[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE PRESIDENT'S NEW NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY--A PLAN FOR FURTHER
RESTRICTIONS ON OCEAN, COASTAL AND INLAND ACTIVITIES
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-68
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-597 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, October 4, 2011......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts..................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Pierluisi, Hon. Pedro R., the Resident Commissioner in
Congress from Puerto Rico, Statement submitted for the
record..................................................... 64
Statement of Witnesses:
Bullard, John, President, Sea Education Association.......... 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Coleman, W. Jackson, Co-Managing Director, National Ocean
Policy Coalition........................................... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Farr, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Gilmore, Jim, Director of Public Affairs, At-sea Processors
Association................................................ 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Gorelnik, Marc, Board of Directors, Coastside Fishing Club... 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Guith, Christopher, Vice President for Policy, Institute for
21st Century Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.............. 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Lanard, Jim, President, Offshore Wind Development Coalition.. 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Rutenberg, Barry, Chairman-Elect of the Board, National
Association of Homebuilders................................ 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Additional materials supplied:
Robins, Richard B., Jr., Chairman, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, Statement submitted for the record..... 64
Spence, Captain Jay W., President, Passenger Vessel
Association, Letter and statement submitted for the record. 65
OVERSIGHT HEARING TITLED ``THE PRESIDENT'S NEW NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY--A
PLAN FOR FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON OCEAN, COASTAL AND INLAND
ACTIVITIES.''
----------
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m. in Room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, The Honorable Doc
Hastings [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hastings, Young, Duncan of
Tennessee, Bishop, Lamborn, Wittman, Fleming, McClintock,
Duncan of South Carolina, Tipton, Gosar, Southerland, Flores,
Runyan, Markey, Holt, Bordallo, Sarbanes, Tsongas, Pierluisi,
Garamendi, and Hanabusa.
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. The
Chairman notes the presence of a quorum, which under Rule 3[e]
is just a couple Members, and we have that easily.
The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on an
oversight hearing on ``The President's New National Ocean
Policy--A Plan for Further Restrictions on Ocean, Coastal and
Inland Activities''. Under Rule 4[f], opening statements are
limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member. However, I ask
unanimous consent that any Member who wishes to submit a
statement provide that statement before the close of business
today. Without objection, so ordered. I will now recognize
myself for my opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
The Chairman. In 2009, President Obama ordered the creation
of an Interagency Ocean Task Force to establish a new policy
for management of our oceans and coasts. From the onset, there
are serious questions about the task force work and the
recommendations. A bipartisan group of 69 Members of Congress
wrote the Chairman of the task force expressing concerns that
the effort was not balanced and failed to recognize the need
for a multi-use policy--a multi-use policy that includes both
the responsible use of our ocean resources and environmental
stewardship.
From fishing to energy production to recreation, our oceans
are an integral part of our national economy that supports
millions of jobs throughout the country. Any new regulations or
changes to the management of our oceans should be done
thoughtfully and in full collaboration with those affected.
Despite expressions of concern from various sectors of our
economy and bipartisan voices in Congress, President Obama last
year signed an Executive Order to unilaterally implement the
final recommendations of the task force. This was done without
congressional approval and without specific statutory
authority. With the stroke of a pen, President Obama created a
new, huge, top-heavy bureaucracy that could override state and
local authorities, and change the way activities on the oceans,
coasts and far inland, as a matter of fact, will be managed.
The Executive Order creates 10 national policies, a 27-
member national ocean council, an 18-member governance
coordinating committee, and nine regional planning bodies. This
has led to the creation of nine national priority objectives,
nine strategic action plans, seven national goals for coastal
marine spacial planning, and 12 guiding principles for coastal
marine spacial planning.
This tangled web of regulatory layers will only lead to
increased uncertainty for many diverse sectors of the economy,
and it will create demands for new spending by the Federal
bureaucracies charged with executing and funding this Executive
Order.
Especially alarming is the mandatory ocean zoning order to
be imposed. Disguised with the label of coastal marine
planning, ocean zoning would place huge sections of the ocean
off limits to activities not zoned as government approved.
Ocean zoning is posed to impact commercial and recreational
fishing, and energy development, including renewable energy,
recreational activities, marine commerce, shipping,
transportation, construction and manufacturing. It has the
potential to stop economic growth and the jobs associated with
that growth.
Though labeled as ocean policy, the Executive Order scope
goes way beyond the oceans. The order includes the Great Lakes
where states could be dictated to by a regional planning body
on where certain activities are allowed. Regional planning
bodies are empowered to reach far inland to potentially
regulate activities occurring on lands adjacent to rivers,
tributaries, or watersheds that drain into the ocean or, in
this case, the Great Lakes.
None of the people, communities, and businesses most
affected by this policy will have representation on the
regional planning bodies. They have no seat at the table
deciding their fate. The President's Executive Order places all
the power in the hands of the government.
So, let me be clear. The Administration can, and should,
require Executive Branch agencies with jurisdiction over our
ocean policies, to work in a coordinated manner, to share
information, and reduce duplication of their work. However,
this White House policy has been driven under the claim that it
is only an ocean conservation measure when its actual effects
could be far-reaching and economically hurtful to American jobs
and businesses both at sea and well onshore.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources
In 2009, President Obama ordered the creation of an Interagency
Ocean Policy Task Force to establish a new policy for the management of
our oceans and coasts. From the onset, there were serious questions
about the Task Force's work and recommendations. A bipartisan group of
69 Members of Congress wrote the Chairwoman of the Task Force
expressing concerns that the effort was not balanced and failed to
recognize the need for a multi-use policy. A multi-use policy that
includes both the responsible use of our ocean resources and
environmental stewardship.
From fishing to energy production to recreation, our oceans are an
integral part of our national economy that supports millions of jobs
throughout the country. Any new regulations or changes to the
management of our oceans should be done thoughtfully and in full
collaboration with those affected.
Despite expressions of concern from various sectors of our economy
and bipartisan voices in Congress, President Obama last year signed an
Executive Order to unilaterally implement the final recommendations of
the Task Force. This was done without Congressional approval and
without specific statutory authority.
With the stroke of the pen, President Obama created a new, huge
top-down bureaucracy that could over-ride states and local authorities,
and change the way activities on the oceans, coasts and far inland will
be managed.
The Executive Order creates: 10 National Policies; a 27-member
National Ocean Council; an 18-member Governance Coordinating Committee;
and 9 Regional Planning Bodies. This has led to the creation of: 9
National Priority Objectives; 9 Strategic Action Plans; 7 National
Goals for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning; and 12 Guiding Principles
for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning.
This tangled web of regulatory layers will only lead to increased
uncertainty for many, diverse sectors of the economy; and, it will
create demands for new spending by the federal bureaucracies charged
with executing and funding this Executive Order.
Especially alarming is the mandatory `ocean zoning' ordered to be
imposed. Disguised with the label of Coastal Marine Spatial Planning,
`ocean zoning' could place huge sections of the ocean off-limits to
activities not `zoned' as government-approved.
`Ocean zoning' is poised to impact commercial and recreational
fishing, energy development--including renewable energy, recreational
activities, marine commerce, shipping and transportation, construction
and manufacturing. It has the potential to stunt economic growth, and
the jobs associated with that growth.
Though labeled as `ocean policy,' the Executive Order's scope goes
well beyond the oceans. The order includes the Great Lakes, where
states could be dictated to by a Regional Planning Body on where
certain economic activities are allowed.
Regional Planning Bodies are empowered to reach far inland to
potentially regulate activities occurring on lands adjacent to rivers,
tributaries or watersheds that drain into the ocean.
None of the people, communities and businesses affected the most by
this policy will have representation on the Regional Planning Bodies.
They have no seat at the table deciding their fate. The President's
Executive Order places all the power in the hands of the government.
So, let me be clear, the Administration can and should require
Executive Branch agencies with jurisdiction over our ocean policy to
work in a coordinated manner, to share information, and reduce
duplication of their work.
However, this policy has been driven under the claim it's only an
ocean conservation measure, when its actual effects could be far-
reaching and economically hurtful to American jobs and businesses both
at-sea and well-ashore.
______
The Chairman. With that I yield back my time. I am pleased
to recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDWARD MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Markey. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
welcome our guest, Mr. Farr, and everyone else who is here with
us today.
The letters P-L-A-N, may be a four-letter word but they are
not a dirty word, as the Republican Majority would have us
believe. The last time I checked plans were helpful things. We
have an emergency evacuation plan for this building. We have a
plan for the airspace above us that says no one can fly too
close to the Capitol. We have long-term investment plans so we
can enjoy a comfortable retirement, but no plans would be a
loss day to day and long term. We would struggle when decisive
action was needed. It would cause unnecessary conflicts that
could be avoided.
Just like other plans, comprehensive ocean planning would
allow everyone with an interest in our coasts and oceans to
participate in the transparent decisionmaking process to
determine how to best utilize an increasingly busy, productive,
and important national resource. This would increase
productivity and certainly for existing and new uses of these
areas, and improved ocean health would provide certainty.
Opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic
control. You can do it, but it will cause a mess or lead to
dire consequences. And it is time for our nation to have an
ocean plan. The United States and territories have exclusive
economic jurisdiction over approximately 4.5 million square
miles of ocean. These areas are a vital part of the United
States economy, supporting tens of millions of jobs and
contributing trillions of dollars annually to our national
economy. Our coastal counties which make up only 18 percent of
the country's land area are home to 108 million people, or 36
percent of our nation's population, and these numbers are
steadily increasing. These growing uses within our ocean and
coastal areas are placing significant pressures on these
natural resources, and planning will help ensure that they are
healthy and available for future generations.
Last year, the President established the National Ocean
Policy to do just that, begin planning to protect, maintain,
and restore our ocean and coastal resources. Instead of
supporting a plan for our oceans, the Republican Majority
continues to pursue scare tactics, claiming that the policy
creates additional regulations and kills American jobs. Just
the opposite is true.
By harmonizing the existing regulations that govern our
coasts and oceans, this policy will allow developments to move
ahead more quickly while creating jobs and improving the health
of the oceans.
This is not just a theoretical debate. We know ocean
planning works. Look at what has happened in my home state of
Massachusetts. In 2008, Governor Deval Patrick signed into law
the landmark Massachusetts Oceans Act to develop the first in
the Nation ocean management plan designed to balance commercial
and recreational use with wildlife and habitat protection in
state waters. The plan uses hard data, and web-based mapping to
make sure we are not creating conflict on the high seas.
For example, Massachusetts works with stakeholders to
refine the area considered for offshore wind energy development
to take into account certain areas identified as important to
the fishing industry while still making wind energy developers
happy because plenty of space was still going to be available
for them in future offshore energy development.
An ocean plan enables businesses to create, catch the wind
or to catch the fish without getting caught up in unnecessary
conflict. An ocean plan will also allow military operations and
maritime shipping to both to occur off the coast of Virginia so
the Armed Forces can practice landing tanks and companies can
still land their tankers. An ocean plan means we can lay down
fiber optic cable from Cape Cod to Martha's Vineyard without
affecting fish habitat so customers can surf the World Wide Web
without affecting the web of life below the surf.
The National Ocean Policy, like the Massachusetts ocean
management plan, is a plan that we should all support. The
ocean plan promotes commerce while encouraging economy, and
promotes the economy while protecting ecosystems.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The letters, P-L-A-N may be a ``four-letter'' word, but they are
not a dirty word, as the Republican Majority would have us believe. The
last time I checked, plans were helpful things. We have an emergency
evacuation plan for this building. We have a plan for the airspace
above us that says no one can fly too close to the Capitol. We make
long-term investment plans so we can enjoy a comfortable retirement.
Without plans, we'd be at a loss day-to-day and long-term. We'd
struggle when decisive action was needed. We'd cause unnecessary
conflicts that could be avoided.
Just like other plans, comprehensive ocean planning would allow
everyone with an interest in our coasts and oceans to participate in a
transparent, decision-making process to determine how to best utilize
an increasingly busy, productive and important national resource. This
would increase predictability and certainty for existing and new users
of these areas and improve ocean health.
Opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic control. You
can do it but it will cause a mess or lead to dire consequences.
It is time for our nation to have an ocean plan. The United States
and territories have exclusive economic jurisdiction over approximately
4.5 million square miles of ocean. These areas are a vital part of the
U.S. economy, supporting tens of millions of jobs and contributing
trillions of dollars annually to our national economy. Our coastal
counties, which make up only 18% of the country's land area, are home
to 108.3 million people or 36% of our nation's population, and these
numbers are steadily increasing. These growing uses within our ocean
and coastal areas are placing significant pressures on these natural
resources and planning will help ensure that they are healthy and
available for future generations.
Last year, the President established the National Ocean Policy to
do just that--begin planning to protect, maintain, and restore our
ocean and coastal resources. Instead of supporting a plan for our
oceans, the Republican Majority continues to pursue scare tactics,
claiming that the policy creates additional regulations and kills
American jobs.
Just the opposite is true. By harmonizing the existing regulations
that govern our coasts and oceans, this policy will allow developments
to move ahead more quickly while creating jobs and improving the health
of the oceans.
This is not just a theoretical debate. We know ocean planning
works. Look at what has happened in my home state of Massachusetts. In
2008, Governor Deval Patrick signed into law the landmark Massachusetts
Oceans Act to develop the first-in-the-nation ocean management plan
designed to balance commercial and recreational use with wildlife and
habitat protection in state waters. The plan uses hard data and web-
based mapping to make sure we're not creating conflict on the high
seas.
For example, Massachusetts worked with stakeholders to refine the
area considered for offshore wind energy development to take into
account certain areas identified as important to the fishing industry--
while still making wind energy developers happy because plenty of space
was still going to be available to them for future offshore energy
development. An ocean plan enables businesses to catch the wind or
catch the fish, without getting caught up in unnecessary conflict.
An ocean plan will also allow military operations and maritime
shipping to both occur off the coast of Virginia, so the armed forces
can practice landing tanks and companies can still land their tankers.
An ocean plan means we can lay down fiber optic cable from Cape Cod
to Martha's Vineyard without affecting fish habitat, so customers can
surf the worldwide web without affecting the web of life below the
surf.
The National Ocean Policy, like the Massachusetts Ocean Management
Plan, is a plan that we should all support. The ocean plan promotes
commerce, while encouraging comity, and promotes the economy while
protecting ecosystems.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, and I thank the gentleman, and I
would just make a note regarding his testimony. He talked about
planning. Nobody is opposed to planning. But the operative
words of what the gentleman said was that there is a law signed
by the Governor of Massachusetts. I don't think any of us would
argue with that process. What we are having this hearing on
today is something called an Executive Order coming
unilaterally from the White House, and that is the distinction,
and that is something obviously we can discuss.
I appreciate the gentleman's testimony and I am very
pleased to welcome our first panel, a former colleague of ours
on this Committee and a gentleman from California, Mr. Farr,
and I don't think I have to go through the drill. You know what
the green light means, the yellow light means and the red light
means. What you don't know is that we strictly enforce this in
this Committee, so with that we are very pleased to welcome the
gentleman from California, Mr. Farr.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Chairman Hastings, and thank
you, Ranking Member Markey, and all of the Members, many new to
me when I was on this Committee.
I just want to point out that the issue that you have
before you was brought to you, brought to us by us, by this
Committee. This Committee, in the year 2000 under the
Republican leadership of Don Young, passed the Oceans Act of
2000, and that Act created an Oceans Commission. The bill
actually was signed into law, I think, by President Clinton,
but the appointees to the Commission were made by President
Bush, and those on the Commission represented oil companies and
port authorities, oil drilling companies, the University of
Washington, Oil Shipping Council, Wells Fargo Bank in Alaska,
University of South Florida and others.
That Commission published for us, because we asked them,
what do we need to do about our oceans, and here is the issue.
As you pointed out, we have dozens, dozens, multi dozens, I
think 140 Federal laws and dozens of agencies. I have been
dealing with coastal issues all my political life, and what you
have is a conflict of the seas; is that Mineral Mining Agency
doesn't tell fishermen where they are going to patrol for
seismic issues, pulling up crab pots, destroying fisheries. I
mean, there has just been a lack of communication, and for
years the states have asked the Federal Government to try to
resolve these conflicts, which are all Federal agencies, and to
work with state agencies to come up with a process that allows
you to know what is going on in your back yard, and that is
what this report, the final report given to Congress
recommended essentially everything that is in the President's
Act.
We in Congress introduced bills, not much of which had to
be done statutorily except for I think the permanence of
governing commissions, so I think the criticism of the Chairman
is, well, these are regional commissions. Sure, we have
regional commissions for clean water, we have regional
commissions for clean air, but most importantly we have
regional commissions to set up our fishing policies, and those
commissions have reported back to us that we can't just deal
with whether you can or cannot fish without dealing with all
these other issues that your other Federal agencies do, so your
27 Federal agencies need to come together and come up with a
plan. That is exactly what the President did. I think every
Federal agency was involved in discussing how we have an oceans
policy.
I might add that the Chair of the private nonprofit, the
Pew Oceans Policy, which actually made recommendations to this
Committee about the same time as the committee's Ocean Council
did. That was chaired by Leon Panetta, who was very involved in
oceans issues and is now Secretary of Defense, and I think if
he were here to testify today he would tell you this is
absolutely essential for our national security.
Look, the planet is blue, and it is 73 percent water. The
United States has more ocean territory than any other country,
not because of just our coastlines but we have exclusive
economic zone jurisdiction 200 miles out from all the
possessions that we have, so the Guams, the Hawaiis and all the
Atolls in the South Pacific that we are responsible for
managing, we have that. So we are the king of the world on
oceans and we don't have a policy until the President came
along and did exactly what essentially a Republican-led
Commission recommended to be done.
I think that if you are going to deal with the Act we ought
to look at statutorily implement some of these things because
we want it to be permanent. As you know, an Executive Order can
be repealed by the next President. So, the statements that you
made, Mr. Chairman, that I have to take issue with. There is no
mandated zoning planning in this. It is a bottoms-up process.
It is one that our state, California, is very involved in
because we have probably the strongest Coastal Act in
California, and it is almost sacred to the state. In fact,
nations around the world are coming to California to look at
what they are doing because they want to implement coastal zone
management as we have done in our state. So it in no way
restricts any ocean activity, and it doesn't impose any new
regulations.
What they said is we need much more of a planning process
that can deal with these conflicts of the sea. We do it in the
law, it is a bottom-up planning approach. It gives states and
regions the ability to make informed decisions about how best
to use the ocean. Each state has a right to decide whether they
would like to conduct marine spacial planning off their coasts.
It is not mandated. Twenty-two of the 35 coastal states have
expressed the need for coastal marine spacial planning in their
coastal zone management plans.
So, I think that we are right on target in meeting what
this Committee earlier, working with then-Chairman Don Young,
about how the Commission should do this report to Congress and
what should be included, we are now implementing it. We ought
to be praising the action taken because you are the responsible
steward for all of this ocean. There is no other committee in
Congress that has this jurisdiction, and it is a global
responsibility.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Farr follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Sam Farr,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, and to the rest of my
colleagues that sit on this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
submit testimony on the President's National Ocean Policy. This issue
is of particular importance to me, as I have spent much of my career
fighting to improve ocean governance and management. I think many of my
colleagues here today would agree that the oceans play a critical role
in our national economy. Commercial fishing, for example, contributes
$70 billion annually to our nation's economy and is an industry that
impacts businesses in every community across America. From the
fisherman who catches our dinner, to the truck driver who transports
the seafood, to the mom and pop seafood restaurant owners, all of these
people depend on healthy oceans for their livelihoods.
The terrifying fact is, however, that our ocean economy is at risk.
Just this summer, a growing 83-mile dead zone in the Chesapeake Bay was
described by scientists as the worst in history. Simply put, if we
continue on our current destructive path, oyster and shellfish
populations in Chesapeake Bay will be doomed, placing further economic
hardship on shellfish harvesters and fishermen.
Our inability to deal with the serious pressures facing our oceans
stems from the way we manage our oceans, which historically has been a
bureaucratic mess where we manage our resources in what amounts to
policy ``silos.'' Over 140 Federal laws and dozens of agencies have
jurisdiction over ocean resources. This problem was recognized by both
the Bush Administration's U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew
Oceans Commission. These two separate Commissions found the Federal
government's management of our oceans to be fragmented, uncoordinated,
and in dire need of improvement. Following consultation with hundreds
of stakeholders and scientists, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
published its final report which called for a comprehensive and
coordinated national ocean policy.
To fulfill the Bush Commission's recommendations, President Obama
established America's first National Ocean Policy to reduce duplicative
efforts and waste and increase the effectiveness and coordination of
ocean management. The National Ocean Policy emphasizes the importance
of oceans for jobs, food, energy development, transportation, trade,
and international security with the goal of sustaining both our ocean
economy and our marine resources.
The National Ocean Policy has laid out nine priority objectives in
order to address the most pressing challenges facing our oceans,
coasts, and Great Lakes. These priority objectives include: enhancing
water quality, addressing changing conditions in the Arctic,
implementing ecosystem-based management, improving Federal coordination
with State, tribal, local, and regional efforts, developing adaptation
strategies for ocean acidification, and utilizing a data collection and
analyzing tool called Coastal Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP). Through
the nine priority objectives, tangible benefits will be achieved by all
ocean users.
Unfortunately, however, there has been a great deal of
misconception regarding CMSP, which is just one of the nine priority
objectives. This misconception has wrongly tainted the understanding of
the National Ocean Policy at its most basic level. Some claim that CMSP
is a new, mandatory program that will impose job-killing regulations on
ocean industries and restrict ocean uses and activities--but this is
simply untrue. The National Ocean Policy explicitly states that CMSP
shall ``Support sustainable, safe, secure, efficient, and productive
uses of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes, including those
that contribute to the economy, commerce, recreation, conservation,
homeland and national security, human health, safety, and welfare ...
and ... Provide for and maintain public access to the ocean, coasts,
and Great Lakes.'' Ultimately, the National Ocean Policy is about
balance and will ensure long-term sustainability for our ocean economy,
ocean jobs, and ocean environment.
The Administration has made very clear that the National Ocean
Policy is a nonregulatory, bottom-up approach. CMSP is an adaptive,
ecosystem-based tool that has been used for decades to analyze current
and anticipated uses of our coastal and marine resources. Under the
National Ocean Policy, each state has the right to decide whether they
would like to conduct CMSP off of their coasts, and decisions about the
offshore environment will be made by local governments in coordination
with tribal, State, and regional entities. It is important to point out
that 22 of the 35 coastal States explicitly recognize the need for CMSP
in their Coastal Zone Management plans, including Washington, Texas,
Georgia, Virginia, and South Carolina. These states recognize that
improved decision-making across multiple levels of government will
translate to saving both the government and permit applicants' time and
money by reducing duplication of effort.
Additionally, CMSP will produce upfront benefits to the industry
and agencies, helping create jobs in emerging industries by providing
more certainty for offshore projects. CMSP in the State of
Massachusetts, for example, allowed for coordinated planning between
Federal and State agencies and stakeholders in the planning of offshore
wind energy development. Through a collaborative effort, the State was
able to acquire and analyze existing data and information regarding
fisheries, transportation, navigation infrastructure, sediment,
recreation and cultural services, and wind. Using this information, the
State was able to determine the area most suitable for offshore wind
energy, while taking into account areas identified as important to the
fishing industry. This example demonstrates how CSMP can successfully
reduce conflict, provide certainty to the industry, and also result in
a streamlined decision-making process leading to substantial
ecological, social, and economic benefits.
I agree that implementation of the National Ocean Policy must be a
transparent, open, and stakeholder driven process. So far, the
Administration has made an effort to ensure that stakeholders have a
voice through public workshops and comment periods, but these efforts
need to be expanded as we move forward so the actions and issues most
important to the American people can be brought to the forefront. The
National Policy will ultimately provide States, Tribes and Local
governments an unprecedented forum, through the newly established
Governance Coordinating Committee which represents all parts of the
U.S. with the purpose of coordinating on an ongoing basis with the
Federal government. Congress, however, has not recognized that this
stakeholder engagement comes at a cost, and if we want a transparent
process, we must provide the necessary funding.
The National Ocean Policy is a common-sense, bipartisan idea that
has spanned both Republican and Democratic Administrations. If we want
to ensure that fishing, recreation, and other uses are available to
future generations, we must act now to change the status quo. The
National Ocean Policy is about good governance, not restricted use, and
it is necessary both for the long term health of our national economy
and our ocean environment.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today, and I hope
that we can work together to ensure that our vibrant coastal economies
thrive and local communities have a voice in ocean governance.
______
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his testimony, and
while we don't ask questions of Members, there is a precedent
of doing that here on this Committee. I think the gentleman was
part of that the last time we had that.
Mr. Farr. Three hours.
The Chairman. I just want to make an observation because
you are testifying in front of a committee that probably to a
person would not say we have to be responsible for planning on
the oceans. That is a great unknown really when you think about
it. But this hearing is about an Executive Order by the
President, and in your own testimony you suggested that there
ought to be some statutory means to address this. I am not
opposed to that. We may have a huge debate of what those
statutory efforts will be, but there has been nothing, there
has been no legislation sent to this Committee to implement the
task force recommendations. Nothing has come down.
And I know the gentleman has introduced legislation. You
and I have had conversations on that. But I think the proper
way and what this hearing is all about, the proper way is the
role of Congress in all of this. I am certainly open to that.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I used to be
a member of this Committee. There was a former Chairman, Mr.
Pombo, who would not even hear the report even though Admiral
Watkins, our former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was
involved on this Committee, was Chair of the Committee, came
before it asking to be able to present the report to the
Committee. They were denied. Bills have been introduced and
they haven't had a hearing, and you had leaders on your side.
You had Congressman Greenwood, Don Young has been involved in
it, Congressmen Saxton and Gilchrest, all active members of
this Committee who really wanted to move forward with
legislation, and essentially it never got the hearings, it
never got the time of day.
So, if you are interested in doing it, we certainly have
the framework of legislation, I will give it to you.
The Chairman. Every Member is free to introduce
legislation.
Are there further questions of the gentleman from
California? The gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Markey. I thank the gentleman, I just want to thank the
gentleman for his work. You are the single most consistent
supporter of the oceans in the Congress, and no one can match
your passion and your knowledge of the subject, and we thank
you for being here.
Mr. Farr. Well, thank you very much. Let me tell you why. I
grew up on the oceans, and I saw these conflicts, and my family
has probably been more involved in helping the fishermen in
getting--we used to have the largest sardine port in the world
in Monterey, California. When that port closed, when the
sardines disappeared because we just over fished them, it was
devastation, really devastation. Now they have turned it into a
tourist industry, thank God to John Steinbach writing the book
``Cannery Row''. But the fishing is coming back and we are
working with it.
Our biggest tourist attraction is not on the gulf, it is in
the Monterey area, but it is the aquarium on the Monterey Bay
area. It is essentially the ocean and the watchable water life
of sea otters, sea lions, bird life, now we have condors being
restored. It is a huge market. People pay a lot of money to
come see watchable wildlife, and all of you have that in your
district, and what this Committee is and why I love this
Committee is because you are the stewards for that.
You know, the birds and trees and animals don't vote, but
you represent them, and I think we find when we manage our
resources well they are sustainable, and the issue on the
oceans is they are dying. All you have to do is get the reports
of what happened two weeks ago in the ocean clean up of all the
stuff they found. Oceans are dying, and if they die mankind
dies because we are dependent on that sea.
So, we have to find a way to sustain a livable ocean, and
the only way you are going to do it is with good strong
planning. Thank you.
The Chairman. Further questions of the gentleman? If not,
Mr. Farr, thank you. OK, Mr. Farr, thank you very much for your
testimony, and if further questions are asked of you, it will
be in writing, and we would like you to respond. I am not sure
it is going to happen, but the opportunity is open.
Mr. Farr. We will get you a copy of the report that was
prepared for this committee.
The Chairman. We have a copy of it here. I have been
perusing it.
Mr. Farr. OK. Thank you very much
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Farr.
Next, I would like to call our next panel to testify. We
have Mr. W. Jackson Coleman, Co-Managing Director of the
National Ocean Policy Coalition; Mr. Jim Gilmore, Director of
Public Relations, At-sea Processors Association; Mr.
Christopher Guith, Vice President - Policy, U.S. Chamber of
Commerce; Mr. Barry Rutenberg, Chairman-Elect of the Board of
National Association of Homebuilders; Mr. Marc Gorelnik, Board
of Directors, Coastside Fishing Club; Mr. John Bullard,
President of the Sea Education Association; and Mr. Jim Lanard,
President of Offshore Wind Development Coalition.
I want to thank all of you for joining the Committee today,
and once again, under the rules by which we operate, the green
light in front of you means you are free to talk, but when the
yellow light comes on it means you have one minute left, and
when the red light comes on it means your five minutes are up.
Your full written testimony will appear in the record, so I
invite you to summarize your testimony orally.
With that we will go to our first witness, Mr. W. Jackson
Coleman, Co-Managing Director of the National Ocean Policy
Coalition. You are recognized for five minutes, Mr. Coleman.
STATEMENT OF W. JACKSON COLEMAN, CO-MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
OCEAN POLICY COALITION
Mr. Coleman. Thank you, Congressman Hastings and Ranking
Member Markey, and Members of the Committee. We are very
pleased to be able to provide our testimony today on behalf of
the coalition. As a personal note, I appreciate the opportunity
to testify before the Committee having served here for almost
six years, and previously to that for 14 years at the Interior
Department dealing with ocean issues, and before that at NOAA
for three and a half years. So most of the last 29 years I have
been personally involved in ocean policy issues.
Now, the Ocean Policy Coalition is an organization of
diverse interests united in our desire to ensure that the
implementation of this new National Ocean Policy is done in a
way that is helpful rather than harmful to the national
interest, including the interest of commercial and recreational
users of the ocean and marine-related natural resources.
As currently set forth, the National Ocean Policy has the
potential to unnecessarily damage both terrestrial and marine
economic value by affecting sectors such as agriculture,
commercial and recreational fishing, construction,
manufacturing, marine commerce, mining, oil and gas, renewable
energy, recreational boating, and water-borne transportation,
among others. These sectors support tens of millions of jobs
and contribute trillions of dollars to the U.S. economy.
The Coalition believes that the justification for many
aspects of the policy including, but not limited to coastal and
marine spacial planning, has not been adequately established by
information based on realities on the ground and scientific
data. In addition, uncertainty continues to abound--in some
cases within the Administration--about what the policy means,
how it will be implemented and the potential scope of its
impact. I want to emphasize--tremendous uncertainty.
This policy has created, as I said, uncertainty across the
whole economy of this country. As the Administration has
acknowledged, the policy ``may create a level of uncertainty
and anxiety among those who are relying on these resources; and
they generate questions about how they align with existing
processes, authorities, and budget challenges.''
So, frankly, the risk of unintended economic and societal
consequences remains particularly high due in part to the
unprecedented geographic scale under which the policy is to be
established--I should say has been established because the
policy is in effect already even if we don't have coastal
marine spacial plans yet.
The ecosystem-based management requirements of the policy
are fully in effect, as are the requirements that the agencies
exercise their discretion under the statutes to accommodate the
National Ocean Policy.
The Coalition has repeatedly brought up these concerns to
the Administration in great detail. At this time, however, the
policy remains on a fast track for nationwide implementation. A
few of the problems that we are most concerned about is, number
one, the negative impact on U.S. jobs and the economy at large,
potentially affecting every major sector of the economy. This
policy would essentially create exclusionary zones within our
Great Lakes, coastal areas and oceans, and provide a new
regulatory ocean policy overlay over all Federal permits for
inland and offshore activities.
Ocean zoning and the broader ocean policy will not be
limited to these coastal marine areas but to the extent of
every watershed in the country, and coastal marine spacial
planning specifically talks about it will be used to better
manage things like aquaculture, commerce and transportation,
commercial and recreational fishing, and the list goes on and
on.
So, the regional planning bodies, as has been mentioned,
also do not have user groups. The people who produce in this
economy will not be part of those regional planning bodies.
They will be all governmental. The Federal Government will have
the majority vote on every planning body. I understand the
states will have one vote each.
So, there is so much to be talked about here that five
minutes, of course, doesn't do it justice, but we very much
appreciate the hearing and the great concern that we have, that
the Coalition members have, and the opportunity to express
that. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coleman follows:]
Statement of W. Jackson Coleman on Behalf
of the National Ocean Policy Coalition
I. Introduction
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, and Members of the
Committee, my name is Jack Coleman and I am Co-Managing Director of the
National Ocean Policy Coalition (Coalition). We appreciate the
invitation to present the Coalition's views at this hearing on ``The
President's New National Ocean Policy--A Plan for Further Restrictions
on Ocean, Coastal and Inland Activities.''
On a personal note, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before
this Committee which I served for almost six years from 2003 until
2009, first as Energy and Minerals Counsel and then as Republican
General Counsel. My first work on ocean issues began during the period
from March 1982 until August 1985 when I was Special Assistant to the
Associate Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. This was followed by more than 14 years in the
Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor--first as Senior
Attorney for Environmental Protection and later as Senior Attorney for
Royalties and Offshore Minerals. So, for most of the last 29 years I
have been personally involved in ocean policy issues.
The National Ocean Policy Coalition is an organization of diverse
interests united in our desire to ensure that the implementation of the
new National Ocean Policy is done in such a way that it is helpful
rather than harmful to the National interest, including the interests
of commercial and recreational users of the oceans and marine-related
natural resources. Please see our website, www.oceanpolicy.com for
information on our membership and as a resource for information on
ocean policy.
As currently set forth, the National Ocean Policy has the potential
to unnecessarily damage both terrestrial and marine economic value by
affecting sectors such as agriculture, commercial and recreational
fishing, construction, manufacturing, marine commerce, mining, oil and
gas and renewable energy, recreational boating, and waterborne
transportation, among others. These sectors support tens of millions of
jobs and contribute trillions of dollars to the U.S. economy.
The Coalition believes that the justification for many aspects of
the policy, including but not limited to coastal and marine spatial
planning, has not been adequately established by information based on
realities on the ground and scientific data.
In addition, uncertainty continues to abound, in some cases within
the Administration, about what the policy means, how it will be
implemented, and the potential scope of its impact. As the
Administration has acknowledged, the policy ``may create a level of
uncertainty and anxiety among those who rely on these resources and may
generate questions about how they align with existing processes,
authorities, and budget challenges.'' At the same time, federal
entities ``whose actions affect the ocean, our coasts, and the Great
Lakes'' are directed to move aggressively forward with implementation.
Finally, the risk for unintended economic and societal consequences
remains particularly high due in part to the unprecedented geographic
scale under which the policy is to be established. Given the scope and
nature of the policy, the Coalition has consistently maintained--and
continues to believe--that a measured approach in which potential
impacts are examined in a pilot project in a limited area would be a
wiser course of action.
The Coalition has repeatedly brought these concerns to the
Administration in great detail. It has filed numerous, lengthy
documents raising concerns and suggesting a different approach to
solving whatever problems might exist. Recent documents include 16
pages of comments on development of strategic action plans which was
submitted on April 28, 2011, and 98 pages of comments on strategic
action plan full content outlines which was submitted on July 1, 2011.
At this time, however, the policy remains on a fast track for
nationwide implementation.
Let me highlight in detail a few of our concerns:
We are very concerned that the National Ocean Policy
will be negatively impactful to U.S. jobs and the economy at
large, potentially affecting nearly every major sector of the
economy.
This policy would essentially create exclusionary
zones within our Great Lakes, coastal areas, and oceans, making
it more burdensome for citizens and organizations to conduct
commercial and recreational activities that already must comply
with a myriad of environmental regulatory regimes.
Ocean zoning and the broader National Ocean Policy
will not be limited to coastal and marine areas--it could be
applied to restrict activities far inland--to the extent of
every watershed in the country.
The Administration itself acknowledges these
legitimate concerns: ``The Task Force is mindful that these
recommendations may create a level of uncertainty and anxiety
among those who rely on these resources and may generate
questions about how they align with existing processes,
authorities, and budget challenges.'' (Ocean Policy Task Force
Final Recommendations)
Coastal & Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP), a zoning
tool, to be used to ``better manage'' supposed conflicts
involving human uses including: aquaculture, commerce and
transportation (e.g., cargo and cruise ships, tankers, and
ferries), commercial and recreational fishing, boating, mining
(e.g., sand and gravel, oil and gas exploration and
development, ports and harbors, recreational fishing, renewable
energy, boating, beach access, swimming, surfing, security,
emergency response, and military readiness activities,
subsistence uses, tourism, and traditional hunting, fishing,
and gathering.
Regional planning bodies, whose decisions and
disputes will be vetted in Washington, DC by the National Ocean
Council and the President if necessary, have the authority to
include inland areas when developing coastal and marine spatial
plans.
CMSP is but one of several National Ocean Policy
priority objectives that address land-based activity. For
example:
Ecosystem-Based Management: ``an integrated
framework that accounts for the interdependence of the
land, air, water, ice, and the interconnectedness
between human populations and these environments.''
Officials within the Administration have stated to us
that they are unsure what this means in the context of
the National Ocean Policy.
Water Quality and Sustainable Practices on Land
Objective: to address ``major impacts of urban and
suburban development and agriculture, including
forestry and animal feedlots,''and ``relative
contributions of the relative contributions of land-
based sources of pollutants, sediments, and nutrients
to receiving coastal waters and ways to address them. .
.;'' ``poor land management practices'' and ``runoff
from. . .streets and lawns, agricultural and industrial
uses, transportation activities, and urban development.
. .negatively impacts water quality. . .''
Climate Change & Ocean Acidification objective:
outline cites resource extraction as one of several
``stressors'' whose impacts should be reduced,
references regulatory decision-making, and references
``feasible alternative scenarios'' for the future
operation, maintenance, and relocation of built
infrastructure such as coastal roads, port facilities,
and dam operations.
Regional Ecosystem Protection & Restoration
objective: proposes exploration of policy options for
incorporating carbon sequestration services of coastal
wetland habitats into federal decision-making.
Use of the Precautionary Approach or Principle
which provides that federal decisionmakers should
reject permit applications and other requests if the
federal agency determines that information is lacking
about some potential impact of a proposed activity.
Though a National Ocean Policy could be beneficial,
serving as a mechanism for job creation, infrastructure
revitalization, and economic growth, this particular effort
seems to be guided by a bias toward conservation and against
human activity.
Rather than conduct analysis of the potential
economic impacts prior to implementation, the Administration
simply states that the National Ocean Council ``will address
questions and specifics as implementation progresses'' and
references opportunities for stakeholder and public engagement.
(Final Recommendations)
In light of the Administration's own admission that
the policy in part represents ``a fundamental shift in how the
United States manages [ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes]
resources,'' failing to assess economic consequences prior to
mandating and enforcing this broad and sweeping policy
threatens federal, state, and local budgets, jobs, and the
economy at large.
National Ocean Policy and CMSP will require a
significant amount of federal human and financial resources, as
the administration has acknowledged--complete information as to
what the National Ocean Policy-related federal budgetary costs
have been and are likely to be (including those at the non-
federal level, where applicable) has not been forthcoming.
National Ocean Policy creates a new bureaucracy,
including a 54-member National Ocean Council with officials
from 27 different federal entities, two 27-member interagency
policy committees, and nine regional planning bodies covering
every coastal region of the United States.
Governance structure includes federal officials from
entities ranging from the Departments of Defense, Interior, and
Homeland Security all the way to Agriculture, Labor, and Health
& Human Services.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70597.001
.eps Final Recommendations cite some of the many
programs and authorities already in place that address ocean
and coastal activities, including the Coastal Zone Management
Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, National Environmental
Policy Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
The National Ocean Policy has not been
congressionally authorized and Executive Branch has not
adequately engaged Congress. Efforts to pass major ocean policy
legislation have failed three successive Congresses under both
Democrat and Republican control, thus showing that there has
been no consensus in Congress for a vast restructuring of laws
governing ocean and coastal resources and uses.
Congress should have an integral role in any effort
to address changes to the way that ocean and coastal resources
and uses are managed, particularly in light of the fact that
governance/management of these resources and uses ``span
hundreds of domestic policies, laws, and regulations covering
international, Federal, State, tribal, and local interests,''
(Final Recommendations)
NOPC represents many of the sectors that are
supposedly in conflict with each other, and we have yet to hear
any discussion about inherent conflicts that exist in ocean,
coastal, or Great Lakes areas that require a response of this
magnitude
While conflicts among various uses and between uses
and the environment is cited as justification for the policy,
no scientific data is referenced to back up the claims.
The Administration has stated that it will seek to
find funding efficiencies to further the program in light of
current budget constraints.
The Policy has the potential to harm existing jobs
and economic activities by diverting funds from existing
federal programs and operations (e.g. permitting) that such
activities rely on.
There is a real and growing possibility that NGOs
will be empowered to help fill a funding void and influence
policy outcomes, potentially blocking stakeholders with user
perspectives from contributing to the process.
The Outline released by the National Ocean Council
proposes improved coordination through government-private
partnerships to ``enable all parties to better leverage limited
resources'' and calls for the identification and inventory of
``specific ways to leverage funding sources among and between''
federal agencies and NGOs, among others.
Ocean zoning has never been attempted at this
geographic scale, yet calls for a pilot project have been
ignored. As the NOAA Science Advisory Board observed earlier
this year, the spatial scale U.S. Coastal and Marine Spatial
Planning effort is unprecedented, with the total area of the
nine U.S. Regional planning areas equaling the total area of
all the world's existing marine spatial plans combined. The
Board's finding that the U.S. effort ``argues for consideration
of smaller areas (and possibly fewer objectives) that can be
nested within larger regions over time'' is consistent with
NOPC advocacy for a pilot project in a limited geographic area
to reduce the risk of unintended consequences.
Lack of adequate legal analysis raises many concerns
about conflicts between the policy and existing federal laws
and constitutional questions over matters of state sovereignty,
among others.
Effective policy implementation will require ``clear
and easily understood requirements and regulations, where
appropriate, that include enforcement as a critical component''
(Final Recommendations), and federal entities are ordered to
implement policy, based in part on guidance from National Ocean
Council.
The Policy has strong potential to infringe on the
power and authority of federal officials by requiring them to
always exercise their discretion in favor of the policy.
The Final Recommendations also state that the
National Ocean Policy has been established in part to address
``the challenges we face. . .in the laws, authorities, and
governance structures intended to manage our use and
conservation'' of these resources, and CMSP is to be carried
out ``under the authority of'' existing statutes.
Since Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans are expected
to vary by region, application of the federal laws used to
allegedly authorize such plans may vary by region as well,
causing such federal statutes to no longer be uniformly applied
in national manner as originally intended.
Constitutional concerns regarding: (1) the inclusion
of non-advice and consent officials on the National Ocean
Council; and (2) the authority provided to regional planning
bodies. (potential conflicts with the Appointments Clause
resulting from non-federal officials sitting on bodies issuing
policies binding on federal officials)
The Policy also intrudes into the sovereignty of
coastal and inland states, including in part through
establishing the geographic scope of CMSP to include state
waters, inland bays, estuaries, and additional inland areas if
deemed appropriate.
By ordering federal entities to implement the policy,
based in part on guidance from the National Ocean Council,
there is a real potential for contravention of Administrative
Procedure Act and Regulatory Flexibility Act provisions, which
respectively require agency consideration of all comments on an
equal basis prior to issuing a regulation and agency
consideration of potential impacts on small entities and less
burdensome alternatives.
The Administration has severely limited opportunities
to express concerns, and stakeholder concerns have not been
adequately addressed.
The Administration has called for a robust and
meaningful stakeholder engagement process, but so far,
stakeholder engagement has been largely defined by document
dumps of voluminous yet vague information with fast-approaching
deadlines to respond, both of which have helped inhibit the
development of informed comments.
The Administration began holding ``listening
sessions'' on 92 pages of Strategic Action Plan outlines on the
policy within seven days of their release.
Draft Strategic Action Plan outlines were written
before the public comment period on the development of
Strategic Action Plans had even come to an end.
Town Hall meetings held on the policy last year in
Alaska, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia were announced
not via Federal Register or web announcements, but rather
through agency e-mail lists, greatly limiting the amount of
public notice.
The recent national workshop on CMSP limited public
participation to the first day of the three-day workshop, with
only 200 pre-screened members of the public allowed in; audio/
video or written materials from the non-public portion of the
workshop has not been made available.
Comments submitted by stakeholders who are not biased
against human uses and activities have for the most part been
ignored (e.g. calls for a pilot project, more openness and
transparency, and greater engagement with user groups).
The policy is not voluntary: administration plans to
implement it wherever federal jurisdiction exists over
activities deemed to affect the oceans, coasts, or Great Lakes.
The Administration has implied that the policy is
really just a voluntary program that will be whatever the
regions decide they want it to be. As they have stated
privately, and in a few cases publicly, however, this is not
voluntary, and the Administration intends to vigorously
implement the policy pursuant to the Executive Order wherever
they have jurisdiction. (federal waters, state waters, inland)
The Policy has already been cited in December 2010
Interior Department announcement (Revised OCS Leasing Program)
restricting certain economic activity in certain areas through
2017.
The policy creates new vehicles for attempts to
further restrict domestic economic activity. We are already
seeing the potential for this to occur.
In June, groups led by the Center for Biological
Diversity, citing in part the National Ocean Policy as legal
justification, filed a petition with NOAA seeking to restrict
the speed for vessels greater than 65 feet in length to 10
knots when traveling through national marine sanctuaries
offshore California . Petition calls this ``an excellent
opportunity to implement the sort of coordinated, forward-
looking marine spatial planning called for by President Obama's
National Ocean Policy initiative.'' If the petition is granted,
it could more than double the time it takes to transit through
these areas, adding that there's no clear science that there is
any benefit to whales (the petition's purported goal).
It is for all of these reasons that, consistent with previous
Coalition statements, we and other signatories wrote a letter of
support for the Flores amendment to HR 2584, Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill, to achieve a pause in policy
implementation. Such a suspension would provide additional time to
allow for the careful consideration of all potential economic,
societal, and legal implications associated with implementation, well-
informed stakeholder input, and adequate congressional engagement.
To be clear, the Coalition is not opposed to a National Ocean
Policy. The Coalition supports the development of a sound, balanced,
and effective policy that serves as a mechanism for job creation,
infrastructure revitalization, and economic growth and relies on full
utilization of existing programs and well-established authorities that
are already in place, rather than the creation of new bureaucracies,
procedures, and regulations that only serve to create additional
uncertainty, unnecessary restrictions, and delay. A pause in policy
implementation will help reduce the risk of detrimental economic and
societal impacts and ensure a policy that fully recognizes and accounts
for the critical role our oceans, coastal areas, and marine ecosystems
play in our nation's economy, national security, culture, health, and
well-being.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be pleased to
answer any questions.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Coleman, for your
testimony. Now I would like to recognize Mr. Jim Gilmore, the
Director of Public Relations with the At-sea Processors
Association. Mr. Gilmore, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JIM GILMORE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC RELATIONS, AT-SEA
PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee for the opportunity to testify today. I am testifying
on behalf of 10 West Coast and Alaska fishing and fish
processing organizations.
The fishermen processors for those organizations
participate in fisheries that buy volume account for over half
of all seafood landed annually in the United States. Our
testimony focuses on how the National Ocean Policy initiative,
one, establishes a new bureaucracy with sweeping powers; two,
usurps the role of expert Federal fishery managers and reduces
public participation in the fishery regulatory process; and
three, creates regulatory uncertainty.
We conclude our testimony to request the Congress prohibit
the expenditure of any funds to establish regional planning
bodies or to develop any plans referenced in the National Ocean
Policy Executive Order until the structure, scope, and cost of
the program have been reviewed by Congress.
The plain language of the Executive Order and the Ocean
Policy Task Force final recommendations explicitly state that
coastal and marine spacial planning process intends to manage
uses and activities. This is not the benign collaborative
planning process described by some proponents, but a program
that anticipates the regulations and changes to existing
regulations if it is to achieve its management objectives.
The Ocean Policy Task Force recommendations state that CMSP
is intended to improve ecosystem health and services by
planning human uses and the conservation of important
ecological areas such as areas of high productivity and
biological diversity, areas in key species that are critical to
ecosystem function and resiliency, areas of spawning, breeding,
and feedings, areas of rare or functionally vulnerable marine
resources, and migratory corridors.
This passage illuminates that the purpose of the ocean
policy is less about coordinating fishing activities with other
ocean user activities and is more about creating regulatory
process for further restricting ocean use, including commercial
fishing.
Federal fisheries are managed currently under the authority
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act which establishes eight Regional
Fishery Management Councils tasked with conserving and managing
fishery resources out to 200 miles. Each council is composed of
one Federal official, a state official for each state in the
region, and private citizens with requisite fishery management
experience who are appointed by the Commerce Secretary. Private
citizen appointees constitute a voting majority on those
councils.
On the other hand, the national ocean regional policy body
is tasked with developing coastal and marine plans are
described as consisting only of Federal and state officials and
tribal interests. Few government officials from the Federal
agency serving under the regional planning boards will even be
knowledgeable about fisheries management. The result is the
National Ocean Policy creates a new regulatory process that
competes with and threatens to supersede the Regional Fishery
Management Council process. The decisionmakers will have little
expertise and there will be less opportunity for public
participation.
National ocean proponents argue unconvincingly that the
coastal ocean spacial plans do not supersede current statutory
authorities. The Ocean Policy Task Force report states,
however, where existing regulatory or statutory requirements
impose constraints on the ability of an agency to fully
implement because of the marine spacial plan the agency would
seek regulatory or legislative changes to fully implement the
CMS plan.
The above passage is unambiguous. The agencies are expected
to either develop new regulations or change any existing
regulations in order to be compliant with the CMS plan. The
Regional Fishery Management Council will have no choice but to
defer to CMS plans developed by regional planning boards. Under
Section 304 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act if a Regional Fishery
Management Council does not act to develop regulations the
Commerce Secretary is authorized to bypass the council and
promulgate regulations. The NOP effectively creates an end run
of the existing Regional Fishery Management Council process,
not coincidentally a long-time goal of many organizations
supporting the National Ocean Policy.
To date, the Administration has financed its NOP initiative
by diverting existing appropriations from various agencies and
it appears intent on continuing to do so without congressional
authorization. We are concerned that NOAA programs that are
needed for fishery assessments, protected species research, and
fisheries monitoring enforcement are being short changed to
create a new bureaucracy with potentially adverse impacts of
commercial fishing.
In closing, we propose that Congress explicitly prohibit
the expenditure of Federal funds to establish regional planning
bodies or to develop any plans identified within the scope of
the Executive Order.
That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again
for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilmore follows:]
Statement of Jim Gilmore, Director of Public Affairs,
At-sea Processors Association
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for the
opportunity to testify today on the Obama Administration's National
Ocean Policy (NOP) initiative, including the Coastal and Marine Spatial
Planning (CMSP) component of that policy.
I am testifying today on behalf of ten West Coast and Alaska
fishing and fish processing associations. The organizations are: the
Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers; Alaska Crab Coalition; At-sea Processors
Association; Crab Group of Independent Harvesters; Deep Sea Fishermen's
Union; Fishing Vessel Owners Association; Freezer Longline Coalition;
Groundfish Forum; Pacific Seafood Processors Association; and United
Catcher Boats.
The fishermen and processors from the above organizations
participate in fisheries that, by volume, account for over half of all
seafood landed annually in the U.S. The fisheries include the Alaska
crab, Alaska groundfish, halibut and sablefish, Alaska salmon, and
Pacific whiting fisheries. The seafood harvested provides tens of
thousands of jobs in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, generates $2.0
billion in economic activity, and accounts for a large percentage of
U.S. seafood export earnings.
Our testimony focuses on how the Administration's NOP/CMSP
initiative 1) establishes a costly new bureaucracy with sweeping
powers; 2) usurps the role of expert federal fishery managers and
reduces public participation in the fishery regulatory process, and 3)
creates regulatory uncertainty and places unnecessary burdens on the
seafood industry. We conclude our testimony with the request that
Congress prohibit the expenditure of any federal funds to establish
Regional Planning Bodies or to develop any plans referenced in
Executive Order 13547 until the structure and scope of the program have
been reviewed by Congress and supported by the ocean user community.
The Regional Planning Bodies That Develop Coastal and Marine Spatial
Plans Are Granted Sweeping Authority to Regulate Ocean Users,
Including the Commercial Fishing Industry
Executive Order 13547, which creates the National Ocean Policy,
defines the CMSP component as providing ``a public policy process for
society to better determine how the ocean, our coasts, and Great Lakes
are sustainably used.'' According to the Executive Order, CMSP
``identifies areas most suitable for various types or classes of
activities in order to reduce conflicts among users, reduce
environmental impacts, (and) facilitate compatible uses. . .'' The
Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, which
are incorporated by reference into the Executive Order, state, ``(T)he
recommendations provide a framework for CMSP that offers a new,
comprehensive, integrated, regionally-based approach to planning and
managing uses and activities.'' While the benefits anticipated by the
Administration in its NOP are open to debate, the plain language of the
Executive Order and the Task Force's final recommendations cited above
explicitly state that the CMSP process intends to manage ``uses and
activities.'' This is not the benign collaborative planning process
described by some proponents, but a program that anticipates new
regulations and changes to existing regulations if it is to achieve its
management objectives.
Specific to fisheries management, the Ocean Policy Task Force
recommendations state that, ``CMSP is intended to improve ecosystem
health and services by planning human uses in concert with the
conservation of important ecological areas, such as areas of high
productivity and biological diversity; areas and key species that are
critical to ecosystem function and resiliency; areas of spawning,
breeding, and feeding; areas of rare or functionally vulnerable marine
resources; and migratory corridors.'' This passage illuminates that the
purpose of the National Ocean Policy is less about coordinating fishing
activities with other ocean user activities and more about creating a
new regulatory process for further restricting fishing opportunities
for both the recreational and commercial sectors.
The organizations on whose behalf I am testifying today have
expressed these concerns consistently over the past two years to the
Administration, but those concerns have not been addressed. We are left
to conclude that the intent of the National Ocean Policy is, in fact,
to create a Cabinet-level council and federal agency-dominated planning
boards that are empowered to trump the Regional Fishery Management
Council process established under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (``MSA'').
``Top Down'' Federal Regional Planning Bodies Will Usurp the Authority
of ``Bottom Up'' Regional Fishery Management Councils
Established Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
Federal fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, or MSA. The MSA created eight Regional Fishery Management
Councils tasked with developing plans and regulations necessary to
conserve and manage fishery resources in federal waters out to 200
miles. Each Council is composed of one federal official, a state
official from each state in the region, and private citizens with
requisite fisheries experience who are nominated by Governors and
appointed by the Commerce Secretary. The Regional Fishery Management
Councils involve affected users directly in the decision making
process. Private citizen appointees constitute a voting majority on the
Councils. This unique public role in federal fisheries management in
waters off Alaska and the West Coast has worked well since the MSA's
enactment in 1977.
Federal fisheries management in the Alaska Region, in particular,
is recognized internationally for its forward looking, precautionary,
science-based approach. All fish stocks are managed to ensure
sustainable harvest levels. Regulations are in place to minimize
impacts of fishing on non-target species, other living marine
resources, and sensitive habitat. Conservation measures include
establishing more than 100 fishing area closures to avoid prey
competition with Steller sea lions and closing 250,000 square miles of
ocean to fishing gear that contacts the ocean floor to protect
sensitive habitat. I would note that 250,000 square miles is an area
only slightly smaller than the State of Texas. Fisheries management is
complex and contentious, especially where catch allocations are
involved, but stakeholder confidence is high because the process is
guided by individuals with knowledge of, and experience in, the
fisheries, and the public is engaged every step of the way in the
highly transparent planning and regulatory process. Congress has shown
strong support for this system by having repeatedly reauthorized the
MSA and by having provided necessary funding every year.
The NOP Executive Order undermines the current fisheries management
system by anticipating that Regional Planning Bodies will include
provisions in Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans that restrict fishing.
The Regional Planning Bodies tasked with developing CMSPs are described
as consisting of federal and state officials and tribal interests. Few
government officials from the federal agencies serving on Regional
Planning Boards will be knowledgeable about, and experienced in,
fisheries management . The result is that the NOP creates a new
fisheries regulatory process that competes with and threatens to
supersede the MSA process. The decision makers will have little
expertise, and less opportunity is provided for public participation.
The NOP Creates Uncertainty in the Regulatory System for the Commercial
Fishing Industry and Will Unnecessarily Increase the Burden on
an Already Highly Regulated Industry
It is simply not good public policy to create an additional
regulatory process, to confuse lines of authority, and to likely end up
fostering litigation due to inevitable inconsistencies in regulations
developed under different processes. NOP proponents argue
unconvincingly that Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans do not supersede
current statutory authorities. The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force
report states, however, ``Where pre-existing legal constraints, either
procedural or substantive, are identified for any Federal agency, the
NOC would work with the agency to evaluate the necessary and
appropriate legislative solutions or changes to regulations to address
the constraints. In the interim, agencies would comply with existing
legal requirements but should endeavor, to the maximum extent possible,
to integrate their actions with those of other partners to a CMS
Plan.''
The above passage is unambiguous that agencies are expected to
change any existing regulations in order to be compliant with a CMS
Plan. The Cabinet-level National Ocean Council (``NOC'') is directed by
Presidential decree to ensure that federal departments and agencies,
including the Regional Fishery Management Councils, change any
regulations deemed inconsistent with the Strategic Action Plans or
Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans. Similarly, fishery managers would be
obligated to promulgate new regulations deemed necessary to meet
management objectives established under new policies and plans
developed under the NOP.
The Regional Fishery Management Councils will have little choice
but to defer to CMS Plans developed by Regional Planning Boards and
approved by the National Ocean Council. Under section 304 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, if a Regional Fishery Management Council does not
act to develop regulations, the Commerce Secretary is authorized to
bypass the Council and promulgate regulations. The NOP effectively
creates an ``end run'' of the existing Regional Fishery Management
Council process, not coincidentally, a long-time goal of many of the
organizations supporting the NOP.
Proponents of NOP/CMSP construct their statements carefully when
arguing that the CMS planning process is not a regulatory process, but
the intent of the Executive Order is clear in promoting the development
of Cabinet-level approved CMS plans that dictate areas ``suitable'' to
various activities, including commercial fishing. Similarly, the NOP
establishes broad performance standards for protecting ``breeding,
spawning, and feeding'' areas for living marine resources. The scope of
authority conferred upon Regional Planning Bodies is extraordinarily
broad. It may be the case that provisions of CMS Plans will be
implemented under the general wording of the existing Magnuson-Stevens
Act National Standards, but the salient point is that such regulatory
measures will be developed by inexpert federal agency officials
usurping the role of Regional Fishery Management Councils.
NOP proponents argue also that this initiative is intended to
coordinate federal oceans management, and yet the policy creates
duplicative processes and ambiguous authorities. If implemented fully,
the effective, fisheries conservation-focused and stakeholder supported
Regional Fishery Management Council process will be compromised.
Stakeholders will be faced with having multiple decision making
processes at work. The result will be more costly, less effective, and
less coordinated fisheries management. Stakeholder support for federal
resource management will be eroded and the likelihood of litigation
will increase.
Need for Legislation
President Obama issued a memorandum on June 12, 2009 establishing
an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and directing the Task Force to
develop recommendations for a National Ocean Policy. Those
recommendations were published on July 19, 2010 and implemented that
same day without public review through Executive Order 13547. A
National Ocean Council has been formed and it is being advised by the
intergovernmental Governance Coordinating Committee. The next planned
step is to establish Regional Planning Bodies composed of federal,
state and tribal interests, and these entities will design regional
ocean-zoning plans.
There is no statutory authorization for the National Ocean Policy.
The few measures introduced by Members of Congress to establish the NOP
have won little support, and accordingly, have made very little
headway. The Administration has offered no legislative proposal and has
simply made an end run around Congress by Executive fiat.
The pending House and Senate appropriations bills provide no
funding for the National Ocean Policy initiative. Some funds are
provided in the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bills
reported by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees for state-
run coastal and marine spatial planning projects limited to state
waters, and we do not oppose these pilot projects.
To date, the Administration has financed its NOP initiative by
diverting existing appropriations from various agencies, and it appears
intent on continuing to do so without Congressional authorization. We
are concerned that NOAA programs that are needed for fishery
assessments, protected species research, and fishery monitoring and
enforcement activities, among other critical functions, are being
shortchanged to create a new bureaucracy with potentially adverse
impacts on commercial fishing.
We propose that Congress explicitly prohibit the expenditure of
federal funds to establish Regional Planning Bodies or to develop any
plans identified within the scope of E.O. 13547. We urge Congress to
request the Administration to provide a budget for the cost of
implementing the Order and to define the scope and structure of
activities provided for under the NOP. Finally, we urge the
Administration to address the concerns stated repeatedly by the ocean
user community before attempting to proceed further.
That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, again for the
opportunity to testify. I am glad to respond to any questions.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Gilmore. You took exactly five
minutes. That is pretty good.
I am pleased to recognize Mr. Christopher Guith, Vice
President of Policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Mr.
Guith, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER GUITH, VICE PRESIDENT--POLICY, U.S.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Mr. Guith. Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey,
Members of the Committee, thank you for convening this hearing.
From my vantage point, the National Ocean Policy is the most
significant issue affecting energy security, job creation, and
economic growth that no one has heard about. The policy has
been promulgated with little fanfare from the Administration,
with little notice from the American household and businesses
that the policy can impact most.
Healthy and state of oceans is absolutely in our interest.
Federal state governments have enacted literally hundreds of
laws creating a framework to do precisely what this policy
presupposes it to do, and at no point does the Administration
suggest that this policy is what Congress intended under any
statute or combination of statutes. The policy seeks to utilize
coastal marine spacial planning, a concept that would limit
specific areas of ocean for particular use. This is a solution
to a problem that does not appear to currently exist. Allowing
unelected regional planning authorities to essentially zone
state and Federal waters is not authorized in any statute nor
envisioned by any previous congressional action.
The facet of this policy that inspires our greatest concern
is its potential breadth. On several occasions the policy
explicitly suggests that any and all activities onshore could
come under the regulatory reach of these regional planning
authorities. The policy also suggests that the existing
statutory authority, such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean
Water Act, should be harnessed by the planning authorities when
allocating ocean use.
The policy also brings to bear the precautionary approach
or sometimes termed precautionary principle which is intended
to preclude, stop, or otherwise take regulatory action against
human activity when there exists the possibility that future
scientific conclusions may find such activity is linked to
environmental degradation.
To put it differently, the principle states unless there is
a current, conclusive scientific finding that a specific
proposed human activity does not cause environmental
degradation it shouldn't go forward.
By preemptively utilizing the precautionary approach in
such a broad context, this policy reorders our existing
regulatory construct by shifting the burden of disproving
environmental harm to those intending to engage in a specific
activity as opposed to allowing such activities until
environmental harm is actually proven. This reversal is not
sanctioned by any statutory authority and has in fact
previously been rejected by Congress.
The National Ocean Policy results in a plethora of impacts
in the country. Healthy or more sustainable oceans may or may
not be one of them. However, one impact that is most likely to
come from this policy is increased regulatory uncertainty. We
estimate that nearly 2,500 rules were proposed in 2010,
requiring some $1 trillion in compliance costs paid by American
businesses. Small businesses, the jobs engines of our economy,
pay an average of $10,000 per employee per year for compliance
costs. Ultimately this uncertainty makes it difficult, if not
impossible, for any business to modify its operations to ensure
both compliance and profitability with any level of surety.
The President's National Ocean Policy will exacerbate this
uncertainty and add yet another maze of real or de facto
regulation for businesses to attempt to navigate. By
discouraging investment into energy production , you have the
additional result of threatening our energy security by forcing
the country to continue to import energy when we could be
producing significantly more of it domestically.
At a time of anemic economic growth and persistently high
unemployment, the country is looking to its leaders to reverse
these trends. The single most impactful action that can be
taken is to increase the level of regulatory certainty to
encourage private investment again. The President's National
Ocean Policy is a step in the wrong direction and will only
increase the level of uncertainty for years to come.
We would encourage the Administration to back away from
this current policy and look to Congress to determine the scope
and breadth of any changes in current ocean policy. The
Administration's time would be much better served by reversing
its record of decreasing energy production on Federal lands and
forcing the country to import more energy. Hundreds of
thousands of jobs have been created in the energy over the past
five years supporting energy exploration and production on
private and state lands. Millions more could be created in the
immediate future if the Administration made domestic energy
production a priority once again.
America business has been the target of a regulatory
onslaught of historic proportion. Much of Congress's time has
rightfully been devoted to oversight of these regulatory
actions, and in many cases attempting to pass legislation
reversing these actions. However, in the case of the
President's National Ocean Policy, Congress still has time to
act before the initial impact of the Administration's actions
are realized. We would encourage you to take these actions
immediately.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guith follows:]
Statement of Christopher Guith, Vice President for Policy,
Institute for 21st Century Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, and members of the
Committee. I am Christopher Guith, vice president for policy of the
Institute for 21st Century Energy (Energy Institute), an affiliate of
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the
world's largest business federation, representing the interests of more
than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector
and region.
The mission of the Institute is to unify policymakers, regulators,
business leaders, and the American public behind common sense energy
strategy to help keep America secure, prosperous, and clean. In that
regard we hope to be of service to this Committee, this Congress as a
whole, and the Administration.
Thank you for convening this hearing. From my vantage point, The
National Ocean Policy is the most significant issue affecting energy
security, job creation, and economic growth that no one has heard
about. This policy has been promulgated with little fanfare from the
administration and with little notice from the American households and
businesses that the policy could impact the most. Congress should and
must utilize its oversight function to examine the National Ocean
Policy to ensure it is consistent with the administration's statutory
authority, and that it would not create new and unnecessary barriers
that would jeopardize economic growth or energy security.
The potential impacts on offshore energy like oil and natural gas
production and renewable electricity generation are clear. However,
while this policy is focused on oceans, the Final Recommendations of
the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force makes it clear that the
policy's impacts do not stop at the coastline. Through a myriad of
drawn-out arguments, the recommendations allow for regulatory coverage
of virtually every bit of land and any entity operating or living on
it. Onshore energy operations like mining, oil and natural gas
production, and electricity generation are also vulnerable to new
regulatory actions. The potential impacts do not hit just the energy
sector but also agriculture, manufacturing, and construction. To be
sure, the reach could be economy wide.
The Chamber's Energy Institute, and many of the other organizations
represented on this panel, have spent a great deal of time educating
our members and the public about the potential impacts of this policy.
While they are quick to understand the potential implications, the
unfortunate reality is that this represents just one of dozens of
actions in a historical regulatory onslaught that has undercut any
semblance of the certainty required to foster the investments that will
create jobs and economic growth.
RATIONALE
Healthy and sustainable oceans are absolutely in our nation's
interests. The federal government has seen fit to enact dozens of laws
to ensure that interest. Together with hundreds of state laws, a
framework has been created to do precisely what the President's
National Ocean Policy presupposes it will do. The administration argues
that the authority to implement such a policy is based in this myriad
of federal statutes. However at no point does the administration
suggest this policy is what Congress intended under any statute, or
combination of statutes. The administration suggests that amongst other
things, the creation of this new regulatory structure is needed to
allocate ocean use through Coastal and Marine Spacial Planning and to
``strengthen the governance structure.'' Both purposes should give
pause to every Governor, anyone who ever intends to enjoy the beach or
ocean, and anyone concerned about jobs and economic growth.
Coastal and Marine Spacial Planning is a concept that would limit
specific areas of ocean for particular use. This is a solution to a
problem that does not appear to currently exist. It is true some areas
of ocean are already designated for uses that may preclude additional
uses. For example, significant swaths are designated for use by the
Department of Defense. However, if a specific use of ocean waters
otherwise precludes another use, there are existing avenues through
statute and common law to resolve such a question. Allowing unelected
regional planning authorities to essentially ``zone'' state and federal
waters, as in the case of the National Ocean Policy, is not authorized
in any statute, nor remotely envisioned by any previous Congressional
action. At a time of prolonged unemployment and anemic economic growth,
Congress should take note that these planning authorities would be
expressly empowered to limit commercial endeavors at will without such
statutory authority.
I do not desire to play the role of alarmist, but I am left with
little option given the vagueness of the policy itself and the non-
transparent fashion in which it was created. The President's Task Force
provides little analysis or even description for the problems its
recommendations allege to address. More troubling however, the Task
Force Recommendations and the subsequent Executive Order provide little
insight or detail about how the recommendation will be implemented. Nor
do the recommendations provide any facet of constraint or even
oversight which might otherwise allay concern over potentially sever
negative impacts. The policy is overly vague throughout which only
magnifies the concerns any current or potential ocean user should have.
BREADTH
The facet of this policy that inspires our greatest concern is its
potential breadth. On several occasions, the policy explicitly suggests
that any and all activities on shore could come under the regulatory
reach of the regional planning authorities. The policy explicitly calls
for addressing, ``urban and suburban development,'' as well as ``land
based source pollutants.'' Given the administration's existing
regulatory overreach on numerous ``land based pollutants,'' that in
many cases are explicitly authorized by statute, it does not require a
vivid imagination to foresee an unchecked regional planning authority
attempting to take action on inland activities that it finds are having
an impact on ocean waters.
The Coastal and Marine Spacial Planning section explicitly allows
for the regional planning authorities to include upland areas. In fact,
this policy finds that current conditions, ``necessitate connecting
land-based planning efforts with ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
planning.'' The policy continues to find that existing statutory
authorities such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act should be
harnessed by the planning authorities when allocating ocean use.
The policy utilizes the overly broad and vague term ``industries''
when describing ``human activities'' that are ultimately impacting the
oceans, which presumably then can fall under the regulatory reach of
this action. However, it also explicitly targets certain specific
industries by name including energy, agriculture, forestry, and
development.
The policy provides the following concern as context for why and
how action should be taken:
``Urban and suburban development, including the construction of
roads, highways, and other infrastructure. . .can adversely
affect the habitats of aquatic and terrestrial species.''
Infrastructure developers must already negotiate a byzantine
regulatory labyrinth that often leads to costly delays. Superimposing
the will of a regulatory planning authority on top of this process has
the very real potential of precluding many of the infrastructure
projects which the country needs and the administration itself has been
clamoring.
Not only does the President's National Ocean Policy allow for the
inclusion of virtually every sector of private enterprise to fall under
new regulation, but it also brings to bear the ``precautionary
approach,'' a new prism by which the prospective regulatory actions
should be taken. The precautionary approach--also commonly referred to
as the Precautionary Principle--was adopted in 1992 by the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio De Janeiro,
Brazil (``The Rio Declaration'').
The Rio Declaration states, ``[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.'' The intent of employing this
``precautionary approach'' is to preclude, stop, or otherwise take
regulatory action against human activity when there exists the
possibility that future scientific conclusions may find such activity
is linked to environmental degradation. To put it differently, the
principle states, unless there is current conclusory scientific finding
that a specific proposed human activity does not cause environmental
degradation, it should be limited.
While similar regulatory formulas are explicitly called for in
statute where Congress intended to preserve the status quo, they are
few and far between. By preemptively utilizing the ``precautionary
approach'' in such a broad context, this policy reorders our existing
regulatory construct by shifting the burden of disproving environmental
harm to those intending to engage in a specific activity as opposed to
allowing such activities until environmental harm is proven. Since the
policy clearly seeks to include land-based human activities under its
regulatory purview, the ``precautionary approach'' may presumably be
applied to any such activities. This reversal is not sanctioned under
any statutory authority and has previously been rejected by Congress.
This is a significant shift in regulatory policy and law, and will
undoubtedly have a chilling effect on many forms of enterprise and
economic activity, most especially technological innovation.
IMPACTS
The President's National Ocean Policy will result in a plethora of
impacts on the country. The stated impact of healthier and more
sustainable oceans may or may not be one of them. However, one impact
that is most likely to come from this policy is increased regulatory
uncertainty. The recent regulatory overreach has permeated so many
areas of commercial enterprise already, ranging from healthcare to
financial services to labor relations to energy production to name just
a few.
Businesses of all sizes and sectors are impacted by these
regulatory actions and will be attempting to determine the ultimate
impacts on their operations for years, if not decades, to come. We
estimate that nearly 2,500 rules were proposed in 2010 requiring some
$1 trillion in compliance costs on the back of American businesses. The
impact of these costs is greatest on small businesses. Businesses with
fewer than 20 employees incur regulatory costs 42% higher than larger
businesses of up to 500 employees. The average regulatory cost for each
employee of a small business exceeds $10,000 per year. Ultimately, this
uncertainty makes it difficult, if not impossible, for any business to
modify its operations to ensure both compliance and profitability with
any level of surety.
The most visible effect of this environment is a lack of capital
investment. This is the foundation of what some economists have
described as a ``job-less recovery''. The country is experiencing some
economic growth, but the private sector is not creating jobs at a rate
that should correspond with that growth or to ensure future growth. It
is estimated that throughout the recovery some $2 trillion has remained
liquid, without being invested. The uncertainty caused by the recent
regulatory overreach is a primary reason so many are not comfortable
investing this capital.
The President's National Ocean Policy will exacerbate this
uncertainty and add yet another maze of real or de facto regulation for
businesses to attempt to navigate. This may in turn lead to even less
investment in areas such as infrastructure construction, manufacturing,
and energy production. These are all areas that have significant track
records of generating economic growth for the nation, as well as
creating millions of jobs. By discouraging investment into energy
production, this policy has the additional impact of harming our energy
security by forcing the country to continue to import energy when we
could be producing significantly more of it domestically.
CONCLUSION
At a time of anemic economic growth and persistently high
unemployment, the country is looking to its leaders to reverse these
trends. The single most impactful action that can be taken is to
increase the level of regulatory certainty to encourage private
investment again. This investment will not only generate economic
growth, but create jobs in nearly all sectors. The President's National
Ocean Policy is a step in the wrong direction and will only increase
the level of uncertainty for years to come.
We would encourage the administration to back away from this
current policy and look to Congress to determine the scope and breadth
of any changes in current ocean policy. The administration's time would
be better served reversing its record of decreasing energy production
on federal lands and forcing the country to import more energy.
Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created in the energy industry
over the past five years supporting energy exploration and production
on private and state lands. Millions more could be created in the
immediate future if the administration made domestic energy production
a priority once again.
Additionally, we would encourage the administration to increase its
efforts to ensure ratification and adoption of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (also referred to as the Law of the
Sea Treaty), which will provide not only an environmental benefit by
ensuring America's arctic territory is officially identified and
defined (and thus protected by U.S. law), but also pave the way for
tremendous investment into those areas.
American business has been the target of a regulatory onslaught of
historic proportions. Much of Congress' time, especially in the House
of Representatives, has rightfully been devoted to oversight of these
regulatory actions, and in many cases attempting to pass legislation to
reverse final actions taken by the administration. However, in the case
of the President's National Ocean Policy, Congress still has time to
act before the initial impact of the administration's actions are
realized. We would encourage you to take such action immediately.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Guith. Next we will
hear from Mr. Barry Rutenberg, Chairman-Elect of the Board of
the National Association of Homebuilders. Mr. Rutenberg, you
are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF BARRY RUTENBERG, CHAIRMAN-ELECT OF THE BOARD,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOMEBUILDERS
Mr. Rutenberg. Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey,
and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today.
My name is Barry Rutenberg, and I am NAHB's Chairman-Elect
of the Board and a regional builder from Gainesville, Florida.
NAHB recognizes the need to preserve the health of the marine
ecosystem as it is one of the many lifelines upon we as a
nation depend. NAHB members are national stewards of the ocean,
coasts and Great Lakes, and regularly take steps to improve the
long-term conservation of these resources.
As the Committee considers the National Ocean Policy, I
hope Members will be mindful of the unintended consequences on
regulated entities and stakeholders. President Obama and the
Inner Agency Ocean Policy Task Force had developed an ambitious
and far-reaching set of policies and actions that are expected
to be undertaken in the next several years. NAHB has a number
of concerns on how the implementation of any ocean policy may
affect the health of the homebuilding industry, housing
affordability, and our nation's overall economy.
Given the significant impacts that may accrue from the
implementation of this policy, NAHB is concerned by the
Administration's attempt to authorize these activities through
an Executive Order instead of securing congressional support
and approval. NAHB believes it is imperative that the
Administration only implement any such policy after securing
specific statutory authority.
Further, it is unclear if or how the task force of the
agencies will be required to consider the economic impact of
their actions. NAHB strongly believes some type of economic
analysis should be conducted prior to implementing any of the
proposed actions. Overall, NAHB is concerned that agencies will
enact regulations that will only have a minor impact on the
environment at a significant cost to private landowners and
businesses.
When contemplating how the National Oceans Policy will be
implemented, the Administration must take care to ensure that
its actions do not disrupt the ability of communities to define
themselves how they choose. Any potential government policies
that will broadly shape the future of our communities must be
based on solid research and sound science.
As one of the most highly regulated industries,
homebuilders already comply with numerous Federal, state, and
local environmental statutes. We can offer a unique view on how
the National Oceans Policy might impact regulated entities.
For example, homebuilders must already comply with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's national flood insurance
program when siting, designing and constructing their homes. We
meet the mandates of the Clean Water Act for controlling
stormwater discharges. We demonstrate that the activities are
consistent with our states' coastal zone management plan, and
we meet the requirements of the local zoning critical areas for
shoreland protection ordinances. Clearly, governments at all
levels have already taken significant steps to protect coastal
areas.
Further, while the focus of the policy is to protect ocean
health, because its scope is currently undefined it has the
potential to make land-based activities without limit to the
health of the ocean.
Instead of blindly adopted blanket policies that are far-
reaching the task force must identify where the gaps and
coverages exist so that those voids can be targeted.
NAHB has significant concerns about the potential for the
Federal Government to overstep its bounds with regard to land
use planning. This practice allowed home buyers and homeowners
the opportunity to choose a location of their homes and past
experience suggests that caution must be taken to ensure that
local governments are free to direct their community growth
without Federal interference or coercion.
It is likely that the agencies and courts will struggle
with the scope, definitions, and implementations of the
National Oceans Policy, making regulatory compliance a great
challenge. Given the number of existing policies the efforts
already taken at the Federal, state, and local levels, and the
need to preserve the rights of local governments, NAHB
questions the need for an additional layer of regulation.
The deep recession that has permeated all segments of the
housing industry since 2008 continues to hold back the economic
recovery of the United States. The already battered housing
industry cannot successfully face the forthcoming challenges
already done by additional regulatory burdens that are not
based upon science.
While we support the overall intent of the National Oceans
Policy, we cannot currently support any action that would
unnecessarily impede recovery of this important economic
sector.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rutenberg follows:]
Statement of Barry Rutenberg, Chairman-Elect of the Board,
on Behalf of the National Association of Home Builders
Introduction
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey and members of the House
Natural Resources Committee, I am pleased to appear before you today on
behalf of the 160,000 members of the National Association of Home
Builders (NAHB) to share our views on President Obama's National Ocean
Policy. We appreciate the invitation to appear before the Committee on
this important issue. My name is Barry Rutenberg and I am the Chairman-
elect of the Board for NAHB and a home builder from Gainesville,
Florida.
NAHB recognizes the need to preserve the health of the marine
ecosystem as it is one of the many lifelines upon which we as a nation
depend. NAHB members are national stewards of the ocean, coasts, and
Great Lakes and regularly take steps to improve and promote the long
term conservation and use of these resources. Due to the impact that
the National Oceans Policy may have on the future of our homes and
communities, NAHB has been monitoring its development and on a number
of occasions, has provided input to the White House Council on
Environmental Quality and the Interagency Task Force on Ocean Policy.
In general, NAHB has supported the goals of these programs, but has
raised a number of concerns on how the implementation of any oceans
policy may affect the health of the home building industry and our
nation's overall economy.
National Oceans Policy
President Obama and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force have
developed an ambitious and far-reaching set of policies and actions
that are expected to be undertaken over the next several years to
``ensure the protection, maintenance, and restoration of the health of
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources, enhance the
sustainability of ocean and coastal economies, preserve our maritime
heritage, support sustainable uses and access, provide for adaptive
management to enhance our understanding of and capacity to respond to
climate change and ocean acidification, and coordinate with our
national security and foreign policy interests.''
Given the significant impacts that may accrue from the
implementation of this policy, coupled with its far-reaching effects,
NAHB is concerned by the Administration's attempt to authorize these
activities through an Executive Order instead of securing Congressional
support and approval. In four separate Congresses, legislation has been
introduced to create ocean policy. None of these attempts have ever
reported out of Committee. During the 111th Congress, NAHB submitted a
statement for the record to the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs,
Oceans, and Wildlife opposing that legislative effort. It is clear from
these unsuccessful attempts that there are differing views on the need
for, and scope of, any national oceans policy. Due to these widespread
discrepancies, NAHB believes it is imperative that the Administration
only implement any such policy after securing specific statutory
authority to do so.
Further, it is unclear from the Executive Order and the Final
Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force if or how
the Task Force or the agencies will be required to consider the
economic impact of their actions. Because we believe the impacts could
be significant, NAHB strongly believes some type of economic analysis
should be conducted prior to implementing any of the actions. NAHB also
believes that the requirement for the agencies to implement the
National Oceans Policy ``to the fullest extent possible'' further
limits their ability to conduct a cost-benefit analysis before
implementing any new regulation or requirement. Overall, NAHB is
concerned that agencies will enact regulations that will only have a
minor impact on the environment but a significant cost to private
landowners and businesses. Such an outcome is unacceptable and
completely contrary to this Administration's pledge to make regulations
more effective and less burdensome.
The Oceans Policy Must Preserve Community Choice
The strength of our communities is their reflection of a diverse
range of people, needs, ideals, and locales. Their design and shape are
dictated by powerful market forces and realities that reflect the
choices consumers make about where they live, work, and play. As
communities age, evolve, and grow, community leaders must balance often
competing needs, including a wide range of neighborhood and housing
options; housing that meets the needs of families across the economic
and demographic spectrum; reasonable proximity to jobs, commerce, and
recreation; safe neighborhoods and a healthy environment; and open
space and access to natural resources. When contemplating how the
National Oceans Policy will be implemented, the Administration must
take care to ensure its actions do not disrupt or otherwise impede the
ability of communities to define themselves how they choose. For
example, although a number of coastal communities have recently
undertaken efforts to revitalize their waterfronts or downtown areas,
strict implementation of the Policy may no longer allow such activities
to occur. Further, any potential government policies that will broadly
shape the future of our communities must be based on solid research and
sound science and data and allow for choices and flexibility in the
marketplace.
NAHB Is Concerned About Potential Unintended Consequences
As one of the most highly regulated industries, home builders
already comply with numerous federal, state and local environmental
statutes and can offer a unique view on how the National Oceans Policy
might impact regulated entities. For example, homebuilders must already
comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Flood
Insurance Program when siting, designing and constructing their homes;
meet the mandates of the Clean Water Act for controlling storm water
discharges during their construction activities; demonstrate that their
activities are consistent with their state's coastal zone management
plan; and meet the requirements of their local zoning, critical areas
and/or shoreland protection ordinances. Clearly, governments at all
levels have already taken significant steps to protect, maintain, and
enhance their waterways and coastal areas. As a result, any National
Oceans Policy has the potential to create yet another set of standards
and/or approvals that could unnecessarily impose significant impacts on
home builders, private landowners, and other businesses while providing
minimal benefits.
Further, while the focus of the policy is to protect ocean health,
because its scope is currently undefined and also references coastal
areas, it has the potential to link land based activities, without
limit, to the health of the ocean whether or not such activities have
an actual impact. For example, even though they already contain
stringent standards to guard against environmental degradation, any
type of permit issued under the Endangered Species Act or Clean Water
Act could be impacted by the National Ocean Policy. Instead of blindly
adopting blanket policies that are far-reaching and may not meet their
intended goals, the Interagency Task Force must identify where the gaps
in coverage exist across the range of federal, state, and local
environmental, land-use, and zoning requirements rather than putting
new regulations on top of existing regulations.
Likewise, because a portion of the Policy concerns the use of
coastal areas, NAHB has significant concerns about the potential for
the federal government to overstep its bounds with regard to land use
planning. Currently, state and local governments have the ability to
plan for and determine appropriate uses for their entire communities,
including coastal areas. If a local government deems an area fit for
residential development and the site/project meets all of the existing
federal requirements, construction may be allowed to occur. This
practice allows homebuyers and homeowners the opportunity to live in a
home of their choice in a location of their choice. The National Oceans
Policy, however, has the potential to significantly change this
standard practice. Past experience suggests that caution must be taken
to ensure that local governments are free to continue to direct their
community growth without any federal interference or coercion.
Finally, although one goal of the National Oceans Policy is to
better coordinate and plan for competing uses of the oceans, Great
Lakes, and coastal areas, NAHB cautions against planning for that
objective alone. Planning is not simply about managing resources with
one objective in mind, but about optimizing multiple community or
society goals. Solutions that seem simple to some may be complex and
fraught with tradeoffs that make them far from ideal. A proposal that
may solve one problem may generate new problems. Indeed, placing too
much emphasis on one objective may not result in success, thus
policymakers must seek to balance the full range of policy goals and
should not address ocean health (or any other issue) to the exclusion
of other crucial concerns. Clearly, decision makers must also be
mindful of unintended consequences as they develop solutions to address
this complex web of issues.
Based on past efforts, it is likely that the agencies will struggle
with the scope, definitions and implementation of the National Oceans
Policy, making regulatory compliance a great challenge for not only the
nation's home builders, but other stakeholders, as well. Given the
number of existing policies specifically designed to protect our
nation's oceans, coastlines, and watersheds, the efforts already taken
at the federal, state, and local levels, and the need to preserve the
rights of local governments to make their own decisions about the fate
of their communities, NAHB questions the need for an additional layer
of regulation. At a minimum, NAHB suggests that any action that would
impact or impeded the ability of the housing sector to recover be
avoided and/or delayed until the industry is back on sound footing.
Climate Change
The Task Force has implicated climate change as part of its
rationale for the need for the National Oceans Policy. Over the past
two decades, concerns in the United States have increased over the
potential impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on water resources.
Research, however, has yielded mixed results regarding the direct
impacts of emissions on global resources, atmospheric events and
atmospheric particle deposition on aquatic resources. Likewise, due to
limited knowledge, dependency on forecasting models, and contradictory
evidence, there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with climate
change findings and assumptions. For example, estimating future impacts
on precipitation events and aquatic resource availability have proven
to be difficult. Similarly, research on anthropogenic impacts on
climate change and water availability has been hypothesized to
fluctuate, but definitive research has not yet proven to what degree.
Additionally, research regarding the hydrologic (and other) impacts
of climate change and the subsequent preventative measures needed must
be an interagency effort. NAHB commends the Task Force for
collaborating with the various agencies that have climate change
policies currently in place. At a minimum, a holistic approach to
research, programmatic strategy development, and coordinated
implementation oversight will help to reduce duplication and improve
overall results.
Until the true causes and effects of human interaction with the
marine biological and ecosystem cycles are better understood, any major
actions to mitigate or adapt to the effects of climate change should be
undertaken with extreme caution to avoid onerous or duplicative
regulations that fail to provide adequate water protection or ensure
efficient use. The Administration must commit to performing research on
the effects of climate change on ocean health and water availability
and supporting existing policies that can be adapted to address the
research findings. It is vital to continue to research the development
of cooperative solutions in the face of scientific uncertainty, not
adopt additional regulations based upon minimal data. There must be
definitive science that fully supports policy and policy
implementation.
Conclusion
NAHB's members are stewards of the environment. Many builders go
above and beyond current requirements of the Endangered Species Act,
Clean Water Act, and other federal, state and local environmental
statutes in order to build an environmentally friendly home. NAHB's
members take their responsibilities under the ESA, Clean Water Act, and
other federal and state environmental statutes seriously.
As you are well aware, the deep recession that has pervaded all
segments of the housing industry since 2008 continues to hold back
economic recovery in the United States. The already-battered housing
industry, however, cannot successfully face the forthcoming challenges
while weighed down by additional regulatory burdens that do little to
further protect the nation's natural resources, including our oceans,
Great Lakes, and coastal areas. While we support the overall intent of
the National Oceans Policy, we cannot currently support any actions
that would impede recovery of this important economic sector.
NAHB appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the
implementation of the President's Executive Order and the Task Force's
recommendations on the National Oceans Policy. Protecting, maintaining
and restoring the health of the oceans, Great Lakes, and coastal areas,
as well as planning for their sustainability, is of great importance
and we look forward to continued opportunities to participate in this
undertaking.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Next we will hear from Mr. Marc Gorelnik, Board of
Directors, the Coastside Fishing Club. You are recognized for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARC GORELNIK, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, COASTSIDE
FISHING CLUB
Mr. Gorelnik. Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey,
Committee Members and hard working staff, my name is Marc
Gorelnik, and I serve on the Board of Directors of the all-
volunteer, 10,000-member-strong Coastside Fishing Club, and I
am a life-long recreation angler. I am here today with a
cautionary tale from California.
For myself and many of the other millions of salt water
anglers in the United States going fishing is more than a
recreational past time. It is a tradition, a connection to the
generations before us, and a tradition that we pass to the
generations that follow us. It is also a recreational activity
that binds us tightly to the health of the environment.
What makes our ocean activity so different from any other
ocean users is that the quality of our experience depends
directly on the health and vitality of the resource. To us the
ocean isn't merely a surface to be transited from port to port,
or a fruitful place from which to extract energy and minerals.
On this basis a reasonable observer might believe that
California recreational anglers are over the moon about the
President's National Ocean Policy and its coastal and marine
spacial planning. But we Californians are living the nightmare
of a similar program. The Marine Life Protection Act, also know
as the MLPA, which included its own component of marine spacial
planning, and it is our experience in California that brings me
to my cautionary tale.
The MLPA eliminates or severely restricts recreational and
commercial fishing activities without regard to species
management. While posited as a science-driven process, it was
far more political. After all, private foundations funded this
pseudo-public process, and he who pays the piper names the
tune.
It was a biased process and recreational anglers who
devoted thousands of hours in stakeholder and other meetings in
the end served merely as window dressing. Proposals supported
by environmental NGO's always triumphed over proposals by
anglers, and this is true even when the NGO favored proposal
offered no conservation benefits and higher social-economic
costs than the angler proposal.
Now, there may be times when sound fishery management
guided by credible scientific data instructs that angling must
be curtailed in order to restore a species or habitat.
Recreational anglers on the whole would not and have not chafed
at such restrictions because the restrictions are generally
narrowly tailored, temporary in duration, and directed toward
increasing future recreational opportunities. But that is not
what happened in California where the MLPA usurped the role of
fishery management.
The President's National Ocean Policy does not need to go
down the same road as California's MLPA. As I noted at the
beginning of my testimony, anglers, unlike many other ocean
users that may be impacted by national ocean policy, need and
desire a healthy ecosystem in order to engage in our pursuits.
Because we generate billions of dollars of economic activity,
there are real jobs and businesses that desperately need and
desire a healthy and vibrant ocean ecosystem. We would like to
work with the Administration to this end but your experience in
California leaves us wary.
Why don't recreational anglers, and there are more than 12
million of us on our nation's coasts, have a hand on the
tiller? Will our participation be merely window dressing as it
was in California? It seems that that is the way we are headed.
A year or two ago a National Ocean Policy Task Force met
publicly in San Francisco. The recreational angling community
was not included except as spectators to a series of speakers
praising California's MLPA process. This provides us with
little room for optimism.
In closing, I would urge the Administration to remember
that recreational ocean angling is woven into the fabric of our
nation's coastal communities and is important to tens of
millions of voting age anglers and their families. It brings
billions of dollars of economic benefit to coastal economies,
and our nation's anglers already deal with vast closures
imposed by fishery managers. The notion that further
restrictions, unrelated to fishery management and largely
politically driven, may be visited upon anglers is
unacceptable.
In California, we were told not to worry about the process
as it would be fair to all. Well, it wasn't, and we do not want
to see California's politically drive and unfair marine spacial
planning promoted to the national stage.
Thank you very much for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gorelnik follows:]
Statement of Marc Gorelnik, Member, Board of Directors,
Coastside Fishing Club
I am here today with a cautionary tale from California. My name is
Marc Gorelnik. I am a director of the all-volunteer, 10,000 member
strong Coastside Fishing Club and a lifelong recreational angler. I
grew up fishing from the ocean piers of Southern California and now
fish from my own trailer boat in the waters of Central and Northern
California. For myself many of the other millions of saltwater anglers
in the United States, going fishing is more than a recreational
pastime. It is a tradition, a connection to the generations before us,
and a tradition that we pass to the generations that follow us. It is
also a recreational activity that binds us tightly to the health of the
environment.
What makes our ocean activity different from that of some other
witnesses here is that the quality of our experience depends on the
health and vitality of the resource. To us, the ocean isn't merely a
surface to transit from port to port or a body of water that lies
between us and minerals to be extracted.
On this basis, a reasonable observer might believe that California
recreational anglers are over the moon about the President's National
Ocean Policy initiative. But we Californians are living the nightmare
of an analogous program, the Marine Life Protection Act, also known as
the ``MLPA,'' which included its own marine spatial planning
initiative. And it is our experience in California that brings me to
the cautionary tale of recreational anglers.
The debacle of the MLPA in California should not be visited on the
nation. National Ocean Policy initiative should not be directed to
decreasing recreational freedoms on our nation's ocean waters. Rather,
the policy should work to improve the quality and scope of recreational
experiences for Americans.
There may be times when sound fishery management, guided by
credible scientific data, instructs that angling must be curtailed in
order to restore a species or habitat. Recreational anglers would not,
and have not, chafed at such restrictions because they are generally
narrowly tailored, temporary in duration, and directed toward
increasing future recreational opportunities. But that's not what
happened in California, where the MLPA usurped the role of fishery
management.
The MLPA eliminates or severely restricts recreational and
commercial fishing activities without regard to species management.
Closures are self-justifying. While posited as a science driven
process, it was far more political. After all, private foundations
funded this pseudo-public process, and he who pays the piper names the
tune. It was a biased process and recreational anglers, who devoted
thousands of hours in stakeholder and other meetings, served merely as
window dressing. In the end, proposals supported by environmental NGOs
always triumphed over proposals by anglers. This is true even when the
NGO-favored proposal offered no conservation benefit and higher socio-
economic costs.
We see a similar path with National Ocean Policy. Ecosystem based
management is laudable from a lay or political perspective, but it is
not a well-defined scientific standard unlike management standards in
Magnuson-Stevens. In the end, it is a political football. In
California, we saw ``ecosystem protection'' as an all-purpose, one size
fits all, justification for any path sought by the environmental NGOs.
Even in the absence of any scientific justification, the so-called
``precautionary principle'' was invoked as a lazy device to deprive
recreational anglers from locations that had been sustainably fished
for generations.
Here is some background on the MLPA. Shortly before the MLPA became
California law, the federal government amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act
(creating the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. Federal policy changed
from one of expanding US fisheries while excluding foreign fisheries
from US waters. Instead of maximizing yield, the policy changed to
maximum sustainable yield--a huge difference. The focus and weight of
law was now on sustainability. And with that, the Pacific Fisheries
Management Council really did change the way in which it managed the
fishery off California's coast.
The Council declared that several groundfish species were
overfished, and undertook rebuilding plans based on the biology of the
fish and the needs of the fishing community. And with these rebuilding
plans in place, these depleted species became the controlling factor
for the majority of the species that have always remained healthy. By-
catch of these constraining fishes shut down otherwise healthy
fisheries when rebuilding take limits were attained.
Unlike other coastal waters around the world, California's fishery
is healthy and rebuilding. Then what is the role of the later-enacted
MLPA? What role does its marine protected areas play in supporting
sustainability or improving the rebuilding rate of critical species?
For those fisheries that are healthy, and successfully managed to
maximum sustainable yield, there is no need to close fishing, as the
same number of fish will ultimately be allowed to be taken from areas
outside of the MPAs--they will just be harder and more expensive to
get. So with no net reduction in the amount of fish taken, there will
be little if any net gain as a result of an MPA closure. And if you are
a recreational fisher, in some cases that increase in difficulty and
expense will result in forgone opportunity and a slower economic engine
within the recreational sector.
This concept of no net gain presents an interesting paradox. The
annual catch limits are set by the PFMC based on the best available
science regarding the status and biology of the stocks. The PFMC is
required by law to set levels that do not allow overfishing to occur--
i.e. the level must be sustainable; and to rebuild those stocks that
are overfished in as fast a time as practicable. But once those levels
are set, the fishermen are largely free to fish to those limits.
Closing small areas will not have a significant effect on the total
number of fish extracted--they will just shift where they are caught
and how difficult--expensive--it will be to catch them. Controlling the
level of fishing is the responsibility of federal and state fishery
management organizations; and, rightly so, not the responsibility of
the MLPA. Closing areas to fishing within the structure of the MLPA
will not impact the level of extraction, and thus not affect the level
of sustainability of the vast majority of our fish stocks--which are
healthy.
But then what about those handful of groundfish species that are
overfished and are rebuilding? The Big Old Fat Female (``BOFF'') theory
and the size and spacing requirements of the MPAs are relevant to that
discussion. But the fact is that the preferred habitat for these few
critical fish are largely outside of state waters, and thus the MLPA is
working on the margins of the habitat for them. Compare that with the
thousands of square miles of preferred habitat already closed by the
federal fishery managers in what are known as Rockfish Conservation
Areas, and Cowcod Conservation Areas. These areas are basically closed
to both recreational and commercial bottom fishing, and are critical
elements of the rebuilding strategy of the PFMC and the NMFS.
While changes to the boundaries are made in response to improved
understanding of the stocks, the size of these closed areas makes the
MLPA closures relatively insignificant to the rebuilding rate. So while
the concept has relevance to the rebuilding discussion, the potential
magnitude of the impact of the MLPA's BOFF and the associated size and
spacing is likely to be of no significance to the rebuilding of the few
overfished stocks off California.
And just like the healthy stocks, the concept of no net reduction
in take is still going to control the rebuilding rate of these fish.
The PFMC sets the allowed level of take for these fish too--be it
unintended by-catch, or minimal directed harvest based on the approved
rebuilding plan strategy. So as long as that level of take occurs, the
rebuilding rate will not significantly change.
The MPAs established under California's MLPA are simply not
relevant to the concept of sustainable fishing: they are not impairing
sustainability, but they are not enhancing it either--decent science
based fishery management has simply overtaken the MLPA, and made it a
relic of the past. But it is affecting the way recreational fishermen
pursue their passion. It is changing where we fish, and the expenses we
incur in pursuit of those fish. The MLPA impacts the infrastructure
that we depend on as we attempt to catch a fish.
Our charter boat industry, the bait shops, marine fueling
operations, etc. are all affected by the resulting increases in
operating costs and forgone opportunity. They are struggling to stay in
business, and many are not making it. The most obvious operating cost
impacts result from travel distances increasing as a result of closures
near the ports, resulting in added fuel costs. And in some cases it is
possible that the added distances could prove to be a safety hazard
should boats try to return to port in front of approaching storms. The
economic impact is real: Morro Bay has already lost most of its
sportfishing fleet, and tourism is down dramatically. The same is true
in Bodega, and other small coastal communities.
Fishing is a mainstay of tourism in our coastal communities and the
MLPA doesn't have the money to encourage the ecotourism used to justify
the closures. To be sure, there will be offsetting economic gains to
coastal communities, when or if the economy switches from fishing to
ecotourism. But I for one prefer a working marina to tee shirt and
souvenir shops.
During the implementation phase, 10s of millions of dollars have
been spent--mostly from private funding sources, but significant
amounts of taxpayer money as well. However the huge cost issue with the
MLPA will be the ongoing enforcement and monitoring expenses. Estimates
from the California Department of Fish and Game project additional
annual expenses from 10 to 50 million dollars a year--money they don't
have, and won't get. The Department has repeatedly said they don't have
the money to do the job, and will likely not be able to effectively
enforce the regulations. Which raises the very real possibility that
these MPAs could become viable target areas for poachers--which would
be doubly bad. First because that would defeat the biological gains we
expect to see inside the MPAs, but also because these catches would be
un-reported and thus detract from our ability to accurately monitor
actual take levels.
The implications relative to the national movement for Coastal and
Marine Spatial Planning are significant. If the California MLPA example
is followed on a national basis, fishermen have good reason to be
concerned. Already we are seeing that getting fishermen and fishery
science a seat at the planning table is an uphill battle. Given all the
other competing users and preservationists, who do have strong presence
on the planning councils and oversight bodies, our ability to influence
the outcome is doubtful. Our ability to have access to a healthy
fishery is in real jeopardy.
While repeatedly touted as ``the most open and transparent process
in state government,'' this was instead a brave new world of ruthless
NGO-driven regulations. Indeed, the ``open and transparent'' MLPA
organization refused to respond to a public records request on grounds
that it wasn't a state body. It took a lawsuit and court order to force
open the MLPA records.
The flawed MLPA process in California is relevant to the
President's Ocean Policy Initiative because we see the same actors on
stage. The same NGOs with the same objectives and principles, such as
self-justifying recreational access closures. Like the MLPA, we see a
complete absence of representation of American anglers in any
meaningful way, and certainly not in balance with those who drove the
MLPA in California.
With the bitter aftertaste of the railroad job anglers received in
California, and seeing many of the same environmental NGOs striving for
a hand on the steering wheel, you can understand why anglers may be
apprehensive about the National Ocean Policy. We fear that it may be
California's MLPA, writ large. We fear the same lost opportunities,
with greater concentration in fewer areas; more closings of landings
and lost jobs; more high-minded rhetoric.
The President's National Ocean Policy does not need to go down the
same road as California's MLPA. As I noted at the beginning of my
testimony, anglers--unlike most other ocean users that may be impacted
by the National Ocean Policy--need and desire a healthy ecosystem in
order to engage in our pursuits. Because we generate billions of
dollars of economic activity, there are real jobs and businesses that
derivatively need and desire a healthy and vibrant ocean ecosystem. We
would like to work with the Administration to this end, but our
experience in California leaves us wary.
Why don't recreational anglers, and there are more than 12 million
of us on the oceans, have a hand on the tiller? Will our participation
be mere window dressing as it was in California? It seems that that's
the way we're headed. A year or two ago, a National Ocean Policy task
force met publically in San Francisco. The recreational angling
community was not included except as spectators to a series of speakers
praising California's MLPA process. This provides little room for
optimism.
In closing, I would urge the Administration to remember that
recreational ocean angling is woven into the fabric of our nation's
coastal communities and tens of millions of voting age anglers and
their families. It brings billions of dollars of economic benefit to
coastal economies. And our nation's anglers already deal with vast
closures imposed by fisheries managers. The notion that further
restrictions, unrelated to fishery management and largely politically
driven, may be visited on anglers is unacceptable. In California, we
were told not to worry about the process as it would be fair to all.
Well, it wasn't. And we do not want to see unnecessary, feel-good
closures imposed throughout our nation's coastal waters. Thank you for
your time.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Gorelnik.
Next we will hear from Mr. John Bullard, the President of
the Sea Education Association. Mr. Bullard, you are recognized
for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN BULLARD, PRESIDENT,
SEA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bullard. Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey,
Members of the Committee, my name is John Bullard. I am
President of Sea Education Association in Woods Hole,
Massachusetts. We teach college students about the ocean. It is
nice to see one of our alumni on your staff.
I was also selected by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick
to serve on the Commonwealth's Ocean Advisory Commission, a
body which was heavily engaged in the development of the
Massachusetts Ocean Plan. Additionally, I am a former mayor of
the fishing port of New Bedford, a historic fishing port which
in recent years has consistently ranked as the top ranked port
in the country in terms of value landed.
In Massachusetts and the rest of New England, we value our
traditional uses of the ocean greatly. Commercial fishing,
shipping, tourism, and recreation are mainstays of the coastal
economy, and they help define the character of many of our
seaports. At the same time in Massachusetts and elsewhere new
proposals for the use of our oceans are emerging, many of which
may offer opportunities to provide new jobs, feed a growing
nation, and address other important policy goals. Renewable
energy, aquaculture, extraction of sand resources to provide
protection for low lying coastal areas are all examples of
recent new types of human activities proposed for our coastal
and ocean waters. In many areas of the ocean there are existing
economically important uses that we value and cherish that
could conflict with these type of emerging uses.
With sufficient public discussion and application of best
available information early in the process we have seen
examples in New England of how new and existing uses can
coexist.
Ocean planning boils down to two main components as I see
it. Open transparent dialogue about public goals and desires
for the ocean from all stakeholders and incorporation of
science, data, and information from the beginning of this
dialogue. This is an important departure from past practice
where certain viewpoints were not represented during the review
of a specific project until late in the specific project review
process. This ultimately leads to project delays, lawsuits, and
general frustration with the process.
Ocean planning efforts do not necessarily equate to ocean
zoning. It is up to the participants of the planning effort to
determine the end result. Similarly, it is clearly laid out in
the National Ocean Policy it will be up to the regions
themselves to determine the content of a regional ocean plan.
In Rhode Island and Massachusetts, ocean planning efforts
have resulted in development of better information and public
discussion over how to balance new and existing uses of our
ocean. This will ultimately lead to better and faster
decisionmaking, increase certainty in the decisionmaking
process because certain issues will have already been addressed
once specific projects are proposed because these decisions
incorporate better science and data, and because the decisions
are in the public realm, and with the data gathered in the
ocean planning process it is possible to talk about opening
areas that have been closed to fishing, not just closing more
areas. This can be a net gain for fishermen.
The two basic tenants of ocean planning all involve
interest with the seat at the table and incorporation of best
science and data will lead to more efficient, transparent, and
fair decisionmaking about our oceans. The President's National
Ocean Policy incorporates these principles which have been put
into action already in several states. The National Ocean
Policy rightly requires new focus on Federal agency
coordination as well, but also appropriately leaves it up to
the regional efforts to determine the substance of these
regional ocean plans.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bullard follows:]
Statement of John Bullard, President, Sea Education Association, Woods
Hole, Massachusetts; and Former Mayor of the fishing port of New
Bedford, Member of the Massachusetts Ocean Advisory Commission
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on today's
hearing on the President's New National Ocean Policy. My name is John
Bullard, and I am the President of the Sea Education Association,
located in Woods Hole Massachusetts. At SEA, we teach college students
about the oceans with a semester program in which students prepare an
oceanographic research project that they conduct at sea on one of our
two sailing research vessels. In addition to my current role as
President of Sea Education Association, I was also selected by
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick to serve on the Commonwealth's
Ocean Advisory Commission--a body which was heavily engaged in the
development of the Massachusetts Ocean Plan, which I will discuss in a
few minutes. Additionally, I am a former mayor of the fishing port of
New Bedford--a historic fishing port which in recent years has
consistently ranked as the top-ranked port in the country in terms of
value landed.
Background
In Massachusetts and the rest of New England, we value our
traditional uses of the ocean greatly. Commercial fishing, shipping,
tourism, and recreation are mainstays of the coastal economy--providing
thousands of jobs and for many of us, providing the character of our
coastal communities which we cherish. The continued economic health of
these uses is directly tied to the environmental health of our coasts
and oceans--for example, as many fish stocks in New England continue to
recover, commercial fishing will continue to be vital. Tourism and
recreation rely on clean water and habitats for marine animals and
fish.
At the same time, in Massachusetts and elsewhere new proposals for
the use of our oceans are emerging, many of which may offer
opportunities to provide new jobs, feed a growing nation, and address
other important policy goals. Renewable energy (wind and tidal-based
generation), aquaculture, and extraction of sand resources to provide
protection for low-lying coastal areas are all examples of recent, new
types of human activities proposed for our coastal and ocean waters. I
am not here to debate the validity of these types of activities; more
to the point, they are a reality as our society increasingly looks to
the ocean to assist us in meeting our economic goals and to address
significant issues related to energy generation and food production.
The issue I do wish to speak to is this: in many areas of the ocean,
there are existing, economically important uses that we value and
cherish that could conflict with these types of emerging uses.
I stress the word could, however, because these potential conflicts
do not have to become reality. With sufficient, public discussion and
application of best available information early in the process, we have
seen examples in New England of how of how new and existing uses can
co-exist.
The National Ocean Policy and Framework for Coastal and Marine Spatial
Planning
These two simple concepts: everyone having a seat at the table, and
application of best available science and data, are at the heart of the
National Ocean Policy's Framework for Coastal and Marine Spatial
Planning. As you know, the National Ocean Policy calls for the
development of regional ocean plans, to be developed through a
transparent, bottom-up process. I would like to offer a few points on
this aspect of the National Ocean Policy, drawing upon recent
experience in New England:
First, coastal and marine spatial planning (or ocean planning) as
described in the National Ocean Policy is not a new concept. As I
described earlier, ocean planning boils down to two main components:
Open, transparent dialogue about public goals and
desires for the ocean
Incorporation of science, data, and information from
the beginning of this dialogue
Thus, ocean planning, as described in the National Ocean Policy,
brings all viewpoints to the table: energy, recreation, conservation,
fisheries, national security, safety and navigation, commerce
(shipping), and others. This allows all voices to be heard and to have
a say in how ocean space is utilized.
This is an important departure from past practice, where certain
viewpoints were not represented during the review of a specific project
until late in a specific project review process. This ultimately leads
to project delays, lawsuits, and general frustration with the process--
from all standpoints. We are all familiar with examples of this in
action. Additionally, by allowing all voices to be heard up-front,
combined with a focused effort to incorporate best available data from
the beginning of the process, ocean planning is a simple, straight
forward tool that will enable better, more efficient, and more
transparent decision-making. These two main tenets of ocean planning
are incorporated in the National Ocean Policy and its Framework for
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning.
In New England, aspects of ocean planning have been in place for
years, such as through fishery management efforts. There are also
several recent examples of a broader approach to ocean planning,
including those led by the states of Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
These states have led the way in New England in thinking more
comprehensively about how we value and use our coastal and ocean
resources. The need for these states to undergo this activity is as I
described previously: in recognition of New England's connection to its
ocean and the cultural and economic importance of this connection in
the face of increasing desire for new uses of ocean resources.
New England states, led by its Governors, are also considering
potential new uses of ocean waters--including renewable energy--that
could result in potential conflict with these traditional uses such as
fishing. As you know, the Governors of several states beyond New
England are also realizing the potential for offshore energy--and the
jobs it will bring--on the east coast of the United States, so this is
a phenomenon not limited to New England.
Recognizing that reality for us in New England, but realizing the
importance of this issue as well, both Rhode Island and Massachusetts
have applied ocean planning principles of open dialogue, with all
voices at the table, and development and incorporation of science and
data to help inform decision-making. These efforts have been recent
undertakings, as Massachusetts completed its Ocean Management Plan in
2010, and Rhode Island completed its effort earlier this year. In my
role as a Governor-appointed member of the Massachusetts Ocean Advisory
Commission, I was able to help the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan
happen in real time--consequently, I'm speaking to you with the
perspective of someone who has successfully lived through an ocean
planning effort.
This brings me to a very important second point: both efforts were
completed in relatively short order: 18 months in MA, and about two
years in the case of Rhode Island, demonstrating that such an effort
can be done in a timely fashion. Partly, this timeliness was because
neither the Rhode Island nor Massachusetts attempted to develop ocean
zoning schemes that divvy up all ocean space for particular activities.
Ocean planning efforts do not necessarily equate to ocean zoning: it is
up to the participants in an ocean planning effort to determine the end
result. Similarly, as is clearly laid out in the National Ocean Policy,
it will be up to the regions themselves to determine the content of a
regional ocean plan.
The Rhode Island and Massachusetts ocean planning efforts have
resulted in development of better information (science, data) and
public discussion over how to balance new and existing uses of our
ocean. This will ultimately lead to better and faster decision-making,
increased certainty in the decision making process because certain
issues will have been already addressed once specific projects are
proposed, because these decisions incorporate better science and data,
and because the decisions are in the public realm--available for all
(including future potential projects) to draw from in the future.
As a specific example of this: Coming from New Bedford, the
nation's top dollar port for 11 straight years and a city that plans to
be the staging area for Cape Wind, I know the importance of early
communication between fishing interests and ocean planners who are
searching out areas appropriate for renewable energy. No matter the
background interest, certainty in decision making is something we all
seek. For example, turbines can be beneficial to some fishing methods
such as fixed gear or aquaculture. It can conflict with mobile gear. So
communication early on in decision-making is essential so that
fishermen and renewable energy developers alike can plan ahead. And
with the data gathered in the ocean planning process it is possible to
talk about opening areas closed to fishing as well as closing some.
This can be a net gain for fishermen as we have seen with scallops. But
we will not be able to explore even this possibility unless all voices
are at the table.
This example and others from Massachusetts and Rhode Island are
important demonstrations of the benefits of the type of approach
envisioned in the National Ocean Policy's Framework for coastal and
marine spatial planning.
In addition, there are four other important aspects of the National
Ocean Policy, which are important to point out:
1. First, it requires all federal agencies to work together on
addressing important ocean issues--a significant improvement
over the often-fragmented approach that has occurred
historically. President George W. Bush's US Ocean Commission
was just one of the more recent examples where the issue of
coordinating multiple agencies was highlighted as a significant
policy issue. The oft-cited issue of regulatory certainty is
one that cuts across agencies as well, and this National Ocean
Policy is significant in its requirements for federal agencies
to cooperate--in ways not seen before.
2. Second, it clearly recognizes the reality that certain
human activities are regional in nature--such as fishing. If a
boat is fishing on Georges Bank east of Cape Cod, it could be
from a home port in any of the New England states. Therefore,
it makes sense that regions of the country--states and the
federal government together--should work together to address
those issues of importance to that region.
3. It also clearly recognizes that the ocean ecosystem--its
species, habitats, and physical aspects such as circulation/
currents--do not necessarily follow jurisdictional lines.
4. It does not include a ``one-size fits all'' approach to
ocean planning. Rather, it outlines a series of principles for
ocean planning but leaves the details to be determined by the
individual regions. Thus, the National Ocean Policy includes an
appropriate level of flexibility to enable the development of
regional ocean plans that are appropriate to those issues--and
appetites to address those issues--identified at the regional
level.
Conclusion
We in New England, like other parts of the country, are reliant on
our coasts and oceans for jobs, recreation, and the very fabric of our
coastal communities. These connections to the oceans are a strong
tradition, and we are now looking to the ocean for critical new
services in the future while continuing the traditional. Ocean
planning, such as the framework put forth in the President's National
Ocean Policy, is a sensible approach that will enable new and existing
uses to thrive together.
The two basic tenets of ocean planning--all involved interests with
a seat at the table and incorporation of best science and data--will
lead to more efficient, transparent, and fair decision-making about our
oceans. The President's National Ocean Policy incorporates these
principles, which have been put to action already in several states.
The National Ocean Policy rightly requires a new focus on federal
agency coordination, as well, but also appropriately leaves it up to
the regional efforts to determine the substance of these regional ocean
plans.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony for the
Committee's consideration and to make an oral presentation of the
summary of my written comments.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Bullard.
And last we will hear from Mr. Jim Lanard, the President of
the Offshore Wind Development Coalition. Mr. Lanard, is it
Lanard? Did I say it correctly?
Mr. Lanard. It is.
The Chairman. You are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JIM LANARD, PRESIDENT,
OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT COALITION
Mr. Lanard. Thank you. Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member
Markey, Members of the Committee, thank you very much for
having us here today.
My name is Jim Lanard, President of the Offshore Wind
Development Coalition. We represent 11 offshore wind developers
that are developing projects in the Great Lakes, along the
Atlantic Coast, and in the Gulf of Mexico, particularly off the
coast of Texas. Our mission is a very simple one. We push for
legislative and regulatory policies that will promote the
development and the faster moving development of offshore wind
projects that will support thousands of high-skilled jobs and
support billions of dollars of investment in manufacturing
facilities along our coasts.
Let me give you a quick history of the status of our
industry. We are losing the intellectual and economic race for
offshore wind to Europe and China. They are exporting their
products throughout Europe and throughout the world and yet
here in the United States we don't have a market and we are
exporting or developing none of those products whatsoever. It
is time to catch up.
The first step in that catch up is for this Congress to
consider the investment tax credit. Chairman Hastings, we have
spoken with you and your Committee about this before, but it is
the highest priority for the Offshore Wind Development
Coalition and our developers.
Let us look at the state of the ocean. It is busy out there
and it is getting busier. There are expanding and existing
uses. You have heard them today, oil and gas production,
shipping, commercial and recreational fishing, national
security issues, Department of Defense territories. Let me say
that we work very closely with the Department of Defense. We
have a great working relationship with them, and we are going
to continue to find areas of common ground with DOD. There are
also other recreational uses. There are cultural resources that
need protection as does wildlife and habitat protection.
So, where does offshore wind fit into this plan? The
Department of the Interior asked and answered this question for
first mover projects. They adopted the ``Smart From the Start
Program'', which is a process involving state task forces and
stakeholders throughout the coastal areas of the United States.
This Smart From the Start process identified the best areas for
first mover offshore wind projects, and as a result of that
they reduced the permitting timeline by over two years so that
we can start putting our workers back on the job developing
offshore wind and getting that investment here in the United
States.
And the Smart From the Start also gives us great ideas
about where we should consider developing in the future. We are
a new use in the ocean. We are not an existing use, but we need
to be compatible with all the uses that are already out there,
so we believe there needs to be better planning, better
cooperation, and better management so that all of this can be
coordinated and integrated in a reasonable and fair process for
all users, and that is where we think the President's National
Ocean Policy comes in.
The National Ocean Policy is very simple. It provides for
better planning to protect and to use our ocean resources. It
is basic, too. It calls for broad-based data collection,
science-based management, and this leads, I believe, to
certainty for our developers and for the manufacturers, and the
certainty that our developers and manufacturers need.
We all need to know that we have a process that is
ecologically and socially significant, that we have to protect
these areas. We have to know where not to develop, and we have
to know where not to develop so we don't waste our developers'
time, and so we don't waste the government's time reviewing
permit applications for sites that just don't make sense.
Ocean planning isn't new as we have heard and it is
bipartisan. In Massachusetts, as we have heard, the ocean
management plan was adopted by a Democratic Governor. In Rhode
Island, the special area management plan was adopted by a
Republican Governor, and today in New Jersey, New Jersey
Governor Chris Christie has stated that he wants New Jersey be
the first in offshore wind in the United States, and is relying
on policies that they have adopted called the Ecological
Baseline Study. So we have Democrats and Republicans supporting
an initiative to move forward with offshore wind and with new
uses for the ocean.
Our bottom line is simple: We support economic and
environmentally sustainable use of our oceans and the Great
Lakes. We need to protect marine ecosystems and we think that
is good for all users that have talked about this today, and we
think that is what the National Ocean Policy is all about.
Thank you very much for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lanard follows:]
Statement of Jim Lanard, President, Offshore Wind Development Coalition
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
Good morning.
My name is Jim Lanard, President of the Offshore Wind Development
Coalition. Thank you for the opportunity to present our testimony to
you today on ``The President's New National Ocean Policy.'' The
Offshore Wind Development Coalition represents offshore wind
developers, service providers to the industry including turbine
manufacturers, cable manufacturers, submarine cable installers, other
supply chain businesses, offshore submarine transmission providers,
environmental consulting firms, and law firms. Our Board of Directors
includes eight offshore wind developers and a representative from the
American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).
The highest priority of the Offshore Wind Development Coalition is
a long-term extension of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC). Due to the
long period of time it takes to develop and permit an offshore wind
farm, a long-term extension of the ITC is critical. Said another way, a
failure to reauthorize and extend the ITC for offshore wind farms will
make it very hard--if not impossible--to finance these projects.
For additional background about the Offshore Wind Development
Coalition, and our perspective on offshore wind issues in general,
please refer to written testimony we submitted in advance of your
Committee's June 1, 2011 hearing on the ``American Energy Initiative:
Identifying Roadblocks to Wind and Solar Energy on Public Lands and
Waters, Part II--The Wind and Solar Industry Perspective'', at which we
also presented oral testimony.
The economic and job creation potential of a robust U.S. offshore wind
industry
The offshore wind industry has the potential to create thousands of
jobs in the manufacture of wind farm components, and in the
construction, installation and operation and maintenance of the wind
farms. These are high-skilled jobs that could be supplied by the
existing workforce in Atlantic Coast states. To realize the full job-
creating potential of offshore wind development, however, it will be
necessary to build offshore wind farms at scale, as is occurring today
in Europe and China. Manufacturers will only be able to invest in new
US-based facilities if they have the magnitude of orders necessary to
justify the huge outlays associated with the building of complex wind
turbines (composed of as many as 8,000 discrete parts), construction of
special purpose-built vessels and manufacturing of highly-specialized
submarine cables. Accordingly, we hope the Committee and the Congress
will continue to consider initiatives to spur and expedite development
of these facilities so that US workers can join the world's ever-
growing offshore wind workforce.
Establishment of an offshore wind industry in the U.S., in addition
to creating thousands of jobs, will result in billions of dollars of
economic development, reduction in the need for costly and divisive new
interstate transmission lines, and will help coastal States meet their
renewable electricity standards. A 2008 study by the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE), entitled ``20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind
Energy's Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply'', found that the U.S.
could obtain 20 percent of its electricity from wind by 2030, and that
15 percent of that wind power could come from offshore projects with a
total of 54 Gigawatts of generating capacity.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Energy, 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing
Wind Energy's Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply (July 2008)
(available at http://www.20percentwind.org).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hosting utility-scale offshore wind farms: a new role for our oceans
and Great Lakes
The oceans, our coasts and the Great Lakes have supported a wide
range of industrial, commercial, national defense, and cultural and
recreational activities since the founding of our country. These uses
are increasing. And increased use leads to increased competition. These
growing competitive pressures are exemplified by calls for expanded oil
and gas drilling along our coasts, by more and expanded shipping lanes
that are being considered, by greater competition among commercial
fishing operations, by the need for state-of-the-art national defense
measures and by increased recreational uses in our oceans and the Great
Lakes. And now, an additional use is about to be introduced into this
mix--the use of our oceans and the Great Lakes for utility-scale
offshore wind farms, which will have the potential to generate clean,
renewable energy for hundreds of thousands of homes up and down our
coasts.
The footprints for utility-scale offshore wind farms may range from
25 square miles to 100 square miles. To maximize the output of a wind
farm as the wind moves through the turbine array, larger turbines will
likely require more separation between their foundations. Hence, wind
farms with larger turbines--and perhaps with more of them--could
utilize 100 square miles of the ocean. With larger separation between
turbines--ranging from one-half mile to nearly a mile between
turbines--many other ocean uses will be feasible at a wind farm site.
We recognize, however, that an additional use of our already heavily
used ocean resources will require better planning, better cooperation,
and better management. For these reasons, the offshore wind industry
believes that the President's National Ocean Policy is essential to
ensure that our oceans, coasts and Great Lakes remain economically and
environmentally viable.
DOI's Smart from the Start
Congress, when it enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005, mandated
that regulations related to the use of the OCS for offshore wind be
adopted within 180 days of the bill becoming law. Five years later, on
April 29, 2009, those regulations were finally adopted by the
Department of the Interior. Interior, in collaboration with the
Governors of many East Coast states, announced in November 2010 the
Smart from the Start initiative, a program that is intended to
accelerate the responsible development of our offshore wind resources.
Smart from the Start is a major step to ensure that all ocean uses
are fully considered when developing policies for the new offshore wind
industry. Specifically, Smart from the Start is intended to shorten the
leasing and permitting timeline for offshore wind projects to be
located in the most favorable locations off the Atlantic coast. Under
prior rules and policies, leasing and permitting of an offshore wind
project in federal waters--even at the least-sensitive, least-
controversial sites--was estimated to require seven-to-nine years. By
working closely with state officials to identify areas characterized by
(1) strong development potential (favorable winds and proximity to
demand centers), (2) abundant existing environmental data, and (3) low
potential for conflict with existing uses, BOEMRE has moved to
streamline early, leasing stage environmental review, and thereby shave
years from the permitting timeline for some first-generation projects,
while still requiring completion of thorough environmental reviews
prior to a developer receiving approval to actually construct an
offshore wind farm.
Interior noted that the Smart from the Start process and associated
data collection efforts will inform the Coastal and Marine Spatial
Plans that will be developed by the Regional Planning Bodies
anticipated in the National Ocean Policy. Smart from the Start takes
into account existing information on wildlife and ecosystems and other
uses of the ocean (e.g., fishing and shipping) and thus attempts to
``take into account the national CMSP (Coastal and Marine Spatial
Planning) goals and principles,'' as recommended in the Final Report of
the Ocean Policy Task Force. Final Report at 63. In many ways, the
development of offshore wind farms provides a fulcrum for putting CMSP
into practice. Indeed, the Smart from the Start program can serve as a
pilot program for larger CMSP efforts.
There already are some important lessons learned from the Smart
from the Start process. For example, even at sites selected as among
the most favorable for early development, the need for additional data
and a systematic framework for understanding and resolving potential
conflicts has been apparent. At sites off the coasts of Delaware,
Maryland, and Massachusetts, other agencies, existing users and
resource advocates have identified uncertainties about the effect of
wind farm development on existing resources or uses, prompting BOEMRE
to reduce areas initially designated for Smart-from-the-Start leasing
and permitting.
The President's National Ocean Policy
During the development of the National Ocean Policy, many of our
member groups commented both individually and collectively on how the
policy could be tailored to ensure the responsible development of our
nation's significant ocean renewable energy resources like offshore
wind. The development of offshore wind resources can play a vital role
in the nation's effort to restructure its electrical power sector in a
manner that increases employment and manufacturing opportunities,
improves national security, reduces price volatility, and combats
climate change. In general, our members have been supportive of the
Administration's efforts to create a national oceans policy and
implement coastal and marine spatial planning in U.S. waters and we
continue to participate actively in the development of the policy.
One critical goal of the National Ocean Policy is to create better
planning to protect our oceans in the future, especially as demands on
them continue to grow. Planning requires informed, broad-based data
collection and data integration that right now is managed by a vast
array of federal agencies. Better plans lead to road maps that can
guide current and future users of the oceans about how to best achieve
their business plans. Thus, these types of planning and data collection
will help industry by providing us with more certainty about the rules
of the road. Certainty leads to the avoidance of conflicts, improves
efficiencies and minimizes competing uses.
Comprehensive, science-based management of ocean resources can
supply needed data on existing and potential uses of ocean resources
and a critically needed framework for analyzing those data to
characterize and resolve conflicts. For this reason, we see a
comprehensive, science-based oceans management framework as an
indispensable long-term complement to the Administration's well-
conceived Smart from the Start approach for offshore wind.
Unlike some users of the oceans and Great Lakes, we don't consider
coastal and marine planning to be an ocean zoning exercise. Rather, we
see it as a process to identify ecologically and socially significant
areas that should be considered whenever any use is proposed for a
specific area. While it is true that these plans could indicate
preferences and priorities, proposed uses for any site will still have
to be studied separately. We also think ocean planning is important to
protect marine ecosystems while ensuring the orderly and sustainable
development of ocean resources in a manner that respects and minimizes
conflicts and existing uses including commercial fishing, recreational
boating, surfing, aesthetic appreciation, wildlife, habitat, shipping,
oil and gas and national defense activities. Regarding national
defense, the offshore wind industry has an excellent working
relationship with the Department of Defense; we're working with DOD to
avoid conflicting uses of the ocean and to identify opportunities to
provide domestically-produced power to their military bases located
along the Atlantic Coast.
Ocean planning is not new to the United States. And it's not a
partisan issue, either. Massachusetts, led by Democratic Governor Deval
Patrick, Rhode Island, led by Republican Governor Don Carcieri and New
Jersey, led by Republican Governor Chris Christie are relying on their
states' ocean planning processes to identify the best sites for
offshore wind farms. None of these processes has resulted in ocean
zoning outcomes; rather, they have identified areas with the least
conflicting uses for the potential development of offshore wind
farms.\2\ In each of these state's processes there was extensive
stakeholder involvement. The National Ocean Policy requires the
Regional Planning Bodies to ensure similar extensive stakeholder
participation, a critical component as ocean planning evolves in the
U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For more information see: the Massachusetts Ocean Management
Plan, (http://www.mass.gov/
?pageID=eoeeaterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Ocean+%26+Coastal+Management
&L2=Massachusetts+Ocean+Plan&sid=Eoeea&b=terminalcontent&f=eea_oceans_mo
p&csid=
Eoeea), the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan (RI SAMP)
http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/oceansamp/, and the New Jersey Ocean/Wind
Power Ecological Baseline Studies http://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/ocean-
wind/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensuring a smooth transition to a National Ocean Policy
OffshoreWindDC and our members believe there are a number of
policies that should be considered as the National Ocean Policy
evolves. We have suggested that the National Ocean Council adopt an
appropriate transition protocol to deal with projects that are
progressing through the permitting process and believe that guidance
should be adopted that makes clear how CMSP will move forward without
causing delay to pending plans and projects. We have stressed that
there must not be a moratorium related to permitting of offshore wind
farms as coastal and marine spatial plans are being developed; any such
moratorium would make it impossible to finance these capital-intensive
projects.
We also support comprehensive government-supported environmental
data collection, which will increase public confidence in the decision-
making process related to the siting of offshore wind farms. To that
end, we have encouraged the National Ocean Council to expand the Multi-
Purpose Marine Cadastre (MMC) that is managed by NOAA and BOEMRE. By
bringing many datasets together and representing them in a single web
interface, the MMC is a powerful tool for agencies, developers, and
other stakeholders to evaluate offshore wind siting decisions.
Conclusion
In summary, we support the National Ocean Policy and believe that
it can help bring clarity to the management of our oceans and advance
the growth of the offshore wind industry. A National Oceans Policy will
result in the protection of marine ecosystems and will ensure the
orderly and economically- and environmentally-sustainable development
of ocean resources, in a manner that respects and minimizes conflicts
with existing users. We are eager to support our nation's efforts to
create more jobs for U.S. workers and think that thoughtful
implementation of the National Ocean Policy will help achieve that
goal.
OffshoreWindDC believes that comprehensive, science-based
management of ocean resources, conducted in accordance with the CEQ's
July 19, 2010 Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy
Task Force and Executive Order 13547, ``Stewardship Of The Ocean, Our
Coasts, And The Great Lakes'' (July 19, 2010), will lead to a shorter,
more predictable leasing and permitting process for offshore wind
projects. In our view, a comprehensive, science-based approach to
oceans management is a critical long-term complement to the
Administration's more immediate effort to speed offshore wind
development at the most favorable, least controversial sites through
its Smart from the Start initiative.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts with you.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Lanard.
We will now begin the round of questioning, and I will
recognize myself. Mr. Coleman, in my opening statement I
referenced or at least questioned the statutory authority that
the President has in his action and several of the other
witnesses also raised that question. You are an attorney. Your
thoughts on that.
Mr. Coleman. Mr. Chairman, this is such a broad reaching
policy. We have all agreed there are many statutes that are
engaged with ocean use and coastal use, but what we have here
is we have a policy which has taken the discretion that each
one of those laws gives to the implementer of that policy, it
has taken that discretion away from--it is basically amending
those statutes.
There are huge legal problems with this policy. That is one
of them. When you say to the Secretary of Commerce you no
longer have the discretion in amending the Magnuson-Stevens
Conservation Act, you have to exercise whatever discretion you
have toward amending the National Ocean Policy, that, frankly,
is not what Congress intended. The Congress intended that the
Secretary of Commerce would have the discretion, the full
discretion, not some limitation that the President decides to
put on it.
The same thing would be for the Secretary of the Interior
in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Same thing for the
Secretary of Homeland Security dealing with the Coast Guard and
L&G terminals. There are so many different statutes that I
could list where this policy, just by the stroke of a pen has
taken away a portion of the discretion that the Congress has
given to those officials, all without any action or approval by
Congress.
So, there are huge problems with it. There are many other
problems, frankly, legal problems.
The Chairman. Mr. Coleman, thank you for that. I am sure
that we will have more discussions on that.
Mr. Gilmore, I want to ask you a question. You have
attended a number of briefings, I understand, on the CMSP. In
those briefings do you have a clear understanding of how this
is going to be implemented?
Mr. Gilmore. No. I could expand on that.
The Chairman. Well, why don't you just----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Just real briefly if you would.
Mr. Gilmore. Yes. The assurances that we have received in
the briefings don't match up with the language in the Executive
Order. The example of fishery management councils, we are told
that this isn't intended to impinge at all on the authority of
Regional Fishery Management Councils, and yet the plain wording
of the Executive Order and the task force final recommendations
that are incorporated by whole into the Executive Order make
very clear that if something is in a coastal marines spacial
plan the Secretary of that agency is obligated to act to
enforce that through developing a regulation or changing an
existing regulation that is inconsistent.
The Chairman. This is consistent then with what Mr. Coleman
just said about the discretion then within the statutory
agencies or laws that are already developed.
Mr. Gilmore. I mean, the best case scenario we are creating
two regulatory processes where we have the Regional Fishery
Management Councils and then we have something entirely
different going on over at the regional planning bodies
established under this which just creates uncertainty and legal
challenges, I suspect. I am not a lawyer but I know you can
find one in this town.
The Chairman. Neither am I.
Mr. Guith, I want to ask you a question. The marine spacial
planning initiative clearly intends on adding a new layer for
any activity that may affect ocean ecosystem health no matter
how far inland. If this were taken to the extreme or fully
implemented, how would this affect job creation in this
country?
Mr. Guith. I think it would affect job creation in this
country the same way that dozens of other proposed or
contemplated regulations over the last three years have done,
and that is increase the level of regulatory certainty to the
point where cumulatively we now have over $2 trillion of cash
sitting on the sidelines instead of being invested from non-
financial sector companies because they don't have the
certainty necessary to make a prudent decision of how to invest
that money.
And while I don't necessarily assume that the
Administration will try and regulate every acre of land, the
problem with this policy is it provides no constraint, and
therefore those regional planning authorities have that
opportunity, and therefore you have to assume that at least in
some instances that might happen, therefore if you are a
business you can't move forward.
The Chairman. That is one more layer of uncertainty.
Mr. Guith. A very significant layer of uncertainty at this
point.
The Chairman. My time has expired. I recognize the
gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
The National Ocean Policy is based on existing laws, and I
would like to submit, Mr. Chairman, for the record a document
citing the legal authorities related to implementation of the
National Ocean Policy.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Markey. Thank you very much.
[The document offered by Mr. Markey follows:]
[NOTE: The documents submitted for the record have been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Markey. The Constitution vests the Senate with the
responsibility of ratifying treaties, and I have been
interested in reading in the written statement of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce here today that they actually support
ratification of the international treaty known as the Law of
the Sea although it is being blocked by Republicans in the
Senate even while opposing the National Ocean Policy, so that
means that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce actually supports
international coordination on ocean issues, but not national
coordination, so that is just something I thought I would throw
out there.
Mr. Bullard, Mr. Lanard, you have heard my Republican
colleagues argue that marine spacial planning would cause
additional delays to offshore development. In your experiences,
hasn't the lack of coordination actually been that which is
responsible for the lack of development offshore. Mr. Lanard,
then you Mr. Bullard.
Mr. Lanard. Thank you, Mr. Markey.
We are at a loss right now. The Energy Policy Act was
passed in 2005. The Congress mandated that the Department of
the Interior adopt within 180 days rules regulating the use of
the offshore space, the Outer Continental Shelf for offshore
wind. It took five years, and it occurred very early in this
Administration's tenure, and started giving us a roadmap to go
forward.
The next step was the Secretary of the Interior's adoption
of Smart From the Start, which I mentioned in my testimony, and
through work that the developers had been advocating for many
years we were able to cut off at least two years in the
permitting process, but we still need a roadmap for when this
industry becomes more robust, when we have many different
offshore wind farms working with billions of dollars of
investment and thousands of workers. Right now there is no
roadmap. Those jobs won't be created.
Mr. Markey. And Mr. Bullard, could you deal with the issue
of Massachusetts and Rhode Island while they were developing
their ocean plans in actually under two years? Were you aware
while they were being developed of any activities that were
halted or prevented from moving forward until the plan was
completed?
Mr. Bullard. No, the planning process didn't halt any
existing activities. If I could respond to the earlier question
about delays, I think the best example I can see of the need
for this is that ten years ago Jim Gordon proposed a
substantial renewable energy field of wind turbines in
Nantucket Sound, and whether you are a champion of free market
or whether you want renewable energy to deal with the issue of
CO2 emissions, ten years later there is only a met
tower.
Now, certainly we can do better than this. This is death of
a thousand cuts. This is what the policy tries to get at with
regulatory certainty. I think what Massachusetts and Rhode
Island are doing to try and lay out in advance here are our
areas where renewable energy works and where it would not
conflict with mobile gear would make it a lot quicker to
achieve an important goal like that, but that is not the only
goal.
Mr. Markey. And again let us zero in on that a little bit
because in the United States there has been permitted less than
500 megawatts of wind offshore, and the construction right now
is exactly zero on those 500 megawatts. Meanwhile our
counterparts in Europe and China have permitted more than
40,000 megawatts and they have 6,000 megawatts already
operating or under construction right now. The Governors of
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Jersey are using ocean
planning now to identify the best sites for offshore wind, and
we know Governor Christie doesn't make decisions about the
future lightly.
So the Department of the Interior now has a process for
Federal waters called Smart From the Start that incorporates
principles of coastal and marine spacial planning in bringing
stakeholders together. Isn't that the type of planning which we
need nationwide if we want to telescope the timeframe that it
takes for us to have that offshore wind, Mr. Lanard and Mr.
Bullard?
Mr. Lanard. Mr. Markey, first, you know, one thing that we
haven't said here today is that there is ocean zoning already
in place. There is ocean zoning for shipping. There is ocean
zoning for marine protected areas. The Department of Defense
has zoned areas. The fisheries, the commercial fisheries areas
have zoned areas, so we already have that, and what we need now
is a regulatory framework that provides certainty, that shows
us a roadmap to move forward in a way where we can put our
workers to work and catch up to Europe and China.
China, by the way, started a few years ago. Mayor Bullard
talked about the fact that Cape Wind started 10 years ago. They
don't have any steel in the water for turbines. China started
three or four years ago and has hundreds of turbines either in
construction or in the water. There is a way to catch up and
there is a way to put these multi-billion dollar projects on
the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf so that we can create the
economy that we want.
The Chairman. Time of the gentleman has expired.
Before I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Fleming, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the State
of Alaska, and Governor Sean Parnell, letter from Taylor
Shellfish, a June 29, 2000, letter to the Chair of the National
Ocean Council from the eight Regional Fishery Management
Councils, and a letter from Richard Robins, Jr., Chair of the
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council be part of the record,
and without objection so ordered.
Mr. Markey. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent and
enter into the record numerous letters in support of the
National Ocean Policy by 154 organizations from over 30 states
and other comments as well at this point?
The Chairman. Without objection as long as you don't say
all 154. Without objection, so ordered.
[NOTE: The documents submitted for the record have been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
The Chairman. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Fleming.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just some general
comments before I get to questions that I find of interest
today. The gentleman from Massachusetts talks about this being
a mere plan. It sounds very benign, but obviously if you are
going to create a hyper regulatory atmosphere, which I think
this will do, it all begins with a plan, and that worries me
very much.
The other thing that bothers me. Congressman Farr made the
comment that this should be kind of a grass roots from the
ground up sort of process, and yet he willingly admits that
this Committee and Congress in general has been unwilling to go
along with this, and therefore that the President should
somehow bypass the whole process and by fiat create what he has
done, and that is an Executive Order.
What has that done for us so far? The Executive Orders that
have come down from President Obama have included, in effect,
the Dream Act, which again Congress would not pass, and
endangerment finding for the EPA, which was really just cap and
trade by another name, and then the refusal to defend DOMA, the
Defense of Marriage Act, which puts the President--substitutes
his wisdom for that of the Supreme Court.
So, it seems to me that what we are seeing here is an
unprecedented power grab to make decisions from a bureaucratic
standpoint from the Oval Office that affects so many people.
So, if indeed this is a grass roots from the ground up and we
should all have input, I think it should go through regular
order, and that is not what we are seeing here today.
A comment about losing market, that somehow that seems to
be a great fear on the left. But when it comes to wind, sir,
that we are losing all this market. Well, a market is a market.
If there is a market there and we are competitive, it will
happen, but to continue to prop these kind of alternative green
energy forms through tax credits is absolutely ridiculous. We
see now the scandal we know with Solyndra today where this was
attempted and, of course, a lot of taxpayer money being wasted.
So, I get to my question. As a Representative of the State
of Louisiana, I recognize the importance of healthy coastal
communities. We are affected more by that than any state. I am,
however, skeptical as to whether the Administration's national
ocean policy takes into account the significance as it relates
to the people who reside near these communities. The
Administration has even noted that the National Ocean Policy
may create a level of uncertainty and anxiety among those who
rely on these resources, and may generate questions about how
they align with existing processes, authorities, and budget
challenges.
My question to both Mr. Gilmore and Mr. Guith, am I
saying--Guith. I am sorry. What has the Obama Administration
done to ensure the livelihood of those in coastal communities
that is not disrupted by the National Oceans Policy?
Mr. Gilmore. Thank you, Congressman.
You know, the one thing that jumps out at us the State of
Washington has a statute for coastal and marine spacial
planning, and in their statute they point out that any element
of a marine spacial plan that touches on commercial or
recreational fishing must minimize the negative impacts on
fishing and must provide substantial deference to the state
fish and wildlife director in his opinion of how to mitigate
any of these negative impacts.
There is nothing like that in the National Ocean Policy.
There is nothing like that. So, I think we are learning from
these state plans a good bottom-up way to do it, the way
Congressman Farr speaks to, but we don't see that in the
National Ocean Policy, and we have received no assurances other
than don't worry, be happy.
Mr. Guith. The only thing that I would add is that if I
were a Governor of any state, whether it be the middle of
Colorado or whether it be Alaska or Louisiana, I would be very
concerned. In fact, I would be even more concerned if I were a
Governor Brown or Governor Patrick from a state that has
actually taken steps to pass legislation to cover our coastal
areas because these regional planning authorities can
circumvent that and completely take that authority away from
them.
As you mentioned, they went through their regular order and
in this case there has been none whatsoever. I think it is
important to remind people, this is an oversight hearing. This
is not a legislative hearing. You are not considering
legislation. You are considering a unilateral action the
Administration has taken, one that was not promulgated as a
proposed regulation because there is not a specific statute in
order to which to propose it under, so it was unilateral, and
if I were a Governor I would be very concerned.
Dr. Fleming. Yes, I would just submit in closing, Mr.
Chairman, that this is clearly a bait and switch process going
on. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman and the Chair
recognizes the gentlelady from Guam, five minutes.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to
thank our witnesses for their testimony today, and I would like
to state my strong support for the National Ocean Policy.
The demands in our oceans' resources are always increasing,
and it is time we establish a national framework to coordinate
efforts and balance these demands to ensure our oceans remain
healthy and productive for future generations.
Mr. Bullard, my home district of Guam relies heavily on the
ocean for our culture, our fisheries, and our tourism economy.
The island is currently undergoing a military build up which
will increase the demands on our local waters, so it is
important to me and my constituents that a plan be in place to
adequately balance these demands. I believe that the regional
coastal and marine spacial planning as envisioned in the
National Ocean Policy will be critical.
Drawing on your experience developing the Massachusetts
ocean plan, could you describe for the Committee how coastal
and marine spacial planning could be a benefit to areas like
Guam or other state and local jurisdictions?
Mr. Bullard. Thank you, Congresswoman.
One of the greatest benefits of participating in the
process in Massachusetts was just the accumulation of relevant
data, whether it is where people fish or shipping channels, and
starting to map all of that data so that every user of the
ocean could start to see a richer picture of the ocean, so it
was educational to begin with, and that was terrific.
I think the Governor, I can't speak for Governor Patrick in
Massachusetts, but we certainly were aware that we bumped up to
the three mile limit and were very anxious as most natural
systems don't recognize that limit, that that process continue
out into the 200 mile limit. So, one was just the information
and mapping it so that all stakeholders could see it.
The other was the conversations that started to take place
among different user groups in the planning process that
perhaps should have occurred before but hadn't. That was
helpful so that different people understood the needs of
different constituencies, and I think that was epitomized for
me in a hearing about lease tracts in Federal waters for
offshore wind that was held in New Bedford where Federal
agencies came and said, well, we have looked at all these
things and this is where we think you could put wind, and the
fishermen in New Bedford had not been consulted and they went
crazy, and they said, who knows more about this than we do. So
there started an intense communication between the Federal
agencies, not in charge of fishery management, but who were
planning where to locate wind, and an interest group that had
the historical knowledge and right to those spaces. That
resulted in a much better placement of where wind should occur.
So, I think the ability to have the conversations between
user groups was a tremendous benefit of the Massachusetts
experience, and I would say that one of the things, and I am
all for bottom up and lots of stakeholders being involved in
it, but one of the problems is the death by a thousand cuts,
all of the different agencies that can impede any project, and
so having every Federal agency that has an ore in the water at
the table saying you need to work together is going to make it
a lot simpler for anyone trying to do anything.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
Now, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have portrayed the regional planning bodies as having no
representation or any input by the people in the communities
that will be impacted by the National Ocean Policy. Is this
true or will local stakeholders be engaged in the regional
planning and decisionmaking process?
I would also like to put in one more thing, Mr. Chairman.
About the offshore wind development, and ask you, what have you
done? Have you looked into the Pacific Islands such as Hawaii,
American Samoa, or Guam?
Mr. Bullard. Is that for----
Ms. Bordallo. Yes, we only have a few minutes left.
Mr. Bullard. I think the biggest challenge for us at the
beginning was getting people at all interested in the marine
environment. As Congressman Farr said, there are no voters out
there, and when you talk about ocean planning you will
immediately get eyes glazing over. And so it is great to see
the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of
Homebuilders interested in the marine environment. I never knew
that existed before. So if this process can start to get that
kind of engagement, I think it is terrific.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record the
Governors' comments on the preliminary report of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy from 2004, which includes letters
from 14 Republican Governors in the support of the National
Ocean Council and the Regional Ocean Councils.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
[NOTE: The documents submitted for the record have been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California, Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coleman, just to follow up on that line of questioning.
How many seats on the National Ocean Council are there for
enterprise, for commerce, or for simple citizens whose land is
at stake?
Mr. Coleman. Every person on the National Ocean Council is
an appointee of the President.
Mr. McClintock. So the assurance we just heard that don't
worry, the stakeholders will be fully involved in this process
is simply a ``smarmy'' facade.
Mr. Coleman. Even at the regional basis there will be no
individuals on the councils.
Mr. McClintock. The analysis reads as follows. ``The zoning
plans will reach as far inland as necessary to protect ocean
ecosystem health and protect ocean bio diversity. All Federal
agencies will be required to follow the zoning plan when making
decisions on granting permits or when authorizing activities
under their jurisdiction.''
Is that accurate?
Mr. Coleman. It is absolutely accurate.
Mr. McClintock. Well, now, virtually the entire land mass
of the United States drains into an ocean ultimately in one
form or another. Does this mean that this National Ocean
Council can assert land use planning authority over virtually
the entire land mass of the United States?
Mr. Coleman. Yes, Congressman, it does mean that. The
opportunity to do this is based on this inclusion of this whole
78-page final recommendations. The President incorporated that
into the Executive Order.
Mr. McClintock. So this is basically the death of local
land use planning. It is the death of state jurisdiction over
state waters. It is the assertion of Federal authority over
virtually the entire land mass of the United States on the
sophistry that the ocean ultimately is affected by drainage
from every water source in the United States.
Mr. Coleman. That is true, Congressman. To a great degree
one of the main statutes that they are basing this authority on
is the Coastal Zone Management Act, and I must say I have been
disappointed over the years that the people in charge of that
implementation that NOAA have said things like permitting
something in Iowa is subject to the Coastal Zone Management Act
because it will have impact down in Louisiana, or that they
could choose the color of buildings on a naval base because of
aesthetic reasons. There is really no limit to how far that
they can take these acts if they wish.
Mr. McClintock. Is there anything left to the concept of
state waters under this Act?
Mr. Coleman. All Federal agencies will have to follow this
policy if they are permitting things in state waters or Federal
waters.
Mr. McClintock. According to the analysis states may opt
out of serving on the regional planning boards. However, the
regional planning board will continue with the zoning plan
regardless of state participation. This is true even if all
states in the region decline to participate. Is that accurate?
Mr. Coleman. Absolutely accurate.
Mr. McClintock. Any state which agrees to participate in
the planning process will then be required to make sure all
state permit activities meet the guidelines and goals of the
zoning plan.
Mr. Coleman. That is accurate.
Mr. McClintock. So there really is nothing left of state
jurisdiction over state waters or local land use authority over
local communities.
Mr. Coleman. We have great concerns about it and that is
why we have stated numerous times in submittals to the
Administration and in written testimony here that this
infringes on state sovereignty.
Mr. McClintock. What are our options as a Congress? This is
obviously a user patient of legislative authority under Article
1 of the Constitution, but it is an Executive Order. Does that
mean it can be rescinded by Executive Order?
Mr. Coleman. A President may rescind this.
Mr. McClintock. Obviously it will require a different
President to do so since this President has set this process in
motion.
Mr. Coleman. Apparently.
Mr. McClintock. What can Congress do?
Mr. Coleman. Congress can do many things. One of the
simpler things would be to prohibit spending of funds on a
temporary basis.
Mr. McClintock. We tried that and the Administration just
thumbed its nose at us on other matters.
Mr. Coleman. I understand, Congressman, and I want to
reiterate the National Ocean Policy Coalition is not against a
policy which would help coordination and make the economy grow.
We are just so much against adding this huge new burden overlay
across the whole country.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Rutenberg, you warned of unintended
consequences of this Act. What makes you think they are
unintended? There is a body of thought on the lunatic fringe of
the environmental left that government's role is to force
people into dense urban cores, and restore the vast land mass
of the United States to its pristine prehistoric condition. The
problem with that, of course, is that most people don't want to
be forced into dense urban cores. They want a yard in which
their children can play. They want a little elbow room. But
this does seem to fit in with this radical agenda of urban
centralization.
Mr. Rutenberg. Congressman, I had actually turned to the
points that you were reading from because if I was asked I was
going to comment, and I think what concerns me most is that the
general public do not understand where this is going to go, and
what is going to happen, and the potential for--I have had 30
plus years in land development and land conservation. I have
been on both sides of it. And this just really scares me of
where we could be going with it and what we might wind up with.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Lanard, I would like to follow up with what the
Congresswoman from Guam was speaking about and that, of course,
is the offshore wind development, and you are, of course, in
Massachusetts, and I believe she was asking about what about
areas, for example, like Guam. In Hawaii, we have wind, of
course, but we are on land, and we haven't ventured yet out
offshore.
Can you tell us how, for example, the NOP would be
assisting a company such as yours because you do say it is a
great development of jobs that you are engaged in, and whether
you see this type of activity moving to areas in the Pacific?
Mr. Lanard. The roadmap that the industry needs doesn't
exist yet, and because of all the different competing uses in
the ocean we think it is essential that there be coordination
among all of those users. I have listed them before. I think it
is very important to have this coordination so that we can all
find the best places and preferred places to site our
resources.
The way that I have read the National Ocean Policy and the
way that I read coastal and marine spacial planning there is no
definition that I have never found that talks about ocean
zoning. It talks about science-based management and data
collection so that we can understand where the best uses are,
and when there are conflicting or competing uses then we need
to find a resolution that works for all the parties.
As far as Hawaii is concerned, one of the sister companies
of one of our members, First Wind, is a developer in Hawaii on
land and working actually to bring a submarine cable, I
believe, between two of your islands to make sure that you can
have clean renewable energy. You have some of the most
expensive electricity prices in the United States.
So, as far as offshore wind is concerned, I believe that
the demand would not be great enough for the investment in
infrastructure that would be necessary. We really are looking
for areas where we have huge load centers, where we build
facilities that are serving several hundred thousand homes with
offshore wind and balancing that with not intermittent wind
energy sources as well.
Ms. Hanabusa. Have you looked at, for example, with the
build-up in Guam whether or not you would be able to
accommodate Guam's growing need if, for example, it builds up
to the capacity that they are looking at?
Mr. Lanard. I would have to understand more what the load
and demand is before I could answer that, and to the
Congresswoman from Guam I would be happy to work with your
office to give you some good data from people who understand
that.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you. Mr. Lanard, one last thing. You
talk about the fact that there is no zoning per se of the
ocean. We have heard about the Magnuson-Stevens Act which is
something that I am very concerned about because of the--as you
can imagine, fishing is a very critical part of Hawaii, not
only as the Congresswoman from Guam said we have cultural ties,
but in addition to that it is a source of our food. As a matter
of fact I was home and was told, and I also would address this
to Mr. Gilmore, is that Hawaii will use its quota up by
October, and we are hosting APEC this November, and our
wholesalers have been contacted by China saying don't worry,
you can buy your fish from us, and I find that to be rather
more than disturbing that, you know, we have a great fishing
industry but because of the quotas imposed upon it we are not
going to be able to sell our own fish to APEC when they come to
Hawaii. We are going to have to buy it from China.
So, do you see, for example, a conflict in that area with
the NOP?
Mr. Lanard. I actually think the opposite occurs. Mayor
Bullard talked about a meeting in New Bedford. I was also asked
to come to New Bedford and work and talk with the commercial
fishermen there about how to find compatible uses, and we
learned a lot in a great several hour conversation.
When I started in this industry I was a developer of
offshore wind farms to different companies, and we started
talking about three megawatt turbines. We are now looking at
five, six, and seven megawatt turbines which require greater
separation between them, so we can imagine wind farms with
separation of over a mile apart between the turbines which
gives great access to commercial fishing operations.
There are some issues that we are still looking at and
working with commercial fishing industries on this but we are
very comfortable that not only do we create greater habitat
with these new foundations that don't exist in the ocean for
fishing, mostly for recreational fishing, but for commercial
fishing we have learned that their turning radius, their
dredges, all of the different types of equipment that they use
would be compatible with in a wind farm the way we are
configuring them, and in fact we are going to be so wide apart
that you could have competing commercial fishermen passing each
other within one array of turbines and still have plenty of
safety other than maybe in really major storms, which I hope
they wouldn't be out there anyway, but they do that kind of
fishing I would rather than go every other array in a case like
that.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. [Presiding.] Thank you. The gentlelady's
time has expired. The Chair recognizes Mr. Runyan for five
minutes.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of you
for your testimony.
It is ironic that I think we have had a hearing very
similar to this in the past, and it was the Administration's
wildlands policy, which I think, you know, we keep going
through these same scenarios, and quite frankly, I think the
Administration has stepped up and rescinded that policy because
much of the same fears we are talking about here today.
Representing coastal New Jersey, obviously have a lot of
commercial and recreational fishermen there, and whether we are
dealing with uncertainty of catch shares, now we are thrown
into another realm of uncertainty here, and I just wanted to
ask Mr. Gorelnik.
I think you kind of alluded to in your testimony that you
have dealt with this in California, one of those pitfalls that
our fishermen, coastal fishermen, you know, they would want to
voice this but obviously as we have testified over here that
they might not be able to hear their voice because of the way
these things would be set up. What are some of those obstacles
that you faced in California?
Mr. Gorelnik. Thank you, Congressman.
The fundamental problems we found are really twofold. One,
the process essentially was rigged from the beginning. The
private funding that allowed the process to go forward had
changed the rules along the way, and there really was not
sufficient objectivity amongst the decisionmakers in the
process.
Second, the science behind the process was not--well, as a
person with a bachelor's and master's degree in physics I was
very disappointed by the science that I saw going forward. It
seemed that in the absence of any data the precautionary
principle was invoked as a way to drive the process in a
predetermined direction, and when contrary data in abundance
was provided against that predetermined direction it was merely
ignored.
So, I think that planning is not inherently a bad thing,
but if planning is going to go forward on the nation's oceans,
which that could be a good thing if it is done the right way,
but I think we have to have an open process, one that is open-
minded and does have the involvement of all of the
stakeholders, and that would include recreational and
commercial fishing.
Mr. Runyan. And I agree on that. I just wanted to bring
that point out because as we--you know, whether we are dealing
with Magnuson or we are dealing with this, and I think Mr.
Bullard said, you know, best science available. Well, a lot of
the best science we have available right now is killing our
fishing industry because it is not the most accurate science
because some of it is 10, 15, 20 years old, and we have NOAA
creating regulation around that, and quite frankly, driving our
fishermen right out of the industry, so that is really
something, not only the structure of it, but to have the
science to do it, and I don't even know if within my time here
in Congress there will ever be even close enough to have
something like that, so I caution everybody on moving forward
with that, and with that I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman [presiding]. The gentleman yields back his
time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
Sarbanes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
your testimony. I wanted to pick up on a couple of things that
have been said.
One, well, you are there from California, I can't see your
name, sorry. Mr. Gorelnik, sorry about that. You did say just
now that planning can be a good thing if it is done right, and
I agree with you, and you are bringing in a particular case
study. I don't know enough about it to argue back the point
from the other side, but I think implicitly you are making the
case for the fact that if we use data correctly, if we do get
our hands on the best science, if we make sure that we listen
carefully to all the evidence and science that is brought
forward, that that can result in a very effective planning and
decisionmaking resource, and I don't think the National Ocean
Policy is aspiring to do anything other than that.
You are offering some good cautions as we move forward. You
have to make sure that you have these principles in place so
that the process is as good as it can be.
Congressman, I think it was McClintock, made what I thought
was a breathtaking statement. He said that the National Ocean
Policy would result in the death of all land use planning in
the country, something to that effect, and I can't imagine that
anyone sitting here would agree that that is going to be the
result of this process, but feel free to interrupt me as I
continue on with the questioning if you do feel passionately
about it.
Mr. Guith. Death may be an overstatement but I think it is
very clear that any regional, local, or state planning is very
much in jeopardy of Federal preemption by these regional
planning authorities, clearly.
Mr. Sarbanes. OK. Well, let me ask--go ahead.
Mr. Rutenberg. I was going to say that based upon
experience with other agencies interacting on local and
regional and state matters, I have seen a precedent for it, and
I am fearful of it. Whether it would happen in this case is not
certain, but we have certainly got precedent. We have the
potential.
Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Bullard, what is your position and what
office do you hold or have you held?
Mr. Bullard. I was mayor of the City of New Bedford.
Mr. Sarbanes. OK, so you would be very sensitive to the
impact or on the ability to make local decisions and so forth
of the kinds of policies that are being discussed here. Do you
want to respond to this scenario that somehow the ability of
local officials and state officials and others to make good
decisions about zoning and planning would be completely up-
ended by something like the National Ocean Policy?
Mr. Bullard. When I read the National Ocean Policy I was
not fearful that it would usurp local zoning. Now, I think
there are all kinds of connections between land and water. It
is one of the wonderful things that exist, but I think that is
an overstatement.
Mr. Sarbanes. OK.
Mr. Bullard. And I am not mayor anymore, but I think zoning
is very important, and zoning being decided at the local level
is very important, and I don't think it is at all threatened by
this policy.
Mr. Sarbanes. Well, I think it is an overstatement, too.
When we had this hurricane recently I was coming down from
Montreal to Maryland, and I was trying to figure out the best
path to take to avoid the storm, the full impact of the storm.
The problem was that I only had state maps in my car so every
time I was getting ready to cross the border or trying to
anticipate what my route should be I found that I didn't have
the right kind of information in my fingertips to do that,
which made for a very bumpy ride because the passengers weren't
happy with me.
My point is this: Just the informational dimension with the
National Ocean Policy is trying to achieve it seems to me is a
very noble goal here, and that is to provide us with a more
comprehensive map so that we can make all kinds of decisions in
a more intelligent fashion.
Again, I haven't heard from this side of the table real
resistance to the information dimension of this, the data
collection dimension of this, and, you know, Maryland is
benefitting, the Chesapeake Bay is benefitting from efforts
right now in that regard working with NOAA. I understand when
it gets to, OK, then how do you use it there is some anxiety
here about the decisionmaking implementation of the information
that you have, but again, I think that the benefits of this far
outweigh the anxieties that have been presented, particularly
if the agencies which will be collaborating more as a result of
this process are sensitive to the concerns that are being
expressed here, and I think that they will be. With that I
yield back my time.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Southerland.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
all the witnesses here today.
I wanted to allude to some of the comments earlier. You
know, the Ranking Member spoke about a plan. He also made a
statement that, you know, I am sure we disagree on both sides
of the aisle that all Republicans are against plans. That was a
pretty broad statement. I know my family we put together
business plans and have for many, many generations. But he also
makes an assumption that all plans are good, and I think that
is also extremely dangerous.
You know, he stated that our side's view would be like
having no air traffic control. That is ludicrous. However, I
think his view, quite honestly, would be like having an air
traffic control help coordinate an air invasion on our own
freedoms. That would be ludicrous, and I think that is what we
see here in these efforts.
We talk about stakeholders, we talk about advisory councils
and planning bodies, and authorities, and management councils,
and I believe oftentimes we do see window dressing. You know,
this call to participation. You know, we don't need as a
people--we do not need the government to remind us that we can
talk to each other. I mean, have we been so dumbed down that we
need ``Oz'' to tell us that we can communicate? How pathetic
that we have been just so denigrated as a thinking people that
we need a government and a bureaucracy to remind us how
important communication is to make a better and brighter
future.
We have seen so often times where these planning boards and
all these stakeholders are brought together just to window
dress and to make it look like we are all working together.
Well, I can tell you there are abuses of councils and planning
bodies all over the country, only to push through an agenda
that harms us.
I will say that asking all these bodies to participate
reminds me it would be similar to the Greeks asking the people
of Troy to help plan the design and construction of a Trojan
Horse.
Thank you for allowing me to have some say, to literally
plan the dismantling of my freedoms. Thank you for allowing me
to have some say in that regard. I am not so dumbed down, I
have never served in an elected office before in my life.
January the 5th I left my family business to come here, and I
am telling you I don't need the government to help me anymore.
They are helping our family business--it is 60 years old--to
struggle like we have never struggled before, and our story is
no different than small businesses all over this country.
Please stop helping me.
I want to ask, many of you have traveled many distances.
Mr. Rutenberg, thank you for being here. I know you are not
from my district but you are from Florida. You represent
homebuilders. Obviously, the real estate crisis in Florida is
deeply affecting our economy in Florida, an economy that right
now is suffering through historic unemployment numbers. Let me
ask you this.
Why would this Administration feel the need to implement
upon your industry more regulations? Your opinion.
Mr. Rutenberg. Our industry is being blasted at the moment
by regulations from all fronts. We have lots of regulations
that are coming our way. This is just one instance of it, and I
suspect it is a way of implementing a belief that has not gone
through the congressional process, and that has been one of the
discussions today.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you. And last, you know, and I have
some issues that have been raised, we talk about economic
analysis and economic impacts, and oftentimes in Washington we
do little to do a constitutional analysis, do we have the
authority to do this, but let us just say to be assume that we
have the constitutional authority, and let us also, you know,
pretend that the Administration cares about this body's opinion
and our commitment to that Constitution.
I would ask Mr. Bullard, how do we pay for this?
Mr. Bullard. I think the question is we are paying for it
now. The example that I used before of someone 10 years ago
proposing renewable energy, and in 10 years nothing happens. I
mean, there is a cost to that. There is an opportunity cost.
There is a jobs cost. The number of regulations--regulatory
bodies that developers had to go through to get nothing in the
ground. I mean, there is a cost. Whether you agree with that
type of development or not, that is a private developer trying
to do something and being absolutely suffocated, and I think if
we had a way of saying what are our goals with the ocean
environment that solicited all stakeholders' opinions and said
here is where we want to put wind turbines, you would have them
built right after they were proposed.
Mr. Southerland. I yield back.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Holt, is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As someone who also represents an ocean-bounded state, I am
very interested in this discussion, and it is particularly
noteworthy that we have At-sea Processors and the Chamber of
Commerce and Homebuilders, and I am pleased to say a
physicist--I am speaking as a physicist here--involved in this
to make the point that there are many competing interests, and
the function of government can be described as finding
beneficial, optimal, balancing of competing interests, and when
you have this many different interests, not to mention a lot of
different agencies involved in the balancing of those
interests, it seems obvious that we would want coordination.
My colleague, Mr. Sarbanes, had, I thought, a fairly apt
description of saying if you have small-scale maps with a
large-scale problem you are limited, and it is not just that
your passengers might get angry with you, peoples' quality of
life, whether you are talking about their economic vitality,
their environment or their food supply, are put in jeopardy, so
I think we should welcome this, and look for ways to make this
coordination work well, and there is so my railing against
regulations. I believe it is true. I have looked to the
Chairman. There is nothing in this policy that actually
specifies new regulations. I see the Ranking Member nodding her
head. We can talk about the wisdom of individual regulations,
but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking
about coordination.
In the limited time I have, I would like to focus on wind
so let me direct my question or questions to Mr. Lanard because
this is an area where in New Jersey Republicans and Democrats,
Governor Christie, and the congressional delegation should be
working together and could work together. There is an enormous
resource out there that I believe can be harvested in a way
that is economically advantageous and very beneficial
environmentally.
Could you comment on whether the Smart From the Start kind
of cluster of recommendations and regulations is working? Is
that what we need? Do we need more or less of that approach?
And in the minute and a half that you have are there any
specific regulations that you would like to talk about which
will be the subject for another hearing another time?
Mr. Lanard. Thank you, Congressman.
First, the Smart From the Start has worked very well for
first mover projects; that is, to start getting these
facilities developed in the ocean, it is working very, very
well. The Department of the Interior acknowledged that it was
the first step, and it is a very, very important first step.
As far as specific regulations are concerned, we need
coordination among all the different regulatory bodies,
Department of Commerce, the Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA,
the Department of the Interior, Department of Defense, so at
the secretariat level in the Department of the Interior there
is a group that gets together, deputy secretaries from all the
different agencies starting to work together. Our biggest
concern is that they get enough resources to get the job done.
I do want to just mention about local zoning and what we
have heard from others on the panel is the death of local
zoning. We have to bring our submarine cable from offshore onto
land. We cross territorial waters at three miles and then we
have to interconnect on the property someplace into the
electric grid. There are many different state and local zoning
ordinances that we will have to follow, and I can assure you
the National Ocean Policy will not overrule one of them. Some
of our developers might like that, but it will never happen.
They will be subject to many different state and local zoning
and regulatory ordinances.
Mr. Holt. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
gentlemen, thank you for sitting here so long. I appreciate
your patience.
I remember back in 2009 when the Ocean Policy Task Force
first started its work. I as Chairman of the House Agricultural
and Natural Resource and Environmental Affairs Committee in my
State of South Carolina's General Assembly, because I was
contacted by sport fishing groups, I was contacted by
commercial fishermen, equipment manufacturers, former chairman
of the Congressional Sportsmen Caucus there in the state
legislature, so I have been following this for quite awhile,
and I see that as a result of this Executive Order the Federal
agencies are required to determine whether the activity has a
potential to harm ocean ecosystems, help no matter where the
activity occurs.
And so as I read that requirement and I start looking at
the makeup of the 27-member National Ocean Council, you have
the Secretaries of State, Defense, Interior, Agriculture,
Health and Human Services, Commerce, Labor, Transportation,
Energy, Homeland Security, the Attorney General, Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the Chairs of the
Council on Environmental Quality, and the list goes on and on,
OMB, NOAA. In addition, the five-member steering committee. It
is just amazing to me that we are going to create something
with this many layers.
Where I come from we would say that is too much government
because of all the people that have input into setting policies
for the nation's oceans that affect our ability to go out and
maybe sport fish or our ability for commercial fishermen in
South Carolina and all along the East Coast to practice their
trade.
We had a hearing earlier on this year where some commercial
fishermen came and they shared the data that is being used to
close bottom fishing, and how skewed it was and how flawed the
science was. And I remember a gentleman from Florida talking
about policies being set forth by folks in lab coats who aren't
going out in the ocean and really understanding the true
fishery, and so I am concerned that we have gotten to this
level via an Executive Order and creating this what I would say
is too much government.
The question I have is for the gentleman from the American
sports fishing association, Mr. Gorelnik. Is that pronounced
correctly?
Mr. Gorelnik. Gorelnik and I am from the Coastside Fishing
Club.
Mr. Duncan of South Carolina. OK. Well, thank you. You were
on the Governmental Affairs Committee with the sports fish----
Mr. Gorelnik. I am here in another capacity.
Mr. Duncan of South Carolina. I understand that as well,
but I wonder if you can add any input as to where our American
tackle manufacturers stand on this particular oceans act.
Mr. Gorelnik. Well, I think that naturally the economy is
affecting that business like it is all other businesses, but
the issues specifically in California, which have thrown a lot
of fishermen off the water, has decreased tackle sales. We have
seen tackle stores close. We have seen landings close as a
result of the regulations adopted in California. Of course,
that filters right back up to the tackle manufactures. So I
would say our lesson in California is if the process is not
done right and we have unnecessary closures, you know, you are
going to see businesses take an unnecessary hit, and it is
tough enough in this economy, but to have these what I would
say is gratuitous closures is going to have a further negative
impact.
Mr. Duncan of South Carolina. All right. Going back to the
too much government and it is still directed at you, you know,
in your testimony that at a public meeting in San Francisco
only those invited to speak were allowed to participate. Does
that fit into your definition of public participation in a
bottom-up approach?
Mr. Gorelnik. Speaking to that one event, there really
wasn't much of a big tent philosophy there. Recreational
anglers were never contacted in terms of being one of the
invited speakers, and there wasn't really sufficient time
really for public comment, and we really felt shut out. We were
very frustrated at that event. We felt that not only were our
voices not heard, but voices on the other side of our issue
were given an abundant amount of time to set forth their views.
Mr. Duncan of South Carolina. Right, and you are not alone
on that. I have heard that on the East Coast as well, and we
have heard that from the fishermen within the sport fishing
arena but also the commercial fishermen I was talking about
earlier that as they were determining closures for the Atlantic
Coast and the Eastern Gulf, they were never given an
opportunity to really have their voice heard, so that concerns
me if we are going to have true participatory government that
we allow that, so I appreciate you testifying, and Mr.
Chairman, I yield back the balance.
The Chairman. The gentleman does yield back his time and
the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms.
Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
your testimony.
I have been in Congress almost four years, so will be
coming up on my four-year anniversary, and as I have worked on
this Committee I think it was maybe several years ago we had
testimony come in about the state of our oceans, and Jacques
Cousteau, who has done so much really to dramatize the
remarkable oceans that we have had, his grandson came in and
talked about how he used to go out with his grandfather, and
the remarkable life that took place in the ocean as compared to
his more recent forays into the depths of the ocean where he
really bemoaned their sad state, and it was a story that has
really stuck with me. I cannot say I spent a lot of time
underwater looking at what we have down there, but clearly this
was a young man who has spent his life there.
So, as we talk about--as we are here today to hear your
testimony, we have to remember that our oceans really are at
risk, and I happen to come from a state in which so much of our
economic health is tied to the health of the ocean. We depend
on it for tourism, for shipping, for commercial fishing. Now we
will see activity in energy generation, renewable energy. So
much is at stake here, and not only do the coastline
communities stand to benefit, but our Commonwealth as a whole,
and really our country because even those kinds of businesses,
tackle businesses or whatever that are related to fishing, they
will be dramatically impacted if our oceans are not healthy in
the long run.
We have already heard testimony, differing testimony about
the processes different states have undertaken, so we have in
Massachusetts a story that is a very good one in which it was
not overly lengthy. There was adequate effort to bring in all
the stakeholders to the table. It was a process that seems to
have satisfied those stakeholders versus the story of
California which it has not been so necessarily the case, so it
is an object lesson that we need to remember as we go forward.
We have also been hearing the concern about the fishing
industry so I have a question for Mr. Bullard. Did the ocean
plans of Massachusetts and Rhode Island hinder the work of the
New England's Fisheries Council in any way? And how did you
work with them in the course of doing your work?
Mr. Bullard. The fishing industry is very important in
Massachusetts economically in terms of defining character of
seaports and also politically it is a very strong entity. I
think that is true nationwide. And so in the Massachusetts
ocean plan it was very specific that this was not to infringe
on the management of fish through Magnuson in Federal waters,
and yet it also required that the fishing industry be very
active participants, so they participated actively. We learned
a lot, but it was very clear that this was not an end around or
different attempt to manage fisheries.
I do think there is one thing that may come out of this
that can benefit fishermen. Fishermen look at Magnuson which in
New England has used closed areas as a way of managing fishery
or enforcing fishery regulations, and then they see wind
developers come, and that is like another closed area where
they see sanctuaries come and they feel that is another threat
for a closed area, so fishermen look at all of this as saying
you are just taking more and more bottom away from me.
I think if you put all these together in an ocean plan it
is possible, I hope it will happen that people will start to
say with this science and data we should be able to talk about
opening areas to fishermen, not just closing them. So that if
we are going to close an area so that there can be a marine
protected area, maybe we can open an area that was enclosed for
enforcement purposes. It should be a two-way street if
fishermen are involved in the overall planning process.
Ms. Tsongas. Well, I agree with you and I have seen in the
coastal communities of the Cape just how really very important
the fishing industry is, and yet the fishing industry is
dependent upon a vibrant ocean, so I commend you all for your
testimony today, and thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, and I want to thank all the
panelists for their testimony today. I must say what has struck
me with the testimony of all of you and the questions from the
members of the Committee is that the ocean is a great unknown
and there needs to be a proper way to address that. The
question is how and what is the process, and I think most
people would probably agree with the notion that the government
closest to the people is probably more responsive to the
diversity at a local level and community. In fact, Mr. Bullard
talked about the Massachusetts process which apparently was
very transparent.
But the debate here and the reason for this hearing was the
Executive Order of the President and the potential mischief
that could happen because of that Executive Order. If you start
up the process at a local level, which I think again most
people would agree with, and then you go to the next level you
would probably have less agreement because there would be more
special interests that could insert their views, and then you
go to the next level, which would be the Federal Government,
and then you take out the legislative process, the statutory
process and put it within the Executive Branch, then you have
the potential for real mischief.
And in response to what Mr. Holt said that the task force
has no regulations in there, I wish he were here, but this is
what the task force said and it is on page 47 under six, the
authority for coastal and marine spacial planning, and it says,
second to the last paragraph, it says, ``Where preexisting
legal constraints, either procedural or substantive, are
identified for any Federal agency, the NOP would work with the
agency to evaluate necessary and appropriate legislative
solutions,'' which is good, ``or changes to regulations to
address the constraints.''
Now, this is where the uncertainty that was said by several
of the panelists exists, and I think that is probably where we
will have further discussion on the process of how this should
be address in the long run, and so that was the reason for the
hearing. I certainly didn't hear disagreement on anybody here
that there ought to be a proper way to proceed forward, but the
key is how do you do it so that all of the interests are
properly represented. And again, when you start at the lowest
level, at the grass roots and go all the way up to an Executive
Order, does not even have congressional input, a whole lot of
mischief can be had, and I think that is the concern certainly
of this Chairman. That was the reason for this hearing.
I would ask all the witnesses if there are questions that
come from other Committee Members that you would respond in a
timely manner, make that response available to the whole
Committee, and once again I want to thank you very, very much
for your testimony, and with no further business coming the
Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A statement submitted for the record by Mr. Pierluisi
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Pedro R. Pierluisi,
the Resident Commissioner in Congress from Puerto Rico
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I have great interest in this morning's hearing on U.S. ocean
policy because Puerto Rico is one of the nation's 35 coastal states and
territories, and the ocean plays an integral role in the Island's
social, cultural and economic life. Accordingly, I believe the National
Ocean Policy, as embodied in the President's July 2010 Executive Order,
deserves our strong support.
I am keenly aware that federal support and intergovernmental
cooperation is essential to protect Puerto Rico's roughly 700 miles of
coastline and our waters and submerged lands that extend nine miles
from shore. The ocean surrounding Puerto Rico is home to diverse and
precious coral ecosystems, beautiful beaches that underpin our tourism
economy, and unique bioluminescent bays and mangrove lagoons.
The NOAA-approved Puerto Rico Coastal Program--which is supported
by scores of dedicated professionals from the Puerto Rico government
and the Island's 44 coastal municipalities, along with numerous non-
governmental organizations--is the chief means by which we are
addressing the challenges to and stressors upon our marine ecosystem.
Tourism, shipping, agriculture, fishing, and coastal development, are
among the many factors that must be managed for their impact on the
ocean.
This Committee--and this Congress--should find value and promise in
the President's National Ocean Policy. The Policy places a premium on
shared ocean governance, and appropriately aligns the otherwise varied
efforts that span the Executive Branch. In a time where efficiency,
coordination, and prevention of government duplication is sought, we
are presented with a Policy that achieves precisely that.
Importantly, the Policy fosters greater collaboration within the
federal government and between the federal government and the states
and territories. Though this collaboration, solutions to mitigate
stress on the ocean and to plan for its sustainable use can be more
easily accomplished. Balancing competing interests and multiple uses of
our ocean is needed now more than ever, and that is why I join many of
my colleagues in recognizing this Policy's capacity to accelerate
coastal and marine spatial planning.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today about how the
Policy will help us grapple with the effects of land-based sources of
pollution, over-fishing, a deficit of public awareness about impacts,
and recreational misuse or overuse of the ocean resource. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
______
[A statement submitted for the record by Richard B. Robins,
Jr., Chairman, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council,
follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by Richard B. Robins, Jr.,
Chairman, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Chairman Hastings and distinguished members of the Committee, I
sincerely appreciate the invitation and opportunity to provide written
testimony regarding the National Ocean Policy. will focus my remarks on
one of the nine priority objectives identified in the policy that has
important implications for the Mid-Atlantic region; specifically,
Coastal Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP).
It is widely anticipated that the Mid-Atlantic region will become a
modern epicenter of offshore energy development as the private and
public sectors work to develop a large scale renewable wind energy
system in the region. As an example of the scale of proposed
development, the Atlantic Wind Connection project proposes to connect
up to 1.9 million households with 6,000 MW of offshore wind turbine
capacity from Virginia through New Jersey.
In addition to having a reliable corridor of winds that make the
region favorable for emerging wind energy development, the marine
ecosystem within the region supports billions of dollars of economic
activity related to traditional uses of the area, including
recreational and commercial fishing, shipping, military and national
security, and other recreational and commercial activities that are
powerful drivers of the nation's economy.
CMSP, as contemplated in the National Ocean Policy, is expected to
provide for a more integrated and proactive approach to evaluate
complex interactions between traditional and emerging uses of the ocean
than those currently in place. The current processes for managing
potentially conflicting uses of the ocean related to offshore energy
development do allow for public input but lack transparency in the
decision making process and do not benefit fully from interdisciplinary
and interjurisdictional integration. If CMSP is implemented effectively
at the regional level, it has the potential to improve the transparency
and coordination in the planning and decision-making process which will
lead to better coordination of uses of the ocean environment.
In 2010, BOEMRE proposed a Massachusetts RFI area of 3,000 square
miles, south of Nantucket, for offshore wind energy development. The
proposed area overlaid shipping lanes, the Nantucket Lightship Habitat
Closure Area, the Nantucket Lightship Groundfish Closed Area, and one
of the most productive scallop grounds in the region--the Nantucket
Lightship Scallop Access Area. The proposal met with extensive protest
and the RFI area was subsequently reduced by over 50 percent. This is a
contemporary example of what we might expect in the absence of a
proactive, integrated CMSP approach that would anticipate and evaluate
conflicting uses of the ocean across a broader spectrum of regulatory
entities and user groups to facilitate appropriate planning.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council was established by the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and has
authority over the fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean seaward of the
states of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
Virginia. For the past 35 years, the Mid-Atlantic Council, along with
the other U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs), has been
engaged in the geospatial management of fisheries within complex marine
ecosystems. The Council has identified essential fish habitat (EFH) for
its 13 managed species, in addition to habitat areas of particular
concern (HAPC), and gear restricted access (GRA) areas to manage
discrete portions of the marine environment for specific fisheries
management objectives and related ecosystem and habitat considerations.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has also been actively
engaged with the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO)
since it was formed by five Mid-Atlantic governors in 2009. Earlier
this year, the Council has named a staff representative to MARCO's CMSP
and Habitat Action Teams, in order to make the fisheries-related
expertise available to the teams and to provide a conduit between the
two organizations. MARCO has made early progress in developing a
mapping and planning portal that will benefit future planning processes
in the Mid-Atlantic region. Our engagement with MARCO is typical of the
other RFMCs in regions around the U.S. that have established regional
ocean agreements that are viewed as potential precursors to the
Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) described in the National Ocean Policy.
The National Ocean Policy describes the role of the RFMCs as a
consultative role and leaves further specification of the role to the
National Ocean Council (NOC). The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council, together with our peer Councils, has requested that the NOC
grant the RFMCs membership on the RPBs. The RFMCs have extensive
experience and specialized expertise in the management of the marine
environment and well established conduits for stakeholder input that
can and should be harnessed in the CMSP process to contribute to the
success of the RPBs. The Massachusetts RFI example underscores the
shortcomings of the current limitations of the system to anticipate and
resolve conflicting uses of the ocean in a cohesive manner, and
suggests that a CMSP framework would facilitate a more robust planning
process in the Mid-Atlantic region. RFMC membership in the RPBs will
contribute to the success of the RPBs and will ensure that fisheries
resources and uses are considered at appropriate points in the process.
Working with limited resources, MARCO has experienced early success
with their portal development but full CMSP implementation will require
significant additional resources. As future decisions concerning
funding are considered, I would encourage the Committee to identify
funding opportunities for CMSP implementation that do not diminish the
budgets of NOAA Fisheries that are already challenged to support the
scientific and management programs that are critical to the core
mission of the Agency and the RFMCs.
______
[A letter and statement submitted for the record by Captain
Jay W. Spence, President, Passenger Vessel Association,
follows:]
October 3,2011
The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman
Committee on Natural Resources
United States House of Representatives
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) would like to thank you for
taking up the issue of a national ocean policy and marine spatial
planning. PV A would like to add comments to the record for the hearing
in your Committee on ``The President's New National Ocean Policy--A
Plan for Further Restrictions on Ocean, Coastal and Inland Activities''
on Tuesday, October 4, 2011.
The Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) is the national trade
association for owners and operators of U.S.-flagged passenger vessels
of all types. PYA currently has nearly 550 vessel and associate
members. Our members own and operate passenger and vehicular ferries,
dinner cruise vessels, sightseeing and excursion vessels, private
charter vessels, whale watching and eco-tour operators, windjammers,
gaming vessels, amphibious vessels, water taxis, and overnight cruise
ships.
Washington State is home to 63 members of PVA, including the
Washington State Ferry System, many other vessel companies, four
shipyards, several naval architects and vessel design firms.
The issue of a national ocean policy and marine spatial planning is
of great concern to the members of the Passenger Vessel Association.
Ferry routes and other traditional navigational lanes are located where
they are for a reason. These are the most economical and safest routes
by which a vessel can reach its destination. They cannot be arbitrarily
moved for someone else's convenience or whim.
PVA is also concerned that marine spatial planning may become one
more method by which the government imposes yet more costs on small
businesses and small entities.
Your consideration of our comments is appreciated. Please let us
know if we can answer any questions or provide you with any additional
information. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Captain Jay W. Spence
President
Passenger Vessel Association
______
Statement submitted for the record by Captain Jay W Spence,
President, Passenger Vessel Association
The Passenger Vessel Association (PV A) is the national trade
association for owners and operators of U.S.-flagged passenger vessels
of all types.
PVA currently has nearly 550 vessel and associate members. Our
members own and operate passenger and vehicular ferries, dinner cruise
vessels, sightseeing and excursion vessels, private charter vessels,
whalewatching and eco-tour operators, windjammers, gaming vessels,
amphibious vessels, water taxis, and overnight cruise ships.
The diverse membership of PVA includes small family businesses with
a single boat, companies with several large vessels in different
locations, and governmental agencies operating ferries.
The passenger vessel is a vital and thriving segment of the U.S.
maritime industry. It has a longstanding presence on our nation's
oceans, coastal and Great Lakes waters, rivers, and lakes.
Ferries are an important aspect of the nation's surface
transportation system. They provide essential services in places as
diverse as New York Harbor, North Carolina's Outer Banks, the offshore
islands of Maine and Massachusetts, Delaware Bay, San Francisco Bay,
Puget Sound, and Lake Michigan. To obtain a more comprehensive view of
the role of ferries in the national Maritime Transportation System, PV
A refers the Interagency Task Force to the National Census of Ferry
Operators maintained by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics of the
U.S. Department of Transportation and posted at www.bts.gov.
Ferry routes and other traditional navigational lanes are located
where they are for a reason. These are the most economical and safest
routes by which a vessel can reach its destination. They cannot be
arbitrarily moved for someone else's convenience or whim.
As governments begin to implement ``marine spatial planning'' (or
ocean zoning) as directed by a national ocean policy, it is essential
to be aware of the needs of the maritime industry, especially ferry
operators, to preserve and protect their routes and traditional
navigational lanes. The passenger vessel industry and its ferry
operators must not be considered an afterthought, inconvenience, or
obstacle when someone proposes a new and conflicting use for waters
traditionally used for navigation.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened in Nantucket Sound
in Massachusetts with a proposal for a massive offshore wind energy
development. Neither the developer nor the federal government properly
considered the impact of the project on the safety to the vessels and
passengers of the ferries that serve the island of Nantucket and
Martha's Vineyard. The ferry operators and PV A are greatly concerned
that navigational safety will be compromised. The attached letter to
the Minerals Management Service describes PVA's concerns and includes
the resolution adopted by PYA's Board of Directors opposing the
proposed wind energy installation because of its deleterious effect on
the marine safety of the area's ferries.
As people and industry look to ocean waters for nontraditional uses
(wind and tidal energy, artificial islands, large aquaculture
installations, expanded sanctuaries or marine protected agencies), the
possibility of conflicts with traditional navigational uses Increases.
While all federal agencies involved in carrying out marine spatial
planning through a national ocean policy must be cognizant of the needs
of ferries and other vessel operators, the U.S Coast Guard and the
Maritime Administration must be ``aggressive'' advocates for
traditional navigational users when conflicting uses are proposed. The
existing Committee on the Marine Transportation System (www.cmts.gov)
in the Department of Transportation can play a helpful coordinating
role.
PVA in no way opposes offshore wind energy or other nontraditional
ocean uses, but they must be sited in a manner that does not impinge on
traditional vessel navigational lanes or compromise the safety of U.S.
ferry operations. Those who promote marine spatial planning through a
national ocean policy must ensure that navigational uses are recognized
and protected.
It is crucial that Congress and Federal Agencies involved in the
development of a national ocean policy the take into account the cost
and cumulative impact of regulation on small business. PV A members are
greatly concerned about the economic burdens imposed by the cumulative
impact of numerous federal laws and regulations. In recent years,
passenger vessel operators have had to absorb costs associated with
Coast Guard maritime security mandates, higher assumptions about
average passenger weight for purposes of calculating vessel stability,
new rules for serving customers with disabilities and EPA permit
requirements for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel.
Nearly all vessel-operating members of PVA are small businesses or
small entities as designated by the U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA). According to the SBA small businesses ``continue to bear a
disproportionate share of the federal regulatory burden.'' The SBA
estimates that the cumulative cost of federal regulation per employee
for a firm with fewer than 20 employees is $10,585 per year. For a
company with between 20 and 499 employees, the estimated annual cost
per worker is $7,454.
Federal regulators must also take into account that many PV A
vessel operators have seasonal businesses, and that they frequently
compete with land-based venues. Since the potential customer can often
find similar services or attractions ashore, more burdensome rules
placed on the vessel operator create a financial disadvantage, since
the land-based competitor does not have to shoulder a similar
regulatory burden.
Your consideration of our comments is appreciated. Please let us
know if we can answer any questions or provide you with any additional
information.