[Senate Report 117-78]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                     Calendar No. 217
117th Congress        }                          {            Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session           }                          {            117-78
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                     REGIONAL OCEAN PARTNERSHIP ACT

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

           COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                                   on

                                S. 1894

		[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


               February 15, 2022.--Ordered to be printed
               
               
               			__________
               			
               			
               		U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
               		
29-010               	      WASHINGTON : 2022
               
               
               
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                    one hundred seventeenth congress
                             second session

                   MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chair
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 ROY BLUNT, Missouri
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         TED CRUZ, Texas
GARY PETERS, Michigan                DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JON TESTER, Montana                  MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              TODD YOUNG, Indiana
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  MIKE LEE, Utah
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado          SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia

RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia             RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                     CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
                 Melissa Porter, Acting Staff Director
                  John Keast, Minority Staff Director





                                                     Calendar No. 217
117th Congress        }                          {            Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session           }                          {            117-78

======================================================================



 
                     REGIONAL OCEAN PARTNERSHIP ACT

                                _______
                                

               February 15, 2022.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

      Ms. Cantwell, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                Transportation, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1894]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 
which was referred the bill (S. 1894) to designate Regional 
Ocean Partnerships of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, and for other purposes, having considered the 
same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment (in the 
nature of a substitute) and recommends that the bill (as 
amended) do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of S. 1894, the Regional Ocean Partnership Act, 
is to provide a process for Governors of coastal states to 
apply for designation as a Regional Ocean Partnership (ROP); 
provide authority to the Secretary of Commerce to designate 
ROPs; designate the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, the Northeast 
Regional Ocean Council, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council, and 
the West Coast Ocean Alliance as ROPs; define the functions of 
ROPs; and establish ROP coordination requirements with Federal 
agencies, Indian Tribes, and nongovernmental entities.

                          BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

    In the United States, the ocean and Great Lakes economy 
accounted for 3.3 million jobs and produced $307 billion in 
goods and services annually, or 1.5 percent of total U.S. gross 
domestic product (GDP), in 2017.\1\ Over 40 percent of all 
Americans currently live in coastal regions, and these regions 
account for nearly half of total economic productivity in the 
United States,\2\ with 3.2 million employees working in 152,000 
businesses in the ocean and Great Lakes economy, earning $128 
billion in wages as of 2015.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office for 
Coastal Management, NOAA Report on the U.S. Marine Economy, 2020, 
Charleston, SC: NOAA Office for Coastal Management (http://
coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/econ-report-2017.pdf) (accessed 
September 8, 2021).
    \2\Ibid.
    \3\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office for 
Coastal Management, NOAA Report on the U.S. Ocean and Great Lakes 
Economy, 2018, Charleston, SC: NOAA Office for Coastal Management 
(http://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/econ-report-2015.pdf) 
(accessed September 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coastal and ocean management issues frequently cross State 
boundaries and require regional coordination. The ROPs are 
voluntarily convened by State Governors in collaboration with 
local and Federal Government partners and stakeholders to 
address ocean and coastal issues of common concern for the 
region. There are currently four ROPs, located in the 
Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and the West Coast. 
ROPs provide a State-led model for coordinated ocean and 
coastal resource management, and present opportunities for 
increased efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and more robust 
ecosystem-based approaches to the way the Nation engages the 
ocean and its many stakeholder groups. They leverage existing 
State and Federal resources, knowledge, and partnerships to 
build a stronger base of information and experience to make 
well-informed decisions about the use of ocean resources.
    Several of the ROPs have established ocean data portals, 
which link existing data systems together to provide an easy-
to-use gateway to discover ocean and coastal data. Coastal 
decision-makers, researchers, and stakeholders use the portals 
to access data and decision-support tools they need to 
understand and address high-priority regional issues. These 
regional data portals work with the national-level data 
portal,\4\ called the Marine Cadastre, to provide national-
level data and identify multi-use areas for siting projects, 
identifying compatibility, and providing data to support ocean 
action plans. The portals may also contain data specific to a 
region such as State-created recreational data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, ``About MarineCadastre.gov'' (https://
marinecadastre.gov/about/) (accessed September 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2000, Congress passed the Oceans Act,\5\ in recognition 
of the importance of and the challenges to the oceans and the 
coasts. Pursuant to that Act, President Bush appointed a 16-
member U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, which submitted its 
report, ``An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century,'' to the 
President and Congress.\6\ A key recommendation of the Ocean 
Commission was that a National Ocean Council should support the 
voluntary establishment of regional ocean councils in order to 
improve Federal agency coordination at the regional level and 
develop and disseminate regionally important data that would be 
useful for ecosystem management.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Public Law 106-256.
    \6\U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, ``About the Commission,'' 
updated December 27, 2004 (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/
oceancommission/commission/welcome.html) (accessed September 8, 2021).
    \7\U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, see chapter 5 in An Ocean 
Blueprint for the 21st Century, 2004 (https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/
oceancommission/documents/full_color_rpt/000_ocean_full_
report.pdf) (accessed September 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following the recommendations, the regions began to 
organize. The Gulf of Mexico Alliance started in 2004 and 
includes the States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Texas. Its mission is to enhance the 
ecological and economic health of the Gulf of Mexico through 
increased regional collaboration.\8\ The Northeast Regional 
Ocean Council was formed in 2005 by the Governors of the New 
England States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, 
Rhode Island, and Connecticut to serve as a forum for the 
development of goals and priorities and address regional 
coastal and ocean management challenges with creative 
solutions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Gulf of Mexico Alliance, ``Who We Are'' (https://
gulfofmexicoalliance.org/) (accessed September 8, 2021).
    \9\Northeast Regional Ocean Council, ``About'' (https://
www.northeastoceancouncil.org/) (accessed September 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In June 2009, President Obama issued a presidential 
memorandum establishing an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force 
to develop recommendations regarding a coordinated national 
ocean policy, improved stewardship, and coastal and marine 
spatial planning.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Obama Administration, Executive Office of the President of the 
United States, Council on Environmental Quality, ``Interagency Ocean 
Policy Task Force,'' June 12, 2009 (https://
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/ceq/whats_new/
Interagency-Ocean-Policy-Task-Force) (accessed September 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The same month, the Governors of Virginia, Maryland, 
Delaware, New Jersey, and New York signed an agreement to 
enhance the vitality of the Mid-Atlantic's ocean ecosystem and 
economy by identifying four regional priorities for shared 
action to improve ocean health and contribute to the quality of 
life and the economic vitality of the region.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean, ``About MARCO'' 
(http://midatlanticocean
.org/) (accessed September 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2010, the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force released 
its recommendations. Chief among them was that nine regional 
planning bodies should be formed to--among other things--
aggregate and coordinate development of regional coastal and 
marine spatial plans.\12\ President Obama formally adopted 
these recommendations in a July 19, 2010, Executive order.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Obama Administration, Executive Office of the President of the 
United States, The White House Council on Environmental Quality, Final 
Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, pp. 52-60, 
July 19, 2010 (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/files/documents/
OPTF_FinalRecs.pdf) (accessed September 8, 2021).
    \13\``Executive Order 13547 of July 19, 2010, Stewardship of the 
Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes,'' Code of Federal Regulations, 
title 3 (2011): 227-231 (https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/CFR-2011-title3-vol1/pdf/CFR-2011-title3-vol1-eo13547.pdf) 
(accessed September 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Though the National Ocean Policy espoused laudable goals, 
it faced political backlash due to concerns regarding 
separation of powers. In response, Congress enacted several 
appropriations provisions barring funding to be expended on 
implementation of the policy. One inadvertent result was that 
the existing regional bodies (Gulf of Mexico Alliance, 
Northeast Regional Council, and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Ocean 
Council) lost all funding related to the National Ocean Policy.
    In the years since, there has been interest among the 
regional bodies and on Capitol Hill in differentiating the 
conflict regarding a broad and sweeping national ocean policy 
and the more narrowly tailored consensus push for regional 
ocean and coastal planning and data-sharing. For example, in 
2016, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation favorably reported S. 3038, the Coastal 
Coordination Act. That bill would have reauthorized the Coastal 
Zone Management Act of 1972 and included new provisions 
strengthening the role of interstate and regional coordination 
of coastal zone management. It would have also specifically 
authorized the Gulf of Mexico Alliance as a regional 
coordination body.
    On June 19, 2018, President Trump signed an Executive 
order\14\ rescinding President Obama's National Ocean Policy. 
The new Executive order was intended to advance the economic, 
security, and environmental interests of the United States 
through improved public access to marine data and information, 
efficient Federal agency coordination on ocean-related matters, 
and engagement with marine industries, the science and 
technology community, and other ocean stakeholders, including 
ROPs. However, the Executive order excluded climate change and 
conservation goals of the previous National Ocean Policy.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\``Executive Order 13840 of June 19, 2018, Ocean Policy To 
Advance the Economic, Security, and Environmental Interests of the 
United States,'' Code of Federal Regulations, title 3 (2019): 837-841 
(https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2019-title3-vol1/pdf/CFR-2019-
title3-vol1.pdf) (accessed September 8, 2021).
    \15\David Malakoff, ``Trump's New Oceans Policy Washes Away Obama's 
Emphasis on Conservation and Climate,'' Science, June 19, 2018 (https:/
/www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/trump-s-new-oceans-policy-washes-away-
obama-s-emphasis-conservation-and-climate) (accessed September 8, 
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, the most recently formed ROP, the West Coast Ocean 
Alliance, includes the States of Washington, Oregon, and 
California, and was formed in December 2018 to support healthy, 
resilient ocean ecosystems and communities that thrive on ocean 
resources.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\West Coast Ocean Alliance, ``About Us'' (https://
westcoastoceanalliance.org/) (accessed September 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This legislation has the ability to provide a strong 
national framework for the regions to address their own 
specific issues while also being able to coordinate better with 
Federal agencies acting on the ground.

                         SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

    S. 1894, the Regional Ocean Partnership Act, would do the 
following:
   Provide a process for Governors of coastal states to 
        apply to the Secretary of Commerce for designation as a 
        ROP.
   Provide authority to the Secretary of Commerce to 
        designate a ROP.
   Define the governance and functions of ROPs.
   Designate the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, the Northeast 
        Regional Ocean Council, the Mid-Atlantic Regional 
        Council, and the West Coast Ocean Alliance as ROPs.
   Authorize the ROP to award grants and enter into 
        cooperative agreements and contracts.
   Authorize $10.1 million with a 1 percent increase 
        annually for this program to be split evenly across all 
        ROPs and $1 million annually to facilitate Tribal 
        participation.

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    S. 1894 was introduced on May 27, 2021, by Senator Wicker 
and was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate. On June 16, 2021, the Committee 
met in open Executive Session and, by voice vote, ordered S. 
1894 reported favorably with an amendment (in the nature of a 
substitute). The amendment added Great Lakes and further 
clarified Tribal coordination and consultation. On June 24, 
2021, Senator Hassan became a cosponsor.
    On June 11, 2021, a corresponding bill, H.R. 3817, was 
introduced by Representative Crist (for himself and 
Representatives Palazzo, Lowenthal, and Smith [NJ]) and was 
referred to the Committee on Natural Resources in the House of 
Representatives. Representatives Pingree, Murphy [FL], and 
Huffman are additional cosponsors.
    In the 116th Congress, S. 2166 was introduced on July 18, 
2019, by Senator Wicker (for himself and Senators Cantwell, 
Cassidy, Collins, and Jones) and was referred to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. 
Senators Markey, Kennedy, and Murphy were additional 
cosponsors. On July 24, 2019, the Committee met in open 
Executive Session and, by voice vote, ordered S. 2166 reported 
favorably with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute). A 
corresponding bill, H.R. 5390, the Regional Ocean Partnership 
Act, was introduced on December 11, 2019, by Representative 
Crist in the House of Representatives.
    In the 114th Congress, similar language was included in S. 
3038, the Coastal Coordination Act of 2016, introduced on June 
8, 2016, by Senator Nelson (for himself and Senator Wicker) and 
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate. On June 15, 2016, the Committee 
met in open Executive Session and, by voice vote, ordered S. 
3038 reported favorably with an amendment (in the nature of a 
substitute). That legislation was not considered in the full 
Senate.

                            ESTIMATED COSTS

    In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the 
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, October 12, 2021.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Chair, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Madam Chair: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1984, the Regional 
Ocean Partnership Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Sofia Guo.
            Sincerely,
                                          Philip L. Swagel,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

    	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    S. 1894 would authorize the appropriation of specific 
amounts totaling $57 million over the 2022-2026 period for the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to provide 
grants to regional ocean partnerships. Those partnerships would 
consist of coastal states that share a common ocean or coastal 
area. Under the bill, a partnership would coordinate 
conservation efforts and other related activities of state, 
federal, and tribal governments and work with international 
counterparts to conserve shared coastal resources. The bill 
would designate four current partnerships under the program and 
create a process for other groups of two or more coastal states 
to apply for recognition as such a partnership.
    Based on historical spending patterns for similar 
activities, and assuming appropriation of the authorized 
amounts, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1894 would cost $49 
million over the 2022-2026 period and $7 million after 2026 
(about 1 percent of the authorized amounts would not be spent). 
The costs of the legislation, detailed in Table 1, fall within 
budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).

                TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION UNDER S. 1894
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2022      2023      2024      2025      2026     2022-2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization                                            11        11        11        11        12           57
Estimated Outlays                                         7         9        11        11        11           49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Sofia Guo. The 
estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director 
of Budget Analysis.

                      REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

    In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the 
legislation, as reported:

Number of Persons Covered

    S. 1894, as reported, would not create any new programs or 
impose any new regulatory requirements, and therefore will not 
subject any individuals or businesses to new regulations.

Economic Impact

    S. 1894, as reported, is not expected to have a negative 
impact on the Nation's economy.

Privacy

    S. 1894, as reported, would have no impact on the personal 
privacy of individuals.

Paperwork

    S. 1894, as reported, would require a report every 5 years 
from the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) on the effectiveness of the partnership. 
This requirement would sunset in 2040.

                   CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

    In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no 
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the 
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the 
rule.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title.

    This section would provide that the Act may be cited as the 
``Regional Ocean Partnership Act''.

Section 2. Findings; sense of Congress; purposes.

    This section states that it is the sense of Congress that 
the United States should seek to attain coordination of ocean 
management, conservation, resilience, and restoration through 
ROPs.

Section 3. Regional Ocean Partnerships.

    This section would define the terms ``Administrator'', 
``coastal state'', ``Indian Tribe'', and ``Regional Ocean 
Partnership''. A coastal state could participate in a ROP with 
another coastal state(s) that shares a common ocean or coastal 
area, is a coastal state(s) bordering the Great Lakes and/or 
with a non-coastal state(s) that shares a watershed with a 
coastal state. It provides a process by which a Governor or 
Governors of a coastal state(s) could apply to the Secretary of 
Commerce for designation as an ROP. Designated ROPs would 
coordinate the management of coastal and ocean resources, with 
a focus on environmental issues affecting ocean and coastal 
areas that complement local, State, and Tribal efforts. The 
ROPs would not have a regulatory function.
    This section would designate the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, 
the Northeast Regional Ocean Council, the Mid-Atlantic Regional 
Council, and the West Coast Ocean Alliance as ROPs.
    This section would establish the composition of the ROP's 
governing body to include voting members from each State in the 
partnership as designated by the Governor. It defines the 
functions of a ROP to include promoting coordination between 
State and Federal agencies, Indian Tribes, State and local 
authorities, and other stakeholders to conserve natural 
resources, manage data and data portals, and implement outreach 
programs. It would direct the ROP to maintain mechanisms for 
coordination, consultation, and engagement with the Federal 
Government, Indian Tribes, nongovernmental entities, and other 
federally mandated regional entities. It would allow ROPs to 
create grants and enter into contracts for the purposes of 
monitoring water quality and other ocean and coastal natural 
resources, and researching and addressing the effects of 
environmental change.
    The ROPs would be required to submit a report no later than 
5 years after the date of enactment of this Act on the 
effectiveness of the partnership and recommendations to improve 
the partnership.
    This section would authorize $10.1 million for fiscal year 
2022, with a 1 percent increase annually until fiscal year 
2026. This section would also authorize $1 million for Indian 
Tribes to improve Tribal participation and engagement with the 
ROPs.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the 
bill as reported would make no change to existing law.

                                  [all]