[Senate Hearing 111-512]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-512
THE FUTURE OF OCEAN GOVERNANCE:
BUILDING OUR NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 4, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-409 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
BILL NELSON, Florida JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas GEORGE S. LeMIEUX, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
TOM UDALL, New Mexico SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARK WARNER, Virginia MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
Bruce H. Andrews, General Counsel
Ann Begeman, Acting Republican Staff Director
Brian M. Hendicks, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Ranking
Chairman ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii GEORGE S. LeMIEUX, Florida
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
BARBARA BOXER, California DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 4, 2009................................. 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Snowe....................................... 3
Statement of Senator Begich...................................... 5
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 6
Statement of Senator LeMieux..................................... 33
Witnesses
Hon. Nancy H. Sutley, Chair, White House Council on Environmental
Quality........................................................ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Admiral Thad W. Allen, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard.............. 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Hon. Laura Davis, Associate Deputy Secretary, Department of the
Interior....................................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Billy Frank, Jr., Chair, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Dennis Takahashi-Kelso, Ph.D., Executive Vice President, Ocean
Conservancy.................................................... 46
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Matthew Paxton, Ball Janik, on Behalf of the Coastal Conservation
Association.................................................... 53
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Carolyn Elefant, Legislative and Regulatory Counsel, Ocean
Renewable Energy Coalition..................................... 58
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Appendix
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV, U.S. Senator from West Virginia,
prepared statement............................................. 71
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senator from Texas, prepared
statement...................................................... 72
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Nancy Sutley by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 72
Hon. Mark Begich............................................. 75
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Jane Lubchenco
by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 77
Hon. Barbara Boxer........................................... 81
Hon. Mark Begich............................................. 82
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison.................................... 83
Hon. David Vitter............................................ 86
Response to written questions submitted to Admiral Thad W. Allen
by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 89
Hon. Barbara Boxer........................................... 91
Hon. Mark Begich............................................. 93
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Laura Davis by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 95
Hon. Barbara Boxer........................................... 95
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison.................................... 97
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Billy Frank, Jr................................................ 98
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Dennis Takahashi-Kelso, Ph.D................................... 99
THE FUTURE OF OCEAN GOVERNANCE: BUILDING OUR NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and
Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria
Cantwell, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Good morning. This Commerce Subcommittee
on Oceans, Fisheries, Atmosphere, and Coast Guard will come to
order. This morning we are having a hearing on the future of
the ocean governance and building our national ocean policy.
So, thank you, to the witnesses, for being here this
morning, and for your testimony. And thanks, to my colleagues.
I know Senator Snowe is going to be joining us. And I thank my
colleague from Alaska for being here, as well.
Before we begin, this morning, I'd like to briefly mention
a very tragic event that recently impacted our government
agencies. Last Thursday evening, an accident--midair collision
occurred between a Coast Guard C-130 plane and a Marine Corps
helicopter, off the coast of California. Tragically, nine
servicemembers were killed, two from the Marine Corps and seven
from the Coast Guard. Admiral Allen, I want you to know that
our hearts and prayers go out to the Coast Guard--the entire
Coast Guard and Marine Corps--the families of the proud nine
men and women who lost their lives in service to our country.
And they are in our thoughts and prayers today.
Our oceans are responsible for so many things in our daily
lives, from the air we breathe to the food we eat. And this
subcommittee has heard, in many previous hearings, the oceans
and Coast Guard economies of the U.S. provide over 50 million
jobs for Americans and contribute 60 percent to our GDP. Our
economy depends on a healthy ocean environment. But, most
people don't realize that our oceans are in crisis and that we
must take action now.
Today's hearing is about building a national policy to
sustain our oceans and to make improvements for the future. We
will have the opportunity to hear from Chair Sutley,
Administrator Lubchenco, Admiral Allen, and Deputy Secretary
Davis about the developments of the proposed National Ocean
Policy and Framework for Spatial Planning and how it will
impact Federal stewardship.
Our second panel of witnesses will present the perspectives
on how to improve stewardship, management and the use of
oceans, coasts, and the Great Lakes.
I hope that by hearing from these panelists, this
subcommittee will better understand the magnitude of this
problem facing the ocean environment and what are the best
management practices we should be using to confront these
problems.
One example of the trouble facing our oceans has emerged in
my state, the State of Washington, in recent weeks. Since Labor
Day, a deadly toxic algae bloom has killed over 8,000 seabirds;
the largest seabird kill ever on a Washington coastline.
Our oceans also face major threats from climate change and
ocean acidification. Since the start of the industrial
revolution, 200 years ago, humans have released more than 1.5
trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And one-
third of those emissions, more than half a trillion tons, have
been absorbed by the oceans. We know that this is actually
changing the very chemistry of the oceans. As seawater becomes
more acidic, it begins to withhold the basic chemical building
blocks needed by many marine organisms. And acidification is
threatening the existence of the world's coral reefs and
starting to dissolve the shells of organisms that make up the
base of the ocean's food chain. When it comes to ocean
acidification, we cannot just continue; we need to make sure
that we are working forward and understanding the foundation
that we need.
Unfortunately, oceans are too often an afterthought in our
decisions and our discussions about climate change. As the
climate debate moves forward, it is going to be a major
priority of mine to make sure that the oceans are a major part
of that discussion.
There are continued threats: toxic substances, new diseases
are showing up in marine mammals, ocean dead zones plague vast
parts of the marine environment, toxic algae bloom poison
various coastal wildlife and threaten shellfish, oil spills
remain an ever-present threat, and, more and more, our ocean
species are becoming endangered, like our iconic southern
resident orca population in the Pacific Northwest.
Over 40 years ago, Senator Warren Magnuson championed
legislation that established the Stratton Commission. Some of
my witnesses may remember that. The Commission had a
substantial impact on marine science and policy in the United
States, including the creation of NOAA.
Today, we are here to heed another call to action. It's
time to move forward on a national ocean policy. A lot of
discussion has already happened in the last several years. But,
words on paper are meaningless unless they are put into action
and we change how the Federal Government does business. It is
NOAA's mission to conserve and manage coastal and marine
resources to meet our Nation's economic, social, and
environmental needs. The Administration should acknowledge and
strengthen NOAA's role, and literally give them a seat at the
table of the National Ocean Council.
One of the many Ocean Commission recommendations left
unfinished is enacting an organic act for NOAA. I hope that the
Administration will work with this committee on the effort to
improve the stewardship of our oceans by implementing this.
Senator Snowe and I have called on the Administration to
increase funding for ocean conservation, management, and
science, and we cannot expect success in implementing a
national ocean policy, or look at ideas like spatial planning,
if we do not provide tribes, States, scientists, and managers
with the resources they need. The success of a national policy
will depend on broad support. And it is my hope that this
hearing will be the first of a series to better understand how
we collectively move forward to determine actions needed and
what should be done to sustain our ocean's coasts and our Great
Lakes.
And before we turn to our panel of witnesses, I would like
to turn it over to the ranking member of this committee,
Senator Snowe, for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for
calling this hearing.
And very pleased to be here today to discuss the future of
our Nation's ocean resource management.
Before we proceed with the business of the Committee, I do
want to take a moment to express to you, Admiral Allen and the
entire Coast Guard community, my deepest condolences in the
loss of seven of your shipmates along with two U.S. marines in
a tragic accident that took place last Thursday night off the
coast of California. I understand, from my discussion with
Admiral Pekoske, that this was the worst incident in terms of
loss of life since 1947 in the Coast Guard. So, my thoughts and
prayers remain with our fallen heroes, their families, their
friends, and fellow servicemembers at this most difficult time.
We're profoundly grateful for their service, and we will be
eternally grateful. So, I just appreciate the fact that you're
here today under some very difficult circumstances.
I also want to thank our other witnesses, as well: Dr.
Sutley, Dr. Lubchenco, and Ms. Davis. Your presence here today
speaks volume about the Administration's commitment to
improving the management of our oceans.
I also want to welcome those who will speak on the second
panel: Mr. Frank, Mr. Paxton, Mr. Takahashi-Kelso, and Mr.
O'Neill.
From fisheries to energy to tourism, industries thrive
along and beyond our Nation's shores, and we must find an
appropriate balance of sustainability to frame the ever-
expanding number of potential uses of our more than 3.4 million
square miles of ocean space.
According to a report of the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative, ocean-dependent industries generate approximately
$138 billion annually. Factor in tourism, transportation, and
utilities that rely heavily on oceans, and that amount
increases by a factor of ten, to nearly a trillion and a half
dollars a year. So, I applaud the efforts of all involved in
the Ocean Policy Task Force, as you attempt to untangle and
reorganize the web of piecemeal policies that manage individual
activities in areas off our shores.
I also have concerns about the process and some of the
early recommendations that have emerged in the interim report.
Specifically, the interim report proposes three major
objectives and nine overarching principles that will guide
ocean management decisions. Of those, none specifically
prioritizes safe, economic development of ocean resources. I
certainly understand the need for environmental protection
called for in this report. Much of the inherent monetary and
intrinsic value of our oceans would be compromised or destroyed
without strong safeguards. At the same time, we must allow
sustainable economic activity to continue as we provide
managers and industry members with adequate rationale for the
restrictions they must impose and adhere to.
The interim report calls for decision-making consistent
with the best available science. Unfortunately, ``best
available'' is often just not good enough. As we've seen in the
Northeast, our fisheries are being subjected to increasingly
tight catch limits while scientists themselves too often admit
that they must establish those restrictions based on
insufficient data. I have always supported management based on
sound science, but as we develop policies that directly impact
livelihoods, and indeed entire cultures, we must invest in
research that provides a strong foundation; otherwise, we risk
making decisions that have unnecessarily drastic impacts
without achieving definitive environmental benefits.
That's why Senator Cantwell and I have called for
increasing the budget for NOAA to $8 billion for Fiscal Year
2011, and a commitment to double that by 2013. This investment
will pave the way to a future in which our resource managers
can develop policies and regulations based on indisputable and
not simply best-available science.
Further, while I recognize many agencies have critical
parts to play in determining how best to use and protect our
ocean resources, NOAA must remain our Nation's leader in
researching, developing, and implementing our ocean policy, and
it must be strengthened to reflect the Administration's
commitment to ocean issues.
The National Ocean Council, proposed in the interim report,
does not appear to carve out a sufficient leadership role for
NOAA. I look forward to hearing comments from our witnesses
explaining how this comprehensive ocean policy body was
proposed without a specific role for our Nation's preeminent
ocean agency. The recommended structure of the shared
leadership between the Council on Environmental Quality and the
Office of Science and Technology policy lacks the ocean-
specific perspective that NOAA can and must provide.
Particularly as the work of the Task Force and the National
Ocean Council expands to encompass emerging and yet still
nebulous concept of marine spatial planning, NOAA's efforts
must be at the fore.
Our oceans comprise a dynamic environment that sustains
myriad life forms, natural phenomena, and human activities,
each with a vital role to play in our environmental and social
and economic climate. While a holistic look at these diverse
elements can provide great efficiency and streamline future
management, we must move methodically down that path. In a
climate where the best available science is already
insufficient, additional layers of complexity must come with
additional resources to ensure they don't simply provide
additional layers of uncertainty.
Again, I want to express my gratitude to the Chair and to
our witnesses for promises to be an enlightening and productive
discussion here today. Improving and coordinating ocean policy
is vital to the future of our coastal national economy today
and for future generations.
So, I want to thank you, Chair Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Snowe. And thank you
for your leadership on this issue. I don't want to say exactly
how many years you've been involved in----
[Laughter.]
Senator Cantwell.--ocean policies, but I think you have
seen these reports come and go, safe to say. And so, I look
forward to your input on how we take action on a ocean policy
that is concrete action, moving forward, and the discussion
that we're going to have about what kind of leadership we need,
to make sure that it's not just ocean policy by committee, but
ocean policy with strict and forceful leadership.
Senator Begich, would you like to make an opening
statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Begich. Thank you, Madam Chair. And usually I
don't, but this is one of those issues that is pretty important
to Alaska. So, thank you, for having the hearing.
And also, I want to share, Admiral, my condolences to the
families, as the Chair and the Ranking Member have expressed
also. So, thank you for your service.
Let me--anytime I get a moment, it's always important to
kind of bring, at least my view, Alaskan perspective to what it
means, in the sense of fisheries. And let me start by saying
Alaska, which is 47,000 miles of shoreline, more than the rest
of the country combined. You know, we have 70 percent of the
Outer Continental Shelf. We produce and harvest over half the
seafood of the country, with--about 4 billion pounds annually--
with about 2 billion-plus in value. Just to give kind of a
perception--or a perspective of where we are, three-quarters of
our state--or three sides of our state are bordered by water.
So, we understand the business and have been understanding the
waters around us and how to ensure that they are protected.
We also understand, besides the importance of fishing, but
also shipping and the cruise industry, oil and gas, which also
is in our waters. Again, we're a very diverse economy, with our
oceans and our waters that border Alaska.
I want to thank Dr. Lubchenco and Ms. Sutley--Nancy, good
to see you--and Admiral Allen, for hosting a listening session
in Alaska. You probably have a good sense of the diversity of
opinions of Alaskans. And you are still standing, and that's a
good sign. And I appreciate your willingness to go there and
listen to the very diverse ideas and concerns we have when you
think of fisheries and the sustainable models that we have--
when you think of pollock and salmon and halibut and cod, we do
have--of those four fisheries, sustainable fisheries--and noted
sustainable.
But, I'll just mention two quick things, and then I'll look
forward to the questions. I do have several questions. But, to
follow up on the Ranking Member's comment regarding the
economic component. And, Dr. Lubchenco, you and I have had a
conversation briefly about this. But, the important piece of
the oceans not only is the preservation and the long-term
environmentally sound condition of the oceans, but also the
economic components. As I've mentioned, Alaska and how that
fits into the equation, two recommendations I'll just point out
that I thought were--I was glad to see it in there--the Law of
the Sea and the recommendation of the Law of the Sea. We--I've
been a personal supporter of that. Our House and Senate members
in Alaska have just made a joint effort to try to move that
forward as a resolution, supporting it. So, Alaska is
interested in supporting this.
But, also the mention of the Arctic in climate change,
which, again, I want to thank you for that and the
recommendations related to the Arctic.
I'll end there and just really look forward to your
testimony, and then I have some questions I would love to ask
you all.
Thank you very much.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Begich.
Senator Nelson, would you like to make an opening
statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Madam Chairman, I want to add my thoughts
to the loss of lives, Admiral. And thank you all for you
constant surveillance in my State. You are a very big part, and
you're a very big part as your Admiral down there heads that
Task Force, with so much that's happening in the Caribbean and
in and around the Straits of Florida. So, thank you very much.
I also want to call attention that our astronaut crew from
our latest Space Shuttle are here to meet with me, and I'll
excuse myself after these comments. Thank them for your
extraordinary success and service to our country as you have
continued to build and equip the International Space Station
where the nations of the world come together for science and
for exploration.
So, thank you very much.
And I----
Senator Cantwell. Gentlemen, would you like to stand up--
and let's recognize them? Is that OK?
Senator Nelson. Certainly.
[Applause.]
Senator Nelson. And I want to thank Dr. Lubchenco, because
we're bringing science to the question of the oceans. And
sometimes it has been kind of lonely down in the southeastern
United States, battling those who want to go out and, ``Drill,
baby, drill.'' I've had national security on my side, because
that's the largest training and testing area for the United
States military in the world. And people who say that, ``Well,
we ought to have a mixture of drilling and preservation,'' I'm
all for that, because I was the author of working out, in 2006,
to give the oil industry an additional 8.3 million acres, over
the 37 million acres that they already have leased in the
Gulf--an additional 8.3 million acres, and to keep it out from
crossing the military mission line, which is the demarcation
line that sets aside the eastern Gulf of Mexico for the United
States military testing and training.
The reason I'm saying all this, I want to thank you that
you are now bringing the scientific perspective to this. I
mean, I can rail all day about protecting Florida's coastline
and our $65-billion-a-year tourism industry that depends on
beaches that don't have tar balls on them. Or I can talk until
I'm blue in the face about protecting the delicate estuaries,
where so much of marine life is spawned. But, now you bring,
Dr. Lubchenco, another perspective, in your draft proposed
Outer Continental Shelf and Gas Leasing Program for 2010-2015
analysis, where you point out--and I'm quoting from page 17,
``There are numerous sensitive, hard-bottom habitats along the
west Florida shelf, from Panama City to Dry Tortugas, important
habitats for fisheries, species''--and you go on to cite
deepwater coral mounds. And NOAA recommended the exclusion of
those areas designated by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council.
So, I want to thank you for bringing science to this. It
will help me in my otherwise--and, by the way, I mean, you
know, I thought we had a done deal 3 years ago. I had everybody
signed up to it. And we put into law, for the first time--into
law--protecting those areas. But, it's never enough. And so, we
have to fight this again. And so, now I have to fight--when the
energy bill gets to the floor, I have to fight an Amendment
that was put on in the Energy Committee that puts oil drilling
over the entire eastern Gulf of Mexico all the way up to within
10 miles of the Florida coast. That's what the Dorgan Amendment
did. And, of course, I've talked to some Senators that voted
for it who didn't understand it and will change their vote.
But, I still have to fight this fight. Thank you, for bringing
the scientific perspective to it.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
As a--and I think you know, I think I tried to help in your
effort of stopping----
Senator Nelson. You did. You did.
Senator Cantwell.--to repeat this lunacy of opening up
drilling off the coast of Florida. I think this previous
hearing that we had about the coastal communities--it is
literally 60 percent of our GDP, these coastal economies. And
they've already been built on the assets and resources that are
there. And somebody who thinks that they can just casually
change that with an amendment, I think, are very, very
shortsighted in the impacts that it would have.
Well, let's turn to our witnesses. We're very grateful that
you are here, and we look forward to your comments. We're going
to hear from Nancy Sutley, Chair of the Council on Economic--
Council on Environmental Quality for the Office of the
President; and Honorable Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Administrative--National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; Admiral Thad Allen, the U.S. Coast
Guard Commandant; and Laura Davis, Deputy Secretary of the U.S.
Department of the Interior.
Welcome, to all of you. Chair Sutley, why don't we start
with you, and we'll just go down the line from there.
STATEMENT OF HON. NANCY H. SUTLEY, CHAIR,
WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Senator--Chair Cantwell. Thank you,
for the opportunity to be here. And thank you, Ranking Member
Snowe and Senator Begich, for being here this morning and for
the opportunity to appear before you.
I'm Nancy Sutley, Chair of the Council on Environmental
Quality and Chair of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force.
The oceans cover more than 70 percent of the planet's
surface and are critical to our survival. These bodies of water
provide about half the oxygen we breathe, drive weather
patterns, and have a major impact on our climate. Nearly half
of our population is located in coastal counties. We rely
heavily on the oceans for a number of activities, including
fishing, tourism, and energy development, to name a few. Our
rich and productive coastal regions and waters account for the
majority of the national economy, totaling trillions of dollars
each year.
The United States has been a leader in exploring and
protecting the oceans. As we research and monitor the ocean
ecosystems, we have come to realize why it's so important to
protect this critical resource. To ensure that the Federal
Government is effectively achieving its stewardship
responsibilities and responding to the growing demands and uses
of these resources, the President established the Interagency
Ocean Policy Task Force in June. The Task Force was charged
with developing recommendations that include a national policy
for the stewardship of our oceans, coasts, and the Great Lakes,
a framework for improved Federal policy coordination, and an
implementation strategy to meet the objectives of the National
Ocean Policy. We submitted our interim report on September 10,
and the report was made available for public comment. The task
force was also asked to develop a recommended framework for
effective coastal and marine spatial planning within 180 days.
The interim report proposes a comprehensive national
approach to uphold our stewardship responsibilities and ensure
accountability for our actions. It contains proposals for a
national policy, a robust governance structure, and priority
actions for the Federal Government. I'd ask the Committee to
refer to my written comments for additional detail on these key
recommendations.
I'm happy to report that the 24 agencies involved in the
Task Force worked very hard, very collegially, and reached
consensus on the interim report. And I'd like to especially
recognize my colleagues, who are here today, for their
leadership.
I also want to highlight the robust public engagement
process that the task force has undertaken to hear from and
involve stakeholders. We held 38 expert roundtable meetings,
had over 2,000 people attend our six regional public meetings,
and have received more than 3,400 comments on our website.
Moving forward, the task force is focusing its efforts on
developing a recommended framework for effective coastal and
marine spatial planning. We're seeing greater demands across
the board, from offshore energy, both conventional and
renewable, increased shipping, recreational, commercial
fishing, and the desire for offshore aquaculture. These demands
create stress on an already stressed environment, increase
conflicts among users, create greater demand for use and
occupancy of the ocean space, and emphasize the greater need
for conservation.
We recognize the need for ecosystem-based management and
moving away from an uncoordinated sector-by-sector or stove-
piped approach, toward a more integrated marine resource
management. The framework we are working on would only be a
first step in the development of coastal and marine spatial
planning. And while the framework will provide the foundation
for coastal and marine spatial planning in the United States,
much will be left to be developed among Federal, State,
regional, and tribal partners.
Upon completion of the next part of our report, we intend
to issue it for 30 days of public comment, as we did with the
interim report. We look forward to hearing from the public and
continue to welcome input from the Committee, the Committee
members, and your colleagues in Congress.
Thank you, for the opportunity to testify this morning.
And I also want to extend my condolences to our colleagues
in the Coast Guard.
And I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sutley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Nancy H. Sutley, Chair,
White House Council on Environmental Quality
Thank you Chair Cantwell. And thank you Ranking Member Snowe and
members of the Committee, for the opportunity to appear before you this
morning to discuss the President's Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force.
As you know, the oceans cover more than 70 percent of the planet's
surface and are critical to our survival. These bodies of water provide
about half of the oxygen we breathe, drive weather patterns and have a
major impact on our climate. Nearly half of our population is located
in coastal counties. We rely heavily on the oceans for a number of
activities including fishing, tourism and energy development, to name a
few. Our rich and productive coastal regions and waters account for the
majority of the national economy--totaling trillions of dollars each
year.
The United States has been a leader in exploring and protecting the
oceans. As we research and monitor the ocean ecosystems, we have come
to realize why it is so important to protect this critical resource. We
have reduced overfishing, made great strides in reducing coastal
pollution, and helped restore endangered species and degraded habitats.
But we also recognize that demands on the oceans, our coasts, and the
Great Lakes are intensifying, spurred by population growth, migration
to coastal areas, and economic activities.
Traditional and renewable energy development, shipping,
aquaculture, and emerging security requirements are examples of new or
expanding uses expected to place increasing demands on our ocean
resources. To ensure that the Federal Government is effectively
achieving its stewardship responsibilities and responding to the
growing demands and uses of these resources, the President established
the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force in June of this year.
The Task Force was charged with developing recommendations that
included a national policy for the stewardship of our oceans, our
coasts and the Great Lakes, a framework for improved Federal policy
coordination, and an implementation strategy to meet the objectives of
a national ocean policy within 90 days. We submitted our Interim Report
on September 10, and the report was made available for public comment,
with comments requested by October 17. The Task Force was also charged
with developing a recommended framework for effective coastal and
marine spatial planning within 180 days.
The Task Force, which I chair, comprises 24 senior-level policy
officials from across the Federal Government. Because of its wide range
of members representing interests throughout the Federal Government,
the Ocean Policy Task Force has been able to include input from
agencies with a natural focus on the oceans like NOAA, the Coast Guard,
and Department of the Interior. But at the same time, it includes
agencies like Labor and Health and Human Services--who have a less
traditional, but also critical stake in the national policy developed
around this resource. Because science is the foundation of the National
Policy, science agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and the National Science Foundation were also very
involved.
Across the Task Force membership there is a clear recognition of
the importance of what the President has asked us to achieve. I am
happy to report that the level of commitment and participation by all
those represented on the Task Force has been outstanding and I would
especially like to recognize my colleagues that are here today--Dr.
Lubchenco, Admiral Allen and Laura Davis for their leadership on the
Task Force.
Public Engagement
The Task Force has undertaken a robust public engagement process to
hear from and involve stakeholders and interested parties. We have held
38 expert roundtable meetings, six regional public meetings, and
received more than 3,400 comments on our website. Our public engagement
efforts have directly involved thousands of Americans in the
development of our recommendations for the President.
The 24 expert roundtables regarding the National Ocean Policy
included representatives from sectors including: energy, conservation,
science, recreational fishing and boating, commercial fishing,
transportation, agriculture, human health, States, tribes, and local
governments, ports, business, and national and homeland security. In
addition, the Task Force has hosted 14 additional expert roundtables to
inform its development of a recommended framework for coastal and
marine spatial planning. Several Task Force or Working Committee
members attended each roundtable. There was robust participation, and
the Task Force received many valuable comments and perspectives for its
consideration during each session. Through these expert meetings, we
engaged approximately 700 interested stakeholders and private citizens
in the work of the Task Force.
The Task Force has received thousands of comments through the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Ocean Policy Task Force (OPTF)
website from a range of affected and interested parties, including
academia, citizens, commercial interests, non-governmental
organizations, and States, tribes, and regional governance structures.
We released the Task Force's Interim Report for 30-days of public
comment and received over 1,800 comments. We anticipate releasing the
second phase of work, proposing a framework for marine and coastal
spatial planning, also for public comment later this year.
The Task Force also hosted six regional public meetings in
Anchorage, Alaska; San Francisco for the West Coast Region; Providence
for the East Coast; Honolulu for the Pacific Islands; New Orleans for
the Gulf of Mexico Region; and Cleveland for the Great Lakes Region.
The Pacific Islands meeting was virtually and interactively connected
to several Hawaiian Islands and to Guam, American Samoa and to Saipan
in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The Gulf Coast
meeting connected all five Gulf Coast States live and interactively
through the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Learning Centers.
There were three ways to participate in each of these meetings:
live at the site (or satellite sites); by telephone; and by webcast.
These meetings were located in key regions with distinct interests in
the development of a national ocean policy and framework for coastal
and marine spatial planning.
These meetings were very well attended--over 2,000 people signed in
at the public meetings, nearly 1,800 logged onto the webcasts, and
hundreds used our call-in line to participate. This robust engagement
provided the Task Force with excellent input and a real flavor of the
diversity of the regional challenges, issues, and opportunities facing
our oceans, coasts, and the Great Lakes.
The Interim Report
On September 10, the Task Force sent President Obama an Interim
Report addressing the first three charges from the President. The
report was made available for public comment on September 17, with
comments requested by October 17. This Interim Report proposes a
comprehensive national approach to uphold our stewardship
responsibilities and ensure accountability for our actions. We believe
that it outlines a more balanced, productive and sustainable approach
to our coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes resources. It contains proposals
for a national policy, a robust governance structure and categories for
action that the Federal Government will prioritize. Let me briefly walk
through those key recommendations.
A National Policy
The Interim Report proposes a new National Policy, based on sound
science, that recognizes that America's stewardship of the oceans, our
coasts, and the Great Lakes is intrinsically and intimately linked to a
wide set of intersecting and overlapping equities--environmental
protection and sustainability, human health and well-being, national
prosperity, adaptation to climate and other environmental change,
social justice, foreign policy, and national and homeland security.
The Interim Report outlines a vision of oceans and coasts that are
healthy and resilient, safe and productive, and understood and
treasured. And it provides--for the first time in our Nation's
history--a comprehensive statement of our National Policy and a set of
overarching guiding principles for U.S. Government management decisions
and actions affecting the oceans, our coasts, and the Great Lakes.
A Robust Governance Structure
The Interim Report recommends modifications to the existing
governance structure, the Committee on Ocean Policy, which was first
created by Executive Order 13366 (2004) under the prior Administration.
We received much input recommending that the structure could and should
be strengthened--by providing a stronger mandate and policy direction
to the agencies, more effectively linking science and management, and
by ensuring renewed and sustained high-level engagement.
The Task Force is recommending a new structure, an interagency
National Ocean Council, led by CEQ and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP). The Interim Report calls for the creation of
a Governance Advisory Committee to improve coordination with State and
local authorities, tribes, and regional governance structures that have
emerged over the last several years and where so much innovation and
early leadership has been demonstrated. These steps, combined with
sustained high-level staff involvement, would ensure that these areas
become, and remain, a high priority throughout the Federal Government.
Categories for Action
Finally, the Interim Report prioritizes categories for action to
address some of the most pressing challenges facing the oceans, our
coasts, and the Great Lakes. Four of the categories for action relate
to improving how the Federal Government does business. These are: (1)
Ecosystem-Based Management; (2) Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning;
(3) Inform Decisions and Improve Scientific Understanding; and (4)
Coordinate and Support (Federal, State, tribal, local, and regional
management of the oceans, our coasts, and the Great Lakes).
In addition, the Task Force proposed five priority areas of special
emphasis--substantive areas of focus that we felt deserved renewed and
sustained attention from the Federal Government. These are: (1)
Resiliency and Adaptation to Climate Change and Ocean Acidification;
(2) Regional Ecosystem Protection and Restoration; (3) Water Quality
and Sustainable Practices on Land; (4) Changing Conditions in the
Arctic; and (5) Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes Observations and
Infrastructure.
One of the areas of particular importance relates to the changing
conditions in the Arctic. Increased human activity in the area is
bringing additional stressors to the Arctic environment, with serious
implications for Arctic communities and ecosystems. In fact, global
climate change has already had an appreciable impact on these
communities. As the Arctic system changes with climate change, the
pressures for increased development of living and non-living resources
and for increased commerce and transportation will only grow.
This August, I had the privilege of traveling throughout Alaska
with a number of Task Force members to meet with local communities and
see firsthand the challenges and opportunities emerging in an
increasingly accessible Arctic region. The common observation that we
came away with is that the U.S. Arctic region--including its native
peoples, its environment and its resources--is a true national
treasure, but a vulnerable one.
We also recognize that overlaying all of this, we must implement
this policy and these areas of emphasis consistent with the 1982 Law of
the Sea Convention. Accession to this vitally important treaty would
allow the United States to participate more effectively in the
interpretation and development of the convention, including with regard
to the changing realities of the global marine environment. As a Party,
the United States would have access to procedures that would allow us
to maximize international recognition and legal certainty over our
extended continental shelf (likely extending at least 600 nm off
Alaska).
Next Steps: Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
Moving forward, the Task Force is now focusing its efforts on
developing a recommended framework for effective coastal and marine
spatial planning. We are seeing greater demands across the board--from
offshore energy, both non-renewable and renewable, increased shipping,
recreational and commercial fishing, and the desire for offshore
aquaculture. These demands create stress on an already stressed
environment, increased conflicts among ocean users, greater demand for
use and occupancy of ocean space, and greater need for conservation.
Numerous scientists, policy experts, Congress, and others have
emphasized the need for ecosystem-based management; looking more
holistically and across legal jurisdictional boundaries to conserve and
sustainably use our marine environment. To do so requires us to move
away from an uncoordinated, sector by sector, or stove piped approach
to more integrated marine resource management.
States such as Massachusetts, California, and Rhode Island have
stepped out in front on this issue over the last few years, as well as
have a number of foreign governments, such as Australia, the United
Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Norway. The Task Force is looking at
these examples and listening to experts in science, policy, and law,
State, regional, and tribal representatives, and numerous stakeholders.
Themes the Task Force has heard include that coastal and marine spatial
planning must be proactive and integrated, ensure broad stakeholder
participation, be adaptive, allow transparency, provide incentives for
participation, avoid new layers of bureaucracy, and be done in
partnership with States, regional governance structures (e.g., Gulf of
Mexico Alliance, West Coast Governors' Alliance, Great Lakes
Commission, Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on Oceans, South Atlantic
Governors' Alliance, and Northeast Regional Ocean Council) and tribes,
as appropriate.
The Task Force is working with these ideas as it develops the
recommended framework. This framework would only be a first step in any
development of coastal and marine spatial planning. Coastal and marine
spatial planning is intended to incorporate these ideas and allow for a
more coherent approach to how we manage oceans, coasts, and the Great
Lakes to achieve sustainable economic, environmental, and social
benefits now and in the future. Coastal and marine spatial planning has
been defined a number of ways, but some of the key themes include that
it is a transparent, proactive, adaptive, forward-thinking, and
integrated planning approach for the use of marine space.
I expect the Task Force to further these ideas in the framework.
However, while the framework will provide the foundation for coastal
and marine spatial planning in the United States, much will be left to
be developed among Federal, state, regional, and tribal partners from
the bottom up, to ensure their interests, along with those of
stakeholders and the public, are included in any planning process.
Upon completion of its next report, we intend to issue it for 30
days of public comment, as we did with the Interim Report. We look
forward to hearing from the public, and continue to welcome any input
the Committee, its members, or your colleagues in Congress would like
to provide.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning and I look
forward to your questions.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Dr. Lubchenco, thank you very much for being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANE LUBCHENCO, Ph.D.,
UNDER SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman,
members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Jane Lubchenco. I am Under Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator of NOAA. I greatly
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on the
Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force's work, including its
interim report, which was release publicly on September 17.
I appreciate the Committee's interest in this important and
historic endeavor. As the President declared in his memorandum
that established the task force, quote, ``We have a stewardship
responsibility to maintain healthy, resilient, and sustainable
oceans, coasts, and Great Lake resources for the benefit of
this and future generations,'' unquote. And to succeed in
protecting them, he went on, we need to, quote, ``act within a
unifying framework under a clear national policy, including a
comprehensive ecosystem-based framework, for the long-term
conservation and use of our resources,'' unquote.
Based on my personal knowledge of coastal and marine
ecosystems from decades of scientific research, and on my
current responsibility for leading NOAA, I completely agree
with the President's statement.
NOAA is the Nation's primary ocean agency. Our name says it
all: Oceans and Atmosphere. NOAA's mission, to understand and
protect changes in the Earth's environment and conserve and
manage coastal and marine resources to meet our Nation's
economic, social, and environmental needs, aligns nicely with
the work of the Task Force. The countless hours of creative
work by NOAA employees are reflected in the interim report's
strong support for healthy and resilient oceans, coasts, and
Great Lake ecosystem that support human uses and ensure vibrant
communities and economies.
As a science and regulatory agency, NOAA operates under the
basic principle that sound science must inform decisionmaking.
Similarly, the interim Ocean Policy Task Force recommendations
are solidly grounded in scientific knowledge. Much of the
content of the interim Ocean Policy Task Force report reflects
NOAA's priorities as an operational marine science and
management agency. Emphasis on ecosystem approaches to
management has been a NOAA operating principle for several
years, and we are pleased that this draft policy reaffirms and
strengthens our operating principle by making it one of the
priority objectives for how the Federal Government will do
business under this national ocean policy.
NOAA's mission, as a key ocean science agency, is very much
aligned with the interim report's areas of special emphasis on
ecosystem restoration and robust ocean science and observing
systems. These areas of emphasis are essential to sustaining
diverse uses of oceans, ranging from recreational fishing and
boating to commercial fishing, shipping, energy generation, and
national security.
Understanding the ocean's role in climate change and the
impacts of climate change on ecological and human communities
is also a major part of NOAA's core business. Climate change is
already having significant impacts on our living marine
resources and on coastal communities. NOAA's extensive
expertise in understanding climate dynamics and impacts is
clearly relevant to both current and future uses of oceans.
One of my priorities for NOAA is to connect the dots
between healthy oceans, healthy and secure people, the economy,
communities, and jobs. Simply put, human well-being, good jobs,
and resilient communities depend upon the health and resilience
of natural ecosystems. At the broadest level, we must seek to
advance more holistic approaches to understand and balance
human use, sustainability, and preservation of ecosystem
resources and functioning. These concepts were a part of the
task force's discussions, and I am pleased that these important
issues are interwoven throughout the report.
NOAA is committed to assist CEQ and the task force in
responding to the President's charge to deliver a coastal and
marine spatial planning framework, one that will enable
governments, at all levels, to optimize use and protection of
marine resources for the maximum benefit of the Nation.
NOAA's capabilities in science, stewardship, and service
are central to national economic and environmental goals.
NOAA's existing scientific capabilities and ocean management
authorities, including the ocean observing systems and mapping
capabilities, along with management responsibilities for marine
sanctuaries, estuary and research reserves, area-based
fisheries, and protected marine resources, uniquely position
the agency to support a national coastal and marine spatial
planning framework.
NOAA has already used elements of coastal and marine
spatial planning for many years under its ocean management
authorities. Recent examples include working with the U.S.
Coast Guard to modify the traditional navigation routes to
reduce impacts on North Atlantic Right Whales and other
species, managing multiple compatible uses within marine
sanctuaries, and regulating fisheries in time and space for
sustainable use.
But, NOAA's goal, and the goal of coastal and marine
spatial planning, is to move toward a more robust, holistic
management approach that reduces ocean/human-use conflicts and
ecosystem impacts while enabling sustainable use of oceans.
Apart from helping to produce these two framework
documents, NOAA is committed to the successful implementation
of their recommendations. NOAA has many mandates, including the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, National Marine Sanctuaries Act, Coastal
Zone Management Act, and Marine Mammal Protections Act, which
could also serve as tools in the implementation of the task
force's recommendations.
It is clear that there is much that we can do under present
authorities to enhance collaboration within the Federal
Government and between the Federal Government and the States
and tribes. We will, of course, want to engage with Congress on
the extent to which we can accomplish the new policies under
current legislation and on where we think additional
authorities may be required for full implementation.
Let me conclude by stating how pleased I am with the
progress that has been made by the Ocean Policy Task Force. I
particularly wish to thank Chair Sutley for her leadership and
vision. It has been rewarding to work with all of the other
agencies that are part of the task force, and I want to thank
each of them for their participation and perspectives. Our
collective effort will ensure that we move forward with a
comprehensive ecosystem approach to addressing our stewardship
responsibilities and to ensure accountability for our actions.
The Nation's oceans are counting on us.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lubchenco follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., Under Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Introduction
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Dr.
Jane Lubchenco and I am the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today on the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force's
work including its Interim Report, released on September 17, 2009.
I appreciate the Committee's interest in this important and
historic endeavor that began on June 12, 2009, with President Obama's
memorandum to the heads of executive departments and Federal agencies
establishing an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. Under the
leadership of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),
the Task Force was charged with developing recommendations that include
a national policy for our oceans, coasts and the Great Lakes, a
framework for improved Federal policy coordination, an implementation
strategy to meet the objectives of a national ocean policy, and a
framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning.
The urgent need for the President's action is not new. In two
separate reports, first in 2003 and then in 2004, both the Pew Oceans
Commission, of which I was a member, and the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy (USCOP) recognized the need for a stronger ocean policy and
improved governance structure. Specifically, the USCOP report, An Ocean
Blueprint for the 21st Century, identified the need for a comprehensive
and coordinated national ocean policy and recommended moving away from
the current fragmented, single-sector way of doing business and toward
ecosystem-based management.
As the President declared in his memorandum, ``We have a
stewardship responsibility to maintain healthy, resilient, and
sustainable oceans, coasts and Great Lakes resources for the benefit of
this and future generations,'' and that to succeed in protecting them,
``The United States needs to act within a unifying framework under a
clear national policy, including a comprehensive, ecosystem-based
framework for the long-term conservation and use of our resources.'' I
have dedicated my career to studying coastal and marine ecosystems and
now, as I am responsible for leading NOAA, I could not agree more with
the President's statement. As the Department of Commerce's
representative on the Task Force, I am both excited and honored for
NOAA to participate as we have an exceptional range of scientific
capabilities, as well as policy and management expertise that have
contributed to this initiative of national importance.
The Task Force
The Task Force is comprised of 24 senior-level policy officials
from across the Federal Government. To complete the tasks laid out in
the President's memorandum, CEQ established a Working Committee
composed of senior officials and key representatives from the agencies
and departments to support the Task Force. CEQ also established several
subgroups to help inform the Working Committee. The Working Committee
and subgroups met on a weekly basis (in some cases, several times a
week) to meet the President's aggressive 90 day schedule. Reflecting
this shared commitment to meaningful and permanent action, the Federal
agencies have had an ``all hands on deck'' strategy to engage in a
robust policy debate.
The breadth of agencies and departments participating in the Task
Force reflect how the oceans touch on most of what we do as a Federal
Government. Throughout this process, NOAA, the Nation's primary ocean
agency, was pleased to see so many agencies whose primary focus is not
ocean and coastal issues be very supportive and engaged. The Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) is one example of a Department whose
primary mission is to ensure the health of all Americans and provide
essential human services, which does not explicitly lend itself to the
stewardship of the Nation's oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. Yet, HHS
was engaged throughout the Task Force process realizing that healthy
oceans support human health and their participation was comparable to
other agencies that deal with ocean issues on a more regular basis such
as the U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Protection Agency, Navy and the
Department of the Interior. It is this type of interagency commitment
that will be critical to the effectiveness of a comprehensive National
Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, our Coasts, and the Great
Lakes.
Many talented and dedicated NOAA employees have worked numerous
hours on the charges laid before the Task Force. This has included very
senior personnel in our Agency involved in marine science and policy,
coastal zone and living resource management, and communications
experts. Included in this NOAA team is Dr. Paul Sandifer, a former
member of the USCOP whose experience on the Commission was invaluable
to the Working Committee and subgroup deliberations. I am proud of
their efforts thus far and I know that the outcome of this Task Force
has and will continue to benefit from NOAA's steadfast participation.
That being said, I want to emphasize the importance of a collaborative
approach among all of the agencies that have been involved in this
process. They all have sent very talented senior people to participate
in the Task Force and empowered them to work collaboratively with the
other agencies; resulting in surprisingly few ``turf battles'' as these
policies and principles for ocean management have emerged.
The Interim Report
The first 90 days of hard work by the Task Force resulted in the
Interim Report, which was released on September 17, 2009. The Interim
Report proposes a new National Ocean Policy that recognizes that
America's stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes is
intrinsically and intimately linked to environmental sustainability,
human health and well-being, national prosperity, adaptation to climate
and other environmental change, social justice, foreign policy, and
national and homeland security.
The Interim Report also recommends a proposed policy coordination
framework that makes modifications to the existing ocean governance
structure, including a stronger mandate and policy direction, and
renewed and sustained high-level engagement. Under the proposal, CEQ
and the Office of Science and Technology Policy would lead an
interagency National Ocean Council to coordinate ocean-related issues
across the Federal Government and the implementation of the National
Ocean Policy. Such a governance structure, combined with sustained
high-level staff involvement, would ensure that ocean issues remain a
priority and are addressed consistently throughout the Federal
Government. The proposal also includes a Governance Advisory Committee
to the National Ocean Council to improve coordination and collaboration
with State, Tribal, and local authorities, and regional governance
organizations.
The Interim Report prioritizes nine categories for action,
including ecosystem-based management, regional ecosystem protection and
restoration, and strengthened and integrated observing systems, that
seek to address some of the most pressing challenges facing the ocean,
our coasts, and the Great Lakes. These strategies and objectives
provide a bridge between the National Ocean Policy and action on the
ground. As we have heard from listening sessions all over this country,
there is great enthusiasm and high expectations that we will move from
planning and coordination to meaningful improvements in coastal and
ocean ecosystems.
Lastly, the Interim Report highlights the need for the United
States to provide leadership internationally in the protection,
management, and sustainable use of the world's ocean and coastal
regions, including through accession to the Law of the Sea Convention.
The recommendations in the Interim Report reflect the considerable
input the Task Force received through a robust public engagement
process. The Task Force convened 24 expert roundtables with
representatives from a variety of stakeholders and sectors including
energy, conservation, fishing, transportation, agriculture, human
health, State, tribal, and local governments, ports, recreational
boating, business, science, and national and homeland security. Several
Task Force or Working Committee members attended each roundtable.
Public comments were also accepted via the CEQ website.
In addition, between August and the end of October, we held six
regional public listening sessions where Task Force members traveled to
the different regions of the country and heard from many interested
stakeholders. NOAA was the primary support to CEQ for organizing and
running the regional listening sessions and I personally participated
in all six of these sessions as I believe that public participation is
vital to the success of this process and meeting our overall goals.
Throughout the various public engagement processes there were
several key themes that we heard over and over again. These include
ecosystem-based management, support for science-based decisionmaking,
the need for improved governmental coordination, collaboration and
transparency, and the importance of ensuring that adequate financial
and other resources are made available to implement the National Ocean
Policy. The Task Force took these comments and integrated them into the
Interim Report. The extraordinary amount of public engagement in the
process also illustrated the fact that, wherever one lives in this
great country, the oceans matter to our individual and national
prosperity, our health, our security, and our quality of life. The
comments received on the interim report through the public comment
period are currently under review and the interim report will be
modified as necessary.
NOAA's Input to the Interim Report
NOAA's mission, to understand and predict changes in Earth's
environment and conserve and manage coastal and marine resources to
meet our Nation's economic, social, and environmental needs, aligns
with the work of the Task Force. The countless hours of creative
thoughts and negotiations by NOAA employees, in coordination with our
interagency partners, are reflected in the Interim Report's strong
support for healthy and resilient oceans, coasts and Great Lakes
ecosystems that support human uses and ensure vibrant communities and
economies.
As a science and regulatory agency, NOAA operates under the basic
principle that sound science must inform decisionmaking. Science is the
underpinning of the Interim Ocean Policy Task Force recommendations. It
feeds the substantial informational needs of ecosystem-based management
and provides tools for achieving ecosystem-based management such as
coastal and marine spatial planning, to inform better decisionmaking
and to improve understanding of the impacts of the ocean environment on
living resources and human communities. Ocean sciences in the United
States are supported by research agencies such as the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, and
National Institutes of Health, and ``operational'' agencies such as
NOAA, the Department of the Interior, and Environmental Protection
Agency. There are also important ocean science components in a number
of other agencies as well, including the U.S. Navy.
Much of the content of the interim Ocean Policy Task Force report
reflects NOAA's priorities as an operational marine science and
management agency. Emphasis on ecosystem approaches to management has
been a NOAA operating principle for several years, and we are pleased
that this draft policy reaffirms and strengthens our operating
principle by making it one of the priority objectives for how the
Federal Government will do business under this National Ocean Policy.
Working across agencies and vertically among Federal, tribal, state and
local governmental agencies is similarly a high priority for our
agency.
NOAA is a key ocean science agency fulfilling the role of providing
the scientific information to the Nation in support of the Task Force
recommendations. As such, NOAA made large contributions to the content
of the Interim Report. Similarly, NOAA's missions are very much aligned
with the Interim Report's areas of special emphasis in ecosystem
restoration, including habitats, fisheries and protected species,
robust ocean science capabilities including integrated ecosystem
assessments, biodiversity assessments, and ocean exploration, and a
robust ocean observing systems.
Understanding the ocean's role in climate change and the impacts of
climate change on ecological and human communities is a major part of
NOAA's core business. Climate change is already having significant
impacts on our living marine resources and coastal communities. Entire
ecosystems are undergoing unprecedented changes--one only has to look
to Alaska to see the extent and magnitude of these changes and to get a
preview of the kinds of impacts that may be in store for the rest of
the country. NOAA has extensive expertise in improving our
understanding of climate dynamics. We are able to monitor and forecast
short-term climate fluctuations and to provide information on the
effects climate patterns may have on the Nation. We also track changes
in biological and physical indicators of climate change such as shifts
in the geographic ranges of species.
The Arctic is an emerging area of national concern from a variety
of economic, ecological, cultural/subsistence and climate-related
issues. NOAA Scientists supply a variety of services in the Arctic and
are providing ongoing advice on topics ranging from mapping and
charting for emerging transportation issues and the extent of the U.S.
continental shelf to advice on the likely impacts of climate change on
protected species such as ice-dependent seals and fish stocks and on
Alaska Native subsistence communities. For these and other reasons,
NOAA supported the inclusion of the Arctic as an area of special
interest in the Interim Report.
As the NOAA Administrator, it is one of my priorities for NOAA to
be a leader in understanding the processes by which marine ecosystems
provide services crucial for human survival on Earth, in quantifying
the values of these services, and in helping to educate businesses and
Federal, state and local decisionmakers about how the health of human
society and the health of the environment are tightly coupled. Simply
put, human health, jobs, prosperity, and well-being depend upon the
health and resilience of natural ecosystems. Nowhere is this connection
more evident or important than in our oceans and along our coasts and
Great Lakes where NOAA has major responsibilities. Human impacts
degrade coastal, ocean and Great Lakes ecosystems, and degraded marine
ecosystems result in increased risks to human communities and their
economies, and to public health and safety. At the broadest level, we
must seek to advance more holistic approaches to understand and balance
human use, sustainability, and preservation of ecosystem resources and
functioning. I personally made it a priority to see that these concepts
were a part of the Task Force's discussions, through my participation
in all six of the regional listening sessions. I am very pleased with
how these important issues are interwoven throughout the Interim
Report.
Next Steps--A Framework for Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
NOAA is committed to assisting CEQ and the Task Force in the
President's charge to deliver a coastal and marine spatial planning
framework--one that will enable governments at all levels to optimize
both use and protection of marine ecosystems for the maximum benefit of
the Nation. During this second phase, we have expanded NOAA's
involvement to include additional staff with expertise in spatial
management, data integration, legal affairs and ocean sciences and
management. This additional expertise and similar contributions by
other agencies is allowing rapid and concrete progress toward
development of a workable framework for coastal and marine spatial
planning, a framework where we can bring to bear many of NOAA's
capabilities in science, stewardship and service to support national
economic and environmental goals. In addition to the Task Force's work,
NOAA has also sponsored internal training in marine spatial planning
and extended invitations to other Task Force agencies to hear from
international experts in marine spatial planning about their
experiences in this emerging field elsewhere in the world.
NOAA's existing scientific capacities and ocean management
authorities, including ocean observing systems and mapping
capabilities, along with management responsibilities for marine
sanctuaries, estuarine research reserves, area-based fisheries, and
protected marine resources, uniquely position the agency to support a
national coastal and marine spatial planning framework. NOAA has
practiced elements of coastal and marine spatial planning for many
years under its ocean management authorities; recent examples include
working with the U.S. Coast Guard to modify traditional navigation
routes to reduce impacts on North Atlantic Right Whales and other
species, managing multiple compatible uses of marine sanctuaries, and
regulating fisheries in time and space for sustainable use. But NOAA's
goal, and the goal of coastal and marine spatial planning, is to go a
step further and foster a more robust, holistic management approach
that effectively reduces human use and ecosystem conflicts while
enhancing economic activity and maintenance of critical ecosystem
services.
NOAA, together with the Department of the Interior and
Environmental Protection Agency, has also brought to the Task Force's
coastal and marine spatial planning framework discussions its
experience in working with the coastal States on their regional
collaborations. These include, in part, the Governor-created regional
groups: Northeast Regional Ocean Council, Mid-Atlantic Regional Council
on the Ocean, Gulf of Mexico Alliance, and the West Coast Governors
Agreement. These State-led regional bodies, and individual State marine
spatial planning efforts such as the Massachusetts Ocean Plan and Rhode
Island's Ocean Special Area Management Plan, are currently leading
marine spatial planning efforts and bringing substantial information
and ideas to the Task Force.
Apart from helping to produce these two framework documents, NOAA
is committed to the successful implementation of their recommendations.
NOAA has many mandates including the Magnuson-Stevens Act, National
Marine Sanctuaries Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and Marine Mammal
Protection Act, which could also serve as tools in the implementation
of the Task Force recommendations. In working with the various agencies
on the Task Force, it is also clear that there is much we can do under
present authorities to enhance collaboration within the Federal
Government and between the Federal Government and the states and
tribes. We will, of course, want to engage with Congress on the extent
to which we can accomplish the new policies under current legislation,
and on where we think additional authorities may be required for full
implementation. In either case, if the President chooses to adopt these
recommendations, they could require NOAA to modify and re-prioritize
some of its missions and data gathering responsibilities. Additionally,
it will require all of the Line Office elements of NOAA to continue to
focus on working collaboratively together and with the many external
partners that will be required to support ecosystem-based management of
the oceans. We look forward to the implementation phase of this
historical effort to harmonize the management of the Nation's coastal,
ocean and Great Lakes ecosystems.
Let me conclude by stating how pleased I am with the progress that
has been made by the Ocean Policy Task Force. I would particularly like
to thank Chair Sutley for her leadership and vision. It has been
rewarding to work with all of the other agencies that are part of the
Task Force, and want to thank each of them for their participation and
perspectives. Our collective effort will ensure that we move forward
with a comprehensive ecosystem approach to addressing our stewardship
responsibilities and to ensure accountability for our actions. The
Nation's oceans are counting on us.
Finally, I'd like to thank the Committee for this opportunity to
testify and I look forward to working with you on this important issue.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you very much.
Next, we'll hear from Admiral Allen.
Thank you, for being here, today. We look forward to your
comments.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL THAD W. ALLEN,
COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST GUARD
Admiral Allen. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair,
Senator Snowe, and other members present. Thank you very much,
for holding this hearing.
And I'm happy at the opportunity to be here with my
colleagues. Over the last several months, we've forged a very
strong partnership and a bond of friendship, and I think we're
all committed to moving this effort forward.
I'm also very pleased to be representing the Department of
Homeland Security and Secretary Napolitano as a member of the
task force.
And I would ask that my written statement be included in
its entirety for the record.
I believe the Ocean Policy Task Force represents a
significant opportunity to employ a whole-of-government
approach for managing our oceans, coastlines, Great Lakes, and
waterways.
This is an issue of critical strategic importance to our
service in our maritime safety, security, and stewardship
roles. Those roles are clearly reflected in the report's vision
statement, an America whose stewardship ensures that the ocean,
our coast, and Great Lakes are healthy and resilient, safe and
productive, and understood and treasured so as to promote the
well-being, prosperity, and security of present and future
generations. And, in fact, it's hard to find a section of the
task force report where the Coast Guard does not have
significant equities. But, here are a few that I consider most
important:
The first would be an improved policy coordination and
predictable processes for how we manage our roles and
responsibilities in relation to the ocean. A national oceans
policy will enhance interagency coordination and ensure senior-
level attention on ocean-related issues. This will result in
more efficient Federal oversight of our oceans, coasts, Great
Lakes, and waterways, and improved communications with our
partners throughout the public and private sectors.
Marine spatial planning, a key element of this policy,
similar in many regards to urban planning for the ocean,
provides an objective and transparent framework to guide the
decisions for the use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes water
resources. We need to establish a sustainable balance between
use and conservation while providing greater predictability for
public- and private-sector investments. Marine spatial planning
will help us reduce conflicts in the maritime domain and
responsibly harvest oceanic resources.
As a cooperating agency within the National Environmental
Policy Act process, the Coast Guard becomes immersed with
conflicting waterway uses, such as renewable energy proposals,
deepwater ports, oil and gas exploration, aquaculture,
sanctuaries, vessel traffic lanes, navigable channel sizes, and
the establishment of anchorages. These conflicts will expand as
technology makes our oceans more accessible to exploration.
Currently, the Coast Guard adjudicates conflicts
individually, without the benefit of an overarching marine
spatial planning framework. The lack of a broader national plan
makes it difficult to understand the implications across all
stakeholders and the ecosystem. Without such perspectives, the
ensuing uncertainty forces higher costs, inefficiencies, and
the potential for litigation of disputes.
The oceans are our last global commons. Thus, our domestic
ocean policies must be considered relative to international
frameworks. The task force, to be effective--for the task force
to be effective, it is paramount that the United States become
a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea. UNCLOS puts us on an equal footing when negotiating with
other nations, on extended continental shelves, ocean resources
management, freedom of navigation, and international ocean
policy issues.
We must work closely also with the International Maritime
Organization as we implement any new policy. The IMO has proven
time and time again that it can bring the global maritime
community together to address shared concerns. The passage of
the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code and
the work on greenhouse gas emissions are just two examples.
While there are those that say the IMO process sometimes takes
longer, it does result in a highly effective way to generate a
consensus.
I'd like to speak for just a moment about the Arctic
region. In August, I had the honor of joining my fellow task-
force members on a trip to the Arctic. Climate change is
causing Arctic temperatures to rise at nearly twice the global
rate, resulting in back-to-back record low sea-ice coverage in
2007 and 2008. Decreasing sea ice and enhanced technologies are
opening new possibilities for shipping routes and marine
activity in the Arctic. It requires special and immediate
attention. A national ocean policy should give special
consideration to the Arctic region and provide for robust and
coordinated implementation of U.S. Arctic regional policy as
developed in the National Security Presidential Directive 66.
By simply convening the Ocean Policy Task Force, we are
acknowledging how important the maritime domain is to our
national prosperity, security, and resilience. We fully endorse
a national ocean policy that supports integrated ocean
observing systems and sensors to monitor and collect
information about our ocean, coast, and Great Lakes. This data
significantly adds to our overall maritime domain awareness and
improves our ability to provide for maritime safety, security,
and stewardship.
In closing, I fully endorse the stated goals of the Ocean
Policy Task Force. I look forward to building the national plan
that will allow our Nation to benefit from our oceanic
resources while sustaining them for future generations to
enjoy.
And thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Allen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral Thad W. Allen,
Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard
Introduction
Good morning, Madame Chair, Senator Snowe, and distinguished
members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss
the Coast Guard's role in the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force that
President Obama established in June. A new national ocean policy
especially as it creates a unified framework for effective coastal and
marine spatial planning--is critical to the Nation and to the ability
of the Coast Guard to execute its mission. I will also briefly discuss
several objectives the Coast Guard would like to see addressed as this
important ocean policy process moves toward completion and initial
implementation.
Importance to the Coast Guard of a Better National Ocean Policy
Ms. Nancy Sutley--the Chair of the White House Council on
Environmental Quality and leader of this Task Force--has presented an
excellent overview of the substance and purpose the Task Force, and
what it hopes to accomplish in promoting the health and productivity of
our oceans, coastlines, waterways, and Great Lakes. I would like to
discuss in some more detail the benefits of a national ocean policy to
the Coast Guard and the Nation as a whole.
For well over two centuries, the Coast Guard has worked to
safeguard our Nation and its citizens, to secure our maritime borders,
and to serve as a responsible steward of our oceans, coastlines,
intercoastal waterways and the Great Lakes. As the principal Federal
maritime law enforcement agency, the Coast Guard protects our coastal
waters and marine resources, ensures safe and secure navigation, and
performs other essential tasks such as search and rescue, servicing
aids to navigation, and counter-drug operations.
Our Nation is facing many new challenges in marine spaces.
Potential new shipping lanes burgeon as Arctic ice melts. The size and
volume of commercial shipping around the world continue to increase.
There is increasing interest in our continental shelves for oil and gas
production. Overfishing and other destructive practices proliferate.
Parts of the ocean are suffering acidification. Invasive species are
being introduced and migrating to new areas. Critical coastal habitats
and the environmental benefits they provide are being lost. A
comprehensive approach is imperative to address these many challenges.
These challenges are not new. Most of these have been well
documented in the past--by the Stratton Commission report in 1969, the
Pew Commission report in 2003, and the report of the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy in 2004. For its part, the Coast Guard produced a strategy
document in 2007 titled ``The U.S. Coast Guard Strategy for Maritime
Safety, Security, and Stewardship.'' After quoting from the Final
Report of the U.S. Ocean Policy Commission on maritime regimes, and
noting the increased security challenges following the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, I provided the following observation in that strategic
document: ``In ocean policy, the United States needs integrated regimes
that address concerns ranging from increased use of the Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) to new uses in the Arctic. To fill these gaps, and
create a more integrated system, the Coast Guard must work to
strengthen existing maritime regimes, and develop new ones where
necessary.'' That need has become increasingly apparent to me as I have
continued to serve as the Commandant of the Coast Guard.
Although the work of producing the Interim Ocean Policy Task Force
Report was limited to 90 days, the Department of Homeland Security and
the Coast Guard are proud of what the Task Force produced in this
timeframe. This report provides admirable focus on, and balance of
safety, security, economic resource and environmental stewardship
issues. The report emphasizes a number of areas that the Coast Guard
views as critical to achieve safe, secure, and environmentally prudent
commercial shipping, such as: ecosystem-based management of coastal
waters; adaptive management; coastal and marine spatial planning; plans
for addressing changing conditions in the Arctic; science-based
decision-making; and improved maritime domain awareness. The Department
of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard look forward to working across
government and the maritime community to implement any national ocean
policy that may result from the work of the Task Force. In order to
ensure that any policy takes the concerns of all stakeholders into
account, the Task Force will continue to solicit and consider
suggestions from the public and other stakeholders as to the substance
of its proposals.
I would also like to emphasize a key point upon which all Task
Force members agree: the time has long since come for the United States
to join the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. Task Force Chair
Sutley, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA), and I co-authored an 4 op-ed
piece in the Seattle Times (published Sept. 4), in which we noted the
crucial importance of acceding to the Convention as the Task Force
completes its work. Among other things, accession to the Convention is
essential to promote our vital national interests in the Arctic. The
Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations have all made clear their
strong support for the Convention. So, too, have the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and a diverse array of other national security leaders,
environmental policy experts, and the entire spectrum of maritime
industry stakeholders. To this overwhelming body of opinion, we
recently added the unanimous conclusion of the Interagency Ocean Policy
Task Force. In comments the Task Force has received from policy
experts, industry, and other knowledgeable citizens, support for the
Convention has been overwhelming. I strongly urge the U.S. Senate to
provide its necessary consent for the United States to join the
Convention as soon as possible.
Coast Guard's Role in the Process
The Coast Guard strongly supports the goals of the Task Force and
has been enthusiastic to take an important role in its work. Soon after
the President established the Task Force on June 12, 2009, the
Secretary of Homeland Security and I discussed how best we could
represent our Departmental obligations in carrying out the mission of
the Task Force. Because the Coast Guard has great experience and
expertise in ocean policy and marine spatial planning, Secretary
Napolitano named me as the Department's representative on the Task
Force. The Coast Guard has a long-standing and vested interest in
developing, implementing, and carrying out a comprehensive ocean policy
for the United States. My senior staff and I, along with a wide
spectrum of Coast Guard operational and policy subject-matter experts,
are actively participating in every aspect of this important
interagency process.
In August, I hosted a Task Force trip to the North Slope of Alaska.
Several members of the Task Force--including two members of the Task
Force, the Chair, Nancy Sutley and Dr. Jane Lubchenco traveled with me
to see the increasingly fragile environment of Arctic and to learn what
the Coast Guard, other governmental agencies, local tribal governments,
and non-governmental groups are doing to enhance stewardship of this
critical region. During our trip, we met with leaders of several of the
indigenous peoples in the Arctic region, visited oil and gas production
facilities, and witnessed first-hand the increasing number of
challenges at-risk coastal communities face due to coastal erosion
associated with global climate change.
Toward the end of that trip, we participated in a formal public
hearing that the Task Force had arranged in Anchorage. We heard from a
wide variety of experts and interested citizens on a broad range of
topics related to ocean policy, ecosystem-based management, and marine
spatial planning. Since that field hearing in Anchorage, senior Coast
Guard leaders and I have participated in public hearings in San
Francisco, Honolulu, Providence, New Orleans, and Cleveland. These
public hearings have been very worthwhile and informative, and the work
of the Task Force has been well received. The Coast Guard continually
strives to increase our awareness of the many challenges facing our
ocean and coastal waters, and we consistently engage the maritime
community to define and promote the necessary steps that we can take
together to overcome these challenges. The Task Force has been taking
this approach at the national level.
The Coast Guard has provided physical, personnel, and
administrative resources to the Task Force's efforts. A Coast Guard
helicopter tour of the Louisiana coastline allowed the Task Force to
observe first-hand the remaining effects of the devastation of
Hurricane Katrina as well as the remarkable resilience of the region.
During our flight, we were briefed on hypoxic ``dead zone'' caused by
polluted water from the Mississippi River--often larger in area than
the State of Massachusetts--in the Gulf of Mexico coastal waters.
Coast Guard participants in the Task Force have also actively
provided administrative support for research, workshops, outreach to
the public and other stakeholders, drafting assistance, and other
coordinating efforts on the work products for the Task Force. The
Interim Report--which contains a draft ocean policy, governance
framework, and implementation strategy was sent to the President on
Sept. 10, reflects a remarkable achievement of interagency cooperation,
containing a draft ocean policy, governance framework, and
implementation strategy.
We continue to support the development of a final strategy through
briefing congressional staffers and holding expert roundtable
discussions designed to hear suggestions and provide answers to the
public and other stakeholders.
Importance of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
The Coast Guard was also involved in the second phase of tasks the
President laid out in his June 12 Executive Memorandum. Specifically,
Coast Guard staff attorneys and other subject-matter experts are
actively participating in the Working Committee and the subgroups
established to develop a framework for effective coastal and marine
spatial planning (CMSP).
The Task Force's work in improving coastal and marine spatial
planning (CMSP) is critical to the Coast Guard's ability to perform our
important work. For years, the Coast Guard has essentially performed a
limited form of marine spatial planning in many different ways,
especially in regard to vessel traffic separation. However, these
actions are undertaken on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis. The Nation
would greatly benefit from a framework to implement ocean management
principles that takes into account the impact of the use of U.S. waters
on all alternative uses and users, as well as the entire ecosystem. A
comprehensive, integrated, transparent planning process for current and
anticipated uses of off-shore maritime space would reduce conflict and
adverse environmental impacts, facilitate compatible uses, and preserve
critical ecosystem services to better meet environmental, economic and
security objectives.
The 2004 report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy expressed
the challenge and opportunity as follows: ``While legal, policy, and
institutional frameworks exist for managing some ocean uses, there
remain increasingly unacceptable gaps. The Nation needs a coordinated
offshore management regime that encompasses traditional and emerging
uses and is adaptable enough to incorporate uses not yet clearly
foreseen.''
From the perspective of the Coast Guard, the Federal Government
needs to establish a multi-purpose process that allows for
identification and resolution of potentially competing uses of maritime
resources and spaces prior to the emergence of conflicts; that balances
ocean uses and conservation; and that creates a transparent means to
determine and resolve ``trade-offs'' between potentially conflicting
uses that reflects national and regional ocean use priorities; and that
creates an accepted and expedited dispute-resolution mechanism when
conflicts do arise. We need to provide a more coordinated,
comprehensive, uniform, and integrated approach to exercising Federal
legal authorities related to ocean use and management. Based on the
work of the Task Force so far, we anticipate that an effective system
of CMSP will better address the ``gaps'' in current ocean management
regimes and better manage ocean uses. This will allow the Coast Guard
to more effectively execute its many missions in support of safety,
security, and stewardship in our ocean and coastal waters.
Policy experts presented case studies of CMSP in other parts of the
world, as well as in a handful of U.S. states. In 1975, Australia
became the first to establish a system of marine spatial planning,
which strove to protect the fragile and unique ecosystem of the Great
Barrier Reef while minimizing undue interference with essential
shipping activity and other commercial and recreational uses. The Task
Force also studied the experiences of several other European coastal
countries that have implemented marine spatial planning to provide for
off-shore alternative energy production, particularly wind farms and
hydrokinetic applications.
The processes that these countries have implemented have led to the
establishment of shared priorities for the ocean and coasts, and a
framework for balancing the shared interest in the marine environment
with commercial and industrial activities. Properly structured and
implemented, CMSP can streamline and simplify the permitting process,
balance competing uses effectively, explicitly identify and evaluate
trade-offs, provide administrative certainty, and expedite dispute
resolution, all while better protecting the marine environment through
science- and ecosystem-based and adaptive management. All of these
benefits would help the Coast Guard accomplish its missions more
efficiently and effectively.
The Coast Guard's limited involvement in marine spatial planning
most obvious in its establishment and enforcement of vessel traffic
separation schemes in U.S. waters, especially at the entrance to major.
These traffic schemes help ensure navigational safety and security by
defining where specific shipping and other activities may take place.
One recent example where the Coast Guard, NOAA, and other Federal
agencies employed adaptive management principles to better preserve at
least one critical component of a marine ecosystem was by modifying the
vessel traffic system in the approaches to Boston Harbor. In light of
new scientific evidence concerning the preferred feeding and basking
locations of North Atlantic right whales in Cape Cod Bay, the Coast
Guard and our partner agencies weighed the benefit of amending the
vessel traffic system to reduce the likelihood of vessel traffic
passing through the areas with the highest incidence of whale
observations. In 2007, the Coast Guard worked with other interested
stakeholders to slightly shift existing shipping lanes and establish
new ones nearby to reduce the likelihood of whale strikes as vessels
entered and departed from the port of Boston, all while minimizing any
adverse impacts on the large daily volume of commercial shipping.
This is only one example of the type of prior work conducted in
applying the basic technique of marine spatial planning to strategic
management of our oceans, coasts, and the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard
has statutory authority to establish and enforce vessel anchorage areas
in U.S. ports and coastal waters, where the need to accommodate
different vessel types and varied uses must be weighed against
environmental impacts and the burden of maintaining such measures.
Likewise, the Coast Guard has the authority to establish security zones
and regulated navigation areas in U.S. ports and waters. The Coast
Guard also plays a key role as a cooperating agency helping to
determine whether and under what conditions various offshore activities
should be authorized, such as deep-water ports, hydrokinetic or wind-
based renewable energy proposals, or traditional uses such as oil and
gas exploration and production. Moreover, while undertaking these
responsibilities, the Coast Guard engages and listens to a wide variety
of stakeholders, including the shipping industry, port authorities, and
in some instances the International Maritime Organization in the
process of reviewing and making recommendations for such plans.
A system of effective CMSP would greatly improve and enhance the
effective collaboration of Federal and state agencies, affected local
governments and tribes, and other stakeholders to determine the most
efficient and prudent uses of our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes.
Given the significance of these issues, the remarkable cooperation
that we have seen from all the members of the Task Force, the positive
tenor and text of the Interim Report, and all other indications, the
Coast Guard is fully confident that the process to develop a
recommended framework will continue to properly address the Coast
Guard's, and other Task Force members' interests. .
In the meantime, the Coast Guard and its interagency partners are
working within the current structure to make the ocean and our coastal
and Great Lakes waters safer, more secure, more productive, and as
environmentally sound as we can. On October 16, the Coast Guard, the
State Department, the Environment Protection Agency, and NOAA
cosponsored a 2009 World Maritime Day event in New York, with several
parallel events taking place in major port cities throughout the
country. Representatives from a broad range of government agencies,
maritime industries, non-governmental organizations, and the general
public, participated in these events. Dr. Holdren, Director of the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, gave the key-note
presentation on the topic of global climate change and pollution, and
its impacts on the ocean's ecology. Other discussion topics at the
event included shipping safety, maritime security, and how climate
changes present challenges to the maritime community. Many of those in
attendance applauded the Administration's commitment to moving forward
with a national policy for the oceans, coastlines, waterways and Great
Lakes, and developing a framework for effective coastal and marine
spatial planning.
Conclusion
To meet our national responsibilities in our oceans, coastlines,
intercoastal waterways and the Great Lakes, our Nation, the Department
of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard, and the other agencies concerned
must develop and implement the best possible national ocean policy and
structure. We are all convinced that this should include a
comprehensive, integrated, transparent, and ecosystem-based planning
process for the various uses of coastal and marine space. We share the
goal in the vision statement the Task Force expressed in its Interim
Report: ``An America whose stewardship ensures that our oceans,
coastlines, intercoastal waterways and the Great Lakes remain healthy,
resilient, safe and productive, and understood and treasured so as to
promote the well-being, prosperity, and security of present and future
generations.''
Thank you for your attention and your interest in this important
topic. I would ask that my written remarks be entered into the record.
I am ready to respond to any questions that you may have.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Admiral Allen.
Last, we'll hear from the Honorable Laura Davis, from the
U.S. Department of the Interior.
Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAURA DAVIS, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Davis. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Cantwell and
Ranking Member Snowe and other members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear here.
I'd like to submit my full written statement and summarize
my remarks now--statement for the record.
I'm Laura Davis. I'm the Associate Deputy Secretary of the
Interior. The Department of the Interior is proud to be playing
a leadership role on the President's Ocean Policy Task Force.
I'm honored to appear here today with my fellow task-force
members, Chair Nancy Sutley, Admiral Thad Allen, and Dr. Jane
Lubchenco. I especially want to acknowledge Chair Sutley's
leadership and the extraordinary efforts of her staff.
I know that those of you on this committee have worked for
many years on the issue of ocean and coastal policy. And all of
us look forward to working closely with you and receiving your
input as we move forward.
In June, the President charged us to work together on an
expedited timeline to develop a policy recommendation to
achieve healthy, resilient, and sustainable ocean, coast, and
Great Lakes resources for the benefit of this and future
generations. To achieve the President's vision, we have sat
down together, over the course of 4 months, at all levels of
all of our departments, to meet his charge. We've attended
public meetings across the country and heard the thoughtful
concerns expressed by citizens living in those regions who took
the time to come and meet with us. We've released an Interim
Ocean Policy document which includes a recommendation for a
robust governance and coordination approach and a plan for
expeditious implementation. And we're spending lots of time
together now as we discuss how to make our best recommendation
to the President on a framework for effective coastal and
marine spatial planning. These activities have already
strengthened our coordination with each other and our
partnerships with States, tribes, regional organizations, and
others in the stakeholder community.
All of the Department of the Interior is involved in this
effort. The Department has a lot at stake in these discussions.
For starters, we have, after all, leasing, permitting, and
oversight responsibility in the Minerals Management Service for
conventional and renewable energy resources on the 1.7 billion
acres on the Outer Continental Shelf. These resources are a
national priority to help us secure greater energy
independence.
The National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service
manage over 35,000 miles of coastline and 254 ocean and coastal
parks and refuges. The Bureau of Land Management administers
1100 miles of coastline and the California Coastal National
Monument. The Bureau of Indian Affairs works with tribes to
address their ocean and coastal issues. And because the
Department is committed to sound scientific decisionmaking, the
U.S. Geological Survey provides the rigorous scientific
research that supports our resource management activities.
So, we're all involved, and proudly so, in working together
with our Federal sister agencies to achieve the goals of the
President's Ocean Policy Task Force. We're committed to
developing and implementing a coordinated and comprehensive
national policy for our treasured but vulnerable ocean, coast,
and Great Lakes resources. We look forward to working with you
as we move forward, to implement this vision.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear here today,
and I look forward to answering your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Davis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Laura Davis, Associate Deputy Secretary,
Department of the Interior
Chairwoman Cantwell, Ranking Member Snowe and members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Laura Davis. I am the Associate Deputy
Secretary of the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the President's
Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and the Department of the
Interior's role in the process and its oceans and coastal
responsibilities.
In establishing the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, the
President said, ``We have a stewardship responsibility to maintain
healthy, resilient, and sustainable ocean, coasts and Great Lakes
resources for the benefit of this and future generations.'' We at the
Department of the Interior are proud to be part of the Task Force and
pledge to do our part to fulfill the President's vision for a
coordinated, comprehensive national policy for our ocean, our coasts
and the Great Lakes.
As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of
the Interior is responsible for conserving and providing access to many
of our significant coastal and ocean resources.
The Department manages and conserves ocean and coastal lands and
waters to protect native species and their habitats, provide
recreational opportunities for the public, and ensure safe and
responsible natural resource energy development. Department scientists
conduct extensive ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research and mapping
to predict, assess, and manage impacts on coastal and marine
environments. In collaboration with our partners, the Department
integrates effective multiple-use management from upland ecosystems to
deep oceanic waters.
Our oceans, coasts and uplands are interconnected and
interdependent both ecologically and economically. As a steward of our
ocean and coastal resources, we see first hand, the affects of climate
change and other threats and the imperative to increase the resiliency
and adaptability of these ecosystems in the face of these challenges.
The 1.7 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf that we manage
are crucial to securing our energy independence through conventional
and renewable energy development. The 35,000 miles of coastal lands and
waters of the ocean and Great Lakes we manage stretch across 35 states
and territories and are of enormous recreational, biological, and
cultural value to the Nation. Over 254 National Park Units and National
Wildlife Refuge Units spanning 34 million acres of ocean and coast
conserve and protect places where people connect with the ocean. These
areas provide communities the ability to preserve their cultural
heritage and economic livelihood. We also work with our insular areas
to assist them in ensuring that the coral reefs on which their island
communities depend will be there for future generations.
I want to convey to you, Madam Chairwoman, and to the members of
the Subcommittee, that the Secretary shares the President's commitment
to making our ocean, coasts and the Great Lakes healthy, resilient, and
sustainable--environmentally and economically--through improved
coordination among Federal agencies and partnership with States,
territories, Tribes, and regional and local authorities. And I want to
thank the fellow members of the Task Force, those here today and not
here today, for their participation in this important effort. Chair
Sutley is a great leader and each of the members of the Task Force is
committed to the President's vision.
National Ocean Policy Task Force
Recognizing that the time has come for a clear and comprehensive
national ocean policy to uphold our stewardship responsibilities, and
serve as a model of coordinated, consistent, efficient and informed
ocean and coastal decision-making, on June 12, 2009, President Obama
issued a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and Federal
agencies establishing an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. The Task
force is led by the White House Council on Environmental Quality and
charged with developing a recommendation for a national policy that
ensures protection, maintenance, and restoration of the ocean, our
coasts and the Great Lakes. It will also recommend a framework for
improved stewardship, and effective coastal and marine spatial planning
designed to guide us well into the future.
The Department of the Interior has been proudly and actively
engaged in the Task Force from the outset. We appreciate that the Task
Force collaborations have already strengthened DOI coordination and
planning. Interior has also participated in and supported each of the
expert roundtables and the series of six public regional meetings with
interested stakeholders. Close partnering and extensive public
engagement has resulted in greater understanding of the common
challenges and opportunities our diverse ocean and coastal
responsibilities present and the need for innovative, science-based and
ecosystem-based strategies to guide our decisionmaking now and for the
long-term.
I am honored to be the Department of the Interior representative on
the Task Force. The Department has very actively participated in
contributing to the Interim Task Force report that was presented to the
President and released to the public in September and we continue to
participate in the development of the proposed Coastal and Marine
Spatial Planning Framework that will be delivered in December. Senior
Departmental and bureau representatives are fully engaged in the
numerous subgroup, working group and Task Force meetings that have
supported the development of the interim report and the proposed
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning framework. Along with sister
agencies, The Department has contributed extensive staff resources to
support CEQ in writing these documents. David Hayes, our Deputy
Secretary and I have attended the public hearings associated with the
Task Force, and the Department hosted the virtual Pacific Islands
meeting ensuring Washington connectivity to several Hawaiian Islands
and to Guam, American Samoa and to the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana
Islands. Departmental representatives have attended roundtable
discussions that CEQ staff hosted and have supported all six of the
public hearings.
Activities of Interior Agencies
As noted above, the Department of the Interior conserves, protects,
and manages more than 35,000 miles of coastline, and 254 ocean and
coastal parks and refuges, as well as over 1.7 billion underwater acres
of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Our scientists conduct extensive
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research and mapping to predict,
assess, and manage impacts on coastal and marine environments.
Through these efforts, Interior has improved its role and
effectiveness within the ocean and coastal community at the State,
regional, and national levels.
The Department of the Interior is helping lead the development of
large-scale ocean and coastal ecosystem-based policies, allowing us to
cross jurisdictional lines and tackle key problems with partners to
carry out on-the-ground projects, and catalyze collective agency and
public involvement to find solutions. I would like to highlight for the
Committee a few examples our recent success in coordinating on ocean
and coastal issues.
Pursuant to Congressional direction, the Minerals Management
Service (MMS), working with NOAA and other Federal agencies, has
developed the Multipurpose Marine Cadastre (MMC), which allows Federal
managers and technical staff, as well coastal States; local,
territorial, and tribal governments; private industry; and the academic
community, to directly access information and resources necessary to
promote and conduct good ocean governance.
The MMC is an integrated submerged lands spatial information system
consisting of legal (e.g., real property/cadastre), physical,
biological, human resource, and cultural information in a common
reference framework. It is an ambitious, multiyear endeavor that will
help greatly inform any marine spatial planning approach.
The MMS has leasing, permitting and oversight responsibility for
oil and gas, renewable energy, and mineral activities within the OCS.
MMS employs a robust environmental and collaborative process in
reviewing these activities including memoranda of understanding with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the U.S. Coast Guard,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Defense, among
others.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a world leader in natural
science, is an unbiased, multi-disciplinary earth and biological
science agency that works in full partnership with States and Federal
agencies, to provide data and maps of the seabed and characterization
of the aquatic habitat. From the upper watersheds to the abyssal deep
of the ocean, USGS is engaged in monitoring water quality and assessing
water availability; forecasting coastal change; building a better
understanding of ocean-based hazards from landslides, submarine
volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, and extreme storms.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the
Office of Insular Affairs and the Bureau of Land Management all have
numerous successful programs underway that work with Federal, State,
territory, tribal, international, and private partners to fulfill
extensive coastal and marine-based natural resource conservation
planning and coordinate statutory responsibilities. Notable activities
involve science, mapping, and monitoring, as well as restoring and
protecting barrier islands, coastal wetlands, watersheds, and ocean
ecosystems.
The Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Framework and Information
Infrastructure
The Department of the Interior looks forward to ongoing cooperation
and coordination with our partners and stakeholders to meet the
President's call to develop a recommended framework for effective
coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP). We share and fully support
the President's goal of working toward establishing a framework that is
a comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem-based approach to address
conservation, economic activity, user conflicts, and sustainable use of
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources consistent with international
law.
With management responsibility over 35,000 miles of shoreline,
Interior very much recognizes the threats to the sustainability of our
coastal communities, economy, and natural resources, posed by rising
sea levels as today's coasts may be become part of tomorrow's oceans.
Additionally, Interior supports securing clean, renewable energy
security derived from the oceans as a national priority
Conclusion
Interior has and will continue to take a leadership role in
national, regional, and local efforts to build the long-term engagement
with non-Federal partners to meet goals for coastal and ocean ecosystem
and economic health. We stress the coordination of coastal and ocean
activities across the bureaus that are responsive to regional
priorities established by the states, and effectively meet departmental
strategic goals. We work closely with the ocean and coastal community
at the state, regional, and national levels. An Ocean and Coastal
Activities Coordinator helps to facilitate this critical coordination.
The President's Interagency Ocean Task Force provides an exciting
and important opportunity for us all to work together to develop and
implement a coordinated, comprehensive plan for our oceans, coasts and
Great Lakes. We look forward to working with you as we go forward with
this process and I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before
you today.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you very much.
And again, thank you, to all the witnesses, for being here.
And thank you for your testimony. I think you've outlined areas
of responsibility that you each have in the various areas of
ocean policy. But, I think as we move forward, the public wants
to know, What is a national ocean policy and who's in charge?
And if each of you could just answer for me whether you think
your agency should be in charge of the policy.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cantwell. I'm very supportive of interagency
cooperation. But, I think, having been a member of this
committee for several years myself, and being through the last
Oceans Commission recommendations, this--and the fact that we--
let's just say, the lack of an organic act and various attempts
to put focus to this--I think now it's time to come clean and
let's say who really should lead this effort. So, if each of
you could give me some comments on that.
And we'll start with CEQ.
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, for the
question.
The report of the Task Force, and really the consensus
recommendation of the Task Force, was that we needed to have
high-level engagement, we needed to--through the National
Oceans Council and that--the recommendation is to have that
Council co-chaired by the Council on Environmental Quality and
the Office of Science and Technology Policy, recognizing the
important--the importance of stewardship and science in
carrying out this national ocean policy. The National Ocean
Council would comprise high-level representatives from the
agencies here and others, recognizing the important work that
they do, the important scientific and regulatory work at NOAA,
the important activities at--that the Coast Guard carries out,
and the responsibilities of the Department of Interior, as well
as others who have important responsibilities over our coasts--
oceans, coasts, and marine resources. So, the--that
recommendation, I think, builds on the recommendations of
earlier commissions, including the Joint Oceans Commission and
the U.S. Commission and the Pew Commission, that there needed
to be some high-level oversight and coordination, and that
really--I think the recommendation of the National Ocean
Council is built around that.
Senator Cantwell. Dr. Lubchenco, what is the policy, and
who's in charge?
Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you, Chairwoman.
It's pretty clear to me that, for a national ocean policy
to be fully successful, it needs to have strong guidance about
what the goals are, it needs to have strong leadership as well
as good collaboration and cooperation. And so, in my view, the
keys to success are leadership that facilitates the
coordination and collaboration. Also, accountability for
implementation of the policy, and visibility and access at
senior White House level as well as throughout the Federal
family.
I don't believe that any single agency can fully execute
all of the qualities that I just articulated as being required.
I do believe that NOAA has the scientific expertise and the
ocean and coastal management experience to be an important
leader in this effort, the implementation of the policy, and in
providing the scientific expertise that is required to make it
fully successful.
Senator Cantwell. Is that an endorsement of Chair Sutley's
recommendation, or an alternative?
Dr. Lubchenco. I've articulated what I think are the
elements to success. I--and those include having strong
leadership that is able to convene all of the relevant
agencies. I'm telling you that I think we have a key role to
play in this.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you.
Admiral Allen? I know I'm asking a dicey question here,
but, at the same time, this is what we've got to get down to.
People in my State--and we're going to hear from some of them,
and, I'm sure, from my colleagues; they're going to want to
know who's in charge of this policy.
Admiral Allen. Yes, ma'am. And thank you for the question.
Throughout our deliberations on the task force, I have been
in very, very strong agreement with Administrator Lubchenco's
position on this. And we both feel that spec'ing out the
functions that are required to be successful are what's really
important here. And she talked about accountability, access,
and ability to actually achieve and effect across the
interagency, and I think that is very, very important, moving
forward.
The Coast Guard is always going to be a supporting player,
not a lead, on this. But we are looking for the ability to go
to a single point in government to merge the policy issues and,
frankly, ultimately make very, very difficult resource
decisions on how we're going to proceed with implementation.
So, I support Director Lubchenco.
Senator Cantwell. Deputy Secretary Davis, how about the
Interior Department? Do you want to step up to the oceans?
Ms. Davis. Well, thank you, for the question. And I think
we do have significant responsibility and authorities in the
ocean.
I will say that--I mean, you've obviously put your finger
on that there are a lot of different agencies with a lot of
different interests in ocean and ocean policy. We do believe,
at Interior, that the approach outlined in the Interim Task
Force report, which is--brings the requisite senior-level
attention to this issue set, will be able to provide the
direction and the accountability that Dr. Lubchenco talks
about. Because, I think--we believe it is very difficult to
assign one agency with this responsibility alone.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Senator Snowe, do you have questions?
Senator Snowe. Yes, I do.
Senator Cantwell. And we're going to do a 5-minute round,
so----
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
To get back to the question that the Chair posed, noticing
the composition of this council, it would include the
Administrator of EPA and the Administrator of NASA. Both
agencies, of course, have independence from the overarching
departmental authority; they have budget independence. Now, we
know that NOAA doesn't. And that has been the case since the
Administration of President Nixon. So, that goes a ways back.
And I'm just wondering if that would not be a preferable
approach: to establish NOAA in law. I mean, to pass legislation
that gives you statutory authority that first, I think, would
solidify NOAA's position as the leader on oceans issues. I mean
it defies reason, as to why NOAA would not be part of this
council. I understand the Secretary of Commerce is part of it.
But, that still doesn't get to the direct issue, in terms of
who is the preeminent leader, when it comes to ocean policy,
within the agencies.
So, would that help, Dr. Lubchenco? Should we take that
step to codify your agency into statute? Is it long past due?
Because, I see the lack of authorization as an impediment,
frankly.
And, second, given the fact that NASA and EPA are both
included in this council, it doesn't stand to reason that your
agency is not. Now, I'm just trying to understand, what was the
rationale involved? First of all, Chair Sutley, why that didn't
happen? And, secondly, Dr. Lubchenco, can you comment on
whether or not we should move forward with providing you
statutory authority?
Chair Sutley?
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Senator Snowe, for the question.
I think the recommendation was to try to give the highest-
level attention to the very important issues surrounding the
National Ocean Policy, and the work of the proposed National
Ocean Council was that it--the representation on the Council be
at the secretarial level--or, the Cabinet Secretary level. We
certainly expect that NOAA will continue to play a very strong
role on--not only on the task force but on any subsequent
structure that we adopt, including the National Ocean Council.
Their scientific expertise, resource management expertise and
authorities are incredibly important to the success of any
national ocean policy, and Dr. Lubchenco, who's been very
active in the task forces, has joined me at all the public
hearings that we have. So, we expect NOAA to be a very
important and key part of this process.
Senator Snowe. Well, I just would say that I understand the
issues of secretarial representation, but that's not true of
the entire Council that's being proposed. And I just believe
that providing NOAA with the leadership position that it
deserves at this point in time, to be the conduit for ocean
policy. So, I just am sort of mystified as to why NOAA would
have been exempted, because there are other agencies that are
in here, that are not at this secretarial level, that are
included in this council.
Dr. Lubchenco?
Dr. Lubchenco. Senator, the composition of the National
Ocean policy--I'm sorry--the composition of the National Ocean
Council included principals and deputies that were explicitly
identified. And the representative from the Department of--and
therefore, Commerce is represented by the Secretary on the
Council. Because NOAA is within the Department of Commerce, and
because it's the principals and deputies, I think that's the
way that sorted out.
I do believe that it would be very beneficial to NOAA to
have an organic act. I don't believe it's my responsibility to
say whether it should be an independent agency or remain within
the Department of Commerce. That's beyond my pay grade.
Senator Snowe. Right. But you see specific benefits
deriving from codifying your agency into law----
Dr. Lubchenco. I do believe----
Senator Snowe.--giving formal leadership role----
Dr. Lubchenco.--it would be very useful for us to have an
organic act.
Senator Snowe.--however we do it. Right.
Well, I just see that it made much more sense to include
NOAA in the Council, to be the conduit to the Task Force, given
the fact that you are the lead agency when it comes to ocean
policy. So, I appreciate that. I know it's a difficult position
for you to respond to. But, it is certainly something that I
think, Chair Cantwell, we ought to address here within the
Committee.
Thank you.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you very much.
Senator Begich.
Senator Begich. I--thank you, Madam Chair--and I hate to
continue on this line, but I'm just trying to understand it a
little bit better. And I'll just give you an example. When I
was mayor, and we had a situation with crime in our community,
I co-chaired, with our U.S. Attorney, and had multiple folks--
because, at the end of the day, in our situation, we pulled the
trigger on the amount of money and resources. And so, I'm
looking at who's co-chairing. And what I've learned, in my very
short time here, if you don't have the right people at the top,
the resources don't get allocated, which is a big question I
have on this. It's great policy, but I read very little about
how we're going to allocate money, other than--I see some
comments, Dr. Lubchenco, that I'm going to ask you about. So,
be prepared for that.
Why would you not just have the co-chairs--and this--maybe
I'm just too new to this--is the Secretary of Interior,
Secretary of Commerce, and their designees--and then have
agencies, like yourself and the list that you had, Ms. Sutley,
in regards to who would be the contributing partners? I think
Admiral Allen laid it out how he plays a role, here. He's not
the lead role, but he plays a contributing role. Why not do
that? Because, at the end of the day, the Secretary of Commerce
and Secretary of Interior will have to allocate resources, if
we believe the oceans are a significant piece of the equation
of our country and what we need to do. From Alaska's
perspective, it is very significant. It's economic development.
It's environmental issues. It's huge. Why would you not do
that?
Who wants--because, at the end of the day, you've got to
pull the trigger on who's going to foot the bill and take care
of all these recommendations. Otherwise, there'll be another
report that these folks have seen for multiple years.
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Senator.
I--I'll say, we didn't--if--CEQ didn't ask for this
recommendation, but I think the--it was the consensus of the
Task Force that the Council itself needed to be chaired by
White House entities because the responsibilities over the
oceans, coasts, and marine resources, and the Great Lakes
really cover so many parts of the Federal Government. And the
concern that all of the pieces of a national ocean policy would
need to be considered and--to ensure that--as well as that we
are--as we carry out these stewardship responsibilities, we're
also coordinating and linking into important commercial
shipping, security interests that lie outside of, I think, the
direct domain of what we propose with respect to the National
Ocean Council.
So, there were many suggestions made to us. And, as I said,
the recommendations of the previous outside commissions was
that there be high-level engagement from the White House, as
well as the agencies involved. So, that was the basis of the
task-force discussions and the basis of that recommendation.
Senator Begich. Fair statement. I don't agree with it, but
thank you for that. I just think that, you know, in all my
experience, it--you know, at the end of the day, it's going
to--where are the resources going to go to allocate for these
purposes? And someone has to pull that trigger on the highest
level possible in the Department; it seems to me, the Secretary
level.
Let me, if I can real quick, Dr. Lubchenco, on a--kind of
moving somewhat away--but, in your prepared remarks, you
mentioned that NOAA may have to modify or reprioritize some of
its missions and data-gathering responsibilities. Can you--are
you prepared to elaborate a little bit more what you mean by
that so I understand that and understand what the impacts might
mean in--what resources you may adjust or where the focus might
be from your department?
Dr. Lubchenco. Senator, it's clear that to fully implement
the types of areas identified in the interim report will
require significantly more information and the acquisition of
that information, for example, to better integrate, across the
Federal family, many of the activities that affect oceans and
that benefit from oceans. Doing that will require some
additional effort. And although the Interim Report has not,
obviously, been finalized and we are still working on the
marine spatial planning portion of the report, what it--what
will be laid out in the end are--is mostly policy and framework
that will then need to be made much more specific, partly
across the Federal family, partly with respect to interactions
between States and tribes. And as we get into the
identification of those specifics, it will be easier to map
that onto what current--the extent to which our current
capacities can meet those, as opposed to additional areas where
we need--may need to redirect resources or have additional
resources. So, these are starting discussions, framing
policies, and their implementation remains to be identified.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
My time has expired. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Senator LeMieux, welcome to this subcommittee. Glad to have
your participation.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE S. LeMIEUX,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator LeMieux. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much for your testimony this morning.
And thank you, for holding this committee meeting. It's
very important to Florida. I can't think of a state that's more
impacted by the work that you're going to do than Florida. We,
with the exception of Alaska, have the longest coastline in the
United States, as the Admiral knows, 14 ports with lots of
traffic in and out. We're one of the largest exporters, as a
State, in the world. And a huge, important part of our
lifestyle, as well as our tourism that comes to our State,
involves recreational fishing. We have more recreational
fishermen, a million or so in Florida, than some 20 states
combined. And I'm getting lots of letters from constituents who
feel that this process is excluding them and that they are not
being listened to. And it's very much heightened with these new
restrictions that are being placed on fishing; on grouper, on
snapper, and now on amberjack. I hope, once we figure out who's
going to be in charge of this and who's going to spend the
money, that you all will listen to recreational fishermen,
especially from my State of Florida, and the impact of what you
do. These exclusion zones that are discussed, for where fishing
can be and can't be, have a huge and dramatic impact on our
State. And it's my concern that we are lumping together
commercial fishing and recreational fishing. For many years,
our recreational fishermen have lived under standards for
limits of how many fish they can take. And those standards have
worked.
And, specifically, Doctor, in terms of the National Marine
Fisheries Services, and the work that they're doing and these
different rules that are being placed about fishing for
different fish, I have a great concern that the information
that you all are using to make these decisions is not accurate.
Now, we are hearing, from our fishermen, information that's
opposite to these scarcity reports about these different fish.
I have more of a statement to make than a question. But, my
question and hope from you is that you will take into account
recreational fishing. It's a huge part of Florida's commerce
and lifestyle, and certainly a big part of the ocean, in terms
of how we view it. And I wonder, if you want to start, Dr.
Lubchenco, and talk to the point of recreational fishing and
how it will fit into this strategy.
Dr. Lubchenco. Senator, thanks very much, for that
question. And thank you for the opportunity for me to clarify
that recreational fishermen are very important to NOAA. I have
had extensive conversations with leaders within the
recreational fishing community, especially over the last couple
of months, and have heard many of the same things that you have
heard. They feel that they have not been paid attention to by
NOAA. I've made it clear that we intend to change that. We--
NOAA and the recreational fishing community should be natural
allies. And we haven't had the kind of productive working
relationship that I believe we should and can and will have.
And within NOAA, I'm making some internal changes. I have
announced the intent to create a new position, a senior policy
advisor for recreational fishing, to make sure that we have
clear channels of communication, clear responsibility within
NOAA. I met last week with the American Sports Fishing
Association's Sports Fishing Summit, in San Diego, to
communicate that message and to find ways that we can work
collaboratively together in a very productive fashion.
We share an interest in having healthy oceans. More fish
mean more responsibilities for fishermen. And many of our
policies are designed to achieve those goals.
I believe that there was not any explicit desire on the
part of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force to exclude
mention of recreational fishing. And we have heard, in our
public hearings, that this was an omission. One of the benefits
of having an interim report with lots of opportunities for the
public to comment--one of the benefits of having the public
hearings has been, we've been able to get that feedback. And we
have heard it.
Senator LeMieux. Well, thank you very much for that.
Chair Sutley, could you comment on recreational fishing, as
well?
Ms. Sutley. Yes. Thank you, Senator.
We--the task force, I think, recognizes the significant
role of recreation, including fishing, beach access, nature-
watching, boating, and all of the activities. My parents live
in Florida and spend every day at the beach. And so, we
recognize that recreation is a very important part of how we,
as Americans, value our coasts and our marine resources. And we
didn't mention sectors specifically in the report, but, as Dr.
Lubchenco said, we have heard a great deal from the
recreational fishing community. We've had some stakeholder
meetings with the recreational fishing community and are
looking forward to continued opportunities to interact with
them.
Senator LeMieux. OK. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you very much.
I think we're hearing, you know, from all Senators here,
obviously, a strong concern that NOAA be part of any kind of
national council, and obviously there--that there has to be
strong leadership. So, I'm sure we'll have more opportunity to
discuss that.
I think what I'm going to do is allow for a second round, I
think, if that's what members are interested in. And then we
will get to our second panel and hear from them, as well. But,
we don't get all of you here collectively in your
representative perspectives, the hats you wear, so we're going
to take advantage of that.
One of the obvious debates that we're hearing a lot about
is about climate change and what to do about climate change.
And often I think the oceans are left out of that discussion,
or at least not a centerpiece, and yet, for the various reasons
we all just mentioned, it's where the most dramatic impacts are
happening right now. And the proposed National Ocean Policy
includes a resiliency and adaptation to climate change and
ocean acidification. So, it does call out for some special
emphasis there. How do we--how would we go about implementing
that? How would we go about meeting those objectives?
And so, what I want to do is hear from each of you about
how would the White House, how would NOAA, Department of the
Interior--how would we meet those objectives, and who do you
think would be in charge of that?
Ms. Sutley. Well, thank you, Senator. The issue of climate
change, I think, was really one of the motivations for wanting
to take on this challenge of developing a national ocean
policy, recognizing the stresses on the ocean and our marine
resources and our Great Lakes, that the--that climate change is
putting on them. So, it's a very important component of the
report. It's an important component of how we intend to go
forward. The issues about adaptation and science are very
important, and I think that having the engagement from the
science agencies, from NOAA and the Department of Interior, and
NASA and the other science agencies, to understand the science,
understand the impact of climate change on the oceans, and
going forward on this--in this task force and other efforts
within the Federal Government, on adaption and resiliency, I
think we have a lot to--both to learn and to put together some
implementation plans. But, the report does highlight how
important--and that this is one of the strategic objectives
that we need to turn our attention to first.
Senator Cantwell. Dr. Lubchenco?
And, if I could add, just to something to that, just as an
example, you know, how, under this National Ocean Council,
would somebody deal with what we've just seen in Washington--
the State of Washington, with this toxic algae bloom? Who--
other than just studying the problem, who would be in charge of
doing something about the underlying causes?
Dr. Lubchenco. Madam Chair, I greatly appreciate your
drawing attention to the importance of oceans in the climate--
in our discussions about climate. It's clear that oceans have a
key role in the climate system, that they are being impacted by
climate change, and that many of the ways that we are dealing
with specific events or new policies must be taking climate
change into account.
One of the important roles that NOAA plays in this is to
provide much of the observing information, both in situ, as
well as from satellites, to provide much of the modeling
information and the scientific basis for us to understand
what's happening and be able to make forecasts about what's
likely, down the road, with the idea of using that information
directly in making better policy and management decisions in
light of climate change and ocean acidification.
The importance of those issues to the business of the Ocean
Policy Task Force is partly recognizing the important cross-
cutting assets and cross-cutting responsibilities across the
Federal family for addressing climate change and ocean
acidification. So, I believe that we can make better progress
in adapting to climate change by working--by having the Federal
family work more closely together, not just across the Federal
agencies, but also in partnership with States and with tribes.
Relative to the specific very unfortunate occurrence of the
harmful algal bloom causing the mortality of all the birds in
Washington, I think one of the things we're going to see more
and more often are surprises with respect to things like that
happening. I do not know if we can attribute that event to
climate change specifically. But, it is clear that we are
seeing increasing surprises, and part of our management should
be done with the expectation that we are going to be seeing
surprises, that there is uncertainty in this future world that
is being so affected by greenhouse gas emissions.
Senator Cantwell. That was exactly my point. I don't--it's
not so much that I think that's attributable, because it's
probably attributable to runoff and a whole bunch of different
things, but, when we find a cause, I'm interested in what we're
going to do to act. And again, a council versus, you know,
direct authority, is what we're trying to understand here. We
understand the dramatic impacts. Not everybody in America
understands the dramatic impacts that are happening to our
oceans, because they look out and they see the water and they
think everything's OK. But, when you see an instance like this,
8,000 birds dead on the coast of Washington, you understand
that something is not right. But, then the question is, Who's
going to do something, on the preventative side? What agency
here, what action is actually going to come up with a result
where somebody is going to take action and authority?
We all hear what EPA is saying about the atmosphere in
general, and what they're going to do. But, we're interested in
what specifically is in the actions they're going to be taking
on ocean policy.
So, I don't know if either of the other two witnesses want
to respond to that. I know it's probably a little more germane
to Dr. Lubchenco and Chair Sutley, but if you have a comment,
we'd love to hear it.
Admiral Allen. Just a brief comment, ma'am.
We recently concluded an agreement between the United
States and Canada, working in the United States with the United
States Coast Guard, NOAA, and EPA, to establish 200-mile zones
off the coast where we would limit the types of fuel that ships
could use as they contribute to the emission of greenhouse
gases, and therefore, the ultimately link to acidification. A
small piece, but instructive, in that that's what's going to
happen, as Dr. Lubchenco mentioned, to integrate across the
Federal whole-of-government approach, how to act when you have
a situation like that. And I think this small step toward the
elimination of greenhouse gases and their contribution to ocean
acidification is an example of the types of things we need to
do and how we have the opportunity to, to use a military term,
``tighten up the formation'' and focus our effort to pick those
places where we can and have an effect.
Senator Cantwell. Secretary Davis?
Ms. Davis. Thank you, Chairwoman Cantwell, for the
question.
I think, first, I would say that the Department of the
Interior is seeing climate impacts on lands that we administer
throughout the United States, coastal and otherwise. So, this
is incredibly important, that we address these issues in the
evolving ocean policy that we're all working on.
And Interior, of course, has science to bear and to bring
to this effort. And I think that's one great benefit of the
Ocean Council, as proposed, is that you do have senior-level
attention directed from the White House and all of the senior
management of the agencies involved and talking and
cooperating. I don't think you can overstate the importance of
that occurring. And this--I--it sort of leads to an answer to
your question about the ``And then what?'' when you have a
situation like you do off of your coast. And I think that, just
practically speaking, the fact that under a National Ocean
Council, with regular meetings and senior-level involvement and
talking about issues like this as they come up, and what the
science is telling us about what we're seeing out there, you
have a lot better chance, with all of us in the room, of seeing
an actual--a plan of action and a coordinated plan of action
that benefits from the communication and collaboration that we
think will come out of--come out at the back end.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you very much. Yes, I think it
really just points to the fact that, just because we can't see
underneath the oceans, we haven't seen the neglect that has
existed, and that neglect is really causing us serious problems
today. So, thank you all for your answers to that.
Senator Snowe?
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
I wanted to follow up on one of the issues that had been
raised in one of the mandates that the task force was given
with respect to ocean policy. One was to develop the National
Ocean Policy. The second issue, of course, was marine spatial
planning. And, Commandant Allen, I'd just like to discuss this
with you, initially, because obviously there are multiple
challenges in this concept which still appears to be nebulous.
And even the public hearings elicited, I think, few details in
what would constitute a public policy and how it would work
with respect to marine spatial planning. And I know there have
been concerns expressed by ocean stakeholders like the maritime
industries, for example. Some of the states in New England have
conducted a planning process within their own state waters.
But, nevertheless, when you're talking about a broad-scale
plan, as recommended in this effort, which is talking about 3.4
million square miles within the Exclusive Economic Zone, it
does raise tremendous concerns among commercial and
recreational fisherman, for example.
So, first of all, how would this process work, to begin
with? I mean, how do we navigate this pathway to encompass this
broadscale, as some have said, ``ocean zoning''?
Because that just raises significant questions about how
that process would evolve, first of all; and, second of all,
who would be affected by it; and third, I want to talk to you
about the emerging homeland security threat posed by small
vessels, that we discussed last week, as we've seen, off
Mumbai, India, off the coast of Somalia, even the USS Cole,
back in 2000, in Yemen. And so, how would that be reconciled
with marine spatial planning?
Admiral Allen. Yes, ma'am, thank you very much for the
question. And I thank you doubly for the question because we
get involved in this every day in the United States Coast
Guard. In addition to our enforcement and regulatory
responsibilities, we are often a cooperating agency in
licensing and permitting activities with the other agencies
that are represented here at the table; most notably in doing
waterway suitability assessments for things like deepwater
ports for LNG offshore, renewable wind projects, and so forth.
In the process of doing that, we tend to answer in a silo about
what are the implications of that particular activity, in terms
of safety and security on the waterway. A lot of times, the
Coast Guard's determination on what happens is taken as a
surrogate vote on how the waterway should be used. And that is
not what we're trying to do. We're trying to just comment on
that particular activity.
At the heart, marine spatial planning looks at what we call
ecosystem-based management. It's a more holistic approach to
all the activities that take place out there, including the
need to conserve, look at conflicts with uses, create greater
transparency on the information that's used to support those
decisions.
And I'll give you a very good example. It was highlighted,
earlier by, I believe, Dr. Lubchenco. We went to some very
great lengths to reorient the vessel traffic separation schemes
coming in to Boston, to make sure that we weren't in an area
where right whales would gather in habitat they would operate
in. In the process of doing that, we found out, shortly
thereafter, that there was an application for an offshore LNG
site right where we were moving the traffic lanes to. This is a
classic case where you could deconflict these activities, and
we see this as a cooperating agency, moving forward.
And I think what we need to figure out is how to do this,
because these activities occur. They're not stopping. They will
continue, whether or not we have marine spatial planning or
not. But, the opportunity afforded to do this in a coordinated
manner, we see the value of that immensely every day, in the
everyday work of the Coast Guard. And that includes--we talked
about recreational boating, commercial fishermen, recreational
fishermen, and the extraordinary amount of use by small-boat
traffic out there. If you put a security zone around an LNG
ship that's moving through Narragansett Bay, you have
effectively excluded the use of that area for small boats. And
that's the type of discussion we need to have, ma'am.
Senator Snowe. And how--either you or Chair Sutley or Dr.
Lubchenco and Deputy Secretary Davis, could you explain how we
expect this process to work?
Ms. Sutley. Well, really, at the end of the 180 days, where
we'll have a draft report--a draft framework on coastal marine
spatial planning, I expect that that--it will be just that, a
framework, a discussion of what we believe marine spatial
planning is, and some recommendations on how we might move
forward. And, as the Commandant said, I think the concept is
really to try to look across the activities and uses of the
space in the ocean and try to understand how they all fit
together.
So, at this point in our discussions, we haven't, sort of,
settled on any particular definition or way of moving forward,
but that we would have a recommendation. It will be, really, a
fairly high-level recommendation, and we'll seek additional
input and comment on that before we move forward. And I think
we recognize that, in many of the activities that the agencies
who are part of this discussion participate in, they already
think about how there are uses of the ocean resources, and we
want to make sure that we're using the information we have and
the science we develop to understand how those uses fit
together.
Senator Snowe. But, a process hasn't been established----
Ms. Sutley. No, it has not.
Senator Snowe.--at this point.
Ms. Sutley. That's right.
Senator Snowe. I would think that that would be a very
complicating approach, frankly, in terms of designing a
process, let alone the whole map. So, do you think that that's
really conceivable?
Ms. Sutley. Well, I think----
Senator Snowe. I'm just not so sure how it will work.
Ms. Sutley. Well, as we're in the middle of the process of
trying to even describe the framework, I expect that it will be
a long-term process and, you know, require a lot of thinking
and discussion and public participation to come up with
something that works.
Senator Snowe. OK. Thank you.
Senator Cantwell. Senator Begich, you have a second round
of questions?
Senator Begich. I do, just a few.
And, Ms. Sutley, I was listening carefully; and, you know,
my background as a Mayor, I was just visualizing the
comprehensive plan we have just done for Anchorage--took 10
years, three mayors. I can't even imagine how many public
hearings we had, community meetings. And I look at marine
spatial planning as--it's zoning for the waters. I mean, that's
basically what it is. And I want to also echo some concerns of
how that--I'd be very curious how that process works, because,
as someone who's struggled with doing this simple, I thought,
comprehensive plan for a community that wasn't that large, in
the sense of groundmass, it turned into a long, drawn-out
process, and very expensive process, to add to that. So, I
just--I'm--you know, I'd be very curious about that.
And also, just a statement generally is, in that
experience, which is small in comparison to, obviously, the
marine spatial planning is, one size cannot fit all. Every
region is different. Florida is different than Alaska. The East
Coast is different that the western States. So, as you think
about that.
I made a statement in my opening comments regarding the--I
felt, as well as the State of Alaska's State government feels,
that there was a lack of economic understanding of the
fisheries, energy, commerce, that occurs within our oceans, in
the interim policy. One, Ms. Sutley, do you agree with that?
And, if so, in the next period of time, how will you address
what we think is a void in this plan?
Ms. Sutley. On your first point, on marine spatial
planning, I think we recognize it's going to be a challenging
exercise, and I think the analogy is to the kind of
comprehensive planning we do on land. But, I think, again, just
trying to break through some of the stovepipes and look in a
more integrative way at how all of us relate to the use of
ocean resources And, I think, very important and--to that is
going to be, How do we interact and make sure that we're really
taking a bottom-up approach, that this does reflect the
differences among regions--certainly the Arctic and Alaska as
its own region----
Senator Begich. Right.
Ms. Sutley.--but that that has--for this to be successful,
we have to have something that does recognize and does come
from the regions themselves----
Senator Begich. Thank you, for that.
Ms. Sutley.--coming up. With respect to the economic
interests, I think the President asked us, really, at this
point, to focus on some of the stewardship issues. But, we
recognize, in the report and in our discussions, how important
it is to link the work that the task force is doing to
important economic considerations, including recreational,
commercial fishing, shipping, and energy development; and I
think, again, reflected by the task-force members who are here,
that those interests are very important, shipping and security
interests; that the Department of Homeland Security and the
Coast Guard, the Department of Defense has been very engaged in
this process. The energy development oversight responsibilities
that the Department of Interior has, and the fisheries
responsibilities that NOAA has are all very important. As we go
forward and as we consider how we finalize the report, I think
we'll ensure that we're clear on the link between the----
Senator Begich. That's great.
Ms. Sutley.--the health of the oceans, and our healthy
economy, and these important economic uses of the ocean.
Senator Begich. Great, thank you very much. And then, in
your--when you do your final report--this is going to be a--
kind of a consistent comment I'll have, not only in this
committee and other committees that I serve on, and other
aspects--is, Will you discuss the budgetary requirements--where
and how that will occur? You know, we do a lot of bills around
here, but we always forget one little component of it, and that
is how we're going to pay for it. And what happens is, the
Departments then get subjected to additional workload and say,
``Well, now shift everything around and make it all work, and
oh, by the way, don't diminish what you're doing,'' which is
totally impossible. So, are you going to address the financial
requirements, short-term as well a long-term, at all in the
report?
Ms. Sutley. Well, the report has----
Senator Begich. And if not, could you? Let me--I'm going to
jump to the potential answer, so----
Ms. Sutley. Yes. Well, the report outlines that we--you
know, we understand that agencies will have to commit resources
and assets, and many of them do, certainly, now commit
significant resources to their responsibilities on the oceans.
And the interim report outlines the development of strategic
plans on the priority areas, including the Arctic. And in that
process, I think where--that's where we would expect the
budgetary and resource needs to be identified for these areas,
for the agencies who are involved in this effort.
Senator Begich. Thank you very----
My time is up. And, Madam Chair, I'll have some other
questions I'll submit for the record and just go from there.
But, again, thank all of you. And thanks for all your work
on the effort in the task force, and I'm looking forward to
continue to work with all of you.
Thank you very much.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Senator LeMieux, do you have a second round of questions?
Senator LeMieux. Just one topic, Madam Chair.
I wanted to speak to Deputy Secretary Davis about how
you're going to integrate the potential energy opportunities
there are in the ocean. We're doing some really unique
research, I think, at the Florida Atlantic University, in Palm
Beach County, on tidal energy capabilities. With the Gulf
Stream right off the eastern shore of Florida, there are some
really unique opportunities, going forward, with generating
energy from the sea.
How will that work in this process? As I understand it, the
Department of Interior, operates under a 5-year plan. There's
been some concern that this is a difficult framework for these
technologies that are advancing so quickly. So, if you could
speak to what the Department is looking at and doing, in terms
of these potential capabilities in the ocean for energy, not
just the traditional ones of exploration for oil, but these new
renewable types, as well as how this will fit into the ocean
task force.
Ms. Davis. Thank you for that question, Senator. I
appreciate it, and you are right that the oil and gas activity
that we conduct, that is under the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act, isn't a good fit at all for the potential renewable
opportunities off of our coasts. And we were given the
authority, under the Energy Policy Act, to conduct renewable
activities. FERC will be primarily doing wave management. And
we are stepping out very aggressively on wind offshore on the
Outer Continental Shelf. And Secretary Salazar and the
Administration certainly realize the great potential for
developing this clean energy source. Earlier this year, the
Secretary announced the first-ever framework for the
development of offshore wind energy that's being implemented
now. And thanks to that framework, we now have an orderly
process and an open and a transparent process through which
wind projects are being evaluated and permitted. There's a
whole lot of interest on the East Coast and some growing
interest in other places, as well.
With regard to how this all fits into Ocean Policy Task
Force, I think we feel very strongly that the collaborative and
communication aspects of the policy and the marine spatial
planning approach, which we're working hard to figure out what
that framework is--our view is that the information that's
developed there and communicated probably better and more
accurately among us as we go forward, it's going to enhance our
ability to make choices--you know, good, scientifically and
ecosystem-based choices about where it's appropriate to site
and permit these resources, and other places where it may not
be as advisable.
Senator LeMieux. Do you think that you'll set up a similar
framework for the tidal energy harvesting? Not just the wind,
but also, these--you're familiar, I'm sure, with these buoys
that float in the water, and the other things that are being
looked at, that can then generate energy; will there be a
similar permitting process, as there is for the wind?
Ms. Davis. Well, that's going to be largely handled through
FERC and its permitting processes, so I really can't speak to,
sort of, what they're thinking.
Senator LeMieux. Why does one go to one agency, and one go
to the other?
Ms. Davis. We executed a Memorandum of Understanding
between the agencies. There were some lingering questions about
who would handle what, in terms of offshore permitting for
renewable energy activities. And that's how that happened.
Senator LeMieux. I think, Madam Chair, that kind of goes
back to your question about who's in charge. If we've got two
similar-type activities being potentially regulated by two
different agencies with two different regulatory schemes, how
is that going to interplay into coastal traffic, recreational
fishing, commercial fishing. So, I think your point is well
taken.
I thank you, for your answer.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Senator LeMieux.
And again, thanks to the panelists. I think you can see,
from the members who attended, we care very much about this
policy. I think we're all for more focus on the oceans, but we
want that to be a clear and transparent process. And given
what's transpiring, we certainly don't want to just have oceans
by committee; we want to have oceans leadership. And so, we
applaud all of you for participating in that effort. So, thank
you very much for being here today.
And obviously, if members have follow up questions, they'll
submit those to you. And if you could get back with responses,
we'd appreciate it very much. But, again, thank you for
attending.
We're going to turn next to the second panel to hear from
them about the formation of oceans policy and governance and
what types of activity of governance we should see.
I want to call up to the witness table, if we could do that
quickly--if people could move out quickly, I would appreciate
it--we'd like to call to the witness table Mr. Billy Frank,
Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission; Dr.
Dennis Takahashi-Kelso, Executive Vice President of the Ocean
Conservancy; Mr. Matthew Paxton, from the Coastal Conservation
Association; and Ms. Carolyn Elefant, from the Ocean Renewable
Energy Coalition.
We thank all of you for being here today to participate as
witnesses in this hearing on oceans policy. We look forward to
hearing your comments and, specifically, how you think the new
oceans policy and governance would work, particularly from the
local perspective.
So, Mr. Frank, it's a pleasure to have you here before the
Committee. We appreciate your leadership in the Northwest, and
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Council. And we look forward to
your testimony. But, thank you for traveling to this
Washington.
Senator Cantwell. You might have to push on the microphone
button, there, so that----
Mr. Frank. Is that it?
Senator Cantwell. Yes.
Mr. Frank. Oh.
STATEMENT OF BILLY FRANK, JR., CHAIR,
NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION
Mr. Frank. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thanks for the
invite from the Committee, and thank the Committee. I hear a
lot of questions and a lot of answers, I hope. And, you know,
the ocean needs us all, especially right now, as I heard.
You know, our tribes are from the great State of Washington
and along the Pacific Coast. We manage 200 miles out in the
ocean. We sit on the Pacific Fishery Management Council. We sit
on the U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Commission for the
international treaty for salmon. We manage from Alaska to
Mexico. And we stand ready to, hopefully, be part of the policy
over the ocean.
The ocean certainly needs all of us right now. We're
extremely concerned about acidification and certainly, the
warming of our ocean, our climate, the changes that we see
that's going along. We manage from the snowcaps to the
whitecaps. And we live along the watersheds, we live along the
ocean. If you want success, include the tribes, include our
natives from Alaska, include our Hawaiians that live along the
ocean. You know we're connected--our infrastructure is
together. You know, I consider our infrastructure as the center
of excellence. As the U.S. Senate knows, and U.S. Congress and
the President of United States, we're involved in natural
resource management, and we are here to assist, whatever we can
do, to make a better day for our ocean, as well as all of our
watersheds and certainly our Puget Sound in the Great
Northwest.
We support regional approaches to management of our ocean
issues. We need to provide adequate funding for implementing of
the policies, set clear well-designed coordination mechanisms,
among all responsible managers, actively promote and support an
ecosystem based on management approach, engage treaty tribes in
development guidelines for marine special planning. The zoning
of the ocean is a concern, it's very important that we do it
right.
And you have on record our general tribal position. The
Makah Tribe along the Pacific coast, that is one of my member
tribes that belongs in the Northwest Indian Fisher Commission,
we support their testimony, along with all of our other tribes
along the ocean. And certainly we work with the Columbia River
Fish Commission, as well as the Great Lakes Fish Commission.
Our tribes are all hooked together. And on natural resource, we
work with our native Alaskans up in our north country. We're
concerned in all of what's happening, as far as the ocean is
concerned. We need more attention to everything that's
happening within the zoning of our land, the zoning of our
mountains, and the zoning of our watersheds. We need some
strict attention to that. I think we need a panel of the states
sitting here to address, ``What part do you play in this great
movement that we're going to do?''
We can't fail--if we write a policy, we must see it
through. Let's not put it on the shelf, like the policies in
the past. I remember Senator Magnuson, I remember Senator
Jackson, in my time, and I remember all of the Presidents that
came forward after that--policies that sit there and never get
moved; they're still sitting there. And here, we're looking at
another policy.
Hopefully, we can find a policy that's going to bring us
all together and address the problems of the ocean. Certainly,
I heard all your concerns, our Chairlady, and we're now out
there, with our tribal people, monitoring the ocean right now
with all of the things that are happening on our coast and
inside Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca.
So, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frank Jr. follows:]
Prepared Statement of Billy Frank, Jr., Chair,
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
The western Washington Tribes wish to thank this Subcommittee for
the opportunity to provide our perspective on the need for a national
ocean policy. The treaty tribes of western Washington have been
stewards of our lands and waters since time immemorial. Sustainability
has been the central theme of our management philosophy. Preserving our
fish and wildlife resources, as well as access to them, is essential to
our economic, cultural, and spiritual well being. This importance has
always been understood by our people and is why our hunting and fishing
rights are secured by treaty with the United States. The breadth and
scope of current tribal involvement in all aspects of natural resource
management underscores how central it remains to tribal life today.
The western Washington Treaty Tribes regard the Federal Government
as a partner and trustee charged with the conservation and protection
of ocean resources and the tribe's treaty reserved right to harvest
those resources sustainability for generations to come. This
partnership and trust relationship must be recognized within the
development of a national ocean policy and incorporated within the
resulting ocean governance structure. In recognition of this
relationship and duty, we provided the Interagency Ocean Policy Task
Force with these initial seven recommendations for their consideration:
The national ocean policy should support regional approaches
to managing ocean issues, including clearly defining mechanisms
for engaging individual states and tribes and supporting
existing regional ocean governance entities;
Provide adequate funding for implementing the Nation ocean
policy, including regulatory entities;
The national ocean policy should set forth clear, well-
designed coordination mechanisms among all managers of ocean
resources;
The national ocean policy should actively promote and
support the transition to ecosystem-based management, including
needed assessments, monitoring, and research;
Engage treaty tribes early in developing guidelines for
marine spatial planning and adopt an integrated and adaptive
approach for this planning effort;
The national ocean policy should support greater research on
offshore renewable energy, including examining the potential
impacts to coastal communities and resources as well as
supporting the associated planning processes; and
The national ocean policy should acknowledge and address the
unique threat climate change poses to ocean and coastal
resources and communities.
We commend the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force for their
thorough inquiry and the nine recommended priority objectives contained
within the Interim Report. They set an ambitious schedule for policy
development--including holding six regional hearings, numerous
conference calls--and diligently staying focused on the task. We are
appreciative of their direct engagement of the tribes in a government-
to-government relationship during this process. Appropriately, the
solicitation of tribal input was timely and allowed for substantive
dialog on the issues. We wish to thank the task force and their staff
for this. It is our desire that the momentum gained by this effort can
be translated into the adoption and implementation of the recommended
priority objectives for a national ocean policy.
We agree with the Interim Report's recommendation to form a
National Ocean Council composed of principal- and deputy-level
officials from the Administration. This governance structure is
necessary to ensure high-level engagement on ocean issues that has been
lacking in the past. Upon establishment this council must have clear
operational and procedural rules as well as identified overarching
principles to guide its decision-making process. Clearly stated
principles and procedures will instill consistency in management
actions and promote greater trust by those whom the decisions affect.
The treaty tribes in western Washington are supportive of the
recommendation for tribal representation on the Governance Advisory
Committee to the National Ocean Council. This is both appropriate and
necessary to fulfill the Federal Government's treaty trust
responsibilities. Much of the National Ocean Council's work will have a
direct bearing on the abundance and/or access to tribal trust
resources. Consequently, inclusion of tribal perspectives and providing
for their direct participation in developing these policies must occur.
Adequate funding should be provided to tribes to support the necessary
meeting preparations and intra-tribal coordination of policy issues
that will be expected of these representatives.
The inclusion of tribal perspectives in the development of ocean
and coastal policy is necessary if we are to jointly manage these
shared trust resources with the United States in a comprehensive and
sustainable manner. The treaty reserved fishing and hunting rights of
Western Washington tribes are place-based. That is to say, the tribes
cannot exercise their treaty rights outside of their usual and
accustomed areas. Consequently, how species respond or adapt to climate
change or how access to these resources may be hindered is a major
concern to the tribes. Even minor changes in resource abundance or
access can result in severe impacts to tribal communities, both from a
cultural and economic standpoint.
Marine spatial planning is a concern because it creates the
potential for use conflicts within tribes' usual and accustomed areas.
Continuation of traditional practices (hunting, fishing, gathering) and
access to trust resources is a priority for the tribes. Tribes desire a
process that comprehensively balances onshore, nearshore and offshore
activities. A governmental forum (tribal/state/Federal) that provides
for input of regional or local management concerns is needed. This
process must recognize Federal trust responsibilities and the need to
manage trust resources in a co-management relationship with the tribes.
The process must be structured to engage the tribes in meaningful
dialog on a government-to-government basis, and not merely soliciting
tribal comments in the same manner and time-frame as non-tribal
stakeholders.
Congress and this Subcommittee also have a vital role to play in
developing a national ocean policy. Adequate funding of the Omnibus
Public Lands Act of 2009 is important in order to fully implement the
Interim Reports' recommended objectives. Title XII of this Act
initiates several programs within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration that will be critical for the informed management, use,
and preservation of our ocean, marine, and coastal resources. We are
supportive of the core objective of this legislation to utilize state/
tribal/federal partnerships to address emerging natural resource
management issues.
We believe the new programs envisioned by this legislation will be
important to facilitate the transition to greater ecosystem-based
management of our ocean and coastal resources. A national ocean policy
needs a strong grounding in science. This legislation captures the
basic elements that a national ocean policy should promote including
the establishment of comprehensive monitoring, assessment, and research
programs that coordinate and integrate the various entities currently
engaged in these activities. We recommend that a pilot project focused
on refining the management approach for rockfish populations off the
Olympic Coast of Washington be enacted to demonstrate how this concept
would work.
In closing, the pressures on the marine environment and resources
are far too great and complex not to have a national ocean policy.
Long-term management goals and objectives should be developed to
address climate adaptation, with the aim to improve regional ocean
governance. Climate change and ocean acidification are real problems
that will require substantive action across all levels of government.
Effects are being felt now by the tribes in their daily lives within
our communities as the natural resources we depend upon and reserved by
treaties with the United States are becoming increasingly impacted.
Preserving and restoring the health of our ocean and coastal areas
and the abundance of the associated natural resources should be our
collective goal. We need to focus our energy on continuing to move
forward, to improving our management approaches and better integrating
our existing governance structures. We must guard against those that
wish only to revisit old debates over allocation of and access to
resources which serve only to distract focus and stymie progress toward
greater resource protection, conservation, and restoration.
The tribes welcome the opportunity to work in partnership with
Congress and the Federal Government on these important issues to ensure
that our shared trust resources can be passed on to future generations.
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to share the views of
the western Washington tribes on a national ocean policy.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Chairman Frank, for being here
and for that testimony. And we'll look forward to asking you
some specific questions about how we actually get that policy
implemented.
We'd like to turn now to Dr. Takahashi-Kelso.
Thank you very much.
Am I saying that right?
Dr. Takahashi-Kelso. Takahashi-Kelso.
Senator Cantwell. Yes.
Takahashi-Kelso: Thank you.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you very much for being here. And
we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS TAKAHASHI-KELSO, Ph.D.,
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, OCEAN CONSERVANCY
Dr. Takahashi-Kelso. Thank you, Chairwoman Cantwell,
Ranking Member Snowe, and members of the Subcommittee, for
convening this oversight hearing at such an important juncture,
and for inviting me to testify.
My name is Dennis Takahashi-Kelso, and I am Executive Vice
President of Ocean Conservancy.
Like the Chairwoman, I hail from the West. Much of my
career in natural resources management and environmental
protection over the past several decades, was spent in Senator
Begich's home State of Alaska. I was Alaska Commissioner of
Environmental Conservation when the tanker Exxon Valdez ran
aground and spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil. I saw the
effects on only on wildlife, but on human communities that rely
on the ocean for their way of life.
The ocean is essential to all of us, regardless of where we
live, because it is the life-support system for our planet. As
President Obama has stated, our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes
also play critical roles in our Nation's economic well-being
and national security. More than $1 trillion of our annual
gross domestic product is generated from the coasts.
What is happening in our oceans today is not as graphic as
a major oil spill or as easily carried on the evening news, but
it is a time of profound change for our oceans, and only
decisive action will secure our national ocean future.
The single greatest and most pervasive threat to our ocean
is climate change. The effects are already visible: melting
ice, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and extreme
weather events. And while we cannot bring an immediate end to
the trajectory of ocean and climate change, we can manage other
activities that impact ocean ecosystems already under stress.
Madam Chair, you gave an example earlier, and I think it is
a very good one, of how the oceans are struggling right now.
Scientists are reporting the most harmful algal bloom ever
recorded in your State of Washington, leading to mass mortality
of seabirds that may well go more than 8,000 birds, perhaps
10,000 or higher. Oceanographer Vera Trainer was quoted in the
Seattle Times last week as saying, ``The ocean is trying to
tell us something.'' The ocean is trying to tell us something,
and we must not only listen, but also act.
We applaud President Obama for moving so quickly to
establish an ocean policy. One area singled out by the
President's task force is the Arctic, where temperatures are
rising almost twice as fast as the rest of the planet. The area
of seasonal sea ice is shrinking, exposing coastal villages to
the full force of the sea. Longer periods of open water
encourage new industrial activities that may put additional
pressure on ecosystems and coastal communities.
As the Administration develops a national policy, it is
essential for protection, maintenance, and restoration of
ecosystem health to be the core focus. In that way, the ocean
can provide diverse benefits long into the future.
Never before has so much activity taken place in the ocean.
Wind farms and other new energy facilities, recreational uses,
offshore drilling, shipping superhighways, commercial fishing,
and fish farming are all competing for what was once considered
to be boundless space. Yet, the United States has no
comprehensive national policy to govern how Federal agencies
manage the ocean, nor do we have regional plans that address
which uses are compatible with others and how we protect ocean
health so that future generations can have the benefits we
still enjoy.
But, we have a real opportunity to get this right.
Ecosystem-based management through marine spatial planning
helps sustain economic benefits by providing predictability,
lowering costs, and reducing conflicts. At the same time, it
ensures that ecosystem health is the goal of management
decisions.
A number of states, as well as other countries, have used
this approach successfully. We believe that incorporating it
into the National Ocean Policy is a positive step. And we
commend congressional leaders like yourself, Madam Chair, for
recognizing its potential to transform ocean governance.
President Obama's willingness to take the lead on ocean
policy provides a rare opportunity. The Ocean Policy Task Force
is laying a strong foundation, but it is one on which the
Administration and Congress must build in the months and years
ahead.
Madam Chair, we very much appreciate your leadership, and
we look forward to continuing to work closely with you and your
colleagues. As the Task Force concludes its work, we are
looking to this Subcommittee to lead. There has never been a
more important moment for shaping our Nation's ocean future.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Takahashi-Kelso follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dennis Takahashi-Kelso, Ph.D.,
Executive Vice President, Ocean Conservancy
Thank you Chairwoman Cantwell, Ranking Member Snowe, and members of
the Subcommittee for convening this oversight hearing at such an
important juncture, and for inviting me to testify. My name is Dennis
Takahashi-Kelso, and I am Executive Vice President of Ocean
Conservancy.
My career in public service includes diverse roles in natural
resources management and environmental protection over several decades,
much of it in Alaska. As Alaska Commissioner of Environmental
Conservation, I was responsible for pollution control and environmental
health regulation, including oversight of seafood safety for the
seafood industry. When the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground, I enforced
the state's oil spill clean-up standards. I also served as Alaska's
Deputy Commissioner of Fish and Game; Director of the Alaska Division
of Subsistence; Chair of the Alaska Emergency Response Commission; and
member of the Alaska Coastal Policy Council. More recently, my
doctorate in Energy and Resources (University of California, Berkeley)
led me to teach and conduct research as a member of the Environmental
Studies faculty at the University of California, Santa Cruz; and I
subsequently served as the fisheries conservation program officer for
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
The Urgent Need for Action
The ocean is essential to the health of every living thing. It is
the life support system for our planet. Regardless of where we live, it
gives us much of the food we eat, the water we drink and the oxygen we
breathe. In his June 12 memorandum, President Obama noted that our
oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes play critical roles in our Nation's
economic well-being and national security. The President also observed
that we have a stewardship responsibility to maintain healthy,
resilient, and sustainable oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes resources
for the benefit of this and future generations. Too often, we have
failed to meet this stewardship responsibility; and the challenges we
now face are daunting.
The single greatest and most pervasive threat to our ocean is posed
by climate change. As the engine that drives our planet's climate, our
ocean is on the front lines of the global climate challenge. It absorbs
half of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere and more excess
heat from greenhouse gases than all rainforests combined. Indeed, the
ocean is the unsung hero in this battle. But it is also the most
vulnerable victim. We already have begun to see the effects, including
melting ice, rising sea levels, and extreme weather events. We have
seen harmful changes to marine wildlife populations. For example,
conservative predictions show that if the Arctic ice cap continues to
disappear, two-thirds of all polar bears will be lost by 2050. Even the
tiniest organisms will be affected as the ocean grows more acidic,
compromising productivity and jeopardizing the food web. On average,
the ocean is a degree warmer than it was a century ago. Another two
degrees is likely to devastate many coastal communities, kill most of
the world's coral reefs, and result in mass extinctions of marine life.
Added to the overarching threat posed by climate change are the
additional perturbations caused by our multiple uses of the ocean, from
overexploitation to coastal pollution.
These are not theoretical or future problems: the stresses on our
ocean and coastal ecosystems are well-documented and a crisis today. To
give one of many current examples, Madam Chairwoman, in your home state
scientists are currently reporting the longest lasting and largest
harmful algal bloom ever recorded in the region, resulting in mass
mortality of seabirds unprecedented in Washington state waters. Harmful
algal blooms can damage human health, as well, such as Washington's
subsistence communities that rely on shellfish (Lefebvre and Robertson,
in press). In a recent Seattle Times article (October 30, 2009) on the
algal bloom, oceanographer Vera Trainer is quoted as saying that ``the
ocean is trying to tell us something.''
While a specific link between this algal bloom and a warming
climate is not clearly established, there is no question that carbon
emissions and climate change are causing an array of problems in the
marine environment. Perhaps most overwhelming and pervasive is ocean
acidification, which was one of the primary subjects explored in this
subcommittee's May 2008 hearing on ``The Effects of Climate Change on
Marine and Coastal Ecosystems in Washington.''
But the ocean is not only the victim of climate change, it also can
be part of the solution. A healthy and resilient ocean can continue to
perform its key climate regulation functions and continue to provide us
with all of the goods and ecosystem services we need to survive. A
healthy and resilient ocean also can be a source of renewable energies
that can increase the Nation's energy independence and decrease use of
fossil fuels. President Obama has made clear that increasing energy
independence tops his priorities. He recognizes that as a potential
major source of renewable energy, the ocean has a role in achieving
these goals, and many states are working creatively to take the lead in
developing ocean-based renewable energy.
The ocean is already an economic engine for our country. In 2003,
ocean-related economic activity contributed more than $128 billion to
American prosperity and supported well over 2.2 million jobs. Roughly
three-quarters of the jobs and half the economic value were produced by
ocean-related tourism and recreation, sectors that rely on healthy
oceans. Currently more than $1 trillion, or one-tenth, of the Nation's
annual gross domestic product is generated from the coasts (National
Ocean Economics Program 2004). Harnessing the ocean's renewable energy
resources, if done carefully, will create jobs and grow the Nation's
economy (see attached report on Offshore Alternative Energy Economics
(Kildow and Colgan 2009)).
The ocean must be healthy and resilient to continue to support the
current level of economic and other activity and to meet the promise of
renewable energy and other uses. Today's ocean, coastal, and Great
Lakes ecosystems face an era of unprecedented activity. Wind farms and
other energy facilities, diverse recreational uses, offshore drilling,
shipping superhighways, sand and gravel mining, commercial fishing, and
aquaculture facilities are all competing for what once seemed like
boundless space. Novel uses, such as wave energy and offshore
aquaculture, or even combined energy aquaculture projects, present
economic opportunities, but will also result in new demands on ocean
ecosystems, which are limited, fragile, and already under stress
(Halpern et al., 2008). In order to maximize the benefits the oceans
provide, both ecologically and economically, we need a strong, clear
national policy; and then we need a rational process to address
multiple management objectives consistent with that policy (see Kappel
et al., 2009 and Turnipseed et al., 2009).
The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force
Our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes are currently governed by more
than 140 laws and 20 different agencies, each with different--sometimes
conflicting--goals and mandates. Numerous commissions and experts have
identified the need for a unifying national policy for oceans, coasts,
and Great Lakes.
We commend President Obama and his administration for moving so
quickly to establish a coherent national ocean policy and a Task Force
that will provide leadership and facilitate coordination as we begin to
address these challenges in a focused and consistent way. In his
proclamation establishing National Oceans Month, the President put it
this way:
[W]e are taking a more integrated and comprehensive approach to
developing a national ocean policy that will guide us well into
the future. This policy will incorporate ecosystem-based
science and management and emphasize our public stewardship
responsibilities. My Administration also is working to develop
a systematic marine spatial planning framework for the
conservation and sustainable use of ocean resources. I am
committed to protecting these resources and ensuring
accountability for actions that affect them.
One of the President's specific charges to the Task Force is to
``prioritize upholding our stewardship responsibilities and ensuring
accountability for all of our actions affecting ocean, coastal, and
Great Lakes resources.''
The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force has worked tirelessly under
the leadership of Chairwoman Sutley to advance the President's vision
and to do so very quickly. The June 12 Presidential memorandum mandated
a very ambitious timeline for the work of the Interagency Ocean Policy
Task Force, but that has not prevented Task Force members from engaging
in an admirably transparent and inclusive process as they have moved
forward.
Six public listening sessions have been convened around the
country, and thousands of members of the public have expressed their
views directly to Task Force members. The 90- and 180-day mandates in
the Presidential memorandum have necessarily required an expedited
process, but we believe such decisive action is entirely appropriate
given the challenges we face. Too often the opposite has been true:
indecision, delay, and inaction have left the oceans and coasts as
victims of policy inertia.
An Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes National Policy
Many members of the environmental community submitted joint
recommendations to the Task Force for the adoption and implementation
of an oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes National Policy. I have attached
them in full at the end of my testimony. As those recommendations note,
protection, maintenance, and restoration of ecosystem health must be
the core focus of a national policy to meet the needs of present and
future generations. We believe that ecosystem-based management is the
best way to achieve this objective.
According to a consensus statement of more than 220 scientists and
policy experts, ``[Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is] an integrated
approach to management that considers the entire ecosystem, including
humans. The goal of ecosystem-based management is to maintain an
ecosystem in a healthy, productive and resilient condition so that it
can provide the services humans want and need. Ecosystem-based
management differs from current approaches that usually focus on a
single species, sector, activity or concern; it considers the
cumulative impacts of different sectors'' (McLeod et al., 2005, p. 1).
The Task Force's September 10 Interim Report highlighted many of
the key elements of a national policy. It called for a precautionary,
ecosystem-based management approach, based on the best available
science, and adaptive management based on clearly stated goals,
objectives, and benchmarks. We support the Interim Report's national
priority objectives, including the areas of special emphasis,
recognition that targeted work is needed at the regional level, and
acknowledgement that the United States must show leadership at the
international level to achieve ecosystem and resource health goals.
One area singled out for special emphasis is the Arctic.
Temperatures in the Arctic are rising almost twice as fast as on the
average for the rest of the planet, causing water temperatures to climb
and the area of seasonal sea ice to shrink. The loss of sea ice exceeds
the rates predicted by climate models, and scientists predict that the
Arctic Ocean will be one of the first regions to feel the effects of
increased ocean acidification. The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force
recognized the need to address changing conditions in the Arctic as a
national priority objective. We endorse the Task Force's recommendation
to develop a strategic action plan for the Arctic to help address those
challenges in a proactive manner.
The Task Force's proposed National Ocean Council is intended to
ensure better interagency cooperation on policies that affect our
oceans and coasts. To that end, the conservation community has
submitted a number of specific recommendations to the Task Force, which
I have also attached for ease of reference. These recommendations range
from clarifying the definition of ecosystem-based management to
improving representation on the Ocean Research and Resources Advisory
Panel. We specifically underscore the recommendation for principal
National Ocean Council membership for the Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
Marine spatial planning (MSP) is a tool that can accomplish
ecosystem-based management. Researchers have defined MSP as ``a public
process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal
distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological,
economic, and social objectives'' (Ehler and Douvere 2009, p. 18). MSP
can help promote sustainable economic development by providing
predictability, saving costs, and reducing conflicts, with concomitant
ecological benefits. A number of states, as well as other countries,
have used MSP successfully, and incorporating it into the National
Ocean Policy is a positive step. We commend the President for charging
the Task Force with development of a framework for MSP, and
congressional leaders like Senator Rockefeller and yourself, Madam
Chairwoman, for recognizing its potential to transform ocean
governance.
MSP does not supplant existing management authorities for sectors
like fisheries, transportation, and energy; instead, it coordinates and
integrates decision-making across sectors and among government entities
to improve institutional effectiveness and efficiency. MSP can help
achieve better ocean management by providing a practical way to
organize marine spaces and interactions among various human uses of the
ocean while ensuring that the goal of healthy ecosystems is at the core
of planning efforts and management decisions (Crowder et al., 2006).
Marine Spatial Planning Framework
The national ocean policy commitment to ecosystem health should
guide the MSP framework. Toward that end, we recommend the following
goals:
protection, maintenance, and restoration of coastal, marine,
and Great Lakes ecosystem health--including protection of
important marine ecological areas--for current and future
generations; and
to the extent it is consistent with that overall goal,
fostering sustainable development that can realize economic
opportunities without detriment to ecosystem health.
In addition, national security interests are important
considerations in the planning process; and coordination of these
activities should be fully integrated in the MSP process.
Ecosystem attributes should serve as the foundation for setting
national management objectives for ecosystem health. These attributes
include native species diversity, habitat diversity and heterogeneity,
populations of key species, and connectivity between species and
habitats. Stresses such as climate change, ocean acidification, and
water pollution--including marine debris--need to be considered, as
well as the underlying geophysical characteristics of the ecosystem.
Because of uncertainty about the effect of these stressors in
ecosystems and on the overall health of the oceans, we support the
Interim Report statement that ``[d]ecision-making will also be guided
by a precautionary approach'' (p. 14). While science has made progress
in understanding how marine systems operate, considerable uncertainty
remains, especially with respect to overarching shifts in areas such as
climate change and ocean acidification. When an activity, or the
cumulative impact of activities, raises threats of serious harm to the
environment or human health, a precautionary approach provides a way of
accounting for uncertainty. Where there is uncertainty about potential
catastrophic disturbances, such as effects of an oil spill or a
hurricane, marine spatial plans should provide redundant protections.
Specific recommendations for a governance structure and planning
process for the MSP framework are outlined in greater detail in the
attached letter from the environmental NGO community on marine spatial
planning submitted to the National Ocean Policy Task Force on October
30, 2009. Also attached is a report on Ocean Renewable Energy and the
Marine Spatial Planning Process developed jointly by ocean renewable
energy interests and conservation groups.
Among the key points, a governance structure for marine spatial
planning should utilize the proposed National Ocean Council (NOC) for
interagency coordination in order to manage, approve and implement
planning, which should be conducted on a regional level. The NOC
provides a single point of policy formulation, plan approval, and
ultimate accountability.
In order to advance planning on an ecosystem basis across
jurisdictional boundaries, the NOC should establish regional ocean
councils to plan in partnership with regional, state, and local
entities. Among key participants would be Regional Ocean Partnerships,
Regional Fishery Management Councils, and Interstate Marine Fisheries
Commissions.
Wherever the issues involve other sovereign entities, including
tribes and foreign governments, these entities should participate in
the planning process. In addition, Federal funding should be provided
to assist states and tribes in developing marine spatial plans that are
consistent with regional and national MSP objectives and contribute to
the implementation of the National Ocean Policy.
The governance structure should also include robust participation
of stakeholders and the general public. Their involvement will increase
the likelihood that plans reflect people's values, increase social
well-being, be viable over the long term, and utilize stakeholders'
information and perspectives. In addition to appropriate public and
stakeholder participation, transparency is essential to the legitimacy
of a marine spatial plan.
The MSP framework should ensure accountability and result in a
binding plan. To build such a plan, key actions should include:
identifying regional planning needs to guide evaluation of
options;
assembling data for analysis and planning;
conducting ecological and socio-economic assessments and
identifying data gaps for each region;
evaluating compatibility of human activities with each other
and with ecosystem health;
developing marine spatial plans designed to implement
national and regional management objectives;
adopting binding marine spatial plans;
monitoring, revising. and adapting plans as conditions
change.
The Administration and Congress must commit to adequate and
sustained funding if marine spatial planning is to be successful. We
urge Congress to provide funding for MSP through the appropriations
process, and also to consider a sustained source of revenue for long-
term funding. This is an investment worth making that will be rewarded
handsomely through the more efficient use of ocean resources, and their
preservation for future generations.
Capitalizing on the Moment
Madam Chairwoman, our ocean today is in crisis; but President
Obama's willingness to lead on ocean policy provides a rare
opportunity. The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force is laying a strong
foundation, but it is one on which the Administration and Congress must
build in the months and years ahead. Current legislation provides ample
authority to establish a national ocean policy and to adopt an
implementation framework. In the longer run, though, Congress has a
crucial role, both in appropriating funds for policy implementation and
in considering new enabling legislation.
Madam Chairwoman, we very much appreciate your convening this
hearing, and we look forward to working with the subcommittee on
national ocean policy issues. There has never been a more important
moment for shaping our Nation's ocean future.
References
Crowder, L. B., G. Osherenko, O. R. Young, S. Airame, E. A. Norse,
N. Baron, J. C. Day, F. Douvere, C. N. Ehler, B. S. Halpern, S. J.
Langdon, K. L. McLeod, J. C. Ogden, R. E. Peach, A. A. Rosenberg, and
J. A. Wilson (2006). Resolving mismatches in U.S. ocean governance.
Science 313:617-618.
Crowder, L. and E. Norse. (2008). Essential ecological insights for
marine ecosystem-based management and marine spatial planning. Marine
Policy 32(5):772-778.
Ehler, C. and F. Douvere (2009). Marine Spatial Planning: A Step-
by-Step Approach Toward Ecosystem-based Management. Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission (IOC) Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier
No. 6.
Halpern, B. S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K. A., Kappel, C. V.,
Micheli, F., D'Agrosa, C., Bruno, J. F., Casey, K. S., Ebert, C., Fox,
H. E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H. S., Madin, E. M. P.,
Perry, M. T., Selig, E. R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R., and Watson, R.
(2008). A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems. Science.
319, pp 948-952.
Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (2009). Interim Report of the
Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, September 10, 2009.
Kappel, C. V., B. S. Halpern, R. G. Martone, F. Micheli, and K. A.
Selkoe (2009). In the Zone Comprehensive Ocean Protection. Issues in
Science and Technology, Spring 2009.
Lefebvre, K. A., and S. Robertson (in press). Domoic acid and human
exposure risks: A review. Toxicon.
Mapes, L. V. Algae bloom killing seabirds mystifies researchers.
The Seattle Times. October 30, 2009. Available at http://
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010165049_birds
30m.html.
McLeod, K. L. et al., (2005). Scientific Consensus Statement on
Marine Ecosystem-Based Management. Communication Partnership for
Science and the Sea.
National Oceans Economics Program (2004). Market Data: Ocean
Economy Data. Accessed 30 July 2009. Available at: http://
oceaneconomics.org/Market/ocean/oceanEcon.asp.
Pew Oceans Commission (2003). America's Living Oceans: Charting a
Course for Sea Change.
Turnipseed, M., L. B. Crowder, R. D. Sagarin, and S. E. Roady
(2009). Legal Bedrock for Rebuilding America's Ocean Ecosystems.
Science 324, 183.
USCOP (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy) (2004). An Ocean Blueprint
for the 21st Century: Final Report.
Attachments: [will be retained in Committee files].
Recommendations for an Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes National
Policy, Environmental NGO consensus document.
Comments on the Interim Report, Environmental NGO recommendations
on a National Ocean Policy, submitted to the Interagency Ocean Policy
Task Force, 10/16/09.
Comments on Marine Spatial Planning, Environmental NGO
recommendations on MSP, submitted to the Interagency Ocean Policy Task
Force, 10/30/09.
Kildow, J. and C. Colgan. Offshore Alternative Energy Economics,
Report to Ocean Conservancy. The National Ocean Economics Program,
submitted October 15, 2009.
Ocean Renewable Energy and the Marine Spatial Planning Process,
report prepared by ocean renewable energy interests and conservation
groups and submitted to the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you very much, for your testimony.
Mr. Paxton, welcome to the Committee. Thank you, for being
here today.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW PAXTON, BALL JANIK, ON BEHALF OF THE
COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Paxton. Thank you, Madam Chair Cantwell, for holding
this important hearing on the National Ocean Policy Interim
Report.
My name is Matthew Paxton, and the testimony I'll provide
today is on behalf of the Coastal Conservation Association.
The Coastal Conservation Association is the leading
maritime----
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Paxton, could you just pull that a
little closer to you, the microphone.
Mr. Paxton. Absolutely.
The Coastal Conservation Association is the leading marine
recreational fishing group in the United States. CCA has over
100,000 volunteer members in 17 states. This volunteer
membership, that spans from Brownsville, Texas; to Portland,
Maine; to Seattle, Washington, has made CCA an organization
that prides itself on passionate grassroots efforts to
influence policies and laws that promote sustainable fisheries
for recreational anglers.
We commend the Obama Administration for placing such high
priority on ocean policy and launching an extremely aggressive
180-day timeline to develop a national plan for our oceans.
The focus of my comments will be on the process to
establish a national ocean policy and the role of Congress,
maintaining regional ingenuity, ensuring access to the marine
environment and finally, promoting marine recreation as a core
element of the National Ocean Policy.
On July 22, 2004, the members of the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy submitted a final report, titled ``An Ocean
Blueprint for the 21st Century,'' to the President and the
Congress. This committee held hearings on the report and
incorporated many of the recommendations from the U.S.
Commission into legislation developed by this committee to
reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
Management Act. The previous Administration benefited from this
ocean policy roadmap, but so did the public. The final report
was based on 16 public meetings, 18 regional site visits, and
commissions--and the Commission heard from over 400 witnesses
and over 275 invited presentations, resulting in nearly 2,000
pages of testimony.
The concern with this National Ocean Policy process is that
it will be developed entirely within the bureaucracy of the
Administration and not subject to any further comment or review
by the public. Our recommendation and request would be for this
committee and other relevant committees to hold oversight
hearings on the final report and consider legislation for any
ocean management proposals that do not have statutory
authority. We do not want the National Ocean Policy to enforce
new legal mandates under the auspices of some existing legal
authority.
Regional input needs to be preserved. Maintaining regional
input and expertise is absolutely critical for establishing a
balanced and uniquely responsive national ocean policy.
We are encouraged by recommendations in the interim report
to coordinate the laws and agencies to improve ocean
management. However, a national ocean policy should not be a
mechanism to establish an overarching bureaucracy that consists
entirely of governmental officials implementing Federal-down
mandates. This would require important laws that come from this
committee to fall under one national ocean policy approach,
requiring such laws as the Coastal Zone Management Act, the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act, MSA, and others, to simply
enforce a single national ocean management mandate. All these
laws maintain critical important--critical regional input as a
core legal step in establishing complex ocean and fisheries
management, regulations, and policies. This should not change
in an effort to establish national ocean policy.
For instance, the interim report requires an ocean policy
that implements ecosystem-based management. Currently, the
Regional Fishery Management Councils implement varying forms of
ecosystem-based management. However, it is not a legal
requirement to do so. The National Ocean Policy must encourage
better coordination between agencies and promote policies that
focus the stewardship of our oceans, but not at the expense of
regional ingenuity.
The reauthorization of the MSA in 2006 required a report on
the state of the science for ecosystem-based management. I
would encourage this Committee to request this report from the
Administration to help inform how ecosystem-based management
can be implemented and whether additional legal authority is
necessary.
Pursuant to the interim report, officials with CEQ and NOAA
and other agencies are charged with developing a marine spatial
planning framework. Marine spatial planning should be a policy
that seeks to better inform decision-making in the ocean
environment and address gaps in science data to improve
conservation management objectives. Marine spatial planning
should not be a means to catalog, map, and designate vast
marine areas as marine-restricted set-asides. The interim
report makes numerous references to ambiguous terms, such as
``healthy,'' ``pristine,'' and ``resilient,'' and articulates
broad management concepts that call for the protection of
biological diversity. The report then couples these hard-to-
define terms and concepts with a precautionary approach when
there is scientific uncertainty. Marine spatial planning under
this approach would arbitrarily exclude users, primarily
recreational users and other marine user groups, we fear, from
the marine environment and its resources. Recreational
interests and access to the marine environment must be a core
element of any marine spatial planning policy and proposal.
Last, sustainable recreational use should not only be
supported within a national ocean policy, it should be actively
promoted. Hunting, fishing, boating, and being outdoors are
laudable things. The recreational community believes that
stewardship of our ocean environment involves sustainable human
uses. We strongly encourage this Administration and this
Committee to take advantage of this opportunity to promote the
outdoorsman conservation ethic in the ocean environment and
make recreational uses a core principle of national ocean
policy.
As the Senate Committee with the primary jurisdiction over
the laws that impact ocean management, you have a significant
role to play in overseeing this National Ocean Policy and
whether laws are being expanded or constricted without
Congressional approval.
I commend you for holding this hearing today. I would
recommend that further hearings be held by this committee once
the Administration issues its final report next month.
And thank you for this opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Paxton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew Paxton, Ball Janik,
on Behalf of the Coastal Conservation Association
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the White House
Council on Environmental Quality's Interim Report of the Interagency
Ocean Policy Task Force and its recommended framework for effective
coastal and marine spatial planning.
The testimony I will provide today is on behalf of the Coastal
Conservation Association. My name is Matthew Paxton. I am an attorney
at Ball Janik law firm.
The Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) is the leading marine
recreational fishing group in the United States. Formed by a small
group of sport fishermen in Houston in 1977, CCA has grown to a
seventeen-state operation with over 100,000 members. This volunteer
membership that spans from Brownsville, Texas to Portland, Maine to
Seattle, Washington has made CCA an organization that prides itself on
passionate grassroots efforts to influence policies and laws that
promote sustainable fisheries for recreational anglers.
Over the last 20 years, CCA has been active in a number of
conservation issues both on the state and Federal level, including all
of the east and Gulf coast net bans; gamefish status for redfish,
speckled trout, tarpon, striped bass, river shad, marlins, spearfish
and sailfish; and the reduction of bycatch through the use of
technology and time and area closures. CCA has also pushed for the
improvement of the fishery management system through the restructuring
of state and Federal regulatory bodies; the elimination of conflicts of
interests by decision-makers, and the active involvement of its
membership in the management process.
We commend the Obama Administration for placing such a high
priority on ocean policy and committing resources and time of the White
House Council on Environmental Quality, the National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration and numerous other agencies to develop a
comprehensive, coordinated strategy to manage our oceans. The extremely
aggressive 180-day timeline to develop a National Ocean Policy that
includes an integrated, ecosystem-based framework for marine spatial
planning, is a daunting endeavor and if completed will be an historic
accomplishment for ocean stewardship.
The urgency to establish such an expansive national policy and
framework, however, does raise concern from the recreational community,
and other marine user groups, that important concepts and perspectives
might be overlooked or simply left out in order to meet arbitrary dead-
lines.
The focus of my comments will be on the process to establish a
National Ocean Policy and the role of Congress; maintaining regional
ingenuity; ensuring access to the marine environment; and finally
promoting marine recreation as a core element of the National Ocean
Policy.
Process--Development of a National Ocean Policy
On July 22, 2004, the Members of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy submitted a final report titled An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st
Century to the President and the Congress. The report was required
under the Oceans Act of 2000.\1\ This committee held hearings on the
report and the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, developed and passed by this
committee, contained many of the recommendations from this important
ocean policy report.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Oceans Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-256).
\2\ Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act (P.L. 109-479).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The previous Administration benefited from this ocean policy
roadmap and the comprehensive recommendations on how to manage our
oceans and marine resources more effectively. The public also benefited
from this process--there was a final report with recommendations based
on sixteen public meetings and eighteen regional site visits and the
commission heard from over 400 witnesses and over 275 invited
presentations, resulting in nearly 2,000 pages of testimony.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Final Report, An Ocean
Blueprint for the 21st Century, (Executive Summary, pg. xxxiii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Obama Administration announced in June that it will develop a
comprehensive National Ocean Policy within 180 days. The Administration
has held five public meetings and provided opportunities for various
ocean user groups to meet in closed door meetings at CEQ and NOAA. I
understand the U.S. Ocean Commission report was a much different
process and was the result of a Federal Act, however, there is some
benefit in providing a comparison in the process that took place to
develop solid recommendations for ocean policy in the Ocean Commission
report and what is taking place today.
As I mentioned earlier, the effectiveness of CCA has been the
active involvement of its volunteer membership on the local, state and
Federal level. Through local boards, state commissions, and Federal
regulatory and management bodies, recreational users have been able to
influence and shape policies and laws that impact fisheries
conservation and ocean management. It is a well-worn process that CCA
members understand and work within to develop effective policies that
embody our conservation ethic and outdoorsman ideals.
The concern, in particular for potentially new concepts like marine
spatial planning or ocean zoning, is these concepts will be developed
entirely within the bureaucracy of the Administration and not subject
to any further comment or review. Our recommendation would be to
provide the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
and the House Committee on Natural Resources the opportunity to hold
oversight hearings on the final report and consider legislation for any
ocean management proposals that do not have statutory authority. We do
not want the National Ocean Policy to enforce new legal mandates under
the auspices of some existing legal authority.
A recent example of this was the approval by Department of Commerce
of a fishery management plan authorizing commercial offshore
aquaculture under a very expansive legal view of ``harvesting'' under
the Magnuson-Stevens Act (the Federal fishery law for managing
commercial and recreational catch). Nowhere in MSA is there even a
reference to aquaculture. This is a clear example of how a policy that
does not have legal authority may be shoe-horned under some other
existing authority and implemented without a fully transparent, vetted
and public process to develop the appropriate law.
Again, the policy must balance the equities of those that will be
affected. In the instance of offshore commercial aquaculture, we will
not know until after the fact if the appropriate legal and regulatory
protections were put in place to manage these commercial enterprises in
the ocean environment.
Maintain Regional Input--No Top-Down Mandates
The Interim Report places a substantial focus on coordinating the
numerous agencies and laws that ultimately intersect with the
stewardship of our oceans. The report recommends a policy coordination
framework that would provide a structure to strengthen ocean governance
and coordination by ``providing clear and visible leadership and
sustained high-level engagement within the Federal Government.'' \4\
Within this policy coordination framework, the report does recommend
greater participation by local and regional governance structures.
Maintaining regional input and expertise is absolutely critical for
establishing a balanced and uniquely responsive National Ocean Policy.
We are encouraged by these core recommendations on coordinating the
laws and agencies to improve ocean management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, pg.
18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, a National Ocean Policy should not be a mechanism to
establish an overarching bureaucracy that consists entirely of
governmental officials implementing Federal-down mandates. This
approach could require important laws that come from this committee to
fall under one National Ocean Policy approach, requiring such laws as
the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine Sanctuaries Act, MSA and
others to simply enforce a single national ocean management mandate.
All these laws maintain regional input as a core legal step in
establishing complex ocean and fisheries management regulations and
policies and this should not change in an effort to establish a
National Ocean Policy.
The Interim Report provides encouraging references to maintaining
local and regional input, however, in an effort to dictate change in
ocean policy it might become expedient to simply mandate that all
actions relating to the ocean environment meet one Federal standard.
The National Ocean Policy must encourage better coordination between
agencies and promote policies that focus the stewardship of our oceans,
but not at the expense of regional ingenuity.
For instance, the report requires a National Ocean Policy that
implements ecosystem based management. The various Regional Fishery
Conservation and Management Councils currently implement varying forms
of ecosystem based management. Naturally, this approach to ecosystem
based management is inherently regional and reflects the unique ocean
conditions and fishery dynamics in that area. The Federal/state process
in MSA that established the Regional Councils is not perfect, but it
does provide for ample opportunity for critical regional input. In
addition, this Act allows for the direct involvement of anglers to
either sit on the various Councils developing the fishery regulations
or the opportunity to provide numerous recommendations on how best to
manage our shared fishery resources. Ecosystem-based management should
not be a Federal mandate under a National Ocean Policy.
The reauthorization of the MSA in 2006 required a report on the
``state of the science for advancing concepts and integration of
ecosystem considerations in regional fishery management''.\5\ I would
encourage this committee to request this report from the Administration
to help inform how ecosystem-based management can be implemented and
whether additional legal authority is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16
U.S.C. 1882(f) (P.L. 109-479).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Spatial Planning--Maintaining Public Access
Pursuant to the Interim Report, officials within CEQ, NOAA and
other agencies are charged with developing a marine spatial planning
framework that will provide a ``comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem-
based approach that addresses conservation, economic activity, user
conflict, and sustainable use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
resources''.\6\ Marine spatial planning must be a policy that seeks to
better inform decision-making in the ocean environment and address gaps
in science and data to improve conservation and management objectives.
Marine spatial planning must not be a means to catalogue, map and
designate vast marine areas as marine restricted set-asides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Interim Report, pg. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Interim Report makes numerous references to ambiguous terms
such as ``healthy,'' ``pristine,'' and ``resilient'' and articulates
broad management concepts that call for the protection of biological
diversity. The report then couples these hard-to-define terms and
concepts with a precautionary approach when there is scientific
uncertainty.\7\ Marine spatial planning under this approach would lead
to the preservation of the ocean based entirely on precautionary
principles and arbitrarily exclude users--primarily recreational users,
we fear--from the marine environment and its resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id., pg. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreational interests and access to the marine environment must be
a core element of any marine spatial planning policy and proposal. Too
often recreational interests are afterthoughts of marine policy, when
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the recreational community has equal
legal standing as commercial interests to fishery resources and access
to the marine environment. For marine spatial planning to be effective
it must not ignore recreational interests at the outset, but instead
have a strong focus on maintaining and encouraging public access and
recreation in the marine environment.
This committee developed and ultimately created the law that
provided important rules for how all future marine restricted areas can
be established. We would encourage this Administration, and recommend
that this committee ensure, that the legal requirements in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act are strictly followed before establishing any
marine restricted area under a marine spatial planning policy. Any
marine restricted area should: (1) be based on sound science; (2) be
the smallest marine area possible to achieve an articulated
conservation goal, and (3) be continuously reviewed to determine
whether the marine restricted area is necessary to achieve these
conservation goals.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ MSA, 16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(2)(C) (P.L. 109-479).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should not be the goal or result of marine spatial planning to
determine or catalogue marine areas that should be simply set-aside as
marine reserves or no-go zones. Any policy to set-aside large areas of
the marine environment to access or recreation creates
disproportionate, negative impacts to the fishing and private boating
public by simply locking them out of the oceans. Marine spatial
planning should not be a means to lockup the ocean to public access and
recreation.
Promote Recreation as a Core National Ocean Policy
Sustainable recreational use should not only be supported within a
National Ocean Policy, it should be actively promoted. Under principle
three of the Interim Report--Current and Future Uses of Ocean
Ecosystems--there should be a specific recommendation for ``the
promotion of recreational uses of the ocean.''
We believe, for example, that the efforts and outreach made by the
Department of Interior, which are designed to get kids outdoors with
their families, increase physical activities, and reacquaint the public
with their natural resources is a good model. Hunting, fishing,
boating, and being outdoors are laudable things. The recreational
community believes that stewardship of our ocean environment involves
sustainable human uses.
Recreating in America's oceans is big business and supports
hundreds of thousands of jobs, but it is also more than that. It allows
Americans to utilize America's public marine resources as they do so
with terrestrial resources. Such outdoor activities strengthen the
family, improve public health, re-link people with natural resources
and invest in them a stewardship ethic.
We strongly encourage this Administration and this committee to
take advantage of this opportunity to promote the outdoorsman
conservation ethic in the ocean environment and make recreational uses
a core principle of both the final report and the framework for marine
spatial planning in a National Ocean Policy.
As the Senate Committee with the primary jurisdiction over the laws
that impact ocean management, you have a significant role to play in
overseeing this National Ocean Policy and whether laws are being
expanded or constricted without Congressional approval. I commend you
for holding this hearing today, I would recommend that further hearings
be held by this committee once the Administration issues its final
report next month and thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Paxton.
Ms. Elefant, thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF CAROLYN ELEFANT,
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY COUNSEL,
OCEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY COALITION
Ms. Elefant. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair, for
holding this hearing and also for the opportunity to testify.
My name is Carolyn Elefant. I'm the Legislative and
Regulatory Counsel to the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition. We
are the national trade association for marine renewables, which
includes wave, tidal, hydrokinetic, ocean thermal, and offshore
wind.
I'd like to open by saying that OREC commends the efforts
of the Administration and this Committee to craft a national
policy for responsible development of our ocean's renewable
energy resources. In particular, we appreciated the task
force's efforts to reach out to the broad swath of stakeholders
and users who take advantage of our public waterways.
Like the task force, OREC recognizes that climate change is
one of the biggest threats to our Nation's oceans. And, in
fact, if you speak to some of our member companies and ask them
why they've gotten into this industry of approaching the
challenges of harnessing our Nation's waves and tidal power,
they'll tell you that they're committed to leaving this
nature--to creating a cleaner Nation for future generations.
So, our members are very concerned with the impacts of climate
change, and these technologies can contribute to mitigating
climate change.
As the Electric Power Institute has studied, ocean
renewables can provide 400 terawatts of power, which is roughly
10 percent of our Nation's power needs. It's a little bit more
than what conventional hydropower delivers today. And, for that
reason, I confess that our organization was a little bit
disappointed to see that the interim report really didn't focus
very much on development of renewable energy resources from the
oceans or acknowledge the role that they can play in mitigating
climate change.
Now, with the limited time I have available now, I'd like
to focus on OREC's visions for ocean--for coastal and marine
spatial planning and also describe, in that context, some of
the challenges that our industry faces.
One of the first components of marine spatial planning is
that we need to develop information to inform these planning
efforts. Right now, there is information that has been gathered
through the process of permitting other types of development
within the oceans, and some of that information may be
available and housed in State and Federal agencies; other
information needs to be collected. OREC sees a role for
Congress and this Committee in helping to identify or authorize
those agencies that should connect--collect the necessary data
to inform ocean planning decisions, and also to providing
funding for these gathering efforts.
The other issue that we wanted to focus on is, as we move
ahead with marine spatial planning, we don't want to stop
ongoing activity. Right now our industry is gaining momentum.
We have had--we've had access to unprecedented amounts of
funding and also been the beneficiaries of new tax credits
which are really driving our industry's growth. At the same
time, we haven't had the opportunity to site many projects. And
so, there's a lot that is unknown--yet unknown about how marine
renewables will operate within the environment and what their
impacts will be.
We urge this committee and also the task force to allow the
opportunity to--for us--for our industry to deploy the first
generation of marine renewable technologies, even as marine
spatial planning efforts are ongoing. We believe that, by
deploying this first generation of technologies, we can gather
information about how they work and what role they can play,
and that can inform future decisionmaking.
And third, as an alternative to the precautionary principle
which was alluded to in interim task force, OREC believes that
planning efforts should recognize the role of adaptive
management in moving ahead with marine renewables. Adaptive
management allows developers to deal with uncertainty through
rigorous post-deployment monitoring and also by making
operational changes where data might show that there's an
adverse impact on the environment. Again, the data gathered
through adaptive management can also help inform broader
planning efforts.
Fourth, OREC believes that this coastal and marine spatial
planning efforts provide a natural opportunity for multiple
agencies with jurisdiction over these resources to cooperate
and collaborate on permitting. Right now, our permitting
process is very much--takes place in the--as one witness
mentioned, the stovepipe type of approach. We see an
opportunity for agencies to collaborate through memoranda of
understanding, and undertake and create uniform applications,
and also abide by uniform scheduling deadlines, and to share
information throughout the process. And we see the marine
spatial planning approach as providing an opportunity for
agencies to do that.
Finally, even though the task force is a national body, the
role of the states are paramount. As--in our particular--in our
industry, some of the best sites on West Coast--the best wave
sites on the West Coast and the best offshore wind sites on the
East Coast straddle State and Federal lines. And so, if there
isn't any coordination between the ongoing spatial planning
efforts being undertaken by states, like Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, and Oregon, and the Federal effort, we may find
ourselves in a situation where, for example, a state designates
an area as appropriate for marine renewables, however, Federal
policy would exclude them, and it would put a developer in a
situation where it couldn't build a project out. So, we'd like
to see coordination between what the State and Federal agencies
are doing, and also an opportunity to leverage off what states
are doing, and share that information.
One of the best parts about participating in the marine
spatial planning dialogue is that we all agree that climate
change is a critical issue. Marine renewables, if given a
chance, can prove--may prove that they can help to mitigate the
damage that climate change can cause to our oceans and also may
be compatible with other multiple uses.
Thanks again for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Elefant follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carolyn Elefant, Legislative and Regulatory
Counsel, Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition
On behalf of the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition (OREC), I
appreciate the opportunity to present my comments on a framework for
coastal and marine spatial planning.
OREC is a national trade association representing the marine
renewable energy industry, including wave, tidal, hydrokinetic,
current, ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) and, in collaboration
with other trade associations, offshore wind, solar and biomass.
Founded in 2005 with just four members, OREC now stands 45 members
strong, reflecting the increased interest in and commitment to OREC's
mission of advancing the commercialization of marine renewables in the
United States.
Development of marine renewables technologies can play a
significant role in our Nation's economic recovery and expand our
renewable energy portfolio. According to the Electric Power Research
Institute, ocean renewable energy in the United States has the
potential to supply some 400 terawatt hours of clean power annually, or
roughly 10 percent of today's electric demand. This is more than the
electric generation currently delivered from all conventional
hydropower plants in the United States.
A robust marine renewables energy industry advances other national
economic, energy and environmental goals by:
Producing renewable, emission- free energy from our Nation's
abundant ocean resources, thereby mitigating climate change
effects;
Reducing our Nation's reliance on oil imported from the
Middle East, Venezuela and other politically volatile areas;
Revitalizing shipyards, coastal industrial parks and
shuttered naval bases;
Creating green jobs in coastal communities hit hard by our
country's current economic crisis;
Securing our Nation's place in developing offshore renewable
energy technologies thereby ensuring that the United States is
an exporter, not an importer, of these technologies;
Providing low cost power for niche or distributed uses like
desalinization, aquaculture, naval and military bases, powering
stations for hybrid vehicles and for offshore oil and gas
platforms; and
Promoting coastal planning that reflects the goals of bio-
diversity, and optimal use of resources which contemplates
synergistic gains for all offshore industries.
The Coalition commends the work of the Committee and the National
Ocean Policy Task Force to craft a national policy for the responsible
development of our ocean, coastal, and Great Lake renewable energy
resources. While this is a daunting task, we encourage this effort to
enable marine renewable technologies to play a significant role in
meeting our Nation's energy, economic, environmental and security
needs.
The marine renewables industry in the U.S. faces unique financial,
jurisdictional and regulatory hurdles that threaten the
commercialization of this emerging renewable technology. First, marine
renewables have not enjoyed the level of Federal support that other
renewables, such as solar, biomass and wind have received. In FY08, the
Department of Energy revived its dormant water power and hydrokinetic
program and issued $10 million in solicitations for grants.
Appropriations increased to $30 million for FY 09 and $50 million in
FY10. To date, DOE has not provided additional funding from the
Recovery Act resources.
Second, while the potential of marine renewables is enormous, the
industry stands at the same place as wind power fifteen years ago.
Though offshore wind projects are now commercially viable and can be
financed through power purchase agreements, marine renewables have only
just reached the stage where the first generation of demonstration
projects are ready for deployment. Although the first generation of
marine renewables projects are small in size and lack the same private
backing and access to capital as more mature energy technologies,
nevertheless, they are required to comply with the same lengthy siting
procedures applicable to well-established technologies.
For example, Verdant Power needed 5 years to acquire authorization
to install a 30 kilowatt turbine array in the East River near New York
City and Ocean Power Technologies (OPT) is embarking on the fourth year
of its efforts to site a 2 megawatt project off the coast of Reedsport,
Oregon.
The lengthy permitting process consumes scarce resources which are
better used for perfecting the technologies which, in turn, would
expedite commercialization. Moreover, permitting uncertainty deters
private equity investors who, at present, are the primary source of
capital for this nascent industry. As such, marine renewables
developers have serious concerns about any system which will further
delay siting or create more regulatory uncertainty for the first
generation of marine renewables projects.
Because only two marine renewables projects have been sited in the
United States and only a handful more abroad, little is known about the
real world environmental, social and economic impacts of marine
renewables projects. Consequently, marine renewable energy project
developers are often unable to comply with resources agencies' requests
for information without engaging in years of costly studies. For now,
we advocate application of principles of adaptive management which
allows for rigorous post-deployment monitoring and changes in operation
to address adverse impacts as an alternative to extensive pre-siting
studies. Adaptive management will also allow for collection of data
that can inform MSP and future siting decisions.
Uncertainty regarding impacts also makes marine renewables
inappropriate candidates for the precautionary principle. A policy of
prohibiting action in the face of uncertainty would essentially bar any
new technologies, including marine renewables, because questions about
impacts cannot be resolved without actually siting these projects and
gathering data.
Marine renewables also suffer a second disadvantage in addition to
their emerging status and undercapitalization. Specifically, marine
renewables are subject to overlapping jurisdictions of multiple
agencies, more so than any other offshore renewable. For example,
marine renewables on the outer continental shelf (OCS) are regulated by
both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (for licensing)
and the Mineral Management Service (MMS) (for leasing). Moreover, the
existing ``sweet spot'' for wave energy technologies (based on existing
technology, cost and operational viability) lies roughly two to five
miles offshore, thus straddling state submerged lands and the OCS.
Consequently, marine renewables are potentially subject to ongoing
state coastal planning initiatives as well as any Federal policies
proposed by the Task Force. Because of the problem of multiple
jurisdictions, coordination between Federal and state programs as well
as between FERC and MMS takes on heightened significance for marine
renewables developers.
As with offshore wind, marine renewables do not fit within the 5-
year planning process established for oil and gas under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). Electricity from marine renewables
is sold by contract to utilities, which have long-term planning
processes for wholesale power procurement and transmission planning
that must comply with Federal, state and regional initiatives. The 5-
year planning process for oil and gas is out of synch with the electric
utility planning process and is unworkable for marine renewables.
As the Task Force moves forward with steps toward MSP, it should
bear in mind that several coastal states are already undertaking their
own initiatives. These states include Massachusetts, Oregon, New
Jersey, and Rhode Island. The Task Force should coordinate Federal
efforts with state planning efforts. Finally, many of the models for
MSP from Europe may not be appropriate for use in the United States
because of our system of dual state-federal jurisdiction.
OREC and its member marine renewable energy developers are
committed to environmentally responsible, economically viable
development of ocean renewables projects. OREC and its members work
closely with the resource agencies, NGO's and coastal communities to
devise a workable approach to siting marine renewables in an
expeditious and environmentally benign manner.
To this end, OREC has negotiated legislation (S. 1462--provisions
on Adaptive Management and Environmental Grant Program) that would
establish an Adaptive Management Fund which developers can use to
underwrite environmental studies and ongoing post-deployment monitoring
requested by state and Federal resource agencies, including NOAA, for
demonstration and early-stage commercial projects. Information
subsidized by the Adaptive Management Fund would be placed into the
public domain (in contrast to many environmental studies performed in
connection with permitting which remain proprietary if the project does
not move forward) to inform future decisionmaking. As added protection
against environmental harm, projects receiving adaptive management
funds would be required to cease or alter operation if unacceptable
environmental impacts are observed during post-deployment monitoring.
OREC has also supported legislation that would provide funding to
coastal states to study and map their coastal resources and make such
information publicly available.
OREC believes that NOAA's history of, and long experience in
protecting and enhancing our Nation's coastal and ocean resources make
it a critical player in developing an ocean management program. Most
importantly, NOAA can play a valuable role in collecting the data
necessary for a comprehensive ocean management policy. For that reason,
OREC supports legislation to fund NOAA's ongoing data collection
efforts through the Integrated Ocean Observatory Systems or other
programs.
These carefully negotiated initiatives provide a course for moving
forward cautiously, even in the face of some uncertainty and a means to
gather the information that is critical to the success of MSP efforts.
The Task Force should take these voluntary efforts into account when
crafting an ocean management plan.
For the near term, OREC recommends that the Task Force begin to
address uncertainties regarding marine renewables technologies through
adaptive management, robust monitoring and data gathering. OREC does
not oppose MSP in principle nor do we object to laying the framework
for eventual incorporation of MSP in National Ocean Policy. However,
MSP is only as effective as the data and input upon which it is based--
and gathering the baseline information needed to implement MSP will
take time and funding.
In the interim, many of the goals of MSP--such as a coordinated
approach to ocean development and identifying compatible uses--can also
be pursued for the near future within the parameters of existing
regulatory processes with some modifications or improvements and
through application of adaptive management principles.
OREC has recommended that the Task Force consider adopting the
following principles in its MSP efforts to the extent possible:
Adaptive management should be recognized as the preferred
approach for siting marine renewables and addressing concerns
related to ocean management;
Avoid creating additional uncertainty which would
effectively stop capital formation in this industry;
Leave the door open for future innovation;
Ensure that ocean management or MSP is informed by adequate
data, including data that has already been collected by Federal
and state agencies;
Recognize the differences between oil and gas and marine
renewables;
Avoid creation of a new bureaucracy;
Establish a coordinated, comprehensive approach to
permitting offshore renewables through use of MOUs and creation
of a uniform application;
Avoid jurisdictional conflicts;
Synchronize ocean management or planning initiatives with
state and regional planning efforts and policymaking for the
electric utility industry;
Recognize the difficulties inherent in MSP and proceed
cautiously, without slowing the marine renewables industry or
sacrificing the goal of fighting climate change.
Marine renewables offer enormous potential to combat climate change
and to provide an indigenous source of clean, renewable energy. Over
the past 5 years, the marine renewables industry has gained momentum
with respect to technology advancements and an influx of Federal and
state funding. Stalling deployment of marine renewables at this
critical juncture could devastate the industry and drive it overseas.
Because of the unique hurdles that a nascent industry like marine
renewables face, OREC urged the Task Force to avoid attempts for a
``one size fits all'' or universal solution. With respect to marine
renewables, the best approach is to allow for deployment to move ahead
in an environmentally responsible manner which incorporates robust
monitoring, adaptive management principles and encourages coordination
between the relevant permitting agencies through use of uniform
applications and process schedules and collaboration. Data gleaned from
monitoring operation of the first generation of marine renewables
projects can offer insight into marine renewables' environmental
effects and its compatibility with other ocean uses. Ultimately,
information gleaned can be used to inform siting decision and future
ocean management initiatives.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the issue of
ocean management.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
And again, I want to thank all the witnesses.
And I want to start off, if I could. I'm assuming that many
of you did give comments to the task force during this process.
Is that correct, that everybody give input or filed something
on a website or something of that nature?
This issue of spatial planning has obviously come up with
many of your testimonies. And if the Administration is going to
move forward on developing a framework for this, what do you
think the role NOAA should play in implementing or coming up
with this framework? To any of you, or all of you.
Mr. Frank. Well, in my time, you know, I see the door open
for all of us to participate, certainly the tribes. The tribes
have been left out in the past, and we certainly got to be in
the door and at the table in this go-around. We sit down with
NOAA, with National Marine Fisheries, we manage side-by-side
with them in the ocean right today, mapping and everything that
they're doing out there, and certainly with Interior, with all
of our agencies--our Federal agencies, as well as our states.
We have to all be together, every one of us. We have to put our
best foot forward. And we have--there's a right way and there's
a wrong way. In the past, it has been done the wrong way.
Certainly, we have to look to try to make it happen the right
way.
Senator Cantwell. Dr. Kelso, did you--or Mr. Paxton? Any of
you?
Dr. Takahashi-Kelso. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to answer both how we think NOAA can play a role
in the National Ocean Policy and the council and also with
respect to marine spatial planning.
We think it's critically important for NOAA to have a key
leadership role in the National Ocean Policy and in the
council. We also think it's desirable to have a strong White
House presence and a role in the Council. We think that helps
maintain the kind of coordination and integration that the
policy is supposed to achieve. So, both of those seem
important, from our perspective.
With respect to marine spatial planning, NOAA is clearly
the agency with a great deal of expertise to bring to the
table, particularly with respect to science and how some of the
activities that are--occur in U.S. waters are regulated. The
plans, however, are really regional in nature. And so, in order
to be a place-based marine spatial plan, they need to build on
a regional basis. So, clearly, NOAA should have a strong role
and a presence in the development, but also other entities,
including the tribes, as sovereign participants, the states,
and the local communities. And those regions should be drawn in
a way that enable us to really get plans that are targeted on
the ecosystem and socioeconomic characteristics that bring them
together as a region.
Mr. Paxton. Madam Chair, I thought the first panel
discussion was quite telling of who's in charge of all this.
Quite frankly, though, NOAA is in charge with managing
commercial and recreational fishing. They have regional
councils, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. They have a regional
focus. They're already doing ecosystem-based management through
the various regional councils.
I would argue that it's most logical that NOAA should be at
the head of this. The fact that they're not is a little
surprising. I know they're part of the process, but to hear
that they're not at the council level is a little stunning from
where we sit. They have the expertise, they know the science,
and they do coastal management. They should absolutely be at
the head of this.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Ms. Elefant. Yes. We would also agree with that. We have
recognized the role that NOAA plays already in gathering
information through the interagency ocean observatory systems.
And we also believe that they can continue to gather
information. They know what types of information is necessary
to inform decision-making. They know what types of--I mean,
data-gathering sounds like, you know, something that's very
simple, but in reality it's very complicated. You need to put
the data into, you know, formats that are useful to different
organizations and also identify the data that you need for
decisionmaking. And NOAA is very knowledgeable about that. We
also do have--through the Coastal Zone Management Act, played a
role in regional planning. And so, we want to see them play a
role in the spatial planning effort on that level.
At the same time--and so, we also were surprised to see
that they had been left out, or relegated a more secondary
role, in the creation of the ocean council.
Senator Cantwell. OK.
Senator Begich, did you have questions?
Senator Begich. Thank you, Madam Chair, just a couple. I
know we have a vote in about 9 minutes, here, so let me be very
quick, if I can.
And, Dr. Kelso, I--I want to call you Denny; as you know,
that's how we refer to you. But, let me--Dr. Kelso, if I can
ask you--one of the comments that I've seen off and on is that
offshore oil development or gas development maybe should be on
hold while they go through the process of this effort, and the
spatial planning--marine planning effort be completed. You
know, obviously I would have major heartburn over that,
because, as I've heard--you probably heard me describe planning
efforts I've been through. This is not one that ends up in 1
year and you're done. So, can you give me any comment?
Because--one, your personal experience of Alaska. But, how do
you balance that as we develop a long-term policy and a
planning effort and ensure that we continue to move forward on
responsible offshore development?
Dr. Takahashi-Kelso. Thank you, Senator Begich.
The key, I think, is to look closely at the particular
environments and the state of the science that we have, as well
as other key information, like traditional ecological
knowledge.
So, here's how I would approach that. In a place like the
Arctic, which is unusually vulnerable and has extraordinary
resource values, we need to proceed carefully so we make the
right decisions. That's not to say that we would simply stop
and not proceed at all.
Senator Begich. Moratorium.
Dr. Takahashi-Kelso. Exactly. We don't--we are not pursuing
a moratorium. We're talking about a kind of time-out that lets
us get it right. And the different pieces of that, including
the different regions and subregions in your state, make it
possible, I think, to make different decisions in different
areas, based on how much information we have, how vulnerable
the area is, or what the proposals are for the--for making--for
pursuing resource extraction. And, in a particular example of
oil and gas, there the previous Administration put such large
area on the leasing block that it made it very difficult to
make thoughtful decisions about the specific effects, not only
on ecosystems, but also on coastal communities. As you well
know, the communities in the Arctic Slope and in northwest
Alaska depend so heavily on the sea, and the North Slope
Borough has asked for a very careful approach. And, in the
words of a borough mayor, ``It's too much, too fast, too
soon.'' And we think that's pretty good advice. That doesn't
mean you can't get there. It means we need to be careful how we
do that, and we make choices that are specific to the data,
that are specific to risks involved and the particular
proposals to go forward.
Senator Begich. And do you think--you saw some of my line
of questioning regarding the economic--when you do an oceans
policy, from an environmental viewpoint, that's one piece of
it, but there are all the economic pieces. I know when we did
our comprehensive plan, we actually required an economic
analysis--impact analysis--pro and con. In other words, you
know, if you shut off an area that may be already--maybe it's
commercial fishing--what's the impact? Or it might be a
shipping lane, or it might shrink down an area that may be
accessible. Do you think that's an important part, if we go
down this effort of marine spatial planning, that there need
also be tied directly to it an economic impact analysis, both
private- and public-sector analysis?
Dr. Takahashi-Kelso. I think the ocean policy and the
marine spatial planning part of that provides an opportunity to
give greater certainty to ensure that conflicts are reduced and
to build on the best available science and to fill in some gaps
in science, where those exist. I followed, in the Anchorage
Daily News, your work--I would say, adventures--on the
comprehensive plan for Anchorage.
Senator Begich. It was an adventure.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Takahashi-Kelso. And I would suggest that one way we
avoid the kind of tangle that you were successfully able to
navigate--but it was a challenge--is, we don't take on every
place at once. We don't try to do the entire U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone.
Senator Begich. Yes.
Dr. Takahashi-Kelso. We choose some pilot areas. We know
that there are some areas that are ready to go. Several states
have done important work already; the State of Massachusetts,
the State of Rhode Island, are underway right now--the State of
Washington has excellent experience with the Puget Sound
partnership--and the work that's going on in other places can
teach us how best to proceed. That doesn't mean that it will be
simple, but I think, if we choose our pilot projects carefully,
if we learn from them, we use adaptive management going
forward, I think we can handle the kind of challenges that you
already know so well.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. That's actually some
very good advice in how to approach the planning effort,
because sometimes we want to do it all at once, and we usually
collapse under our own weight. That's why--I remember, as
mayor, I inherited from the former Mayor--and we had to kind of
do pieces in order to kind of get it moving. But, thank you
very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Cantwell. It makes me want to go back and look at
the clips, Senator, from your----
[Laughter.]
Senator Begich. It's--let me say, it was diverse, and we
had 1,900 square miles of the city. So, it was very diverse,
geographically, as well as peoplewise.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Paxton, you--in your testimony, you
said that you have some concerns about eco-based management, or
that it shouldn't be part of a Federal mandate or ocean policy.
Could you explain why?
Mr. Paxton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Primarily the reason why is, we're currently doing it. The
regional councils implement varying forms of ecosystem-based
management. One of the things that this committee steered away
from in a debate several years ago was, Do you mandate
ecosystem-based management in the law? And this committee
decided they didn't have the science to really get them to that
place where they could write a law that said, ``Here's how you
do ecosystem-based management.'' So, what this committee did
was actually say, ``Let us get the state of science on it. Let
us find out what we know.'' And I think what we've heard a lot
from this panel today is that there are a lot of regional
efforts that are out there. I know that Puget Sound is doing
ecosystem-based management in a varying form. And I know
they're doing it up in Maine. We're doing it in the Gulf of
Mexico. We can do this. I think what we've got to avoid is the
Federal mandate to do so.
We ran into a similar situation when they mandated a
concept called ``essential fish habitat.'' They said every
council has to look at the adverse impacts on essential fish
habitat. And every FMP that came out of the regional councils
go sued and ended up in court, because they didn't know how to
take the adverse impacts on to essential fish habitat. I think
the goal has to be, when you do anything in this process,
especially with something that's kind of nebulous or difficult
to explain or get to, on ecosystem-based management, is, don't
mandate it, because the only thing we'll get out of it is
potential litigation. I think that's where we see some
problems, because we've already experienced that in some places
in the Gulf of Mexico, where areas were closed because we
couldn't define ``adverse impacts.''
So, I would recommend that we try to get a very concise
explanation of what ecosystem-based management is before we say
``Go do it.''
Senator Cantwell. Dr. Kelso or Mr. Frank, do you want to
respond to that? Any ideas about how to address Mr. Paxton's
concerns?
Mr. Frank. You know, Madam Chairman, somebody has to be in
charge. And, as you know, the tribes have a lot of agreements
with the United States Navy, the United States Coast Guard, and
the United States Army in our areas. Now, when we shake hands
and make an agreement with them, the agreement stands. Before,
this was not the case and problems festered, now we know who's
in charge, and agreements are reached and problems are solved.
Somebody has to be in charge of the policy of the ocean.
And if it's NOAA, we have to support NOAA. You know, you heard
the zoning of our ocean. You know, we have to zone it right.
There's a right way and there's a wrong way.
The food chain has to be protected in the ocean. You see
all the problems that we have with the food chain right now.
The Chinook salmon, the great Chinook salmon is a prime example
of this. You know, these things have to be protected--our
water, our quantity and our quality--all of these things. You
know, it'll make us look good if we put a policy together where
somebody's in charge.
Thank you.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Frank. I've always said
environmentalists make great ancestors.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cantwell. Dr. Kelso?
Dr. Takahashi-Kelso. Madam Chair, I agree with Mr. Frank.
Somebody does have to be in charge. And I have a disagreement
with my--with Matt Paxton, but I'm sure we could resolve it.
The disagreement----
Senator Cantwell. That's what I'm hoping for.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Takahashi-Kelso. The disagreement is that I don't see
how it happens without a mandate. I think it's very appropriate
that the President has put this in motion. And we think there
is ample authority--ample discretion under existing
authorities--to move forward with a policy. We think there is
also an important role for the Congress. And we think that, in
many ways, the Congress could help simplify and make clearer
what the mandate is. So, there's a basis for, I think resolving
what disagreement we may have.
But, the challenge is that we know we have, right now, a
Swiss cheese of authorities. It is a real mess. Now, that
doesn't mean that individual agencies aren't doing the best job
they can with the authority they have. But, unless we have an
overarching--where--an overarching mandate for pulling these
together and working collaboratively, in an integrated way, to
produce ecosystem-based management, and to put legs on that
through marine spatial planning, I think we are going to
continue to have that Swiss cheese effect.
The ocean policy that is being suggested by the task force
does not take away authorities that Congress has granted. The
regional fishery management councils continue to be the
managers, under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. That's appropriate. We think that they can, and
should, adopt fishery management plans that are based upon
ecosystem-based management principles.
The North Pacific Council recently has done that, and has
also enacted a groundbreaking fishery management plan for the
Arctic. This is exactly the kind of work that they should be
doing. But, unless the fishery managers are at the table with
the other kinds of activities that are going to affect fishing
opportunity, we are going to have greater and greater problems,
because the complexity of activities in the ocean is going to
increase.
Mr. Paxton. If I could just add one point to that, Madam
Chair. I agree, Congress should clarify. And I agree that a lot
of the things that you just articulated weren't Federal
mandates. I think one example we can throw out real quick is,
the Bush Administration used the Antiquities Act to designate
the northern Hawaiian Islands and other places as marine
reserves, no-go zones. The Antiquities Act was written in 1904
to, you know, save ruins in southwest Arizona. It wasn't meant
to establish ocean parks, would be my argument. And I think
when we get into a situation where we try to mandate, because
we think we can--everyone agrees we should save the oceans--you
get into bad results. And that's the only problem I see
happening, if we just try to shoehorn in policies, under
existing laws, that might not have application to the ocean
environment.
Senator Cantwell. I have one last question, and I don't--
Senator Begich, do you have more questions?
The--Mr. Paxton, I wanted to ask you about climate change
and the impact on recreational fisheries. And what do you think
the Federal role should be there? And what do you think we
should do to help on that effort?
Mr. Paxton. Climate change is obviously a very complex and
difficult issue to get your hands around. I think, from the
recreational community, you'll hear this--the recreational
community, and, I think, some from the commercial fishing
industry, would say that they care about a sustainable
resource. You can't go fishing, you can't have, you know, a
fishery, if you don't have a sustainable, healthy resource. To
the extent that climate change is impacting sustainable
fisheries, making the ocean environment unhealthy, so you don't
have the opportunity to get out there and try to go
recreational fishing, I think it's a huge problem.
But, I do think having a coordinated approach under this
interim policy report on climate change would be an effective
way to get at some big, huge concepts, like climate change.
Because there are stovepipings, as you know, within our Federal
Government that are all doing various things on climate change.
If there's a way to coordinate those efforts, that's certainly
a laudable goal and something we should be doing.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Senator Begich, did you have a question?
Senator Begich. [Off mike.]
Senator Cantwell. Well, yes, it----
Mr. Frank, did you want to make a----
Mr. Frank. Madam Chair and our Senator, all I see on
climate change is, the tribes have to be involved. We can bring
so much to the table, you know, in just the knowledge that we
have and the data that we have, and so, you know, we have to be
there. The climate change bill comes through, and, whenever
it's acted on, we have to be part of that.
So, thank you.
Dr. Takahashi-Kelso. Madam Chair, can I--I wasn't going to
say anything, but, Chairman Frank, you're absolutely right. I
mean, my experience, especially in Alaska, is, the tribes and
the elders from generation to generation have--they knew what
was happening before we knew, in the sense of the scientific
world, of what we were--should have been talking about decades
ago. And there's great knowledge within the tribal community
and the elders within--I know, in Alaska and, I'm sure, within
your tribe--that we should engage in an aggressive way on what
we need to be doing, based on what we're seeing in Alaska. I
mean, we're moving whole villages because of the impact. And
there are many other impacts. But, thank you, for those wise
words.
Mr. Frank. Thank you.
Senator Cantwell. Well, thank you all for being here this
morning for this hearing. I know we'll be following up with
many of you on various policies and the implementation of
this--the Committee plans to play a very active role in the
oversight of this--but, obviously, moving forward on something
that does really continue the economic and environmental
vitality of our ocean.
So, we thank you for being good stewards, yourself, and for
your testimony today.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
U.S. Senator from West Virginia
Our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes provide our Nation with
unmatched wealth. Their beauty inspires us. They provide the air we
breathe and the water we drink. They are home to magnificent animals--
whales, dolphins, fish, and corals--that never cease to amaze us.
This Congress, Senator Cantwell and I have made a point to talk
about the enormous wealth and economic support that our oceans and
Great Lakes provide coastal communities, and the United States, as a
whole.
Today's hearing will highlight similar work the Administration is
undertaking on this same front.
In June, the President charged the Council on Environmental Quality
to create an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force to develop
recommendations for a national policy for our oceans, coasts, and Great
Lakes, and he asked them to build a framework for coastal and marine
spatial planning.
The President set out an ambitious plan for the Federal Government
with an ambitious timetable requiring the Task Force to report back in
180 days on its recommendations.
It is time. Forty years ago, the Stratton Commission defined the
structure and substance of a National Ocean Policy. Yet today, ocean
management remains fragmented with an array of laws, regulations, and
practices that confound efforts to protect, manage, and restore our
oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes for future generations.
We have a responsibility to get this right and I look forward to
working with the Administration as it finalizes its recommendations for
a national policy for the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes and
develops a framework for coastal and marine spatial planning.
The Commerce Committee has a longstanding history working on
comprehensive ocean planning and has developed legislation that
balances conservation and human uses, from habitat protection and
national marine sanctuaries to commercial fishing, offshore thermal
energy conversion, and maritime shipping lanes. These issues touch our
lives everyday and will affect our communities for years to come.
The Committee is charged with the comprehensive study and review of
all matters relating to science and technology, oceans policy, and
transportation, and has exercised this interest through its oversight
of: NOAA, the Nation's premier ocean science and resource agency; the
United States Coast Guard, charged with safeguarding our maritime
safety, security, and environment; and, other Federal agencies whose
activities fall within our jurisdiction. The Committee works to make
sure policy decisions are built on and supported by strong science and
technology.
I want to commend the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force for its
hard work. This is a challenging issue. As the Task Force prepares its
final recommendations for the President, I would ask that it consider
the following issues:
1. Give NOAA a central and strong leadership role in any
efforts to improve the national stewardship of our oceans,
coasts, and Great Lakes, and acknowledge the agency's critical
role in the final report and framework;
2. Show us the money. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
provided over 200 recommendations to Congress to improve ocean
and coastal management. The Commission estimated that the new
funding necessary for implementing the recommendations would be
$1.3 billion in the first year and up to $3.87 billion in
ongoing annual costs for NOAA and other Federal agencies.
Senator Cantwell, Senator Snowe, and I have called for $8
billion for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's budget. We must recognize that, in order to
improve and manage our ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
resources effectively, we need to fund these efforts. It is a
wise investment in our Nation's environmental and economic
future.
3. Evaluate existing legislative authorities and determine what
more must be done to improve stewardship, management, and
conservation, while balancing multiple uses in the marine
environment. I hope that the Administration will work with
Congress as it implements the recommendations.
This Committee recognizes that healthy oceans, coasts, and Great
Lakes mean a healthy future. They mean quality jobs, strong industries,
and thriving communities. They are a precious and beautiful natural
resource, and we have a responsibility to protect them.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senator from
Texas
Thank you, Senator Cantwell, for holding this hearing to consider
the Administration's proposed National Ocean Policy.
At 3.4 million square miles, the United States has the world's
largest Exclusive Economic Zone. The safe and sustainable development
of the resources contained within our Exclusive Economic Zone is
vitally important to our Nation's economic health.
From commercial and recreational fishing to shipping to oil and gas
development, the economies of coastal states are closely tied to our
oceans. For example, In the Gulf of Mexico alone, the commercial
fishing industry brings in nearly $1 billion per year to our coastal
economy and our 3.2 million recreational anglers make over 25 million
trips per year. Further, the waters of our shores currently account for
approximately 27 percent of our Nation's domestic oil production and 15
percent of our domestic natural gas production, generating billions of
dollars in economic activity and reducing our dependence on foreign
oil.
A recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) memo outlined how
important these offshore resources are to our national and economic
security. According to CRS, the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) contains
85.8 billion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil. This
represents over half of our entire endowment of technically recoverable
oil which is 166.7 billion barrels. Additionally, the OCS contains
419.8 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered technically recoverable clean
burning natural gas. These reserves make up a significant percentage of
the total value for technically recoverable natural gas which is 1400.4
trillion cubic feet.
These figures represent significant resource potential for our
country. They translate into jobs, economic and national security and
development of these resources mean more revenues for cities, states
and the Federal Government.
We must continue to produce these domestic resources in a
responsible manner. It is important that we continue to take steps to
reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy.
Our offshore resources are a logical step toward reducing our
reliance on the Middle East and Venezuelan energy sources. We must be
mindful of the role the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic, Pacific and Alaskan
OCS can play in our effort to become less reliant upon foreign
countries. Our offshore oil and gas reserves hold tremendous resource
potential if we will develop them responsibly.
Our National Ocean Policy needs to ensure continuing access to our
oceans for both recreational and commercial purposes, and avoid closing
off portions of our Exclusive Economic Zone that have significant
economic value.
The current ocean governance system has worked well in the Gulf of
Mexico through an appropriate balance of economic and environmental
interests. It is vital that any new National Ocean Policy not disrupt
this balance by increasing regulatory burdens and stifling economic
development.
Again, thank you for holding today's hearing. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses on this very important issue.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Hon. Nancy Sutley
Question 1. Harmful Algal Blooms wreak havoc on coastal
communities. In Washington State, a massive toxic algae bloom has
killed over 8,000 seabirds over the last 2 months near Neah Bay--the
largest-ever-recorded kill of seabirds on Washington's coast. Under the
proposed National Ocean Council, who in the Federal Government have the
authority to actually do something about the underlying causes of these
toxic blooms (other than just studying the problem)? How would the new
policy coordination proposed in the Interim Report improve our
government's ability to prevent human-caused toxic algae blooms?
Answer. The National Ocean Council (NOC) would maintain,
strengthen, and coordinate existing authority and responsibility for
monitoring, predicting, and addressing issues such as harmful algal
blooms (HABs) that occur in Washington State and elsewhere in the
country.
Federal Harmful Algal Bloom research and response is mandated by
the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998
and the reauthorization of 2004. This Act establishes a Federal
interagency Task Force, led by NOAA, to coordinate Federal efforts. It
also authorizes NOAA to administer directed HAB research programs
including three applied, competitive national research programs for
HABs to determine the underlying causes and provide tools for
mitigation, response and forecasting.
The NOC structure would provide a sustained, high level forum for
responding to all aspects of HABs in a more coordinated manner,
including linkages with public health agencies and, where indicated,
efforts to address factors causing blooms such as nutrient pollution.
This structure would build off of existing agency efforts and, with the
proposed priority objectives in the Task Force's Interim Report, would
bring to bear major programs of the Federal Government that can address
HAB problems (e.g., ecosystem-based management; water quality and
sustainable practices on land; ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
observations; and infrastructure).
Question 2. One concern expressed about the Interim Report from the
commercial sector is that it shifts the ``balance'' toward
environmental stewardship priorities over economic demands. One of the
nine recommended principles for a national ocean policy is that
decision-making will be guided by a precautionary approach. Can the
precautionary approach be adopted as a feature of our national ocean
policy without bringing use of marine resources to a halt? Could you
explain how CEQ would apply the precautionary approach to ocean
resource use and development, and how it would change how you do
business?
Answer. The Interim Report responds to the President's June 12,
2009 memorandum directing the Task Force to develop recommendations to
``improve stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes''.
Improved stewardship will support not only healthier and more resilient
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and services, but also
benefit the economies (e.g., commercial and recreational activities)
and communities that rely on them. The Task Force believes that
economic growth and improved stewardship of the marine and Great Lakes
environment are inextricably linked.
Application of a precautionary approach, as defined in the Interim
Report (``[w]here there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,
lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation''), is consistent with and essential for improved
stewardship. Moreover, that definition is one to which the United
States has formally agreed by signing and ratifying the 1992 Rio
Declaration. We must ensure that when we enjoy and use ocean, coastal,
and Great Lakes resources, we use the best available information to
make management decisions and minimize adverse environmental effects.
Question 3. At Dr. Lubchenco's confirmation hearing earlier
thisyear, I discussed scientific comments that NOAA, EPA and Fish and
Wildlife Service had submitted to the Minerals Management Service on an
EIS for proposed drilling in the Chukchi Sea in the Arctic Ocean.
Unfortunately, MMS dismissed NOAA's scientific and environmental
expertise and largely ignored the agency's advice. I understand that
NOAA submitted scientific comments to the Department of Interior on the
environmental impacts of the Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil
and Gas Leasing Program for 2010-2015. How can we be sure that this
time NOAA's views will be taken seriously and given the weight they
deserve?
Answer. A healthy environment in the Arctic and elsewhere is an
essential foundation for sustainable resource management that provides
long-term benefits to the Nation. NOAA has a great deal of expertise in
marine science, coastal management, and living marine resources. NOAA
is working with the Department of the Interior and the Administration
to deliver coordinated science-based decision-making and ecosystem
based management as they move through a process to further refine its
five-year plan for oil and gas leasing on the outer continental shelf.
We expect that NOAA and all other relevant Federal agencies will
continue to work together to help DOI shape a five-year oil and gas
leasing plan that effectively addresses the need for domestic sources
of energy and protects environmentally sensitive areas of our oceans
and coasts.
Question 4. Can we expect to see a FY2011 funding request for
implementation of the national ocean policy and marine spatial planning
framework? What is the Administration's position on the establishment
of an Ocean Investment Fund that draws on revenue derived from
commercial activities in Federal waters or perhaps from the auctioning
of carbon credits? Does the Administration plan to develop an
Integrated Ocean Budget that will allow Congress and others to fully
understand and evaluate how limited resources are being used to
implement the proposed recommendations?
Answer. A comprehensive national policy should improve policy
coordination and inform the Administration's budget process, including
the setting of priorities based on available resources, identifying new
areas of investment, and proposing new sources of revenue.
The proposed National Ocean Council (NOC) structure would provide
annual guidance for ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes priorities and
budgets consistent with the goals and objectives of the policies set
forth in existing law and the proposed national ocean policy. The NOC
also would ensure agencies are maximizing available resources across
the Federal Government, in part by promoting partnerships among Federal
agencies, and with State, local, tribal authorities, and the private
sector. One of the nine national priority objectives that addresses
management coordination and support in the Interim Report specifically
describes the need for the NOC to ``evaluate existing or new funding
sources'' and these actions will promote better investments in, and
stewardship of, the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes.
Question 5. The Interim Report does not call out a specific role
for NOAA or acknowledge its unique role--such as managing marine
fisheries, coordinating ocean and coastal observations, or helping
coastal communities through the Coastal Zone Management Act and Sea
Grant Program. I hope this was an oversight of the Task Force and the
final report will acknowledge NOAA vital role in ocean stewardship,
management, and science. In its final recommendations, how does the
Ocean Policy Task Force plan to ensure there will be adequate
leadership to implement its recommendations and address critical ocean
and coastal issues?
Answer. The Task Force considered a variety of options for
improving the governance and management of our Nation's ocean, coasts,
and the Great Lakes. The Task Force believed that the Executive Office
of the President, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), should lead the NOC and provide
the necessary high level engagement identified as a key goal of an
improved governance structure.
The Department of Commerce, in which NOAA resides, would be a
member of the NOC. NOAA is a key agency when it comes to the ocean and
we fully anticipate it will have significant involvement implementing
the National Policy, with the NOC, and supporting the priority
objectives, including effective coastal and marine spatial planning.
Question 6. After the Task Force issues its final recommendations
to the President, what are the next steps and what are the different
options that the President could pursue to implement the
recommendations?
If the Task Force recommendations are implemented, what concrete
changes would we see regarding the Federal Government's involvement in
regional ocean governance efforts like the West Coast
Governors'Agreement?
Answer. The Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine
Spatial Planning (Interim Framework) will soon be completed and will be
issued for public review and comment. Once comments are received and
considered, the Task Force will finalize its recommended framework and
then combine it with the final recommendations for a national policy,
policy coordination structure, and priority objectives.
All potential mechanisms would be considered to implement that Task
Force's recommendations for the near, medium, and long-term. If
established, the National Ocean Council (NOC) would also develop
strategic action plans for the priority objectives identified in the
Interim Report, which could also identify necessary implementation
mechanisms.
The September Interim Report highlights the need to improve the
coordination and collaboration with state, tribal, and local
authorities, and regional governance structures (e.g., West Coast
Governors' Agreement on Ocean Health, Gulf of Mexico Alliance). The
proposed governance structure includes a new advisory committee to
formally engage state and tribal authorities, and regional governance
structures over the long term.
Question 7. The United Nations released a report called ``Blue
Carbon''which recommended a global blue carbon fund for the protection
and management of coastal and marine ecosystems and ocean carbon
sequestration similar to the way credits are offered for green carbon
such as rainforests. Would the Administration support this
recommendation and be willing to actively work to establish this type
of funding domestically and internationally?
Answer. As discussed in the response to question number 4, a
comprehensive national policy should improve policy coordination and
inform the Administration's budget process, including setting
priorities within available resources, identifying new areas of
investment, and proposing new sources of revenue. The proposed National
Ocean Council (NOC) structure expressly contemplates formulation of an
annual budget guidance memorandum on ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
priorities consistent with the goals and objectives of the National
Policy.
Question 8. Under the Task Force's proposed National Ocean Council
structure, how would the Council interact with fisheries management
under the already-existing Regional Fisheries Management Councils?
Many of my constituents in the commercial fishing industry are very
worried that we may be adding another layer of bureaucracy that will
override the current fisheries management system--even in instances and
places where fisheries management is working well, like the North
Pacific. What is your response to these concerns?
Answer. The proposed National Policy will maintain existing
authorities, such as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, but seeks to improve the coordination, collaboration,
and effectiveness of existing structures and processes by providing a
unifying context within which they would operate. Thus, we fully expect
that NOAA would continue to interact with the Fishery Management
Councils through its existing structure as it works to further the
National Policy.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
Hon. Nancy Sutley
Question 1. One initial reaction to the draft policy paper was that
it lacked attention to the economic importance of our oceans to the
Nation. In my opening remarks I noted that Alaska waters provide over
half of all U.S. seafood harvests--over 4 billion pounds annually worth
almost $2 billion. The seafood industry is the largest private sector
employer in the State and coastal communities from the southeast
panhandle to the Aleutian Islands depend on the bounty of the sea.
Alaska waters are critical shipping routes between the west coast
states and Asia, and with the diminishing Arctic ice pack, new, shorter
trade routes to Europe will soon open via the Northeast and Northwest
passages. More than a million visitors cruise our waters annually to
enjoy our spectacular scenery and clean waters. And locked beneath our
Arctic waters is the promise of a substantial supply of oil and clean
burning natural gas to help our Nation meet the energy needs of future
decades.
As an ocean-dependent state, Alaskans care very deeply about the
health of the ocean and sustainable resource management. How will the
economic aspects of the ocean be addressed this in the final report?
Answer. The Interim Report responds to the President's June 12,
2009 memorandum requesting the Task Force to develop recommendations
for a national policy and a policy coordination framework ``to improve
the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes.'' As
such, the report includes a National Stewardship Policy for the Ocean,
Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes. Improved stewardship will support
healthier and more resilient ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems
and services, and benefit the economies (e.g., commercial and
recreational activities) and communities that rely on them. The Task
Force believes that economic growth and improved stewardship of the
marine and Great Lakes environment are inextricably linked. While the
Interim Report did not single out individual sectors for discussion,
the Task Force recognized the significant economic importance of the
ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes.
Question 2. Concerns have been raised about how the budget for the
work envisioned in the oceans policy would be funded, and whether it
would come from shifting program funding from existing responsibilities
that are equally necessary such as fisheries enforcement, search and
rescue, and the like? Could you comment on funding for the new oceans
initiative and how that would impact existing agency funding?
Answer. A comprehensive national policy should improve policy
coordination and inform the Administration's budget process, including
setting priorities based on available resources, identifying new areas
of investment, and proposing new sources of revenue. The proposed
National Ocean Council (NOC) structure expressly contemplates
formulation of an annual budget guidance memorandum on ocean, coastal,
and Great Lakes priorities consistent with the goals and objectives of
the National Policy. The NOC would also have the responsibility to help
ensure agencies are maximizing the effectiveness of existing resources
across the Federal Government, including partnerships among Federal
agencies, and with state, local, tribal authorities, and the private
sector. These actions should move us toward better investments in, and
stewardship of, the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes.
Question 3. This new policy would establish a National Ocean
Council with 25 members including cabinet members and agency heads.
This Council has seats for HHS, Agriculture, Labor, Attorney General,
even NASA has a seat on the Oceans Council but the one agency nominally
charged with oceans, NOAA, does not. How does this Council and policies
thereof affect the role of this Nation's ocean agency, NOAA? How will
the National Oceans Council, co-chaired by CEQ and OSTP interact with
NOAA?
Answer. The Task Force considered a variety of options for
improving the governance and management of our Nation's ocean, coasts,
and the Great Lakes. The Task Force believed that the Executive Office
of the President, CEQ and OSTP, should lead the National Ocean Council
(NOC) and provide the necessary high level engagement identified as a
key goal of an improved governance structure.
The Department of Commerce, in which NOAA resides, would be a
member of the NOC. NOAA is a key agency when it comes to the ocean and
we fully anticipate it will play a significant role implementing the
National Policy, coordinating with the NOC, and supporting the priority
objectives, including coastal and marine spatial planning.
Question 4. Fishermen's concerns about ocean zoning are similar to
those they've experienced on land, which hasn't always been good. Many
fishermen have seen waterfront property taken away by condo and
restaurant developers. Sen. Collins has introduced the Working
Waterfront Preservation Act to protect such traditional uses.
What assurances can you give fishermen that Marine Spatial Planning
will include fisheries and that their livelihoods won't be zoned out of
existence? How do I address my constituency's concerns that a one-size-
fits-all National Ocean Policy will be implemented in the U.S. EEZ off
Alaska which lacks regional relevance and utility?
Answer. The Task Force was charged with developing a framework for
effective coastal and marine spatial planning. As such, it would not
contain zoning maps, or identify areas either accessible or off limits
to any particular activity. Rather, the framework would set the stage
for a collaborative, regionally-based process for coastal and marine
spatial planning around the country. In developing the Interim
Framework, the Task Force received a number of comments on the
importance of providing flexibility and accounting for regional
differences, and the need to provide for extensive stakeholder and
public participation.
Question 5. Currently, the Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research
Program is funded through the National Science Foundation and the North
Pacific Research Board to study the effects of climate change on the
Bering Sea ecosystem. At the Task Force's hearing in Anchorage, the
U.S. Arctic Research Commission suggested that the work of the Bering
Sea Program be expanded to research in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.
How will the new Ocean Policy promote climate change and ecosystem
research in the Arctic? Will an integrated Arctic research plan be a
part of the new National Ocean Policy?
Answer. The Task Force Interim Report expressly recognizes the
rapidly changing environment in the Arctic and the vulnerabilities and
opportunities this creates. The Task Force report has identified
specific suggestions pertaining to this important region. The Interim
Report provides that the strategic action plan to be developed by the
National Ocean Council for the Arctic address ``[i] mprovement of the
scientific understanding of the Arctic system and how it is changing in
response to climate-induced and other changes.'' Working with all
stakeholders, including Alaska Native communities, the Task Force
recognizes that it has the opportunity to develop proactive plans,
informed by the best science available, to manage and encourage use
while protecting the fragile Arctic environment.
Question 6. During witness testimony on the second panel of the
November 4th Subcommittee Hearing, Matt Paxton gave an example of the
Bush Administration's use of the Antiquities Act to set aside the
Mariana Trench as a no fishing zone to illustrate outcomes that can
result from extra-statutory Federal ocean policy. What assurances do
ocean stakeholders, who rely on the sea for their livelihood,
recreation, and cultural and spiritual wellbeing, have that the
National Ocean Council will not implement restrictions that are not
explicitly contemplated, conceived and authorized in law?
Answer. There are no regulations or restrictions proposed in the
Interim Report, nor does the proposed National Policy create new or
alter existing authorities. Rather it seeks to ensure improved
collaboration and coordination among them and the agencies that
administer them.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Hon. Jane Lubchenco
Question 1. Harmful Algal Blooms wreak havoc on coastal
communities. In Washington State, a massive toxic algae bloom has
killed over 8,000 seabirds over the last 2 months near Neah Bay--the
largest-ever-recorded kill of seabirds on Washington's coast. Other
than studying the issue more, what else should we be doing to tackle
this emerging problem?
Answer. NOAA greatly appreciates the efforts of this Committee, and
the Committees on Science and Technology and Natural Resources of the
U.S. House of Representatives, to focus on this issue through
reauthorization of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act of 1998 (HABHRCA). We strongly support reauthorization of
HABHRCA. Over the last 10 years we have made enormous progress in
understanding the causes and consequences of HABs and hypoxia, leading
to the development of many tools and information products which, in
turn, have directly improved HAB and hypoxia management, particularly
in the area of prediction and mitigation. We anticipate that in the
next 10 years we will continue to make progress and our ability to
prevent and control, as well as mitigate, HAB events will be greatly
enhanced.
In late October, NOAA, state, and university researchers joined an
ongoing regional effort to respond to a major seabird mortality and
stranding event in the Pacific Northwest. Thousands of seabirds of
multiple species appear to have been impacted by a widespread Harmful
Algal Bloom (HAB) of the algal species Akashiwo sanguinea. The HAB,
while believed to be nontoxic to humans, produces soap-like foam that
removes the waterproofing on avian feathers, making it harder for birds
to fly and promotes the onset of hypothermia.
In order to discuss region-specific HAB issues and begin to develop
a West Coast Regional Research and Action Plan to tackle this emerging
problem, NOAA organized a 2009 West Coast HAB Summit which brought
together 80 leading scientists, managers, and industry representatives.
At the Summit, the representatives also endorsed the vision of the West
Coast Governor's Agreement on Ocean Health to establish a regional HAB
monitoring, alert and response network and forecasting system. Seizing
on the opportunities of new and emerging technologies and research,
this system will provide advanced early warning of HABs, minimize
fishery closures, protect the economy of coastal communities, mitigate
the impacts to marine life and protect public health.
The West Coastal Governors' Agreement on Ocean Health and its
member states are currently integrating specific actions to promote
interstate coordination of HAB research and monitoring efforts. These
are articulated in their recently released Action Plan, which is
available at http://westcoastoceans.gov/docs/WCGA_Action
Plan_low-resolution.pdf.
Question 2. One criticism of the Interim Report from the commercial
sector is that it shifts the ``balance'' toward environmental
stewardship priorities over economic demands. One of the nine
recommended principles for a national ocean policy is that
decisionmaking will be guided by a precautionary approach. Can the
precautionary approach be adopted as a feature of our national ocean
policy without bringing use of marine resources to a halt? Could you
explain how NOAA would apply the precautionary approach to ocean
resource management, use and development, and how it would change how
you do business?
Answer. The Interim Report responds to the President's June 12th
memorandum directing the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force to develop
recommendations to ``improve stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and
the Great Lakes.'' Improved stewardship will not only support healthier
and more resilient ocean, coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems and the
services they provide, but also the communities and economies that
depend upon those services.
The language in the Interim Report specifically states: ``Decisions
affecting the ocean, our coasts, and Great Lakes should be informed by
and consistent with the best available science.'' When full scientific
certainty is not available, it is important decisions are made
carefully to avoid serious or irreversible impacts. Application of a
precautionary approach, as defined in the Interim Report (``w]here
there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-
effective measures to prevent environmental degradation''), is
consistent with and essential for improved stewardship. Moreover, that
definition is one to which the United States has formally agreed by
signing and ratifying the 1992 Rio Declaration. We must ensure that
when we enjoy and use ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources, we use
the best available information to make management decisions and
minimize adverse environmental effects.
Question 3. At your confirmation hearing earlier this year, I
discussed scientific comments that NOAA, EPA and Fish and Wildlife
Service had submitted to the Minerals Management Service on an EIS for
proposed drilling in the Chukchi Sea in the Arctic Ocean.
Unfortunately, MMS dismissed NOAA's scientific and environmental
expertise and largely ignored the agency's advice. In your view, how
should the Ocean Task Force's recommendations play into these kind of
decisions on offshore oil and gas drilling?
Answer. The recommendations found in the Interagency Ocean Policy
Task Force's Interim Report are draft recommendations and have not been
finalized yet. It remains to be determined how and when the President
would choose to act upon those final recommendations and how existing
processes would then be incorporated into the implementation and
execution of the National Ocean Policy.
Question 4. Some critics of the Ocean Policy Task Force's Interim
Report suggest that goals such as protecting ecosystem health and
biological diversity will be difficult, if not impossible, to translate
into concrete action and requirements by Federal agencies. How can the
Administration translate these broad goals into tangible actions in and
on the water? What do you see as the greatest challenges and greatest
benefits in this regard?
Answer. The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force's Interim Report
outlines nine principles that if implemented would guide the U.S.
Government in developing management decisions and actions affecting the
ocean, coasts and Great Lakes. These principles include the following
essential concepts: decisions should be informed by and consistent with
best available science and guided by the precautionary approach;
ecosystem-based and adaptive management approaches should be utilized;
and current and future uses of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
resources should be managed and effectively balanced in a way that
maintains and enhances the environmental sustainability of multiple
uses. The entire suite of principles, when applied government-wide,
will serve to make significant changes in how we manage our oceans,
coasts and Great Lakes.
One of the challenges in applying the National Policy and
implementing the principles will be the need to continually improve our
understanding of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. Meeting
this challenge will require disciplinary and interdisciplinary science,
research, monitoring, modeling, forecasting, exploration and assessment
to continue to improve our understanding of the consequences of
management decisions on ocean, coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems, as
well as the long-term health and well-being of the population,
including human health and safety. The ultimate benefit of this effort
will be the consistent application of the policies government-wide, to
achieve the vision set forth in the Task Force's Interim Report: ``An
America whose stewardship ensures that the ocean, our coasts and the
Great Lakes are healthy and resilient, safe and productive, and
understood and treasured so as to promote the well-being, prosperity,
and security of present and future generations.''
Question 5. Under the Task Force's proposed National Ocean Council
structure, how would the Council interact with fisheries management
under the already-existing Regional Fisheries Management Councils? Many
of my constituents in the commercial fishing industry are very worried
that we may be adding another layer of bureaucracy that will override
the current fisheries management system--even in instances and places
where fisheries management is working well, like the North Pacific.
What is your response to these concerns?
Answer. Activities that affect the ocean environment will only
continue to increase in the years ahead, and effective planning
processes are the best way to ensure that the consequences of decisions
are appropriately considered in order to minimize conflicts between
these activities. As currently envisioned, the National Ocean Council
would serve primarily as a coordinating and priority-setting entity,
and would provide a mechanism to better coordinate activities across
agencies that contribute to national goals and objectives. The
structure of the National Ocean Council is intended to provide for
greater participation by, and coordination of, State, tribal, and local
authorities, and regional governance structures, but is not intended to
impair or override existing statutory authorities. The fisheries
management system must be an active participant in ocean planning to
ensure the needs of fishing communities are considered, and that
productive, sustainable fisheries can be maintained even as the number
and diversity of activities in the ocean environment increase.
Question 5a. This Committee is dedicated to ensuring that the
ending-overfishing deadlines we put into the Magnuson-Stevens Act in
2006 stand firm. Does NOAA agree that these are important deadlines to
meet? To what extent will the National Ocean Policy address the need to
end overfishing and ensure fishermen can stay in business?
Answer. Ending overfishing is critical to rebuilding our Nation's
fish stocks and in this regard, NOAA is working hard to implement the
requirements and meet the statutory deadlines of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (MSA). NOAA
believes that the recommendations made for a National Policy, if
implemented, will be consistent with the MSA requirements, and the
focus on cross-agency coordination should help to address environmental
issues that are affecting fishery sustainability, but are outside of
the scope of the MSA (e.g., non point source pollution, destruction of
coastal habitat).
Question 6. NOAA's 2008 recovery plan for the Puget Sound Southern
Resident Orcas called for significant financial investments ($15
million over the first 5 years) to help recover this critically
endangered icon of the Pacific Northwest. Unfortunately, NOAA has only
budgeted about $1 million each year for FY2009 and FY2010. NOAA has
made nowhere near the necessary investment. What can the Task Force or
National Oceans Council can do to make up for an inadequate NOAA budget
for orca recovery (or any ocean issue)? Will any of the Task Force
recommendations help push recovery for endangered marine species like
Puget Sound's Southern Resident Orcas?
Answer. In the cost estimates for recovery, some of the $15 million
for the first 5 years is attributed to actions for which NOAA is the
lead responsible party, while many of the actions include other
responsible parties as well. Given the range of threats to the
population (e.g., contaminants, vessel impacts, oil spills), the
recovery of Southern Resident Orcas will require coordination among a
variety of government agencies and stakeholder groups, as identified in
the Recovery Plan.
The interim report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force
includes a number of high level national priority objectives that are
consistent with recovery of Southern Resident Orcas, and will also
involve a wide variety of Federal, state and local entities. For
example, support for ecosystem-based management will benefit orcas by
providing a framework for managing multiple resources that considers
the importance of restoring fish populations, sensitive species, and
habitats. Adequate understanding of the impacts of human activities and
efforts to educate the public regarding those impacts and stewardship
opportunities (as described in the interim report under ``Inform
Decisions and Improve Understanding'') will also inform management and
contribute to recovery of Southern Resident Orcas and their salmon
prey. One of the areas of special emphasis in the report, Regional
Ecosystem Protection and Restoration, specifically identifies habitat
loss and degradation of ecosystem services in Puget Sound, and
highlights protection and restoration of protected species.
Question 7. I'm very interested in figuring out how NOAA and other
Federal agencies can play a larger role in helping local, state, and
regional efforts to restore estuaries such as the Puget Sound. What
concrete changes would we see under the Task Force recommendations that
would increase NOAA's contribution to efforts like the Puget Sound
Partnership? At the end of the day, would you agree that NOAA needs a
stronger budget to contribute to such efforts?
Answer. The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force's suggested
implementation strategy includes nine priority objectives that the
Nation should pursue to implement the National Policy. Taken together,
these objectives will lead NOAA and other Federal agencies to
improvements on many fronts, including assisting in local, state, and
regional efforts. In particular, the following principles, as described
in the interim report, will help NOAA and other Federal agencies
address these efforts: ``Ecosystem Based Management,'' ``Coordinate and
Support,'' and ``Regional Ecosystem Protection and Restoration.'' These
focus areas are not new to NOAA, as the agency has a number of existing
programs and efforts that work with local, state, and regional partners
around the country, such as the Puget Sound Partnership.
In addition, NOAA's Regional Collaboration effort focuses and
coordinates NOAA activities in eight regions around the country. The
purpose of this effort is to improve NOAA's productivity and value to
customers by integrating program activities to address NOAA's
priorities at both the national and regional scale, while using
existing authority and accountability structures.
The Administration has many competing priorities for limited
resources and must balance these priorities in developing the annual
budget request. We understand your concern about this region and expect
that changes instituted through implementation of the Ocean Policy Task
Force's recommendations would strengthen local, state and regional
efforts, such as those in the Puget Sound.
Question 8. The United Nations released a report called ``Blue
Carbon'' which recommended a global blue carbon fund for the protection
and management of coastal and marine ecosystems and ocean carbon
sequestration similar to the way credits are offered for green carbon
such as rainforests. Would the Administration support this
recommendation and be willing to actively work to establish this type
of funding domestically and internationally?
Answer. A comprehensive national policy should improve policy
coordination and inform the Administration's budget process, including
prioritizing within existing resources, identifying new areas of
investment, and proposing new sources of revenue. The proposed National
Ocean Council (NOC) structure expressly contemplates formulation of an
annual budget guidance memorandum on ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
priorities consistent with the goals and objectives of the National
Policy. ``Blue Carbon'' acknowledges the importance of coastal and
marine ecosystems to the global carbon cycle, and the opportunities to
protect and manage coastal habitats for their value in sequestering
carbon in addition to the other multiple benefits they provide.
Question 9. As we've explored in this subcommittee, ocean
acidification has only recently been recognized within the scientific
community. NOAA is largely a science-based agency, so it is at the
forefront of understanding and acting on ocean acidification. What
other Federal agencies will be impacted by ocean acidification or play
a role in dealing with its impacts and how is NOAA coordinating with
them?
Answer. It is anticipated that ocean acidification will affect all
coastal and ocean ecosystems. As directed within the Federal Ocean
Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of 2009, the Joint
Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology of the National Science
and Technology Council is coordinating Federal activities on ocean
acidification through an interagency working group. This working group
is chaired by NOAA and is comprised of senior representatives from
NOAA, National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of State, and the U.S. Navy. The interagency working
group is working to further interagency ocean acidification planning
and to establish mechanisms to share and exchange information on agency
ocean acidification activities.
Question 10. The Ocean Policy Task Force Interim Report calls for a
special emphasis on strengthening Federal and non-Federal ocean
observing systems, sensors, and data collection platforms, integrating
these components into a national system, and integrating that national
system into observation efforts at the international level. How will
NOAA use its authority under the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observing
Act to strengthen ocean observations?
Answer. As the lead Federal agency for the implementation and
administration of the National Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation
System established in the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation
System Act of 2009 (Act), NOAA is collaborating with its Federal and
non-Federal partners to build a robust national Integrated Ocean
Observing System (IOOS). For example, NOAA is working to integrate
coastal and ocean observing capabilities among Federal agencies, and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers placed a permanent employee in the
U.S. IOOS office at NOAA to facilitate this effort. In addition, NOAA
continued a competitive, merit-based funding process in FY 2009 to
enhance regional observing systems and achieve three long-term goals:
(1) establish coordinated regional observing and data management
infrastructures; (2) develop applications and products for regional
stakeholders; and (3) craft regional and national data management and
communications protocols.
In order to realize the full potential of the national IOOS
envisioned in the Act, NOAA is working closely with its partners to
create a well-coordinated, national network of observation strategies
and systems; identify gaps in our Nation's ocean observing
capabilities; and provide information needed to help decision-makers
improve safety, enhance the economy, and protect the environment. The
Act establishes a legal framework for achieving these objectives and
also supports the use of basic and applied research to develop, test,
and deploy improved and innovative observing technologies, modeling
systems, and other scientific and technological capabilities. NOAA
plays a leadership role in coordinating and implementing the U.S. IOOS,
and is collaborating with international partners to integrate U.S.
ocean observations into the Global Ocean Observing System, which is the
ocean component of an even larger network known as the Global Earth
Observation System of Systems.
Question 11. Earlier this year, you announced the creation of a
Catch Shares Task Force. Will NOAA be issuing an interim report from
that Task Force? What steps is NOAA taking to ensure that this process
integrates the findings and recommendations of the Ocean Policy Task
Force and vice versa?
Answer. NOAA released a draft catch share policy for public review
and comment on December 10, 2009. The comment period will last 120 days
and NOAA will be meeting with each Regional Fishery Management Council
and stakeholder groups during this period to solicit input and
feedback. The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force issued its interim
report on ocean governance in September and held a 30 day comment
period; a final report and recommendations are still pending. NOAA
shared the draft catch share policy with the Ocean Policy Task Force,
and NOAA members on the Ocean Policy Task Force have been directly
involved in the formulation of the draft catch share policy. The draft
NOAA catch share policy comment period is sufficiently long enough to
ensure any final Ocean Policy Task Force findings and recommendations
from the President and/or the Council on Environmental Quality will be
accounted for in the final NOAA catch share policy.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Barbara Boxer to
Hon. Jane Lubchenco
Question 1. What is the NOAA's vision for rebuilding our Nation's
fisheries, both using its own authorities and working in collaboration
with the other member agencies of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task
Force? What barriers exist to implementing strategies to restore
fisheries?
Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act (MSA) mandate to rebuild overfished stocks was
enacted in 1996, and the first rebuilding plans under the new law came
into place in the late 1990s. Currently, we have 51 active rebuilding
plans. Sixteen other plans have resulted in successful rebuilding of
overfished fish stocks.
NOAA's Fisheries Service continues to work with the Regional
Fishery Management Councils to implement the rebuilding provisions of
the MSA. The most important factor in rebuilding most overfished stocks
is adequate control of fishing mortality. NOAA's Fisheries Service
believes that the annual catch limit and accountability measures
required by MSA, which will be implemented in all fisheries by 2011,
will improve our ability to prevent overfishing and achieve rebuilding
goals.
However, there are other factors that affect fishery sustainability
that are more difficult for fishery managers to control, particularly
as it relates to factors related to non-fishing impacts to habitat and
upland sources of habitat degradation. For example, effective
management of activities that affect the quantity or quality of
important habitat, particularly areas needed for successful
reproduction and early life stages, is essential both to rebuilding and
to long term sustainability of fisheries. NOAA believes ocean policies
should ensure that protection of essential fish habitat is given high
priority in ocean planning efforts. In addition, NOAA, together with
the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency,
is working to conserve coastal and estuarine habitats that are vital to
spawning and juvenile fish rearing. The National Ocean Council
structure could help achieve such objectives.
Rebuilding is particularly complicated in fisheries where
significant mortality occurs from international fishing, or fishing in
state or territorial waters, and where there is lack of agreement on
rebuilding goals or management measures among the various
jurisdictions. The National Ocean Council forum, which brings together
agencies and also is intended to reach out to state, tribal, and local
authorities, and regional governance structures, may serve a valuable
role in allowing such issues to be raised in the context of national
objectives for coastal and ocean environmental and economic
sustainability.
Question 2. Will the Task Force's efforts to improve coordination
of Federal ocean management authorities help to clarify the appropriate
authorities for permitting offshore aquaculture operations? How is NOAA
moving forward to work with the Minerals Management Service and other
agencies to clarify its authority over pending offshore aquaculture
proposals?
Answer. The improvements in Federal ocean management and
coordination called for in the interim report of the Interagency Ocean
Policy Task Force would help advance NOAA's goal of achieving a
coordinated national approach to regulating aquaculture in Federal
waters. NOAA is currently developing a national aquaculture policy that
will take into account the need for a transparent regulatory structure
that: (1) clarifies the authorities of NOAA and other Federal agencies
under multiple statutes; and (2) provides a coordinated Federal
regulatory process that will both protect the environment and provide
regulatory certainty to enable sustainable aquaculture to develop in
Federal waters. In addition to the national aquaculture policy, NOAA
has worked with the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force to develop a
draft recommended framework for effective coastal and marine spatial
planning that will address activities and uses like offshore
aquaculture. This Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine
Spatial Planning is out for public comment until February 12, 2010,
after which the recommendations will be finalized for the President.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
Hon. Jane Lubchenco
Question 1. In your prepared remarks: you say if the Oceans Task
Force recommendations are adopted, it ``could require NOAA to modify
and re-prioritize some of its missions and data gathering
responsibilities.'' What modifications and reprioritization do you
envision? How will this affect current NOAA duties in fisheries
research and management? How will this reprioritization affect budgets?
Answer. The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force's Interim Report
contains an implementation strategy that proposes nine priority
objectives. The first four, which together frame How We Do Business,
represent overarching ways in which the Federal Government must operate
differently or better to improve stewardship of the ocean, our coasts,
and the Great Lakes (ecosystem-based management, coastal and marine
spatial planning, inform decisions and improve understanding, and
coordinate and support). The implementation strategy also identifies
five Areas of Special Emphasis, each of which represents a substantive
area of particular importance to achieving the National Policy. These
priority areas of work seek to address some of the most pressing
challenges facing the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes
(Resiliency and adaptation to climate change and ocean acidification,
regional ecosystem protection and restoration, water quality and
sustainable practices on land, changing conditions in the Arctic, and
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes observations and infrastructure).
For each of these priority objectives, the National Ocean Council
(NOC) would be responsible for, and oversee development of, a strategic
action plan within six to twelve months from its establishment. Each of
these plans would focus on the obstacles and opportunities for each
objective but would also include, among other things: (1) explicit
identification of key lead and participating agencies; (2)
identification of gaps and needs in science and technology; and (3)
identification of potential resource requirements and efficiencies
along with steps for integrating or coordinating current and out-year
budgets.
It is possible that NOAA, working in coordination with the other
agencies on the NOC to develop and implement these strategic action
plans, may be required to make some changes or adjust priorities.
However, until this planning takes place, it is unclear what the
specific needs will be and whether NOAA would be required to make any
adjustments (within its existing legislative mandates and
responsibilities) to meet those needs.
Question 2. Additionally, you say the policy will require ``Line
office elements of NOAA to focus on working with the many external
partners to support ecosystem-based management of the oceans.'' Which
external partners are you talking about, what are their roles and
responsibilities, how will they interact with Federal entities already
working on ecosystem management such as regional fishery management
councils?
Answer. Using an ecosystem-based approach to management is not new
to NOAA. NOAA currently collaborates with many external parties, such
as those from academia, local and state governments, tribal
governments, industry and non-governmental organizations, to better
understand our ocean, coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems and human uses
of these ecosystems. The statement you refer to simply reflects the
need to continue to reach out to partners and work cooperatively
together in order to leverage resources to support our information
needs for ecosystem-based management.
Question 3. I am a strong supporter of ensuring that development in
our oceans is responsible and based on the best available scientific
information. In your comments on the upcoming Minerals Management
Service leasing plan you wrote ``NOAA believes that no leasing should
occur in the Arctic Seas . . . until additional information is gathered
and additional research is conducted and evaluated regarding oil spill
risk, response and preparedness to spills; and possible human dimension
impacts from oil and gas exploration activities and potential oil
spills.'' While I support such research as we move forward to
responsibly develop domestic energy reserves, I am concerned that
bringing our leasing program to a halt will hinder our ability to
provide for the Nation's energy security. How do you justify a complete
halt to leasing activity? Since scientists are always asking tough
questions to improve our knowledge, what level of science is enough to
proceed? At what point do we decide that enough science has been
produced?
Answer. On September 21, 2009, NOAA responded to the Minerals
Management Service request for comments on the Draft Proposed Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2010-2015 (DPP). This
response was intended as a set of informal comments that transmitted
our initial thoughts regarding the DPP, and to initiate a dialogue
between the agencies on the issues identified. Since September,
multiple meetings have been held between NOAA and Department of
Interior leadership to discuss these and other important issues related
to oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). NOAA
appreciates the chance to work closely with the Department of the
Interior to ensure that decisions concerning energy exploration and
development on the OCS are based on adequate and sound science, and
afford an appropriate level of protection to NOAA's trust resources.
NOAA believes that it is important to take a precautionary and well
planned approach to potential development in the region due to the
sensitivity of the Arctic environment and the significant stress that
climate change places on systems and natural resources. A higher level
of scientific knowledge about the Arctic ecosystem is critical to
better understanding of the potential impacts of Federal Government
management actions on Arctic ecosystem functions and services. NOAA has
a direct programmatic interest in the region based on our living marine
resource, coastal management, and oil spill response responsibilities.
Our comments focus on this concern and the need to improve our
understanding of the fragile and rapidly changing Arctic ecosystem, our
ability to respond to potential Arctic oil and chemical spills, and our
ability to measure the ecosystem impacts of development in the region.
The Administration has an important focus on growing the blue-green
economy and domestic energy sources, and we also have a responsibility
to help shape that objective in a strategic and precautionary fashion
in order to do the most we can to avoid future environmental
catastrophes. Targeting the needs, gathering additional science related
to the Arctic ecosystems, as well as improving oil spill response
capabilities in the Arctic, are critical to enabling responsible
development to proceed.
Question 4. In your September 21 letter to the MMS, you also
recommend that further OCS leasing should be put on hold until the
Ocean Policy Task Force has released its recommendation and directives
and a comprehensive Marine Spatial Plan is complete. What time-frame do
you envision for completion of the spatial plan? How will halting the
lease schedule until it is complete affect our Nation's ability to
responsibly develop domestic energy reserves?
Answer. As required by the President's Memorandum, the Interagency
Ocean Policy Task Force's recommendations on a draft Framework for
Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning was delivered to the
President on December 9, 2009 and has now been released for 60 days of
public comment. Following this period, the recommendations will be
finalized for the President. The comments offered by NOAA to the
Department of the Interior were intended as a set of informal comments
that transmitted our initial thoughts regarding the draft proposed
program. NOAA did not intend for the response to be viewed as a formal
set of comments, or for the response to be included as part of the
public record. Instead, the response was intended to initiate a
dialogue between the agencies on the issues identified.
Question 5. I am a supporter of the need to bring more science to
the challenges our oceans face, especially in the Arctic, but have yet
to see a roadmap of just who is doing what there. To that end I
introduced S. 1562, the Arctic Ocean Research and Science Policy Review
Act that calls for a National Academy review of work underway and
analysis of gaps in our scientific understanding. Could you comment on
the need for such a review and gap analysis?
Answer. NOAA strongly agrees that there is a critical need for
improved scientific information and baselines for understanding and
evaluating climate change and its effects as well as impacts from
increased human uses of the Arctic. Efforts to conduct a gap analysis
and establish a more cohesive, coordinated, and integrated approach
toward Arctic research could be very beneficial to the U.S. and
international community. Commerce and other interested agencies are
reviewing S. 1562.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to
Hon. Jane Lubchenco
Question 1. I recently learned that you sent a letter on September
21, 2009, after having sent comments on September 9, 2009, to the
Minerals Management Service urging the Interior Department to
drastically reduce plans in the Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf
Oil and Gas Leasing Program (DPP) to open new areas to offshore oil and
gas development. This letter also stated your position that the DPP
should be consistent with the recommendations of the Ocean Policy Task
Force and include marine spatial planning.
(a) Does the letter dated September 21 and the comments dated
September 9 represent NOAA's official position on the DPP?
Answer. On September 21, 2009, NOAA responded to the Minerals
Management Service request for comments on the Draft Proposed Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2010-2015 (DPP). This
response was intended as a set of informal comments that transmitted
our initial thoughts regarding the DPP. NOAA did not intend for the
response to be viewed as a formal set of comments, or for the response
to be included as part of the public record. Instead, the response was
intended to initiate a dialogue between the agencies on the issues
identified. Since September, multiple meetings have been held between
NOAA and Department of the Interior leadership to discuss these and
other important issues related to oil and gas leasing on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS). NOAA appreciates the chance to work closely
with the Department of the Interior to ensure that energy exploration
and development on the OCS is based on sound science and affords an
appropriate level of protection to NOAA's trust resources.
(b) Were these formal or informal interagency comments?
Answer. As noted in (a) above, the response was intended as a set
of informal comments.
(c) Are these comments on the official docket within the DPP
comment period? Is it proper for an agency to base any formal policy or
rulemaking on informal comments, where the public has had no official
venue to view or respond to such comments?
Answer. NOAA defers the question as to whether the comments are on
the official docket to the Department of the Interior.
A Federal agency may, as part of the inter-agency review and
comment process, consider informal comments submitted by another
Federal agency even though those comments have not been made available
for public review. Comments of this type would likely be treated as
interagency communications of a pre-decisional/deliberative nature and
may be withheld from public review.
(d) Do you intend to make NOAA's comments on the DPP available to
the public?
Answer. Because these comments were developed as part of an ongoing
discussion with another Federal agency, NOAA does not currently plan to
release them to the public.
(e) How would you incorporate the Ocean Policy Task Force
recommendations in the DPP?
Answer. The proposed recommendations found in the Interagency Ocean
Policy Task Force's Interim Report and Interim Framework for Effective
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning have not yet been finalized. It
would be inappropriate for NOAA to speculate on how and when the
President would choose to act upon the Task Force's final
recommendations, once completed, and how existing processes would then
be incorporated into their implementation.
Question 2. Do you view marine spatial planning as a tool to create
and identify new marine reserves?
Answer. Coastal and marine spatial planning is a tool to achieve
ecological, economic, and social objectives. Such planning is intended
to allow for the reduction of cumulative impacts from human uses on
marine ecosystems, provide greater certainty for the public and private
sector regarding new investments, and reduce conflicts among uses. As
part of the planning process, areas of special ecological significance
could be identified and considered for additional protection when
weighed against other planning objectives. In addition, as part of any
planning process, consideration of specific activities and uses, or any
combination of activities or uses, should involve a transparent, public
process to ensure stakeholders have the opportunity to provide input.
Question 3. Currently, the Fishery Management Councils have the
authority to regulate the fisheries in our Exclusive Economic Zone.
However, they have very limited authority to regulate fisheries in
marine reserves, such as sanctuaries. If you create new marine
reserves, who would have the primary authority to regulate the
fisheries within the reserve boundaries?
Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSA) is the primary authority for management of Federal fisheries
in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Pursuant to the MSA, NOAA's
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) manages our Nation's domestic
fisheries through fishery management plans and regulations. While
fishery management councils (FMC) do not have regulatory authority, the
MSA requires that, in most cases, management decisions be based on
recommendations from the FMCs.
The MSA establishes a framework for the conservation and management
of fisheries, which includes preventing overfishing and recovering
overfished stocks, achieving optimum yield, using the best available
science, minimizing bycatch, and protecting habitat, among other
things. The MSA authorizes FMCs to recommend and NMFS to implement
zones where fishing is limited or prohibited, and to take various
actions to conserve target and non-target species and habitat.
Using a transparent public process, national marine sanctuaries are
designated by NOAA to protect and comprehensively manage areas of the
marine environment that are of special national significance. Under the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), NOAA is authorized to regulate
fishing and non-fishing activities. The NMSA requires that NOAA provide
the relevant FMC with an opportunity to prepare draft NMSA fishing
regulations when NOAA determines that such management measures are
necessary in the Exclusive Economic Zone portion of these areas. To
date, only a few national marine sanctuaries have areas within them
where fishing and other forms of extraction are prohibited. Currently,
there are no sanctuaries that are completely closed to all forms of
extraction.
NOAA considers both the NMSA and the MSA as tools that could be
used exclusively or in conjunction to meet the goals and objectives of
the national marine sanctuaries, including objectives related to the
establishment of marine reserves. Each national marine sanctuary is
unique, and the regulatory options are evaluated by NOAA on a case-by-
case basis to determine which mechanism is most appropriate to meet the
stated goals and objectives of a sanctuary. National marine sanctuaries
are established by NOAA through a highly transparent process that
affords the public numerous opportunities to participate in the
creation, and subsequent management, of the sanctuaries. This process
allows for input into the articulation of a proposed sanctuary's goals
and objectives prior to its establishment. Similarly, NOAA's management
plan review process allows for additional public input in subsequent
stages of a sanctuary's lifespan.
In an effort to better communicate NOAA's decision-making processes
and improve coordination, NOAA has produced internal operational
guidelines that clearly explain the process for deciding under what
authority fishing regulations within sanctuaries will be effectuated.
The guidelines also describe the roles that FMCs, federally-recognized
Indian Tribes, state and Federal agencies, sanctuary advisory councils,
sanctuary users, and other interested parties play in this process. The
guidelines are available on NOAA's website at: http://
sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/national/fishing_071708.pdf.
Question 4. The Interim Report proposes several new concepts to be
used in ocean governance that have not been defined.
(a) How would you define Marine Spatial Planning?
Answer. The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force's December 9, 2009,
Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
defines coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) as, ``A
comprehensive, adaptive, integrated, ecosystem-based, and transparent
spatial planning process, based on sound science, for analyzing current
and anticipated uses of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes areas. CMSP
identifies areas most suitable for various types or classes of
activities in order to reduce conflicts among uses, reduce
environmental impacts, facilitate compatible uses, and preserve
critical ecosystem services to meet economic, environmental, security,
and social objectives. In practical terms, CMSP provides a public
policy process for society to better determine how the ocean, coasts,
and Great Lakes are sustainably used and protected now and for future
generations.'' NOAA supports this definition.
(b) Could you please define ecosystem based management?
Answer. Ecosystem-based management is place-based or area-based and
aims to: (1) protect ecosystem structure, functioning, and processes;
(2) recognize the interconnectedness within and among systems; and (3)
integrate ecological, social, economic, and institutional perspectives.
NOAA's ecosystem approach to management is:
Adaptive: Management strategies are tailored to unique
conditions and issues, and strategies are adapted and combined
for an integrated approach.
Collaborative: Mechanisms are in place to share information
and receive feedback from others, and stakeholder input is
considered in decision-making within joint strategies.
Incremental: Ecosystem-scale information continues to
improve as techniques and tools are developed in research,
observations, forecasting, and management.
Regionally directed: A joint strategy plan with stakeholders
is based on NOAA's 10 regional ecosystems to meet desired
ecosystem productivity and benefits.
Adaptable given ecosystem knowledge and uncertainty: Our
marine resources are complex and dynamic; ecosystem approaches
to management recognize that individual resources are better
managed by addressing ecosystem components and processes while
looking at cumulative impacts.
Inclusive of multiple external influences: Ecosystem
approaches to management encourage decisions based on
environmental, social, and political factors.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. David Vitter to
Hon. Jane Lubchenco
Question 1. Recently, the Secretary received a letter from four
Gulf Governors (attached) describing their dissatisfaction with
existing catch shares; with your general policy on catch shares; and
with the contact you have had with them. What do you intend to do about
that letter?
Answer. The Governors of Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana
wrote to the Secretary expressing their concern about the possible
impacts of catch share fisheries management programs on Gulf of Mexico
recreational anglers. They requested each of the Gulf States serve a
key role in the decision process as to which fisheries will have a
catch share program, how they are structured, and how related
commercial fishery and allocation policy decisions are made.
On December 10, 2009 NOAA issued a draft policy statement on catch
shares and is soliciting public input for 120 days. Catch share
programs have been shown to provide significant environmental and
economic benefits when applied to suitable fisheries, but they are not
a panacea for all fisheries. Although the draft policy encourages the
regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) to consider catch
shares as a management option where appropriate, the Councils are not
obligated to adopt catch shares for either the commercial or
recreational sectors. Consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, Councils will need to evaluate the
data, impacts, and enforceability of any potential catch share program
prior to moving forward. Prior to the release of the draft policy, the
Secretary responded to the Governors inviting them to actively engage
in the draft NOAA catch share policy comment process and to help
maintain open communications on these important recreational issues.
The reply also acknowledged that allocations between commercial and
recreational fisheries are a significant concern of the recreational
constituency. Catch shares, annual quotas, and days-atseas are among
the many means to distribute the independently-determined allocation of
the available catch among participants. In cooperation with the angling
community, Councils, and states, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries
Service will coordinate a recreational fisheries summit early next year
to address allocation issues and other topics of concern to the
recreational fishing community. Each state's active participation in
this summit was requested. In addition, we encourage continued
engagement by each state's fisheries director, each of whom is a voting
member of the Gulf Council--where catch share allocation decisions are
made.
Question 2. In addition, can you please share with me NOAA's
internal proposals for regional planning in the Gulf of Mexico. Whether
the proposals are in the planning stage or simply internal discussions,
please include: (1) catch share proposals, (2) aquaculture proposals,
and (3) any plans involving any form of zoning or in any way limiting
access to resources for any group of constituents.
Answer. NOAA has authorities and requirements to manage ocean
spaces through its national marine sanctuaries, estuarine research
reserves, area-based fisheries, protected resource program, and system
of Marine Protected Areas (MPA). NOAA protects vulnerable places
primarily through National Marine Sanctuaries under the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act, fishery management policies under the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), and critical habitat
designations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Under the MSA, the regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils)
are responsible for considering the appropriateness of catch share
programs, and deciding which, if any, sectors may benefit from their
use. NOAA is not requiring catch shares in any fishery nor is NOAA
setting any target number or quota for their usage. NOAA will help
interested Councils, states, communities, fishermen and other
stakeholders to organize collaborative efforts to design and implement
catch share programs that meet their needs.
In September 2009, the Fishery Management Plan for Regulating
Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf FMP) took
effect by operation of law. While the Gulf FMP does not identify
specific areas for aquaculture development, it does prohibit
aquaculture operations in Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico that
encompass marine protected areas, marine reserves, Habitat Areas of
Particular Concern, Special Management Zones, permitted artificial reef
areas, and coral reef areas. Under the Gulf FMP, NOAA's National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) would evaluate all proposed sites on a case-
by-case basis. An aquaculture facility would be required to obtain a
Section 10 Permit for the site from the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
and a restricted access zone would be created around each facility that
corresponds to the coordinates specified in the USACE Permit.
Implementing regulations for the Gulf FMP are in review and NMFS is not
accepting applications for aquaculture operations in the Gulf at this
time. NOAA is currently drafting a national policy for aquaculture,
which will address issues related to aquaculture operations in Federal
waters. NMFS will examine the Gulf FMP in the context of that policy
once it is developed.
In December of 2007, the Flower Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary Advisory Council voted to extend sanctuary protections to
nine additional banks and reefs in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. The
advisory council includes members of several different stakeholder
groups including oil and gas, commercial and recreational fishing, and
diving. NOAA is now actively working with the advisory council and
other stakeholders in the Gulf of Mexico region to evaluate and
carefully consider this recommendation. We anticipate publishing a
draft environmental impact statement later in 2010.
Question 3. It is clear to anyone paying attention that next summer
a series of major fishery resource closures will occur in the
Southeast. What are you doing to do to avoid this?
Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSA) requirements to specify annual catch limits (ACL) for each
managed fishery, and ensure catches do not exceed ACLs, require NOAA's
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to closely monitor catches
relative to ACLs and act quickly to prevent or mitigate ACL overages.
Seasonal closures generally result when the commercial or recreational
sector has harvested the ACL prior to the established season end date.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) and
NMFS continue to explore alternative management strategies to reduce
the likelihood of unexpected seasonal closures as we work to comply
with these new MSA mandates. Unfortunately, extending the duration of
the fishing season generally requires further limits on the catches of
individual fishermen (e.g., through restrictive trip limits, minimum
size limits, bag limits, etc.), and such limitations are often viewed
as an unacceptable tradeoff.
The Gulf Council has addressed this problem in some fisheries
through the use of catch share programs, which ensure eligible
participants the opportunity to catch a specific proportion of the ACL
during the time of year that best meets their needs. However, such
programs are not appropriate for all fisheries and are particularly
difficult to apply in recreational fisheries where participation is
generally unrestricted. However, the Gulf Council recently formed an Ad
Hoc Advisory Panel consisting of commercial and recreational
representatives to consider catch share issues in both sectors of the
reef fish fishery. Also, some Gulf Council members have met informally
with for-hire fishermen and private anglers to discuss potential catch
share alternatives for the recreational sector.
Question 4. Please identify which Environmental NGO's have been
party to NOAA discussions regarding catch share and aquaculture
policies in the Gulf of Mexico over the last 6 months.
Answer. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) informally
communicates with environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGO),
industry, academia, and members of the general public at Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council (Council) meetings. The following parties
routinely send representatives to Council meetings:
Environmental Defense Fund
Food and Water Watch
Oceana
Ocean Conservancy
Pew Environment Group
Coastal Conservation Association
Southern Shrimp Alliance
Southern Offshore Fishing Association
Several for-hire fishing associations
Catch Shares
On July 23, 2009, Ms. Monica Medina, Special Advisor to NOAA
Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco and chairperson of NOAA's Catch Share
Task Force, held an informational briefing with approximately 17 ENGO's
on NOAA's plan to issue a draft policy on catch shares. Similar
briefings were held with representatives of commercial and recreational
stakeholder groups. Summaries of the briefings and a list of attendees
are posted on the Internet under the title ``Summaries of Stakeholder
Sessions'' at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/catchshare/
index.htm.
On September 11, 2009, Dr. Jim Balsiger, NMFS Acting Assistant
Administrator, met with members of the Marine Conservation Network, a
group of ENGO's in the Washington, D.C. area. During this regularly
scheduled meeting, a status report was provided to the group on
progress on the draft NOAA catch shares policy.
Additionally, the ENGO's present at Council meetings heard NMFS
updates on the NOAA Catch Share Task Force/draft policy and on agency
activities to implement the Council's proposed individual fishing quota
program for Gulf of Mexico grouper and tilefish. Two ENGO's
(Environmental Defense Fund and Ocean Conservancy) participated along
with NMFS staff in a July 2009 recreational catch share workshop
organized by several Council members.
The draft NOAA catch share policy currently is available for public
comment period.
Aquaculture
NMFS has not communicated with ENGO's, industry groups, academia,
or other interested parties since the Council approved its proposed
Offshore Aquaculture Fishery Management Plan (FMP) in January 2009 for
Secretarial review and approval. However, the following ENGO's,
industry groups, academics, and other parties provided NMFS comment
letters prior to final agency action on the FMP:
Food and Water Watch
Humane Society of the United States
National Coalition for Marine Conservation
Ocean Conservancy
Environmental Protection Agency
Minerals Management Service
37 Members of Congress (submitted by Lois Capps, D-CA)
Mike Thompson, Member of Congress (D-CA)
Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources
Aqua Terra Strategies
United Cook Inlet Drift Association
American Veterinary Medical Association
Division of Aquaculture, Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services
Southern Shrimp Alliance, Inc.
American Soybean Association
Ocean Stewards Institute
Lindgren-Pitman, Inc.
East Coast Shellfish Growers Association
Cordova District Fishermen United
Rosamund Naylor (Stanford University), Felicia Coleman
(Florida State University Coastal and Marine Laboratory), Ian
Fleming (Memorial University of Newfoundland), L. Neil Frazer,
(University of Hawaii at Manoa), Les Kaufman (Boston
University), Jeffrey R. Koseff (Stanford University), John
Ogden (University of South Florida), Laura Petes (Florida State
University Coastal and Marine Laboratory), Amy Sapkota
(University of Maryland College Park), Les Watling (University
of Hawaii at Manoa)
Form letters and other comments (900+) were also submitted
by members of the general public.
NMFS's Assistant Administrator, Dr. Jim Balsiger, contacted the
following ENGO's on September 3, 2009, to advise them of the agency's
decision to allow the FMP to take effect by operation of law:
Food & Water Watch
Marine Fish Conservation Network
National Coalition for Marine Conservation
Oceana
Ocean Conservancy
On October 2, 2009, Food and Water Watch, Gulf Restoration Network,
Inc., and Ocean Conservancy filed two separate complaints challenging
the FMP in U.S. District Court.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Admiral Thad W. Allen
Question 1. The Interim Report emphasizes the importance of
addressing the environmental stewardship needs in the Arctic Ocean and
adjacent coastal areas. You and I have discussed on a number of
occasions the critical importance of the Coast Guard's polar icebreaker
capabilities in the Arctic Region--in terms of national security and
assertion of U.S. sovereignty; in dealing with the inevitable race to
exploit the wealth of natural resources; and in providing us with the
ability to perform meaningful research on global climate change.
Could you please describe the changes that the Coast Guard is
witnessing in the Arctic Ocean and the implications it has for the
Coast Guard? Can any National Ocean Policy succeed in environmental
stewardship of the Arctic without an increase in the number of vessels
capable of sustained Polar operations? Do you feel that a comprehensive
approach to assessing, planning and managing marine resources in that
region would help current and emerging threats to that region?
Answer. The region north of the Arctic Circle contains over 2,500
nautical miles of U.S. coastline. Historically, that region's harsh
environment and frozen polar icecap has facilitated our security by
acting as an obstacle to trade and exploitation. This is changing. The
extent of the area and thickness of the permanent ice cover in the
Arctic has decreased dramatically in recent years.
The growing global demand for new sources of energy and technology
coupled with the reduction in sea ice now allows for exploration of
parts of the region previously inaccessible. Warming ocean water
temperatures are also affecting the distribution of some fish stocks by
causing them to migrate north in search of new cold-water habitats and
potentially creating more favorable fishing conditions in the region.
The world increasingly relies on the maritime domain to support the
global supply chain, and the potential exists for the Arctic to become
a strategic link. This past summer, two German-flagged heavy-lift
vessels took advantage of the much shorter transit from Asia through
Russia's Northern Sea Route to transport industrial equipment to
Siberia and on to Europe.
The Coast Guard, as the principal Federal maritime enforcement
agency with broad safety, security, and stewardship missions throughout
the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, has already begun looking at ways to
improve and better sustain operations in the Arctic region. The Coast
Guard is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of its statutory
missions and regulatory responsibilities in the Arctic to determine its
requirements to support the objectives and implementation tasks
contained in NSPD-66/HSPD-25, to include the work of the Interagency
Ocean Policy Task Force. The Coast Guard will continue to work with
other Federal agencies and Arctic nations through the Arctic Council,
the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and other international
forums to develop solutions to overcome challenges in the region.
A comprehensive, national approach, properly prioritized, planned,
and supported, would help promote the entire spectrum of U.S. national
interests in the Arctic region. Such a national approach should
consider sustainable resource development, environmental protection, as
well as other emerging economic, national, and homeland security
concerns.
Question 2. One criticism of the Interim Report from the commercial
sector is that it shifts the ``balance'' toward environmental
stewardship priorities over economic demands. One of the nine
recommended principles for a national ocean policy is that decision-
making will be guided by a precautionary approach. Can the
precautionary approach be adopted as a feature of our national ocean
policy without bringing use of marine resources to a halt? Could you
explain how the Coast Guard would apply the precautionary approach, and
how it would change how you do business?
Answer. The Interim Report responds to the President's June 12,
2009 memorandum directing the Task Force to develop recommendations to
``improve stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes''.
Improved stewardship will support not only healthier and more resilient
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and services, but also
benefit the economies (e.g., commercial and recreational activities)
and communities that rely on them. The Task Force believes that
economic growth and improved stewardship of the marine and Great Lakes
environment are inextricably linked.
Application of a precautionary approach, as defined in the Interim
Report (``w]here there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,
lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation''), is consistent with and essential for improved
stewardship. Moreover, that definition is one to which the United
States has formally agreed by signing and ratifying the 1992 Rio
Declaration. We must ensure that when we enjoy and use ocean, coastal,
and Great Lakes resources, we use the best available information to
make management decisions and minimize adverse environmental effects.
The vision of the national ocean policy should resonate with every
citizen: ``An America whose stewardship ensures that the ocean, our
coasts, and the Great Lakes are healthy and resilient, safe and
productive, and understood and treasured so as to promote the well-
being, prosperity, and security of present and future generations.''
``Productive'' uses to promote the long-term ``prosperity'' of all
Americans are key goals that the Nation should pursue in its ocean
policy. The Coast Guard views the concept of stewardship as a rather
broad one, transcending environmental protection and extending to the
entire range of the best and most valuable management practices. These
include making maximum, prudent benefit of all sustainable economic
uses.
Question 3. Following the release of the Interim Report, you spoke
to its unqualified support of U.S. accession to the U.N. Convention on
the Law of the Sea as an issue of significant importance from the Coast
Guard's perspective. Can you please talk about why this is an important
tool for the Coast Guard, and an important component in a National
Ocean Policy?
Answer. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the
Convention) sets forth a comprehensive legal regime governing
activities on, over, and under the world's oceans. Joining the
Convention significantly enhances the Coast Guard's ability to manage
ocean resources and protect the marine environment by providing clear,
internationally agreed-upon principles for operating in and governing
ocean space. The Convention will enhance Coast Guard efforts to assess
security in international shipping ports; monitor and enforce U.S.
sovereign rights over natural resources off the U.S. coast; confront
illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing; protect the safety of
life at sea; and protect the marine environment. Being an ``outsider''
to the Convention hampers Coast Guard negotiating positions at the
International Maritime Organization (the IMO) as well as other forums.
Furthermore, the Coast Guard relies heavily on freedom of navigation
principles in the Convention.
Consistency with international law, including the legal framework
contained in the Convention, is a crucial requirement in the
development of the strategic action plans for the nine priority
objectives of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force's Interim Report.
The Convention strikes a careful balance between the sovereign rights
of coastal and port states and the navigational rights and freedoms of
other states. The proposed National Policy can be more effective with
the support of the legal framework contained in the Convention.
Question 4. The Ocean Policy Task Force Interim Report calls for a
special emphasis on strengthening Federal and non-Federal ocean
observing systems, sensors, and data collection platforms, integrating
these components into a national system, and integrating that national
system into observation efforts at the international level. What role
will the Coast Guard's maritime domain awareness capabilities play in
this integrated system?
Answer. The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force's Interim Report
provides for increasing scientific understanding of ocean and coastal
ecosystems and awareness of all that is happening, which impact these
waters, including human activities.
The Coast Guard supports efforts to develop greater awareness of
what is happening in waters subject to our jurisdiction and to provide
interpretive products to promote our national ocean policy. A majority
of Coast Guard operational units provide meteorological observations in
conjunction with their normal operations, including weather, ice, and
polar and near-Arctic observations. The Coast Guard cooperates with
other Federal agencies, particularly through participation in the
Interagency Working Group on Ocean Observations, and provides radio
broadcast to mariners in accordance with an MOU with NOAA/National
Weather Service (NWS) and in coordination with the Coast Guard/NWS
Coordination Liaison Group. These capabilities, whether within the
operational control of the Coast Guard or in other agencies, can help
visualize human use and activity data on any coastal and marine spatial
planning system that is to be developed. This will include static data
and as well as more dynamic and timely data from MDA capabilities
gleaned from a variety of organic and consolidated partner data
sources. For example, the Coast Guard intends to monitor coastal and
some oceanic vessel movements through the IMO-approved Long Range
Identification and Tracking (LRIT) system, the Nationwide Automatic
Identification System (NAIS), and other sensors. When possible,
archived data will be made available to appropriate government and
research institutions for safety and research purposes. It should be
noted that IMO places strict controls on the dissemination of LRIT data
outside of government, and other systems impose similar constraints.
These and other efforts to promote MDA will enhance our national and
homeland security interests and better enable the United States to be
conscientious stewards of its ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes waters.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Admiral Thad W. Allen
Question 1. What lessons has the Coast Guard learned since the
Cosco Busan incident? What additional tools and resources could the
Coast Guard use to better assist in cleanup and mitigation efforts?
The San Francisco Chronicle reported the DUBAI STAR began leaking
oil at 6:48 a.m. on October 30, 2009. Some environmental groups have
raised concerns about the time it took the Coast Guard to begin placing
containment booms to protect sensitive shoreline. Questions have also
been raised about why environmentally sensitive locations such as
Robert Crown Memorial State Beach, which was in the direct path of the
oil, were not immediately boomed. How long did it take for containment
booms to be put in place? What steps did the Coast Guard take
immediately following reports of the incident? Please provide a
timeline of the response.
Answer. Improving Federal, State, and local government and
stakeholder communications and coordination was a major focus following
the COSCO BUSAN response. The recent DUBAI STAR response demonstrated
that efforts to improve communications and coordination through
planning activities were very effective.
The Coast Guard and other Federal, State, and local partners
coordinated their activities well during the DUBAI STAR response.
During the COSCO BUSAN response, the establishment of an Incident
Command Post (ICP) proved difficult due to lack of pre-identified ICP
locations. As a result, a list of 50 potential Incident Command Post
sites was created. During the DUBAI STAR response, an ICP was
established at Sector San Francisco at 0800 (a little over an hour
after the initial report of the incident). The Unified Command was
established in a larger Incident Command Post on Coast Guard Island in
Alameda by 0930 (less than 3 hours after the initial report of the
incident) with both the Federal On-Scene Coordinator and State On-Scene
Coordinator OSC (California Fish & Game, OSPR) present. By 1000, Coast
Guard and California Fish & Game leadership made their appropriate
notifications to local municipalities, including the Mayor of San
Francisco.
Another COSCO BUSAN lesson learned recognized that future responses
should include a Local Government On-Scene Coordinator (LGOSC) in the
Unified Command. The LGOSC represents the city or county, or
potentially, multiple counties within the Unified Command. This
position was deemed important because the San Francisco Bay, Delta and
Central Coast Area Committee consist of 12 counties and can potentially
cover three additional Northern California counties. During the DUBAI
STAR response, the Unified Command LGOSC was filled by the Alameda
County Fire Department.
The importance of accurate oil spill quantification and subsequent
oil spill volume reporting was also identified as a critical concern
during the M/V COSCO BUSAN incident. During the DUBAI STAR incident,
the initial estimate from the vessel crew was approximately one gallon.
A final estimated spill volume of between 400-800 gallons was
determined by USCG and California Fish and Game personnel within 5
hours of the initial notification of the spill.
In both the COSCO BUSAN and DUBAI STAR incidents, the Unified
Command's response posture was based on worst case discharge scenarios.
Response equipment was deployed based on the worst case discharge
scenario instead of the reported spill volume. Immediately following
the M/V COSCO BUSAN incident, the Coast Guard provided service-wide
guidance to reinforce this response posture for future spills.
For additional comments on lessons learned from COSCO BUSAN, we
recommend reviewing the recent published article on the COSCO BUSAN
response in the Fall 2009 Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety
and Security Council magazine. This issue can be viewed at: http://
www.uscg.mil/proceedings/articles/77_Gugg
_Reflections%20on%20the%20Cosco%20Busan%20Pollution%20Response.pdf.
The Coast Guard continuously works to improve spill response. In
particular Coast Guard spill response initiatives are focused on
response to High Latitude Spills, Submerged Oil, Existing Wrecks, and
Spill Response Analysis. In particular, the Coast Guard requires
further High Latitude spill response research due to the austere
environment, lack of infrastructure, and the inadequate capability to
address spills in icy conditions. As for submerged oil response, the
capability to find and recover oil on the ocean floor is limited. While
this type of spill is infrequent, the effects on the environment and
impact on existing water intakes can be significant. Furthermore, there
are thousands of submerged wrecks throughout the world containing oil
or hazardous substances. The problems associated with old, leaking
wrecks continue to draw international attention. The Wrecks of the
World Conference, sponsored by the American Salvage Association and
held in Baltimore in September 2009, was specifically organized to
address this unique problem.
In response to these unique spill response challenges, the Coast
Guard is reviewing the quality and quantity of its response equipment
to determine when new upgrades are needed or when new technology can be
implemented. The Coast Guard has identified specific analysis and
research areas to include: (a) localized spill detection tools, (b)
evaluation of unknown storage containers, (c) spill recovery in adverse
conditions (i.e., visibility, weather, fast currents), and (d) enhanced
response tools for decisionmakers.
The DUBAI STAR vessel agent reported the spill to the National
Response Center at 0734 on October 30, 2009. At approximately 0920,
containment boom was placed around the stern of DUBAI STAR and recovery
of spilled oil commenced. Sensitive site (protection) booming was
conducted in accordance with the Area Contingency Plan booming
strategies. These booming strategies effectively protected all
designated sensitive sites from oil impacts. Robert Crown Memorial
State Beach (a sandy beach with man-made seawall improvements) is not
designated a sensitive site per the San Francisco Area Contingency
Plan. Several nearby shorelines, including the Alameda Eel Grass Beds
and San Leandro Bay, were boomed by 1215 on October 30.
Under the National Response System, the Responsible Party (spiller)
provides notification to emergency officials, and conducts and funds
clean-up operations for a discovered spill. When notified, the Coast
Guard is responsible for assessing the situation and monitoring the
speed and adequacy of the spiller's response actions. USCG Sector San
Francisco dispatched a Station San Francisco RBS (response boat,
small), Incident Management Response Team, and Port State Control
personnel to investigate the reported spill. In addition, USCG Air
Station San Francisco conducted a series of helicopter over flights
with the Air Station and Incident Management Response Team observers to
assess the extent of the spill.
USCG Sector San Francisco ensured the California Emergency
Management Agency was aware of the incident so they could make
appropriate State and local emergency notifications. The USCG contacted
California Fish & Game, Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR)
partners to coordinate required response and enforcement efforts. The
Federal On-Scene Coordinator directed National Response Corporation
Environmental Services (NRCES) to respond to the spill when it was
determined that the Responsible Party (ship owner/operator) was not
responding promptly in accordance with its Vessel Response Plan. Soon
thereafter, the Responsible Party requested to assume management of the
NRCES activation. Consequently, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
(OSLTF) did not incur costs associated with the initial Federal
activation of NRCES.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time (30OCT2009) Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0400 PST DUBAI STAR initiated bunker (fueling) operation.
0734 PST DUBAI STAR vessel agent reported oil spill and sheen to the National Response
Center.
0737 PST USCG Station San Francisco small boat diverted from another case arrived on scene
to investigate the report; multiple small boats were launched to the scene
throughout the day.
0800 PST Initial Incident Command Post established at Sector San Francisco.
0802 PST USCG launched initial over flight.
0905 PST National Response Corporation Environmental Services personnel on scene, commenced
boom deployment around vessel.
0920 PST National Response Corporation Environmental Services completed harbor boom
deployment around the vessel and continued skimming operations. Containment Boom
was placed around the stern of T/V DUBAI STAR.
0923 PST USCGC HAWKSBILL en route to scene.
0930 PST Unified Command was established with State of CA On Scene Coordinator (Cal Fish &
Game, OSPR) on Coast Guard Island in Alameda.
0940 PST Additional response resources begin arriving and deploying containment and
protection boom in the vicinity of the spill in accordance with the Area
Contingency Plan booming strategies and Unified Command direction; boom
deployment continues throughout the day.
0943 PST USCGC PIKE arrived on scene.
1000 PST USCG and CA Fish & Game Leadership notified local municipalities including the
Mayor of San Francisco.
1001 PST Incident Management Team and Port State Control Inspectors arrive on scene.
1215 PST Boom deployment of sensitive areas complete; further boom deployment continues.
1330 PST Pacific Strike Team arrived at Coast Guard Island to assist in the Incident
Command Post.
2300 PST Boom deployment complete.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. Please give the Committee the latest account of the
events that led up to the mid-air crash between the Coast Guard
aircraft and the Marine Corps helicopter. MSNBC reported that the
collision occurred in military warning area airspace that is not under
the control of the FAA. What is the protocol for Coast Guard aircraft
operating within that airspace?
Answer. The details leading up to the mid-air crash are still under
investigation. The MSNBC report is correct in that the crash occurred
in a military warning area airspace not controlled by the FAA.
For flights into warning areas, the Coast Guard follows the
procedures provided in the Department of Defense Flight Information
Publication AP 1/A, Special Use Airspace in addition to following any
instructions provided by the FAA air traffic controller. The specific
procedures for Warning Area 291 requires military aircraft to contact
Beaver Control (operated under U.S. Navy Fleet Area Control &
Surveillance Facility (FACSFAC) San Diego, Ca) on frequency 266.9 or
120.85 Mhz if north of the Mission Bay (MZB) VHF Omni-directional Radio
Range (VOR) 247 radial or on frequency 289.9 or 118.65 Mhz if south of
the MZB 247 radial.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
Admiral Thad W. Allen
Question 1. Ocean governance around Alaska is not strictly a
domestic issue, especially as climate change opens more and more of the
Arctic to international shipping. I introduced S. 1561 to implement the
recommendations of the Arctic Council's Arctic Marine Shipping
Assessment, including international cooperation on navigational aids in
Arctic waters, improved Arctic navigational charts, monitoring of ocean
conditions, improved oil spill prevention and response; search and
rescue and maritime domain awareness, and to develop facilities for
ship generated waste. I believe that implementing the Arctic Marine
Shipping Assessment is important. Do you envision implementing aspects
of the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment through this Ocean Policy and,
if so, how?
Answer. Yes. The Coast Guard envisions implementing aspects of the
Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) as part of the proposed
National Policy in the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force's Interim
Report. The Task Force's proposed implementation strategy identifies,
as one of the nine priority objectives, for the Nation to pursue the
National Policy, ``Changing Conditions in the Arctic,'' and,
specifically, to ``address environmental stewardship needs in the
Arctic Ocean and adjacent coastal areas in the face of climate-induced
and other environmental changes.'' The Interim Report also calls for
``consistency and coordination with the implementation of U.S. Arctic
Region Policy as promulgated in National Security Presidential
Directive 66/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25 (2009),''
which incorporates a number of the implementation goals and priorities
found in AMSA.
Moreover, the Task Force's Interim Report includes an international
component which would facilitate the implementation of the National
Policy. This requires coordination with matters arising within the
International Maritime Organization (IMO), Arctic Council, and other
international organizations. As a product of the Protection of the
Arctic Marine Environment (PAME), a subordinate body of the Arctic
Council, the 2009 AMSA report represents a superb example of
international cooperation. Implementing its key recommendations will
also require international cooperation, as well as a national
commitment.
The Coast Guard will continue to work with other Federal agencies
and with other Arctic nations through the Arctic Council, the IMO, and
other international forums to develop solutions to unresolved issues in
the region. These issues include navigation, extended continental shelf
determinations, resource rights, search-and-rescue and other emergency
response capabilities, waste management, and other efforts to protect
the fragile Arctic environment. The 2009 AMSA report identified and
endorsed international and national efforts to tackle each of these
issues.
Question 2. In a similar vein, I also introduced S. 1564, the
Arctic Oil Spill Research and Prevention Act, to improve our knowledge
about and ability to respond to spills in broken ice conditions. As the
Coast Guard plays a major role in oil spill research and response, can
you comment on the need for this research?
Answer. The findings described in Section 2 of S. 1564 provide
context to the risk posed by oil spills in the Arctic and validate the
need for further research. In particular, the Coast Guard requires
further High Latitude spill response research due to the austere
environment, lack of infrastructure, and the limited capabilities to
address spills in icy conditions. The Coast Guard Research &
Development (R&D) long-term strategic plan was informed by a 2004 study
entitled ``Advancing Oil Spill Response in Ice Covered Waters.'' This
study was produced by an international consortium of interested
organizations under the coordination of the Prince William Sound Oil
Spill Recovery Institute and the U.S. Arctic Research Commission.
The USCG R&D program has identified specific areas of emphasis for
Arctic and cold-weather response, which include: (a) detection of oil-
in-ice and under ice, (b) tracking/monitoring of oil in ice, (c)
decision tools for Federal On scene Coordinators, and (d) removal/
recovery of oil in ice. The USCG also serves as the Chair of the
Interagency Coordinating Committee for Oil Pollution Response (ICCOPR).
In this capacity, the USCG shares and synchronizes its Arctic region
R&D initiatives with those from other ICCOPR members, such as EPA, MMS,
and NOAA. Collectively, the members follow the 1997 ICCOPR Oil
Pollution and Research and Technology Plan and its future revisions.
Question 3. I am a strong proponent of ratification of the Law of
the Sea Treaty to assert our Nation's rights to the high seas and
ensure we have a seat at the table when decisions are made about
international claims to the extended continental shelf areas,
especially in the Arctic where vast energy reserves are believed to
exist. From the perspective of a National Oceans Policy, can you
comment on the need for ratification of this treaty?
Answer. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the
Convention) ensures U.S. sovereign rights over seabed resources,
including a 12 nautical mile territorial sea, resources within a 200
nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and, potentially, resources
(including oil and minerals) beyond the EEZ in the extended outer
continental shelf to the outer edge of the continental margin,
including up to 600 miles off of Alaska. This legal regime is important
for the National Policy and implementation of the priority objectives
described in the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force's Interim Report.
For example, the Task Force Interim Report has as one of its nine
priority objectives ``Changing Conditions in the Arctic.'' The U.S. is
currently the only Arctic country not a state party to the Convention.
Question 4. To meet maritime challenges in the Arctic, I believe we
need to modernize and replace our Nation's polar icebreaker fleet. Our
two Polar-class icebreakers are over 30-years-old and are in need of
replacement. Can you comment on the level of icebreaking capability the
Nation needs to meet the challenges of an ice diminishing and ice
thinning arctic? Given the time required to construct a new vessel, how
can our Nation best meet this need in the short term?
Answer. The FY2009 funded High Latitude Study was commissioned in
part to address this question. Its Statement of Work directs the study
to specifically include current ice breaker requirements in the high
latitude regions (Arctic and Antarctic) and project future capability
needs of the Coast Guard. Other agencies are also evaluating their
icebreaking needs (e.g., Department of Defense Arctic Road Map) and/or
acquiring new capability to traverse the Arctic (e.g., National Science
Foundation's Alaska Region Research Vessel).
The reactivation of the POLAR STAR is expected to be completed in
FY2012 and will provide another 7-10 years of service life. This
capacity plus the existing capacity provided by Coast Guard's two other
icebreakers (HEALY and POLAR SEA) will allow Federal agencies
sufficient time to determine and acquire the icebreaking assets they
may need.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Hon. Laura Davis
Question 1. One criticism of the Interim Report from the commercial
sector is that it shifts the ``balance'' toward environmental
stewardship priorities over economic demands. One of the nine
recommended principles for a national ocean policy is that decision-
making will be guided by a precautionary approach. Can the
precautionary approach be adopted as a feature of our national ocean
policy without bringing use of marine resources to a halt? Could you
explain how the Department of the Interior would apply the
precautionary approach to ocean resource management, use and
development within its jurisdiction, and how it would change how you do
business?
Answer. The Interim Report responds to the President's June 12,
2009 memorandum directing the Task Force to develop recommendations to
``improve stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes".
Improved stewardship will support not only healthier and more resilient
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and services, but also
benefit the economies (e.g., commercial and recreational activities)
and communities that rely on them. The Task Force believes that
economic growth and improved stewardship of the marine and Great Lakes
environment are inextricably linked.
Application of a precautionary approach, as defined in the Interim
Report (``[w]here there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,
lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation''), is consistent with and essential for improved
stewardship. Moreover, that definition is one to which the United
States has formally agreed by signing and ratifying the 1992 Rio
Declaration. We must ensure that when we enjoy and use ocean, coastal,
and Great Lakes resources, we use the best available information to
make management decisions and minimize adverse environmental effects.
The Department has long recognized the importance of managing
multiple uses of our marine environment. Through our conservation and
stewardship efforts, we have been able to ensure the protection of
native species and their habitats while simultaneously providing
recreational opportunities for the public and overseeing safe and
responsible natural resource energy development. The Department
appreciates the clear link between the health of our marine ecosystems
and their capacity for productive use, and will continue to take
precautionary measures to ensure the well-being and prosperity of our
oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes.
Question 2. Science-based decisionmaking and ecosystem based
management are part of the underpinnings of the Interim Report. How
will the Department of the Interior incorporate science-based decision-
making, ecosystem-based management, and the recommendations of the Task
Force into the decisionmaking process associated with its 5-year Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program? Can you commit to me
that NOAA's views will be incorporated into whatever actions the
Department of Interior decides to take on this issue?
Answer. In the decision-making process for the 5-year OCS oil and
gas program, the Department will continue to use science-based
decisionmaking and ecosystem-based management. The Minerals Management
Service's (MMS) environmental studies program has acquired over $860
million worth of environmental research on the OCS and partners
extensively with NOAA, the Navy, EPA, and others. A science and
ecosystem approach will be used throughout the program, including at
the 5-Year program design stages, the preparation of an EIS for an
individual sale, and the decisions on an individual sale, consistent
with other statutory mandates. We will continue to coordinate with NOAA
and all other relevant Federal agencies during the decision-making
process.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Barbara Boxer to
Hon. Laura Davis
Question 1. As we work to develop a more comprehensive, ecosystem-
based approach for managing natural resources, both in the ocean and on
land, we must also continue to think about how more narrowly focused
conservation efforts also relate to broader ecosystem-level goals. The
Department of the Interior, acting through the Fish and Wildlife
Service, manages recovery efforts for many individual endangered or
threatened species, and a variety of laws have been enacted relating to
the management of individual species. Do recovery efforts for
individual species have broader ecosystem benefits?
Answer. Yes, recovery efforts for individual species most
definitely have broader ecosystem benefits. The stated purpose of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to conserve the ecosystems upon which
threatened and endangered species depend. Other statutes such as the
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) take a similar approach. For
example the Marine Mammal Protection Act states, ``The primary
objective of their [marine mammals] management should be to maintain
the health and stability of the marine ecosystem.''
Actions taken to improve the status of listed species frequently
have beneficial effects to other non-listed species and improve the
integrity of the ecosystem. This is largely due to the fact that most
endangered or threatened species are facing threats due to habitat
destruction. The South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan is a good
illustration of this principle. The plan covers 68 listed species, but
its emphasis is on restoring 23 properly functioning ecological
communities.
Question 2. I am concerned about the decline in the southern sea
otter population and the impacts it may be having on Central
California's kelp ecosystem. What role do sea otters play in the kelp
ecosystem, and how could efforts to promote their recovery help improve
the health of this ecosystem at large?
S. 1748/H.R. 556, the Southern Sea Otter Recovery and Research Act,
would establish a research and recovery program for southern sea otters
that would help identify and address some of the major stressors
affecting these animals. In his testimony before the House Committee on
Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife
on May 5 of this year, Acting Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service
Rowan Gould outlined several of these stressors, saying, ``Disease and
predation, food limitation, nutritional deficiencies, and exposure to
chemical contaminants are all stressors that may be influencing
mortality patterns.'' These particular stressors are specifically
called out in the legislation. Would research and recovery programs
targeting these stressors have any benefits for understanding or
addressing factors affecting other species in California's kelp
ecosystem, such as abalone and sea urchins, other marine mammals, or
fish, not to mention human health?
Answer. Sea otters are important predators in the nearshore marine
ecosystems of the North Pacific Ocean and are generally considered to
be a ``keystone species'' in these communities. The effects that sea
otters have on their environment arise largely from predation. Sea
otters consume a wide variety of nearshore marine invertebrates
(including sea urchins, abalone, crabs, lobsters, clams, and mussels)
and exert a strong limiting influence on their prey populations. Sea
urchins are a favored prey item of sea otters. They are commonly viewed
as the most important subtidal grazers of macrophytes (large algae,
including kelp) in California. Overgrazing by sea urchins tends to
occur when giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) becomes scarce. When giant
kelp is abundant, sea urchins typically feed on drift kelp, pieces of
algae that break off and drift down from the canopy above. Under these
conditions, sea urchins remain fairly stationary and feed
opportunistically, and large numbers of sea urchins may have little
effect on attached plants. However, shortages of drift kelp can cause
starving sea urchins to gather together in moving ``fronts,'' which can
clear all attached macroalgae in their path. Intense grazing in areas
densely populated by sea urchins can lead to the formation of sea
urchin ``barrens,'' areas that are devoid of kelp and are characterized
instead by crustose coralline algal assemblages. Therefore, in areas
where sea urchin grazing is limiting kelp establishment or growth, the
presence of sea otters can generally be expected to result in the
increased stability and persistence of kelp forest habitat.
The recovery of southern sea otters will be associated with an
increase in their population size and the recolonization of their
historic range. Range expansion of sea otters is expected to provide
additional benefits that stem from their effects on kelp. Kelp forests
provide numerous direct and indirect benefits, including reductions in
coastal erosion, carbon storage that can moderate climate change, and
improved habitat for numerous invertebrate and fish species. The marine
environment of southern California has been dramatically affected by
human activities, such as the direct removal of many of the animal
components of the community and the input of pollution, making it
difficult to determine the ``natural'' functioning of the community.
The return of sea otters, top carnivores that were historically present
in the ecosystem, is expected to enhance ecosystem functioning and to
bring the nearshore marine ecosystem to a state more closely resembling
its historic (pre-fur-trade), or ``natural,'' condition.
With respect to the research and recovery programs targeting the
stressors on the southern sea otter population--including disease and
predation, food limitation, nutritional deficiencies, and exposure to
chemical contaminants--these programs would have benefits for
understanding or addressing factors affecting other species in
California's kelp ecosystem and human health. For instance, prey
specialization, which is a consequence of food limitation, appears to
be functioning synergistically to cause disease in southern sea otters.
The infection of sea otters with the protozoal parasites Toxoplasma
gondii and Sarcocystis neurona is associated with use of particular
areas of the coastline and with the selection of certain types of prey.
These parasites infect and can cause mortality in a wide range of
marine and other animals. T. gondii additionally poses a health risk to
humans. A diet of marine snails is associated with T. gondii infection
in sea otters, whereas a diet rich in abalone appears to protect sea
otters from both T. gondii and S. neurona. An understanding of the
precise pathways by which sea otters are exposed to these pathogens may
allow the development of management interventions that will have
implications for sea otters as well as other marine organisms. Similar
benefits may be realized by tracking the inputs of other coastal
contaminants that affect sea otters and other marine life, such as
perfluorinated compounds or the toxins produced by harmful algae, such
as domoic acid or microcystin that can kill sea otters as well as other
marine organisms.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to
Hon. Laura Davis
Question 1. In September, I joined in signing a bipartisan letter,
along with 34 other Senators, to Secretary Salazar conveying strong
support for the Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas
Leasing Program (DPP). What is the ratio of positive and negative
comments on the DPP?
Answer. MMS received approximately 530,000 comments from citizens.
It is difficult to establish such a ratio because some comments are
support of or opposed to development in specific geographic areas.
Others relate to the overall program. Therefore, we cannot provide such
an analysis of positive or negative comments. Many comments require a
judgment as to whether or not they should be considered positive or
negative, particularly if the comment focuses on only one or two
aspects of the DPP.
Comments can be viewed by the public on www.regulations.gov in
docket MMS-2008-OMM-0045. Representative samples of group letter
campaigns that were received by the MMS via mail have been posted on
www.regulations.gov.
Question 2. How will the proposed National Ocean Policy impact the
2007-2012 Leasing Program and the decision to finalize the DPP?
Answer. The decisions to be made on the 2007-2012 program pursuant
to the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals, the lease sales remaining
in that program, and the preparation of the new program will be made
under the requirements of the OCS Lands Act (OCSLA). There is no
inherent inconsistency between the requirements of the OCSLA and the
Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force's proposed National Stewardship
Policy for the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes (National
Policy). The OCSLA has several requirements that could be used to carry
out the principles of the National Policy, including using scientific
data and analyses, consulting with other governmental entities, and
opportunities for public input.
Question 3. The Interim Report states that decision-making will be
guided by the precautionary principle. How will the precautionary
principle impact future decisions with respect to the Outer Continental
Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program?
Answer. Application of a precautionary approach, as defined in the
Interim Report (``[w]here there are threats of serious or irreversible
damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason
for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation''), is consistent with and essential for improved
stewardship. Moreover, that definition is one to which the United
States has formally agreed by signing and ratifying the 1992 Rio
Declaration. We must ensure that when we enjoy and use ocean, coastal,
and Great Lakes resources, we use the best available information to
make management decisions and minimize adverse environmental effects.
The Department has long recognized the importance of managing
multiple uses of our marine environment. Through our conservation and
stewardship efforts, we have been able to ensure the protection of
native species and their habitats while simultaneously providing
recreational opportunities for the public and overseeing safe and
responsible natural resource energy development. The Department
appreciates the clear link between the health of our marine ecosystems
and their capacity for productive use, and will continue to take
precautionary measures to ensure the well-being and prosperity of our
oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes.
Question 4. How do you envision marine spatial planning will impact
offshore energy development?
Answer. As stated in the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Forces'
Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
provides that coastal and marine spatial planning is intended to build
upon and significantly improve existing Federal, State, tribal, local,
and regional decision-making and planning processes. The OCSLA directs
the Secretary to conserve the Nation's natural resources; develop
natural gas and oil reserves in an orderly and timely manner; meet the
energy needs of the country; protect the human, marine, and coastal
environments; and receive a fair and equitable return on the resources
of the OCS. The Department views coastal and marine spatial planning as
a collaborative process of working with other Federal agencies, States,
tribes, and diverse stakeholders to better meet its stewardship and
ocean resource management responsibilities, using an adaptive and
ecosystem-based approach to management. One example is that MMS and
NOAA have developed a Web-based Multipurpose Marine Cadastre, which is
one of several tools that can be used in a marine spatial planning
process to inform this type of decisionmaking.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Billy Frank, Jr.
Question 1. What does a national ocean policy mean to you?
Answer. It means the establishment of a comprehensive management
framework from which we can build upon for a better future. Most
importantly, a national policy should result in co-management of our
shared marine resources. The Northwest Tribes believe that is national
attention to ocean governance, ocean resources and issues is long past
due.
Question 2. Do you think the process that the Administration is
pursuing to create a national policy and develop a framework for marine
spatial planning is moving the Nation forward?
Answer. Yes. The effort will result in greater management certainty
for all parties engaged in marine related activities.
Question 3. If yes, what are the next steps to keep us moving
forward? If no, how do we move forward?
Answer. Additional regional hearings should be scheduled upon
release of the draft framework plan. The draft should include potential
sites or regions where this planning process could be ``test driven.''
The Ocean Task Force should seek further input on what, if any,
additional refinements should occur in the framework and where a trial
run of the planning process should be initiated.
Question 4. What role do you think that NOAA should play in
implementing a national ocean policy and framework for marine spatial
planning?
Answer. At a minimum, NOAA should be the lead science agency for
developing a national ocean policy that addresses the ecosystem
functions of the ocean. Without the benefit of the draft framework plan
for marine spatial planning it is difficult to comment on whether NOAA
is the appropriate lead Federal agency for the planning process
envisioned.
Question 5. Mr. Frank, in your testimony, you said climate change
and ocean acidification are real problems facing tribes in their daily
lives. Could you explain how they are impacting tribes, and how the
Federal Government can assist tribes in adapting to these changes?
Answer. The tribes have been witnessing changes across the
landscape. Rainfall patterns have been shifting. Coupled with land use
changes in our watersheds this change has resulted in earlier peak
flows, increased frequency and intensity of floods. For the Hoh Tribe
seasonal flooding and anticipated increases in sea levels have lead to
relocation of tribal housing to higher ground. We are appreciative of
the NW congressional delegation's efforts in helping secure this land
for the tribe. Unfortunately, the Hoh Tribe probably will not be the
last tribal community that will needs such relocation assistance.
The change in rainfall pattern has also put a strain on well water
supplies across the region. The Makah Tribe has had to watch more
closely their yearly freshwater supply as a result. This is a growing
trend across the region. Communities will be looking to increase their
holding capacity or bring additional water supplies on line. The
Federal Government needs to prepare to deal with water supply and
allocation in the near future.
The change in weather patterns is reducing our snow pack and
glaciers. This is negatively affecting habitat for salmon and steelhead
by changing flow patterns and water temperate. We need to increase the
speed and scope of our efforts to restore stream buffers and riparian
areas to provide adequate shade and deep pools to counter this trend.
Our salmon need this to have a chance to thrive into the future.
We are seeing shifts in abundance and distribution of fish in our
oceans. Southern species such as mackerel and Humboldt squid are
becoming more prevalent off our coast. The frequency and severity of
hypoxic dead zones off the outer coast has increased. The same can be
said for toxic algae blooms leading to seabird deaths. We do not know
whether this is caused more by climate change or shifts in ocean
acidification. We are afraid these subtle changes are making our region
more welcoming to invasive species. Federal action is required to begin
to address the root causes for these problems and establish better
safeguards for our environment (e.g., reducing nitrogen and phosphates
levels in freshwater, prohibiting nearshore ballast discharge).
Question 6. I know that the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
considers ecosystem-based management a priority in its role as a co-
manager of ocean fisheries. What can the Federal Government do to help
tribal governments achieve the mutual goal of ecosystem-based
management for our fisheries resources?
Answer. Ecosystem-based management should be made a priority for
NOAA. Provide adequate funding for NOAA Fisheries and the Regional
Science Centers to increase their efforts toward this goal. Establish a
pilot project for the Northwest Region to work with the coastal tribes
and the State of Washington to implement an ecosystem-based approach
for rockfish populations off the Washington Coast.
Question 7. What mechanisms for co-management tend to work which
tend to be less successful, based on your experience?
Answer. Tribes are sovereign governments and should be dealt with
on a government-to-government basis. What works best is the
establishment of a management framework that treats each manager
equally in stature and status. An approach where each manager is
represented at the table and has an equal voice in the decisionmaking
process. This approach is accompanied with adequate funding for all
managers to allow them to fully engage in the process at all levels--
data gathering resource monitoring, assessment, and policy development.
A framework and approach where each manager has the opportunity for
input throughout the process from start to finish.
What doesn't work is the establishment of a tiered framework, where
not all the managers are seated or fully represented at the table. An
approach where engagement for one set of managers comes only in the
form of consultation and input is only sought on the final decision.
This tiered representation can occur where funding is limited to the
extent that it hampers or prohibits full participation in the process.
Tribes must be engaged early and often in the decisionmaking process.
Question 8. What are some of the barriers preventing us from
implementing ecosystem-based management with the Federal Government and
tribal governments as functional co-managers?
Answer. The biggest barrier for ocean resources is funding
constraints prohibiting the gathering of data in the frequency and
resolution necessary for implementing such an approach. In addition,
the current Federal management framework doesn't provide the tribal or
state managers complete participation in the resource assessment
decisionmaking process.
A different set of barriers exist for our steelhead and salmon
resources. The complexity of the management structure is the biggest
barrier from truly implementing effective ecosystem-based management.
The fragmentation of management and regulatory responsibilities is a
hindrance given the multitude of agencies that have authority over the
fishery resource and its marine and freshwater habitat. Coordination of
effort is difficult and increased funding to facilitate better
coordination is needed. Even with the umbrella of the Endangered
Species Act not all Federal agencies--most notably Department
Agriculture--have consulted on their impacts to listed species within
Puget Sound. Even NOAA, in carrying out Coastal Zone Management Act
compliance review activities, has yet to fully assessed impacts to ESA
Chinook Salmon recovery plans within Puget Sound.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Dennis Takahashi-Kelso, Ph.D.
Question 1. What does a national ocean policy mean to you?
Answer. A national ocean policy is a governance framework for all
U.S. federal waters that establishes goals and mandatory standards,
provides mechanisms for implementation, supports scientific research,
and requires effective monitoring and assessment. A science-based
national ocean policy can help maintain the health of our oceans so
that we and future generations may continue to benefit from its myriad
services. The ocean is critical to our well-being, and it is vital that
we protect, maintain, and restore the ecosystems that make it
productive. A strong national ocean policy with ecosystem health as a
priority goal is crucial to ensuring that the ocean can continue to
provide the economic, environmental, social, and spiritual benefits
that are so important to us.
Today, our coasts, ocean, and Great Lakes are governed by more than
20 Federal agencies and over 140 Federal laws, not to mention state,
tribal, and local laws as well as international agreements that affect
ocean governance. While individual agencies may practice good ocean
management and administer individual statutes and regulations well, the
overlapping and uncoordinated nature of ocean governance cries out for
a more coordinated policy. The President recognized this in calling for
a National Ocean Policy based on ecosystem-based management and using
marine spatial planning as a tool. I strongly support this initiative.
Question 2. Do you think the process that the Administration is
pursuing to create a national policy and develop a framework for marine
spatial planning is moving the Nation forward?
Answer. The Administration's initiative is an important step in
moving the Nation forward, and so is your committee's interest and
involvement in the process. It will be vital to have the support of
both the Administration and the Congress as the United States develops
and implements a national policy for our ocean, coasts, and Great
Lakes. The current situation is untenable, and we must find ways to
protect, maintain, and restore ecosystem health so the ocean can
continue to provide the important services on which we all rely.
Environmental non-governmental organizations have strongly
supported and continue to endorse the Administration's efforts. Many of
these groups jointly submitted comments on the Interim Report, and some
of these comments address issues that you raise in subsequent
questions. We look forward to reviewing the draft policy on coastal and
marine spatial planning (CMSP) now that it has been released for
comment. It will also be essential to remain engaged in the process--
for us, for Congress, for the Administration, for other stakeholders,
and for the public--as policy formulation and implementation move
forward, both through actions by the Administration and, importantly,
through legislative efforts.
Several critical issues must be addressed: achieving full policy
implementation; ensuring accountability, transparency, and broad,
participatory decision-making; providing adequate funding; and making
sure that the policy accomplishes the Nation's goals. The policy must
establish as a primary goal the protection, maintenance, and
restoration of ecosystem health; and, in concert with that goal, the
policy should promote sustainable economic development now and into the
future.
Question 3. If yes, what are the next steps to keep us moving
forward? If no, how do we move forward?
Answer. Existing statutory authorities give Federal agencies a
significant amount of discretion to consider marine ecosystems as well
as present and future uses of the ocean in making decisions. The
Administration should move quickly to issue an Executive Order that
would ensure that Executive Branch agencies exercise this latitude in a
manner consistent with the Ocean Policy Task Force recommendations. As
discussed below, we also encourage Congress to consider legislation.
Specifically, my organization, along with a coalition of
environmental non-governmental organizations, has suggested how to move
forward with a national ocean policy that uses marine spatial planning
as a tool for ecosystem-based management to protect, maintain, and
restore healthy ocean ecosystems. Our recommendations include:
Planning on a regional basis and, insofar as possible, on an
ecosystem basis, and adopting a governance structure that is
led by a Federal body with not only protection, maintenance,
and restoration of ecosystem health but also agency
coordination at the core of its mission. The proposed National
Ocean Council structure is appropriate for management and
approval of regional planning efforts.
Ensuring that regional planning includes robust
participation of tribes, non-Federal government entities,
stakeholders, and the general public and is structured to
compel responsibility, transparency, and accountability;
Providing adequate resources to ensure that marine spatial
plans are based on high-quality scientific information and
expertise, including traditional and local knowledge.
In addition, we recommend specific steps to create, adopt,
implement, monitor, and adapt marine spatial plans. These steps are
based on research and recommendations from case studies of marine
spatial planning initiatives that have been adopted throughout the
world--from Australia's Great Barrier Reef to the Belgian and German
North Sea coasts to Great Britain's comprehensive ocean legislation to
CMSP initiatives in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. The steps include:
Identify planning needs and preliminary planning objectives;
Assemble data for analysis and planning;
Conduct regional ecological and socio-economic assessments
and identify data gaps;
Determine the conflicts and compatibilities between human
uses of ocean resources on the one hand and ecosystem health on
the other, as well as among human uses;
Develop plans to implement the goals of the National Ocean
Policy and specific national management objectives and to
address regional objectives to the extent that they are
consistent with these goals and objectives;
Adopt the coastal and marine spatial plans and make them
binding;
Implement the final regional plans through the existing
regulatory authorities of individual Federal agencies (or
through new legislation) and monitor progress toward meeting
the plans' objectives; and
Revise and adapt plans as needed.
Together these steps should lead to important progress in national
ocean policy using Executive Branch discretion under existing
legislative authorities and mandates. Progress toward the goal of
healthy ecosystems and sustainable uses of ocean resources could be
even more substantial if Congress were to enact strong ocean policy
legislation.
Question 4. What role do you think that NOAA should play in
implementing a national ocean policy and framework for marine spatial
planning?
Answer. The importance of NOAA's role in implementing a national
ocean policy and CMSP framework cannot be overstated. NOAA has vast
expertise and experience in science-based ocean management and policy.
Among our recommendations for national ocean policy, we urge that NOAA
play a central role and have a seat at the table as a principal level
National Ocean Council member.
NOAA's scientific expertise will be vital to the regional CMSP
process. Assessment and compilation of existing data, as well as
research to fill data gaps, is an essential element of coastal and
marine spatial planning. NOAA's role in this process will be integral
to its success.
Question 5. I know that you are supportive of the work of the Ocean
Policy Task Force, but the Task Force is focused largely on how the
Federal Government can do a better job under existing authorities, and
relies heavily on interagency processes. . . . What are some of the
limits of an interagency approach as proposed under the National Oceans
Council? By relying so heavily on interagency processes within the
Administration, isn't it likely that ocean issues will be handled in
very different ways as Presidential administrations change? Do you see
a need for legislation to implement the recommendations of the Task
Force?
Answer. Your questions get to the heart of the issue. Yes, a policy
based so heavily on Executive Branch action is subject to change under
different administrations. Consequently, in answer to your second
follow-up question, implementing the Task Force recommendations through
legislation could ensure their continued priority regardless of changes
in the executive branch.
Before I address the ways in which legislative action could provide
lasting, effective implementation of the national ocean policy,
however, I would like to discuss what could be accomplished through
action by the Administration, with Congressional support.
As Dr. Lubchenco noted during her testimony, there is much that
Federal agencies can do under existing authorities, including ocean
mandates like the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Coastal Zone Management
Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and environmental mandates like
the National Environmental Policy Act, among others. Use of existing
authority can help implement regional spatially explicit planning,
especially because many of the existing mandates allow for interagency
coordination, although they do not necessarily require it.
Nonetheless, there are definitely limits to what can be done under
existing authority. An executive order could address some of these
limitations by directing agencies to use their discretion under
existing authority for the purpose of implementing coastal and marine
spatial planning, and by directing them to work in a coordinated
fashion. Executive orders can be quite comprehensive and specific. For
example, Executive Order 13508 (12 May 2009) for Chesapeake Bay
Protection and Restoration promotes a comprehensive, coordinated
approach to restoring the health of this important estuary. With
committed, adequate, and sustained financial support from Congress, an
executive order that is sufficiently compulsory and specific would
allow for a positive start to regional marine spatial planning. While
administrations can and do change--and with them, the Executive Branch
priorities--once programs and policies are in place and successful,
they have a certain self-sustaining momentum that can help ensure their
continued application.
As you noted, however, not all executive orders have the same
staying power. Legislation could create a comprehensive framework for
implementing CMSP in a binding and lasting manner. It could cut through
the myriad statutes and regulations affecting ocean policy and could
overcome the fragmented, sector-based system that currently exists. New
legislation could address these issues for the long term. While
legislation, too, can be changed, it provides greater certainty that
policies will be implemented, supported, and sustained. We are
committed to working with you in the coming year to determine areas
where legislation can help fill existing gaps in authority and solidify
national policy to meet the goal of protecting, maintaining, and
restoring ocean ecosystems that support healthy economies and help
satisfy our Nation's other needs--social, traditional, environmental,
and spiritual. We support your working to adopt comprehensive ocean
legislation to establish a national ocean policy that uses ecosystem-
based management through marine spatial planning as a tool to
accomplish those goals.
Congress's role extends beyond passage of legislation. Effective
coastal and marine spatial planning requires adequate and sustained
funding. Congressional support in the appropriations process is
crucial. Your efforts with Ranking Member Snowe to increase NOAA's
budget are an important step. Coordinating national, tribal, and state
planning efforts will also require financial assistance to enable
participation and to serve as incentives for tribes and states, as well
as local governmental entities, to engage as active planning partners.