
policies, regulations, and Public Laws of the United States'' shall be
interpreted to meet this policy.
Actions covered by the bill are defined as ``any activity affecting
United States ocean or coastal waters or resources that are authorized
(including a federal license or permit), carried out, or funded by a
federal agency''. The bill then mandates that such actions ``may
proceed only if the covered action is not likely to harm the health of
any marine ecosystem and is not likely to impede the restoration of the
health of any marine ecosystem''.
Taken together, this broad policy subverts all national interests
in ocean affairs to one single policy, and circumscribes all other
federal laws with a broad and poorly defined mandate. Any federal
agency conducting any activity that might affect ocean or coastal
waters is to judge any and all covered actions against this inflexible
standard, a standard that is virtually impossible to verify, and
certify compliance prior to allowing the action to proceed. If there
ever was a formula for gridlock, this is it.
Title II of H.R. 21 is an organic act for NOAA. Section 204
requires NOAA to ``take an ecosystem-based management approach'' to all
of the agency's resource management obligations. While on the face of
it, this sounds like a positive step in resource conservation; in
reality it ignores some very fundamental and basic issues.
First and foremost is the question of whether or not the science is
there to do the job right. The bill addresses this question by stating
that lack of science requires managers to invoke the ``precautionary
principle'' and take action. In other words, lack of information is no
excuse, regardless of the consequences. The annals of resource
management are replete with examples of well intentioned actions
resulting in disastrous unintended consequences. Blind adherence, or in
this case a legal requirement, to act on poor information is not, in
our opinion, good resource management.
Instead, relying on the expertise of managers and their science
advisors to take prudent steps seems more in order. But, by setting up
rigid legal requirements, coupled with judicial review and litigation,
this bill is heading in the other direction.
Secondly, the mandate for an ecosystem-based approach to management
is exacerbating the problems managers already face. Namely, how to
balance different resources and uses. For example, when endangered
salmon come into conflict with protected marine mammals that feed on
them, how do the managers meet the requirement for ecosystem based
management? Or, when confronted with decimation of protected sea otter
populations by protected Orcas, how do managers respond? Should they
``take sides'' in the ecosystem by reducing Orca mortality on sea
otters? Should they engage in ``control measures'' to protect
endangered salmon from predation? What if the only viable alternative
is lethal control of the predator? Under the provisions of H.R. 21,
would managers be vulnerable to litigation if they did not take such
actions?
Admittedly these are extreme cases, yet each is actually playing
out in the world today. They serve to underscore a more fundamental
question. What do we mean by ``ecologically sustainable''; and how do
managers respond in a real world sense to a mandate for ``maintaining
biological diversity and ecosystem functioning and structure from one
human generation to the next''. Given the statutory mandate of H.R. 21,
does this mean that fishery managers base their management programs on
the potential consequences of coastal development that might happen
sometime in the future? Does that mean that repairs to harbors or
shoreline protections should be halted because it cannot be shown that
they are ``not likely to significantly harm the health of any marine
ecosystem''?
From the perspective of a region that is interested in making real,
``on the water'' progress in oceans governance and conservation, each
of the definitions of ``marine ecosystem health'', ``healthy marine
ecosystem'', ``precautionary approach'', and most importantly the
definition of ``ecosystem-based management'' all suffer from the same
basic flaw. They sound good, and are full of ambiguities that will make
the practical and real world work of managers virtually impossible.
These problems are even more daunting when considering the scope of
the area and functions covered under the provisions of H.R. 21. The
definitions of oceans waters include all federal waters, and the
definition of coastal waters includes those waters covered by Sec. 304
of the Coastal Zone Management Act, which includes bays and estuaries.
By extension, this may also include activities taking place anywhere in
the coastal zone, which in many states reaches far inland. This means
that road repairs, sewers, harbor improvements, shoreline restoration,
fisheries both commercial and recreational, housing, shipping and
transportation, and all the myriad of activities that take place on or
near the ocean will fall under the new mandate, and managers will have
to juggle all of these considerations when making decisions.
As a final point, in addition to the provisions of Title II that
establish NOAA, Titles III and IV establish an elaborate, and
potentially very expensive, oceans planning process. Some of these
provisions mirror recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Oceans
Policy, some of which have already been adopted by the President. Some
of these new provisions simply create a new and somewhat redundant
bureaucracy. This will be an expensive endeavor, with the potential for
drawing funds away from ongoing conservation or science programs to
fund the new bureaucracy.
To address this concern, H.R. 21 would establish the Oceans and
Great Lakes Conservation Trust Fund. Aside from the sale of a ``Healthy
Oceans Stamp'' and some interest gathered on the Fund over time,
deposits to the fund will apparently come from the general Treasury.
Current fiscal realities will dictate that these funds will be counted
against other oceans programs. The result is classic, once again the
ocean community will be faced with broad and contradictory policies,
and new mandates, with insufficient funding.
So what is the way forward? How do we make progress in a practical
and timely fashion?
We propose the following:
1. Implement the Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA). Reauthorization of
the MSA has already done much of what is needed. Now Congress needs to
fund the research and conservation programs it just passed. The revised
MSA was a significant achievement that included provisions to move the
nation towards ecosystem based fisheries management, prevent
overfishing, strengthen the role of science in fisheries management,
and improve monitoring and enforcement. The renewed MSA passed with
broad bi-partisan support, and was hailed by conservationists,
recreational and commercial fishermen, scientists, and fishery
managers; all of whom praised the bill as a much welcomed improvement
for conserving our nation's marine resources. With regard to ecosystem
based management, the MSA takes a step wise approach by providing the
tools to move in that direction, and by strengthening existing
scientific programs to get the data to support such efforts. This is a
formula for success.
2. Provide a source of stable and long term funding for oceans
research and observation. The MSA began this process, and H.R. 21 may
have some elements to add through the creation of the Oceans and Great
Lakes Conservation Trust Fund. However, none of these efforts will
succeed unless new sources of dedicated funds are identified that do
not detract from funding for existing programs.
3. Be selective in setting new policies and cautious when
establishing new mandates. Fix only what is broken. Strengthen federal/
state partnerships and promote regionally based solutions. Several
reports and studies emphasize building on existing programs in an
evolutionary manner. Make it the first priority to provide the resource
management agencies the personnel and basic funding they need to do
their job, and do it well.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Benton. I
am going to go ahead and recognize the members. Of course I am
the only one here right at the moment but I do have questions
for each of the witnesses and hopefully my colleagues will be
returning soon. And I know, Mr. Grader, you have a plane to
catch later on. How much time can you be with us?
Mr. Grader. I have probably got about another seven
minutes.
Ms. Bordallo. Well good. Just time for my question. This
has to do with the trust fund. The Administration testified
that they oppose the establishment of a trust fund because it
somehow limits their ability to identify and fund priorities.
Has it been your experience that the programs needed to better
manage our fisheries and oceans have received the funding they
need by relying on the prioritization process of the
Administration?
Mr. Grader. No, they have not, Madam Chairman, and that has
been one of our concerns. We started beginning clamoring for a
trust fund well over 10 years ago, and basically designed a
model for both an ocean and a fishery trust fund but part of
the problem we have gotten into trouble in fisheries in this
country was not just greed or avarice but was ignorance because
we simply did not have the adequate funds to do the research
that was required, and we still do not.
And so I think from that standpoint and in looking larger
at our oceans we need to have a steady source of funds. One
thing we looked at as a model--albeit a small one--was the
Sport and Fishing Restoration Fund which has been a very
popular program funded by a tax on all sporting goods, sport
fishing goods sold as well as on the marine gasoline. That has
raised a lot of money. The monies are then administered by the
Fish and Wildlife Service and go back out to the states for the
programs. That has been an extremely popular program, and I
think you know development of a trust fund for our oceans is
good.
We share Mr. Benton's concerns that the money identified in
here is not adequate but on the other hand we see this as
positive much as we did with Magnuson. At least we started. We
got a trust fund concept started. Then I think in both the case
of fisheries and in our oceans we do need to identify other
sources. For fisheries we have done that. We have not done that
yet for oceans.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. I would like to ask every member
of the panel because I think Mr. Benton zeroed in on the trust
fund you all agree we need more money. Where do you think we
should get it from? I would like to ask Ms. Chasis.
Ms. Chasis. Well I think we agree with Zeke that the idea
of creating the fund and making sure that you know one thing
that is important is not only making sure money is set aside in
the fund but that it is mandated to be spent because we have
seen with other programs like the Land and Water Conservation
Fund that money goes into it but then we do not see it coming
out. We think that there are potentially other sources of
funding that could go into this. The kind of proposal that
Zeke's group has put forward in terms of a seafood tax
potentially.
One area that we have been concerned about including that
has sometimes been the subject of discussion is offshore oil
and gas revenues, and we would want to you know look at that
kind of proposal very, very carefully. We certainly do not want
to have funding sources which actually encourage activities
which could be more damaging to the ocean when the goal here is
really to try to protect the ocean. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. I would like to ask next Dr. Rosenberg the
same question.
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you, Madam Chair. The commission
recommended some specific sources of funding for an ocean trust
fund, and I do think it is very important that it be an ocean
trust fund for a range of uses. There are fisheries issues but
there are many others. Certainly the use of offshore oil and
gas revenues is difficult, and we recognize that of course it
is always a little bit of a zero sum game of trying to move
money from one place to another.
I think it is important to recognize that ocean related
activities, ocean science and education have been underfunded
for quite awhile, and so the decision with regard to oil and
gas funding I think is certainly a matter of priorities between
competing uses. But one part of the commission recommendation
that has not perhaps been fully appreciated is that we
recommended that the new uses of the ocean that I mentioned in
my testimony including aquaculture, including you know offshore
energy facilities, LNG ports and so on, are potentially since
they require a dedicated ocean space, public trust space, that
they are potentially an important source of funding, and there
has been no decision or as far as I am aware no extensive
discussion of that particular potential source of revenue.
It also argues for having a consistent and comprehensive
system for managing those new uses as they come up, and so I
think that that is an important source of revenue that should
be considered in development of this trust fund along with some
of the other competing uses. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Rosenberg. I have
listened to the three of you, of course we are going to hear
from Mr. Benton, but this is why we are having this hearing to
get ideas and some of them are very interesting, and certainly
the committee will take note. Mr. Benton.
Mr. Benton. Thank you, Madam Chair. I concur with Dr.
Rosenberg and with Ms. Chasis in their comments about where to
find monies. I know that offshore oil and gas revenues are a
difficult at least philosophical issue, and they have some
practical issues as well.
One thing that occurred to me sitting here was that a few
years back there was a bipartisan bill. I think it was authored
in fact by Congressman Young from my state to create a
conservation trust fund. I cannot remember exactly the name of
it but I think we could certainly pull that back up and see
where the revenue sources for that were going to come from and
see if that might provide an avenue to pursue. That bill had a
fair amount of support from at least some of the conservation
community as I recall, and was I think a bipartisan bill but we
could certainly do that, and I would be happy to work with you
and any staff to find that if you want.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Benton. I
have a question here for Dr. Rosenberg. I think you were in the
room and you heard Mr. Dunnigan testify in opposition to the
bill. His point was that the President's Executive Order and
the U.S. Ocean Action Plan are more than sufficient, and we do
not need any legislation to achieve the recommendations of the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Based on your experience as a
former administrator within NOAA and a member of the U.S.
Commission, would you agree that the President's efforts
satisfy the Commission's recommendations and that no
legislative measures are needed?
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you for the question, and no, I would
not. I think the report card that the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative makes that fairly clear that the commissioners on
both commissions really do not believe that the current efforts
are nearly sufficient. Specifically with regard to the Ocean
Action Plan, not only with funding and some of the
international issues, but in thinking about the ecosystem based
management approach, NOAA is certainly working very hard in
trying to do good things. I have no question of that, and I
worked for the agency for 10 years and a strong supporter.
But they need to take a new direction, and that is very
difficult to do when you are in the same structure you have
been in for awhile with the same mandates that you have had for
awhile just by telling people to work more nicely together.
Ms. Bordallo. Well when your funding is declining.
Mr. Rosenberg. And your funding is declining. One of the
difficulties with a lot of the discussion of ecosystem based
management and in fact this bill is that people are assuming it
is just an add-on. We are going to do all the things we are
doing now but then we are going to do some additional things
and where will the money come from? And that was the sense of
Mr. Dunnigan's comments.
I think the argument within the commission or from the
commission is that we are saying we need to do things
differently. We need to connect up those programs differently
not just add the layers as I think Mr. Benton referred to, and
that is a difficult task for an agency that has been in
existence for 37 years to make changes in directions. Are they
doing some things? Is it sufficient? No, it is not.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Ms. Chasis, would you like to
comment on that?
Ms. Chasis. Yes. I think that you know there is the
committee on ocean policy that is created by the President's
Executive Order but there is no clear direction of policy to
that entity, and I think Congress really is the one that needs
to provide that direction in order for us to see the real
coordination and direction in terms of ecosystem based
management that we need and that the two commissions requested,
and also you know we need something that is permanent.
That has got longevity, and something that is just created
by one President through Executive Order just does not have the
same stature or importance as a piece of legislation that
Congress has enacted. So I do not think the responses of the
Administration are at all satisfactory to the concerns that our
community has and that the two commissions have.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. You mentioned something on one
point that I keep bringing up. I served in the Executive Branch
in my community government as a lieutenant Governor and
executive orders are executive orders. They come and they go,
and they may not be what the next Administration wishes to
carry out very simply. But you know when you work through
Congress you know that it is something permanent, and I think
that is important. Mr. Benton, do you have any comments on
that?
Mr. Benton. Well, Madam Chair, I think that the
Administration made a good first stab at trying to pick up on
the recommendations from the U.S. Ocean Commission. I have no
problem if the Congress wants to establish in statute you know
a policy in the Executive Branch and the President's office and
that committee. I do not think that is going to make a huge
difference whether it is established by statute or not
because--and I agree with your statement about you know
executive orders come and go.
But there is so much attention and interest in the oceans
that I believe for the foreseeable future, the next several
Presidents down the way, this is going to be a major topic for
the country. They are going to follow in those footsteps. If I
may, the real issue comes down to some other pieces of what the
President started, what the commission recommended, and where
we really I believe need to be focused.
The integrated ocean observing system is a very important
piece. We will not be able to do ecosystem management well if
we do not have a much more improved data set to operate from,
and those kinds of recommendations are the ones that we need to
be picking up on. They are not dealt with well in this bill,
and this bill could get in the way of that unless we solve that
funding issue, and the President started down that road but he
has not finished that job at all.
Ms. Bordallo. Dr. Rosenberg, you had your hand up.
Mr. Rosenberg. Yes, if I could just add one more thing,
Madam Chair, and that is that with regard to the National Ocean
Council, the commission recommended certainly that there should
be a council and there should be an advisor to the President on
ocean policy but a critical issue is how will NOAA actually get
the other agencies to engage.
I mean this is not just a NOAA problem even though much of
the discussion has been focused on NOAA, and in a National
Ocean Council unless you have a clear policy direction that is
national and they have a task to do with regard to a set of
standards or a specific policy statement, it will be very
difficult for a relatively small agency like NOAA to go to the
Navy or NSF or EPA or Department of Transportation and get them
to pay attention to those same issues unless there is something
pushing them to do so, and that is why I think it is very
important to have a clear overarching mandate from Congress
that says to do that.
Yes, the President could direct his Secretaries to do so
but without a clear imperative of what they are supposed to do,
I just do not think they are all going to come to the table and
work together.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Dr.
Rosenberg. Well you know we can speak forever on this but we
are here to get input from all of you to make this a better
piece of legislation. But I would not want to be working under
an Executive Order. That is for sure because no matter how
important this particular subject is and it will continue to be
of great importance in the future, it is just good to have that
permanent feeling of knowing that no one can make any changes
and we have a piece of legislation behind us, and we are
permanent. That to me is very important.
And I am very happy that the father of this bill is here
back with us, Congressman Farr, and I have tried to stretch it
out as long as I could until everybody got back. So I would
like to recognize Representative Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, and I really appreciate you
continuing. I know our witnesses some had to catch planes and
most of the Members of Congress when I ran out after this last
vote are already in the airport. I mean they just ran for their
cars. So this town is emptying right now, and I think it is
important that you were able to get all the panels to
participate because we oftentimes cut off the panels, and I
appreciate your leadership on this.
I really have no questions. I am just very excited that we
had you know very good observations today if not in some in
committing that this is a great bill in the right direction but
the whole recognition that status quo does not solve the
problems. So that is the first line of trying to solve a
problem is you have an agreement that something is broken that
needs fixing, and I think from there we can make great
progress.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, the gentleman from
California, Mr. Farr. I have another question for Ms. Chasis.
Both the Administration and the Coastal States Organization
oppose the requirement under Title 1 that Federal agency
actions be administered in accordance with the National Ocean
Policy arguing that it will create a bottleneck that will block
activities from occurring. Do you agree, and if not, why not?
Who will this process work?
Ms. Chasis. No, we do not agree. First of all, you have a
policy. You need a standard that is an action forcing standard
to get agencies to actually implement the policy in particular
context, and I think the language of the standard is carefully
constructed so that it is really focused on activities which
could impact the ecosystem. It is a pretty high standard. It
talks about significant impacts. It talks about likely impacts.
It talks about ecosystem level impacts. So it is really trying
to get at those things which go to the health of the system.
The other point is it is not trying to replace the mandates
of other law. That issue I think came up earlier. What it is
saying is integrate this policy with the other mandates to the
maximum extent you can. You know if there is an inherent
conflict between the mandates of another law and this, the
other law holds but to the extent there is discretion, this is
in a sense like the way it works under the Coastal Zone
Management Act.
You are requiring agencies to be consistent with this
policy to the maximum extent possible. So we think it is an
important action forcing mechanism. It is not designed to block
things in the oceans. It is trying to say look at the things
that are really going to have major impact and make sure that
the overall functioning of the system is maintained which is
needed to support fisheries, to support all these other uses
that are so vital. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Chasis. Do the
other panelists wish to comment on that? Dr. Rosenberg and then
Mr. Benton.
Mr. Rosenberg. I think it is very important to have a
national ocean policy and standards, whether the language of
the standards you know is exactly right or not is a matter that
certainly a Joint Ocean Commission Initiative will be happy to
work with the committee on. The reason that I think it is so
important is because I do think you need to have Federal
agencies engage on this issue, and oddly enough I think that
the least problematic area is fisheries because fisheries
already has to do this within their existing statute, and so
all the concern is that this is going to change fisheries
management, and I do not think it will. If in fact you adhere
to the Magnuson Act you would have to do this anyway.
And so there really is not anything new. No new requirement
for fisheries in my view. What is a new requirement is that if
you are taking some other action that may impact on that ocean
ecosystem that fisheries depend upon, whether it be a
transportation action or new use in the ocean that you have to
explicitly consider those ecosystem function issues and the
ability of the ecosystem to maintain itself.
So I think it gives exactly what Zeke Grader referred to as
the ability of, for example, fishermen who depend upon the
ocean to have an entree into many of the other issues that are
problematic for them but they really do not have an entree into
now, and if I go back to the LNG port in New England or the
wind farms in New England, how was the fisheries management
council or the state fisheries agency able to impact upon those
sighting discussions with regard to LNG ports even though it
became an exclusive that you know many fishermen in the town I
live in said was going to have a major economic impact on them
because of the exact location they chose? They had no way to
get into that process other than public comment, and they
should have more of a voice than that.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Dr.
Rosenberg. Mr. Benton.
Mr. Benton. Well, Madam Chair, I see the present language I
have to agree with the Administration with regard to the way
the present language is constructed. Now I can see a way and I
think Dr. Rosenberg and Ms. Chasis both identified that there
are probably ways to improve the language a bit to avoid what
may be an unintended consequence but the way the language is
presently constructed, all actions by any Federal agency that
may affect an ocean ecosystem have to go through this filter,
and the filter, the standard is that the agency has to certify
that it is not likely to harm any marine ecosystem, and that is
a very difficult thing to do in a real world sense.
And so in my written testimony I think I have pointed this
out fairly pointedly, and I can see some real problems. I spent
14 years with the State of Alaska as a fishery manager in the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. I did the international
negotiations. I did all the council stuff, and then I served as
a private individual on a fishery management council, and I can
tell you just from that practical experience this kind of
language, depending on how it is implemented and depending on
how it is put in regulation, this could be a real problem.
There is a way to fix that I believe but the way it is
presently constituted I could see some real difficulties, and I
know people are trying to get other kinds of activities. You
know some of the development in coastal zones or effects you
know up river that is affecting salmon, and I am very
sympathetic to that. I have seen it the other way.
I was the U.S. negotiator along with some counterparts from
Washington state on the salmon treaty with Canada. One of the
big problems in that treaty was threatened and endangered
salmon in the Columbia River in the pacific northwest, and the
affects that habitat degradation were having on those salmon,
and it was a legitimate concern. They were listed, and that is
a big problem.
What happened was that the Canadians and some folks from
the southern United States tried to use that as a negotiating
tactic in an international treaty, and they were using very
inappropriately those kinds of considerations which were in
many ways domestic considerations to leverage other parties in
those negotiations to do things that were not biologically
necessary.
And I could see this standard sort of having that same kind
of unintended, I believe unintended consequence, and so I would
be very cautious.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Benton. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would just
like to ask Mr. Benton because first of all that idea of
measuring the impacts has been the essence of both of the
reports. If you asked what was the bottom line, it is well what
are the activities? The activities in the ocean, what do they
do to the ocean's ecosystem? And everybody says, yes, we need
to do that but how do we do it? And I guess my frustration is
we have had this language around. This has been the essence of
this bill for now about four years.
And you know we have not gotten a lot of comments on it. I
mean just other than sort of the generic concerns. If you have
some specifics, because I guess the question is, who would you
exempt? Because that begins the exemption. Should you exempt
the Navy? Should you exempt fishermen? I mean the question is
how do you measure impacts that would degradate the health of
the ocean without having these plans at least trigger what
kinds of decisions are going to be having an impact?
You know we do not have any process for that, and that is
what is lacking and why we need to have some of this strategy
and this approach, and I would be glad to work with you on
language because we certainly want the Alaskan support. It is
ironic that Don Young was the one that actually got this bill
through the House. There was a conflict here. I mean people say
we do not need to study it. It was that attitude. You know we
do not need another commission.
He saw the necessity to kind of get these problems resolved
by creating a commission that could hold hearings all over the
country, and frankly you know they appointed a lot of oil and
gas folks to be on that commission, and we were delightfully
surprised to see how strong they came out about needing this
governance structure and essentially measuring actions in the
ocean including their own against negative impacts. And so we
cannot abandon this idea. This is the foundation of the bill
but we certainly can work with ways to mitigate unintended
consequences.
Mr. Benton. Madam Chair?
Ms. Bordallo. Please, Mr. Benton.
Mr. Benton. Congressman Farr, I certainly agree with you
that the message that came out of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy was that we need to take a good hard look at how we are
doing things and make it better, and the notion that they came
up with about for example the regional ocean councils had some
appeal up our way. They were more or less a voluntary kind of
thing, and you could move yourself along in sort of a
deliberative, thoughtful way to get to that broader ecosystem
management goal, and we do not have a problem with that.
And in fact in our part of the world right now my group and
our fishery management council is doing a fishery ecosystem
plan for the Aleutians. It is the first one for our part of the
world. They have spark plugged with the State of Alaska what
basically it was the recommendation of the U.S. Commission for
a regional oceans council. It has got the Coast Guard. It has
got all the state agencies, all the Federal agencies. It has
got some users on there. Not too many user groups right now
because the agencies are still trying to figure out how they
are going to do that dance.
The governance structure, that kind of governance structure
is not the biggest problem that I see. What I see is in some of
the specific language in the way the standards might interact,
and in that regard I would be happy to work with you and the
committee and see if there is a way that we might be able to
try and shape that in a way that alleviates some of those
concerns. I just see them as being a very high bar and the
standard being vague enough and difficult enough with the
judicial review provision here. My good colleague down here,
Sarah Chasis, is going to have a full employment career for the
rest of the days, and she is going to be able to get the
scholarship for her kids well paid off.
Ms. Chasis. I just want to respond to that and point out
that----
Ms. Bordallo. The Chair recognized.
Ms. Chasis.--one of the first cases I ever brought was on
behalf of Mr. Benton. He should not be one to complain.
Mr. Farr. I think we are using the word standard here very
loosely. The ideal here is kind of a goal not a standard. The
standards have to be worked out, and the only thing I would
have to say to you is that I have been involved in these where
you can do the model well in your own backyard and you really
solve the problem and I applaud Alaska. It is getting a lot of
accolades.
You are really doing a wonderful job of meeting with the
environmental concerns and the fishery concerns and others but
also what you have to be concerned about is that you build that
and then where is the equal playing field against your
competitors who are in other parts of the country because you
are selling to the same market, and you need some standards
there where your competitors have to live by those same
standards, and that is the equal playing field, and that is the
certainty that economics and investment like to have.
So I do not think you can just leave this up that it is all
going to work out if everybody voluntarily agrees to do
something because what happens with volunteer organizations
they are usually led by an incredible personality or team of
people, and when they go it weakens. It falls apart. There is
no resources to continue it. The energy and spirit of the
people that got it started are not there, and so you know just
like we are trying to do in so many other things is we know
that standards work when they are good standards and they are
sensible, and frankly you have to build in ability to make some
kinds flexible to meet with times but I think we do that, and
we know how to do that.
And I would be glad to try to work things out with you but
let us not tell everybody that the standards are written in the
bill because they are not. The goals are written in this bill.
Ms. Bordallo. Dr. Rosenberg, you wanted to respond.
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you. Just a few quick points. First,
fishery ecosystem plans are not the same thing as ecosystem
based management because the whole essence is cross sectoral.
So I think there are some good things going on in fisheries and
that is great but you have to give people the ability to
actually have an impact on other sectors.
Second, the commission did recommend the development of
pilot programs on a voluntary basis for regional ocean
councils, and that has occurred in many areas, and it has gone
quite well. One of the issues there is so what will happen in
the Federal waters adjacent to those state waters because in
many cases we have had state action as indicated in the report
card with quite a good grade for the regional and state actions
but we need to make sure that for the Federal water activities
we can actually utilize some of the important things that are
coming through from the state level.
And third, I would be very cautious about any exemptions
for any sectors. A couple of years ago I testified on a bill in
the State of Massachusetts, and the Governor, at the time
Governor Romney's bill, was an ocean policy act. A
comprehensive ocean policy planning act but it exempted
fisheries, coastal construction, sand and gravel mining, and I
think port development, and at the end it was a little hard to
know what was going to be included in the comprehensive oceans
act because everybody said well, yes, you should do it to
everyone else but not to me. So everyone else should coordinate
and respond to us but not to me, and once you start down that
road I think you lose the essence of the bill.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Dr.
Rosenberg. I just want to go back quickly before we conclude
here, Mr. Benton. I think you made a comment something in the
area of the commission on ocean policy thinks we have to look
at the way we are doing things now. Something on that order,
and I just want to say change is hard but sometimes needed, and
I think this is the way we have to conclude this hearing.
Many of you have come up with some excellent ideas, and the
author of H.R. 21, Mr. Farr, is here. He has listened, and I am
sure he will read all the testimonies that have come in but it
is something--and you all agreed--this is the future. We have
to look at it. We have to consolidate it. We have to make it
work more smoothly, and so I just want to thank all of you for
your testimonies today, and to remember that your full
statements will be entered into the record, and I want to thank
the members, although many of them, as Mr. Farr said, are on
their way back home now.
The hearing record will be open for 10 days if you wish to
enter anything into the record. So I just want to remind you of
that. And also I ask unanimous consent that a statement from
Philippe Cousteau and an article on ocean governance be
included in the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered. If
there is no further business before this Subcommittee, the
Chairwoman again thanks the members of the Subcommittee and our
witnesses. The Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by Philippe Cousteau, Co-Founder,
President and Chief Executive Officer, and Board Member, EarthEcho
International
Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, my name is Philippe Cousteau and I want to
thank you for agreeing to include this statement for the record.
Please allow me to start by quoting my grandfather.
``We can find happiness in protecting the world around us not
only because we cherish it for its awesome beauty, power, and
mystery, but because we cherish our fellow humans, those who
live today and those who will live tomorrow, living beings who
like ourselves, will increasingly depend on the environment for
happiness and even for life itself.''
Jacques-Yves Cousteau
The environment--especially the ocean--is not a luxury item but
vital to all life. The environment is not just about birds, trees, and
fish. It involves all living systems, including humans. Fresh air and
clean water are the roots of a just and equitable society, of safe
communities, and healthy families. These basic needs are not rhetoric
but the fundamental foundations of both the natural world and society.
A comprehensive, robust and enforceable ocean policy is critical to the
long-term social, economic and environmental security of this country.
Ocean Health is in Jeopardy:
From polluted runoff to habitat loss to climate change, our coastal
and ocean ecosystems are facing a barrage of threats that are already
leading to fishery declines, dead zones, beach closures and the
degradation and loss of eco-systems critical to the long-term viability
of this nation. The Pew Oceans Commission and the congressionally
mandated and presidentially appointed U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
independently assessed the condition of our oceans and concluded that
these threats, if not addressed now, will forever degrade our
seascapes, their wildlife, and the economic activities they support
thereby unraveling the very fabric of this nation. Both commissions
agree that the existing approach to management of our oceans is not
working and a significant change is needed to reverse the declining
trend. Together, as the Joint Ocean Commission, they advocate for a
consolidated group of recommendations prioritized in the report From
Sea to Shining Sea.
We need a national ocean policy:
We lack a clear vision or policy that makes ocean health a national
priority. Our nation has shown leadership in enacting landmark
environmental policies to protect the health of our water, air, and
public lands. For example, the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act conserves the resources of over 93 million acres of
public lands today. But we do not have a similar policy to guide
protection of our oceans. Instead, more than 20 federal agencies and
permanent commissions oversee implementation of over 140 federal
oceans-related laws that govern transportation, nonliving and living
resources, coastal development, agricultural nutrient runoff, national
defense, tourism and recreation, and pollution. As a result, decisions
affecting our oceans are made on a threat-by-threat or activity-by-
activity basis under mandates that are often incongruous and lacking
any conservation focus.
To address these competing ocean mandates and jurisdictions, we
must enact a unifying national policy based on protecting and restoring
marine ecosystem health. A strong, unambiguous, and enforceable policy
will empower our local, regional, and national efforts with a new tool
for marine conservation. A new unified policy requiring that all
federal actions be consistent with protecting and restoring marine
ecosystem health could lead to better coordination among federal
agencies with responsibility for ocean policies and provide clarity in
decision-making. This step would also provide the leverage necessary to
implement the remaining Joint Ocean Commission recommendations. This is
why it is the first priority listed.
H.R. 21 does this:
H.R. 21 establishes a meaningful national oceans policy to guide
the management of U.S. oceans, coasts and Great Lakes and the necessary
governance structure to implement that policy. This structure includes:
codifying the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and
strengthening the agency's mission and functions as the nation's lead
civilian oceans agency, improving federal ocean governance by
establishing a national committee on ocean policy to facilitate
interagency coordination, advancing ecosystem-based regional oceans
governance through collaboration among federal and state management
agencies, establishing an Oceans and Great Lakes Conservation Trust
Fund to provide necessary federal funding to implement the key
provisions of the Act.
My father and grandfather taught people around the world to
understand, to love and to protect the water systems of the planet for
the well-being of future generations. My organization, Earthecho
continues that tradition by empowering individuals to take action to
sustain and enhance our water planet. We believe that EVERYTHING we do
makes a difference and ALL of our choices have consequences. The Clean
Air Act and the Clean Water Act are examples of how this nation, when
inspired can act with steadfast resolve and create the kind of
pioneering legislation that has made the United States such a great
country. A national policy to protect the ocean is another and I
wholeheartedly support it. We stand at a critical junction and the
opportunity to take a bold new step towards a future we can all be
proud of is here today. This opportunity does not come often, seize it
now or we will all suffer. We can no longer afford to delay for I fear
that both voting constituents as well as, perhaps more importantly,
history itself will judge those who do very harshly. The people of the
United States have recently sent a strong message to Congress that they
want change. They are tired of polluted communities, apathy towards our
future, and a diminishing natural world. Show them that the future of
this country is truly the core interest of this Congress and make a
positive difference for the future by supporting H.R. 21.
[NOTE: The article ``Solving the Crisis in Ocean Governance'' has
been retained in the Committee's official files.]
______
Statement of Charles C. Vinick, President and CEO,
Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound
Dear Chairwoman Bordallo and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf
of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound (Alliance) I would like to
submit the following testimony for the record. The Alliance is a
nonprofit environmental organization dedicated to the long-term
preservation of Nantucket Sound. An area of water hugged to the North
by Cape Cod and to the South and East by Martha's Vineyard and
Nantucket Island, Nantucket Sound is a rich and diverse biological
community. It serves as habitat for numerous species of fish, marine
mammals, seabirds, sea turtles, and other species of marine wildlife.
1 These natural resources have bestowed the Sound with
tremendous economic value, as well. Nantucket Sound has become, through
fisheries, tourism, recreation, navigation lanes, ports and harbors,
and the towns and villages that have built their communities around the
sea, a prime example of how a healthy and diverse marine ecosystem can
act as the engine that fuels the entire regional economy. 2
Our goal is to protect Nantucket Sound in perpetuity through
conservation, environmental action, and opposition to inappropriate
industrial or commercial development that would threaten or negatively
alter the coastal ecosystem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Review of the State and Federal Marine Protection of the
Biological Resources of Nantucket Sound (Center for Coastal Studies
ed., 2003) available at .
\2\ Blowing in the Wind: Offshore Wind and the Cape Cod Economy
(Beacon Hill Institute ed., 2003) available at .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
The Alliance is carrying out one of the most aggressive and broad-
based marine ecosystem preservation efforts in the nation. The
organization engages in education and outreach programs; on-the-water-
pollution patrolling efforts, litigation, and policy advocacy. More
specifically over the past few years the Alliance has fought
continually for a ecosystem based programmatic approach to the review
Cape Wind, an industrial sized alternative wind project, proposed for
Nantucket Sound. The review process to date reflects all that is wrong
with the current mechanism for addressing marine project development;
The Minerals Management Service is attempting to review the project
without national guidelines or adequate baseline information. As
discussed in greater detail below, the project and the conflict is
indicative of the need for national ocean policy based on ecosystem
management and science. The Alliance has actively engaged in the
broader fight for the protection of ocean resources, as well. We
participated in Governor Mitt Romney's ocean management task force; we
have testified before both Congress and executive agencies regarding
the implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in the offshore
environment. The Alliance was involved with, and commented to, the
National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the recovery of Right
Whales. And, the Alliance recently coordinated and filed an Amicus
Brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of thirteen ocean advocates
outlining the harmful impact greenhouse gases have had, and will
continue to have, on our ocean resources. These are just a few of our
activities directly regarding ocean management and the protection of
Nantucket Sound.
While advocating over the last six years the Alliance has developed
experience and expertise regarding ocean resources and governance.
Since our organization was created in 2001, we have consistently called
for the implementation of a comprehensive nationwide ocean management
program and regulations. It is the Alliance's position that a
comprehensive national program is critical to the strategic management
of our oceans and the protection of our most environmentally sensitive
ocean waters, including areas like Nantucket Sound. And, as such, the
Alliance fully supports H.R. 21.
The Significance and Current State of Our Oceans
In 2003, it was estimated that 153 million Americans, or 53% of the
United States population, lived in U.S. coastal counties. Kristen M.
Crossett et al., Population Trends Along the Coastal United States:
1980-2008, 1 (Nat'l Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, September
2004). The estimated socioeconomic value of global ocean and coastal
ecosystems is $21 trillion per year through food production,
recreation, nutrient recycling, climate regulation, and the oceans'
influence over the chemical composition of the atmosphere. R. Costanza
et al., The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural
Capital, 387 Nature 253 (1997). In the United States, coastal watershed
counties contribute over $4.5 trillion per year, half of the nation's
gross domestic product, involving about 60 million jobs--many of which
are tied to industries directly dependent on healthy coastal and ocean
ecosystems and living resources, such as recreation, tourism, and
fisheries. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the
21st Century Final Report, 32-33 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet, unfettered development and a failure to coordinate ocean
management have severely threatened this natural and economic lifeline.
As the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy stated, ``through inattention,
lack of information, and irresponsibility, we have depleted fisheries,
despoiled recreational areas, degraded water quality, drained wetlands,
endangered our own health, and deprived many of our citizens of jobs.''
4 Dr. Elliott Norse, a marine and forest conservation
biologist and president and founder of the Marine Conservation Biology
Institute in Redmond, Washington describes the problem in more detail
pointing to accelerated loss of marine biodiversity; significant
reduction in the abundance of species at higher trophic levels (large
predators); serial depletion of fisheries; extensive elimination of
benthic structure-forming species such as corals; proliferation and
spread of non-native species; and dramatic change in biogeochemical
functioning. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id. at 38.
\5\ Elliott A. Norse, A Zoning Approach to Managing Marine
Ecosystems, in Workshop on Improving Regional Ocean Governance in the
United States 53-57, at 53 (B. Cicin-Sain, C. Ehler and K. Goldstein
eds., 2003) (internal citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global warming, unwise and improperly regulated development and
pollution are among just a few of the things weakening the health of
our ocean ecosystems. These, like most threats to ocean health, are
large problems not just in the degree of harm they cause but also in
the area of water they impact. Unfortunately to date, we have not
responded with a large solution. Instead of fighting the attack on the
health of our waters on a large scale, we have adopted piecemeal
approach. Our current legislative arsenal is a compilation of
uncoordinated and unstructured laws. Fish, birds, coral, marine
mammals, oil and gas, minerals, renewable energy resources, wetlands,
and other components of the marine environment are subject to discrete,
and largely unrelated, legal authorities. There is no cohesive strategy
for ocean management. Instead, our ocean protection laws have
developers and conservationists working with different agencies each
with conflicting jurisdiction over different aspects of ocean
resources; it has government agencies conducting uncoordinated studies
and making decisions with incomplete information. In reality, our
current ocean management structure is no structure at all; it is in
disarray, much like the resource it is supposed to manage. According to
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, however, all is not lost, ``There
is every reason to believe that wise action taken today, based on the
best available science, can restore what has been lost and create even
greater benefits but to achieve this, our nationals leaders must take
immediate steps to formulate a coherent, comprehensive, and effective
national ocean policy.'' 6 H.R. 21 represents the wise
action that the Commission spoke of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the
21st Century Final Report, 44 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Contributions of H.R. 21
H.R. 21 offers an integrated strategic and eco-system based
approach to ocean management; it also contains practical tools for
implementation Specifically 7:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Testimony of Congressman Sam Farr (D-CA) before the House
Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans on
H.R. 21 (Apr. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I Establishes a national oceans policy ``...to
protect, maintain, and restore the health of marine ecosystems...''.
Title II Establishes NOAA as an agency within the
Department of Commerce and tasks with NOAA leadership and oversight
responsibilities for the implementation of the national ocean policy.
Title III Codifies the Committee on Ocean Policy and
creates a system of federal coordination and Presidential advisement.
Title IV Establishes a system of regional partnerships
for coordinating federal activities that impact the ocean. It also
establishes a network to share information about the ocean ecosystem in
each region;
Title V Recognizes and provides for the need to fund
coordination, research and management of ocean policy. It establishes a
trust fund to the support legislated activities.
This combination allows H.R. 21 to address the large shortfalls
plaguing our current ocean management regime.
Reliance on Science, the Precautionary Principle and Eco-based
management
H.R. 21 will provide a sustainable response both to the problems of
depleted resources and the desire for future development. Title V of
H.R. 21 addresses the need for more complete and coordinated research
of ocean resources. It also includes a requirement that the best
available technology be employed to explore and map coastal ocean
waters. 8 This is an important step toward addressing
significant data gaps in regards to ocean resources. In addition, H.R.
21 recognizes that it will take time to develop and coordinate the
information we need for optimal management of our oceans and that
initially this information will be better developed in some areas than
others. Instead of forcing agencies to make decisions based on
incomplete and inadequate information, the legislation requires that
agencies rely on the precautionary principle. In the absence of needed
information, agencies must defer to what is best for the ecosystem to
the best of their knowledge. 9 This requirement, along with
the eco-system based approach to ocean management in general, will
allow for development but only as depleted resources recover and gaps
in the government's understanding of ocean resources and impacts of
technology are filled. Not only does this mean healthier oceans; it
also means a healthier and more sustainable marine economy. According
to Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based Management
1 (2005), ``A delay in implementing management based on an ecosystem
approach will result in continued conflicts over resources, degradation
of ocean ecosystems, disruption of fisheries, loss of recreational
opportunities, health risks to humans and wildlife and loss of
biodiversity.'' The Alliance agrees. There is an urgent need for eco-
system based management both for the health of our oceans and the
health of our marine economies. By requiring agencies to protect first
and develop only when there is enough information and agencies can
ensure the health of the ecosystem, H.R. 21 is supporting economic
development in the long run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ H.R. 21 Sec. 201 (c) (7) included in the list of new NOAA
functions is: ``using the best available technology to explore and map
the coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes waters of the United States, and
work collaboratively with other countries to use the best available
technology to explore and map their coastal and ocean waters and other
significant water bodies, in order to better understand ocean
dynamics.''
\9\ Id. at Sec. 101 (b) (2) (C) state: ``In the case of incomplete
or inconclusive information as to the effects of a covered action on
United States ocean waters or ocean resources, decisions shall be made
using the precautionary approach to ensure protection, maintenance, and
restoration of healthy marine ecosystems.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leadership, Guidance and Oversight as an Impetus for Ocean Protection
H.R. 21 establishes the National Oceans Advisor and the Committee
on Ocean Policy to facilitate and review government activities for
compliance with the national ocean policy. 10 It also
requires that NOAA report to Congress regarding whether ``programs and
activities of the administration fully implement national ocean policy.
11 These two sections are important because they have the
effect of injecting new life into existing laws. For too long there has
been insufficient support for, and oversight of, government activity
and its impact on oceans as a whole. In some cases laws which could
have been used to the benefit of coastal ecosystems went un-implemented
without consequence. A case in point is Executive Order (EO) 13158.
Signed in 2000, 12 EO 13158 was intended to help expand and
strengthen protections for marine areas. But, more than seven years
there is still not a formal list of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).
13 The result is that areas, like Nantucket Sound
14, that clearly meet the criteria for protection as
outlined in EO 13158 have gone without federal protection for years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. at Sec. 302 (b) (2) states: ``the Committee Shall, review
and appraise the various programs and activities of the Federal
Government for consistency with the policy and standards set forth [by
the national ocean policy]''
\11\ Id. at Sec. 209 (a) (1) (D) states, ``Not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall
develop a baseline report on the status and condition of the ocean
ecosystems and resources under United States jurisdiction...The plan
shall include--...an analysis of whether the programs and activities
(including regulatory activities) of the Administration fully
implemented the national oceans policy under section 3 during the
period covered by the report...''
\12\ The order was originally signed by President Bill Clinton.
However, the Bush Administration affirmed its commitment to the federal
policies in the Clinton Order. On June 4, 2001, Secretary of Commerce
Donald L. Evans announced that the Bush Administration had ``decided to
retain Executive Order 13,158 on marine protected areas.'' Statement by
Secretary of Commerce Donald L. Evans Regarding Executive Order 13,158,
Marine Protected Areas, June 4, 2001.
\13\ An inventory of Marine Management Areas (MMAs) has been
developed but the inventory only provides a pool from which Marine
Protected Areas (MPAs) will eventually be designated. Currently the
administration is still working on the draft framework for developing
the national system of MPAs. On February 28, 2007, the public comment
period ended and the government is now reviewing comments. No specific
date has been provided for when official MPA designation (and
protection) would begin.
\14\ The EO made it clear that state sanctuaries and similar areas
are expressly included under its protective provisions, by defining the
term ``marine protected area'' to include ``any area of the marine
environment that has been reserved by Federal, State, territorial,
tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for
part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.'' EO 13158
Sec. 2(a) (emphasis added). In 1971, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
established the Cape and Islands Ocean Sanctuary (``CIOS''). M.C.L. c.
132A, Sec. 12(c). Protecting the coastal areas of Cape Cod, Martha's
Vineyard, and Nantucket, the CIOS also included several ``bodies of
water,'' including Nantucket Sound itself. Id. In designating the
Sound, Massachusetts's lawmakers specified that designated areas
``shall be protected from any exploitation, development, or activity
that would significantly alter or otherwise endanger the ecology or the
appearance of the ocean, the seabed, or subsoil thereof....'' Id at
Sec. 14. Despite the fact that the federal government currently has
jurisdiction over the center portion of the Sound, formal designation
by the state prior to the establishment of federal jurisdiction
qualifies Nantucket Sound as a marine protected area under the language
of EO 13158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 21 will require NOAA to review of federal government actions
including the implementation of EO 13158 and will require NOAA to
submit a report to Congress on the progress, or lack there of, by the
administration to ensure the protection of ocean ecosystems.
15 Both of these requirements will put pressure on the
executive branch to exercise existing authority which it has failed to
fully employ in the past, like the designation of MPAs. As such
pressure mounts for the government to take action under existing law,
Nantucket Sound and numerous other sensitive ecosystem areas will be
better protected from destructive development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ H.R. 21 Sec. 209 (a) (1) (D) states that the administrator of
NOAA must submit reports including: a review of the programs and
covered actions (including regulatory activities) of the Federal
Government, State and local governments, and nongovernmental entities
or individuals with particular reference to their effect on coastal,
ocean, and Great Lakes waters and on the conservation, development, and
utilization of coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes resources''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding
In order to be proactive and tactical about our use of the ocean,
baseline information about how wildlife and people currently use the
ocean must be readily available to decision makers. To make a strategic
decision about Cape Wind, for example, we need to understand how
migrating birds using ocean pathways throughout the year will be
impacted by the projects location; we need to understand and consider
the navigational safety and national security uses of the surrounding
area; we need to fully understand the technologies being proposed;
their impacts on wildlife; local economies and traditional livelihoods.
Indeed, before any individual projects can be reviewed and approved, a
coordinated national resource assessment must be conducted to provide
this type of information. This is a huge undertaking. It will require
research and technology advances; regional and interdisciplinary
studies and the collection integration and cooperative use of data
covering all of the U.S. coastal waters. This initiative will not be
cheap and if Congress hopes to realize the benefits of a robust
national ocean policy, it must find the funding to support it.
H.R. 21 directly addresses the funding need. Sec. 302 (4) of H.R.
21 provides for the Committee on Ocean Policy to review and to certify
agency ocean budgets regarding their sufficiency to achieve the policy
and standards of the national ocean policy. This will ensure that any
disconnect between what agencies are asked to do and the funding
available to complete the task is addressed on a regular bases. In
addition, the legislation establishes a dedicated trust fund and
creates a funding source to at least partially address the ongoing need
to support this initiative. 16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ H.R. 21 Title V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Integration, Conflict Resolution and Resource Protection
Each title of the legislation contributes to a more integrated and
strategic ocean management regime. By providing for better
intergovernmental communication; more complete information and an
overarching national obligation across federal agencies to ensure eco-
system health, H.R. 21 will make ocean management more cohesive; it
will also allow for management decisions to be more strategic.
The Alliance has seen first hand, and has battled for years, the
consequences of attempting to permit an energy project without adequate
resource information or structured national guidelines for the review
and approval of projects. Nantucket Sound has been the staging ground
for the battle over the improper siting of Cape Wind, an offshore wind
energy complex. The project continues to move forward through the
agency, even though the government lacks baseline information about the
natural resources that the project will impact, and has no guidelines
by which to review or approve the project. Expert agencies including
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) have raised concern about the lack of resource data. In
addition, the proposed location is within close proximity to a major
shipping channel, and the turbines are expected to affect the radar of
airplanes flying in and out of local airports. It is also habitat to
and located on the flight path of numerous birds, some species of which
are statutorily protected, which will be negatively impacted by the
development of a large wind facility. The project will seriously harm
the regional economy, destroy historic values, and adversely affect
cultural and recreational uses. H.R. 21 provides the tools to protect
Nantucket Sound and other important federal waters from inappropriate
development.
H.R. 21 calls for the type of national ocean resource data that
agencies need before they can make adequate development decisions
regarding large scale construction of industrial sized turbines in
functioning ecosystems.
In addition, the Committee on Ocean Policy codified by H.R. 21
could help to resolve interagency disputes, like the one between the
FWS, EPA and Minerals Management Service regarding the need for
additional resource data. H.R. 21 also requires reviewing agencies to
address projects like Cape Wind from an eco-system based approach and
under the precautionary principle of H.R. 21. This could help to avoid
years of contention between the project developers and environmental
advocates, fisherman, local towns and chambers of comers.
Conclusion
Difficult but crucial decisions need to be made about zoning, use
and development of the ocean so that the most environmentally sensitive
and productive regions of our coastal waters are not depleted by adhoc
project development. Project placement should be informed, deliberate
and in the best interest of the public as a whole, not reactionary and
deferential to industry as it is now. This requires an eco-system based
national program that can guide the placement and regulation of
projects and it requires funding and oversight to support agency
efforts. H.R. 21 legislation provides all three. There is not doubt
that the ecological, historical and cultural resources of Nantucket
Sound, and of other sensitive ecosystems, would be better protected by
the system established under H.R. 21. In short, the Alliance fully
supports this legislation and urges Congress to work toward its passage
promptly because we firmly believe that a national strategy based on
the eco-system management it proposes is crucial to the well-being of
our natural ocean resources, including Nantucket Sound.