[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
__________
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-76
__________
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
70-954 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
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
PJon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Mark Amodei, NV
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, October 26, 2011...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.............................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Conathan, Michael, Director of Ocean Policy, Center for
American Progress.......................................... 57
Prepared statement of.................................... 59
Donofrio, James A., Executive Director, Recreational Fishing
Alliance................................................... 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 50
Lubchenco, Jane, Ph.D., Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce................ 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Luthi, Randall, President, National Ocean Industries
Association................................................ 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 54
Sutley, Hon. Nancy H., Chair, Council on Environmental
Quality, and Co-Chair, National Ocean Council.............. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Additional materials supplied:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Statement submitted for the
record..................................................... 70
SECOND OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``THE PRESIDENT'S NEW NATIONAL OCEAN
POLICY--A PLAN FOR FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON OCEAN, COASTAL AND INLAND
ACTIVITIES.''
----------
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in Room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doc Hastings
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hastings, Young, Lamborn, Wittman,
Fleming, McClintock, Thompson, Tipton, Labrador, Noem,
Southerland, Flores, Landry, Runyan, Johnson, Amodei, Markey,
Holt, Costa, Sablan, Sarbanes, and Tsongas.
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. The
Chairman notes the presence of a quorum, which under Rule 3[e]
is two Members, and we have far exceeded that today. The
Committee on Natural Resources is meeting today to hear
testimony on ``The President's New National Ocean Policy--A
Plan for Further Restrictions on Ocean, Coastal, and Inland
Activities.''
Under Rule 4[c], opening statements are limited to the
Chairman and Ranking Member, but I ask unanimous consent that
any Member that wishes to have a statement have it in before
the close of business today. I would also like to note that
part of our quorum-making today is the newest Member of the
House Natural Resources Committee and one of the newest Members
of the House. I want to welcome our new colleague from Nevada,
Mr. Mark Amodei, who has a long background in Nevada
government, and I am very pleased that he has now joined us on
this Committee. So, Mark, welcome aboard, and we look forward
to working with you on a number of issues.
I will now recognize myself for my opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
The Chairman. Earlier this month the Committee held its
first hearing on President Obama's National Ocean Policy. At
that hearing, Ranking Member Markey noted that planning was not
bad and described how Massachusetts Governor Patrick had signed
legislation for the development of an ocean management plan.
Another witness also from Massachusetts noted that their
State had worked with stakeholders to develop the plan with
those stakeholders at the table. I would like to thank both of
them for pointing out how ocean planning can work through a
voluntary, State-run process that is based on statutory
authority and that has stakeholder activity participating and
at the table.
But unfortunately the President's Executive Order creates a
new Federal bureaucracy that requires regional plans to be
created whether States want it or not and in a manner that
excludes stakeholders. I have asked the Administration for
specific statutory authority that allows the President by
Executive Order to create regional planning bodies and require
them to create regional zoning plans.
I must say that so far I have been given only a hodgepodge
list of all those statutes that apply to ocean and/or coastal
activities. I have not been given a concise, direct answer to
the question. The list that they have provided includes the
Magnuson Act of 1950, the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and
Control Act, the Coastal and Geodetic Survey Act of 1947, the
National Weather Service Organic Act, and the National
Environment Education Act.
I, frankly, fail to see how any of these statutes gives the
President authority to create regional planning zones. Instead
of getting input and statutory authority from Congress, the
Obama Administration has decided that the President's signature
alone is all that is needed to make major changes to policies
governing ocean activities and to create a new, huge
bureaucracy that will change the way inland, ocean, and coastal
activities will be managed.
This could cost jobs and have devastating long-term
economic impacts throughout the country. But let me be very,
very clear. The Administration can and should require Executive
agencies to work in a more coordinated manner where ocean
jurisdictions overlap. It is also clear that Executive agencies
with ocean jurisdiction should share information and reduce
duplication between Federal agency actions. This would save
money and I think would be supported by all of us.
But in addition to the lack of statutory authority, there
are numerous other concerns and questions about the impacts of
the Administration's initiative that still have not been
answered. First, the initiative will add layer upon layer of
new Federal bureaucracy. The Executive Order creates dozens of
new policies, councils, committees, planning bodies, priority
objectives, action plans, national goals, and guiding
principles. This creates uncertainty for businesses and job
creators.
Second, the initiative creates a new policy of marine
spatial planning otherwise known as ocean zoning. This is
likely to place huge portions of the ocean off limits to
certain economic and recreational activities, including
commercial and recreational fishing and energy production.
Third, the reach of this initiative is not limited to just
the oceans and may stretch far inland, extending to potentially
all rivers, tributaries and lands that drain into the ocean.
Inland activities such as farming could be restricted if
regional planning bodies determine their activities might
affect the ocean.
Fourth, it is unclear how much this initiative will cost
the taxpayers. This is an entirely new initiative that will
take money away from existing agency budgets at a time when we
all know budgets are already being cut.
Finally, this initiative will create a whole new avenue for
litigation. Because each of these new layers of policy,
guidelines, and principles include vague new mandates for all
Federal agencies to use, new litigation will certainly be
attempted to use these vague mandates to challenge any
activities that one does not like.
So this new ocean initiative has raised numerous concerns
and could significantly impact our economy and American jobs.
So I look forward to hearing from the Administration today, and
hopefully, if they can answer all of the questions I raise, I
think we will have a wonderful time, and I hope that will be
the case.
With that, I yield my time and recognize the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources
Earlier this month, this Committee held its first hearing on
President Obama's National Ocean Policy. At that hearing, Ranking
Member Mr. Markey noted that planning was not bad and described how
Massachusetts Governor Patrick had signed legislation for the
development of an ocean management plan. Another witness--also from
Massachusetts--noted that their state had worked with stakeholders to
develop the plan with those stakeholders at the table. I would like to
thank both of them for pointing out how ocean planning can work--
through a voluntary, state-run process that is based on statutory
authority that has stakeholders actively participating and at the
table.
Unfortunately, the President's Executive Order creates a new
federal bureaucracy that requires regional plans to be created whether
states want it or not and in a manner that excludes stakeholders.
I have asked the Administration for the specific statutory
authority that allows the President, by Executive Order, to create
Regional Planning Bodies and require them to create regional zoning
plans. So far, I have been given only a hodge-podge list of all the
statutes that apply to ocean and/or coastal activities. I have not been
given a concise, direct answer to the question.
The list includes the Magnuson Act of 1950, Marine Plastic
Pollution Research and Control Act, the Coastal and Geodetic Survey Act
of 1947, the National Weather Service Organic Act, and the National
Environmental Education Act. I fail to see how any of these statutes
gives the President the authority to create regional zoning plans.
Instead of getting input and statutory authorization from Congress,
the Obama Administration has decided that the President's signature
alone is all that's needed to make major changes to policies governing
ocean activities and to create a huge new bureaucracy that will change
the way inland, ocean and coastal activities will be managed. This
could cost jobs and have devastating long-term economic impacts
throughout the country.
Let me be clear, the Administration can and should require
executive agencies to work in a more coordinated manner where ocean
jurisdictions overlap. It is also clear that executive agencies with
ocean jurisdiction should share information and reduce duplication
between Federal agency actions. This would save money and could be
supported by all of us.
Yet, in addition to the lack of statutory authority, there are
numerous other concerns and questions about the impacts of the
Administration's initiative that have still not been answered.
First, the initiative will add layer upon layer of new, federal
bureaucracy. The Executive Order creates dozens of new policies,
councils, committees, planning bodies, priority objectives, action
plans, national goals and guiding principles. This creates uncertainty
for businesses and job-creators.
Second, the initiative creates a new policy of marine spatial
planning, otherwise known as `ocean zoning.' This is likely to place
huge portions of the ocean off-limits to certain economic and
recreational activities, including commercial and recreational fishing
and energy production.
Third, the reach of this initiative is not limited to just the
ocean and may stretch far inland, extending to potentially all rivers,
tributaries and lands that drain into the ocean. Inland activities,
such as farming, could be restricted if Regional Planning Bodies
determine their activities might affect the ocean.
Fourth, it is unclear how much this initiative will cost the
taxpayers. This is an entirely new initiative that will take money away
from existing agency budgets at a time when budgets are already being
cut.
Finally, this initiative will create a whole new avenue for
litigation. Because each of these new layers of policy, guidelines,
goals, and principles include vague new mandates for all Federal
agencies to use, new litigation will certainly attempt to use these
vague mandates to challenge any activities they do not like.
This new ocean initiative has raised numerous concerns and could
significantly impact our economy and American jobs. I look forward to
hearing from the Administration today and hopefully get some of these
questions answered.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier this month we
held the first hearing on the National Ocean Policy. At it, the
Republican Majority claimed there is a chicken-and-egg problem
with ocean planning policy. The Majority says that the
President is overreaching by issuing his Executive Order on the
National Ocean Policy and that comprehensive ocean planning
requires congressional authorization.
However, when presented with ocean planning legislation in
the last two Congresses, the Republicans raised enormous
opposition. So, for Republicans, it is not about which comes
first on ocean planning, Congress or the White House. It is
about never wanting the chicken to cross the road.
To keep our oceans and coasts viable for fisheries,
military training, energy development, tourism, and
conservation, we need ocean planning. I commend the President
for using his authority under existing laws to ensure the
health of our oceans, given the opposition of the Majority. We
are not living in the 1600s when freedom of the seas was the
guiding principle of the world's oceans. In fact, this is not
even the 1980s when President Reagan used his Executive powers
to zone our oceans by proclaiming a 12-nautical mile
territorial sea and a 200-nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone
for the United States. Thank you, President Reagan.
This is now 2011, and the blue frontier has become an
increasingly crowded space. Fishing grounds, shipping lanes,
Navy training ranges, offshore energy production, fish and
wildlife habitats and other uses are increasingly in
competition. The National Ocean Policy recognizes these
conflicts and provides tools to harmonize the existing
regulations that govern our coasts and our oceans.
These tools will allow developments to move ahead more
quickly while creating jobs and improving the health of the
oceans. Scare tactics describing farfetched what-if scenarios
are counterproductive. By trying to lower the boom on ocean
planning, Republicans will instead run our coastal economies
aground.
In New England alone, coastal communities support more than
360,000 jobs and earn more than $8 billion in wages related to
the oceans. Massachusetts is a national leader in comprehensive
ocean planning with completion of the Massachusetts Ocean Plan.
Rhode Island has developed a special area management plan, and
the Northeast Regional Ocean Council is starting the
development of the nation's first regional ocean use plan.
But we are not alone. Increasingly, other regions,
including the West Coast, also see the need to address
uncoordinated development that threatens our ability to
efficiently use our ocean's natural resources now and pass them
on to future generations. The National Ocean Policy represents
decades of bipartisan work from two oceans commissions and
includes the input of multiple agencies, States, tribes, and
thousands of stakeholders. It is an adaptive process to
coordinate and capitalize on existing relationships, entities
and programs that protect and utilize our ocean resources.
This Committee has heard from numerous ocean stakeholders
over the years about the need for an open and inclusive process
to establish objectives for maintaining the economic and
environmental health of our oceans and coasts. The National
Ocean Policy provides the means to perform this critical task,
and I look forward to hearing from our two distinguished
witnesses today about how our national ocean policy can help
lift the anchor on our coastal communities and chart a course
for healthy and vibrant oceans and coasts. And I yield back the
balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member, Committee
on Natural Resources
Earlier this month, we held the first hearing on the National Ocean
Policy. At it, the Republican Majority claimed there is a ``chicken and
egg'' problem with ocean planning policy.
The Majority says that the President is overreaching by issuing his
executive order on the National Ocean Policy and that comprehensive
ocean planning requires Congressional authorization.
However, when presented with ocean planning legislation in the last
two Congresses, the Republicans raised enormous opposition.
So for Republicans it's not about which comes first on ocean
planning--Congress or the White House. It's about never wanting the
chicken to cross the road.
To keep our oceans and coasts viable for fisheries, military
training, energy development, tourism and conservation, we need ocean
planning.
I commend the President for using his authority under existing laws
to ensure the health of our oceans given the opposition of Republicans
to Congressional action.
We are not living in the 1600s, when ``freedom of the seas'' was
the guiding principle for the world's oceans. In fact, this is not even
the 1980s, when President Reagan used his executive powers to zone our
oceans by proclaiming a 12 nautical mile territorial sea and a 200
nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone for the United States.
This is 2011 and the blue frontier has become an increasingly
crowded space. Fishing grounds, shipping lanes, Navy training ranges,
offshore energy production, fish and wildlife habitats, and other uses
are increasingly in competition.
The National Ocean Policy recognizes these conflicts and provides
tools to harmonize the existing regulations that govern our coasts and
oceans. These tools will allow developments to move ahead more quickly
while creating jobs and improving the health of the oceans.
Scare tactics describing far-fetched ``what if'' scenarios are
counterproductive. By trying to lower the boom on ocean planning,
Republicans will instead run our coastal economies aground.
In New England alone, coastal communities support more than 360,000
jobs and earn more than $8 billion in wages related to the oceans.
Massachusetts is a national leader in comprehensive ocean planning with
completion of the Massachusetts Ocean Plan. Rhode Island has developed
a Special Area Management Plan and the Northeast Regional Ocean Council
is starting the development of the nation's first regional ocean use
plan.
But we are not alone. Increasingly other regions, including on the
West Coast, also see the need to address uncoordinated development that
threatens our ability to efficiently use our ocean natural resources
now and pass them on to future generations'.
The National Ocean Policy represents decades of bipartisan work
from two oceans ' commissions and includes the input of multiple
agencies, states, tribes and thousands of stakeholders. It is an
adaptive process to coordinate and capitalize on existing
relationships, entities, and programs that protect and utilize our
ocean resources.
This committee has heard from numerous ocean stakeholders over the
years about the need for an open and inclusive process to establish
objectives for maintaining the economic and environmental health of our
oceans and coasts. The National Ocean Policy provides the means to
perform this critical task.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses today
about how the National Ocean Policy can help lift the anchor on our
coastal communities and chart a course for healthy and vibrant oceans
and coasts.
______
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his statement, and
I am about to call the first panel, but I see they are already
seated. Thank you for that. We have with us The Honorable Nancy
Sutley, who is the Chair of the Council on Environmental
Quality and the Co-Chair of the National Ocean Council, and The
Honorable Jane Lubchenco, the Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
You have both been here before, and you know the rules, but
let me go over that again, the lights in front of you. And by
the way, your full statement will appear in total in the
record. And when the lights go on, the green light says you are
doing absolutely well. When the yellow light goes on, it means
you have one minute to go. And when the red light goes on, then
we get very angry up here. I am just kidding of course, but
finish your response.
But thank you very, very much for being here. And, Ms.
Sutley, we will start with you, and you are recognized for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. NANCY SUTLEY, CHAIR, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY, AND CO-CHAIR, NATIONAL OCEAN COUNCIL
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
us today. Thank you, Ranking Member Markey and Members of the
Committee for this opportunity to appear before you this
morning to discuss the national policy for the stewardship of
the oceans, our coasts, and the Great Lakes.
Today I will outline how the National Ocean Policy is a
practical approach called for by a broad group of bipartisan
stakeholders over a decade to better coordinate Federal, State,
and local ocean planning and to reduce conflicts and delay that
hinder economic growth.
America's ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes regions support
tens of millions of jobs and contributes trillions of dollars a
year to our national economy. We can't afford to sacrifice
those jobs to the status quo of inefficiency and conflict. We
have an obligation to identify and to respond to known
problems, the earlier the better, and ensure that Federal
agencies are not slowing economic growth through poor
coordination.
The National Ocean Policy aims to resolve a longstanding,
well-recognized and significant problem. The oceans, the
coasts, and Great Lakes are a crucial resource for America, and
they are in trouble. Historically coordination both within the
Federal Government and among Federal, State, local, and tribal
bodies has been, in effect, inefficient and ineffective.
Bipartisan commissions have called for a comprehensive national
ocean policy and a more coordinated, integrated approach to
managing our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes.
President Bush took some initial steps toward implementing
the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and
President Obama built on these efforts by establishing the
National Ocean Policy. The National Ocean Policy responds to
widely recognized challenges with a measured and iterative
approach to designing a better system for our oceans that is
built within existing authorities.
The policy was created with extensive stakeholder and
public input, and we have committed to continually engaging the
stakeholders and the public at every step of its
implementation. Historically Federal agencies have
independently navigated and interpreted more than 140 laws
affecting the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes, often resulting
in a confusing overlap.
The National Ocean Policy aims to improve coordination at
all levels of government and for the first time to establish
collaborative planning for the ocean. And there is a regional
focus that means that Federal, State, local, and tribal
partners will be at the table from the beginning and engage the
public in the process.
The National Ocean Policy helps focus limited Federal
resources on key areas and actions to ensure that we deliver
demonstrable outcomes to meet the needs of Americans, and it
prioritizes using the best available science to inform
decisions affecting the oceans, the coasts, and the Great
Lakes.
It is worth discussing one part of the policy, coastal and
marine spatial planning, in a little more depth as it has
become the source of a lot of concern and misperception. Under
the status quo, decisions with significant economic and
environmental consequences have typically been made on a
sector-by-sector, permit-by-permit basis. Many times interested
parties have been brought into the discussion too late or left
out.
This system has resulted in uncertainty for industry, user
conflict or confusion, costly litigation, and difficulty in
considering cumulative impacts. The National Ocean Policy
provides a framework for collaborative coastal marine spatial
planning that would be jointly developed with States and
tribes, incorporate public input, and allow for significant
regional flexibility.
Coastal and marine spatial planning is not ocean zoning. It
does not impose any restrictions on ocean, coastal, or Great
Lakes activities, and it does not direct that any area be
designated for a specific use or off-limit to specific
activities. Coastal marine spatial planning is a science-based
tool that provides transparent information about ocean uses and
guarantees the public and the stakeholders have a voice early
on in decisions affecting the ocean. We know from experience
that early and inclusive public engagement addresses potential
conflicts upfront and avoids last minute surprises that can
result in additional time and costs.
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Florida, Oregon,
and Washington are using marine spatial planning to better
inform decisions, saving potential developers and resource
managers significant time and financial burden. I believe that
the National Ocean Policy is a thoughtful and measured approach
to addressing longstanding threats facing our ocean, our
coastal and Great Lakes resources and economies. Through smart
collaboration and inclusive practical policy and management, we
can reduce duplication and conflict and foster transparent
science-based decisions that deliver healthy and productive
oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes for Americans.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning, and
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sutley follows:]
Statement of Nancy H. Sutley, Chair,
White House Council on Environmental Quality
Thank you, Chairman Hastings. And thank you, Ranking Member Markey
and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to appear before you
this morning to discuss the National Policy for the Stewardship of the
Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes.
Introduction
The National Ocean Policy responds to more than a decade of
bipartisan discussions and was formed to resolve a long-standing, well-
recognized, and significant problem: the oceans, coasts, and Great
Lakes are a crucial resource for America and they are in trouble.
Previous levels of coordination both within the Federal Government and
among Federal, State, local, and tribal bodies have been inefficient
and ineffective, and have resulted in conflicts and delays that hinder
economic growth, environmental health, and national security. In fact,
bi-partisan commissions have called for a comprehensive policy and a
more coordinated, integrated approach to managing our ocean, coasts,
and Great Lakes.
Congress created the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy in 2000, and
President George W. Bush appointed its members. In its 2004 Report, the
Commission said that ``[o]ur failure to properly manage the human
activities that affect the nation's oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes is
compromising their ecological integrity, diminishing our ability to
fully realize their potential, costing us jobs and revenue, threatening
human health, and putting our future at risk.'' The Commission
developed recommendations that called for the creation of an
``effective national ocean policy that ensures sustainable use and
protection of our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes, improved ocean
governance, and a comprehensive offshore management regime for the
balanced coordination of all offshore uses.''
Similarly the Pew Oceans Commission, chaired by the Honorable Leon
Panetta, identified in its 2003 report that ``[t]he evidence that our
oceans face a greater array of problems than ever before in our
nation's history surrounds us. Marine life and vital coastal habitats
are straining under the increasing pressure of our use. We have reached
a crossroads where the cumulative effect of what we take from, and put
into, the ocean substantially reduces the ability of marine ecosystems
to produce the economic and ecological goods and services that we
desire and need. What we once considered inexhaustible and resilient
is, in fact, finite and fragile.'' The Pew Commission's recommendations
also called for ``a principled, unified national ocean policy based on
protecting ecosystem health and requiring sustainable use of ocean
resources.''
The National Ocean Policy responds to these calls with a measured,
iterative approach to designing a better decision system for our
oceans. Built upon the findings of the two Commissions, and
congressional, State, and regional efforts over the past decade, the
new ocean policy lays out a process for Federal agencies, States, and
stakeholders to collaboratively improve decision-making in a manner
customized to the unique needs and desires of each region.
Development of the National Ocean Policy
Demands on the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are
intensifying, spurred by population growth in coastal areas, growing
ocean uses such as conventional and renewable energy development,
shipping, aquaculture, and emerging security requirements. Our
resources, and the regional economies they support, are also under
tremendous pressure from habitat loss, pollution, over-fishing, climate
change, and ocean acidification. Federal agencies, which have
jurisdiction over ocean and marine resources in Federal waters and
share jurisdiction with State and local agencies in State waters,
independently navigate and interpret over 100 laws affecting the ocean,
coasts and Great Lakes. This confusing overlap creates unnecessary
obstacles to ocean users and managers alike.
In response to the calls for an overarching ocean framework and to
ensure that the Federal Government is effectively achieving its
responsibilities and responding to the growing demands and uses of
these resources, the President established the Federal Interagency
Ocean Policy Task Force in June of 2009.
The Task Force was charged with developing recommendations that
included a national policy for the stewardship of our oceans, our
coasts and the Great Lakes, a framework for improved Federal policy
coordination, and an implementation strategy. The Task Force released
an Interim Report in September of 2009. This report was made available
for public review and comment. The Task Force was also charged with
developing a recommended framework for collaborative, regionally-based
planning. An interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial
Planning was released for public comment in December of 2009.
The Task Force undertook a robust public engagement process to seek
input from a broad range of stakeholders and interested parties,
including thirty-eight expert roundtable meetings and six regional
public meetings around the country, and received and reviewed more than
3,400 public comments submitted online.
Using this public feedback, the Task Force revised and consolidated
the interim documents into the Final Recommendations of the Interagency
Ocean Policy Task Force. On July 19, 2010, Executive Order 13547
adopted these recommendations and established the National Ocean
Policy--our Nation's first comprehensive policy for the stewardship of
the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes.
The Executive Order also established a National Ocean Council,
comprising Cabinet-level officials, to coordinate ocean, coastal, and
Great Lakes issues across the Federal Government and implement the
National Ocean Policy. Through the National Ocean Council, we are
improving the way we do business. By better integrating the existing
efforts of Federal agencies and offices, and bringing together
experience and authorities in science, natural resource management,
economic development, infrastructure planning, national and homeland
security, public health, and social services, we have taken an
unprecedented and long-overdue approach to the most pressing challenges
facing the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes.
The National Ocean Policy
The National Ocean Policy lays out a comprehensive and science-
based approach for Federal, State, tribal, and local partners to
achieve sustainable, safe, secure, and productive access to and use of
the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. It says:
``To achieve an America whose stewardship ensures that the ocean,
our coasts, and the Great Lakes are healthy and resilient, safe and
productive, and understood and treasured so as to promote the
wellbeing, prosperity, and security of present and future generations,
it is the policy of the United States to:
(i) protect, maintain, and restore the health and
biological diversity of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
ecosystems and resources;
(ii) improve the resiliency of ocean, coastal, and Great
Lakes ecosystems, communities, and economies;
(iii) bolster the conservation and sustainable uses of land
in ways that will improve the health of ocean, coastal, and
Great Lakes ecosystems;
(iv) use the best available science and knowledge to inform
decisions affecting the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes,
and enhance humanity's capacity to understand, respond, and
adapt to a changing global environment;
(v) support sustainable, safe, secure, and productive access
to, and uses of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes;
(vi) respect and preserve our Nation's maritime heritage,
including our social, cultural, recreational, and historical
values;
(vii) exercise rights and jurisdiction and perform duties in
accordance with applicable international law, including respect
for and preservation of navigational rights and freedoms, which
are essential for the global economy and international peace
and security;
(viii) increase scientific understanding of ocean, coastal,
and Great Lakes ecosystems as part of the global interconnected
systems of air, land, ice, and water, including their
relationships to humans and their activities;
(ix) improve our understanding and awareness of changing
environmental conditions, trends, and their causes, and of
human activities taking place in ocean, coastal, and Great
Lakes waters; and
(x) foster a public understanding of the value of the ocean,
our coasts, and the Great Lakes to build a foundation for
improved stewardship.''
The Policy also includes guiding stewardship principles to guide
management decisions and actions affecting the ocean, our coasts, and
the Great Lakes. Based on the best available science, these underlying
principles ensure the protection, maintenance, and restoration of the
health of the ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems, and
ecosystem-based and adaptive management of these resources; enhanced
sustainability of ocean and coastal economies; preservation of our
maritime heritage; and effective coordination with our national and
homeland security interests.
The Policy builds off of years of effort and public input, and is
built entirely within existing authority. While there has been long-
standing, broad support for a unifying national policy, as with any new
initiative, there can be anxiety about whether it will be better than
the status quo. The National Ocean Policy proactively addresses this
potential for uncertainty through regular engagement with stakeholders
and the public.
Key Benefits of the National Ocean Policy
America's ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes regions support tens of
millions of jobs and contribute trillions of dollars a year to our
national economy, through tourism, fishing, international ports, trade,
energy, and other business. The lack of coordinated management among
Federal, State, and local agencies has resulted in ineffective
planning, avoidable delays, and increasing conflicts among growing
numbers of ocean users that threatens these jobs and economies.
The National Ocean Policy will improve coordination at all levels
of government and establish proactive and collaborative regionally-
based planning among Federal, State, tribal, and local authorities for
the first time. The National Ocean Policy also brings a broad range of
stakeholders to the table to foster communication and transparency and
better plan for the future.
This will reduce duplication and help address the current system of
siloed, ad hoc decision making that frequently ends in costly
permitting delays, or litigation. The result will be less waste and
reduced conflict, more efficiency and transparency, and savings for
American taxpayers. It will also provide for increased predictability
and certainty for traditional and new users who are seeking to invest
in building industries and jobs in ocean and coastal areas.
The National Ocean Policy also provides direction and guidance
across the Federal Government to ensure we prioritize our efforts and
apply limited resources to address critical issues that will produce
tangible benefits for businesses, stakeholders, and communities.
The National Ocean Policy does not establish any new regulations or
restrict the multiple uses of the ocean, and does not expand the scope
of Federal jurisdiction. Rather, the policy provides a unifying
framework for a more coordinated way of doing business that will
increase the information foundation, transparency, and effectiveness of
ocean management decisions we are making every day, sometimes with
unintended long-term consequences. State, tribal, and local governments
are and will continue to be deeply engaged as partners and leaders in
the implementation of the National Ocean Policy, and it does not
supersede or alter any existing Federal, State, tribal, or local
authority. The National Ocean Policy is designed to and rightfully
plays out at the regional and State levels, inclusive of stakeholders
and the public, where many of the decisions impacting the ocean
resource are ultimately made. Decisions on ocean uses will continue to
be made under existing statutory authorities, as the intent of the
National Ocean Policy is to make better use of what we have on the
books already through more informed and better coordinated decisions
benefiting States, regions, and the nation.
The National Ocean Policy respects and preserves important
navigational rights and freedoms which are essential for the global
economy and maintenance of international peace and security. Finally,
the National Ocean Policy will improve ocean ecosystem health and
services by planning human uses in concert with the conservation of
important ecological areas so that we may continue to enjoy valued
ocean uses including industry, tourism, recreation and security in a
manner that can sustain them and the functioning ecosystem over time.
Progress on Implementing the National Ocean Policy
There has been significant progress since the Executive Order was
issued in July 2010. This past June, the National Ocean Council brought
together more than 500 Federal, State, tribal, and local government
representatives, indigenous community leaders, and stakeholders and
members of the public from across the country for a National Coastal
and Marine Spatial Planning Workshop.
This workshop allowed the Federal Government to collaboratively
identify key challenges, solutions, and strategies for regional coastal
and marine spatial planning, and respond to stakeholder priorities. For
example, participants highlighted: the importance of flexibility in the
scope, scale and timing of the regional planning process; the critical
value of scientific and human use data to inform coastal and marine
spatial plans; and the need for early, sustained and meaningful
stakeholder engagement. The National Ocean Council is working to
clearly highlight and incorporate this feedback into the coastal and
marine spatial planning process.
The National Ocean Council has also established a Governance
Coordinating Committee, comprising officials from States, Federally-
recognized tribes, and local governments. The Governance Coordinating
Committee works with the National Ocean Council on ocean policy issues
that cut across political, geographic, and other boundaries. The
Governance Coordinating Committee provides a critical link to and
strengthens the lines of communication with State, tribal, and local
governments on ocean, coastal and Great Lakes issues. For example, it
is assisting the National Ocean Council in crafting flexible and
reasonable guidance on various aspects of coastal and marine spatial
planning, including regional planning body composition and operations,
which recognize the unique needs of regions, states, and tribal
partners.
It is important to highlight some specific agency actions related
to the National Ocean Policy.
At the May 2011 Arctic Council Ministerial meeting,
the United States successfully worked with other Arctic nations
to establish a group of experts to review application of
ecosystem-based management principles in the Arctic. The
National Ocean Policy was one of the bases the United States
included in its proposal for an ecosystem-based management
initiative. In light of the National Ocean Policy and its clear
National adoption of ecosystem-based management, the United
States was able to take took a leadership position on the newly
proposed ecosystem-based management initiative at the Arctic
Council meeting.
In support of the Department of the Interior's (DOI)
``Smart from the Start'' initiative off the Atlantic Coast to
streamline offshore wind energy site selection and project
review processes in an environmentally responsible manner, the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) established
Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Forces. BOEM is
collaborating early and often with Federal, State, local, and
tribal partners to identify areas that are appropriate for
development, areas with high wind potential and fewest
conflicts with competing uses.
As a result of the National Ocean Policy, BOEM incorporated
the principles of the policy into their ``Smart from the
Start'' Initiative and formalized involvement of relevant
Federal agencies, and the applicable State, tribal, and local
governments as well, early in the process via Intergovernmental
Task Forces and an Interagency Working Group. In one example of
this new way of doing business, the U.S. Coast Guard was able
to ensure that an important shipping lane was considered early
in the wind site selection process, avoiding possible delays
and resulting costs.
The National Ocean Council and the Gulf Coast
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force share important
responsibilities related to the future of the Gulf Coast. The
Council and the Task Force are working together to better
integrate and coordinate planning, decision-making, and
regulatory enforcement and ensure the integration of best
practices, information, discoveries, and advancements in
science and management of coastal ecosystems. These efforts
will promote and sustain a culture of shared stewardship, both
across Federal agencies and between Federal, tribal, State and
local jurisdictions in the region.
In support of the Department of the Interior's (DOI)
``Smart from the Start'' initiative to establish Wind Energy
Areas off the Atlantic Coast, the U.S. Coast Guard initiated a
comprehensive Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study (APCARS),
which promotes the management principles of interagency
coordination and coastal and marine spatial planning, while
supporting the goals of safe, efficient maritime operations in
conjunction with the development and production of renewable
offshore energy. The ACPARS will focus on the coastwise
shipping routes from Maine to Florida, near coastal users of
the western Atlantic Ocean between U.S. coastal ports, and the
approaches to U.S. coastal ports through the Exclusive Economic
Zone. It will identify all current and new maritime users of
the western Atlantic near coastal zone to determine what impact
the siting, construction, and operation of proposed alternative
energy facilities may have on existing near coastal users of
the Western Atlantic Ocean.
The National Ocean Policy reinvigorated a
transformational partnership between National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and National Science
Foundation (NSF). The NIEHS and the NSF signed a memorandum of
understanding to support interdisciplinary research projects
that focus on marine processes and systems that have potential
to improve public health. This partnership brings together
biomedical scientists and physical scientists, two very
different disciplines who previously would not have typically
worked together, to address the growing problems in our ocean
that directly impact the public health.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) signed
a memorandum of understanding to ensure effective scientific
and regulatory cooperation on Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
energy exploration and development, and to facilitate
development of renewable energy resources in the OCS while
fulfilling the stewardship and conservation of living marine
resources and ecosystems responsibilities that fall under the
agencies' respective authorities. This partnership was
facilitated by the increased cooperation guided by the National
Ocean Policy. As result, DOI and NOAA have increased their
collaboration significantly on decisions related to OCS
activities, including with respect to research and scientific
priorities. They are meeting regularly to develop potential
ways to appropriately align regulatory and decision-making
processes, identify the best available science to support
future regulatory decisions, and increase collaboration on oil
spill exercises and response issues.
In January 2011, NOAA and the U.S. Department of
Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
signed a memorandum of understanding to work on improving the
understanding of meteorological phenomena that affect wind
resources and other terrestrial and offshore renewable energy
technologies. Better information on meteorological processes
and improved modeling of the variability of the wind, sun,
water, and other resources will ultimately increase the
country's ability to predictably and reliably integrate
renewable energy into the electrical grid.
National Ocean Council member agencies participate in
the execution of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action
Plan (GLRI). GLRI has focused its 2012 and 2013 priorities for
restoration on two areas that align with the priority
objectives under the National Ocean Policy. For example, an
area of focus is the three specific watersheds targeted for
phosphorus concentrations that are impacting the major
geographic areas of Green Bay, Saginaw Bay and Western Lake
Erie. These areas are all experiencing the impacts of severe
Harmful Algal Blooms.
The National Ocean Council is also increasing public access to the
data and information Federal agencies use in their decision making
processes. Using information technology tools, agencies are making
their data available to the public, businesses and stakeholders through
a single, user-friendly portal to support responsible planning for the
future of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. A prototype ocean
information portal to provide improved access to Federal data for
decision-makers, stakeholders and the public will be released to the
public later this year.
The National Ocean Policy Priority Objectives
The National Ocean Policy is focused on making advances in nine
priority areas with emphases on improving how the government operates
by increasing efficiency and reducing confused and prolonged processes.
These nine priority areas are:
Ecosystem-Based Management
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
Inform Decisions and Improve Understanding
Coordinate and Support
Resiliency and Adaptation to Climate Change and Ocean
Acidification
Regional Ecosystem Protection and Restoration
Water Quality and Sustainable Practices on Land
Changing Conditions in the Arctic
Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes Observations,
Mapping, and Infrastructure
Through these priority objectives, the National Ocean Policy helps
focus limited Federal resources on key areas and actions to ensure we
deliver demonstrable outcomes to meet the essential needs of Americans.
In an open and transparent process with input and feedback from the
public and stakeholders, the National Ocean Council is developing
strategic action plans to address each of the priority objectives.
Outlines for these plans were released for public comment in June of
this year, during which time public listening sessions were held around
the country to hear directly from interested individuals and groups. We
expect the draft strategic action plans will be released for public
comment later this year and final plans issued next year.
The plans will be completed and updated, also through an open and
transparent process, based on changing situations or as new information
becomes available. This flexibility allows us the continual opportunity
to engage with each other and with our most important partners--State,
tribal, and local governments, stakeholders, and the public--to ensure
that this effort stays on the best and most informed course possible.
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
What has become one of the most visible aspects of the nine
priority objectives is coastal and marine spatial planning. Coastal and
marine spatial planning is a tool to use science, include stakeholders
and the public, and bring together Federal, State, tribal and local
partners at the regional level to better inform and guide decisions
regarding ocean uses. However, this concept has, nonetheless, become a
source of misperceptions and even misinformation which has fed concerns
from some sectors, and it is important to provide a more in depth
discussion here to dispel many of the myths.
First, it is important to mention why the status quo is
ineffective, and how coastal and marine spatial planning will address
this problem. As mentioned earlier, the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes
are subject to a number of increasing demands. Existing uses such as
shipping and oil and gas development are expanding. New uses, such as
offshore renewable energy and aquaculture, are seeking a foothold and
are also expanding. As economic activity increases, there is also a
need to maintain and ensure continued access for recreation and
enjoyment, cultural use, and other important values.
Federal, State, local, and tribal authorities presently operate
under a confusing and sometimes conflicting system of planning and
management. Specifically, significant decisions with long-standing
economic and environmental consequences are typically made on a sector
by sector, permit by permit, statute by statute, and project by project
approach to decision making with regard to these increasing demands.
There is oftentimes confusion among stakeholders and the public
regarding regulatory roles and a need for more effective coordination
across agencies at all levels of government. Additionally, many times
interested parties are brought into the discussion too late, or left
out altogether. This has resulted in uncertainty for industry, unseen
``show stoppers'' in the permitting process resulting in loss of
significant up-front investments, user conflict or confusion, costly
litigation, and difficulty in adequately considering cumulative
environmental and socioeconomic impacts. This situation--never ideal--
is rapidly becoming unsustainable in the face of rapidly expanding
ocean uses.
The National Ocean Policy provides a framework for collaborative,
regionally based coastal and marine spatial planning that would be
developed jointly with States and tribes and substantial public input.
As discussed in more detail below, coastal and marine spatial planning
is not zoning. It is a science-based tool that provides transparent
information about ocean use, guarantees the public and stakeholders a
voice early on in decisions affecting the ocean, and creates an
inclusive, bottom-up, regional planning approach that gives the Federal
Government, States, tribes, and regions the ability to make more
informed decisions about how best to use and protect the ocean, coasts,
and Great Lakes.
Coastal and marine spatial planning is intended to ensure
stakeholders and the public have a voice early on in decisions
affecting our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. We know from experience
that transparency and early and inclusive public engagement before a
decision must be made on a particular activity, permit, or project
promotes better understanding of all interests, improved information on
which to make decisions, ability to proactively address potential
conflicts, and avoids last minute surprises that can derail positive
progress and result in additional time and costs. Under the current
system of fragmented ocean planning and management, major and
irreversible decisions about siting ocean uses continue to be made in a
piecemeal fashion, often without careful or transparent consideration
of other interests, users and impacts.
States such as Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Florida,
Oregon, and Washington are using marine spatial planning to better
inform decisions and improve planning and regulatory efficiencies,
saving potential developers and regulatory authorities' significant
time and financial burden. For example, under Rhode Island's Ocean
Special Area Management Plan, by incorporating the results of this
planning process into a programmatic analysis, much of the scoping and
alternative analyses required for a particular project under
environmental review laws may be completed ahead of time. Similarly, in
Massachusetts, information in its Ocean Plan enabled a proposed fiber-
optic cable crossing Buzzards Bay and Vineyard Sound to be proactively
planned with a route that avoids areas identified in the plan for
protection (i.e., areas of important benthic habitat). In New Jersey,
the state undertook a two-year $7 million effort covering 72 miles of
its coastline out to the 100 foot water depth contour to study the
biological and physical characteristics of the area. The study results
were used to create an environmental sensitivity index to help inform
siting decisions offshore New Jersey. In addition, in the state of
Florida, the Florida Oceans and Coastal Council, which is charged with
coordinating the State's research for more effective coastal
management, recommended ocean management using marine spatial planning
as a framework for decision making. The Council, representing broad
stakeholders, believes this approach serves to protect and expand the
State's ocean and coastal economy.
In addition to the examples above, an example of collaborative
planning at the Federal level was in the Stellwagen Bank National
Marine Sanctuary off the Massachusetts coast. In this area, data on
whale migration patterns enabled the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, several other government
agencies, and stakeholders to examine shipping needs, proposed
deepwater liquefied natural gas port locations, and endangered whale
distribution in a successful effort to reconfigure vessel traffic
routes to and from Boston Harbor to reduce the risk of whale mortality
due to collisions with ships. The new vessel route also decreased the
overlap between ships, commercial fishing vessels, and whale watch
vessels, thereby increasing maritime safety, and avoided conflict with
the proposed siting of Liquid Natural Gas terminals in the area.
Coastal and marine spatial planning takes this type of integrated,
science-based, multi-objective, multi-sector, and multi-jurisdictional
planning effort and applies it on a sustained regional scale.
The National Ocean Policy's coastal and marine spatial planning
framework is intended to build on these efforts. It envisions nine
regions around the country, each of which would engage in this
collaborative, regionally based, bottom-up, planning effort through
multi-jurisdictional regional planning bodies. Coastal and marine
spatial planning uses a regional approach that accommodates the unique
economic, environmental, and social characteristics of the nine
regional planning areas.
The National Ocean Policy requires regional planning bodies to
regularly engage the public, local government, Fishery Management
Councils, indigenous communities, and other diverse stakeholders, along
with scientists, technical experts, and those with traditional
knowledge of or expertise in coastal and marine sciences and other
relevant disciplines throughout the process.
The coastal and marine spatial planning framework provides
significant flexibility for regions in which they can decide how best
they would like to move forward. There is flexibility built into the
timing, scale, and scope of the process, including when regional
planning bodies get established or when a State chooses to participate,
what part of the process regions want to start with, and the ability to
break the region into sub-regions if that is what the region determines
is the best path forward. For example, regions such as the Northeast
and mid-Atlantic are well poised to move forward almost immediately
toward more comprehensive planning and the National Ocean Council will
focus on these efforts. Other regions may need to move more slowly and
focus on discrete, near-term priorities, such as improved access to
information, to meet a variety of management needs and inform decision-
making. In that case, the region could use coastal and marine spatial
planning to work with the relevant Federal agencies to further such
objectives. The National Ocean Policy provides for this needed
flexibility and we want to remain open to support all regions based on
their preferences.
Coastal and marine spatial planning has been mischaracterized as
``ocean zoning.'' It does not have a regulatory effect similar to
terrestrial zoning that many are familiar with. The National Ocean
Policy does not impose any restrictions on ocean, coastal, or Great
Lakes activities. The National Ocean Policy does not direct that any
area be designated for a specific use or be off limits to specific
activities. The National Ocean Policy's goals and guiding principles
for coastal and marine spatial planning expressly recognize public
access and the need to ensure the sustainability of ocean and coastal
economies, and provide support for a growing number of important
activities, including recreation, science, commerce, transportation,
energy development, and national security.
Through a publically crafted framework to help navigate the myriad
of existing Federal, State, tribal, and local authorities, coastal and
marine spatial planning is intended to provide a better, healthier,
more secure ocean for all Americans. Decisions will be made with the
added benefit of having been informed and guided by regional plans
developed from the ground up, with extensive stakeholder, public, and
scientific input. State, tribal, and local governments will benefit by
having a regional coastal and marine spatial planning blueprint to
follow, and their participation is voluntary.
Comprehensive planning is not a new concept. All levels of
government have been working with the public, industry, and others for
decades to collaboratively plan on many of our public lands and in
cities and towns across the country. Following the lead of a number of
States, stakeholders and the public, the National Ocean Policy applies
this concept of improved decisions through coordination and planning to
our ocean in order to achieve many of the same benefits.
Conclusion
Successful implementation of the National Ocean Policy will help
ensure healthy and productive ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
resources, including clean beaches and abundant seafood and wildlife.
This will benefit coastal communities and our Nation by providing for a
robust economy, sustainable job growth, and recreational opportunities.
The National Ocean Policy will help avoid conflicts and ensure that the
ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are healthy and resilient, safe
and productive, and understood and treasured so as to promote the
wellbeing, prosperity, and security of present and future generations.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning and I look
forward to your questions.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Chair Sutley, very good. And that
timing was absolutely incredible.
Ms. Sutley. I am impressed myself.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Secretary Lubchenco, you are recognized for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANE LUBCHENCO, UNDER SECRETARY FOR OCEANS
AND ATMOSPHERE, AND ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hastings,
Ranking Member Markey, and Members of the Committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to be before you today to testify on
the National Ocean Policy for the stewardship of the oceans,
our coasts, and Great Lakes.
I really appreciate the Committee's interest in this topic.
It is one that is important to the nation, but it is also
vitally important to NOAA as well. I want to make four key
points in my brief remarks this morning.
Number one, oceans, coasts, and the Great Lakes play a
crucial role in the life of every American and in the economic
well-being of our nation. Over half the Nation lives in coastal
counties, and the other half often go there to play. Coastal
counties generate almost 60 percent of U.S. GDP, and coastal
habitats provide buffers against coastal storms, preventing
more than $20 billion of property losses every year, and many
of them also provide nursery grounds for economically important
fish and shellfish.
Number two, the importance of integrated approaches to
ocean activities has been recognized across administrations.
The Bush Administration's U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
emphasized the need to eliminate barriers between Federal
agencies with ocean and coastal mandates and streamlined
processes to improve scientific understanding, shared data, and
coordinated policy-setting and decision-making to maximize
Federal resources.
The National Ocean Policy and the framework for coastal and
marine spatial planning continue this integration. But equally
importantly, they empower local communities to shape the future
of their regional ocean uses.
Three, a major benefit of increased coordination and
collaboration on ocean and coastal issues is streamlined
decision-making, a boon to coastal States and to industry.
Federal coordination among relevant agencies also allows us to
organize information more effectively for regional, State, and
local users. Providing easier access to data will promote more
transparent decision-making based on sound science that is
readily available to businesses, stakeholders and regulators
alike.
Currently our pool of information is fragmented. Acquiring
existing data is difficult, and often relevant data are not
compatible. The National Ocean Policy calls for a robust
national information system, a one-stop shop to encourage easy
discovery and access to data and information needed to support
marine planning efforts. This would include information from
all agencies involved.
Number four, at NOAA, our immediate focus involves working
with industry and with our Federal, State, tribal, and local
counterparts to understand what information is needed for
better decision-making, then to organize and integrate the
relevant data and information. Greater data accessibility saves
time and money across the public and private sectors by
avoiding duplication of efforts and reducing the places a user
needs to go to collect the data they need.
Improved stewardship of ocean, coast, and Great Lakes
cannot be achieved by any single agency in isolation. The
National Ocean Policy emphasizes the necessity of improving the
coordination across Federal agencies. It charges Federal
agencies to increase collaboration with one another and with
regional, State, local, and tribal partners.
These partners have an interest and need to better plan and
manage resources that contribute to healthy oceans and coastal
ecosystems and economies. NOAA works closely with stakeholders
at regional, State, and local levels and will continue to
increase this effort as we undertake activities called for in
the policy. For example, Regional Fishery Management Councils
currently play a major role in NOAA's ocean and coastal
stewardship responsibilities. NOAA recognizes the importance of
participation of Regional Fishery Management Councils in the
National Ocean Policy and will continue to push for their full
involvement throughout the process.
NOAA understands that we will only be able to effectively
implement the National Ocean Policy and coastal marine spatial
planning when all stakeholders are recognized and represented
at the table. I have seen the National Ocean Policy inspire
cross-agency and regional efforts that contribute to a healthy
economy, promote streamlining of decision-making, provide more
accessible data and information, and inspire stronger
partnerships.
Together we will continue to work more efficiently and
effectively to deliver these benefits, saving the American
people, the States, ocean users and businesses time and money.
I would like to thank the Committee for this opportunity to
testify. I look forward to working with you on this very
important issue as I believe that the implementation of the
National Ocean Policy is critical not only for coastal
economies but for the Nation that relies heavily on healthy and
sustainable ocean and coastal resources. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lubchenco follows:]
Statement of Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, and Committee Members, my
name is Jane Lubchenco and I am the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere and the Administrator of the Department of
Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on the
National Ocean Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and
the Great Lakes.
I appreciate the Committee's interest in this topic, which is
important to NOAA as the Nation's civilian ocean agency. Work to
develop a coordinated and efficient national ocean policy began over a
decade ago, with the passage of the Oceans Act of 2000. That
legislation resulted in a 2004 report of the congressionally mandated
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (Commission), which was chaired by
Admiral James Watkins (U.S. Navy, Retired) and comprised of others
appointed by the Bush Administration. The Commission emphasized the
need for a stronger ocean policy and an improved ocean and coastal
governance structure.
NOAA was a member of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force
established by President Obama in 2009. The Task Force received
briefings from members of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and
conducted six listening sessions across the country to hear what
constituents thought would be helpful to them and specifically what
they wanted from us in a new Ocean Policy. Whether in Hawaii, Rhode
Island or the Gulf Coast, it was clear from these sessions that the
Federal Government needed to get its house in order and address the
management of our ocean, coasts and Great Lakes in a more
comprehensive, coordinated and efficient manner. The Task Force also
conducted thirty-eight expert roundtable discussions with
representatives from various sectors, including industry, academia,
states, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and local governments.
Further, there were two public comment periods on draft
recommendations. Coordinating with other federal agencies, NOAA was a
key participant in each of the stakeholder engagement sessions, and
helped to ensure the National Ocean Policy reflected the input received
from communities, organizations, and individuals from around the
country.
The responsibility that comes from the ``O'' in NOAA has my agency
squarely at the forefront of most policies affecting the ocean. But
there are several additional federal agencies and Departments that also
have equities in the ocean, coasts and Great Lakes as part of their
mission or mandate. Historically, coordination among the federal
agencies, although well intentioned, has been cursory, with sustained
coordination across all relevant agencies a challenge. Today that
coordination has been greatly enhanced through the National Ocean
Council. NOAA sits at the table with departments and agencies that have
not traditionally been in close coordination on ocean issues, such as
the Departments of Homeland Security, Transportation, and Agriculture.
NOAA is now able to collaborate more effectively with these and many
other federal entities toward the shared goal of a healthy, productive,
and secure ocean. Through the National Ocean Council, diverse agencies
are becoming more harmonized across the Federal Government as we work
to improve scientific understanding of ecosystems, share data, and
coordinate policy setting and decision making. This collaborative
approach is working.
NOAA is a strong proponent of receiving advice from external
organizations regarding the effective implementation of the Policy. To
assist the federal agencies with ocean policy issues and to foster
interagency collaboration, the National Ocean Council created a
Governance Coordinating Committee in February 2011. NOAA greatly
appreciates the perspectives provided by this eighteen-member
committee, which consists of representatives from states, federally
recognized tribes, and local governments and serves as a key
coordinating body on ocean policy issues which cross jurisdictional
boundaries. The National Ocean Policy also identifies the Ocean
Research Advisory Panel, a key science advisory body created in the
1998 Defense Authorization Act (PL 105-85), to provide independent
advice and guidance to the National Ocean Council through its
membership. NOAA greatly values the advice of this panel, which
consists of representatives from industry, academia, marine science and
policy, and the National Academies.
The Governance Coordinating Committee provides a valuable mechanism
for federal agencies to collaborate with local, state and tribal
governments. Each has complementary responsibilities, but mechanisms to
coordinate planning are few. One widely appreciated benefit of that
collaboration lies in the opportunity to plan jointly for future
activities in the ocean and coastal areas. Our coastal and offshore
environments are becoming increasingly crowded, with a growing number
of sometimes competing uses and activities, including recreational and
commercial fishing, traditional and renewable energy, shipping,
dredging, habitat conservation, cultural and resource protection, and
defense uses. The current sector-by-sector, issue by issue, agency-by-
agency approach often leads to lack of predictability, constant
conflicts, wasted resources, frustration, and degraded oceans.
The National Ocean Policy includes an alternate approach, based on
the considerable input the Task Force received. To facilitate a
thoughtful, inclusive approach to harmonizing uses and minimizing
adverse environmental impact, a planning process called Coastal and
Marine Spatial Planning would replace the stove-piped, reactive, and
suboptimal approach now in place. This planning process does not
override or replace any existing regulations. But, it will compile
relevant uses, data and information needed for smart planning. A number
of states have already used similar planning processes, for example to
further energy production in their coastal waters while minimizing
conflicts with other users. Importantly, the planning process is
designed to empower coastal communities to shape the future of their
regional oceans and its uses. Each region will define its goals and
make its planning decisions.
Through NOAA's regional offices, we are excited to partner with
federal, state, tribal, regional fishery entities, industry, and other
regional interests to help design comprehensive marine plans that are
regionally based and reflect the unique characteristics and needs of
each area. With approximately 70% of its employees based outside the
Beltway, NOAA stands ready to partner with the various interests who
will sit together at the table.
At NOAA we appreciate that when it comes to making decisions about
ocean issues, one approach does not fit all places. For that reason,
our immediate focus is working with industry and our federal, state,
tribal and local counterparts to understand what information is needed
for better decision making, and then to organize and integrate the
relevant data and information. For example, NOAA supported the regional
Governor partnerships, the Northeast Regional Ocean Council and the
Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean, in their creation of
regional data portals as a mechanism to integrate and provide access to
information needed for decision making in these regions.
At NOAA, we have seen the National Ocean Policy inspire the federal
government to work together more efficiently and effectively, and
provide a powerful way for local government and communities to
participate in charting their future. This approach will also provide
greater certainty for investments.
My testimony focuses on four ways in which NOAA sees benefits to
Americans through the National Ocean Policy: (1) contributing to a
healthy economy; (2) promoting efficiency and certainty for decision-
making; (3) providing data and information; and (4) inspiring
partnerships.
CONTRIBUTING TO A HEALTHY ECONOMY
I want to underscore the importance of healthy oceans for a healthy
economy. Americans across the country and from many different
perspectives share common desires when it comes to the ocean and
coasts. We want good, sustainable jobs, clean beaches, and safe healthy
seafood. We want sustainable fisheries, abundant marine wildlife, and
vibrant coastal communities. Americans also want clean energy, a secure
Nation, and protection from natural disasters. Most of these depend on
a healthy ocean. To continue to reap the benefits of oceans, we must
keep them healthy or restore them to health.
The ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes play a crucial role in every
American's life. Coastal counties are currently home to over half of
America's total population, and they generate almost sixty percent of
our Gross Domestic Product. Coastal regions also provide enormous
environmental benefits. Shallow coastal wetlands provide a buffer
against coastal storms, protecting almost 5,000 miles of coastline from
the effects of hurricanes and preventing more than $20 billion of
property loss every year. The importance of this protection was clearly
demonstrated in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina caused over $100 billion of
damage in the Gulf of Mexico region. Much of that damage occurred in
Louisiana, which has lost a quarter of its wetlands from 1932-2010 and
continues to lose them at the rate of about a football field every hour
from 1985-2010.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3164/downloads/SIM3164_Pamphlet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wetlands, mangroves, salt marshes, kelp forests, and coral reefs
serve as nursery grounds for many species of marine animals including
commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish species.
Estuaries and bays filter nutrients flowing from the land to the sea.
For example here in the Chesapeake Bay, 16% of Northumberland County in
Virginia is wetland. Healthy wetlands near developed and agricultural
areas trap pollutants and excess nutrients in surface runoff, keeping
water bodies cleaner. This natural filtering helps prevent water use
restrictions and beach and shellfish closures, and reduces the need for
costly treatment systems. The ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes also hold
great cultural and economic value, as demonstrated by the magnitude of
people who visit them each year for vacation and recreation. In 2008,
ocean-related businesses provided 30.9% of the total jobs in Worcester
County, located on Maryland's coast.\2\ This represents a 2% increase
in ocean jobs since 2001. Nationwide, ocean and Great Lakes jobs
represent double the number of jobs supported by agriculture.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.csc.noaa.gov/snapshots/.
\3\ http://www.csc.noaa.gov/snapshots/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoring coastal habitat is a priority identified in the National
Ocean Policy, one that brings significant benefit to local communities
and economies. On September 27th, Acting Secretary of Commerce Rebecca
Blank announced $102 million for three Louisiana projects in the
Barataria and Terrebone basins to restore deteriorated wetlands and
barrier island habitats along the state's coast.\4\ These awards are
funded by the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act
(CWPPRA) program. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock and Weeks Marine have been
contracted to restore beach, dune and marsh on Pelican Island in
Plaquemines Parish, and West Belle Pass barrier headland in Lafourche
Parish, respectively. This year, the State of Louisiana received the
third award to rebuild marsh and construct an 11,000-foot long
protective ridge in the Bayou Dupont area in Jefferson Parish. The
three projects employ local citizens and generate further economic
benefits for local businesses and coastal communities. In addition to
supporting the economy, CWPPRA is a model of interagency cooperation.
Five federal agencies sponsor projects under the program, and federal
agencies and the State work together to review and prioritize projects.
NOAA has played a leadership role in the program since its inception,
sponsoring 28 projects for $240 million and restoring 8,400 acres.
Because of the National Ocean Policy, partnerships such as this are
easier and more productive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.commerce.gov/blog/2011/09/27/102-million-wetlands-
and-barrier-island-restoration-awards-louisiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Ocean Policy also calls for enhancing water quality in
the ocean, along the coasts, and in the Great Lakes, another priority
that brings multiple economic benefits to coastal communities. Clean
and trash-free beaches and waters are more appealing to coastal
visitors who support local economies, are the foundation of vibrant
working waterfronts, and support the livelihoods of fishermen. Marine
debris, including derelict fishing gear, hurts the bottom line of the
2.5 million working Americans whose jobs depend on healthy oceans.\5\
In the Pacific Northwest, derelict crab pots are an economic liability.
In Washington State's Puget Sound, an estimated 5,000 derelict pots
capture and kill $1.2 million worth of Dungeness crab annually. The
economic value conserved by removing these pots has been shown to
exceed the cost of removal by more than 25%. The fishing industry has
demonstrated strong leadership in addressing this problem in many areas
around the country. For example, this past August I joined fishermen to
inaugurate a new partnership to remove derelict crab pots and other
marine debris in Oregon's coastal waters. The ceremony marked the
successful culmination of the Oregon Fishing Industry Partnership to
Restore Marine Habitat, initially funded with a $699,000 grant from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The success of the Recovery Act
project inspired a new industry-led partnership to continue the
derelict crab pot removal effort. In addition to removing nearly 160
tons of debris including more than 3,000 derelict pots from the marine
environment, the project has created jobs and other economic benefits
along the coast. To date, this project has supported approximately
10,000 hours of work for commercial fishermen, State employees, and
other project partners in Oregon coastal communities, putting people to
work during the crab fishery's off-season. This was a successful
project not only because it cleaned up debris from the ocean floor, but
because 96% of the crab pots recovered were returned to their owners to
be reused and the rest recycled for metal. In addition, the lines and
nets recovered were recycled for energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/enow/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROMOTING EFFICIENCY AND CERTAINTY FOR DECISION MAKING
The second benefit to increasing our coordination and collaboration
on ocean issues is that it promotes efficiency and certainty for
decision making that is valued by many coastal states. Trillions of
dollars in economic value and millions of jobs directly depend on the
ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes.\6\ Through an open and transparent,
science-based participatory process, industry and government and
citizens can work together to evaluate broad categories of current and
emerging ocean uses (such as renewable energy and aquaculture), and to
consider how those uses might be most appropriately pursued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://coastalsocioeconomics.noaa.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, maintaining the Nation's energy security depends on an
improved understanding of how energy operations fit in with other ocean
uses so that we can continue to grow and expand the energy sector,
while having the information to understand how each use individually
and collectively affects the value of ecosystem services (such as food
resources and protection from coastal storms). Renewable energy
development creates jobs. Rhode Island recognized that its energy
future could include an offshore wind renewable energy component, but
that offshore wind power could not come at the expense of existing
ocean users and their cultural heritage. The State of Rhode Island had
previously received a substantial development proposal from a private
energy company to site an offshore energy project incorporating both
wind and wave technologies off the coast. The location proposed by the
developer had not been vetted through any stakeholder or other
strategic planning process. Although the proposal never was formalized
in a permit application, it cost private developers, the public,
interest groups, and regulators a significant amount of time and
resources after it was later discovered that the location of the
proposed facility had been sited in the center of the prime navigation
channels for submarine activities associated with the Navy base in
Groton, Connecticut.
To prevent further situations such as this, Rhode Island's solution
was to develop what is called a Special Area Management Plan aimed at
protecting existing uses such as fishing, transportation, and
recreation, while helping to further a new use--offshore wind. The
State worked closely with stakeholders across many sectors to ensure
that all interests were considered when making decisions on where to
site wind energy projects. Through this process Rhode Island has been
able to maintain the economic prosperity of existing uses while
providing a plan to promote certainty for new development that will
ultimately save time and money and help create jobs. Earlier this year,
NOAA approved the State's Ocean Special Area Management Plan under the
federal Coastal Zone Management Act. This approval means that the
policies in Rhode Island's plan to protect existing activities such as
fishing, important habitats, and archaeological resources, as well as
the areas identified for suitable for energy projects, may be applied
to federal actions in federal waters.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts also realized the benefits to
undertaking an ocean management planning process. In May 2008, Governor
Deval Patrick signed the Oceans Act, requiring the Secretary of Energy
and Environmental Affairs to develop a comprehensive ocean management
plan. Through extensive stakeholder engagement, Massachusetts was able
to determine the best approach to balance new and existing uses of the
ocean. The Massachusetts plan has been completed and approved by NOAA
for inclusion into the Commonwealth's coastal zone management plan.
Other states around the country are looking to Rhode Island and
Massachusetts as models in promoting efficiency and certainty for
decision making, which are two important goals of the National Ocean
Policy.
PROVIDING DATA AND INFORMATION
The third benefit of this new approach is its focus on providing
data, information, and tools to the American people for sustainably
managing oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. Currently, we have had a
disjointed information base with challenges in discovering and
acquiring existing data; data sets not being consistent, comparable or
continuous; and critical data sets not being readily available. The
Policy emphasizes the need to integrate physical, biological,
ecological, and socioeconomic information that will support effective
and timely management of growing uses of ocean, coastal, and Great
Lakes resources while balancing conservation objectives, and to make it
readily available to the users. Providing access to data for
transparent, science-based decision making will translate to businesses
and stakeholders knowing what information regulators have, and being
able to use it without having to spend time and money searching for it.
As a result, the Policy called for a ``one stop shop'' to encourage
easy discovery and access to the data and information needed to support
marine planning efforts--a robust Ocean.Data.gov. Today, when an
industry proposes a coastal or ocean activity, the information needed
to obtain permits or to determine the most suitable placement is often
hard to find or fragmented. Ocean.Data.gov is designed to provide
streamlined access to the full suite of data needed for transparent and
science-based decision making, including data and decision support
tools with integrated data sets, and connect to a network of national
and regional portals for key data and decision-support tools. Both the
Northeast Regional Ocean Council and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council
on the Ocean have created regional data portals as a mechanism to
integrate and provide easy access and transparency for data and
information needed for decision making in these regions. Ocean.Data.gov
will connect to these existing and future regional data efforts.
Accessibility to this information translates to businesses and
stakeholders knowing what information regulators have when they are
making decisions and being able to use it so they don't have to make
investments in collecting data that is already available.
We are already seeing that compiling data to populate
Ocean.Data.gov is bringing federal agencies together. In fact, it is
anticipated that a prototype of Ocean.Data.gov will be available in the
coming weeks and will contain over 200 data sets from 10 federal
agencies that include information on elevation, bathymetry, shoreline,
living marine resources, jurisdictional boundaries, human uses, ocean
observations, and socioeconomic data.
Another example of sharing data and tools I'd like to highlight is
the Environmental Response Management Application or ERMA. ERMA is a
powerful web-based GIS tool designed to assist both emergency
responders and environmental resource managers who deal with incidents
that may adversely impact the environment. ERMA can display all types
of data on a GIS platform--data from vessels, oil spill trajectories
and observations, weather observations and forecasts, as well as
shoreline, sediment, and water sample locations. ERMA also includes
human use and human dimension data components to assist in response
decision making. The Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill prompted ERMA's
capacity to display oil spill and environmental data to be migrated
from a response tool to a public resource. This tool was an essential
resource for both responders and the public during the spill. ERMA
helped facilitate information sharing among agencies to improve
response decisions and also provided a venue for the public--including
impacted communities throughout the Gulf--to see the data. Building off
of the work in the Gulf of Mexico, NOAA is working with federal, state,
tribal and local partners to develop an ERMA for the Arctic. Through
the development of an Arctic ERMA, NOAA can help support the spill
response capacity of Coast Guard and industry first responders and
other Arctic stakeholders, including coastal communities, Alaska Native
villages, and the State of Alaska. It is NOAA's hope to bring this
technology online sometime next year.
The Arctic is one of several regions that will need improved
integration of ocean and coastal mapping efforts. The National Ocean
Policy calls for strengthening and integrating federal and non-federal
ocean observing systems, sensors, data collection platforms, data
management, and mapping capabilities into a national system. Since
there are areas of the oceans and coasts that are not mapped to current
standards, decision-makers do not always have the baseline data
necessary for defining critical habitat areas, understanding existing
and emerging ocean uses, assessing vulnerability to coastal change,
managing marine resources, and identifying and mitigating threats to
marine transportation. An essential part of the National Ocean Policy
is the identification of priority gaps in mapping data and coordinating
the acquisition and processing of these data. Facilitating use and re-
use of our mapping data, and enabling the integration of these data and
products will help enable science- and ecosystem-based management,
provide high-quality data for modeling coastal hazards and sea level
rise, and support safe marine transportation. NOAA will work with
partners to develop a comprehensive, integrated inventory of ocean and
coastal mapping data. The ocean and coastal mapping inventory is
intended to link with the National Information Management System that I
mentioned earlier, in order to provide NIMS users mapping products,
such as digital elevation models, and an inventory of existing and
planned framework geospatial data, such as bathymetry and elevation.
INSPIRING PARTNERSHIPS
The fourth and final benefit I highlight today is the Policy's
emphasis on partnerships. Improved stewardship of the ocean, coasts,
and Great Lakes cannot be achieved by NOAA or any other federal agency
in isolation. The National Ocean Policy emphasizes the necessity of
improving the coordination across federal agencies, and it also charges
federal agencies to increase collaboration with our regional, state,
local, and tribal partners. These partners similarly have an interest
and need to better plan and manage resources that contribute to healthy
ocean and coastal ecosystems and economies.
NOAA works closely with stakeholders at a regional, state and local
level, and these partnerships will continue and expand as we undertake
activities called for under the Policy. For example, regional fishery
management councils currently play a major role in NOAA's ocean and
coastal stewardship responsibilities. Together with NOAA, the regional
fishery management councils develop Fishery Management Plans that are
required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Act. The
management plans reflect many of the same priorities identified in the
Policy, such as science based decision making and ecosystem-based
approaches to management. NOAA is working closely with the National
Ocean Council to ensure the important role of our partners, such as the
regional fishery management councils, is recognized and represented in
the implementation of the National Ocean Policy and coastal and marine
spatial planning.
Shifting the Stellwagen Bank Traffic Separation Lanes provides a
concrete example of the benefits of how working together in a marine
planning effort can achieve protection of marine resources while
reducing conflict among uses. The Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary off the coast of Massachusetts is a critical seasonal feeding
area for right, humpback, fin, and minke whales. It is also the area in
which large commercial ships converge to enter the Port of Boston. Over
200 large commercial ships ply the waters of the Stellwagen Bank
National Marine Sanctuary every month. Comprehensive planning enabled
NOAA, the Coast Guard, and several other government agencies and
stakeholders to partner and examine shipping needs, proposed deepwater
liquefied natural gas port locations, and endangered whale
distribution. This led to a successful reconfiguration of the Boston
Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) to reduce the risk of whale mortality
from collisions with ships in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary. The TSS transit times increased by only 9--22 minutes
(depending on vessel speed). Additionally, conflict with deepwater
ports was eliminated and the new route decreased the overlap between
ships using the TSS, commercial fishing vessels, and whale watch
vessels, thereby increasing maritime safety. Current and future
regional planning efforts around the country can similarly benefit by
applying this integrated, multi-objective, multi-sector approach on a
broader and sustained scale. The National Ocean Policy is designed to
facilitate such efforts.
Researching and responding to changes in sea ice is another example
where collaboration among National Ocean Council agencies and other
partners is critical. NOAA joined the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory and other partners in
issuing Arctic Reports Cards for 2010 and 2011, which showed summer sea
ice extent well below 1990s levels with sea ice thinning, older sea ice
disappearing, and ocean temperatures warming. In addition, NOAA's
National Environmental, Satellite, Data, and Information Service
partners with the Navy and Coast Guard to maintain the National Ice
Center in Suitland, Maryland. The National Ice Center provides
operational analyses and forecasts of sea ice conditions and hazards in
the Arctic and collaborates with NOAA's National Weather Service sea
ice desk to provide Alaska products five days a week. NOAA also
supports the National Snow and Ice Data Center, along with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science
Foundation, within the Cooperative Institute for Research in
Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado, where a vast
array of Arctic data are stewarded and made available to both academic
and public users. NOAA also conducts cooperative studies with the
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management on
bowhead whales. NOAA recognizes that a strategic approach leveraging
our strengths and those of our sister agencies with Arctic-relevant
missions is essential if the United States is to take advantage of
emerging economic opportunities there without causing irreparable harm
to the region and its inhabitants.
Another example of NOAA working with industry, federal, state and
nongovernmental organizations is the Jockey's Ridge Living Shoreline
and Oyster Reef Restoration Project in North Carolina. Facilitated
through the National Fish Habitat Action Plan, NOAA helped to construct
a low-profile breakwater sill that will develop into oyster reefs and
planted native grasses to reduce shoreline erosion and enhance the
habitat for seabirds, fish, crustaceans, oysters and other mollusks.
Such local seafood is a draw for tourists visiting North Carolina's
coast. The National Fish Habitat Action Plan initiative supports the
National Ocean Policy's call for implementing an integrated ecosystem
protection and restoration strategy because it is not only science-
based, but also because it is efficient in that it aligns conservation
and restoration goals at the federal, state, tribal, local and regional
levels.
CONCLUSION
I am both excited and honored that NOAA is an active participant in
the President's National Ocean Policy, as we have a valuable range of
scientific capabilities as well as policy and management expertise to
contribute to this initiative of great national importance. But I am
just as excited by the partnership this Policy enables across the
federal government and with states, tribes, industries, and most
importantly citizens and coastal communities.
As my examples demonstrated, our cross-agency and regional efforts
are contributing to a healthy economy, promoting efficiency and
certainty for decision-making, providing data and information, and
inspiring partnerships. Together, we will continue to work to deliver
these benefits more efficiently and effectively, saving the American
people, the states, ocean users, and businesses time and money. There
is a great deal of work to be done, and NOAA, in collaboration with our
partners, is committed to strengthening science and stewardship, and
providing the information, products, and services needed by our
stakeholders.
I'd like to thank the Committee for this opportunity to testify and
look forward to working with you on this important issue, as I believe
implementation of the National Ocean Policy is critical for the country
and the coastal economies that rely on healthy and sustainable ocean
and coastal resources.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Secretary Lubchenco, and
I thank both of you very, very much for your testimony. We will
now start the question process, and I just have a couple of
questions, Chair Sutley, for you first. One of the issues that
I alluded to in my opening statement and was certainly alluded
to in the previous Committee meeting we had was the
transparency aspect of all of this.
To start our discussion here, can you explain the
importance of the Federal Advisory Committee Act or FACA?
Ms. Sutley. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Advisory Committee
Act ensures that the Federal Government can receive advice and
lays out a process by which the Federal Government can receive
advice on a regular basis from the public in an open and
transparent way.
The Chairman. So I take by what you are saying it is
important for the transparency as that Act applies to
activities of the Executive Branch. Is that a fair way to say
that?
Ms. Sutley. I think that is right.
The Chairman. OK. Well, if that is the case then, why are
the regional planning bodies and the Governance Coordinating
Committee apparently FACA-exempt?
Ms. Sutley. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me try to make a couple
of points. First of all, you know, we are committed to openness
and transparency as we work on this policy and as the agencies
work on this policy, and we engaged in a fairly extensive, open
process as we were putting the recommendations together
throughout the year or so that we worked on it and since have
engaged in a lot of interchange with the public and
opportunities for the public to interact with the agencies.
The committees that you are talking about are intended to
exchange information and to work together to integrate science
and information, and they will do so in an open and transparent
way. We are not asking agencies to change. They are doing this
within existing authorities, and they will be able to
interchange with each other but also to interchange with the
public in an open and transparent way.
The Chairman. Well, understand why I am asking it. I
appreciate your answer, but the concern was transparency in an
Executive Order that doesn't get input. So here is a statute
that governs something, an Executive Order, and by the actions
of two created bodies within that board, there was no
transparency. Now I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to
figure out this could be a reason why we have some problems
with this Executive Order. I think you can understand that, and
that is probably the basis of the concern I have.
Now let me ask both of you, and I alluded to this in my
opening statement where I have asked both of you to give me the
statutory authority, and I have gotten answers back. I think,
frankly, they are pretty vague. They name a number of statutes.
I am very serious about this, and I think most American people
will be very serious, whether it is what we are talking about
here, the subject of this Committee, or other committees, just
where does the statutory authority come from.
So I am going to ask both of you. You don't have to answer
right now if you are not prepared, but I would like within a
week--I don't think it should take that long--to give me a
written response to be absolutely concise on the statutory
authority that you have said in broad terms. Where does that
come from and how does that flow to meet this?
Could you commit to give me a concise answer on that within
a week? The Secretary, Secretary Lubchenco.
Dr. Lubchenco. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. OK. Thank you. And, Chair Sutley?
Ms. Sutley. Yes.
The Chairman. OK. Thanks. I want that. We will want to open
the dialogue on this, and if we feel it is inadequate, we will
follow up. But I think it is very, very important because of
the nature of our government and the division of powers that we
understand precisely where that authority comes from because of
the potential that this has, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, the unknowns. We need to know that precisely.
So, with that, I will yield my time. I will yield back my
time and recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair Sutley, Joan
Bondareff, the former Chief Counsel and Acting Deputy
Administrator for the Marine Administration, recently wrote in
an article that, ``It was President Reagan who declared that
the United States has exclusive rights to the resources of the
Exclusive Economic Zone. Unless the United States develops
comprehensive marine spatial plans, we will be unable to take
full advantage of his proclamation and vision but will continue
to battle each permit and each new use of the ocean on a case-
by-case basis.''
Is the purpose of coastal and marine spatial planning to
stop development?
Ms. Sutley. No, Mr. Chairman. It is really to have
information available with using the best science, open to all
the decision-makers and to the public, to understand how
decisions are being made.
Mr. Markey. Will there be environmental benefits from
spatial planning?
Ms. Sutley. We believe so.
Mr. Markey. Will there be benefits to business and
industry, and if so, what are some of those benefits?
Ms. Sutley. We believe that bringing in parties early into
any process is helpful to reach a resolution more quickly, that
this will allow agencies to integrate information and science
in a public way, and we believe it will speed the decision-
making process.
Mr. Markey. So the National Ocean Policy clearly relies
heavily on regional input and engagement. Why is it important
to include the Federal backstop?
Ms. Sutley. Well, Mr. Chairman, clearly the Nation as a
whole has an interest in the health and the uses of our ocean.
They are very important to our economy. They are not only
important to our coastal economies but certainly important to
the economy as a whole. So we believe this will be a beneficial
policy for the Nation as a whole. We will be able to bring in
the best science and the best data, integrate it and have
everyone at the table.
Mr. Markey. OK. Thank you. Dr. Lubchenco, earlier this week
ABC News returned to the Gulf of Mexico to interview shrimpers
affected by the BP oil spill. When asked about experiencing the
worst season in 40 years, this year, one shrimper said the
quality of the shrimp isn't there. The abundance isn't there.
And when he was asked about what happens to all the boats if
there are no shrimp, another shrimper responded there is going
to be a lot of boats for sale.
Dr. Lubchenco, will the National Ocean Policy provide a
process for balancing the interests of the offshore oil and gas
industry and the fishing industry to ensure that fishing boats
are not needlessly tied up at the docks or necessarily sold?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman Markey, one of the distinct
lessons that we have taken away from Deepwater Horizon was how
dependent the coastal economies and the health of coastal
peoples are to the health of the adjacent, in this case, Gulf.
And the National Ocean Policy is focused squarely on ensuring
balanced uses and healthy oceans and coasts so that they can
support a diversity of interests.
The National Ocean Policy provides a mechanism for regions,
in this case the Gulf, to consider how they want to use the
areas of the ocean and coasts and to be supported by
information provided by the Federal Government to enable much
more streamlined, more effective decision-making, but focus
squarely on balancing uses, avoiding conflicts and enabling
healthy oceans and coasts.
Mr. Markey. OK. Doctor, last week an independent team of
scientists at Berkeley released their analysis of land surface
temperature records going back to 1800. They found, as their
counterparts at NOAA and NASA had previously shown, that
temperatures over the last decade were increasing. Once again,
scientists have confirmed that global warming is real.
You recently said, well, what happens in the Arctic doesn't
stay in the Arctic. It has huge implications for the global
system. We have never experienced the kinds of changes that we
are seeing now in the Arctic and elsewhere, and we don't fully
understand what the consequences of that are going to be.
The National Ocean Policy calls for providing data,
information and tools to manage the ocean sustainability. Why
is that particularly important given the changes we are seeing
in the Arctic?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman Markey, we welcome the Berkeley
independent analysis like any other independent analysis. That
study is one of many to confirm both the reliability of the
land-based temperature records as well as the analysis of
temperature trends that have been carried out by many, many
different groups, including NOAA. We look forward to these
papers going through the peer review process and contributing
to the larger scientific literature on the topic.
They serve to illustrate the importance of paying attention
to climate change as it continues to play out, affecting oceans
and ocean uses. We certainly see that in the Arctic because
that is where we are seeing evidence of climate change happen
most rapidly. But the National Ocean Policy enables a more
comprehensive look at the many uses that we want from oceans in
light of changes that are underway, such as climate change.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Doctor.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I know that all of you
are wondering where that beautiful picture is up there that we
are showing. I can just tell by everybody's looking at it. I
just want to tell everybody that is Lake Chelan in central
Washington in my district. It is a 43-mile lake. You are seeing
probably 10 miles from the bottom half of it. And the top half
of that, there is a little community called Stehekin. We had
some legislation regarding that. And the only way to access
Stehekin is by boat up this river or by float plane. That is
the only way you can get there. So I just thought I would point
that out because you are all probably wondering about that, and
we will have a test later on.
I would like to recognize now Dr. Fleming for five minutes.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to revisit
this question of constitutionality that the Chairman brought
up. So far, during this Administration, the President couldn't
get cap and trade passed, so he had the EPA come up with a
finding of endangerment on CO2; couldn't get the DREAM Act
passed, so he decided not to enforce immigration laws; decided
unilaterally that the Defense of Marriage Act is not
constitutional even though the Supreme Court made no decision;
and then more recently, when stimulus 2.0 couldn't even be
passed in a Democrat-controlled Senate, he decided to come up
with a housing bailout and a student loan bailout.
My constituents are becoming increasingly angry that the
President is making all the laws and all the legislation and
creating all the rules. Now what does that have to do with our
topic today? Well, if you go to the White House website on this
very issue of spatial planning and you ask for what is the
legal authority, we can find none. It is just extremely vague.
And so like the Chairman, I am waiting for a very concise,
specific answer and result on what is the legal authority to
have this spatial planning.
So I will leave that question floating because I know it
has been asked and you are going to be getting back to us on
that. So I will go to another question. Chair Sutley, you made
the comment, and I want to get clarification to be sure, that
nothing in this would restrict activity in the oceans. Am I
correct about that?
Ms. Sutley. Yes, sir.
Dr. Fleming. Well, at our previous hearing, we had a
gentleman named Mark Gorelnik of the Coastside Fishing Club who
shared how devastating marine spatial planning can be for
recreational anglers who have fished off the shores of the
California coastline for generations. What I believe is most
alarming is the lack of science used in the zoning process, and
so it seems to me that there is quite a bit of concern.
And again, it begs the question. If it would not restrict
activity, why even go through this process? Why do the zoning
if it doesn't have an ultimate purpose?
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Congressman. Let me make a couple of
comments. First of all, we recognize that recreational fishing
is an important activity that takes place in the ocean and
other places and that often recreational fishermen are some of
the best stewards of the ocean resources, and so we were
grateful to have them participate in the formulation of this
policy in our public meetings and look forward to their
continued participation in this process.
I think the purpose of the coastal marine spatial planning,
it is not zoning in the sense that it restricts uses or
specifies uses or restricts uses, but it is a way to share
information early on, upfront, to ensure that science is being
used to understand what are the uses of the oceans.
Dr. Fleming. Well, because my time is limited, I want to
kind of break through to the bottom line here. So you are
saying absolutely, bottom line, that there will be no
restriction of use whatsoever under this spatial planning
process.
Ms. Sutley. We do not think that is the result of that. The
existing authorities that----
Dr. Fleming. Is that a yes or a no?
Ms. Sutley. I am sorry. I am trying to remember the way you
asked the question. We don't believe, no, it will not restrict
uses.
Dr. Fleming. So the answer is no, it will not. OK. Dr.
Lubchenco, you made the statement that this would ensure
balanced uses. Can you explain what that means?
Dr. Lubchenco. Certainly, Congressman Fleming. The National
Ocean Policy does not create any new regulations. It is not
zoning. It empowers States and regional bodies to consider the
uses, to define how they want to have oceans off their shores
used. So it empowers a bottom-up process for defining uses. No
States are required to participate in this process.
Dr. Fleming. Well, again, I am running out of time. I
apologize for interrupting you. So, if it empowers someone to
make a decision to divide uses, then wouldn't that by
definition restrict activity?
Dr. Lubchenco. It is a planning process. It is not zoning.
Just like on land we have planning commissions separate from
zoning commissions. It says this is how we would like to avoid
conflicts, to ensure that people who want to participate in
different activities have certainty. They can plan. They have
predictability. And it really is a bottom-up effort that
focuses on balancing the often conflicting interests and
jurisdictions.
Dr. Fleming. And I appreciate your response. I am running
out of time. To me, that is the same thing as restricting
activity. I don't see how you can do one without the other.
Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. And the Chair recognizes
the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses.
If the role of government is balancing competing, legitimate
interests, I would like to talk about how this policy for
stewardship will help to balance the interests of trade and
defense and security and energy, whether it is petroleum or
wind or hydrodynamic, food, recreation, culture, tourism, all
of those things.
The other side has been harping on legalistic arguments. I
don't doubt that you will be able to satisfy them on those
points. I would like to talk about really the substantive need
for this. When we look at the chaotic, uncoordinated,
individual interests, sometimes selfish interests, that have
left a mess of things, I would be inclined to believe that
planning would help.
Dr. Lubchenco, you mentioned a couple of things that I
would like you to address. One is, you know, opponents of
coastal and marine spatial planning have claimed that there is
a threat to their business interests. In a letter submitted for
the record during the October 4 hearing on this topic, Captain
John McMurray, a long-time fisherman and member of the Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council wrote, ``The only interests
coastal and marine spatial planning could hurt are those who
willingly refuse to engage in the process. Those who are shut
out of day-to-day ocean government decisions have the golden
opportunity to make their concerns heard.''
I would like you to talk about whether fishermen,
recreational or commercial, should consider this an opportunity
to protect their interests or consider it a threat. I would
also like you to give an example or two of the advantages that
would come in what you refer to as compatible data. If you
could point to instances, whether in the Gulf oil spill or with
regard to acidification or climate change, where the lack of
data or lack of compatible data has created problems and that
this might address.
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman Holt, thank you for your
questions. I think simply put the National Ocean Policy creates
order out of chaos. What we have now are over 140 different
rules and regulations. It is very difficult for any interest to
figure out how to navigate all of that. This is an opportunity
through the regional ocean planning bodies for all stakeholders
to participate and to identify what information they need to be
making smart decisions.
I was just in Florida last week for example. I went to Fort
Lauderdale and met with a group of businessmen who are
interested in hydrokinetic energy. And they, with their
consultants and partners from different universities, have been
working closely together to identify all the different
information needs that they have to do a localized version of
spatial planning to understand better how potential new
renewable energy from the ocean needs to be conducted in a way
that is compatible with other uses and to avoid conflicts.
That is a mini-version of coastal and marine spatial
planning, and it highlights the challenges that everyone has
right now in finding sea floor maps, habitat maps, existing
uses. And the same is happening in lots of different parts
around the country. Off the coast of Massachusetts or Rhode
Island or Oregon, we are seeing States embrace the opportunity
to do spatial planning in a more forward-looking way that
provides certainty and predictability for industry.
We heard over and over and over from so many industry folks
that participated in many of our listening sessions how
frustrated they are, how loathe they are to make investments in
some new job-creating opportunities because there was such a
chaotic situation now. And so the certainty, the
predictability, the access to information are all elements of
good, smart planning that this process we believe will enable.
And it seems to be working in a number of places.
Mr. Holt. I thank you. I thank the Chair.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman, and I will now
recognize the newest Member of the Committee, whom we
introduced earlier, Mr. Amodei from Nevada. Mr. Amodei, you are
recognized.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madame Secretary, you
had indicated that this initiative would ensure balanced uses
but then indicated that it is not zoning. It empowers from the
bottom-up and participation is not forced. Can you kind of
connect those two things for me in terms of the operational
side, where we are going to ensure balanced uses, but, unless I
misunderstood, it is not mandatory to participate, it is not
zoning, and it will empower from the bottom up? How does that
work to achieve that insurance for balanced uses approach in
your mind?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, thanks for the opportunity to
clarify that. This process requires the Federal agencies to
work together. It invites the States and tribes and local
governments to work together to define uses of oceans off their
coasts. But it does not create any new regulations. It does not
impose any restrictions on States or local governments. They
are free to participate or not. We think that it will be
sufficiently beneficial that they will choose to voluntarily
participate, but only the Federal Government will be required
to abide by the local planning processes.
So there are no new regulations that are created. And this
is an opportunity for local, State, and tribal governments to
work together to define ways in which they can minimize
conflicts, ways in which they can provide certainty and
predictability for a variety of users.
Mr. Amodei. If I may follow up, so if I need a Federal
permit for one of these proposed uses, and for instance, the
California Coastal Commission gives me a go, am I going to get
my Federal permit based on the California Commission approval
theoretically, or am I going to be refused that permit because
it doesn't meet the plan that this is going to be created,
which is not mandatory?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, one of the challenges with the
status quo is that you might need to get a permit from three,
four, five different Federal agencies, and figuring out what
permit to get where, what information you need is a pretty
daunting process. The requirement for Federal agencies to be
working together to streamline that process will facilitate
your knowing what to do and being able to have a more
streamlined, efficient way of working.
What you are doing should be compatible with what the
regional planning bodies are defining. That will help.
Mr. Amodei. If I may, Madame Secretary, so is this new plan
existence compliance going to be used by agencies as a reason
to deny a permit? I am not trying to make it--I understand the
coordination process and the possibility that there is multiple
permits, but what I would like to know is, if the plan is
created for a specific area and I have approval from whoever
the planning and zoning folks are, which I guess this isn't,
but yet I go to the appropriate Federal agency and say I want Z
permit, is it going to be one of those things where it is like,
I am sorry, you are not in compliance with the Federal plan, so
until you are--I mean, that is just the ground level thing.
And if you haven't thought about it, that is fair too, you
know, because when I hear we are going to ensure balanced uses,
but you really don't have to do it, it is like there are some
inconsistencies there. So maybe I am not making myself----
Dr. Lubchenco. No. I think it is hard to talk about
examples like that in a vacuum. You know, a concrete one is
probably easier to focus on.
Mr. Amodei. OK.
Dr. Lubchenco. And I am happy to follow up with you on
that.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you. I appreciate that. Madame Chair,
real briefly, you know, I am new to this town, but I understand
that there is rumors here from time to time and stuff like
that. Are you aware of anything going on in your role talking
about folding the Office of Surface Mining into BLM
jurisdiction? Is that anything that you have been involved
with, or is it a rumor to you too?
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Congressman. We have not been
involved in any of those discussions, and only what we read in
the papers is all.
Mr. Amodei. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Next I will recognize
Ms. Tsongas from Massachusetts, recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to have
you here before us and to acknowledge, as our Ranking Member
Markey did, how Massachusetts has embraced its regional
planning effort, working with the other New England States,
because we see the great benefits to it. We use our waters in
many ways, sometimes very traditional, but also in very
forward-looking ways, and we have discovered the challenges
from the multiple uses and the benefit of this kind of planning
effort.
But I want to ask you, Chairwoman Sutley, a different
question. Both the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard, both
entities important to our national security, have spoken in
favor of the National Ocean Policy and the National Ocean
Council. In fact, Coast Guard Commandant Papp said, ``The Coast
Guard is fully engaged at all levels of the National Ocean
Council. We have a lot to offer as a military service, a
Federal law enforcement agency, and our nation's lead maritime
first responder. The National Ocean Council is essential to all
Americans as our nation's waters directly or indirectly touch
our lives in some form every day.''
Chairwoman Sutley, do you agree with Commandant Papp that a
National Ocean Policy is critical to our national security
interests?
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Congresswoman. I do agree. We had
very enthusiastic participation in this from the beginning from
not only the Coast Guard but from the Department of Defense,
and the policy and the reports clearly recognize the importance
of national security, the importance of navigation and commerce
as uses of the ocean and that this is a way for all of these
agencies to work together to ensure that we are meeting all of
those needs and uses of the ocean.
Ms. Tsongas. And in a related question, Dr. Lubchenco, in
your testimony, your written testimony, you noted a situation
in Rhode Island where the State had received a substantial
development proposal to site an offshore energy project. And
although it never was fully formalized, it was later discovered
that the proposed facility had been sited in the center of the
prime navigation channels for submarine activities associated
with a Navy base in Groton, Connecticut.
So again, related to the first, how will the National Ocean
Policy help avoid these types of situations, protecting our
national security while helping to streamline the permitting
and siting to speed up the offshore energy development process
that is so critical to our future?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congresswoman, that example really does
serve to highlight how challenging the status quo is now. And
unfortunately that particular effort came to naught because of
the conflicts that you articulated. The National Ocean Policy
provides a path that would involve all stakeholders from the
outset with the same type of data and information so that all
the different relevant kinds of information can be at the
table, with the idea explicitly of avoiding serious roadblocks
like they encountered and of streamlining the process, of
having it be much more predictable for business and industry
and having, as I said before, order out of chaos.
Less waste, more efficient use of taxpayer dollars, this
really should be thought of as government at its best. It
really is moving in the directions that will be helpful. And
States like Massachusetts have clearly seen the wisdom of that
more comprehensive planning. And so we are following. The
Federal Government is taking good lessons from what many of the
States have pioneered.
Ms. Tsongas. And I think that is why you see why the Coast
Guard, the Navy, the Department of Defense would be supportive
of this kind of effort, because it protects our national
security interests, knowing that there are many other interests
involved as well. So thank you for your testimony, and I yield
back.
The Chairman. Can the gentlelady yield for a moment, the
gentlelady yield before she yields back?
Ms. Tsongas. Yes.
The Chairman. I just want to make an observation. My
understanding of the Executive Order is that Homeland Security
and the military are exempt from this. Is that correct, Chair
Sutley?
Ms. Sutley. Mr. Chairman, they are not exempt. Clearly we
recognize that there are national security interests that need
to be considered somewhat differently. But as I said, they have
been very enthusiastic, participating in this process because
they believe it will avoid situations like the one that Dr.
Lubchenco described.
The Chairman. Well, Section 9, the way I read Section 9, it
says they are exempt.
Ms. Sutley. Well, they have been participating in this
process, and we expect that they will continue to.
The Chairman. Well, if I may, once again this seems to be
the conflict that we have as to what the authority is. Section
9 as I read it says they are exempt. And yet we are hearing
people are participating. And what is the rule of law if you
will to guide this. That is the confusion that I have.
I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores, for
five minutes.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses for appearing today. I have four principle concerns
about this initiative. The first is statutory authority. It is
clear that congressional intent is not there to have a
comprehensive planning and zoning process at this point because
attempts to pass legislation have not passed. Also, there have
been attempts to zero out the funding for this effort. So it
seems to me like it is clearly trying to wire around the intent
of Congress.
The second thing that bothers me is how far inland does
this go. If we have rainfall falling on a building at Baylor
University in Waco, Texas, that is ultimately to the extent not
evaporated or absorbed in the soil going to wind up in the
ocean. So does that give this body the authority to ultimately
produce a regulation to control what happens with that
rainfall?
The second thing is you have said repeatedly that this is a
bottoms-up approach, yet there are no nongovernmental members
on these regional planning bodies. That doesn't sound like
bottoms-up to me. That just sounds like more big government
trying to get in the way of human activity.
And then the last thing we are hearing is that this is just
a planning process, that this is not going to ultimately result
in zoning. This looks to me like an attempt to do something
besides create a nice, slick plan to set on a shelf and not
doing anything with. So I would ask you to tell me how this
doesn't go beyond the pale, that creating this plan is not
going to result in any other activity. Please explain that for
me.
Ms. Sutley. Thank you for your questions. I will try to
answer a couple of them, and perhaps Dr. Lubchenco would like
to also. One of the issues that you raised was sort of how far
inland does this go. There is nothing that mandates that these
plans go inland, but I think as many existing statutes
recognize, where there is a connection between impacts on the
land and impacts on the ocean, that those could be considered
and that the regional bodies will consider how far----
Mr. Flores. So ultimately a snowflake falling on the top of
Pikes Peak could be regulated.
Ms. Sutley. I don't believe so.
Mr. Flores. OK.
Ms. Sutley. I don't believe so. As I said already----
Mr. Flores. That is what I thought you just said, but I
wanted to clarify that.
Ms. Sutley. Well, yes. Existing statutes recognize some
connections, and where there is a connection, it is certainly
something that the regional bodies can look at, where there is
a direct effect and we know, for example----
Mr. Flores. So they can regulate----
Ms. Sutley. Well, things like beach closures are, you know,
a big concern in coastal communities that have big impacts on
the economy, and there are connections between activities in
the coastal areas and beach closures, and those are already
addressed under existing law.
And on the question of a bottom-up approach, this is an
attempt to bring agencies together to have them share
information and share data with each other and with the public
so that we can look at issues----
Mr. Flores. But I am more concerned about the public
sharing what it wants and having a vote in the process. That is
what I am concerned about. It sounds to me like the public is
excluded.
Ms. Sutley. Well, this planning process doesn't change the
existing--it doesn't change existing authorities or existing
decision-making, the current decision-making process. This
brings information into the decision-making process earlier and
should bring the public in earlier into the decision-making
process so hopefully it will result in better decisions being
made.
Mr. Flores. OK. Secretary Lubchenco, any comments?
Dr. Lubchenco. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. I think I would
just emphasize that the regional planning bodies would have
membership from local, State, and tribal governments. Those are
elected representatives that have been elected by the people.
The process also specifies continuous public participation
pretty much at every step of the way. So there is an explicit
mechanism for the public to in fact participate directly in
these activities.
Mr. Flores. But on the other hand, in hearings we held on
this earlier, some of the complaints that we heard loudly and
clearly were that the concerns of some of the people, some of
the organizations that have been asked to testify have not been
addressed. I mean, are we just paying lip service to these
concerns and not paying attention?
Dr. Lubchenco. No, sir. I think it would be highly unlikely
to have any public process where every single interested party
would be happy with every single outcome. That is not what
happens in democracy. I think the point here is that there is
opportunity for everyone to be at the table, to participate, to
be consulted, and for the regional planning bodies to consider
how to minimize the inevitable conflicts that arise.
You know, this does not create any new authorities. There
are no new regulations. It draws on the very ample existing
authorities to consider what are now a whole set of separate
sector-by-sector or issue-by-issue considerations in a more
integrated fashion, with the goal of having it be more
efficient, more effective, streamlined, and to----
Mr. Flores. In other words, still controlled though. Well,
Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I don't feel like my concerns have
been addressed. I yield back.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman had expired, as he
knows. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here. I think this is a terrific tool that is being put
together, the national oceans policy. I wish we had had it in
place for a long time before this because I think we would have
made a lot better decisions in many different arenas.
You know, I am from Maryland, and of course the Chesapeake
Bay is a treasure to Marylanders and I believe a national
treasure. I think the Chesapeake Bay can benefit tremendously
from the planning tools that this policy is launching,
particularly this coastal marine spatial planning. I am
actually right in the process now of sending around a letter to
my colleagues bringing to their attention a problem with
respect to the Atlantic menhaden fish, which is a very, very
critical fish. Some have called it--it is a very tiny fish, I
am sure you know about this--have called it the most important
fish in the sea because it underpins really the ecological
systems of so many fisheries, and in that respect, preserving
and making sure the supply is adequate is critical.
I imagine the tools that are being put forward here would
be very helpful with respect to recovering that population,
making sure that it is preserved going forward.
To echo what Ms. Tsongas said a moment ago, there was a
hearing here not too long ago where there was a proposal to do
offshore drilling off the coast of Virginia that was put
forward, and even though there was plenty of evidence that that
would get in the way of a lot of other kinds of operations and
activity, again, if you have this kind of comprehensive picture
available to you, it is going to stop you from doing stupid
things.
I mean, to put it very directly, that is what I see this
process as offering us. I have listened very carefully to the
objections that have been made by people on the other side of
the aisle, and I tried to give those comments the benefit of
the doubt. I really can't see what is objectionable here. I
keep hearing this theme about restricting activity.
Well, when you get information, it informs activity. I
mean, why get the information in the first place if it is not
going to inform your activity, the steps that you take, the
decisions that you make? Either we want good information or we
want to put our head in the sand and not have good information.
So this notion that if it somehow is going to impact some
activity somewhere in the world to get some good information,
we should just not have information is a completely ludicrous
proposition I think.
And you have made it very clear that this process is not
going to upend or subvert or move to the margins existing
decision-making processes. This is about getting information,
streamlining coordination among various agencies and, frankly,
making it a lot easier for all of the stakeholders and
industries and actors and so forth that are affected by what
goes on in our oceans to do good planning going forward.
I would imagine, and I am now going to ask a question here
with one minute and 16 seconds to go, but I gather from your
testimony from both of you that there is, frankly, a lot of
excitement out there among the industries and others that would
be affected by getting good information, and so maybe you can
speak again to that. You have done it now a number of times,
and I apologize that you have to keep going through the same
set of statements, but I think it is because you have been very
consistent in the testimony you have offered.
So tell me a little bit about the potential for this to
really help the industries out there that would be affected and
the kind of inputs you are getting from them as they anticipate
the policy rolling out?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, thank you very much for your
comments. In the public listening sessions, we paid special
attention to the diverse interests that are out there and
incorporated those into the design of this National Ocean
Policy so it really is responsive to what we heard. And
industry told us over and over we need more predictability. We
need to know--we need to have more streamlined processes. And
in fact, there are many, many who are very enthusiastic about
moving ahead with this both on the part of industry as well as
many States and local governments and groups of States in a
region.
There is also, frankly, uncertainty because this is new and
change is often threatening to many people. And so I think we
will continue to articulate the merits, to point to the lessons
learned from many efforts around the Nation and to learn from
experience and move ahead with this because I really believe it
will be extremely beneficial to everyone.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Lubchenco, I
would like to go straight to you. I find it interesting, your
comment about how this National Ocean Policy would empower
States. Maybe I got my government lesson wrong, but it seems
like to me that States are empowered through the U.S.
Constitution, not through Federal agencies. So I truly believe
that maybe the empowerment is not taking place at the right
point.
I spent 27 years working in the State of Virginia. I was
involved on a daily basis with decision-making involving marine
resources. I served on the coastal zone management team there
in Virginia. I have been on the practical side, not the
theoretical side.
Let me ask you this. You said that this was going to
empower States. Tell me then how this National Ocean Policy
will empower States over and above the Coastal Zone Management
Act, which was recently reauthorized, Magnuson-Stevens Act, and
where those Acts lack in the National Ocean Policy would
provide for where both of those pieces of legislation lack.
Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you, Congressman. Each of those
different pieces of legislation pertains to a specific issue,
whether it is fisheries or coastal zone. There are others that
deal with water quality, shipping, renewable energy,
conventional energy. And typically each of those is considered
sort of in a vacuum without regard to other----
Mr. Wittman. So let me interrupt. So you are saying then
the Coastal Zone Management Act operates in a vacuum. It
doesn't involve States. It seems like to me when I was involved
in it, it involved States and that our thoughts and ideas that
went into that actually put in place policies at the State
levels. So you are saying CZM doesn't do that. It operates in a
vacuum.
Dr. Lubchenco. No, sir. You are correct on the Coastal
Zone. That one is more integrated, unlike the other ones that I
was referring to. I stand corrected on that front. Coastal Zone
doesn't deal with the full range of issues, but it is in fact
more integrated.
What this process would allow is to consider in a region of
the ocean all of the potential issues, all the potential uses,
in a more comprehensive sense. And I say it empowers. Perhaps
that is not the best choice of verb. But it enables a bottom-up
identification by local, State, and regional tribal entities to
consider the range of uses in an area together with the idea of
minimizing the conflicts that often happen or the disruption
that often happens when you have just a single issue going down
one track, another issue coming down another track and then
colliding and blowing up.
Mr. Wittman. So you are saying then on operations like the
regional councils under Magnuson-Stevens Act that that doesn't
provide for that integration of information there in making
decisions?
Dr. Lubchenco. The Fishery Management Councils typically
consider fishing activities, but they do not typically consider
shipping interests, for example, or water quality or national
security. And fishery management plans are incredibly
important. And as I have mentioned before, we believe that the
Councils do very important, very legitimate business, and we
would like to see them have a seat at the table on the regional
planning bodies simply because what they do is so important,
and it represents both commercial as well as recreational
fishing interests, which are vital to this process.
Mr. Wittman. You spoke of a network of very complicated
regulations and that this National Ocean Policy was going to
help in simplifying those complicated regulations. I am
wondering how another level of bureaucracy is going to simplify
what you say are complicated regulations. How is that going to
make that process simpler, more effective and more efficient?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, I think there are so many
different regulations that apply to different issues, it is
daunting to navigate all of those.
Mr. Wittman. Well, let me ask you this since my time is
limited. Would it not be simpler then to go back and address
the statutory authority given to promulgate those regulations
or actually simplifying the regulations themselves than
creating another level of bureaucracy that somehow says now we
are going to be the orchestrator of these multiple layers of
complicated regulations?
Dr. Lubchenco. I think this process is a very viable one,
and it is also one that enables all the relevant information to
be assembled so that everybody can have access to the same
information instead of having it be in lots of different
places. So this process I think has potential to be very
helpful and very beneficial.
Mr. Wittman. OK.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Northern Marianas, Mr.
Sablan.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning, Dr. Lubchenco and Chair Sutley, right? Thank you. You
know, I can't help myself. Whenever they bring up this issue of
global warming, and like, Dr. Lubchenco, you recently said that
what happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic and that
we don't fully understand what the consequences are of global
warming or rising ocean levels.
I come from a district that is geographically a part of a
larger entity called Micronesia, and the area of Micronesia is
the size of the contiguous 48 States. And so there are 2,000
islands, over 2,000 islands, and anyone who doubts the science,
I have physical evidence of the rising ocean levels. Whether
you pick the island of Mili in the farthest east or the island
of Tobi in the farthest west, any islands in between, pick it
and we will have physical evidence of rising ocean levels, and
it is really a concern that we all need to get involved with.
But, Dr. Lubchenco, last week the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, the Secretary said that coastal and
marine spatial planning is a key tool for protecting the
environmental and economic integrity of our ocean and coastal
resources. This planning process gives reef managers and
stakeholders a coherent, science-based approach to spatial
planning. So, Doctor, can you tell us how coastal and marine
spatial planning will help to balance coral reef protection,
tourism, recreational fishing and other uses, all of which are
important to the State of Florida, the territories, including
my home, the Northern Mariana Islands?
Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you, Delegate Sablan. We did have the
U.S. Coral Reef Task Force meetings last week in Florida. And
at that task force meeting, there were many, many States and
territories talking about how important coastal and marine
spatial planning is to protecting the health of coral reefs
that are so important to States like Florida and Hawaii, the
Northern Mariana Islands, and other island territories.
The process that is being utilized in some of them and that
others are looking very closely at enables consideration of all
of the different uses of oceans where coral reefs are present,
with the idea of ensuring that we can have fishing, that we can
have shipping, that we can have recreational boating, that we
can have energy utilized, pay attention to national security
interests, defense as well, and to have all of those be
compatible with healthy coral reefs. And that is the goal, and
we certainly heard in no uncertain terms in the Coral Reef Task
Force meetings the strong enthusiasm from Florida that the
Secretary was talking about when he was there but others as
well, that this is something that they are eagerly embracing.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you. Actually some Members also suggest
that the type of collaborative planning found in the National
Ocean Policy is not wanted in all regions. However, your
testimony cites numerous examples of regional organizations
formed by State Governors which collaborate on ocean management
issues.
Now let me go to back to this, Dr. Lubchenco, because when
President Bush appointed the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
that first proposed the idea of a national ocean council in
2004, 12 Republican Governors explicitly endorsed the idea. Ten
of them, 10 Governors, explicitly supported the Commission's
proposal of having regional ocean councils. So do you think
these Republican Governors supported the formation of these
councils because it was already clear then in 2004 that there
was a need for coordination to minimize the conflicts or to
maximize economic and environmental gains in our oceans?
Dr. Lubchenco. Delegate Sablan, we are seeing Governors
from both parties in regions around the U.S. embrace the
concepts of coastal marine spatial planning. There are regional
Governors' coordinating groups in different parts of the U.S.,
and they see the directions that the National Ocean Policy is
moving as something that would be beneficial to them. There has
been strong bipartisan support for these directions, and I
think that is recognizing that they see the need for what this
policy represents.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentlelady from South Dakota, Mrs. Noem.
Ms. Noem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you both for
your testimony today and being here. I am from South Dakota, so
it is a landlocked State, so I don't hear a lot from my
constituents about the National Ocean Policy. So, Chairwoman
Sutley, while you are here today, there is something that I
hear a lot about from people in South Dakota, so I would like
to go off-topic a little bit and just address this and have you
answer a few questions for me.
You know, the issue is the mountain pine beetle epidemic
that we are facing in the Black Hills National Forest in South
Dakota. We have been bogged down with the NEPA process, and it
has tied our hands to how we can address this epidemic that is
sweeping across our hills. It can take over a year for the
Forest Service to get through the process and try to do logging
ahead of these beetles.
As you know, I sent you and Chief Tidwell a letter
requesting for a process that is granted to you by Congress for
alternative arrangements, which I was disappointed that it took
two months to hear back from you on that. And when I did hear
back from you, it was not to grant us the alternative
arrangements that we need to truly stop this devastation of our
way of life in western South Dakota.
I speak on behalf of hundreds of thousands of South
Dakotans and people who visit the Black Hills, and I am very
disappointed by the response that we have gotten. I was given a
list of the number of the total alternative arrangements that
have been granted since the NEPA process was put into place,
and since 1980, there have been 41 different instances where
that was granted. To give you an idea, President Reagan granted
14, President Clinton granted 9, and George Bush granted 8.
Chairwoman Sutley, do you know how many President Obama has
granted?
Ms. Sutley. I believe one.
Ms. Noem. He has granted zero. So this is a process that
was given to him that he could utilize in extreme situations
for alternative arrangements, and they are not utilizing their
authority within this Administration to address emergencies
that we are facing in the Black Hills. So communities now in
the Hills are faced with the threats of fire. Every time it
rains and there is lightning, they are very concerned that
their entire community will go up in smoke and that lives will
be at risk. And environmental integrity and quality are also at
stake.
I would like to ask you a couple questions. When I look at
the website on the Office of the President's website, it says
alternative arrangements can be issued when action is--the
first reason is necessary to protect human health or safety or
to protect natural resources, and two, likely to result in
significant environmental impacts.
I was wondering if you would take the time to go back and
to get me answers on why we do not qualify under those bullet
points in the Black Hills to get the alternative arrangements
that we need truly to get ahead of this epidemic that we are
facing in the Black Hills.
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate the
concern then. First of all, apologies for the delay in
responding to you, and we will be happy to go back and take a
look at that. I do think that it is important--I think we have
been in discussions with the Forest Service, and my
understanding is that they are very well aware of the problems
here and prioritizing the response to the bark beetle and
shifting resources to ensure that they are adequately
responding to the outbreaks. We recognize it is a very
significant problem, and we continue to work with the Forest
Service, and we will be happy to follow up with you on that.
Ms. Noem. That would be great. And I would like you to
reconsider the decision on the alternative arrangements.
Resources is always a concern. But, frankly, what is stopping
us and causing us to lose this battle is the NEPA process. And
alternative arrangements would give us the leeway we need not
to ignore the process but to have a quicker process so that we
could get ahead of these beetles before they fly again next
summer.
Ms. Sutley. Thank you. We think NEPA is an important
process for understanding the environmental impacts of Federal
actions and don't think that it needs to get in the way of
important actions and will continue to work with the Forest
Service on that, and we will be happy to follow up with that.
Ms. Noem. That would be great because, at this point,
really in South Dakota and all across this country, we have
seen the same situation, that if this Administration doesn't
utilize the authority that Congress has given them, we may take
congressional action in this area. So thank you for being here.
The Chairman. Will the gentlelady yield back her time?
Ms. Noem. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I do yield back the balance
of my time.
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California, Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and both
witnesses for explaining the President's policy on efforts to
improve our stewardship of the oceans. Obviously this is an
improvement, an attempt to improve the efforts that President
Bush did.
Dr. Lubchenco, I have a specific question, though, as it
relates to the law of unintended consequences. As you know, and
we have had conversations about this before, I represent one of
the richest agricultural regions in the nation, and we have
been impacted by regulatory burdens that I think have been
implemented on an uneven basis I guess is the best way I could
say it as it relates to the Endangered Species Act on salmon,
green sturgeon, steelhead, Delta smelt.
We have talked about combining the biological opinions
between the Delta smelt and the salmonid biological opinions
that have been in question. And I am wondering what assurance
you can give my constituents that this law of unintended
consequences as it relates to the implementation of a set of
regulations is not going to adversely impact our ability to try
to maintain adequate water supplies.
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, I am not sure exactly what you
are asking, but let me say that the National Ocean Policy
doesn't change existing regulations or authorities and that we
have recognized how important the water issues are to a range
of users and that I think you and I agree that having a more
integrated consideration of the biological opinions that are
relevant to all the species is certainly appropriate.
Mr. Costa. Is the Department of Commerce going to commit
with the Department of the Interior to try to combine the two
biological opinions in the next two years?
Dr. Lubchenco. That is under serious consideration.
Mr. Costa. Well, I would urge that it is. Secretary Locke
previously and Secretary Salazar sent a letter to many of us
involved on that issue on the Sacramento-San Joaquin River
water quality issues and fisheries that indicated that they
thought the biological opinion should be combined. That was two
years ago. And of course we have still been in court, as you
know, and there have been two recent rulings by the Ninth
District as it relates to the flaws in both biological
opinions.
It seems to me this is an opportunity, frankly, to step
back and to try to get it right and to agree on some interim
operations for the next few years while we are combining the
two biological opinions. The history on the Columbia River took
10 years before they finally were able to get some consensus on
the right science. It seems to me that this is long overdue.
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman Costa, I agree it has been a
very lengthy process. I think it is challenged by all of the
different steps in the court process. And we will continue to
work diligently on this because I think it is important.
Mr. Costa. Well, as it relates to an oceans policy,
obviously this is much more local, and I understand that. But I
am concerned about its application as it relates to the
regulatory framework.
Ms. Sutley, before my time expires, switching gears here,
seismic technology has evolved dramatically and provides far
more useful information today than it did ten years ago. And
much of our efforts to inventory oil and gas reserves is based
on data that is ten years old. I want to know what the National
Oceans Council is doing to gather new information, more
accurate information, that the seismic work would be done so
that as we look at trying to utilize our oil and gas reserves
on public lands, both offshore in this instance, it can be
better evaluated. And what resources in terms of monies are you
going to provide to update this through the new seismic
technologies?
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Mr. Costa. Clearly relying on the
best information and using the best available science on
understanding the uses of the ocean and the activities in the
ocean is very important. I can't at this moment speak to your
specific question but would be happy to follow up with you on
it.
Mr. Costa. Well, I think the Committee would be very much
interested in ensuring what information or efforts the
Administration is making as it relates to this new Outer
Continental Shelf policy and its relationship to utilizing
under best management practices the oil and gas that is there
on public lands that, frankly, are important to our long-term
strategic energy needs. And so, Mr. Chairman, I think that it
would be appropriate that we get this information and find out
what resources are going to be dedicated to utilizing the new
seismic technologies to ensure that we have the best
information at hand.
The Chairman. I would concur and in response to your
inquiry ask from Chair Sutley that she would share that with
the whole Committee and not you.
Ms. Sutley. Yes, sir. We will certainly follow up. Thank
you.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Runyan.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both for
your testimony. The gentleman from Texas raised a question
earlier on how far inland does this go. Specifically myself
representing New Jersey and the gentleman sitting next to Mr.
Flores, Mr. Southerland, being in the State of Florida, our
watersheds go both ways off of our State. And it is something
that we have witnessed with NOAA in the past. We talk about it
is a bottom-up process, but we have witnessed NOAA through the
top-down, through catch shares and the fishery management plans
push that system on people and not have the regional boards do
that.
I mean, can you truthfully sit there and assure me that
that would never, never happen, because it seems like that is
what it is because you want to take all the uncertainty in all
the different panels and boards we have and draw them all
together, and there creates the top-down pressure from that,
and you become the director of that. And I just want to ask
you, can you assure that that will never happen?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman Runyan, let me clarify what the
situation is with respect to the example that you are
describing with catch shares. NOAA does not impose catch shares
on any fishery. Each Fishery Management Council, which is
composed of commercial and recreational fishermen, decides on
the fishery management plan for a particular fishery. They have
chosen to use, and in some cases not use, catch shares, but
that is their choice. So we believe that there is merit in
considering catch shares. We have encouraged councils to
consider catch shares. But we don't require any of them to do
that.
Mr. Runyan. Well, that pressure itself is what I am
referring to though.
Dr. Lubchenco. We are providing information to them. We are
not pressuring them. And if they say this is not appropriate
for a fishery, that is their choice.
Mr. Runyan. Well, I think that raises the next question,
information. From my experience, I don't believe we have enough
information and/or the resources to provide the information to
deal with catch shares or to deal with the subject at hand
today. I mean, can we literally take this information and share
what we have to make a rock-solid decision on how we want to
move forward?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, that is one of the I think very
strong benefits of what we envision for the National Ocean
Policy and coastal marine spatial planning is the opportunity
to identify the priority information needs for different
regions and to work across Federal agencies and with
stakeholders and nongovernmental partners to pull all that
information together to enable better decision-making.
I think you are absolutely right. Information is key to
smart planning. And in many cases, that information has not
been available. One of the things that we at NOAA are doing is
focusing on the information that we are responsible for,
whether it is sea floor maps or ocean observations or ecosystem
assessments, habitat maps. All of that kind of information
needs to be integrated and not just within NOAA but with many
of our partner agencies or States. And that integration of
information and making it commonly available to everyone I
think will be a significant boon. What is proposed in the
National Ocean Policy is a national integrated marine
information system, and we are working toward exactly that for
the precise reason that you highlight.
Mr. Runyan. But in this fiscal climate, do we even have an
inkling of an ability to accomplish any of that?
Dr. Lubchenco. It is especially important in this fiscal
climate because we should not be duplicating, we should not be
making the best use of all the information we have, and the
integration of the information is particularly important with
the very tight fiscal resources.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you. And, Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I still want to know
what dancing school that NOAA goes to. I have never seen
anybody dance around the answers. I mean, it amazes me. I mean,
we want to find that out. That is one question I want to find
out, Mr. Chairman. It is important because I have sat here and
listened to all these different words and have not answered the
questions.
The gentleman from Texas, the gentleman from Florida, the
gentleman from New Jersey have not answered the questions. And
it frustrates me. Like even last week, we had a hearing, and we
learned that one of the reasons NOAA knows so little about the
Steller sea lions in the Western Aleutian Islands is because
one part of your own agency denied the permits for your own
scientists and another part of the agency to do the research.
How do you expect us to trust you in this proposal when
your agency is going to develop a nationwide ocean plan and you
don't even issue permits to yourself? How did that happen by
the way? Because the guy I asked didn't know why. Doctor, you
are head of this operation. What happened?
Dr. Lubchenco. I am not sure what you are asking me, sir.
Mr. Young. Well, NMFS asked for permission to go out and
study Steller sea lions, is that correct? And your agency
wouldn't issue the permit to go out and know about the Steller
sea lions. That happened. We have the documentation on it. And
yet you are asking us to have this thing. And, gentlemen, look
at this plan. This is a classic example of Washington trying to
solve a problem that does not exist. And by the way, Doctor, in
the industry, who supports this program? You keep referring to
industry supports it.
Dr. Lubchenco. We have heard many different industries----
Mr. Young. Who supports it?
Dr. Lubchenco. The ones that I have spoken to directly
include those interested in wind energy----
Mr. Young. Wind power. That is good for Washington, D.C.
Anybody in the fishing industry?
Dr. Lubchenco. Yes.
Mr. Young. Where?
Dr. Lubchenco. Quite a few fishermen.
Mr. Young. Where?
Dr. Lubchenco. Many of the fishery----
Mr. Young. Who were they?
Dr. Lubchenco.--management councils.
Mr. Young. Who were they? Anybody in the oil industry?
Dr. Lubchenco. Anybody in what?
Mr. Young. The oil industry?
Dr. Lubchenco. Most of the oil industry folks that have
testified at hearings have indicated concern.
Mr. Young. Anybody in the mining industry?
Dr. Lubchenco. I haven't spoken to anyone in mining.
Mr. Young. Anybody in the agricultural industry?
Dr. Lubchenco. I haven't spoken to them.
Mr. Young. Who in the industry other than wind power
supports this program?
Dr. Lubchenco. Fishermen.
Mr. Young. Which fishermen?
Dr. Lubchenco. The Fishery Management Councils.
Mr. Young. Where? Who?
Dr. Lubchenco. Mid-Atlantic for example.
Mr. Young. Mid-Atlantic, that is a good operation, Mid-
Atlantic. Same one as you put catch shares involved into. You
state that the result of the National Ocean Policy creates a
new fisheries regulatory process that competes with and
threatens to supersede the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Is that true?
Dr. Lubchenco. I am sorry. Could you repeat that, please?
Mr. Young. In the last hearing we had, the result is that
the National Ocean Policy creates a new fisheries regulatory
process that competes with and threatens to supersede the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Does that supersede the Magnuson-Stevens
Act?
Dr. Lubchenco. No.
Mr. Young. It doesn't? And yet we have down here equal
based management program. We have climate change program. And
we have fishing council sets forth the fishing policy, and yet
this Executive Order would supersede the Magnuson Act if it is
put in place. You say it does not.
Dr. Lubchenco. The Executive Order does not conflict with
and it doesn't supersede. All existing regulations remain. All
existing authorities remain. The Magnuson-Stevens Act remains.
Mr. Young. But if you have a fishing policy and yet the
ocean policy differs, don't you think that is another layer of
regulatory law?
Dr. Lubchenco. The National Ocean Policy integrates,
provides an opportunity for integrating across the existing
regulations.
Mr. Young. Who has the authority over fish?
Dr. Lubchenco. The Secretary of Commerce.
Mr. Young. The Secretary of Commerce. In this issue in the
Executive Order, who would have the authority over fish?
Dr. Lubchenco. The Secretary of Commerce.
Mr. Young. Period. There would be no denying or fishing
zone management that would conflict with the Magnuson Act. If
the Council said it is right to fish here and this board said
no or this commission said no, which would have the priority
right?
Dr. Lubchenco. That commission is not making decisions
having to do with fishing.
Mr. Young. If there is a conflict of management zone versus
the Magnuson Act, who would have the right? The Council?
Dr. Lubchenco. The Fishery Management Councils.
Mr. Young. The Council would take it over there.
Dr. Lubchenco. The Fishery Management Councils have the
authority to create fishery management plans.
Mr. Young. Would there be a possibility of a lawsuit from
an outside group saying you didn't take interest in this or say
there was a conflict there?
Dr. Lubchenco. I am not going to speculate on possible
lawsuits.
Mr. Young. If we were to add something in this legislation
saying no lawsuits could occur when there is a difference of
opinion about the management area, would you support that?
Dr. Lubchenco. I am not going to speculate about lawsuits.
Mr. Young. Would you support the inability to have interest
groups stop the fishing council of implementing a program if
the ocean policy was different?
Dr. Lubchenco. The Fishery Management Councils have the
authority to create the plans and the Secretary approves those
or not. That will not change.
Mr. Young. It will not change, but you have another plan
under this policy act. That means someone on the other side
said it wasn't taking into consideration on councils. The
Council would be sued, and they would stop the fishing process.
So I would suggest if you want this thing to go anywhere, you
ought to say when there is a conflict the existing councils
will have the priority right. If you don't want it going
anywhere, it proves just what I said. This is another overreach
by the Federal Government ``solving'' a problem that doesn't
exist. I am more interested in the fisheries. I will be right
upfront with you because I watched what you did with my Steller
sea lions when your own agency wouldn't issue a permit.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Southerland, is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Lubchenco,
thank you for being here. Is there anything that precludes all
of these agencies in our States from communicating and
coordinating now?
Dr. Lubchenco. There is nothing that precludes it, but
given how many responsibilities each has, that often doesn't
happen to the extent that it should.
Mr. Southerland. No. But the mere fact that someone in
those existing departments has created this also tells me that
if they have created this, they can also create a way, you
know, a manual for them to communicate. I mean, I am blown away
that we have to have the government tell us to communicate when
there are no rules or nothing that precludes us from doing that
now.
Dr. Lubchenco. One of the findings of the U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy was that there needed to be better integration
across Federal agencies, which is precisely the reason that
President Bush----
Mr. Southerland. So we create another agency though.
Dr. Lubchenco. So President Bush set up a new inter-agency
coordinating mechanism, the National Ocean Council, which began
to respond to what the Commission recommended. And this
National Ocean Policy continues that integration, increased
collaboration, increased cooperation, which is to the benefit
of the American people.
Mr. Southerland. Let me ask you, you stated a few minutes
ago no new authorities, no new regulations. You stated that.
Dr. Lubchenco. Correct.
Mr. Southerland. OK. On page 30 of the report, and I quote,
``The plans would be adapted to allow for modification in
addition of new actions based on new information or changing
conditions. Their effective implementation would also require
clear and easily understood requirements and regulations where
appropriate that include enforcement as a critical component.''
Now you just stated that this policy has no new authorities
and no new regulations. And I am reading right here. The
general public can go and find this, OK? This is the policy
from the White House. You say no new regulations. The
President's Administration says new regulations and that
enforcement is a critical component of those regulations. So
who is wrong? Are you wrong or is the Administration wrong?
Dr. Lubchenco. I would like to ask Chair Sutley to address
this because----
Mr. Southerland. But I asked you. And then we will go to
Ms. Sutley.
Dr. Lubchenco. I am happy to focus on NOAA-specific issues.
This is more U.S. Government-wide, which is not my
responsibility.
Mr. Southerland. Mrs. Sutley, who is wrong? Is Mrs.
Lubchenco wrong or is the Administration wrong?
Ms. Sutley. Well, thank you, Congressman. I think I would
just comment that as Dr. Lubchenco said, that, you know, the
Federal Government, it has been pointed out, needs to organize
itself better when it comes to the ocean too.
Mr. Southerland. This is simple. OK. Let's just keep this
real simple. I just read straight. I read two sentences from
the report. Both of you have stated today on the record that
this policy creates no new authorities and no new regulations.
Simple. Who is wrong? Are you wrong or is the Administration
wrong?
Ms. Sutley. Well, sir, I think the answer is that this is
an attempt to get the Federal Government to work better with
each other. There are bodies of existing law and existing
regulation that we are trying to get agencies to integrate
better and that recognizing that----
Mr. Southerland. But no, no, no, no. No new--you stated--
these are your words. You said no new regulations. This says,
this says there will be new regulations. This says that
enforcement of those regulations are a critical component. This
is simple for the American people. Let's prove to them that we
can understand when two people say something totally opposite.
This isn't hard. Who is wrong?
Ms. Sutley. I believe that the quote that you are referring
to is looking at if new information arises and there is an
issue that is not currently being addressed, then perhaps it
would be appropriate to have new regulations.
Mr. Southerland. But that can't be because you said that
there would be no new regulations.
Ms. Sutley. That under existing authorities, if there are
issues that are not being addressed under existing authorities,
perhaps at some point in the future, but this policy does not--
--
Mr. Southerland. But then is there a question on what the
definition of new is?
Ms. Sutley. I don't think so.
Mr. Southerland. I aggravatingly yield back.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman had just expired.
The timing on that was great. The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Landry.
Mr. Landry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. God, I wish I didn't
have any questions. I would yield my time to Mr. Southerland so
he can finish. I do have a few to Dr. Lubchenco. Are you
familiar with the requirements for issuing a seismograph permit
in Federal waters?
Dr. Lubchenco. I am not sure what you are referring to.
Mr. Landry. Are you familiar with the permitting process
that is required for the industry, the oil and gas industry, to
obtain a seismograph permit, a permit to do seismic activity,
in Federal waters? Are you familiar with that?
Dr. Lubchenco. So I believe you are referring to permits
that are issued by the Department of the Interior.
Mr. Landry. Well, by BSEE or BOEMRE, yes. I mean, are you
familiar at all with any of that?
Dr. Lubchenco. Not in any detail.
Mr. Landry. Well, you should be because they are claiming
that--I believe that under some of the new policy guidelines
that you all would like to take that NOAA would be more
involved in those seismograph or seismic permits. Are you
familiar with any of the drilling permits or PNA permits that
BSEE and BOEMRE issue in Federal waters?
Dr. Lubchenco. So those are the responsibility of the
Department of the Interior. We are often invited to provide
information and to work with the Department to make sure that
consequences to fisheries or to habitat are adequately
considered.
Mr. Landry. Well, I am glad you brought that up. And it is
not the direction that I want to go, but I do want to let you
know that Congressman Fleming and I sent a letter over to you
yesterday involving marine life observers during well
abandonment process. Are you familiar with that, or did you get
to see that letter?
Dr. Lubchenco. I did, sir.
Mr. Landry. OK. Do you understand the context of that
letter, and are you prepared to make sure that we don't have
that issue again?
Dr. Lubchenco. Yes, sir. I think that that was a very
unfortunate incident.
Mr. Landry. Great.
Dr. Lubchenco. It was one that we got only a couple of days
notice that the contract had been canceled. We immediately
worked to put in place emergency contracts that would minimize
the adverse consequence, and we are working on a longer-term
solution.
Mr. Landry. Great. And I want to tell you, you know, I do
want to thank you for working with industry in finding a
solution to that problem, and I appreciate that, and you should
be commended for that.
Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Landry. The concern I have is that every time I go home
it is like we have a new permit problem, OK? And now my
seismograph companies, seismic companies, are calling me and
saying we have a seismic permitting problem. Now why we would
suspend or the moratorium would affect seismic permitting is
beyond me because it is nondestructive. It is impossible for a
seismic company to create an oil spill, but yet that permitting
process is now perverted. And part of it they are telling me is
because of some issues that NOAA or that we are trying to
protect marine life.
Well, if we don't get proper seismic data, it is harder for
us to protect marine life when they do the drilling plans. And
so I am extremely concerned with this activity because what has
happened is these seismic companies do work all over the globe.
And of course we have chased a lot of people out of the Gulf of
Mexico, a lot of good jobs. We all agree with that. We know
that those facts are certainly well documented. But now, in
order for us to get the data that the oil and gas companies
need to fulfill the new requirements in the environmental
analysis that are being required of them, the seismic
permitting process is now dragging its feet.
And so I was just wondering whether or not you could
elaborate as to why that process would be being delayed.
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, I haven't focused my attention
on this issue in depth. I do know that it is important for any
kind of activity to understand the full consequences of any
activity. And use of seismic instruments can have the potential
of having serious impacts to marine mammals. And it is under
that authority with the Marine Mammal Protection Act that we
have responsibilities to issue permits and to help ensure that
impacts would be minimal.
Mr. Landry. Of course I am out of time. I can always use a
lot more.
The Chairman. Well, the time of the gentleman has expired.
I want to thank the panel for being here. But for the record, I
just want to point out because reference was made to President
Bush and his establishing of the National Ocean Council, what
President Bush established was this. Everything else on this
graph here was established by the Executive Order. Certainly I
would not say it is comparing apples with apples, and I just
wanted to make that point.
I also want to make the point that we have heard
consistently and you have heard it represented by Members of
this Committee, a number of fish groups, business groups,
fishing groups, inland user groups are concerned about this
policy, and they are concerned that the Administration hasn't
been responsive. So I say that for your iteration.
But in that regard, this will obviously not be the last
time that you will hear from this Committee on this issue. We
will continue to use our oversight prerogative, and I expect,
and hopefully you will do so, respond to us in a timely manner
whenever we ask questions of you. Obviously the one that has
come up several times is the statutory authority. I ask within
seven days we would hope to get that done in that length of
time.
And further, and I alluded to this in my opening statement,
about the cost of this, because this is not a statutory
requirement at least from our perspective, so where is the
money coming from that is supporting all of this. And we will
be asking you on that, and we hope we will have a very timely
response to that.
So, with that, I thank both of you very, very much for
being here, and I will dismiss the first panel and at the same
time call up the second panel. Thank you very much.
On our second panel, we have Mr. Jim Donofrio, the
Executive Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance; Mr.
Randall Luthi, who is the President of the National Ocean
Industries Association; and Mr. Mike Conathan, Director of
Ocean Policy for the Center for American Progress. We invite
all of you to take your places.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. I want to welcome the second panel here. I
will go over again, you sat through the first panel, as to how
the rules work and how the lights work. But your full statement
will appear in the record, and I would ask you to summarize.
When the green light is on, as you know, you are doing very
well. The yellow light means you have one minute, and the red
light means finish your thoughts if you would.
So, Mr. Donofrio, the Executive Director of Recreational
Fishing Alliance, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JIM DONOFRIO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RECREATIONAL
FISHING ALLIANCE
Mr. Donofrio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to
the Committee staff here and fellow Members. Mr. Runyan, thank
you for today.
My name is Jim Donofrio. I am Executive Director of the
Recreational Fishing Alliance, a job that I have held for the
past 16 years. Prior to that, I ran a charter party boat and
sport fishing yachts from Cape Cod to the Caribbean and have a
very good sense of the diversity of our industry, its needs and
the effects of government intrusion.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss Executive Order 13547, the President's National Ocean
Policy. The RFA has substantial objections to the use of
executive orders generally. This one particular order in my
opinion represents a complete government takeover of our
fisheries not only in saltwater but every stream and estuary
that flows into the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico. It is
also consistent with this Administration's complete disregard
of personal liberties and States' rights.
To outline our concerns, Mr. Chairman, we are very troubled
about the costs of what this particular executive order will
be, especially how the money will be used. As you know, NOAA
and the Administration have not been funding stock assessments
for all the fisheries that they manage, as admitted past Friday
at a conference in Miami with the Society of Environmental
Journalists.
I would hope that these journalists would report back on
Dr. Lubchenco's comments regarding the lack of scientific data
collection since this very statement by the NOAA chief fuels
our concerns about how money is being allocated in the
Administration for the ``apparent betterment'' of scientific
process.
As an example, RFA is troubled that both the 2011 and 2012
NOAA budgets advance the President's National Ocean Policy with
funding for coastal zone management and planning for Federal
assistance for regional ocean partnerships, integrated
ecosystem assessments, catch share-based fisheries management
and for research on ocean acidification while at the same time
the dedicated funding for research and real-time data
collection has actually been reduced, data that would help keep
us fishing.
The fishermen and coastal businesses have asked for
additional science. The Executive Order, however, gives us
additional bureaucracy. Time is money, and adding more layers
of government that our fishing industry must deal with on a
daily basis will cost our small businesses dearly. With the
vague wording, undefined goals and inability of government to
benchmark success and the ever-expanding jurisdiction, it
leaves our industry members in a state of uncertainty.
Mr. Chair, the mom and pop tackle industry, their anglers,
the party charter boat operators are the backbone of our
industry, and they represent thousands of local jobs and
communities along every coast. These stakeholders, many
generations strong, cannot live in a world of uncertainty, and
that is why we see this Executive Order as a job killer, not a
job creator.
Furthermore, it is not a solution to the critical problems
and fisheries issues we are facing today, as identified by our
organization and our allies. Our grassroots local members have
been actively working with you and your colleagues to put some
common sense back into the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which is
complicated enough without adding a new layer of bureaucracy in
the form of ocean spatial planning through newly appointed
councils and councilors.
Our concern is that future national ocean council members
will all be Executive Branch political appointees, not elected
by or representative of our local fishing communities and their
related industries. We already have boats tied to the dock
which cannot fish on rebuilt stocks because of government
regulations that are being interpreted in different ways.
Imagine adding a new National Ocean Policy on top of these, and
we see our members not fishing anymore. To be quite frank, we
view this policy as being instigated by organizations that want
us off the water.
Finally, Mr. Chair, we realize that some of the issues in
the Executive Order may have some merit, but they best be done
through legislation. And I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have regarding the Executive Order or any
issues related to our recreational fishing community. Thank you
again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Donofrio follows:]
Statement of James A. Donofrio, Executive Director,
Recreational Fishing Alliance
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Jim Donofrio, the
Executive Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA). The RFA
is a national 501(c)(4) non-profit grassroots political action
organization whose mission is to safeguard the rights of salt water
anglers, protect marine, boat, and tackle industry jobs, and insure the
long-term sustainability of our nation's marine fisheries. Recreational
fishing produces significant economic activity in the United States.
The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates the economic output
recreational saltwater fishing includes $59 billion in direct sales
impacts, $27 billion in value added impacts and supports over 260,000
full-time jobs. The recreational fishing industry is ``Main Street
America'' in every sense; it is largely composed of small, family-run,
mom and pop businesses. It is without saying that these businesses
serve a critical role in the health of the nation's coastal economies.
Consistent with our mission statement, appropriate measures of
fisheries management and conservation are among the RFA's primary
concerns. Balancing all three tenants of the RFA mission is the goal of
our organization and on a national scale, achieving that goal would
mark the successful management of our domestic fisheries as we envision
it. The current management approach falls short of this goal. All too
often, conservation supersedes the needs of the fishing community. The
result of which are regulations that deny access for recreational
anglers to rebuilding fisheries and force fishing related businesses to
permanently close their doors as fishing activity plummets. Anglers are
the life blood of the recreational fishing industry and purchase
equipment, bait, ice, fares, boats, fuel and other fishing goods and
expenditures that drive this industry.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
the challenges facing our industry and the National Ocean Policy (NOP)
promulgated through Executive Order 13547--The Stewardship of the
Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes published in the Federal
Register on July 22, 2010. Our industry is currently dealing with one
of its most challenging periods. While economic factors are certainly
contributing to the hardships in our industry, it has been determined
that the current regulatory regime for marine fisheries is having the
greatest impact on the vitality of recreational fishing. I do not view
the mandates of Executive Order 13547 as a solution to these
challenges. In fact, I believe the NOP puts recreational fishing and
recreational fishing businesses in an even more precarious position.
While it is difficult to quantify the impacts of the NOP, it is without
saying that the NOP does not address the problems identified by our
industry as those being most pressing.
Executive Order 13547 enacted as policy of the United States, the
final recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (Task
Force) which was established by President Obama in June of 2009. The
Task Force included 24 senior-level officials from the executive branch
of government and was led by the Chair of the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ). Noting that the membership of the Task Force is composed
entirely of political appointees from the executive branch, there was
strong apprehension from the traditional industries that are dependent
upon the marine resources that the recommendations would be driven by
political agendas and not science. The five Task Force recommendations
include the creation of a National Ocean Policy Council (NOC), defines
roles and leadership for NOC, engage states, tribal, and local
authorities through new committee, creation of a NOC steering committee
and an increase in coordination between the NOC and other executive
level councils. In reviewing the Task Force recommendations, two
critical points are apparent, 1) the Task Force recommendations create
additional levels of bureaucracy for the management of the oceans,
coastal areas and Great Lakes and 2) the verbiage of the
recommendations is so vague and nebulous that it is difficult to
determine exactly how recreational fishermen and fishing related
businesses will be impacted. On an industry wide scale, creating
additional levels of bureaucracy reduces the overall productivity of
our industry as business owners would be forced to divert limited
resources away from the operation of their small businesses to engage
this bureaucracy. Furthermore, the uncertainty resultant of the
ambiguous wording of the recommendations creates an unstable business
environment in our industry. Collectively, it can only be assumed at
this point that the NOP would most certainly have a negative impact on
the recreational fishing industry.
Specific to the topic of today's hearing, RFA believes the NOP and
the Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning will have the following effects
on our industry. As mentioned above, the recreational fishing industry
is comprised mostly of small, owner-operator businesses. As owner-
operators, they are responsible for a myriad of responsibilities
necessary to keep the business profitable. Under these circumstances,
time becomes a critical element as they try to balance business, family
and other matters. It is also important for these business owners to be
engaged in the fishery management process because it brings the
socioeconomic concerns of the industry to the managers. In addition,
engaging the fisheries management process allows business owners to
provide input on management measures that ultimately will affect future
opportunity and participation. These management decisions are critical
in forecasting investment in floor planning and inventory. With a
limited amount of man hours, it is a valid conclusion that another
level of bureaucracy as created through the NOP will cost businesses
owners in the recreational fishing industry time and money.
Furthermore, this newly created system of oversight will reduce the
lead time available to businesses to purchase inventory prior to the
beginning of fishing seasons.
Both the NOP and Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean
Policy Task Force are written with very vague terminology. As such, it
is impossible to quantify what the exact objectives and goals will be
once implemented. From a practical standpoint, it is impossible to
determine where the jurisdiction of the NOP ends. This represents a
profound level of uncertainty. For any business to be successful, risk
must be properly accounted for. Elevated uncertainly reduces a business
owner's ability to respond to risk thereby putting their business in an
unstable situation. It is foreseeable that the uncertainty created
through the NOP and Task Force put businesses in greater jeopardy of
failing at a time when small businesses and jobs are such an important
factor in reviving the Nation's economy.
RFA offers the following comments on some of the key points of the
Final Recommendations of the Task Force.
Ecosystem based management: RFA supports the adoption of ecosystem-
based management as a foundation principle for the management of the
ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes. While the concept has merit and many
within the recreational fishing community have advocated for this type
of management approach, ecosystem based management of the marine
fisheries can only be effective if there is a long-term commitment in
terms of funding and resources from the federal government. Federal
agencies and management bodies need the capabilities to implement an
ecosystem based approach in a responsible manner. Effective ecosystem
based management requires a significant amount of data on the marine
environment. We currently do not have a complete understanding of
ecological processes that influence fish populations. Furthermore, we
have an even more difficult time incorporating climate and weather
change in the context of the marine environment. Under single species
management, there are many sources of uncertainty affecting stock
assessments: 1) imperfections in catch statistics, 2) imprecise
estimates of biological parameters, 3) variability in fishery
independent resource surveys, and 4) natural variability in biological
processes, particularly in recruitment and natural mortality. The
collective impact of this uncertainty results in arbitrary reductions
of fishing quotas available to fishermen. If this uncertainty is
further increased through a federal effort to accommodate an ecosystem
based management approach, the associated uncertainly would be
exceedingly large. This is a very risky.
Ecosystem based management is a very data hungry approach and as
mentioned above, the terrestrial and atmospheric stressors also impact
the marine resources. The scope of data necessary to properly manage in
an ecosystem based management approach would be profound. In light of
recent action by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) where millions of dollars were diverted away from
research and put towards unproven management projects in response to a
political agenda, fishermen can simply not trust federal agencies to
implement ecosystem based in a responsible manner that benefits
fishermen despite some of the theoretical advantages such an approach
may hold. Prior to fully adopting a eco-system based management
approach, federal agencies must first invest in the data necessary to
achieve this goal.
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning: The RFA believes that some
activities, based on their impact on the marine and coastal habitat,
should be limited in certain areas. These restrictions should be based
on clear, definable objectives. In its application to recreational
fishing, hook and line fishing has been defined as a low impact gear
type. In general, RFA does not support the use of permanent
recreational closed areas for fisheries management. This concept is not
new in fisheries management which often sets fishing regulations that
vary on a geographic scale. There are numerous reasons for doing this
which include protection of habitat or minimizing impacts on spawning
events. This approach is widely supported in the commercial and
recreational fisheries.
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning aims to reduce conflicts among
overlapping uses and different views about what activities should occur
and where. RFA is not convinced that current conflicts are at a
magnitude requiring a new, overarching coastal and marine spatial plan.
The conflicts that do exist can be resolved through existing legal
framework. The proposed conflict resolution process outlined in the
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning is not based on a scientific
evaluation framework. RFA does not believe recreational anglers should
be excluded from areas of the oceans without clear scientific evidence
that such drastic action is necessary. Fishing is the one of the oldest
activities conducted on the oceans. Excluding fishermen from areas of
the ocean in an effort to reduce conflict with other interests,
offshore oil drilling or the environmental industry for example, is not
acceptable.
Fishermen are often vocal about proposed activities such as the
development of oil/gas extraction and wind farms on or around fishing
grounds because those activities stand to impact recreational access
and can potentially harm marine resources. As climate and ocean
conditions have changed over the years, fishing areas have also
changed. Therefore it is dangerous to divide up sections of the ocean
based on current fishing patterns when the ocean is in a constant state
of flux and it is unknown which areas of the ocean will be important to
fishermen in 50 years. Furthermore, there are large, well funded and
politically active environmental organizations that are philosophically
opposed to fishing and endeavor to remove as many fishermen as possible
from the water. As proposed, Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning would
potentially aim to resolve this conflict by restricting fishermen from
certain areas of the oceans to appease the whimsical desires of these
groups. RFA does not believe this is a science-based or productive way
of resolving conflict.
Inform Decisions and Improve Understanding: Members of the
recreational fishing community have long demanded significant
improvements to stock assessments and data collection programs. It is
widely accepted that improvements to both of these areas of concern
would result in better information to make management decisions on and
greater confidence in monitoring recreational fishing performance. Such
improvements would reduce uncertainty and therefore likely lead to more
favorable quotas in the recreational sector. The RFA has in numerous
fisheries, identified key areas where such improvements could be made
with minimal costs. NOAA has ignored the input from the RFA and other
recreational fishing interests and failed to increase funding levels.
Instead, NOAA has increased funding for implementation of the NOP in
the last two fiscal years and bundled in a very unpopular measure,
catch shares. Furthermore, the overall cost of the NOP, the Task Force,
and subsequent action items resultant of Executive Order 13547 must
exceed tens of millions of dollars. RFA questions if this is a wise use
of limited federal resources and suggests that this money could have
been used to foster more meaningful improvements.
Regional Coordinating and Support: Successful rebuilding and
maintaining of marine fish stocks cannot be uncoupled from
environmental factors such as habitat and water quality. This is
consistent with concerns raised by fishermen that activities on land
have a profound impact on marine fisheries. Current federal fisheries
laws contain mandates that afford protects to essential fish habitats
and habitat areas of particular concern. Yet, these provisions which
are intended to transcend federal and state jurisdictions are minimally
enforced outside of the regional fishery management council. Granting
so much authority to a regional council as created under the NOP is
unacceptable and not a solution to address this problem. Nor is it
appropriate to grant such a council unrestricted authority to oversee
nearly every activity that occurs in or on the oceans or has the
potential to impact the coast or oceans. A more productive approach
would be to enforce existing provisions of EFH and enact legislation
focusing on specific activities.
In closing, RFA is very concerned about the implementation of
Executive Order 13547 and the resultant negative impacts on the marine
recreational fishing industry and coastal economies. The scale and far
reaching authority granted to the NOP by the executive order will cause
significant instability in our industry which is currently struggling
under an already burdensome regulatory framework.
As our nation continues to struggle with the aftermath of the 2008
recession and efforts are underway to create jobs, it seems
counterproductive to advance and fund the NOP when it will stifle job
growth in the fishing sectors.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify before the
Committee today.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Donofrio. And next I
will recognize Mr. Luthi, who is National Ocean Industries
Association President. And you are recognized for five minutes,
Mr. Luthi.
STATEMENT OF RANDALL LUTHI, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL OCEAN INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION
Mr. Luthi. Well, good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Markey and Members of the Committee, for this
opportunity to come here and talk to you about Executive Order
13547. As stated, my name is Randall Luthi, and I serve as
President of the National Ocean Industries Association. NOIA
represents more than 270 companies engaged in all segments of
the offshore energy area. Our members are involved in the
exploration and development of offshore oil and natural gas as
well as renewable energy. All share a mutual interest in safely
producing energy and jobs on our nation's Outer Continental
Shelf.
NOIA's members live, work and recreate in our nation's
oceans and our coastal communities, and we clearly understand
the value of marine ecosystems to the quality of our life. We
support the concept of a national ocean policy, but we believe
that the present policy embodied in the Executive Order has
been lacking in meaningful stakeholder involvement both in its
development and implementation.
In addition, we believe a national ocean policy is
incomplete without greater recognition of how increased access
to our OCS might realize the national policy to improve our
economy, create new jobs, enhance energy security and
reliability, and increase Federal revenues.
Our central concern about the National Ocean Policy stems
from its use of the coastal and marine spatial planning. It is
unclear to us what the deliverable is or how a new layer of
Federal bureaucratic planning will yield any new economic
activity, regulatory certainty or create jobs beyond those
Federal jobs that might be created to do the planning itself.
A study conducted by Quest Resources earlier this year
concluded that if permitting were restored to historic levels
in the Gulf of Mexico, the offshore oil and gas industry could
create 190,000 new jobs across the United States by 2013. Today
industry and Federal regulators are busy implementing new
safety measures and struggling with personnel and
organizational changes. We believe that it is in the best
interests of the Nation for policymakers to dedicate the
limited Federal resources available toward efforts that would
actually create new jobs and economic activity.
We are also concerned that the Department of the Interior
will be unable to complete the new OCS five-year plan for the
2012-2017 period before the current plan expires next June.
There is potentially serious conflict between the National
Ocean Policy and the statutory directive outlined by OCSLA, the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act that states, and I quote,
``That it is the policy of the United States that the Outer
Continental Shelf should be made available for expeditious and
orderly development subject to environmental safeguards.'' At a
time when the Nation needs more access to the OCS, we are
concerned that this policy will accomplish just the opposite.
Finally, coastal and marine spatial planning may result in
significant areas of the OCS being declared off limits without
even knowing what the oil and gas natural resources potential
is. Section 2 of the Executive Order directs the government to
``use the best available science and knowledge to inform
decisions affecting the ocean.'' Unfortunately the data we have
is nearly 30 years old for areas outside the central and
western Gulf and some parts of Alaska.
At a minimum, new geological and geophysical data should be
obtained before implementing any planning decisions that could
place these areas off limits. Additionally, for the first time
in recent history, nearly all of the OCS is available for oil
and gas exploration due to the lifting of both the
congressional and the executive moratoriums.
Of course any such exploration must be first approved
through the OCSLA five-year process or through congressional
action. The end result of this Executive Order may very well be
de facto exploration moratoria established by regional
committees and not through direct Presidential or congressional
action.
In conclusion, we believe that there is ample policy and
statutory tools that ensure that our oceans' resources are
conserved and protected and without the potential conflicts,
and we believe the potential conflicts are reasonably managed
without imposing a new Federal layer of bureaucracy. We believe
that the suspension of the implementation of this policy until
industry, relevant agencies and Congress openly and fully study
and discuss the initiative and potential impacts is a prudent
course of action.
In the event that the Administration insists on moving
forward, we are more supportive of the idea of a pilot project
in just one of the regions. We believe that this would ensure
greater likelihood of more stakeholder involvement and fewer
unintended consequences.
Over the years, Congress has worked hard to preserve our
nation through passage of acts such as OCSLA and CZMA. We
believe that that is where Congress should be exercising its
power and its focus to make sure that those statutes currently
reflect what needs to be changed if anything does. We think
this is too necessary, too soon, too much uncertainty and
should have more congressional review and approval. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Luthi follows:]
Statement of Randall Luthi, President,
National Ocean Industries Association
Good morning. Thank you Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey,
and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to be here today to
testify on the implications of the National Ocean Policy issued under
Executive Order (EO) 13547.
My name is Randall Luthi and I serve as President of the National
Ocean Industries Association. NOIA represents more than 270 member
companies engaged in all segments of the offshore energy industry--from
operators and producers, to service companies, G&G companies, vessel
builders, divers, helicopter companies, and financiers. Our members
share an interest in producing energy and jobs on the outer continental
shelf (OCS). They are involved in the exploration and development of
oil and natural gas, as well as renewable energy sources offshore.
Introduction
NOIA's members live, work and recreate in the oceans and coastal
areas and clearly understand their tremendous value, as well as that of
marine ecosystems to our quality of life. They are important to our
nation's health and well-being while also serving as a tremendous
economic and energy security benefit to our country. With the right
policies in place, the offshore energy industry can be a major
contributor to new job growth and new federal revenues that will help
alleviate the substantial debt the nation faces. NOIA supports the
concept of a national ocean policy, but believes that the present
policy embodied in EO 13547 has been lacking in meaningful stakeholder
involvement both in its development and implementation. In addition,
NOIA believes a national ocean policy is incomplete without greater
recognition for how increased access to the OCS might help realize
national policy objectives of job creation, greater energy security and
reliability, and greater federal revenues derived from increased oil
and gas activities.
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning and Regulatory Uncertainty
Our central concern about the National Ocean Policy stems from the
objective that would implement the use of Coastal and Marine Spatial
Planning. It is unclear to us what the policy deliverable might be or
how a new layer of federal bureaucratic planning will yield any new
economic activity, regulatory certainty or jobs beyond those federal
jobs that might be created to do the planning itself. This directive
comes at a time of great uncertainty for those who make their
livelihood in the offshore energy industry. The industry is now just
over one year removed from the moratorium imposed in the wake of the
Gulf spill. Since that time there have been significant regulatory
changes intended to elevate the requirements for safely developing oil
and gas in the outer continental shelf. More changes are presently in
the rule making process and the Department of the Interior has
indicated that additional rules are forthcoming. The oil and gas
industry, as well as the newly formed Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, are still
adjusting to organizational, regulatory and personnel changes that were
implemented in the wake of the spill. Indeed, these are certainly both
material factors in the slower pace of approvals for exploration plans
and permits.
A study conducted by Quest Resources earlier this year concluded
that if permitting were to be restored to historic levels that 190,000
new jobs for American workers would be created by 2013. Quest also
recently highlighted in testimony to this committee the numerous
drilling rigs that have left U.S. waters for international locations
that offer more certainty. While we recognize that there are a number
of challenges for the agency and the industry in regaining that
historic pace of activity, NOIA believes that it is in the best
interests of the economy for policymakers and limited federal resources
to be dedicated to efforts that would yield new jobs and economic
activity through a more stable and certain regulatory environment and
greater access to the outer continental shelf.
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning and New Limits to Accessing the
Outer Continental Shelf
We would also highlight our concern that it already appears the
Department of the Interior is unable to offer assurances that it will
complete the new OCS 5 Year Plan for 2012-2017 before the present plan
expires at the end of June 2012. This plan is a critical tool for
industry to be able to know when lease sales will be held and what
areas will be made available for the ``expeditious development''
required by Congress under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Since
it appears likely that the agency will have a very difficult time
putting a plan in place on time to meet its obligations under the
OCSLA, now is the wrong time to experiment with a new and unjustified
layer of bureaucracy that even the administration itself concedes is
likely to lead to new uncertainties.
In fact, there is a potentially serious conflict between the
National Ocean Policy and the statutory directive outlined in the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The OCSLA states:
``It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States
that...the Outer Continental Shelf is a vital national resource held by
the Federal Government for the public, which should be made available
for expeditious and orderly development, subject to environmental
safeguards, in a manner which is consistent with the maintenance of
competition and other national needs....''
It is unclear to NOIA how the EO helps achieve any of this
statutory direction. The question we would raise for this committee to
consider would be--in a world of record imports and high unemployment,
why would we create another barrier for American jobs and energy?
OCSLA and other laws such as the Coastal Zone Management Act
currently require coordination and cooperation among Federal and State
officials in the development of a 5 year plan, and while the
Administration suggests that EO 13547 is not intended to usurp existing
statutory authority, there is little guidance on how implementation of
the EO will affect the development or implementation of upcoming or
future 5 year plans.
NOIA has long been an advocate for expanding access to the OCS. At
present, less than 3% of the outer continental shelf is under lease for
oil and gas exploration and development. On December 1, 2010, the
Department of the Interior announced a revised OCS Oil and Gas Leasing
Strategy. This revised leasing program actually reduced the pool of
geographic areas available for leasing through 2017, citing in part the
National Ocean Policy as justification. Consequently, at a time when
the nation needs more access to the OCS, we are concerned that this
policy presents an even more challenging and uncertain outlook for new
access.
As justification for its coastal and marine spatial planning
policy, the Administration has cited onshore federal land use planning
as a model in an effort to reassure those who may be concerned. Section
364 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed a study to be conducted
of federal onshore oil and natural gas and ``the extent and nature of
any restrictions or impediments to the development of the resources.''
This study, often referred to as EPCA III, concluded that more than 62%
of the oil and 41% of the gas were entirely inaccessible. An additional
30% of the oil and 49% of the gas were accessible only with
restrictions. Only 8% of the oil and 10% of the gas were accessible
under standard lease terms. While some of these restrictions were
indeed imposed through Congressional withdrawals or executive orders,
an examination of the study's findings demonstrates that the vast
majority of the limitations upon access to these resources were
implemented through the land use planning process. Once these areas are
placed off limits, these decisions are rarely altered or revisited,
leaving the resources inaccessible, or with limitations that may render
the resource uneconomic. If this is the model, from a federal energy
access perspective, this is highly disconcerting.
New OCS Data is Needed Before Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Moves
Forward
Finally, we anticipate that coastal and marine spatial planning may
result in decisions being made about setting significant areas of the
OCS off limits to future access without the benefit of knowing what oil
and natural gas resources lie underneath those areas. Language included
in Section 2 of the EO indicates that the best available science and
knowledge is to be used to inform decisions affecting the oceans. Due
to federal limitations on the activities necessary to collect new data,
the only available seismic based data, other than in areas of the
Western and Central Gulf of Mexico and some areas of Alaska, is
approximately 30 years old. New technological methods are now available
that might give us a much better view of the potential for oil and gas
development, yet the EO directs implementation of coastal and marine
spatial planning without the benefit of this knowledge. While, of
course, the only fully precise measure of oil and gas potential is
actual exploration, it should be noted that in the mid-eighties, many
felt that that Gulf of Mexico had reached its oil and gas potential.
However, due to new technology and the entrepreneurial spirit of many
NOIA members, actual production and verified resources are now at least
more than five times as much as those decades' old resource estimates.
While no one can predict similar results in the rest of the OCS, the
premature zoning out of oil and gas development will place that
potential off the table. It would be very shortsighted to make planning
decisions without the benefit of new data. At a minimum, new geological
and geophysical data should to be obtained before conducting any
planning decisions that may place these areas off limits to future
access.
In addition, due to the lifting of both Congressional and Executive
oil and gas exploration moratoriums, nearly all of the OCS may be made
available for oil and gas exploration if first approved either through
the OCSLA five year planning process or through further Congressional
action. It is hard to envision a zoning process implemented through EO
13547 that would maintain that current status. The end result may very
well be de-facto exploration moratoria established by regional
committees and not through direct Presidential or Congressional action.
Conclusion
NOIA believes there are ample policy and statutory tools to ensure
that ocean resources are conserved and protected and that potential
conflicts are managed without imposing a cumbersome new layer of
federal bureaucracy upon an already time intensive and uncertain
regulatory process. We believe it is difficult to move ahead with a
process such as this while also expecting that companies are going to
be in the position to restore lost jobs and add new ones.
Over the years, this committee, and Congress as a whole have worked
to promote healthy oceans and safe energy development through the
passage of several statutes, including OCSLA and CZMA. I encourage
members of Congress to carefully review the language, intent and
implementation of EO 13547. We believe that this goes too far, too
soon, and adds too much uncertainty. Further review and revision are
desperately needed before implementation proceeds any further.
We believe that a suspension in implementation of this policy until
such time as the public, the industry, relevant agencies, and the
Congress have had the time to openly and fully study and discuss the
initiative and its potential impacts would be the prudent course of
action. In the event that the administration insists on moving forward
with implementation of this particular policy--either now or after a
recommended suspension, we support the idea that a pilot project in
just one of the regions would be preferable and ensure a greater
likelihood of meaningful stakeholder involvement and fewer unintended
consequences.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and I would be happy
to answer any questions you may have for me.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Luthi. And now I
will recognize Mr. Michael Conathan, the Director of Ocean
Policy for the Center for American Progress, and you are
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CONATHAN, DIRECTOR OF
OCEAN POLICY, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS
Mr. Conathan. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Hastings--
good afternoon I suppose--Ranking Member Markey and Members of
the Committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today and to address the implications of the
Executive Order establishing a national ocean policy.
My name is Michael Conathan, and I serve as the Director of
Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
CAP's ocean program focuses on supporting science-based
policies and finding solutions that balance the socioeconomic
and environmental needs of Americans and our ocean and coastal
space.
America's Exclusive Economic Zone extending out to 200
miles from our shores is the largest in the world and covers an
area greater than our nation's entire land mass. This presents
us with both a tremendous economic opportunity and a daunting
regulatory challenge. The National Ocean Policy, which has its
roots in the 2004 report of the bipartisan U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy, addresses this challenge through the
establishment of the nine priority areas to guide our use and
conservation of this vast resource.
Just as the ocean is a dynamic place, the principles by
which we manage it and the industries that rely on it must also
adapt to changing times. As coastal populations increase and
new uses of ocean space emerge, conflicts inevitably arise. We
as a nation must develop a means of balancing and prioritizing
these uses to provide the greatest benefit to our society, our
economy and our environment.
Emerging industries are a reality of the modern world, and
by participating in a comprehensive ocean planning process,
industries like fishing, energy and shipping can ensure their
voices are heard and their needs are met. If you don't play,
you can't win.
The offshore wind industry provides the most obvious case
study for the potential effectiveness of comprehensive ocean
planning, also known as coastal and marine spatial planning.
Offshore wind is a rapidly growing piece of the energy picture
in other parts of the world. European countries already have
installed nearly 3,000 megawatts of offshore wind farms, and
Europe and China combined have permitted more than 40,000
megawatts.
Meanwhile, the United States has permitted just 488
megawatts and begun construction on exactly zero. This has cost
the United States the opportunity to establish itself as a
world leader in this industry, reduce our dependence on foreign
oil, cut emissions that contribute to global climate change and
jumpstart a new employment engine for our coastal communities.
Cape Wind Associates, the company that over a decade ago
began efforts to build America's first wind farm, offshore wind
farm, estimates that construction of its 420-megawatt project
will generate between 600 and 1,000 jobs during the
construction phase alone. These numbers are not a pipe dream.
Earlier this year a BBC report detailed how a single 150-
megawatt wind farm in the United Kingdom, barely one-third the
size of Cape Wind's proposal, resulted in the creation of more
than 800 job-years.
Fishermen meanwhile are understandably concerned about the
potential effect of offshore wind turbines on fishing grounds.
Turbine arrays may result in de facto no fishing areas for
certain kinds of mobile commercial fishing gear such as trawls
or scallop dredges. In Massachusetts, after proposing a wind
energy leasing area south of Nantucket, the Department of the
Interior reduced the size of this proposal by nearly 50 percent
after hearing the concerns of New England's profitable scallop
industry.
Interior's plan for offshore wind permitting, known as
Smart from the Start, provides an excellent spring board for
the principles of ocean planning. But to be truly smart from
the start will require greater coordination with potentially
conflicting industries before the lines are drawn on a map.
Comprehensive ocean planning has also been implemented
successfully at the State level, including in the home states
of both the Chairman and Ranking Member of this Committee. But
there is no one-size-fits-all approach. These programs take
different tacks to meet the needs of different regions. The
NOP's call for regional plans will allow sufficient flexibility
for different areas of the country to establish and promote
their own priorities.
To be clear, the comprehensiveness of this structure refers
to the industries involved and the activities involved, not to
the geographic scope. This is not zoning of every inch of our
more than 4 million square miles of Exclusive Economic Zone. It
is an assurance that 21st century priorities will lead to
balancing the economic and environmental value of our ocean
resources now and into the future.
We can either continue blindly on with single-use decisions
that leave America's developing ocean industries farther behind
their international counterparts, that harm our environmental
resources and fail to acknowledge the cumulative effects, or we
can think bigger and think better.
President Obama's National Ocean Policy recognizes that now
is the time for common sense and partnership, not nonsense and
partisanship as we determine how to manage our invaluable
oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I
want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
Committee today, and I look forward to answering any questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conathan follows:]
Statement of Michael Conathan, Director of Ocean Policy,
Center for American Progress
Good morning Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, and members
of the Committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today to address the implications of the Executive Order
establishing a National Ocean Policy. My name is Michael Conathan, and
I serve as the Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American
Progress. CAP's ocean program focuses on supporting science-based
policies and finding solutions that balance the socioeconomic and
environmental needs of Americans and our ocean and coastal space.
In 2004, the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released
its final report, ``An Ocean Blueprint.'' This report, commissioned by
a Republican-led Congress and written by a panel of experts appointed
by President George W. Bush, included a lynchpin recommendation that
the president ``begin immediately to implement a national ocean policy
by establishing the [National Ocean Council]... through an executive
order.'' The report went on to suggest that the NOC work with all tiers
of government, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and
academia to create regional ocean councils to implement the national
ocean policy at a regional scale.
The previous year, an independent report issued by the Pew Ocean
Commission chaired by current Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, also
called out the need to better integrate federal agency oversight of
ocean space via implementation of a national ocean policy establishing
a framework to ``reflect an understanding of the land-sea connection
and and organize institutions and forums. . .[which] must be
accessible, inclusive, and accountable. Decisions should be founded
upon the best available science and flow from processes that are
equitable, transparent, and collaborative.''
In July 2009, President Barack Obama answered this call by
announcing the first National Ocean Policy and the creation of a
National Ocean Council tasked with its implementation, pursuant to
Executive Order 13547. Subsequently, the panel issued a list of nine
priorities for management of our oceans, coasts, and the Great Lakes.
Among these priorities is the concept of comprehensive ocean planning,
or coastal and marine spatial planning. This concept recognizes that as
new potential uses of ocean space become increasingly viable, our
exclusive economic zone--the area of ocean space extending out to 200
miles from our shores--will grow more crowded. Thus, in order to ensure
efficient prioritization of both new and existing uses and to reduce
conflicts, managers must solicit input from a diverse group of
stakeholders up front rather than allowing a first-come, first-served
land grab mentality to dictate how our invaluable ocean resources will
be allocated. Absent such an initiative, the status quo provides a
cart-before-the-horse approach that reduces certainty, impedes the
likelihood of private investment, fails to adequately protect existing
uses including fisheries and recreation, and delays appropriate,
beneficial development with an endless stream of lawsuits.
As Congressman Markey noted in his opening statement at this
Committee's last hearing on the National Ocean Policy on October 4,
2011, planning is a fundamental, necessary part of organizing an
efficient society. As coastal populations increase, and new uses of
ocean space emerge, conflicts will inevitably arise, and we as a nation
must develop a means of predicting and resolving those conflicts if we
want to maximize economic efficiency from our oceans while safeguarding
the health and vitality of the marine environment. Doing so will
require coordination and conversation--bringing a diverse group of
voices to the table, representing all potential uses of ocean space, to
determine the highest and best of our nation's last frontier. In
addition, it will provide the added benefit of improving the science
used to support management decisions.
Contrary to attempts to color the policy as restrictive ``ocean
zoning,'' a comprehensive, collaborative approach to managing our ocean
resources will help prevent multi-use conflicts, increase efficiency,
and ensure ocean economies continue to support American jobs and a high
quality of life. The National Ocean Council should be given the
necessary logistical and financial support to implement the National
Ocean Policy for the benefit of American jobs, economic growth, and
security. Scare tactics and insinuations of doomsday scenarios will
only force us into an entrenched, cloistered process that fails to
acknowledge the reality that as ocean space becomes more crowded, we
will need to accommodate more uses and more users.
The National Ocean Policy will increase government efficiency and
enable sound management of public resources
A June 2011 report by the nonpartisan Joint Ocean Commission,
comprised of members of both the Pew and U.S. Ocean Commissions,
expressed strong ongoing support for comprehensive ocean planning and
the National Ocean Policy, stating, ``the current sector-by-sector
management system is incapable of providing the integrated,
comprehensive, and flexible approach needed to ensure that conflicts
among proposed uses are minimized and potential benefits enhanced.''
In fact, strategic planning maximizes organizational efficiency and
use of taxpayer dollars. Contrary to the false depiction of the
National Ocean Policy as excessive government regulation, it will bring
all interested parties to the table before key management decisions are
made. This will improve opportunities for industry, communities,
nongovernmental organizations, and citizens to participate in the
planning process and facilitate sustainable economic growth by
providing transparency and predictability for economic investments. The
alternative is allowing developers of individual projects to drive the
regulatory process without adequate guidance from regulators or input
from alternate stakeholders, a process that has been shown to lead to a
seemingly endless string of lawsuits, political quagmires, and a
poisonous investment climate.
There is no better example of the inefficiencies inherent in the
piecemeal system than the offshore wind industry. Offshore wind is a
viable and rapidly growing piece of the energy picture in other parts
of the world. Today, European countries have installed nearly 3,000
megawatts of offshore wind facilities, and Europe and China combined
have permitted more than 40,000 megawatts of wind turbines in their
oceans. The United States has permitted exactly 488 megawatts, and we
have yet to break ground on our first turbine.
Over a decade ago, Cape Wind Associates announced its intention to
construct America's first offshore wind farm in the waters of Nantucket
Sound between Cape Cod and the islands of Marthas Vineyard and
Nantucket. This single project, which has the potential to generate
enough electricity to meet 75% of the electricity demands of the Cape
and Islands, has endured a litany of reviews and challenges from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal
Aviation Administration, the Minerals Management Service (now the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, or
BOEMRE), and other agencies. Finally, in April of this year following
more than 10 years of review, the Department of Interior finally issued
permits and approval of its construction plan, officially giving Cape
Wind the go-ahead to begin building America's first offshore wind farm.
Less than two weeks later the Department of Energy informed the
developer that the project's application for a loan guarantee had been
put on hold.
Businesses simply will not invest in this industry until these
issues are resolved. And until that investment comes, the employment
opportunities these projects represent--in engineering, manufacturing,
construction, transportation, maintenance, and other categories--will
not be created. Cape Wind estimates that construction of its 420
megawatt wind farm will create between 600 and 1,000 jobs during the
construction phase. These numbers are not a pipe dream. Earlier this
year, the BBC put out a report detailing the number of jobs created by
construction of a single 150 megawatt wind farm--barely one third the
size of Cape Wind's proposal. The installation phase alone resulted in
the creation of more than 800 job years. Furthermore, the Department of
Energy has predicted that the build out of 54 gigawatts of offshore
wind by 2030 would result in the creation of 40,000 American jobs.
Independent aribters have also pointed out that comprehensive ocean
planning should be used to improve the permitting process for offshore
oil and gas development. The final report of the BP Commission convened
in the aftermath of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, and co-
chaired by former Senator Bob Graham and former EPA Administrator
William Reilly recommended regulators ``better balance the myriad
economic and environmental interests concentrated in the Gulf region. .
.[and] include improved monitoring and increased use of sophisticated
tools like coastal and marine spatial planning.''
Comprehensive ocean planning is already working
Under the current administration, the Department of Interior has
acknowledged both the opportunity America is missing by failing to
develop offshore wind energy in our exclusive economic zone, and the
role comprehensive ocean planning can play in allowing us to tap into
that resource and catch up to the rest of the world. As BOEMRE has
looked to facilitate appropriate development of offshore wind farms
along the Atlantic seaboard, it has instituted a process known as
``Smart from the Start'' to streamline offshore wind permitting.
Instead of waiting for developers to request permitting, this program
is in the process of designating wind energy areas in federal waters in
the northeast and mid-Atlantic. Estimates are that this process can
shave at least two years off the permitting timeline. BOEMRE has taken
input from other federal agencies and local stakeholders while
designating these areas, and amended their initial proposals--reducing
the size of the area proposed to be opened for development off the
coast of Massachusetts by nearly 50 percent after receiving input from
the fishing industry.
Developers are already queuing up to tap into the clean energy
potential that lies just off our shores. Since identifying wind energy
areas, or WEAs where leases would be initiated off the New England and
mid-Atlantic coasts, BOEMRE has received dozens of expressions of
interest from groups wanting to lease parts of these spaces. Yet, in
what is becoming a troubling yet telling trend, recently many of these
applications have come from subsidiaries of foreign companies with
experience developing offshore wind energy in other countries. These
groups see the potential in the U.S. market, and are relying on
existing expertise to give them a leg up on their American
counterparts. When it comes to offshore wind, the U.S. is already late
to the party, but establishing WEAs through a comprehensive ocean
planning process is one way to help us catch up.
Comprehensive ocean planning has also been implemented successfully
in several states, including Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Oregon.
These states have taken proactive steps to identify areas most suitable
for various commercial and recreational uses of ocean space, including
fishing, energy development, sand and gravel mining, shipping traffic,
conservation, recreation and other activities. These efforts ensure the
relative benefits of each action are considered and prioritized to meet
economic, environmental, security, and social goals. The Washington
State legislature overwhelmingly passed a law with vast bipartisan
support that will initiate an ocean planning process in its state
waters as well.
In addition, the process is working at a regional scale. Following
on their in-state work, Rhode Island and Massachusetts cooperated on a
landmark agreement for the development of offshore wind energy across
the boundary of their state waters. Announcing the agreement, former
Rhode Island governor, Republican Don Carcieri, said, ``The shared
waters between Rhode Island and Massachusetts hold the key to the
future of offshore wind developments along the East Coast and the
country. It is in the best interest for both states to work together to
expedite the federal permitting process through this collaborative
effort. We share mutual interests in developing offshore wind projects,
bringing greater economic development activity and economic security to
the region.''
The National Ocean Policy will preserve the health of our oceans and
the local economies they support
In addition to supporting comprehensive ocean planning, the
National Ocean Policy contains eight other national priority
objectives, including the establishment of a science-based strategy to
align conservation and restoration goals at federal, state, tribal,
local, and regional levels and the strengthening and integration of
federal and nonfederal ocean observing systems and data management into
one national system, to then be integrated into international
observation efforts.
According to the National Ocean Economics Program, our oceans,
coasts, and Great Lakes are critical components of our nation's
economy. U.S. coastal counties are home to more than half of all
Americans, generate an estimated $8 trillion per year, and support 69
million jobs.
In Florida, for example, a report prepared by the National Ocean
Economics Program for Florida's Ocean and Coastal Council showed that
Tourism, recreation, and fishing contributed $18.9 billion to Florida's
GDP in 2005. In addition to the benefits the entire nation will reap
from implementation of the nine priority objectives in the National
Ocean Policy, Florida's coast is particularly vulnerable to sea level
rise as a result of global climate change, and its reefs are at
significant risk from ocean warming and acidification. The NOP's goals
include strengthening resiliency of coastal communities to these
threats.
The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative found that in California, as
of 2007 more than 85 percent of gross domestic product and nearly 12
million jobs came from economic activity in these coastal estuarine
areas. California's state government has prioritized ocean conservation
and has used the concept of COP in implementation of the Marine Life
Protection Act, which used stakeholder input to develop the boundaries
of marine protected areas within its state waters.
And in Michigan, a state deeply affected by the economic downturn,
15 percent of all jobs are associated with the Great Lakes, and they
make up 23 percent of the total payroll, according to Michigan's Sea
Grant program. While some would imply that the administration is over-
reaching its authority by extending ocean policy to the Great Lakes,
the core missions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, BOEMRE, and other federal agencies with oversight of
ocean activities already encompass the Great Lakes. This is appropriate
as activities on the Lakes, including fishing, boating, shipping, and
energy development, are equivalent to their maritime counterparts.
Comprehensive ocean planning will further ensure the stability of
the nation's seaports as additional uses of ocean space evolve. This is
of utmost importance to the entire country. Again, according to the
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, the value of imports through U.S.
ports was almost $2 trillion in 2010, and in 2008 commercial ports
supported 13 million U.S. jobs. Ports that accommodate oceangoing
vessels move 99.5 percent of U.S. overseas trade by volume and 64
percent by value, and compared to 2001 total freight moving through
U.S. ports is expected to increase by more than 50 percent by 2020.
Declining ocean health and a lack of effective coordination among
regional groups, states, and federal bodies is putting this great
economic engine at risk. Wise investment in the future of our oceans
will provide a tune-up for our marine economic engine that will keep it
running smoothly for future generations. On the other hand, failing to
address these inadequacies will lead to increasing inefficiencies and
systemic break downs.
National Ocean Policy answers a national security imperative
Finally, leadership at the highest levels of our nation's ocean
security forces is united in their support for the National Ocean
Policy and comprehensive ocean planning. In 2009, Admiral Thad Allen,
then Commandant of the United States Coast Guard testified before the
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that,
``A new national ocean policy, especially as it creates a unified
framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning, is
critical to the nation and to the ability of the Coast Guard to execute
its mission.'' He went on to emphasize that planning would ``better
address the `gaps' in current ocean management regimes and better
manage ocean uses. This will allow the Coast Guard to more effectively
execute its many missions in support of safety, security, and
stewardship in our ocean and coastal waters.''
Admiral Allen's successor as Commandant, Admiral Robert Papp, has
continued this support for comprehensive ocean planning and the
National Ocean Policy, stating in 2010 that the final recommendations
of the Ocean Policy Task Force, ``provide a balance between protecting
and preserving the marine environment, and promoting economic progress.
The framework protects the interests of all users, improves ocean
stewardship, and provides the foundation for improving maritime
governance at the international, regional, state, and local levels.''
Voicing the U.S. Navy's support for the president's Ocean Policy
Task Force, Rear Admiral Herman Shelanski emphasized, ``The U.S. Navy
is committed to being responsible stewards of the environment. As such,
we understand the importance of developing a new national ocean
policy--one that includes ecosystem-based coastal and marine spatial
planning and management in the United States. . ..We also believe such
management should be balanced to maintain and enhance multiple ocean
uses, including those that contribute to our nation's security and
global stability.''
Coordination begets efficiency; its absence leads to chaos
America's exclusive economic zone, the biggest in the world,
presents a unique regulatory and environmental challenge but also a
tremendous economic opportunity. We have seen how the policies of the
past--a first-come, first-served gold rush approach--lead to chaos and
delay. Lack of certainty leads to a lack of financing. A lack of
financing means a lack of economic growth. And a lack of growth means a
lack of jobs. Until we create and implement a process that brings all
stakeholders to the table to air grievances and develop solutions, we
will continue to stagger along in a series of fits, starts, and
lawsuits that will leave America's ocean industries falling farther
behind our international counterparts, and adversely affect our
environmental resources.
The National Ocean Policy recognizes that now is the time for
common sense and partnership, not nonsense and partisanship as we
determine how to manage our invaluable oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes.
Support for the National Ocean Policy is support for the future of
America's maritime industries and our marine environment.
Once again, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
Committee today and I look forward to answering any questions you may
have.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Conathan, and thank
you, all three of you, for your testimony. I will begin. I just
have a couple of questions.
Mr. Conathan, you referenced this in your statement right
toward the end of your statement, and it has been referenced
several times by Members of the Committee, as I did in my
opening statement about the States that have developed their
own initiative. Let me be a bit parochial, and that is that
Washington State that you alluded to has enacted legislation
concerning marine spatial planning off their coast.
But a key component of that State law is that it protects
existing uses, and it promotes activities and provides for
economic opportunity, and it specifically recognizes,
specifically recognizes, commercial and recreational fishing.
You have heard the give and take up here. The last hearing we
had on that at least seems to be the perception of that being
otherwise. And let me be just kind of more specific. This
Federal initiative appears to place ocean ecosystem health and
biodiversity among all of economic activities. Now do you think
that is the correct balance given the initiative some of the
States have taken, including mine?
Mr. Conathan. Well, first of all, I think commercial
fishing has to be a priority of the use as well as recreational
fishing, have to be priorities for our use of ocean space. They
are among the oldest users of the ocean. They have the longest
tenure. And there are perhaps more participants in those
activities than any other.
So there is certainly a place for those activities, and
they must remain active in our ocean space. I believe the
National Ocean Policy and the concept of spatial planning must
also give adequate voice to those industries going forward and
ensure that their voices are heard, that the representatives of
the fishing industry, whether they be from the general public
or from the Fishery Management Councils, have an adequate
opportunity to comment on the plans as they are developed.
The Chairman. Which leads then to a followup on the line of
questioning that Mr. Southerland had where here is a State that
is very specific and here this Executive Order gives new
authority for regulations. There seems to be a conflict. Now we
will be obviously follow up with Panel I to be more specific,
but that does seem to raise a concern, notwithstanding the fact
that you say that fishing, recreational or commercial, should
be at a high level. Is that a fair assessment given the
interchange between Mr. Southerland and Panel I?
Mr. Conathan. I don't see that as a conflict. I believe the
regional planning bodies and the Federal level National Ocean
Council are intended, as the previous panel alluded to, to
gather information and convey that information to the decision-
makers at the Federal level.
The Chairman. Well, I have one more question here. I just
simply want to say the interchange between Mr. Southerland and
the first panel did not clarify that in any way at least from
this Member's perspective.
Along that same line, Mr. Donofrio, you expressed concern
about adequate funding for fisheries management, and I alluded
to this in my last statement about how this is going to be
funded. Give me your impression on what would happen if you
don't feel there is enough for NOAA to adequately manage fish.
How is that going to sink in with this Executive Order, Mr.
Donofrio?
Mr. Donofrio. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Apparently NOAA claims
they don't have enough money to do stock assessments on the
species they manage. Now right now we have boats tied to the
dock in different fisheries. Now these are rebuilt fisheries.
These are not fisheries that are overfishing or being on a
decline. These are fisheries that are healthy--black sea bass
for one. That is one we have people sitting in Mr. Runyan's
district. They are tied to the dock. They have nothing else to
fish for right now.
This is because of interpretations. NOAA, they can't
interpret anything. They couldn't run a kindergarten
playground, and they are trying to keep people on the water. I
don't believe anything they are trying to do here. This is
going to hurt us. This is going to hurt us.
Right now we don't have a data collection program that
Congress mandated in the 2007 reauthorization for marine
recreational statistics, right, the new MRIP program. They are
still using the MRFSS data, and they are shutting down
fisheries based on the MRFSS data. Yet in a lawsuit that we
filed against NOAA and lost, NOAA lied to the judge because
they can lie in an administrative court. It is not perjury
because they don't have to take an oath. There is no
deposition. They told the judge we are not using MRFSS data
anymore. That is what they told the judge. So they lied to the
judge. Yet they are keeping us at the dock based on MRFSS data.
The Chairman. So it is fair to say that with the shift of
funds when they can't adequately fund what they are doing right
now is a problem.
Mr. Donofrio. Big problem, sir.
The Chairman. Big problem, all right.
Mr. Donofrio. Thank you.
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. The
National Ocean Policy put into place by President Obama's
Executive Order is essentially the implementation of the
recommendations made by the bipartisan and independent U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy in 2004 whose members were all
appointed by President Bush.
Back then Republicans didn't seem so scared of these policy
recommendations. In fact, in a letter dated June 4, 2004, in
response to the commission's recommendations, then-Governor
Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who in my opinion is probably
going to be the Republican nominee for President, although it
is difficult for me to get inside the internal workings of the
cerebral mechanisms of Republican primary voters, but it
appears if contemporaneous polling still bears out over the
next several months that that could very well be the case, let
me just tell you what future nominee Romney said.
He said, ``The report and recommendations taken as a whole
clearly map out a new strategy for Federal, regional, and State
ocean resource management that I strongly support. I believe
that we are at a critical juncture in ocean management and must
take decisive action by moving forward expeditiously on
implementing the recommendations in your report.''
You know, so my mother always said that, Eddie, you should
always try to work smarter, not harder. It is better that way,
you know. And that is really what the National Ocean Policy
will do. It will coordinate the existing laws and regulations,
and on its own the national policy will not create any new
regulations but will provide a venue for any new regulations
created by existing laws or any new laws Congress might choose
to pass.
So you might actually wind up with fewer regulations. You
might wind up with an absence of conflicting regulations
because there is coordination. So the ``O. Henry'' ending, the
reverse political takedown is that the goal of all of this is
to actually reduce regulations. It is to ensure that there is
better coordination. It is to ensure that there is not
duplication. It is to ensure that there isn't more red tape for
people to complain about. Instead of having all of these
separate fiefdoms out there, everyone comes together and only
the regulations that are really needed and coordinated are put
on the books.
So it is just the opposite of course of what is being
argued here because to a certain extent there aren't many
interests that have a stake in the continuation of the
balkanized world within which we now work. But the goal of the
Democrats is to reduce the bureaucracy, reduce the amount of
regulation, reduce the duplication, reduce the separate
agencies all working oftentimes at cross purposes with each
other. That is our goal as Democrats rather than something that
leads to this proliferation of regulations.
And I praise President Bush for implementing that. I
embrace President Bush's goals on this. And I reject out of
hand any arguments made by Republicans that President Bush is
now old hat and we shouldn't be listening to him and his
advice. I say we embrace President Bush, we embrace his goal
for the oceans, OK. And God knows, he did support Outer
Continental Shelf drilling, OK? I don't think there is any
question about that. By the way, also wind. You know, he put on
the books the strongest wind regulations in the State of Texas
as well.
Mr. Conathan, in these difficult fiscal times, with budgets
being cut, how does money for the National Ocean Policy
represent a wise and efficient use of limited funds, including
enhancing business certainty?
Mr. Conathan. Well, thanks for the question, Congressman
Markey. And I won't add my own personal Massachusetts accent to
the conversation, but I would----
Mr. Markey. Are you from Maine, sir?
Mr. Conathan. No. I am from Cape Cod actually.
Mr. Markey. Cape Cod, ah.
Mr. Conathan. I will leave that aside for the moment.
Investment in the National Ocean Policy is ultimately an
investment, as I alluded to in my testimony, to developing new
industries in our offshore space. I held up the offshore wind
industry as a prime example, and clearly this is an industry
that is commercially viable. The rest of the world is far ahead
of us in this endeavor. But the biggest obstacles to permitting
for offshore wind in this country have come from precisely the
balkanized agencies that you alluded to moments ago.
Mr. Markey. Well, let me ask you this question. How do you
think the concerns of the recreational and commercial fishermen
can be dealt with with better coordination?
Mr. Conathan. Well, I think the fishing industries, both
recreational and commercial, have to acknowledge that ocean
space is going to become more crowded in the future. And they
can either be at the table to have the conversation about where
the most appropriate places for that development are, or they
can be left on the sidelines and be left out of the
conversation. So I think this kind of coordinated policy at a
Federal, at a regional, and as we have seen in some cases, at a
State and even local level will really provide the
opportunities for them to be contributors to the process.
Mr. Markey. Without better coordination, without better
ultimately implementation, what are the chances of U.S. wind
industry becoming competitive with our global competitors?
Mr. Conathan. It is hard to speculate, but I think given
the track record that we have seen to date, it doesn't look
good. We may get a few projects in place here and there. I know
New Jersey is look at some projects in State waters. Texas is
looking at some projects in State waters. These may be able to
move forward in the absence of an overarching Federal policy,
but in terms of catching up to the rest of the world and
creating the broader scope industries, the manufacturing base,
the technology base, the research base, it won't happen in the
absence of these policies.
Mr. Markey. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Before recognizing Mr. Flores, I
want to respond to my good friend from Massachusetts. And I
recognize it is hard for him to get into the head of a
Republican voter. Likewise, it is hard for a Republican to get
into the head of a Democrat voter. And, frankly, that is one of
the reasons we are having this hearing, trying to understand at
least that process.
And second, since there is an epiphany from my good friend
from Massachusetts on President Bush, let me right on what the
recommendations of the ocean policy of the committee that he
created on page 87, let me just read it verbatim. ``The
National Ocean Council should work with Congress, the
President's Council of Advisors on ocean policies and State,
territorial, tribal, and local leaders, including
representatives from the private sector, nongovernmental
organizations, and academia to develop a flexible and voluntary
process for the creation of regional ocean councils. States
working with relevant stakeholders should use this process to
establish regional ocean councils with support from the
national ocean council.''
That to me appears to be whatever conflict we have in all
of this process. And with that, I recognize----
Mr. Markey. Will the gentleman yield?
The Chairman. I will be more than happy to yield to my
friend.
Mr. Markey. The key word there is voluntary, and this is
voluntary. So I think you put your finger right on it, and it
is the subject upon which we agree.
The Chairman. Reclaiming my time, I am glad that we both
recognize that. There seems to be a bit of a conflict, however,
at least as to the exchange that we had with our good colleague
from Florida on that. And if we ever get a definitive answer,
we will be more than happy to share that with the world. Mr.
Flores is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to say that in
my opinion, the Executive Order is the illogical extension of
President Bush's goals, and they have been taken way beyond
what those were intended to be. And maybe it is because of the
difference in the way different ideological brains are wired.
But this to me doesn't look like it is going to create anything
that is voluntary for anybody.
It is hard for me to imagine that this is going to reduce
and simplify regulations. I have never seen a government chart
like this that does anything to make any American's lives
better or to provide more jobs, a better economy or help reduce
an out-of-control deficit.
I have a question for Mr. Donofrio. Mr. Conathan just said
that your industry was going to have a seat at the table. But
the regional planning bodies don't have any stakeholder seats.
So can you tell me how you are going to have a seat at the
table, or have you had a seat at the table where your input has
been heard?
Mr. Donofrio. Thank you, sir. No, we haven't. And I want to
make a comment regarding some of the comments Dr. Lubchenco
made because consistent with this Administration, she was asked
the question before about catch shares and then with this
issue. She has thrown it back to the Council level. Even with
this National Ocean Policy, she said, well, the Councils will
be determining it.
But she is not telling you that this Administration is the
first one ever to also violate the spirit and the intent of
Magnuson when it comes to appointees on the Council. For
instance, if a Governor wanted someone to be a priority to
serve on the Fishery Management Council, generally that
Governor would get their person to get the seat, or if there
was an incumbent that was serving, the incumbent would serve
out his term or her term. Dr. Lubchenco's administration has
been whacking people off the Councils and stacking them with
their own people.
Mr. Flores. Right.
Mr. Donofrio. So of course she throws it back to the
Council now and said, ``OK, the Councils are going to make the
decision.''
Mr. Flores. After she has populated the Councils.
Mr. Donofrio. After they stacked it. This Administration is
doing things like this.
Mr. Flores. Let's be brief. There are other issues I would
like to get into.
Mr. Donofrio. Yes.
Mr. Flores. Again, continuing with you, Mr. Donofrio, and
short answers if you can. How many agencies have jurisdiction
over your activities today roughly?
Mr. Donofrio. Well, we have NOAA and then of course we have
the international body, ICCAT, for highly migratory, and then
there is some U.S. Fish and Wildlife and then tribes for our
people on the West Coast that fish, you know, with salmonids.
Mr. Flores. So, in the particular area of two, three, four
agencies. Now, under this initiative, at the end of the day,
you are going to be controlled by these bodies, and each of
those have 27 Federal agencies involved plus some tribes and
plus some States. So your life is not going to get any simpler,
is it?
Mr. Donofrio. More complicated, sir.
Mr. Flores. For your constituents. OK.
Mr. Donofrio. Much more complicated.
Mr. Flores. That is what I thought. So we can dispel with
this notion that it is going to make life better for the
industries that currently use our oceans.
Mr. Luthi, you have said that your constituent industries
could produce more jobs if there were a more stable and certain
regulatory environment. And in the draft programmatic
environmental impact statement for the OCS leasing program from
2012 to 2017, there is a section that states, and I quote,
``CMS plans will be created and implemented at the regional
level through stakeholder input. It is anticipated that the
plans will serve as an overlay for decisions made under
existing regulatory mandates. In effect, regional CMS plans
once approved by the National Ocean Council will assist BOEMRE
programmatic EIS statement, the EIS process in making informed
decisions.''
That sounds like OCS leasing programs might not occur in
areas where the regional planning bodies have decided that oil
and gas activity should not occur. In your opinion, does this
improve the certainty for your constituent industries?
Mr. Luthi. Thank you, Congressman. And certainly it
doesn't. I mean, when you are looking at the overall regulatory
process, and I don't pretend to be an expert, like many of you
are, but it is certainly difficult to understand how an
additional layer of Federal bureaucracy is actually going to
improve the system.
As we talk about the purpose of an executive order, which
you mentioned, I mean, we keep hearing it is nothing new, we
won't do anything new, no new laws, no new regulations. But,
frankly, if you are going to be able to make crosscutting
decisions to improve coordination, that is something that is
going to change. It would require a statutory change, which is
Congress's purview.
Mr. Flores. OK. And I would like to get one last question.
This is for each of you, Mr. Luthi and Mr. Donofrio. Your two
industries are two of the largest industries using our oceans
today. What conflicts do you all have between your industries
today? Or just yes or no, do you have substantial conflict in
your industries today that are going to require something like
this to fix?
Mr. Luthi. Certainly not. In fact, we just saw a study last
week that there are probably 30,000 fish connected with each
one of many platforms that are used in the Gulf of Mexico.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Donofrio?
Mr. Donofrio. Yes, sir. Our fishermen in the Gulf seem to
like the platforms. Then we have people in the Mid-Atlantic
that don't want any drilling. So it is a matter of region, sir.
Mr. Flores. OK. So your industries aren't calling out for
this.
Mr. Donofrio. No, sir.
Mr. Flores. OK, OK. Thank you very much. So much for
stakeholder input.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Runyan.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And gentlemen, thank
you for your testimony. Mr. Donofrio, good to see you again.
No matter what we are talking about, whether we are talking
about the ocean planning, fisheries, our economy, the American
people want certainty and predictability. I don't think we are
accomplishing this here, and obviously none of the stakeholders
are asking for it. And the same way through the Executive
Order. We are creating more of that. We don't know where we are
going. And in an environment, whether our catch limits varying
year to year are creating unpredictability, the top-down push
that you were just referring to with the catch shares program
that the Secretary denied that was being pressured.
Mr. Donofrio, with all this uncertainty and all that, can
you just kind of comment on the regulation and the burdens that
are being put on by not only this Executive Order but many
other regulations, what they are doing to the industry and the
effect? I know you commented about the mom and pop shops, but
there are many other aspects to this fishing industry that are
affected by this type of regulation and these type of things.
Could you kind of enlighten us on that?
Mr. Donofrio. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Runyan. As you
probably heard from many of your constituents, especially in
the Barnegat Light area, but this goes all the way down to Mr.
Southerland's district. We have people sitting at the dock.
They can't catch red snapper because the stock assessments and
the data that NOAA has been using is flawed. We are literally
tripping over red snapper, tripping over them. You can't go
anywhere off the coast of Florida without limiting out in
seconds.
Mr. Runyan. I have seen the pictures of Mr. Southerland's
family bringing them in actually.
Mr. Donofrio. Yes. Bad data again. So we have bad
regulations. We have NOAA not working within their own system
there to fix anything. And now they are expecting us to buy
this additional layer of bureaucracy with additional councils
overseeing fishing. I can't imagine our fleet fishing anymore.
I really can't. And I got to tell you the guys are really
suffering.
You have had one store close in your district in Barnegat
Light, a tackle store, family owned. They have closed, and
numerous ones along the coast are closing right now. We have
party charter boats. If you look at the yellow sheet that is
printed out at Tennessee, that is a journal, a commercial
journal, for vessels, you will see a whole list of party
charter boats for sale right now. They are disgusted with
Federal regulations that are not allowing to fish on rebuilt
stocks. And NOAA is not doing a thing about it. What they want
to do is add more layers of bureaucracy and cost more money
when they are not spending the money to keep us fishing
currently.
Mr. Runyan. But with that being said, I think you would
agree, and I know talking to fishermen back home, that if we
had solid science, we can't argue with it. We all want to be
stewards of the ocean in that matter. But would you agree with,
you know, your rank and file in your organization that if the
science is there, you can't argue with it.
Mr. Donofrio. That is right. You can't argue with the
science. And then also we have to fix some of the arbitrary
deadlines that are in Magnuson. In fact, Dr. Lubchenco admitted
this to Senator Brown at a hearing up in Massachusetts. She
admitted that the ten-year rebuilding plan was arbitrary in
nature. She went on the record with that. So this is a fight we
have been trying to make for years to get the arbitrary nature
out of the regulations, base fishing on science, and let's go
fishing.
We are the best stewards. Commercial and recreational
fishermen are the best stewards. We want fishing for the long-
term, for our families, our friends and our businesses.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you very much. And, Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Donofrio. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Any closing
comments from the Ranking Member?
Mr. Markey. No, except I really enjoyed this hearing, and I
want to compliment the Majority on the witnesses that were
selected.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you, Mr. Markey. Members of
the Committee may have additional questions for the record, and
I ask you to respond to these in writing. If there is no other
business, without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by the U.S. Department of the
Interior
The Department of the Interior appreciates the opportunity to
address the Department's ocean-related responsibilities and its role in
implementing the National Ocean Policy. The Department of the Interior
has substantial interests in our Nation's ocean and coastal areas.
These include both responsible and safe energy production and the
conservation and management of coastal and marine resources, which
provide economic and environmental benefits to our nation.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S OCEAN ROLE
The Department manages and conserves ocean and coastal lands and
waters to protect native species and their habitats, provide
recreational opportunities for the public, and ensure safe and
responsible natural resource development. Department scientists conduct
extensive ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research and mapping to
predict, assess, and manage impacts on coastal and marine environments.
In collaboration with our partners, the Department integrates effective
multiple-use management from upland ecosystems to deep oceanic waters.
The 1.7 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) that we
manage are crucial to securing our energy independence through
conventional and renewable energy development. The 35,000 miles of
coastal lands and waters of the ocean and Great Lakes that we manage
stretch across 35 States and territories and are of enormous
recreational, biological, and cultural value to the Nation. Over 254
National Park Units and National Wildlife Refuge Units spanning 34
million acres of ocean and coast conserve and protect places where
people connect with the ocean. These areas provide communities the
ability to preserve their cultural heritage and economic livelihood. We
also work with our insular areas to assist them in ensuring that the
coral reefs on which their island communities depend will be there for
future generations. Further, the Department co-Chairs the U.S. Coral
Reef Task Force and provides millions of dollars each year to support
coastal habitat protection and restoration.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND THE NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY
With the Department's interrelated responsibilities in the areas of
energy, conservation, and science, we support the National Ocean Policy
and its goals of increasing coordination, reducing inefficiency, and
broadening the information base from which the nation forms its
decisions and informs actions. So much of what we do at the Department
contributes to our economic security and conservation of our natural
resources, and what we do across the agency in the ocean shows why the
Department is so actively involved in implementing the National Ocean
Policy.
The Department is a member of the National Ocean Council, and co-
chairs, with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), the Ocean Resource Management Interagency Policy Committee, one
of two secondary bodies that carry out the more day to day work of
implementing the National Ocean Policy. We have contributed staff to
all of the interagency teams developing strategic action plans to
address the nine priority objectives under the National Ocean Policy,
which we expect will be released for public comment in the near future.
We have volunteered to be the lead Federal agency for one of the
coastal and marine spatial planning regional planning bodies, and will
participation in all nine planning regions. We are all working
diligently together to implement the President's vision of an ``America
whose stewardship ensures that the ocean, our coasts, and the Great
Lakes are healthy and resilient, safe and productive, and understood
and treasured so as to promote the well-being, prosperity, and security
of present and future generations.''
The Department's energy and conservation programs enable it to
bring considerable expertise and resources to the implementation of the
National Ocean Policy, and particularly to the priority areas for which
we are now preparing strategic action plans. Management of the offshore
energy program and our parks and refuges and other areas necessarily
involves large-scale planning. The offshore 5-year oil and gas leasing
program has plans and environmental studies that cover large marine
areas, and will greatly benefit from coastal and marine spatial
planning--but so will many of our other programs, including the Smart
from the Start program.
Without a more coordinated way of doing business, which is provided
by the National Ocean Policy, Federal departments and agencies will
continue to independently implement a maze of over 100 different laws,
policies, and regulations related to the ocean, our coasts, and the
Great Lakes. The National Ocean Policy, including coastal and marine
spatial planning, is designed to replace the less efficient, less
effective, and ad-hoc decision-making that now exists with a far more
coordinated and effective approach to the management and protection of
our coastal and marine environments and resources.
For example, despite all of the Federal-State and interagency
consultation we have established for our wind energy program under the
Secretary's Smart from the Start initiative, all of these consultations
are still just for one program. When NOAA seeks to engage in actions
under their authorities, they need to go through their own consultation
process; as does the Coast Guard for changes in shipping lanes and the
Navy for setting aside training areas. The National Ocean Policy seeks
to change that by establishing better coordination and consultation
before the decisions are made.
Implementation of the National Ocean Policy will expand that
approach. It will be far more effective to have the Department, NOAA,
the Navy, the Coast Guard, other agencies, States, and Tribes sitting
down together when decisions are made on where and when coastal and
marine activities are to be conducted than to continue the multitude of
independently-conducted decision-making processes that now exist. This
does not require or anticipate new authorities or regulations, or
agencies surrendering their existing decision-making abilities. Nor
does it expand Federal authority at the expense of States or tribes.
Rather, coastal and marine spatial planning, like the other elements of
the National Ocean Policy of which it is a part, will ensure a more
effective way of using existing authorities to carry out the public's
business.
OCEAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
The Department of the Interior is responsible for energy and
mineral production from OCS. Historically, the Department has worked
with private industry to develop domestic oil and gas production. These
activities will continue as they remain critical to our nation's energy
supply, and to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. At the same
time, the Department has also begun work to develop cleaner sources of
energy, including renewable energy sources such as wind power.
As part of reforming our approach to OCS activities, we signed a
landmark memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the NOAA earlier this
year to better ensure environmentally sound offshore energy
development. Key elements of the MOU include meeting regularly to
develop potential ways to appropriately align regulatory and decision-
making processes and identify the best available science to support
future regulatory decisions; increased collaboration on oil spill
exercises and response issues; and annually evaluating activities and
progress related to National Ocean Policy objectives.
DOI currently administers about 6,700 active oil and gas leases on
36 million acres of the OCS; and oversees and regulates production from
nearly 3,200 OCS facilities. These leases generate about 11 percent of
our domestic natural gas and 29 percent of our domestic oil production.
Energy and mineral production from offshore areas account for nearly
$116 billion in economic benefits to our economy, and support over
640,000 American jobs.
Offshore wind energy is a major component of the Department's
renewable energy plan. In keeping with this focus, and in line with our
National Ocean Policy objectives and collaboration commitments,
Secretary Salazar initiated the ``Smart from the Start'' initiative for
wind development on the Atlantic OCS. This will facilitate and simplify
our processes for siting and leasing commercial wind projects on the
OCS, to encourage responsible development while ensuring projects are
built in the right way and in the right places. ``Smart from the
Start'' has three key elements: (1) simplified processes for
commercial-wind-lease issuance; (2) Wind Energy Areas identified using
sound science and transparent stakeholder engagement; and (3)
proceeding on a parallel but separate track to evaluate offshore-
transmission-line proposals.
To evaluate appropriate potential sites for future renewable-energy
leasing and development, DOI's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)
works very closely with state-based Intergovernmental Renewable Energy
Task Forces. These task forces, which have been established in 11
states (9 on the Atlantic Coast and 2 on the Pacific Coast) have been
working for well over a year to collaborate on issues related to
offshore wind development. The task forces include representatives from
the respective states, local and tribal governments, and other Federal
agencies.
Last year, Secretary Salazar also joined with 11 Atlantic state
governors to establish the Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium
(AOWEC) to foster the unified effort to bring Atlantic offshore wind
energy to market in an efficient and environmentally responsible
manner. AOWEC working groups have been evaluating potential ways to
further facilitate responsible offshore wind development.
To ensure efficient and close coordination with other Federal
agencies, Secretary Salazar also established the Atlantic Offshore Wind
Interagency Working Group. This group, which is comprised of senior-
level representatives from numerous Federal agencies with equities in
the OCS, will serve a vital role in collecting and sharing data about
Wind Energy Areas and about offshore wind development generally.
In February, Secretary Salazar and the Secretary of Energy, Steven
Chu, announced a national offshore wind strategy. It outlines actions
needed to deploy 10 gigawatts of new wind energy capacity from offshore
sources--including state waters and the Great Lakes--by 2020, and 54
gigawatts by 2030. The first Wind Energy Areas under Smart from the
Start--on the OCS off Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia--
were also announced in February, and the Department hopes to begin
offering leases in some of these areas by the end of the year. The
identification of these areas occurred following extensive consultation
with other Federal agencies and the state Intergovernmental task
forces. BOEM is actively engaged in identifying potential Wind Energy
Areas offshore Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.
The Department is working to gather comprehensive data about these
areas, and include that information in a publicly accessible database
called the Multipurpose Marine Cadastre, which is being developed with
our partners at NOAA, and is an input into the National Information
Management System.
OCEAN SCIENCE AND CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES
The Department's ocean role is not limited to energy. The National
Ocean Policy emphasizes the critical role science serves in ensuring
informed and comprehensive decision-making on the use and preservation
of our marine lands, waters, and resources. The United States
Geological Survey (USGS), one of the nation's premier science agencies,
provides mapping, monitoring, and research that are essential to
meeting the objectives of the Policy. USGS research and mapping
provides the foundational characterization of our marine realm,
allowing for assessment of marine energy and mineral-resource
potential; the distribution and vulnerability of critical marine
habitats; and the vulnerability of coastal communities, marine
operations, and healthy ecosystems to natural hazards and environmental
change. No other Federal agency brings the breadth of capabilities
represented by USGS science programs, and thus the diverse expertise
required to understand and anticipate the consequences of natural and
human-driven change. In particular, USGS geographic, geologic,
biologic, and hydrologic programs across the landscape enable the
ecosystem-based management approach that is the centerpiece of this
policy, linking natural and human processes across the landscape to
their impacts on our coastal and marine regions. From the upper
watersheds to the abyssal deep of the ocean, USGS is engaged in
monitoring water quality and assessing water availability; forecasting
coastal change; building a better understanding of ocean-based hazards
from landslides, submarine volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis,
and extreme storms.
The United States has approximately 95,000 miles of coastline, and
DOI manages approximately 35,000 of those 95,000 miles. Our science
programs in the USGS and BOEM support the Department's management
responsibilities for these millions of acres in the marine, coastal,
and Great Lakes environments through the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Park
Service (NPS).
The NPS manages 84 ocean and Great Lakes parks with over 11,000
miles of shoreline and 2.5 million acres of water within their
boundaries. Collectively, these ocean and coastal parks attract nearly
87 million visitors annually. This visitation contributes over $6.8
billion and 40,000 jobs to respective local economies where these parks
are located. Important experience and knowledge relevant to coastal and
marine spatial planning (CMSP) has been gained from decades of place-
based management planning in Parks. The NPS applies the best available
geospatial, socioeconomic, and scientific information, so managers and
the public can make informed decisions to conserve parks unimpaired and
ensure their enjoyment by current and future generations.
Similarly, the Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wildlife Refuge
System has 180 coastal National Wildlife Refuges with over 121 million
acres of coastal and marine habitat. With over 12 million visitors last
year, even in remote areas, refuges visitors generated over $900
million in visitor spending and nearly 17,000 jobs for their local
economies. FWS is responsible for managing all species of seabirds and
shorebirds and many species of marine mammals; FWS shares management of
several other marine trust species with NOAA.
National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges must develop,
respectively, General Management Plans and Comprehensive Conservation
Plans--blueprints for conserving the tremendous biological and
recreational values of these special places. These plans provide for
ecosystem-based management, must go through an extensive public-
involvement process, and must address all uses of the park or refuge.
This gives DOI considerable experience with ecosystem-based management,
with planning to prevent or resolve conflicting uses, and in working
with State governments and stakeholders to develop the plans--all key
elements of the National Ocean Policy.
The BLM works with a wide variety of partners to protect the
California Coastal National Monument, a unique collection of the public
lands consisting of a network of more than 20,000 small islands, rocks,
exposed reefs, and pinnacles that provide a haven for animals and
plants along the 1,100 miles of the California coast.
Finally, the Office of Insular Affairs is working with the U.S.-
affiliated insular areas to protect coral reefs. Through the Micronesia
Challenge, Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall
Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
committed to protect at least 30 percent of near-shore marine resources
and 20 percent of terrestrial resources across Micronesia by 2020.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide information on the
Department of the Interior's role in the National Ocean Policy and will
be glad to respond to any questions the Committee may have.