[Senate Hearing 111-445]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-445
THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET
FOR THE NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 11, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-495 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
BILL NELSON, Florida JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
MARK WARNER, Virginia MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
Ellen L. Doneski, Chief of Staff
James Reid, Deputy Chief of Staff
Bruce H. Andrews, General Counsel
Christine D. Kurth, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Brian M. Hendricks, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Ranking
Chairman ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BARBARA BOXER, California MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 11, 2009.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Begich...................................... 10
Statement of Senator Isakson..................................... 12
Witnesses
Hon. Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Appendix
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV, U.S. Senator from West Virginia,
prepared statement............................................. 25
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, U.S. Senator from Maine, prepared
statement...................................................... 26
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Jane Lubchenco by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 27
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 38
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 47
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 50
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg..................................... 54
Hon. Mark Warner............................................. 57
Hon. Mark Begich............................................. 59
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe........................................ 65
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 76
Hon. David Vitter............................................ 77
THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET
FOR THE NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and
Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:02 a.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria
Cantwell, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. This hearing of the Commerce Subcommittee
on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, will come to
order.
Good morning. I would like to welcome Dr. Lubchenco and to
tell her I look forward to hearing her testimony this morning
on the Administration's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
On Tuesday, this Subcommittee held a hearing on the blue
economy and the contribution that oceans and coastal resources
play in the Nation's economy and our health. The hearing made
three important points.
First, protecting our oceans and coasts is an environmental
and economic imperative.
Second, the blue economy faces an uncertain future due to
climate change, pollution, and greater demands for marine
resources.
And third, the Government must make a greater investment in
oceans, coastal management and conservation.
This last point, the need for greater Federal investment,
is the focus of our hearing this morning. NOAA's work reaches
from the bottom of our oceans to the surface of the sun. From
daily weather forecasts to long-term climate monitoring, NOAA
touches the daily lives of individual Americans. NOAA's
programs support industries from fishery to maritime commerce
to aviation. And NOAA is also steward of our oceans and coastal
resources.
To highlight a few of the benefits that NOAA brings to the
United States, the integrated ocean observatory system supports
ocean and coastal management, reducing the risks of maritime
accidents and strengthens the search and rescue efforts of our
Nation. The associated economic benefits to our U.S. coasts are
estimated at approximately $300 million annually.
Hydrographic surveys ensure safe, efficient, and
environmentally-sound marine transportation. Deep draft
seaports and sea businesses generate approximately 8.4 million
American jobs and added nearly $2 trillion to our economy in
2006.
And one-third of our economy is very sensitive to weather
and climate, and NOAA's climate service and data are more
important than ever to the energy and agriculture
transportation sector of our economy as they work to adapt to
the effects of climate change.
Unfortunately, the importance of NOAA's mission and the
resources it is charged with protecting are not translating
into the funding for the agency. For Fiscal Year 2010, the
Administration is proposing a budget of $4.48 billion for NOAA,
only a 2.5 percent increase over Fiscal Year 2009 enacted
levels.
I want to compare NOAA's budget to other agencies. The
Administration's budget proposal of $12.1 billion for the
Department of the Interior for 2010 is a 7 percent increase;
$10.5 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency, a 37
percent increase; and $18.9 billion for NASA, a 5 percent
increase. The Department of the Interior, Environmental
Protection Agency, and NASA deserve these increases, but so
does NOAA. The Administration needs to recognize the valuable
science and stewardship that NOAA provides to our Nation and
double the budget.
I know that we are going to have a chance to talk about
many of the specifics that are in this year's NOAA budget
proposal, but before I do that, I am going to turn it over to
Dr. Lubchenco to make a statement, and then we will follow that
by questions. I do see one of my colleagues has arrived, but if
the Senator from Alaska does not have an opening statement, I
will turn to Dr. Lubchenco.
Senator Begich. No.
Senator Cantwell. And I am sure my colleague from Alaska
will have some very specific questions for Dr. Lubchenco.
So, Dr. Lubchenco, please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANE LUBCHENCO, Ph.D.,
UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS
AND ATMOSPHERE AND NOAA ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. Lubchenco. Madam Chairwoman, thank you so much for your
leadership on behalf of NOAA and for your and the Committee's
generous support of NOAA in the past. We greatly appreciate
your support for our programs as we work to improve our
products and the services for the American people.
I am honored to be here as the Under Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator of NOAA, one of the
Nation's premier science and stewardship agencies. I am pleased
to speak today regarding the President's Fiscal Year 2010
Budget Request for NOAA.
The 2010 President's Budget provides a solid foundation to
advance NOAA's mission. The request, as you noted, is $4.5
billion, which represents $110 million, or a 2.5 increase over
the Fiscal Year 2009 omnibus appropriation. This level reflects
our efforts to reallocate resources, to find efficiencies, and
to ensure accountability, and fund our highest priority
programs. This budget supports core mission functions for
environmental prediction and stewardship, provides key
investments to address top management challenges for satellite
acquisition and fisheries management, and it provides a down
payment for climate research, observations, and services, for
coastal services, observing, and stewardship.
For the remainder of my testimony, I would like to share
with the Committee a selection of important highlights from our
Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request in each of the following key
areas: satellites, fisheries, coasts, and weather.
Beginning with satellites, one of the greatest challenges
that NOAA faces today is ensuring continuity of satellite
operations to provide unbroken coverage of weather forecasts
and climate measurements into the future. Providing these data
is increasingly vital as the Nation prepares for the impacts of
climate change. The uncertainty inherent in climate change
calls for reliable, consistent sources of data. It is NOAA's
role to provide accurate science and synthesis products on how
climate change will affect the Nation.
With this budget, we are investing in multiple satellite
acquisition programs. A funding increase of $272 million is
requested to continue the development of the Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellite--Series R program. This
increase will provide for continued development of the
satellite instruments, spacecraft, and ground systems. The
acquisition of NOAA's GOES-R series, in partnership with NASA,
is progressing well. The new satellite will carry improved
environmental sensors that will enable NOAA's forecasters to
enhance the timeliness and accuracy of their severe weather
warnings.
There is also $94 million in the request to support the
National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System, or NPOESS. As this Committee is aware, the development
of NPOESS continues to face substantial challenges. The NOAA,
Air Force, and NASA managed program has had a history of cost
and schedule overruns and other acquisition problems. Should
NPOESS be delayed or fail, NOAA's current climate and weather
forecasting abilities will be put in jeopardy.
Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and I have made fixing
NPOESS one of our highest priorities. A recent independent
review of the NPOESS program has identified significant
deficiencies in the program's structure and its budgeting and
cost estimating, indicating the program has a low probability
of success as currently managed and structured. We are taking
these results very seriously and are working with our tri-
agency partners and the Administration on a number of options
to address the independent review team's findings.
Turning now to fisheries, another challenge facing NOAA is
to end overfishing and improve fishery management. Continued
overfishing threatens the viability of the fishing livelihood
and fishing-dependent communities. NOAA's challenge is to
balance the long-term conservation of the fish stocks with
immediate economic needs of fishermen, particularly during the
difficult economic times we are experiencing now.
The reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act provides strict regulatory guidelines for ending
overfishing. This budget provides $56.5 million in new
increases, for a total of $98.3 million to implement the
requirements of the revised Magnuson-Stevens Act. This request
includes funding to establish and monitor annual catch limits
and accountability measures, expand annual stock assessments,
increase enforcement, and observing of fisheries efforts,
promote recreational data collection, and expand cooperative
research programs.
A highlight of the Magnuson request is $18.6 million to
support transition to catch share management in the New England
groundfish fishery. This funding level builds upon the $16.7
million provided in Fiscal Year 2009 funds and supports
improved at-sea monitoring, documentation of catches, increased
enforcement coverage, additional resources for cooperative
research projects with the fishing industry, and training for
fishermen to use newly required logbooks.
On May 21, 2009, the President submitted a Fiscal Year 2010
budget amendment that includes a transfer for $50 million of
our request for species recovery to the Pacific Coast Salmon
Recovery Fund. The budget amendment also included $11 million
to expand the national program for endangered and threatened
species. Both of these programs will support efforts to restore
habitat and promote the recovery of at-risk stocks, including
28 salmonid stocks which are listed as threatened or endangered
under the ESA.
Climate change is among the greatest challenges of our
time. NOAA's long history of climate observations and products
provides a strong foundation for the agency's work to
synthesize scientific data on climate change and create
products and services that can be used by the public to guide
important decisions such as where to build roads, the types of
crops to grow, and how to protect coastal properties. NOAA's
climate information, products, and services also play an
important role in the siting and design of the Nation's
emerging renewable energy infrastructure--wind, solar, and
ocean--to help meet the Administration's goal of a clean energy
economy.
The Fiscal Year 2010 Budget requests $41.9 million in new
increases, for a total of $285.7 million for high-priority
climate initiatives. This represents a good foundation for
NOAA's climate portfolio.
Fifty percent of Americans live in coastal areas and sixty
percent of the country's GDP is generated in coastal
communities. Coastal populations, estimated at over 160 million
in 2008, are expected to grow and risks to life, property,
businesses, and coastal habitats will only increase. One of my
most important priorities is to advance coastal stewardship
through the use of ecosystem-based science. NOAA's budget
request provides key investments to promote this goal.
The Budget requests $2 million for NOAA to establish a
Coastal Communities Task Force comprised of key public,
private, nongovernmental, and university community
representatives. This task force will chart a new course for
effective and meaningful action for management and stewardship
of the Nation's valuable coasts.
Finally, weather. The United States is the most severe
weather-prone Nation on Earth. We experience over $11 billion
in damages due to severe weather incidents each year. Accurate
weather warnings and forecasts are critical to protect lives
and property, and our Fiscal Year 2010 request fills critical
gaps in NOAA's ability to observe and forecast weather events.
In conclusion, overall NOAA's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget
Request is a good budget for NOAA and provides a solid
foundation for our future needs. The overall increase reflects
the growing need for NOAA's infrastructure and services,
although we continue to work to reallocate resources and
identify efficiencies.
I look forward to working with you and the members of this
Committee to achieve the goals I have laid out here through the
implementation of the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to present some of
the highlights of our budget, and I am happy to address any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lubchenco follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., Under Secretary of
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, before I begin my
testimony I would like to thank you for your leadership and the
generous support you have shown the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Your continued support for our programs is appreciated
as we work to improve our products and services for the American
people.
I am honored to be here as the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one of the Nation's premiere science
and stewardship agencies and am pleased to speak with you today
regarding the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Budget Request for
NOAA.
The FY 2010 President's Budget provides a solid foundation to
advance NOAA's mission. The FY 2010 Request is $4.5 billion, which
represents a $110 million or 2.5 percent increase over the FY 2009
omnibus appropriation level. This level reflects our efforts to
reallocate resources, maximize efficiencies, ensure accountability, and
fund our highest priority programs. This budget supports core mission
functions for environmental prediction and stewardship and provides key
investments to address the top management challenges for satellite
acquisition and fisheries management. It also provides a down payment
for climate research, observations, and services; and for coastal
services and stewardship.
FY 2010 Budget Request Highlights
Satellites
One of the greatest challenges that NOAA faces today is ensuring
continuity of satellite operations to provide state-of-the art,
unbroken coverage that enables weather forecasts and climate
measurements. Satellites provide essential information for accurate
weather forecasts and warnings about weather-related disasters such as
hurricanes, tornados and floods. In addition, satellite data are
increasingly vital to the understanding of climate change and to
forecasts of climate-related phenomena such as severe droughts. One of
NOAA's primary roles is to provide reliable, consistent data and
understanding about weather and climate change and to integrate that
information into products that are useful to citizens and policy-makers
alike.
With the FY 2010 Budget we will invest in multiple satellite
acquisition programs for the continuity of critical weather, climate,
and oceanographic data. I will highlight each of our three programs in
turn.
1. A funding increase of $272 million is requested to continue the
development of the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite--
Series R (GOES-R) program. This increase will provide for the continued
development of the satellite instruments, spacecraft, and ground
systems. The acquisition of NOAA's GOES-R series in partnership with
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is progressing
well. The new satellites will carry improved environmental sensors that
will enable NOAA's forecasters to enhance the timeliness and accuracy
of their severe weather warnings.
2. As this committee is aware, the development of the National
Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)
continues to face substantial challenges. The NOAA, Air Force and NASA
managed program has had a history of cost and schedule overruns and
other acquisition problems. Should NPOESS be delayed or fail, NOAA's
current climate and weather forecasting abilities will be put in
jeopardy. Unfortunately, technical and management problems continue.
The FY 2010 Budget Request provides an increase of $94 million to
support the NPOESS program. This request represents NOAA's share of the
tri-agency program. In December 2008, the Air Force, NOAA and NASA
agreed to a revised baseline for the NPOESS program that added
resources for on-going technical problems as well as for out-year
operations and support costs not previously included in the program's
planning. This new baseline increased the program's total life-cycle
cost from $12.5 billion in the FY 2009 President's budget to $14
billion. The FY 2010 President's budgets for both NOAA and the Air
Force fund to this baseline.
Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and I have made fixing NPOESS one
of our highest priorities. A recent independent review of the NPOESS
program has identified significant deficiencies in the program
structure and its budgeting and cost estimating, indicating the program
has a low probability of meeting the performance and satellite coverage
requirements for weather and climate monitoring. We are taking these
results seriously and are working with both our tri-agency partners and
the Administration on a number of options to address the independent
review team's findings. In addition, we have added some funding in 2009
to help mitigate cost and schedule in this program. We will continue to
consult with you as these options are developed to ensure the
continuity of the crucial climate and weather data provided by polar
satellites.
3. Sea level rise directly threatens coastal infrastructure through
increased erosion, more frequent storm-surge flooding, and loss of
habitat through drowned wetlands. NOAA's budget request includes $20
million for the Jason-3 satellite to provide continuity of sea surface
height measurements, thus ensuring continuity of a quality climate
record of over 20 years. Jason-3 is planned as a truly joint U.S.-
European partnership with U.S. and European funding. By sharing costs
with the Europeans starting in FY 2010, both sides have a cost
effective way to assure continuity of the sea surface height
measurement.
Fisheries
Another challenge facing NOAA is ending overfishing, improving
fisheries management and putting fisheries on a path to sustainability
and profitability. Continued overfishing threatens the viability of
fishermen and fishing-dependent communities. The time has come for a
paradigm shift in how we manage our fisheries resources. We now need a
fishery management system that will sustain fishing economies and
incentivize stewardship and conservation.
The reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) provides strict regulatory
guidelines for ending overfishing. This budget provides $56.5 million
in new increases, for a total of $98.3 million, to implement the
requirements of the revised Magnuson-Stevens Act and begin a transition
to catch-share fishery management programs. This is the second largest
increase in the budget, behind satellite acquisitions, and is a
significant investment in improving management of our fisheries. This
request includes funding to establish and monitor annual catch limits
and accountability measures for stocks subject to overfishing, expand
annual stock assessments to improve the science used for setting
management measures, increase enforcement and observing of fisheries
effort, promote recreational data collection, and expand cooperative
research programs.
A highlight of the Magnuson-Stevens Act request is $18.6 million to
support transition fisheries around the country to catch-share
management. This funding level builds upon $16.7 million provided in FY
2009 and supports improved at-sea monitoring and documentation of
catches, increased enforcement coverage, additional resources for
cooperative research projects with the fishing industry, and fishermen
training for newly required logbooks.
NOAA has an ongoing investment in implementing the Pacific Salmon
Treaty with Canada to ensure conservation and fair harvest-sharing of
salmon stocks that span the U.S.-Canada border. NOAA requests $16.5
million to implement the newly revised Chinook salmon provisions.
Within this request, $7.5 million will support projects to assist the
recovery of critical Puget Sound salmon stocks listed under the
Endangered Species Act, including hatchery and habitat projects. An
additional $7.5 million will help mitigate economic consequences of
significant catch reductions in the Southeast Alaska fishery. The final
$1.5 million will bolster the coast-wide coded wire tagging program to
improve salmon run monitoring in the United States. In addition to
NOAA's contribution to this treaty, the Department of State will
request a total of $30 million for Canada Fishery Mitigation--$15
million in FY 2010 and $15 million in FY 2011--in fulfillment of United
States commitments under the Pacific Salmon Treaty.
In addition, on May 21, 2009, the President submitted an FY 2010
budget amendment that included a transfer of $50 million of our request
for species recovery to the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
(PCSRF). The budget amendment also included $11 million to expand the
national program for endangered and threatened species. Both of these
programs will support efforts to restore habitat and promote the
recovery of at-risk stocks, including 28 salmonid stocks which are
listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
Climate
Climate change is among the greatest challenges of our time. It
will permeate nearly every aspect of our lives. What we choose to do
about it now will define us for generations to come. NOAA's long
history of climate observations and products provides a strong
foundation for the agency's work to synthesize scientific data on
climate change and create products and services that can be used by the
public to guide important decisions such as where to build roads, the
types of crops to grow, and how to protect coastal properties. NOAA's
climate information, products, and services also play an important role
in the siting and design of the Nation's emerging renewable energy
infrastructure--wind, solar, and ocean--to help meet the
Administration's goal of a clean energy economy. The FY 2010 Budget
requests an increase of $41.9 million for a total of $285.7 million for
high-priority climate initiatives.
NOAA also has made it a high priority to understand climate-
ecosystem interactions, particularly the impacts of ocean acidification
on biological productivity and distribution. I'd like to thank this
Committee for including legislation on ocean acidification in the
Omnibus Lands Act passed earlier this year. Ocean acidification has the
potential to drastically affect animals that have calcareous shells;
those changes in turn will likely affect other species that depend upon
the shelled ones. NOAA's FY 2010 ocean acidification initiative has two
components: $4 million for ocean acidification monitoring and $1.5
million for research on ocean acidification's impacts on living marine
resources. With these funds, NOAA will equip open-ocean and coastal
moorings with additional sensors to monitor the changes in the pH of
the global ocean and will conduct studies on the effects of
acidification on living marine resources.
Drought is another serious climate problem facing the United
States. There is an urgent need to be able to provide predictions and
projections that answer questions such as: Will drought conditions in
the U.S. Southwest continue over the next decade?, and How will drought
affect farmers? NOAA's FY 2010 Budget includes $4.6 million for the
National Integrated Drought Information System to develop drought early
warning system pilot projects in three diverse geographic areas:
Colorado River Basin, Southeastern U.S., and California. These funds
will allow NOAA to develop and implement the next generation Climate
Forecast System, which will lead to improved drought forecast products.
The free and open exchange of scientific information, such as
NOAA's climate model data and products, is critical to the global
effort to understand and predict global climate change. The President's
Budget includes $2.5 million for the National Climate Model Portal,
created by NOAA. This online database will provide archive and user-
access capability for the next generation of climate products that
utilize major advancements in model physics and coupling across the
ocean, air and land interfaces. This is an important step in NOAA's
ability to provide climate products and services to the scientific
community and the public.
Coasts
Fifty percent of Americans live in coastal areas and sixty percent
of the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is generated in coastal
communities. Coastal populations (estimated at over 160 million in
2008) are expected to grow, and risks to life, property, businesses and
coastal habitats will only increase. NOAA's FY 2010 Budget provides key
investments to promote sustainable and safe use of coastal areas.
The Budget requests $2 million for NOAA to establish a Coastal
Communities Task Force comprised of key public, private, non-
governmental, and university community representatives. This task force
will chart a new course of effective, meaningful action for management
and stewardship of the Nation's valuable coasts.
Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB) are one of the most scientifically
complex and economically significant coastal issues facing the Nation.
The toxins can cause human illness and death, close waters to
recreation or seafood harvesting, severely impact tourist economies,
alter habitats, and adversely impact fish, endangered species, and
other marine organisms. NOAA is requesting an increase of $2.7 million
to implement a national system of operational HAB forecasts and a
national HAB event response capacity. This system will be implemented
region by region.
Industry, decision-makers, and the public are demanding more
accurate maps and charts to benefit the economy, predict coastal
hazards, and manage coastal habitats. Precise elevation measurements
are needed, especially in coastal areas and watersheds where a small
height difference can dictate the need for additional insurance because
of location within a flood zone. The budget request includes $4 million
for NOAA to begin a multi-year effort to produce a new national
vertical datum by 2020 that will improve elevations and height
information used in a variety of critical applications including
monitoring sea level rise and coastal subsidence, developing flood
evacuation maps, and ensuring safe and efficient marine transportation.
Weather
The United States is the most severe weather prone nation on Earth.
We experience more than $11 billion in damages due to severe weather
incidents each year. Weather and climate-sensitive industries, both
directly and indirectly, account for about one-third of the Nation's
GDP ranging from finance, insurance and real estate to services, trade
and manufacturing.\1\ Accurate weather warnings and forecasts are
critical to protect lives and property and our FY 2010 request fills
critical gaps in NOAA's ability to observe and forecast weather events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dutton, John A., Opportunities and Priorities in a New Era for
Weather and Climate Services, Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society, September 2002, volume 83, no. 9, pp. 1303-1311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hurricanes are responsible for loss of life and billions of dollars
in property damage annually. The United States has seen an increase in
both intensity and frequency with recent storms. To improve hurricane
track and intensity forecast accuracy by 20 percent within 5 years,
NOAA is requesting an additional $13 million for a total of $17 million
for its hurricane forecast improvement plan. The additional funds will
allow NOAA to translate critical research into operations, improve
processing of key observations, and enhance model accuracy. Funds will
also be dedicated toward additional computing capacity to improve the
resolution and accuracy of both global and regional weather forecasts.
This effort is critical to ensuring evacuation notices are accurate and
false alarms are avoided.
NOAA is actively involved in the multi-agency effort to create the
Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Federal Aviation
Administration records indicate that on average, weather is a factor in
70 percent of flight delays, contributing to losses of over $4 billion
annually. These delays will only increase as demand for air
transportation is expected to triple by 2025. As passengers on these
flights, we want the pilots and commercial airliners to have advance
warnings and access to the most accurate information concerning severe
weather, thus mitigating delays. Many of the delays can be avoided with
enhanced weather information and forecasts. NOAA has requested $6.1
million to implement this effort through improved aviation model and
aviation weather forecasts.
The Budget also includes increases for upgrades and technology
refresh of weather prediction systems.
Program Support
Education and outreach are critical for promoting environmental
literacy. The FY 2010 President's Budget includes $5 million for a
competitive national environmental literacy program to promote
excellence in informal and formal education related to ocean, coastal,
Great Lakes, weather, and climate sciences. This request will allow for
10 to 14 competitive awards to be issued per year and directly
addresses the educational mandate this Committee helped establish in
the America COMPETES Act.
The NOAA Corps officers play an essential role in NOAA, serving
across all line offices. They serve at sea aboard NOAA's research and
survey fleet, in flight aboard research aircraft that probe everything
from hurricanes to snow cover, and ashore in NOAA's labs and offices
throughout the United States. The NOAA request of $2.2 million will
increase the number of officers by 22 from 299 to 321 as authorized by
law. An expanded NOAA Corps will lower officer attrition rates by
avoiding particularly long and arduous at-sea assignments.
Conclusion
Overall, NOAA's FY 2010 Budget Request is a good budget for NOAA
and provides a solid foundation for our future needs. The overall
increase reflects the growing need for NOAA's infrastructure and
services. I look forward to working with you, the members of this
Committee, to achieving the goals I've laid out here through the
implementation of the FY 2010 budget.
Thank you for the opportunity to present NOAA's FY 2010 Budget
Request. I am happy to respond to any questions the Committee may have.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Dr. Lubchenco. I want to add
my thanks to you on the recognition of the Doppler system that
is necessary for the West Coast, particularly the Pacific
Northwest, and the head of the Weather Service was there to
basically meet with constituents from the Northwest from a
whole myriad of industries and described really what is the
necessary coverage to protect the citizens of the Pacific
Northwest. So we appreciate including that in the budget this
year and for the prior Administration's $2 million to work
toward what is an implementation plan on that.
Which brings me to the larger point about how NOAA meets
its necessary obligations, and I think that is what we saw at
that public meeting in the Northwest was that there was a
responsibility of the Weather Service to provide adequate
coverage, and now NOAA is going to live up to that.
But starting in 2003, NOAA implemented a planning and
programming budget and execution system for its annual budget.
This process was to identify the funding required to fill and
meet the mandate in mission. So this was referred to as their
100 percent requirement.
So, I want to ask you to begin with, to what degree do you
think this 2010 request is sufficient to meet this 100 percent
requirement for the agency as a whole?
Dr. Lubchenco. Senator, thank you for the question. I
greatly appreciate your interest in focusing our attention on
this very important issue.
I do believe that the proposed budget is a good budget for
NOAA. As I mentioned, we have really worked hard to find some
efficiencies and reallocate resources, where appropriate.
I have not had an opportunity to go through the entire
budget and calculate 100 percent of our requirements. I agree
that that is a very appropriate thing to do. It is beyond the
time that we have had to really dig into this since I began.
However, it is very clear to me that as public demand for
NOAA's environmental services grows from monitoring climate
change, providing climate services, and improving severe
weather forecasts, we are going to need significantly greater
resources to address this demand.
I think perhaps the most useful thing for me to do in
response to your question is to provide some examples of
programs where I have had an opportunity to see the difference
between what we have in hand and what we think we could be able
to provide.
I would like to start with one specific program. The funds
that were provided in the ARRA for habitat restoration for NOAA
totaled $167 million. These are competitive projects. We put
out a request for proposals and received 813 proposals from 34
States, totaling $3 billion, and obviously, we have only $167
million to allocate. Of that $3 billion, we deemed that $1
billion of that was shovel-ready, high impact, and the
remaining two, very viable projects for which we needed some
additional information or development.
A second example that I would highlight. We have a
wonderful coastal and estuarine lands conservation program. The
President's budget included $15 million for this CELP project
or program, and we typically receive between $80 million and
$100 million in viable high-quality proposals every year.
On a completely different category, our high-powered
computing, which provides information for weather, climate, and
environmental monitoring, is an area where additional resources
vastly enhance our capacity to provide better forecasts, better
climate models, especially as we go to finer and finer scales.
Senator Cantwell. Dr. Lubchenco, so you are giving me some
specific examples, but I wonder if you could give me the number
of what a full 100 percent requirement funding would be for
NOAA.
Dr. Lubchenco. I do not have that number, Senator.
Senator Cantwell. But if you could get that number.
Dr. Lubchenco. I look forward to looking into that and
doing a complete analysis. As I mentioned, it is clear that
almost every one of our programs is not at the level--or we
could use additional resources very, very well, and we will do
that calculation and get back to you.
Senator Cantwell. Well, since NOAA implemented this
process, we want to see if NOAA is living by the process.
Obviously, you have to go through, just as every agency and
Executive Branch submitting a budget proposal and a legislative
process to confirm or concur with that or disagree with that.
But having the agency do its own homework of what it really
takes to deliver the resources within the agency is critical
because otherwise we will never be able to have a discussion
here if the agency cannot provide an assessment about what an
accurate 100 percent requirement fulfillment would look like.
So if you could give us that number, that would be great.
Dr. Lubchenco. I understand the utility of that.
Senator Cantwell. OK.
You know what? I am going to stick with 5 minutes here. So
I will let my colleagues. We will come back to NPOESS unless
somebody else has some questions. Maybe my colleague from
Georgia does, but I will turn to my colleague, Senator Begich,
the Senator from Alaska.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do have
to leave at 11:30 a.m. So we are going to submit some questions
in writing also.
But if I can just follow up on the Chair's request, I am
assuming that you prepared a document. I do not know what the
rules are here, but I am new, so I get to have that rule that I
do not know what the rules are, so I can say that. You probably
submitted a document to OMB of what you thought was necessary
to fund at 100 percent or at the higher levels. Is that
document available for us to see and get to the answer that the
Chairman has asked?
Dr. Lubchenco. Senator, I apologize. I do not know the
answer to that question.
Senator Begich. Well, whoever is right behind you is
writing that down. That is the question.
But let me ask you, being parochial, about some Alaskan
issues but also related to the West Coast. I know one item, the
Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund, which I think my colleagues
from the western States are aware of--at one point was zeroed
out. Then it was put back in, about $50 million, which is still
below its recent year allocations of $80 million to $90
million. As you know, the program deals with critical
management to the West Coast salmon stock which indirectly and
directly affects Alaska.
How do you see those dollars and do you believe there is a
need for additional dollars for that program to be successful?
Dr. Lubchenco. Senator, let me first say that I have seen
firsthand how important that program is. Both Secretary Locke
and I believe the program is valuable and are committed to the
important goals that it has. It is clear to me that that
program is making good progress, is doing what it is intended
to do, and yet there is still much work to be done in terms of
recovering Pacific Coast salmon.
I believe that the $50 million that was in the budget
amendment is a good start. I believe that the $11 million that
is in the Endangered Species Recovery Fund for the rest of the
endangered species all around the Nation is an appropriate fund
to have, but it is clear that $11 million will not begin to
address all of the endangered species recovery needs that
exist.
Senator Begich. Well, you led me right into my second
question which is the recent General Counsel's opinion. The
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund can only be used on
endangered stocks. Alaska has no endangered stocks, but the
management and utilization of the dollars are important. Rather
than waiting until they are endangered, to actually do work
ahead of time, I think the words you used were improve
management, overfishing, and other elements.
But how will you now use that? Will you follow that very
restrictive policy, or are you going to recommend to us or are
you going to do internal changes to allow flexibility as has
been done in the past? Because that very restrictive really
shrinks it down, and I think there is going to be a loss of
capacity down the road. So do you have any comment on that?
Dr. Lubchenco. When we were constructing the guidelines for
the national Endangered Species Recovery Fund, we carefully
chose the words ``at-risk,'' species that are at risk.
Senator Begich. I did note that you used the word ``at-
risk.''
Dr. Lubchenco. And that is intended to allow for exactly
the kind of circumstances that you describe, Senator, where it
is appropriate to begin activities before species are in the
emergency room, if you will.
Senator Begich. Very good. Thank you for that
clarification.
This is again strictly an Alaskan issue, but the Ketchikan
dock where NOAA docks the Fairweather has been condemned, and
the Alaska-based vessel--no offense to my colleague in
Washington--is now in Seattle. What are the plans for capital
improvement to fix that dock so that the Fairweather can come
back and do its Alaska work from an Alaska base?
Dr. Lubchenco. Senator, I do not have an answer to that,
but I would be happy to look into it and get back to you on
that.
Senator Begich. That would be great, if you would not mind
doing that.
I have about 30 seconds left. So, I am going to ask you
about a specific--it is basically an erosion of a NOAA facility
funding in Alaska for the lab at Kasitsna Bay. It is the only
West Coast lab in NOAA's national center for coastal and ocean
research programming which partners with the University of
Alaska. NOAA has just spent about $12.5 million to upgrade the
facility, but even with that upgrade, they do not have the
operational staff necessary. They have one staff person there,
and at one point this year, we were told by the university that
because of the lack of $50,000--$50,000--that the facility was
about to be inactive. It is a pretty important facility, as you
probably know.
Do you think the budget you have prepared and proposed
adequately funds and maintains that facility? Again, if you do
not know the specifics of this, because I am very specific on
this, you can surely come back in writing on that.
Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you for that option and I will take
it.
Senator Begich. OK, thank you.
Madam Chair, I apologize but I do have to leave for an
11:30. But I have had two additional opportunities in--I think
we keep running into each other in the last 2 days, and I
appreciate your comments in your statement about climate change
and that future resources are really going to be needed as we
move down this path in research, as well as Arctic policy. I
know that is a huge effort and a huge interest to the Chair of
this Subcommittee too. So, thank you very much for those
comments.
Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you, Senator. And I really appreciated
the remarks that you gave in Annapolis 2 days ago at the Arctic
Symposium. I look forward to working with you on Arctic issues.
Senator Begich. Very good. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Cantwell. Senator Isakson?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Welcome back, Dr. Lubchenco. During your confirmation, I
told you I was going to extend to you an invitation to dive in
the Georgia Aquarium. I wanted to give you a progress report.
They have almost finished the expansion, and that invitation is
forthcoming. I look forward to you having the opportunity to
come down. She is a great scuba diver. They have now opened it
up for that, and I thought it would be a lot of fun.
In the confirmation hearing, I asked you about the Savannah
River. In particular, the Corps of Engineers had requested of
the National Marine Fisheries Services under NOAA, a request to
lower the cubic-feet-per-second releases at the Savannah River
down to 3,100 cfs from 3,600, and that was denied because of
the short-nosed sturgeon. So for a period of time, that
reduction was denied until the end of January, and then it was
extended to the end of February. And to the best of my
knowledge, I think it is still there.
As I told you at that time, my understanding was that that
was basically an opinion and there was not a lot of scientific
data to back up whether or not the difference would affect the
spawning of the sturgeon. Did you have a chance or have you had
a chance to look into that?
Dr. Lubchenco. I did, Senator. Let me share the following
with you.
As you know, NOAA is charged with conserving the short-
nosed sturgeon and it is listed as endangered. We are required
by ESA to use the best available science in making our
determinations. In situations where the best available science
is not available and the information is not definitive, the
benefit of the doubt has to be given to the conservation of the
species. So that is just the context in which we are having
this discussion.
In the recent issue of the Corps of Engineers ESA
consultation with NOAA on water release rates in the Savannah
River, NOAA did apply the best available scientific
information, consistent with the ESA. It is, I think, relevant
to note that NOAA does not have its own capacity to conduct
research on the short-nosed sturgeon, and what we did in this
case was to depend on the research that has been done by
academic scientists, State conservation agencies, NGO's, and
other Federal agencies. So that was the base of information on
which we drew in making the determination.
NOAA continues to collaborate with the Corps and the Nature
Conservancy. Since the recent consultation was completed, to
develop better information on the areas that may support short-
nosed sturgeon spawning beneath the new Savannah Bluff Dam--and
that dam, obviously, blocks or is blocking access to the
spawning areas. One of the findings of that continuing research
is that the spawning sturgeon did arrive at the dam shortly
after the predicted start of the spawning season.
So, I believe that we are using the best available science
in making this determination. That said, I think additional
scientific information would only be helpful in this case.
Senator Isakson. Well, thank you for that answer. At the
beginning of the answer, you said if the best scientific advice
was not available, the preservation of the species governs your
decision. Is that correct?
Dr. Lubchenco. That is according to the Endangered Species
Act.
Senator Isakson. Which allows me, Madam Chairman, to raise
a question, and you do not have to respond to this, but it
allows me to say something. In Georgia, we have had two
category-4 droughts: one in the Savannah River basin and one in
the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee flat and the Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee-Tallapoosa. Level 4 droughts, as the doctor
knows, are very severe.
In fact, Atlanta, which has 5.5 million people--the
reservoir that it depends on almost totally for its water was
down 22 feet as far back as just about 6 months ago. And we had
severe restrictions and severe problems. The increased cfs
withdrawals from that reservoir were because of a mussel in the
Apalachicola Bay.
And it just seems to me, like in the Endangered Species
Act, that when the endangerment of homo sapiens, which in this
case, the citizens of northeast Georgia, and their water supply
are in danger, there ought to be some judgment applied in these
judgments on endangered species. I do not want any species to
go away, but because of the mussels--fortunately, the good Lord
gave us a lot of rain. The reservoir is filling up. The crisis
is over. That is not true in the Savannah River basin yet.
But somewhere along the way smarter people than me--and I
think you are one of those--need to think about how we might
take the Endangered Species Act and amend it so as to provide
equal flexibility of judgment depending on all species affected
by the waterway, not just the one in which there is litigation.
That is the only comment I wanted to make.
Dr. Lubchenco. Senator, I greatly appreciate many of the
very challenging issues associated with implementation of the
Endangered Species Act, and I think in this case we, in fact,
were fortunate that the rains--it did not turn out as badly as
it might have. The rains started, and in fact, as you
mentioned, the reservoirs are filling up. So in this particular
case, that was lucky, but I think the issues will remain
challenging.
Senator Isakson. Thank you very much.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Isakson.
Dr. Lubchenco, I would like to talk about the National
Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellite System, known as NPOESS.
An independent review team has said that the NPOESS program has
an extraordinary low probability of success and cannot be
successfully executed within the restraints of cost, schedule,
and performance with the current management construct. So I am
assuming you are familiar with that independent review team
report. Is that correct?
Dr. Lubchenco. More than I would care to be.
Senator Cantwell. And I know that you mentioned that you
and Secretary Locke are going to make it one of the highest
priorities. But how will the Administration address the
recommendations in the report?
Dr. Lubchenco. Senator, you will recall that at my
confirmation hearing, there was keen concern expressed about
the NPOESS program, and I indicated that it would be one of my
highest priorities. As you accurately note, Secretary Locke is
keenly interested in helping to find a solution to this
program.
We now have the final report from the independent review
team, and its conclusions are, indeed, sobering. I note that
they begin by pointing out that this system is a critical
national asset for both climate and weather information, and so
there is a lot at stake here. It is clear that action is
needed. The program as currently structured, as you note, has a
very low probability of success.
The findings and recommendations from the independent
review team included assessing the priority and the level of
participation from each agency, making launch adjustments,
changes to the budget and cost estimates, and recommendations
for the VIIRS instrument.
What we have done is to engage in intense discussions with
the other agencies that are involved in this program, the
Department of Defense and NASA, and also with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy to look critically at the
recommendations of the independent review team and find a way
forward.
I believe that the discussions have been very honest and
straightforward. I think we are making good progress to finding
the right resolution. There are a number of options that are on
the table now. So there is no final decision that is imminent.
I think it is appropriate to say simply that as we continue
these discussions, our intent is to work with the Committee and
the other relevant committees and to identify the solution that
actually will put this program back on track.
I am more optimistic than I was when we first began looking
into these challenges. I think the guidance from the
independent review team is invaluable, and there is increased
awareness that the current situation is simply not acceptable.
So the funds that we have in the current budget are intended to
keep us on track, but we are assuming throughout that we will
be resolving the range of different issues identified by the
independent review team, both the tri-management structure, the
costs, the way the cost estimates are budgeted, and a number of
the other issues that they identified.
Senator Cantwell. Well, if I could probe more because,
obviously, the report was pretty damning of the current
process. This Committee, obviously, has oversight of a couple
of different areas where acquisition programs are not going in
the direction that we would like them to go and have had huge
cost overruns and delivery of assets that have either not met
specification, been delayed, or had to be adjusted. So this
Committee clearly does not want to deal with another situation.
In this instance, it has a new opportunity with the new
Administration to move in a more direct route on this.
I personally believe it is hard to get any kind of
acquisition program done by committee. That is a very tough
challenge.
So who in the White House is responsible for the
interagency coordination?
Dr. Lubchenco. The original tri-management structure was
set up through a Presidential decision directive through the
Office of Science and Technology Policy. So Dr. Holdren, as the
head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, is
intimately involved in helping facilitate the tri-agency
dialogue to find a solution.
OMB has been involved.
Senator Cantwell. So, he is leading this effort?
Dr. Lubchenco. He is leading this effort.
Senator Cantwell. So the White House has a coordinated
effort, and Dr. Holdren is the lead on that.
Dr. Lubchenco. That is correct.
Senator Cantwell. So we should call him to the next hearing
we want to have about the NPOESS satellite? We should call him
as the lead in the coordination of this?
Dr. Lubchenco. That is obviously your call, but this is an
interagency issue and OSTP is taking the lead.
Senator Cantwell. My point is to get one point of contact
and leadership about the problems. I want, obviously, each of
the individual agencies to help in the resolution of this, but
part of the problem is a $12.5 billion acquisition program
divided by three agencies is not the way to get the oversight
and leadership to make sure that the asset acquisition goes
correctly for the American taxpayers and for the research that
is needed out of the NPOESS system, which is, obviously, across
these various agencies, very distinct and necessary needs for
both military, for weather, for climate change, and for the
future.
Dr. Lubchenco. Senator, I think the intent of the tri-
agency structure was a good one in recognizing that there are
legitimate civilian and military needs and it would seemingly
make sense to have those be combined into a single program. But
I think the evidence is very clear and the IRT, the independent
review team, is very clear in its conclusion that the tri-
agency structure is not working and is not serving the program
or the Nation and it really needs to be fixed.
Senator Cantwell. So, how will you establish clear program
priorities?
Dr. Lubchenco. Within NPOESS, there are important military
needs for weather to inform military operations. That is the
portion of the program the Department of Defense is responsible
for. NOAA's responsibility lies with information that feeds
both weather and climate, and the orbits that are required for
that information are different. And as the independent review
team points out, so too is the quality of the data that are
required by the Department of Defense and NOAA. As I understand
it and as the independent review team points out, the
Department of Defense's requirements are lower in terms of the
quality of the data that suffices for their operations.
The independent review team suggests--and I concur--that
priority needs to be given to the higher requirement needs
which in this case are for both continuity of climate
information, as well as state-of-the-art information to inform
weather forecasting, and that that priority is--that that is a
higher bar and that if the program is to succeed, that bar
needs to be met. So that has been one of the tensions in the
tri-agency structure that has been addressed by the independent
review team and for which we have some good recommendations.
Senator Cantwell. For example? So strengthening the
management of the program, besides having the White House and a
key person in the White House taking the lead, what else are
you doing? We just talked about clear program priorities, but
what else are you doing to strengthen?
Dr. Lubchenco. Program priorities are important, but so too
is having a better decisionmaking process, a better management
process, and there are four different options that are on the
table that are currently being reviewed in terms of different
configurations that would result in clear management authority
and responsibility. Those four have not yet been resolved.
There is an active discussion. There are pros and cons of
different ones.
Currently the decisionmaking process involves an Executive
Committee, a so-called EXCOM. And there are three individuals
that sit on the Executive Committee. That committee should have
authority to make decisions. That was the way it was set up.
That was the intent. In reality, one of the three people who
sits on that committee does not have authority to make
decisions. So that has been one of the areas that the
independent review team has pointed out has been problematic.
So that clearly has to be resolved if the current configuration
stands.
Senator Cantwell. Could you inform us at the time that you
are narrowing in on this process so the Committee can be
informed about that? Because, obviously, this is a budget
increase of 30-some percent, and while we want to make sure
that the program is developed, at the same time asking for the
additional resources without the improved structure and
decisionmaking will be a disaster. So, if you will get us that
information. I am assuming that new alignment is going to
happen shortly. I think we should have Dr. Holdren come back at
some point in time, given the importance of this system for so
many different national needs.
Dr. Lubchenco. Senator, let me say that the reason that we
are moving ahead with the budget request in this year's budget
for NPOESS, in parallel to fixing these problems, is simply
that any delay in the program, any further delay in the
program, puts it at risk because of the loss of continuity of
the climate and weather data.
Senator Cantwell. Well, this Committee is very well aware
of Coast Guard needs that are part of the Nation's national
security, but when we are presented with boats that don't float
or holes that have to be realigned, no one has been served by
that process. So, this Subcommittee is very well aware in the
acquisition process of the many challenges. So, we want to make
clear that as we are going through with the budget process,
that the new structure and oversight of this process is not
done by committee where no one individual feels the key
responsibility.
I think the hierarchy that you have outlined of a key White
House contact with each of the agency's tightening up their
line of responsibility I think is a good plan. We would like to
hear more about it. So as your agency works with this, if you
would inform the Committee on the process and decision you are
going to follow, that would be very helpful.
Dr. Lubchenco. I would be happy to.
Senator Cantwell. Great. Thank you.
Dr. Lubchenco. And thank you for your interest in helping
us fix this.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Well, we believe very much in
the importance of the data that needs to be collected and the
missing gap that we think is currently there on climate change,
and only this kind of satellite structure will be able to give
us that information in addition to the very important day-to-
day functionality that it provides to us on weather and other
issues.
Speaking of climate, if I could switch gears to that and
the priorities of the agency because NOAA, obviously, has a
very important role in both helping us understand climate
change and managing the impacts on the oceans. There are
countless research topics in which NOAA could invest, and
obviously, with the budget that you have now, that makes it
very challenging.
So I wanted to find out about phytoplankton which,
obviously, is very key because in the ocean it produces 90
percent of the world's oxygen. So loss of that phytoplankton
will literally have an unbelievable impact.
So is NOAA conducting research now on how phototrophs are
being impacted by climate change and what it means for the
oceans and what else we need to be doing?
Dr. Lubchenco. Senator, there are both direct impacts of
climate change on the microscopic plants of the oceans, the
phytoplankton, but there are also impacts mediated through
ocean acidification, and NOAA has research activities looking
at impacts of both climate change and ocean acidification on
these phytoplankton. You are absolutely correct that they are
critically important to all of life in the oceans as the base
of the food web, and in addition, they do, indeed, provide most
of the oxygen that we breathe as well as other critical
services.
This is an area where we do have good viable research. It
is not at the level or scale that it needs to be to be
maximally effective. So this is another area that could benefit
from enhanced resources.
Senator Cantwell. And what would that be? What would the
advantages be and what would the additional needs be?
Dr. Lubchenco. Let me focus on ocean acidification just as
a little more concrete piece. The ocean acidification
currently--this is a new problem that we have not really been
aware of until relatively recently. Anything that has a shell
or a skeleton is affected by changes in the acidity of the
ocean. Many of these microscopic plankton have shells, and
therefore changes in the level of acidity and changes in other
aspects of ocean chemistry affect how productive ocean waters
are.
This year's budget has essentially a down payment on ocean
acidification research, if you will. And I am looking for my
actual numbers here. Thank you. We have requests for $9.9
million for research on ocean acidification, and that is an
increase of $5.5 million. And it goes to both ability to
actually monitor how the acidity is changing. That is one
fraction of that, and the other is laboratory research to
actually look at the impacts of those changes in ocean
chemistry on phytoplankton and other species that have shell or
skeleton.
So that amount is as much as we could manage within the
constructs of this year's budget, but there is a lot more
research that would give us a much better understanding of what
is likely down the road. It is not just the microscopic plants,
but there are animals that have shells or skeletons that are
also affected, and some of those animals, for example--one is
called terrapods--are the food for salmon and the food for
pollack. So understanding how changes in the food sources are
going to affect those species is critically important.
Senator Cantwell. How they are already affecting the
species.
Dr. Lubchenco. They are already, undoubtedly.
Senator Cantwell. Let me ask it differently then. If the
health of the oceans was ranked on a scale of A being the
healthiest, F being failing, where would we be right now in
your assessment, given the gravity of this situation with
acidification?
Dr. Lubchenco. At the global scale, oceans are seriously
depleted and disrupted. I have not actually thought about
giving them a letter grade. It is clear that they are not
healthy and that----
Senator Cantwell. So not passing.
Dr. Lubchenco. Not passing. They are definitely not
passing.
Different parts of our coastlines and oceans are in trouble
more than others, and one of the needs is to have more
cohesive, comprehensive ways of bringing oceans back to health
instead of managing activities one sector at a time; a more
comprehensive marine spatial planning, for example, on an
ecosystem basis which can provide a blueprint to recovering,
restoring coastal and ocean areas to a healthy state. I cannot
give you a dollar amount for what that would cost, but it is
not just a research enterprise. It is also integrating across
management and policy decisionmaking that is in order and is
being recommended.
Senator Cantwell. Well, what I am interested in is your
mention of further research that could be helpful. Our Tuesday
hearing definitely illuminated this issue, many of the
panelists saying that more information about the impacts would
help us in moving forward on conclusive findings that this
acidification is happening and the problems with it so that we
could actually do more in tackling it. Now, obviously, we need
to pass climate legislation to reduce the CO2 impact
that is creating this problem as it relates to the oceans.
But we are seeing this in the Pacific Northwest today, and
it is alarming. To have a $100 million shellfish industry
literally be brought to its knees by the bacteria and problems
that we are seeing as a result of this--it is overnight. It is
instant. It is not like you are having a degradation of--it
would be like having an entire wheat or corn crop just wiped
out in 1 year, not you losing 15 percent, but if you cannot get
the seeding, you are not going to have a shellfish industry. So
the impacts of this we are seeing now, and they are
devastating.
So what else do we need to do on the research side to prove
to people that we are at this state? I would definitely give
that an F. And I would say that if this is an indicator of
where this is heading where we have these viable aquaculture
industries, then we are going to see even more dramatic--it is
not going to be isolated in the Pacific Northwest. We are going
to see this kind of economic impact all over the country.
Dr. Lubchenco. I think that is a prime example of many of
the changes that are already underway.
Another one that is off your coast is the appearance, the
novel appearance of dead zones off the coast of Oregon and
Washington, for which the evidence is most likely that this is
a result of climate change. Those have appeared in the last 7
years, and before that, at least the 60-year record for which
we have good information, that is completely unprecedented. So
there are, indeed, changes underway already and more likely
down the road.
And we do not have the research enterprise that we need to
completely understand, predict the likely consequences, and
have that be better informing management and policy. I think
what we have is good. It is just not at the scale that is
needed.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I think we should attempt, given
this situation being at a crisis level, to get that and get to
that point.
Well, let me ask you about adaptation because I think we
will come back and talk to you about this from an acidification
perspective and research. On adaptation, are there programs now
that people like these shellfish farmers and others can turn to
for adaptation?
Dr. Lubchenco. There are small programs that are intended
to help advise shellfish growers, for example, through the Sea
Grant program and other research program that has been
informing the shellfish industry. But that has not been focused
so much on adaptation to climate change, and this is a whole
new arena for which we really do not have the priorities
identified or the scale identified that would be appropriate.
It is clear that because climate change is already underway
and there are more changes down the road, thinking about
adaptation is best done sooner rather than later. There is
currently an interagency working group that the Administration
has set up to think about adaptation to climate change, and
that is intended to focus not only on adaptation of human
infrastructure, especially in coastal areas, but also
adaptation for agriculture, for aquaculture, for fisheries, and
for other parts of the natural world.
That dialogue is in its very early stages. It is an effort
that is co-chaired by the Chair of the Council on Environmental
Quality, Nancy Sutley, by John Holdren, the head of OSTP, and
by me. I am hopeful that it will be a productive dialogue about
where do we need to go with adaptation, but it is just in the
early stages.
Senator Cantwell. Well, on this individual instance,
obviously, we are going to be requesting help on behalf of this
industry, but you can imagine we would rather have a process
that NOAA is working with managers and decisionmakers who can
help us in the risk assessment and vulnerabilities and with the
research on the science that is necessary to help in this area.
So I would encourage you to formalize that and to move forward
with it as quickly as possible.
I wanted to ask a couple more questions, if I could, on
various topics. One of them is about NOAA's oil spill response
office and the current backlog of its ecological sensitivity
maps. These are used in decisionmaking. I do not want to let
your spatial comment go unnoted. I think you are right. I think
we need to move more toward ecosystem-based restoration and
management, and that kind of spatial planning will help us. In
doing so, we really are running into cross purposes where
people are wanting to site renewable energy facilities in the
same place that are critical fishing and aquaculture areas. So
all sorts of, I think, decisions could be better facilitated
with the kind of mapping.
But ecological sensitivity maps are important for our oil
spill response as well, and during the Cosco Busan spill in San
Francisco, responders relied on NOAA's maps to identify the
areas needed. But NOAA's maps for some of the outer coasts are
very outdated, 25 years old.
So what do we need to do to increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of this mapping system and the backlog?
Dr. Lubchenco. The hydrographic surveys that NOAA conducts
are, I think, not happening at the pace that they need to. So
we have an exclusive economic zone that is 3.4 million square
nautical miles, and NOAA's goal is to survey 10,000 square
nautical miles each year. With the funds that we have in the
2010 budget, we will do 32 percent of that stated goal; i.e.,
we will be able to survey 3,200 square nautical miles. So
clearly, we are not even keeping pace with our own goals, our
own aspirations for the rate at which we think we need to be
doing this. So you have identified, I think, an important
challenge.
The Office of Response and Restoration has activities above
and beyond just the mapping, and using that technology to
identify where oil spills are likely to go and what the
appropriate responses are is, obviously, the goal of that
program. The current budget request includes $19 million for
the Office of Response and Restoration. I think this funding
level creates very serious challenges for the program, and I
think this is yet another area where it would be appropriate to
work with you to identify the level that would be appropriate.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
I have a couple of other questions about efforts on
regional cooperation and partnerships. My colleague from
Alaska, obviously, talked about the Pacific Coastal Salmon
Recovery Fund, and I just want to make sure that NOAA is
committed to funding this program in future years.
Dr. Lubchenco. Secretary Locke and I are committed to this
program.
Senator Cantwell. In future years.
Dr. Lubchenco. In future years.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Obviously, what is being
currently requested is a cut from the 2009 level, and so as you
can see from my colleague, this is very much a regional issue
and one that we are going to, obviously, try to address here in
the process. But it has been very successful, and we hope that
it will get the focused attention from NOAA that it deserves.
The Puget Sound partnership. I asked you during your
confirmation hearing about this because it has also been a very
innovative and collaborative science-based effort to manage the
Puget Sound environment. I could be asking this question for my
colleague from Virginia about the Chesapeake or other regions
of the country.
But will NOAA invest in these kinds of efforts to continue
the partnerships so that they can be effective in implementing
the kinds of resolutions that are about these parts of our
waterways and ocean systems?
Dr. Lubchenco. NOAA has been an active participant in the
Puget Sound Partnership and, I believe, is doing some very
innovative and useful work to provide much of the science
underpinning the development of the management plans and the
implementation. I think that is a very appropriate partnership.
I think it is a model for other places around the country. I
think the relationships and the work that is being done is
actually very exciting. A lot of the science is very cutting-
edge and is really, I think, providing good guidance for the
decisions that are being made.
Could it be ramped up to a higher level? Yes. Would that
increase be helpful to the project? Undoubtedly.
Senator Cantwell. Well, would it not be better if we had a
specific pool of funding--if NOAA was able to support this work
in a more coordinated way? I mean, I look at these issues from
the Great Lakes, as I said, to the Chesapeake, to Puget Sound,
to these other waterways, and their importance to their regions
economically and environmentally. Would a more specific program
not be better able to target and then target how you
specifically as an agency could best help?
Dr. Lubchenco. I do not have an answer to that. The
challenge, I believe, is that each of those areas has slightly
different issues, and the partnerships are structured in a
different way. I think the way that NOAA relates to each needs
to be appropriate to whatever that particular partnership is.
That said, it does not preclude having a dedicated program for
those kinds of interactions. I have not thought about the pros
and cons of that approach.
Senator Cantwell. And scalability.
Dr. Lubchenco. And scalability.
Senator Cantwell. And oversight and science. I mean, some
of the numbers that come out on these things and on resources
are very different to what the Great Lakes is focused on and
funded at. So I think having something that is a more formal
program helps in establishing what are our national objectives.
They are regional resources with huge national economic impact.
Dr. Lubchenco. And huge leveraging capacity.
I think the discussion might be broadened to include many
of the coastal regional programs that are developing around the
country in, I think, a very exciting fashion where States are
working together to create management and policies for the
waters adjacent to their shores, in the Gulf of Mexico, the
Mid-Atlantic States, the Gulf of Maine, the West Coast, the
West Coast Governors Agreement, for example, on ocean health.
Those, too, are regional efforts that should be supported by
good Federal-regional partnerships.
Senator Cantwell. I agree. I guess what I am getting at is
that--this Committee definitely is going to be more focused on
elevation of the oceans and waterways and the health of the
oceans and waterways and trying to focus our national attention
at what a critical--as you said, not a passing grade that they
currently have and what we need to do to really restore them to
their health. So we are definitely going to shine a bright
light on that, and this is just one of the examples where we
think a more coordinated effort at the national level would be
helpful.
If I could, there is another program my colleague, Senator
Murray, has been very involved in for many years. It is another
example of innovation and coordination, and that is the
Northwest Straits program. It is an initiative, and it is
basically a community-based program for restoration activities.
So it really focuses on the science-based conservation and
restoration.
What do you see those kinds of programs at the regional
level--what kind of potential do you see for those like the
Northwest Straits and other community-based programs where we
are working to coordinate these many resources to address our
shortcomings?
Dr. Lubchenco. That particular program is often held up as
a nice model of local citizens' action in partnership with
counties, States, and tribes in the region. I think that that
program has made very good progress in doing habitat
restoration, the kinds of things that have been identified by
locals as useful and relevant and that they want to work on.
I think its utility and effectiveness could be enhanced
with stronger connection to science-based information and
transfer of information from one program like that to another.
I think there are a number of different areas where there could
be significant improvement in the effectiveness of programs
like that. I think it is a really nice beginning on which one
could build.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I think the interest that we have
from a Northwest perspective is that these collaborative
efforts, given the solutions to our problems are more often
than not the coordination of theses various entities taking on
new roles and responsibilities or cutting back on current
activities and reshaping them--we have found much leverage in
the up-front addressing of those issues by that collaborative
process. We have gotten much more to the resolution of a
solution and implemented that resolution as opposed to, I would
say, other regions who followed a traditional court or legal
battle and then, consequently, years or decades before they
implement anything. So, I hope the agency would continue to
look at these as very collaborative efforts within regions and
getting many entities, various government entities, and
communities to do the right things as it relates to the health
of our oceans and waterways.
Well, Dr. Lubchenco, I think that is the questions that I
have today. We might have some more that will be submitted from
our colleagues. Again, we thank you for being here to testify
about the NOAA budget.
As I mentioned, we believe that we should move more toward
an organic act here so we can formalize this process even more.
If we are really, truly to get to the level of addressing the
needs of our oceans, I think we are going to have to do so by
proving the validity of programs and the basis for why we are
requesting the increase. So we will look forward to working
with you on that in the future.
So this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
U.S. Senator from West Virginia
This has been an exciting week for our oceans, starting out on
Monday with World Oceans Day, and celebrating Capitol Hill Ocean Week.
As Chairman of this Committee, I am very proud that we have taken the
time, with Senator Cantwell's leadership, to highlight the great
economic and environmental wealth that our oceans and coasts hold.
I am very pleased that the Committee will be hearing from The
Honorable Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of NOAA, today as we discuss
our oceans, climate change, and many other important issues in the
context of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Fiscal
Year 2010 budget hearing.
This past Tuesday, the Committee discussed the importance of the
blue economy to our Nation. We discussed the critical jobs and economic
opportunities that emerge from our oceans, Great Lakes, and coastal
resources. We started a dialogue that we will continue here today about
the need to preserve the value of our ocean and coasts in the face of
climate change.
Simply put--our oceans are in peril. Pollution harms the animals
that live in the sea, the foods we eat, and the beaches that Americans
hold dear. There are areas of the ocean that are now so oxygen-depleted
that animals can no longer exist.
The oceans are also becoming more acidic, which reduces the
productivity of our fisheries and shellfish harvests by literally
dissolving organisms and disrupting the food web. Climate change is
further exacerbating all of these problems and threatens the economic
and environmental viability of the oceans--a critical global resource
that covers seventy percent of the surface of the Earth.
We rely on NOAA to take these threats head-on to help Americans
respond to climate change and to maintain the U.S. economy. Dr.
Lubchenco, your leadership and your insight are critical to the
Nation's well being. NOAA is the Nation's premier science agency
charged with managing, restoring, and conserving our coastal and marine
resources, in addition to understanding and predicting changes in our
weather and atmosphere.
The President's FY 2010 Budget Request for NOAA was $4.48 million.
I do not believe this request is adequate. The agency needs to meet its
current mandates and prepare the Nation for the impacts of a changing
climate. The current budget number will not get us there.
NOAA is the premier ocean-science resource in the United States.
The agency is critical to our understanding of climate change and
helping communities adapt. This is a time for action to make sure we
are protecting our oceans and coasts and the wealth of resources that
they provide for the future. I hope the Administration will take bold
action and answer the call to double the NOAA budget.
NOAA must have additional resources to:
Better predict, monitor, model, and understand the effects
of increasing carbon dioxide emissions on the oceans, rising
sea levels, and other climate impacts;
Establish a National Climate Service to provide the tools to
help our communities and industries adapt to climate change;
and,
Create new blue jobs in oceans and human health,
aquaculture, renewable energy, and ocean science and
management.
Dr. Lubchenco, thank you for your testimony before the Committee. I
look forward to leading the charge to strengthen NOAA's budget and to
working with you this Congress.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, U.S. Senator from Maine
Thank you, Madam Chair, for calling this hearing today to address
the issue of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
budget request for Fiscal Year 2010. It is only appropriate that we
convene today, as we approach the end of Capitol Hill Oceans Week, to
discuss the financial future of NOAA, and I thank Dr. Lubchenco for
being here.
Just this past Tuesday, this Subcommittee held a hearing on the
future of the ``Blue Economy''--focusing on the ocean's contributions
to our National economic well-being. The figures that emerged in the
course of that discussion were staggering: the 80 percent of Americans
living in coastal and Great Lakes states generate fully 83 percent of
America's economic output, contributing $11.4 trillion to our GDP. Yet
despite the mounting pressure on these resources, Federal spending on
ocean programs has decreased nearly sixty percent in real dollars since
1970. Testimony at the hearing detailed the need for greater funding
for baseline data such as that gathered by the Integrated Ocean
Observing System, as well as continued and enhanced evaluation of the
economic contribution of our oceans' ecosystem level services. We must
be able to articulate the dollar value of beaches as a tourism
destination, estuaries as buffers from violent storm surges, and
healthy reefs as nurseries for our fisheries. Until we understand our
oceans' true contributions to the National economy, critical programs
will remain underfunded.
I recognize that the President's $4.48 billion request for NOAA in
Fiscal Year 2010 represents an increase of 2.5 percent over last year's
appropriated levels. This is a clear improvement, yet current funding
levels are simply insufficient to deal with the problems of climate
change and increased population pressure on coastal regions. That is
why Senator Cantwell and I sent a letter to our colleagues on the
Senate Appropriations Committee last month asking that they support
funding for NOAA this year of $5 billion. Today, I lend my support to
the growing call to double NOAA's budget by 2012. It is high time that
investment in our Nation's oceans reach a level consummate with their
contribution to our economy.
With that in mind, Dr. Lubchenco, I commend you for your early
efforts to bolster your agency's funding levels. In particular, I want
to thank you for your commitment to our Nation's fisheries. This budget
requests $911 million to fund the National Marine Fisheries Service.
$98.3 million is flagged for Magnuson-Stevens implementation, more than
double last year's total. Landings of all U.S. fisheries in 2007
exceeded $4.1 billion--more than NOAA's entire budget for that Fiscal
Year, so this effort is clearly warranted. Specifically, I thank you
for all your efforts to help defray the costs of organizing and
monitoring the new sector management system in the New England
groundfishery by allocating $16 million from the FY 2009 budget, and
now $18.6 million of the President's request for FY 2010. I hope you
will urge the Administration to approve your spend plans immediately so
this funding along with the $170 million in habitat restoration and all
of NOAA's funding allocated in the American Reinvestment and Recovery
Act.
Stimulus funding will also be integral to our efforts to rebuild
our populations of wild Atlantic salmon. NOAA, along with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, is currently in the final stages of determining
whether to list Atlantic salmon in the Penobscot, Kennebec, and
Androscoggin Rivers, the three largest rivers in the State of Maine, as
threatened or endangered. If the agencies find an endangered listing is
warranted, it would place great economic strain on the state of Maine,
as these rivers would likely be designated as critical habitat,
severely restricting industrial activity in two-thirds of the state.
Ultimately, all NOAA's efforts must be supported by sound,
consistent science, and I am disappointed that funding for the
Integrated Ocean Observing System--which provides data to bolster
NOAA's work across all line offices and all geographic boundaries--was
cut more than 20 percent below 2009 enacted levels from an already
paltry $26.5 million in 2009 to just over $21 million. In March,
President Obama signed a bill into law authorizing IOOS. Unfortunately,
this budget fails to capitalize on the remarkable opportunity to
demonstrate a commitment to this program that benefits all Americans.
In our meeting last week, Dr. Lubchenco, you stated that, as a
scientist, you recognize the value of IOOS and share my concerns. I
expect that in future years, we will see that concern reflected in
NOAA's budget requests.
The bottom line is NOAA cannot continue to do more with less. We
must instead take the next step, reach for the necessary commitment of
resources, and at long last, enable NOAA to do more with more. Once
again, I thank you, Dr. Lubchenco for appearing before us today, and I
thank the Chair for convening this hearing.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Dr. Jane Lubchenco
Question 1. What is the current state of knowledge on the role of
black carbon and other aerosols in climate change?
Answer. Aerosols (fine particles suspended in air) generally lead
to cooling of the atmosphere and are estimated to be currently
offsetting as much as 35 percent of atmospheric warming from greenhouse
gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and tropospheric
ozone. Black carbon (or soot) aerosols are of particular importance to
climate because, in contrast to most other types of aerosol, they have
an overall warming effect on the Earth. The net effect of aerosols on
climate is determined by the combined presence of both cooling and
warming particles; climate studies must therefore consider both black
carbon and other aerosols together when evaluating the overall
contribution of aerosols to climate change.
Aerosols are very short-lived in the atmosphere and their abundance
(and hence their influence on climate) decreases rapidly if their
emissions are reduced. Black carbon is implicated in the rapid warming
of the Arctic because it darkens the color of sea ice, which causes
more heat to be absorbed and generally leads to greater melting. Black
carbon is also a pollutant, with direct negative effects on human
health.
In order to better understand the role of black carbon and other
aerosols in climate change, there are several key questions that will
need to be addressed:
(1) How much of the emissions are natural and how much are
human influenced;
(2) How much of the human-influenced emissions come from which
specific sources (information that is essential for any
regulatory action);
(3) What are the other influences of black carbon and other
aerosols, particularly, their ability to alter clouds (and thus
alter heating or cooling) and precipitation; and
(4) What are the spatial distributions and properties of black
carbon and other aerosols, and how do these properties change
in the atmosphere?
Question 2. What is NOAA currently doing to study, measure, and
monitor black carbon and other aerosols?
Answer. NOAA's on-going activities related to black carbon and
other aerosols include:
(1) Sponsorship of an international effort to review the
current state of the scientific understanding of the role of
soot in climate change;
(2) Monitoring variability and trends of aerosols and their
climate-forcing properties at non-urban ground stations;
(3) Quantifying abundances, properties, and composition of
aerosols using NOAA's aircraft and ships via period intensive
field campaigns;
(4) Research measurements of emissions of black carbon from
ships and quantifying the emission factors from ships;
(5) Quantifying optical, small-scale physical, and chemical
properties and transformations of black carbon and other
aerosols in the atmosphere and in the laboratory;
(6) Research measurements of the vertical distribution of
aerosols using aircraft-based and remote-sensing instruments;
(7) Development and field testing of highly sensitive and
selective instruments for measurement of black carbon in the
atmosphere;
(8) Calculating the climate warming from black carbon using
climate models and data that is available; and
(9) Calculating the effects of black carbon and other aerosols
on clouds and climate using a variety of advanced computer
models.
As one example, NOAA carried out a major field study to investigate
the role of black carbon in the Arctic as a part of the International
Polar Year studies (March 2007-March 2009). This study included
measurements of soot emissions from ships, measurement of vertical
distribution of soot, and monitoring black carbon from a few monitoring
sites. NOAA's research efforts have resulted in scientific
breakthroughs, communicated in a paper published by NOAA scientists
tracing springtime haze in the Arctic to wildfires in Siberia and
agricultural burning in Kazakhstan. Scientists studied 50 haze plumes
during an airborne field experiment known as ARCPAC, the Aerosol,
Radiation, and Cloud Processes Affecting Arctic Climate, conducted in
April 2008. These examples demonstrate the feasibility and promise of
NOAA's research efforts and these results can help answer the many
outstanding questions concerning the climate effects of aerosols.
NOAA's demonstrated capability in climate and chemistry modeling is
essential for providing information about why past changes have
occurred, what the ``climate baseline'' is now, and what can be
expected when emissions are altered. NOAA's models can quantify the
effect of changes in emissions of black carbon and other aerosols on
both climate and air quality. These models can also be useful in
predicting what will happen in the future, with and without emission
regulations--providing critical information for decision-makers.
Question 3. Does NOAA require any additional capacity to study
black carbon and other aerosols?
Answer. The President's Budget request for FY 2010 supports NOAA's
capability to continue to investigate the impact of black carbon and
other aerosols on climate and air quality. With respect to performance,
these investments will help reduce uncertainty in model simulations of
how North American aerosols influence climate.
Aerosols tend to stay in the lower atmosphere for a week or so, and
hence they are highly variable in space and time. Further, they undergo
transformations in the atmosphere that alter their effects and
residence time. NOAA's ongoing efforts, supported by the FY 2010
President's request, include: intensive field studies; continued long-
term monitoring of aerosols; improved measurement methods; a robust
emission inventory of aerosols and their precursors; modeling,
predicting and analyzing the impacts of proposed mitigation actions on
climate change; and an integrated evaluation of aerosol forcing of
climate.
Question 4. What efforts are underway within NOAA to monitor and
measure the carbon cycle in the oceans, atmosphere, and on land? How
much funding does NOAA dedicate to this effort?
Answer. NOAA has conducted sustained efforts to monitor and measure
the carbon cycle in the atmosphere and oceans for 40 years. Today, NOAA
spends approximately $13 million annually on monitoring and measuring
the carbon cycle in the atmosphere. Efforts include taking observations
from the ground, air, and tall towers. Ground-based, high-accuracy
measurements include weekly samples from approximately 80 sites
globally and an intensive effort to measure vertical profiles from 9
tall (1,000 ft) towers in North America. The latter of these efforts is
in support of the U.S. Global Change Research Program North American
Carbon Program (NACP). Flasks of air are analyzed for over 50
greenhouse gases and tracers to aid in this analysis. Vertical profiles
from aircraft are obtained bi-weekly at 14 sites over the United States
as part of the NACP, and to help validate emerging NASA satellite
retrievals of greenhouse gases (currently limited to carbon dioxide and
methane).
NOAA maintains the World Meteorological Organization World (WMO)
Calibration Center for carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse
gases and is considered the world's leader in this effort. NOAA's
measurements of greenhouse gases constitute about \2/3\ of the global
network for monitoring these gases through the WMO's Global Atmospheric
Watch program. NOAA's CarbonTracker tool harmonizes these measurements
into useful regional-to-global mapped information, including estimates
of regional sources and sinks, and is widely considered the best
available analysis to date.
The Global Ocean Observing System includes ocean carbon networks,
and NOAA currently spends approximately $3.4 million on sustained ocean
observations directed specifically at monitoring the ocean's role in
the global carbon cycle. In addition, the FY 2010 President's Budget
includes an increase of $4 million for ocean acidification monitoring
efforts. This activity will equip existing data buoys with additional
sensors to monitor changes in the pH of the global ocean that result
from the uptake of emissions, in particular carbon dioxide.
In addition to the sustained observations discussed above, NOAA
also competitively awards funds for global carbon cycle research, and
the amount spent on this research in FY 2008 was approximately $4.5
million. Competitive funding for such projects continues in FY 2009 and
is planned for FY 2010.
Question 5. Is there a need for a comprehensive greenhouse gas
monitoring and measuring system? If so, what are the benefits of such a
system and what would be necessary to develop such a system?
Answer. Yes, there is a need for a comprehensive greenhouse gas
monitoring and measuring system, particularly in light of national
goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. No large-scale emission
reduction effort has ever succeeded without reliable, independent
verification of current emissions. This was true for reduction of
chlorofluorocarbons, which were contributing to the ozone hole. Routine
monitoring of the atmosphere and scientific assessments informed
policymakers at the national and international levels on the degree of
success in reducing emissions. This is also true for emission reduction
efforts for air quality, where ozone is monitored and assessed, and
also for acid rain, where the acidity of rain and lakes is monitored
and assessed. Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations will be
far more complex than previous emission reduction efforts. Because
climate change is a global problem, addressing it through greenhouse
gas emission reductions and offsets will necessarily involve
coordinated efforts at the international, national, state, and regional
levels. This issue cuts across political divisions and economic
sectors, such as energy, transportation, forestry, and agriculture. The
Nation and world need an objective, authoritative, and consistent
source of consolidated, reliable, and timely climate information to
evaluate which efforts are effective and which efforts need
improvement.
Current greenhouse gas monitoring systems implemented by Federal
science agencies are designed to support research to understand the
role of the carbon cycle and gases and aerosols in climate change.
However, the growing need for scientific verification and support for
efforts to mitigate climate change requires a more comprehensive
monitoring system. Such a system would combine space-based and ground-
based assets, self-reporting, carbon-cycle modeling, fossil-fuel use
data, land-use data, meta-analysis, and an extensive distribution
system to provide information about sources and sinks of greenhouse
gases at policy-relevant temporal and spatial scales. Such a system
would need to be developed over the next decade with cooperation among
Federal agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, Department
of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, and international partners.
NOAA, with its extensive experience in long-term global monitoring of
greenhouse gases, is capable of providing leadership to such an effort.
Question 6. How will the Administration address the recommendations
in the NPOESS Independent Review Team (IRT) report?
Answer. NOAA is working with the Department of Defense (DOD) and
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to address the
issues raised by the Independent Review Team's recommendations. The
tri-agency (NOAA, NASA, DOD) NPOESS Executive Committee intends to
develop a consensus agreement on actions needed to strengthen the
program. White House offices, led by the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, are actively engaged in this activity and are
providing coordination for the effort.
Question 7. Who in the White House is responsible for interagency
coordination and responding to the IRT recommendations? What is the
time-frame for action?
Answer. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is
leading a task force with representation from the Office of Management
and Budget and the National Security Council that is working with NOAA,
the Department of Defense (DOD), and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) to analyze and review options going forward with
regard to the NPOESS program. We anticipate that a decision on a path
forward for the program will be made in time to inform the FY 2011
budget process.
OSTP is taking into account the IRT recommendations as it proceeds
forward with the goals as laid out for the task force.
Question 8. Specifically, how is NOAA fixing NPOESS management,
cost, and schedule problems based on the recommendations of the IRT?
Answer. NOAA, DOD, and NASA are working closely with a task force
led by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) with
representation from the Office of Management and Budget, and the
National Security Council to develop and analyze options for
strengthening program management and addressing the program's
challenges with cost overruns and schedule slips.
Additionally, NOAA, DOD and NASA are examining ways to
modify and adjust the current planned NPOESS constellation of
satellites to better mitigate potential coverage and data gaps.
NOAA, DOD and NASA will revise the NPOESS Acquisition Program
Baseline this fall, which details the NPOESS budget baseline for
current and future years. In addition, NOAA has allocated $26 million
of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding for NPOESS to perform
critical development activities and address risk mitigation within the
program.
OSTP is taking into account the IRT recommendations as it proceeds
forward with the goals as laid out for the task force.
Question 9. If NPOESS fails, what contingency plans do NOAA, NASA,
and the Department of Defense have to make sure we have continuity of
data?
Answer. Contingency for possible NPOESS failures is an area of
concern for NOAA, which was also highlighted in the findings of the
NPOESS Independent Review Team.
The ability to use the NPOESS Preparatory Project data
operationally, as well as data from our European partner, EUMETSAT,
will help to mitigate a potential gap between NOAA-19 and the first
NPOESS satellite. DOD has several Defense Meteorological Satellite
Program satellites available to mitigate gaps in the early morning
orbit. NOAA is also exploring other contingency options, for example,
pursuing the use of additional international and interagency assets as
well as potential development of a backup imaging instrument.
A tri-agency working group is reviewing the use of a series of
smaller alternative satellites, and the inclusion of sensors on
commercial spacecraft as possible contingencies.
Question 10. How is NOAA working toward improving their delivery of
climate information and climate services to both resource managers and
the average citizen?
Answer. In 2008, NOAA began an effort to improve its integrated
climate services to, among other things, develop and deliver a broader
range of operational climate information products and services in
partnership with other Federal agencies with trust resource mandates.
Given its stewardship responsibilities for marine fisheries,
coastal and ocean habitat and ecosystems, NOAA is both a producer and
consumer of climate change information and is actively adapting its
management approaches to changes in climate. In addition, NOAA supports
other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and the private
sector as they use climate change information to make decisions about
coastal planning and development efforts, maritime transportation,
water resource management, and other issues like insurance, energy and
agriculture.
Understanding the potential impact of climate variability and
change on natural resources and the American public is central to
adapting to climate change. As made clear by of the 2007 assessment of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, developing an
understanding adaptation and vulnerability is far more complex and
challenging than simply demonstrating that the global average climate
is changing. In the face of this emerging challenge to decision-making
at a variety of levels, NOAA and its partners are working to expand the
ongoing assessment of user needs. NOAA is targeting the following areas
for improvements in the delivery of climate information and services:
observations;
research;
predictions and projections;
climate change information products;
decision support tools, maps, and visualizations; and
greater coordination and integration of climate science and
information services at national and regional levels.
Question 11. Would you describe NOAA's ability to translate and
deliver the climate science information from the agency to stakeholders
as a user-friendly or user-driven process?
Answer. The community of current and potential users of climate
information is as complex as society itself and many potential sectors
are only beginning to understand how climate change may influence their
industry. As a consequence, NOAA programs are taking a multi-tiered
approach to developing and providing climate information that is useful
and relevant to a wide array of users and potential users. NOAA
programs are working with users in some sectors (e.g., fisheries
managers and coastal managers) to provide basic information about the
causes and potential impacts of climate in an effort to help these user
communities understand the problem and articulate their possible needs
for tailored climate information. In other sectors (e.g., water
resource managers), NOAA is working to provide information in response
to widely established, user-specified information requirements. NOAA
also works with decisionmakers to understand how they use and interpret
climate forecasts. This information is then fed back into NOAA's
operations to improve the presentation of forecasts to the public,
ensuring they are user-friendly.
While it remains NOAA's goal to deliver user-friendly climate
science information to stakeholders, and to utilize a user-driven
process to determine the information needs of those stakeholders, it
will take a concerted, sustained effort over several years to achieve a
broadly useful level of climate service.
Question 12. Do resource managers and decisionmakers have adequate
assessments for risk and vulnerability of climate impacts available to
them?
Answer. In June, the U.S. Global Change Research Program released a
landmark report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.
This body of work, a product of Federal agency and outside experts with
leadership from NOAA, provides concrete scientific evidence that the
climate is unequivocally changing, and gives a comprehensive picture of
future impacts on specific regions and sectors. We are seeing the
impacts of this change in our own backyards in every region of the
country, from extreme weather and coastal impacts to drought and
wildfire trends.
NOAA has been supporting the development of risk and vulnerability
assessments for weather- and climate-related impacts for states,
tribes, and communities nationwide in fulfillment of our existing
mandated responsibilities (coastal zone management, fisheries, National
Weather Service mandates, etc). NOAA has engaged with resource managers
and other stakeholders in the development of decision support products
and related services (e.g., training; outreach and educational
materials) through current programs like Regional Integrated Sciences
and Assessments, Sectoral Applications Research Program, National
Integrated Drought Information System, and Coastal Zone Management,
along with NOAA's regional engagement through Regional Climate Centers,
National Weather Service Weather Forecast Offices and River Forecast
Centers, National Estuarine Research Reserve System sites, Sea Grant
programs, Coastal Services Center offices, and other regional staff.
Despite the efforts discussed above, the need for climate
information to support resource managers and other decision-makers in
climate sensitive sectors currently outstrips the capacity of NOAA and
other Federal agencies. This demand has been articulated through
meetings with decision-makers, and recent studies by the National
Research Council (see the 2009 report, ``Informing Decisions in a
Changing Climate'').
Question 13. If not, are risk and/or vulnerability assessments
unavailable due to resource limitations within the agency?
Answer. Through ongoing engagement with state, tribal, local, and
private-sector stakeholders, we know the diversity and complexity of
information needs are growing rapidly as communities and individuals
become increasingly aware of the threats and opportunities posed by
climate variability and change. A sustained effort over time will be
required from NOAA and the broader Federal climate enterprise, in
partnership with other levels of government and the private sector, to
conduct the necessary research and development activities to allow us
to meet the evolving demands of resource managers and decision-makers
for risk and vulnerability information concerning climate impacts.
Resource managers and decision-makers would benefit from a
coordinated Federal approach to providing climate services. Such an
approach could also ensure Federal agencies more effectively respond to
requests for climate information and services to aid climate
adaptation.
Question 14. How much funding is NOAA providing in FY2010 for
climate research and climate services?
Answer. NOAA requested $292 million for climate activities in FY
2010. This request focuses on NOAA's highest priority climate
activities, and will allow NOAA to: (1) conduct critical research
activities, (2) initiate new activities that address currently unmet
gaps in the NOAA service missions, and (3) meet the information needs
of our Nation's environmental decisionmakers.
NOAA's FY 2010 Budget Request includes increases for:
(1) the National Integrated Drought Information System to
implement three regional early warning system pilot projects
and to improve climate forecast products related to drought;
(2) development of decadal climate predictability;
(3) ocean acidification research and monitoring;
(4) implementation of a portal to generate and house model-
based data records;
(5) deployment of the U.S. Climate Reference Network in Alaska;
and
(6) development of the Jason-3 satellite altimetry mission.
Question 15. The National Climate Program Act directed NOAA to
establish a National Climate Program Office and to establish and
maintain an interagency Climate Program Policy Board. The Program was
required by Congress to establish mechanisms for intergovernmental
climate-related studies and services. What is the current status of the
National Climate Program Office and the Climate Program Policy Board?
How is NOAA addressing its obligations under the National Climate
Program Act and how much funding is NOAA providing for the Program?
Answer. NOAA's climate service work is authorized through existing
statutory responsibilities under the National Climate Program Act of
1978 (15 U.S.C. 2901-2908). NOAA has a long history of producing
climate information, delivering products and services, and building the
capacity of others through established networks and partnerships at all
levels. In FY 2010, NOAA requests $292 million on climate activities
across the agency.
Today, multiple elements throughout NOAA contribute to climate
science and services. NOAA's efforts include:
(1) global data collection;
(2) research to improve the understanding of climate processes;
(3) management and dissemination of climate data;
(4) development and improvement of climate forecasts;
(5) participation in assessments of the effect of climate on
the natural environment;
(6) efforts to increase international cooperation in climate
research, monitoring, analysis and data dissemination; and
(7) mechanisms for intergovernmental climate-related studies
and services including participation by universities, the
private sector and others concerned with applied research and
advisory services.
The interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program coordinates and
integrates Federal research on changes in the global environment and
their implications for society. The U.S. Global Change Research Program
began as a Presidential initiative in 1989 and was authorized by
Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606),
which called for ``a comprehensive and integrated United States
research program which will assist the Nation and the world to
understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural
processes of global change.'' Thirteen agencies participate in the U.S.
Global Change Research Program, including NOAA.
Question 16. There is growing interest in NOAA's proposal to
establish a National Climate Service. How does NOAA's FY 2010 budget
support this effort? Is there specific funding for the National Climate
Service? What steps is NOAA currently taking to develop a climate
service?
Answer. A National Climate Service should be the bridge between
decisionmakers and climate change science and information, providing
timely and authoritative information, such as predictions of changing
temperatures and water availability, and assessments of associated
impacts, risks, and vulnerabilities. NOAA already provides a wide array
of climate information and services including ground, ocean and space-
based observations, climate assessments, drought early warning
information, and climate predictions and projections. NOAA currently
works with a broad spectrum of users to provide climate change
information to help inform resource management decisions. NOAA is well-
positioned and already moving forward to provide strong Federal
leadership, in partnership with other agencies, to meet the growing
demand for climate services.
NOAA envisions a National Climate Service as a partnership that
would be established with other Federal agencies, various levels of
government, and the private sector. While there is no specific request
for the National Climate Service in FY 2010, NOAA's Budget Request
provides a foundation for strengthening climate services and building a
broader national effort.
NOAA requested $292 million for climate activities in FY 2010. The
FY 2010 request supports and enhances NOAA's integrated program of
climate observations, research, modeling, prediction, decision support,
and assessment. These capabilities, along with NOAA's history of data
stewardship and service delivery, will enable NOAA to provide valuable
insight and leadership for the development of a National Climate
Service in partnership with other Federal agencies, service providers,
users, partners, and stakeholders.
NOAA has taken several near-term actions within its existing
authorities to improve how it delivers climate science and services.
NOAA has been evaluating climate services activities within the agency,
and has actively engaged its partners and the user community to
determine their specific information needs and the contributions these
groups may bring to the development of climate services. NOAA looks
forward to engaging in these dialogues with the Congress, its Federal
agency partners, and the range of public and private-sector interests
in climate services, as the Administration moves forward to develop a
National Climate Service.
Question 17. What is NOAA's budget request for FY 2010 for climate
change research, and how is NOAA targeting their research efforts and
dollars at the key climate change issues?
Answer. NOAA requested $292 million for climate activities in FY
2010. The request for climate funding is targeted to: (1) sustain
critical research activities, (2) initiate new activities that address
currently unmet gaps in the NOAA service missions, and (3) meet the
information needs of our Nation's environmental decisionmakers.
NOAA's FY 2010 Budget Request includes increases for:
(1) the National Integrated Drought Information System to
implement three regional early warning system pilot projects
and to improve climate forecast products related to drought;
(2) development of decadal climate predictability;
(3) ocean acidification research and monitoring;
(4) implementation of a portal to generate and house model-
based data records;
(5) deployment of the U.S. Climate Reference Network in Alaska;
and
(6) development of the Jason-3 satellite altimetry mission.
Question 18. Is NOAA conducting research into how phototrophs are
being impacted by climate change and what it means for oceans and
humankind?
Answer. NOAA is developing systems and methods for assessing the
future effects of climate change on marine ecosystems, including those
resulting from elevated oceanic carbon dioxide levels, increased
temperature, and nutrient limitation, through a combination of research
and development efforts.
NOAA conducts numerous ecosystem monitoring and research programs
in support of ecosystem-based approaches to management. These programs
document changing ocean conditions, and the responses of marine
ecosystems and living marine resources to these changes. Phototrophs,
organisms such as phytoplankton that carry out photosynthesis to
acquire energy, are evaluated through NOAA's programs that take
measurements of chlorophyll, primary production, and phytoplankton
species composition. In addition, models are beginning to be applied to
project the ecological effects of climate change, including those
affecting phototrophic species composition and primary productivity.
Parts of these studies examine how phototrophs are currently and will
likely be affected by climate change, and what effects any changes in
the composition or distribution of phototrophic species will have on
living marine resources and, ultimately, on human uses of these
resources.
NOAA also conducts studies of the oceanographic factors that
contribute to the development of harmful algal blooms (HABs) in coastal
waters. HABs are termed harmful because they can produce potent toxins,
which cause illness or death in humans and marine organisms, or they
can produce so much biomass that they overgrow corals, shade
seagrasses, or cause water to become oxygen depleted. Currently NOAA is
interested in determining if a warmer and more stratified ocean waters
contribute to an increased incidence of HABs. NOAA is also particularly
interested in how climate change is affecting HABs, which are composed
of phototrophs. Climate change is likely to change the frequency and
geographic location of HAB events.
In coordination with our Federal partners, NOAA has made
considerable progress in the ability to detect, monitor, assess, and
predict HABs and hypoxia in coastal ecosystems. This progress has been
accomplished through a mix of extramural and intramural research, long-
term regional ecosystem-scale studies supported by short-term targeted
studies, collaborations between academic and Federal scientists, and
multiple partnerships with Federal, state and tribal managers. Advances
in our ability to detect, monitor, assess, and predict HABs and hypoxia
have helped coastal managers take short- and long-term actions to
reduce, and ultimately prevent, detrimental effects of these phenomena
on human health and coastal resources.
Question 19. What are NOAA's top three priorities for ocean and
coastal scientific research, and for ocean and coastal management?
Answer. NOAA conducted an extensive public process to envision the
future of coastal management, which was used to develop a set of
principles for reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act. In
addition, NOAA has been developing a broader Coastal Strategy focused
on three priority issues to serve as the basis for better coordination
and integration of NOAA's diverse coastal programs. These efforts have
yielded a remarkably consistent set of recurring themes and priorities
for ocean and coastal management:
1. Supporting the resiliency of coastal communities, ecosystems
and economies to storms/hazards and climate change;
2. Resolving competing coastal uses and stemming habitat loss;
and
3. Reducing and reversing coastal pollution and human health
effects.
In support of these priority issues, top needs in the area of
coastal science include:
1. Coastal climate research, e.g., predicting future
shorelines, potential for storms, sea level rise, inundation,
storm surge, changes in fisheries and coastal ecosystems, etc.,
including more robust modeling and integrated assessments. This
information could lead to better analyses of the vulnerability
and risk of coastal communities and ecosystems to climate
change and facilitate adaptation to climate and mitigation of
coastal hazards.
2. Better understanding and predictive capabilities of coastal
public health risks, such as harmful algal blooms (HABs) and
other vectors for human and animal diseases in coastal and
ocean ecosystems.
3. Social science including economic studies to support coastal
community resiliency, improved coastal and fisheries management
and ability to adapt to climate change.
Question 20. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended a
three-phase approach to improve governance. Phase I recommended
solidifying NOAA's role as the Nation's lead civilian ocean agency
through the enactment of an organic act that codifies the agency's
establishment, clarifies its mission, and strengthens execution of its
functions. The Committee is interested in enactment of a NOAA organic
act. What is the Administration's position on a NOAA organic act? Will
the Administration be submitting proposed legislation for a NOAA
organic act?
Answer. At this time, the Administration has not taken a position
on a NOAA Organic Act.
Question 21. On June 12, 2009, President Obama sent a memorandum to
the heads of executive departments and agencies titled ``National
Policy for the Oceans, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes''. What is
NOAA's role in the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force?
Question 22. How will the Task Force include public input in the
development of the national policy and its implementation strategy and
the framework for coastal and marine spatial planning?
Question 23. How will the Administration involve the Senate in
development of the national policy and framework?
Answers 21-23. On June 12, 2009, President Obama proclaimed that
June 2009 was National Oceans Month and concurrently issued a
Presidential Memorandum entitled, National Ocean Policy for the Oceans,
Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes. This memorandum established an
Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force with senior policy officials from
18 different agencies and departments to develop an integrated and
comprehensive approach for a national oceans policy that, among other
things, incorporates ecosystem-based science and management and
emphasizes our public stewardship responsibilities.
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator, sits on the Task Force as the
Department of Commerce representative. The Task Force is chaired by the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Since the Presidential
Memorandum was signed on June 12, CEQ has met or talked with a number
of interested Senate offices, including representatives of at least 19
separate offices who participated in a briefing that CEQ held on June
13, 2009 (and to which all Senate offices were invited). Some offices
provided letters to CEQ on their specific interests in the Task Force
efforts and CEQ has made available to Task Force members all letters
received from Members of Congress. The Task Force is also holding a
series of regional public meetings around the country so they can
benefit from on-the-ground feedback. The first hearing was held in
Anchorage, Alaska on August 21, 2009.
Question 24. The Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendment of
2008 (P.L. 110-386) increased the total number of commissioned officers
from 321 to 379 when the Secretary of Commerce submits to Congress the
ship recapitalization plan, the aircraft remodernization plan, and
supporting workforce management plans. When will NOAA submit the
aircraft remodernization plan and the supporting workforce management
plans to Congress?
Answer. The NOAA Aircraft Recapitalization Plan is in the final
stages of NOAA review and is scheduled to be submitted to Congress
through the Department of Commerce by 1st Quarter FY 2010. The NOAA
Corps Workforce Management Plan is scheduled to be submitted by the 1st
Quarter FY 2010 as well.
Question 25. Is the current authorization of 379 NOAA Corps
officers sufficient? Please offer justification.
Answer. Yes, the authorization of 379 NOAA Corps officers is
sufficient based on the current scope of the NOAA Corps mission and the
size of the NOAA Corps fleet. The NOAA Corps strength is dependent on
the size of the fleet, structure of shore-based billets to sea/air
billets, and the Corps' ability to respond to national emergencies
(hurricane response and recovery, oil spills, etc.).
Question 26. How will the current number of officers affect NOAA
operations?
Answer. Currently the NOAA Corps is staffed at approximately 299
officers, with authorization of up to 321 officers. With the enactment
of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendment of 2008 (P.L.
110-386), NOAA is now authorized up to 379 officers.
The FY 2010 President's Budget requests the additional resources
necessary to fund a NOAA Corps end strength of 321 officers. NOAA Corps
Officers typically serve in three functional areas to meet
organizational requirements: (1) Planning (long-term planning to
determine future needs for operations, logistics, resources, and
technologies), (2) Preparation (near-term activities that support data
collection, training, and missions) and (3) Execution (collection of
data at sea or in the air such as ship, aircraft, and field
assignments). These additional officers will enable NOAA to maintain
the current level of support to the Line Offices. The increase will
also provide to appropriate balance of officers at each rank and allow
Junior Officers to full training billets to acquire the necessary
technical and leadership skills. Finally, the additional requested
officers will provide a surge capability in times of natural disasters
or other emergency situations.
Question 27. What are the top challenges facing the NOAA Corps and
how is NOAA addressing those challenges?
Answer. The NOAA Corps' principal challenges are: (1) the current
shortage of NOAA Corps officers overall and (2) an experience gap that
exists due to a lack of sufficiently experienced officers to serve in
critical leadership and operational roles.
The FY 2010 President's Budget requests an increase to increase the
number of NOAA corps officers from 299 to 321 by FY 2011. To date, the
Office of Marine and Aviation Operations has implemented the following
actions to address the NOAA Corps officer shortage and experience gap:
Requested resources to increase the number of NOAA Corps
officers
Improved training by:
--Establishing Professional Mariner Qualifications (A, B, C, and D
school)
--Providing Potential Senior Ship Officer training (management,
risk assessment training)
--Providing Leadership Development Training
Hired civilian Mates
Recruited inter-service transfers
Implemented mandatory augmentation policy
Improved Corps administration and recruiting strategy by:
--Defining competencies in the Leadership Development Framework
--Developing a new NOAA Corps recruiting video
--Revising the recruiting action plan
--Establishing Core Values
Question 28. The Administration's Budget Request for OMAO is $197
million, which is an $18.2 million (8.5 percent) decrease from FY 2009
enacted levels. More specifically, there were $17.5 million reductions
for terminations, $4.3 million reduction in program changes, $3.6
million increase to adjustments to base (labor and inflation). Can you
explain the $17.5 million in terminations in the FY 2010 OMAO budget?
Answer. The $17.5 million in terminations in the Office of Marine
and Aviation Operations' FY 2010 Budget are associated with funding
Congress provided in the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act above the
FY 2009 President's request. During FY 2009, OMAO allocated these funds
consistent with Congressional intent as described in the FY 2009
Omnibus Conference Report: to ensure continuity of ship operations and
proper manning levels and to offset fuel cost increases to maintain
operating days and flight hours. These funds were considered one-year
funding in FY 2009; consequently, they were reduced from OMAO's FY 2010
Budget. The President's FY 2010 Budget requests $164.2 million for the
Office of Marine and Aviation Operations for ship and aircraft
operations and maintenance, an increase of $3.6 million over the FY
2009 request.
Question 29. Does the FY 2010 Budget allow NOAA to meet aviation
remodernization needs?
Answer. Yes. The FY 2010 President's Budget provides necessary
funds to operate and maintain newly-acquired and reconditioned aircraft
(King Air and a third P-3 aircraft).
Question 30. Does the $3 million in new vessel construction allow
NOAA to continue with the ship recapitalization plan?
Answer. Yes. The $3 million in new vessel construction allows NOAA
to continue with its ship recapitalization plan by supporting the
initial design process for Fishery Survey Vessel 5, the replacement to
NOAA ship Oregon II.
Question 31. Is the current number of NOAA vessels adequate to meet
the growing mission requirements for the service? If not, how many
ships are necessary?
Answer. Yes, the FY 2010 President's Budget Request provides
support for approximately 3,400 ship operating days for the NOAA fleet,
plus an additional 400 operating days via outsourcing/charter.
This request also provides support for the operation and
maintenance of NOAA's fleet of active ships and shoreside support
facilities.
Question 32. Has NOAA conducted a study to determine the optimal
number and mix of its NOAA fleet of ships and aircraft?
Answer. Yes. NOAA's Ship and Aircraft Recapitalization Plans, which
are currently undergoing agency review, establish the optimal number
and mix of platforms to replace NOAA's aging fleet to meet current
requirements. The plans analyzed the capability and cost effectiveness
of different platforms to identify an optimal number and mix of ships
and aircraft. NOAA continues to explore new technologies and
alternatives to address NOAA's mission needs.
Question 33. Are there plans to standardize NOAA operations and
maintenance procedures?
Answer. Yes. OMAO established the Fleet Standardization Office to
develop and implement a fleet-wide management system. The development
phase adapted best practices from maritime industry and government
organizations' safety management systems and blended them with the
Office of Marine and Aviation Operations' organizational requirements.
The developed model is called the ``Fleet Operations Management
System,'' which integrates safety and environmental requirements with
operational management components. The management system is in the
implementation phase.
OMAO is developing the plans to implement a Shipboard Standardized
Maintenance program to ensure a high degree of readiness. Though
catastrophic failure of equipment can never be eliminated, it can be
reduced through effect oversight and standardized maintenance practices
to minimize ship down time. A Maintenance Logistics Manager position
will be established which will be responsible for over-arching NOAA
maintenance strategy and to develop policy and procedures for a
maintenance improvement plan. The Maintenance Logistics Manager will
conduct maintenance effectiveness reviews to inventory current
maintenance practices and issue administrative guidelines, instructions
and policies that implement and govern changes in procedures to ensure
best practices are followed.
Question 34. In 2000, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed
into law, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-557).
Although this statute prohibits shark-finning in U.S. waters, the
prohibition applies only to fishing vessels. Earlier this year, Senator
Kerry introduced S. 850, the Shark Conservation Act of 2009, which
would expand and enhance this anti-shark-finning language in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act to prohibit all U.S.-flagged vessels from having
custody, control, or possession of shark fins not naturally attached to
their corresponding carcasses. A companion bill to S. 850, H.R. 81, has
already been passed by the House of Representatives. Does NOAA support
the expanded shark-finning prohibition contained in S. 850 and H.R. 81?
Answer. NOAA supports the proposed amendments to the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act contained in S. 850 and
H.R. 81, which would explicitly prohibit transfer or receipt-at-sea of
shark fins that are not naturally attached to their corresponding
carcasses. The proposed amendments help to clarify the scope of the
government's enforcement authority, and effectively reverse the Ninth
Circuit's decision in U.S. v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark
Fins, 520 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2008). In that case, a U.S. vessel was
caught engaged in the at-sea transfer of thousands of pounds of fins,
purchased from fishing boats, with the intention of landing them in
Guatemala for shipment to Hong Kong. The vessel was charged with
violating the Shark Finning Prohibition Act under the broad definition
of ``fishing vessel'' contained in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. The District Court found for the
government, but the 9th Circuit reversed that ruling holding, in
relevant part, that the vessel was not a ``fishing vessel'' under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Transshipment
of fins-at-sea presents a significant threat to the sustainability of
shark stocks and the new prohibitions contained in S. 850 and H.R. 81
squarely addresses this activity.
NOAA believes the requirement contained in S. 850 and H.R. 81 that
prohibits the removal of shark fins at sea and requires all sharks to
be landed with the fins naturally attached would greatly increase the
at-sea enforceability of the finning ban. Because identifying sharks
can be difficult without the carcasses attached to the fins, this
change would also improve the ability of fishermen, dealers and
enforcement personnel to identify sharks at the species-level, thereby
improving the accuracy of reporting and enhancing our ability to
enforce prohibitions on the harvest of protected sharks. In 2008, NOAA
took action in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and the
Caribbean, that now requires all shark fins, including the tail, must
remain naturally attached to the shark carcass until that carcass has
been offloaded. This new requirement seems to be promoting improved
compliance with the finning ban.
The legislation also retains the rebuttable presumption that
illegal finning has occurred whenever shark fins are landed from a
fishing vessel and the weight of the fins, after landing, exceeds 5
percent of the weight of the carcasses. The rebuttable presumption is a
critical tool for dockside enforcement when enforcement officers are
unable to monitor an entire offload, and enhances shark conservation
efforts by allowing NOAA to utilize dealer landing records to detect
potential shark finning violations post-landing for subsequent follow-
up investigation. The legislation also provides a rebuttable
presumption that an illegal transfer has occurred when fins are found
onboard a vessel, other than a fishing vessel, that are not naturally
attached to the corresponding carcass. This rebuttable presumption is
also critical for at-sea enforcement of the shark finning ban. While
those in the legal shark trade could easily document the legitimacy of
fins onboard, this provision is critical to addressing the illegal
shark fin market because it obviates the requirement that would
otherwise exist that the vessel be caught in the act of transferring
fins illegally.
NOAA supports the amendment of the rebuttable presumption from the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act contained in
S. 850 and H.R. 81. This amended rebuttable presumption will
significantly enhance dockside and at-sea enforcement by enabling us to
detect a violation even when enforcement personnel are not present to
observe the entire offload or transfer. Although NOAA supports the
intent of this amendment, NOAA recommends clarifying the language in
section 3(2) by replacing the ``and'' after ``such fin was transferred
in violation of subparagraph (P)(iii)'' with ``, or'', so that section
3(2) would read as follows:
``by striking the matter following subparagraph (R) and
inserting the following:
``For purposes of subparagraph (P), there shall be a rebuttable
presumption that if any shark fin (including the tail) is found
aboard a vessel, other than a fishing vessel, without being
naturally attached to the corresponding carcass, such fin was
transferred in violation of subparagraph (P)(iii), or that if,
after landing, the total weight of shark fins (including the
tail) landed from any vessel exceeds 5 percent of the total
weight of shark carcasses landed, such fins were taken, held,
or landed in violation of subparagraph (P).''.''
NOAA recommends including a definition of ``naturally attached'' to
mean shark fins that remain attached to the shark carcass via at least
some portion of uncut skin. The addition of a definition of ``naturally
attached'' would both clarify the intent of the amendment and would
also allow fishermen to process and transport the shark in a manner
that maintains the quality of the meat.
Question 35. In recent years, organizations such as the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Union
for Conservation of Nature have observed population declines in scores
of different shark species worldwide. S. 850 and H.R. 81, the Shark
Conservation Act of 2009, would amend the High Seas Driftnet Fishing
Moratorium Protection Act (Title VI of Pub. L. 104-43) to allow the
United States to take appropriate action against countries that do not
have in place a shark conservation regulatory regime comparable to that
of the U.S. Does NOAA support the proposed amendment to the High Seas
Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Act contained in S. 850 and H.R. 81?
Answer. NOAA does not support the amendments to the High Seas
Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act contained in section 2 of
H.R. 81. First, the amendments imply there is a single identifiable
standard of shark conservation and management in the United States, and
fail to recognize the differences between state and Federal approaches
to shark management. Thus, as drafted, H.R. 81 could pose
implementation challenges and add to the litigation risks of defending
the U.S. in the face of potential challenges alleging that the U.S.
failed to properly identify nations engaged in shark fishing that had
not adopted a regulatory conservation program.
Second, the newly proposed requirements to the High Seas Driftnet
Fishing Moratorium Protection Act in H.R. 81, to address shark harvest
and bycatch, represent sometimes duplicative additions to the existing
requirements of that Act. For example, amendments to the High Seas
Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act, enacted as part of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization
Act, require a biennial report to Congress that identifies nations
whose vessels have been engaged in illegal, unreported, or unregulated
fishing or bycatch of protected living marine resources, including
sharks.
Third, the amendments to the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium
Protection Act contained in H.R. 81 appear to be broader in geographic
scope, relative to the current provisions in that Act, and may extend
into areas within the jurisdiction of other countries. NOAA would not
support such a provision insofar as it could require the United States
to take action against other nations for activities within their own
waters.
Finally, the United States succeeded in inserting strong new
language regarding shark conservation and management into the 2007
United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/62/177. This language
calls on states and regional fisheries management organizations to,
among other things: ensure the long-term conservation, management, and
sustainable use of sharks; prevent further declines of vulnerable or
threatened sharks; and take immediate and concerted action to improve
the implementation of, and compliance with, existing international and
national shark conservation measures, including those prohibiting the
practice of shark finning. NOAA is committed to carrying this
Resolution's call for action to the regional fisheries management
organizations of which the United States is a member, with the goal of
adopting legally-binding conservation measures where appropriate. NOAA
has determined that this multilateral approach will be a more effective
means of improving nations' efforts to conserve and manage sharks than
the amendments proposed in H.R. 81 to the identification and
certification process authorized in the High Seas Driftnet Moratorium
Protection Act.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Dr. Jane Lubchenco
Question 1. I can tell you that the people of Washington State
greatly appreciate the $7 million NOAA included in its budget for a new
coastal radar. Given the weather-sensitivity of so much of the region's
economy, wouldn't you agree that this radar is in many ways a piece of
economic infrastructure?
Answer. Yes, NOAA agrees. This new radar will provide important
data to improve our ability to forecast and provide more advanced
warning of high-impact weather events. These events affect all sectors
of the economy, including the transportation and marine industries.
Improved forecasts and increased warning lead times will allow for
appropriate mitigation actions that will benefit the region's economy.
Residents will also benefit from increased warning lead times, which
will support effective decisions that impact their lives and
livelihoods.
Question 2. If the full $7 million is not appropriated for the
radar in this Fiscal Year (2010), wouldn't we have to either sacrifice
the radar's capabilities or potentially delay the acquisition?
Answer. Yes. Appropriations of less than $7 million will cause
either a delay in the acquisition or a reduction in the capabilities of
the radar.
Question 3. Earlier this year, we enacted a number of ocean bills
as part of the omnibus public lands package. One of these bills, the
Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act, establishes
the first-ever national research program on ocean acidification. I
appreciate the funding in NOAA's 2010 budget for ocean acidification
research, but this funding is not designed to implement the ocean
acidification program created by our recently-enacted legislation. What
are NOAA's plans and timeline for implementing the Federal Ocean
Acidification Research and Monitoring Act?
Answer. NOAA looks forward to working with Congress to implement
the recently-passed Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring
Act, which creates an ocean acidification program within NOAA. NOAA
maintains a continued leadership role in this issue area, as we work
with our interagency partners to coordinate the development of the
required interagency working group and ocean acidification plan through
the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology. NOAA is
currently developing a coordinated plan to monitor and conduct research
on the effects of ocean acidification on marine organisms and
ecosystems. NOAA is also developing a set of options for evaluation, as
we work to develop the structure of the ocean acidification program
within NOAA. Finally, NOAA scientists met in March 2009, to draft a set
of priorities for ocean acidification research, based on the
anticipated ecosystem and socioeconomic impacts (at both regional and
national scales) that will likely result from increased ocean
acidification. Writing teams are currently drafting these priorities,
and implementation actions will be carried via a prospective
interagency plan.
Question 4. How soon will Congress see the bill's implementation
reflected in NOAA's budget?
Answer. Although the FY 2010 President's Budget was crafted before
passage of the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act,
it does include a request for $9.9 million for research on ocean
acidification, which is an increase of $5.5 million. The additional
funds include $4 million to implement long-term monitoring of ocean
acidification, and $1.5 million for efforts to understand, monitor and
forecast how ocean acidification affects the Nation's ecosystems and
living marine resources. NOAA looks forward to implementing the
recently passed Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring
Act, which creates an ocean acidification program within NOAA, and it
will continue to assess and evaluate the budget that will be needed to
allow NOAA to carry out this important work.
Question 5. In Washington State, we are lucky enough to have the
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary--a unique, pristine area that
is one of America's most productive marine ecosystems and spectacular
undeveloped shorelines. Over the past several years, I have pushed NOAA
and the Coast Guard to conduct a much-needed Safe Seas oil spill drill
in this Sanctuary to prepare for how to protect it in the event of an
oil spill. Why has NOAA not been able to conduct a Safe Seas drill in
the Olympic Coast Sanctuary yet?
Answer. The FY 2008 enacted appropriation for the Office of
Response and Restoration (ORR) was $5.2 million below the President's
FY 2008 Budget Request of $16.8 million, causing a significant impact
on the office. The FY 2009 appropriation provided the full President's
Request for ORR ($17.3 million) for the first time since FY 2003. These
funds enabled ORR to begin to restore the capacity and capabilities
lost over the past several years, but did not include resources to
conduct Safe Seas drills.
Question 6. Don't you think this would be a valuable step in
protecting Washington's vulnerable outer coast?
Answer. Yes, previous Safe Sea exercises have demonstrated the
value of advanced planning coordination between different response
agencies in training personnel and testing and implementing response
capabilities.
Question 7. How much would this cost?
Answer. An exercise on the Outer Coast of Washington is estimated
to cost about $700,000. This estimate includes funds to plan and
evaluate the exercise, provide training to response personnel and
volunteers, support tribal participation, conduct field operations, and
support contingency plan updates based on the lessons learned during
the exercise.
Question 8. In Washington State, we have recently seen the
emergence of the Puget Sound Partnership--an innovative, collaborative,
science-based effort to manage the Puget Sound environment based on an
ecosystem-based management approach. Will NOAA invest in this important
effort in Washington State, which is already being seen throughout the
country as a model for regional ocean governance and ecosystem-based
management?
Answer. We agree the Puget Sound Partnership is an important
initiative to prioritize restoration efforts and coordinate Federal,
state, local, tribal and private entities. The Partnership has helped
to implement salmon recovery plans, which outline specific management
actions needed to ensure listed species and their ecosystems are
restored. Implementation of these specific management actions has been
one of the Partnership's highest priorities. NOAA has invested in this
effort through numerous avenues including the Pacific Coast Salmon
Recovery Fund (PCSRF), Endangered Species Act Recovery Plans, and the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Since 2000, through PCSRF, NOAA Fisheries has provided almost $70
million to projects in Puget Sound, which leveraged $22 million in
state matching funds as well as other critical funds from tribes and
local entities. This investment goes toward projects throughout Puget
Sound to protect, restore, and conserve Pacific salmon populations and
their habitats.
Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, NOAA has
selected high-quality, high-priority projects to restore wetlands, salt
marsh, oyster and coral reefs, as well as remove fish passage barriers
on coastal rivers and streams. Puget Sound will receive $16.5 million,
or nearly 10 percent, of the funding awarded through a national
competition to support six projects from the Puget Sound Partnership's
Action Agenda to clean up Puget Sound.
Question 9. The work that NOAA does each and every day helps
support the science and conservation needed by the Puget Sound
Partnership. I worry, though, that in terms of its budget, NOAA can
only fund efforts to support the Puget Sound Partnership when it is
work the agency is already doing. Isn't there a ``budget flexibility''
problem when it comes to this state/Federal partnership?
Answer. The Puget Sound Partnership represents a special
opportunity for NOAA to demonstrate that the agency has the expertise
to assist in making ecosystem-based management a reality for the
largest estuary in the Pacific Northwest. NOAA is uniquely capable of
delivering and using science to inform restoration and conservation
actions on an ecosystem scale.
As noted above, NOAA uses a variety of funding mechanisms in order
to participate in the recovery of the Puget Sound. Within current
funding, NOAA is expanding its role in delivering the science to better
understand the Puget Sound ecosystem and the stresses it faces by
developing the tools, such as an Integrated Ecosystem Assessment, to
support science-based risk assessments and decisionmaking. NOAA will
continue to play an integral and important role in efforts to recover
the Sound by 2020.
Question 10. Wouldn't NOAA have the flexibility to more effectively
support the work of the Puget Sound Partnership if it had a pool of
funding devoted specifically to this effort?
Answer. As outlined above, NOAA has been actively supporting the
Puget Sound Partnership and believes we currently have the necessary
tools to continue to do so effectively.
Question 11. A small program called ``Mussel Watch'' will be
reduced under the NOAA 2010 budget to $295,000 (down from $395,000 for
FY 2009). This program analyzes mussel tissues to monitor water quality
and chemical contaminants. In April, NOAA released a major report based
on Mussel Watch data that found flame retardant chemicals in all U.S.
coastal waters and Great Lakes. I'm deeply concerned about NOAA's
proposed cuts to the Mussel Watch program. The 24-year-old program has
collected data on over 120 contaminants along Washington's shorelines,
and has been instrumental in demonstrating the Puget Sound's toxic
problems--a long-term data set that I'm sure you can appreciate as a
scientist. Although the program is small, it is instrumental in
monitoring water quality in Washington. As a scientist, wouldn't you
agree that long-term data sets like the Mussel Watch program are
crucial for monitoring our environment?
Answer. Yes, long-term data sets like the Mussel Watch program are
crucial for monitoring our environment. NOAA's Mussel Watch is the
longest continuous, nationwide contaminant-monitoring program in U.S.
coastal and Great Lakes waters, and is counted among NOAA's ``Top 10
Foundation Data Sets.'' The program analyzes chemical and biological
contaminant trends in sediment and bivalve tissue for a suite of more
than 130 organic and inorganic contaminants; Clostridium perfringens
(pathogen) concentrations; and trace metals. In addition, Federal,
state, and local authorities rely on the program to provide baseline
data or evaluate impacts of extreme events such as oil spills, tropical
storms, and hurricanes. Program data are called upon to evaluate the
efficacy of environmental regulation and coastal and Great Lakes
remediation efforts. Mussel Watch also provides critical baseline data
to NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration in their efforts to
respond to a wide range of events across the Nation each year, and to
evaluate the environmental impacts of these events.
Question 12. Will NOAA continue support for this successful and
important program in future years?
Answer. NOAA will continue to support the Mussel Watch program, and
fully recognizes the importance of continuity of operations.
Question 13. Will you commit to working with me to restore this
funding to a more appropriate level?
Answer. NOAA is committed to working with Congress on this program.
Question 14. The Recovery Plan for Puget Sound Southern Resident
Orcas released by NOAA earlier last year says the cost to delist
southern resident orcas will be at least $50 million over 28 years.
Your 2010 budget, however, only includes just over $1 million for these
efforts. At these funding levels, doesn't NOAA risk failing to delist
the species within 28 years as the recovery plan states?
Answer. NOAA must balance many priorities for recovering threatened
and endangered species when developing budget requests. Based on the
life history of killer whales and the nature of the threats, progress
toward recovery will be a long-term effort that could take 28 years or
more. Although NOAA is responsible for developing recovery plans, the
plan for Puget Sound Southern Resident Orcas guides the actions of many
agencies, and while some of the costs identified in the recovery plan
are attributable to actions for which NOAA is the lead responsible
party, many of the actions include other responsible parties as well.
NOAA strives to identify the highest priority and most cost-effective
research and recovery actions to fund within available resources, to
ensure the agency is contributing to the recovery of the Southern
Residents and moving toward the goal of delisting. NOAA has already
designated critical habitat, completed the Recovery Plan, and begun
implementing recovery actions.
Question 15. The Orca Recovery Plan states that recovery efforts
over the first 5 years will cost $15 million. Under this budget, aren't
we failing to make the initial up-front gains called for by the
Southern Resident Orca Recovery Plan?
Answer. While some of the $15 million is attributed to actions for
which NOAA is the lead responsible party, many of the actions include
other responsible parties as well. Recovery of the Southern Resident
Orcas will require contributions from a variety of government agencies
and stakeholder groups as identified in the Recovery Plan. NOAA has
made gains in establishing a recovery program, including designating
critical habitat, completing the Recovery Plan, and implementing
recovery actions. For example, NOAA has made significant progress
working with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife on oil
spill response planning and reducing vessel impacts through enforcement
presence on the water and through education. Orca recovery is part of
the Puget Sound Partnership Action Agenda, and NOAA is coordinating
with salmon recovery programs. In coordination with the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NOAA has developed proposed
vessel regulations to protect the whales. In addition, an active
research program including NOAA, universities, and private research
organizations is working to help fill in data gaps and guide recovery.
NOAA has developed many valuable partnerships to leverage available
funding from a number of sources to maximize our resources for the
benefit of the whales.
Question 16. The Pacific Salmon Stronghold Conservation Act of
2009, S. 817, would establish a new regional Salmon Stronghold
Partnership program that provides Federal support and resources to
protect a network of the healthiest remaining wild Pacific salmon
ecosystems in North America. The bill promotes enhanced coordination
and cooperation of Federal, tribal, state and local governments, public
and private land managers, fisheries managers, power authorities, and
non-governmental organizations in efforts to protect salmon
strongholds. This Act will complement efforts to recover threatened and
endangered stocks by directly supporting public-private incentive-based
efforts to maintain strong ``seed'' stocks, sustaining the economic,
ecological, cultural, and health benefits of wild Pacific salmon for
future generations. What are the benefits to investing public resources
in areas where populations are healthy?
Answer. Pacific salmon conservation requires a prioritized, yet
multi-pronged approach. This includes restoring those habitats and
populations that are most imperiled, managing fisheries and hatcheries
effectively, and promoting sound stewardship of watersheds that are
home to the most robust populations and habitat. Protecting healthy,
properly functioning habitat can provide a buffer against extinction
and may provide habitat for listed species as populations rebound due
to conservation efforts or migrate through or past these areas. Robust
populations from stronghold areas could also serve to help repopulate
degraded habitats as conditions are improved through recovery efforts.
Question 17. What is the economic value of commercial and
recreational salmon fisheries in the U.S.?
Answer. In 2007, U.S. commercial dockside value of salmon landings
was $381 million, or 9 percent of total U.S. landings and 19 percent of
West Coast and Alaska landings. Salmon ranked in the ``top five''
species by both landings and dockside value in 2007. When using
economic multipliers, in 2007 U.S. commercial salmon fisheries
generated $5 billion in sales and $2.2 billion in income, and supported
over 77,000 jobs. The overall economic value of recreational marine
fishing in 2007 was $5.2 billion.
Question 18. What is the value of these fisheries to coastal
communities, in particular?
Answer. A significant portion of the $5 billion in sales, $2.2
billion in income, and over 77,000 jobs from commercial salmon fishing
is generated in coastal communities.
The recreational value of salmon fishing to coastal communities is
believed to be substantial. It was estimated by Ted L. Helvoigt and
Diane Charlton in The Economic Value of Rogue River Salmon (2009) that
a single recreationally caught salmon or steelhead is worth
approximately $245 in economic benefits. Add tourism and other
secondary benefits of salmon conservation and it becomes apparent that
by investing in natural resources, the United States is sustaining
economic drivers as well.
Question 19. What is the relationship between climate change
adaptation and mitigation and the salmon stronghold approach?
Answer. Climate change will affect salmon in a variety of ways,
including temperature changes in riverine habitat and changes in
freshwater timing, quality and quantity. Identifying and protecting
habitats before they become degraded could help mitigate the potential
negative impacts of climate change on salmon. The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change predicts that 30 percent of species may become
extinct as a result of climate change, but that some species may
benefit. Although NOAA's ability to predict climate change-related
effects is greatest at the global and regional scales, NOAA is
developing the ability to predict climate change effects at
increasingly finer scales. This ability will ultimately be used to
identify and protect habitats that will continue to support various
life stages of salmon under warming conditions. Other effects, such as
changing ocean conditions, are more difficult to address. But these
effects can be managed by understanding the role ocean conditions play
in the growth and survival of juvenile fish, recruitment of fish to
fisheries, and maturation of fish into returning spawners and then
using this information to increase production in natural freshwater
habitats or to reduce harvest rates during poor conditions.
Question 20. Does global climate change suggest a greater need for
the Pacific Salmon Stronghold Conservation Act?
Answer. Protecting salmon habitat is important, especially in light
of the threat posed by global climate change and changing ocean
conditions. NOAA manages a number of existing programs that could
support land acquisition and restoration in salmon strongholds, such as
the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, Coastal and Estuarine Land
Protection program, and Community Based Restoration program. The
Department of the Interior manages other applicable programs.
Question 21. Describe how the Pacific Salmon Stronghold
Conservation Act would complement the Pacific Salmon Coastal Recovery
Fund.
Answer. As indicated in the recovery plans for listed species,
additional large investments will be required over the coming decades,
not only to reverse the significant degradation of salmon habitat that
has occurred but to preserve the healthiest intact salmon habitats that
remain. The Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund is currently focused
on listed and at-risk salmon, and targets funds on restoring degraded
habitats to help recover them to the point that Endangered Species Act
protections are no longer needed. We believe recovering these stocks is
the highest priority at this time. However, we recognize the importance
of preserving healthy stocks as well. The Pacific Salmon Stronghold
Conservation Act offers a conservation tool that would benefit
populations of both listed and non-listed species, including stocks
that are in good condition.
Question 22. How will this Act help us measure our overall
effectiveness in recovering and protecting Pacific salmon populations?
Answer. Habitats in good condition and species that are not listed
under the Endangered Species Act can provide baseline and other
information on how to prevent future listings and on factors that are
affecting all populations, such as ocean conditions.
Question 23. Do you have suggestions of ways to improve the Pacific
Salmon Stronghold Conservation Act?
Answer. NOAA believes that the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
and other existing programs, including NOAA's programs for salmon
management, habitat restoration, and land protection, have the
flexibility to focus on the highest priorities with respect to salmon
recovery, but recognizes the importance of the PSSCA's focus on
preserving high quality salmon habitats. Nonetheless, there is a risk
that funding for a new program would compete with existing high
priorities. If a new source of funding is established, NOAA would want
to ensure that it truly is targeted to the most important and effective
uses.
NOAA has reservations about the difficulty of designing and
implementing a program that compensates land holders based on the
ecosystem services provided by their property. Program requirements
would have to be developed to ensure landowners were not being
compensated for mitigation obligations required by state or Federal law
or that landowners were not compensated multiple times by different
programs for the same land. NOAA, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and
the National Fish Habitat Board would need to ensure that ecosystem
service payments do not overlap with other conservation payments by
working and communicating closely with other agencies and programs that
already do, or might in the future, provide such payments.
In addition, because some grants might pass through the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), it could be difficult to retain
consistency in how the program is administered. Taking advantage of
NOAA's existing relationships would be a more effective way to
implement the grant program for habitat protection, rather than
establishing a new, dedicated stronghold initiative solely with NFWF.
Finally, NOAA would prefer the Salmon Stronghold Partnership Board
include a balanced representation across the coastal western states.
Currently, the structure of the board includes both the Bonneville
Power Administration and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council,
as they provide and help direct a significant amount of salmon funding
in the Columbia basin. Given that salmon are in critical condition
along the entire West Coast, NOAA recommends that the legislation
structure the Board to contain additional representatives from across
the region.
Question 24. Late last month, the National Marine Fisheries Service
announced that it will open public comment on a proposed Fishery
Management Plan by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council for the
possible development of commercial fishing in the Arctic. Just 3 years
ago, the North Pacific Council considered options for fishery
management in the Arctic and ultimately voted to prohibit commercial
fishing there until researchers gather sufficient information on fish
and the Arctic marine environment. In your opinion, do we really have
sufficient information at this point to make a well-informed decision
on Arctic fishery management?
Answer. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council began
considering Arctic fisheries management in 2006. After a series of
Council meetings and review of analyses for the action, the Council
unanimously recommended the Fishery Management Plan for Fish Resources
in the Arctic Management Area in February 2009. This plan includes
measures designed to ensure sustainable fisheries management in the
Arctic Management Area. The management measures include a prohibition
on commercial fishing until more information is available to identify
sustainable harvest levels, and a review process that specifies the
information to be analyzed if the Council chooses to consider allowing
commercial fishing in the Arctic Management Area. A plan amendment and
revisions to the regulations would be required before commercial
fishing could be allowed in the Arctic Management Area. The public
comment period on the proposed plan and rule ended July 27, 2009. The
plan and rule are expected to be effective some time in the Fall of
2009.
Question 25. Coastal economies generate nearly 60 percent of the
Nation's Gross Domestic Product, are home to 157 million Americans and
employ 69 million people. Unfortunately, funding for the Coastal Zone
Managements grants has stagnated at a time when these communities need
more help with building resilient communities to adapt to climate
change, mitigating pollution into our watersheds, and helping to
conserve land. How does the NOAA budget reflect the Administration's
priorities for coastal issues?
Answer. The President's FY 2010 Budget requests significant funds
to address coastal priorities. Within the Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management (OCRM) a total of $121.6 million is requested,
which includes:
$66.1 million for coastal zone management grants;
$26.1 million for the National Estuarine Research Reserves;
$15 million for the Coastal Estuarine Land Conservation
Program;
$10.4 million for coastal stewardship including a new
Communities Task Force;
$2.1 million for marine protected areas; and
$1.9 million to assist the States with energy licensing.
In addition to the $121.6 million requested for OCRM, NOAA's FY
2010 Budget Request also includes additional funding to support coastal
priorities, including: $20.6 million for the Coastal Services Center,
to provide technical assistance to states and other partners; $6
million for implementation of the coastal near-term priority of the
Ocean Research Priorities Plan; $2.9 million for the Coastal Storms
Program; $52 million for the National Centers for Coastal Ocean
Science; $55 million for the National Sea Grant College Program; and
$44 million for the Office of Habitat Conservation. The funds requested
for these offices and programs support NOAA's coastal activities,
including efforts to understand and predict changes in the coastal
environment, conserve and manage coastal and marine resources, and
interpret and deliver tools and products to enhance coastal management.
Question 26. The FY 2010 Budget Request provides level funding for
the Coastal Zone Management grants. If I do my math correctly: $66
million divided by 156 million Americans then we are investing 42 cents
per person in our coastal counties while these economies are generating
$5,000 per person in GDP. This does not seem equitable. How can coastal
states meet the growing demands placed on them and continue to generate
wealth for our country if their Federal partner is not proposing a
realistic budget to support their needs?
Answer. NOAA provides support to coastal states through a variety
of programs, in addition to providing funding through Coastal Zone
Management grants. NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources
Management, which has primary responsibility for coastal management,
also includes the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, Marine
Protected Areas Center, Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation
Program, and Coral Reef Conservation Program--all of which respond to
the needs of coastal managers. NOAA also provides non-monetary support
to coastal managers, including policy and technical assistance to the
states.
NOAA has been working to address new challenges in coastal
management, such as climate change, and to develop new approaches to
these issues. Over the past several years, NOAA has worked with the
states to develop a new vision for coastal management as part of
reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act. NOAA's vision is
for a stronger program that will set challenging goals while using
resources efficiently and effectively to meet them. Building upon this
new vision, NOAA has begun to develop its own internal coastal
strategy, as a way to better integrate our programs and our abilities
to deliver needed products, services, and assistance to our coastal
management partners.
Ensuring healthy, resilient, and vibrant coastal ecosystems,
communities and economies is a priority for NOAA. NOAA looks forward to
working with coastal states to address these challenges, and to ensure
that our existing resources are used strategically and efficiently to
meet the most pressing needs.
Question 27. The Northwest Straits Initiative takes a grassroots
approach to marine conservation and leverages Federal, state, and
foundation dollars to carry out protection and restoration projects at
the local level. While NOAA is a Federal agency with regulatory powers,
the Northwest Straits Initiative is a small, non-regulatory
organization that functions through consensus and builds capacity at
the county levels. Both approaches are necessary and complimentary, and
many relationships and partnerships already exist between NOAA and the
Initiative. What are your thoughts on collaboration and partnerships
between NOAA and the Initiative, and other successful grassroots
programs? What can be done to encourage such partnerships?
Answer. As noted, NOAA and the Northwest Straits Initiative
(Initiative) collaborate in several ways. NOAA's Marine Debris Program
has funded a number of projects proposed by the Initiative, and
additional projects were recently supported with American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act funding. In addition, the Initiative staff is housed
at the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, a NOAA-funded
partnership program with the Washington State Department of Ecology.
NOAA has many other examples of successful partnerships with
grassroots programs. Most of the National Estuarine Research Reserves
were supported by grassroots organizations during their designation
phase, and reserves continue to enjoy support from grassroots ``friends
of the reserve'' organizations. Similarly, NOAA's Community-Based
Restoration Program involves numerous grassroots and community
organizations in its restoration projects. NOAA's Coastal Zone
Management Program has partnerships at the community level in special
area planning, urban waterfront redevelopment, and public access
development. As NOAA increases regional collaboration efforts, it will
become easier to identify local partnerships and leverage NOAA
resources for partnership opportunities that address NOAA's mission.
NOAA programs with significant local components such as the National
Estuarine Research Reserves and other community-based restoration
programs help support these types of partnerships. Continued support
for these NOAA programs can help encourage partnership activities.
Question 28. The Magnuson-Stevens Act put in place clear deadlines
to end overfishing by 2011 by requiring annual catch limits set by
science, coupled with accountability measures intended to ensure their
effectiveness. What do you anticipate NOAA's budget needs will be over
the next several years to end overfishing, as required by the MSA?
Answer. NOAA's FY 2010 Budget includes $98.3 million to implement
the 2006 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, an increase of $56.5 million over the amounts provided
for implementation in the FY 2009 enacted budget. This amount includes
$12 million for NOAA and $4 million for the Regional Fishery Management
Councils to implement annual catch limits and accountability measures
to end overfishing. The FY 2010 request focuses on species that have an
overfishing determination. NOAA will continue to focus on implementing
its Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act mandates.
Question 29. NOAA is the primary Federal agency charged with
managing our Nation's fisheries in Federal waters. Further, under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, it has been determined that NOAA has the
authority to regulate aquaculture, in addition to our wild fish stocks.
Dr. Lubchenco, will you affirm this point?
Answer. Yes, I will affirm that NOAA has the authority to regulate
aquaculture in Federal waters, in addition to our wild fish stocks.
NOAA's longstanding position has been that ``fishing'' encompasses
aquaculture under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This position is based on a
1993 legal opinion issued by NOAA's Office of General Counsel, which
concluded in part:
. . . The Act contains an exceptionally broad definition of the
term ``fishing'' encompassing not only the catching or taking
of fish, but also the ``harvesting'' of fish and ``any other
activity'' expected to result in, or ``other operations at
sea'' in support of, ``the catching, taking or harvesting of
fish.'' Use of the tem ``harvesting'' is particularly
significant since it adds an additional concept beyond
``catching'' or ``taking''--harvesting connotes the gathering
of a crop--which brings within the purview of the Act any
aquaculture facility located in the EEZ.
Question 30. Given the developments in the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council, and the interest among many nationwide to pursue
offshore aquaculture development, how does NOAA plan to manage this
sector of the fishing industry going forward?
Answer. NOAA plans to manage this sector of the aquaculture
industry as part of a comprehensive national framework for domestic
marine aquaculture. On September 3, 2009, the agency announced its
intent to develop a new national policy for marine aquaculture in the
coming months, including aquaculture activity in Federal waters. The
national policy will build on NOAA's significant work to date to
safeguard U.S. coastal and ocean environments, while enabling
sustainable domestic aquaculture that adds to the U.S. seafood supply
and supports important commercial and recreational fisheries. The
policy also will include development of coordinated Federal standards
for permitting aquaculture facilities in Federal waters and strategies
to provide the scientific information needed for permitting decisions.
This approach will ensure that offshore aquaculture proceeds in an
environmentally responsible manner that is consistent with NOAA's
stated policy to protect wild stocks and the quality of marine
ecosystems and is compatible with other uses of the marine environment.
The new national policy also will provide context for the Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) for Regulating Offshore Aquaculture in the Gulf
of Mexico, which took effect on September 3, 2009, by operation of law.
Question 31. At our hearing on May 9, Alexandra Cousteau said that
if we are to take ocean policy serious, we need to take it to the land.
Land-based pollution is one of the biggest threats to our oceans, how
will the Administration help communities and local business address
this threat if it is proposing to zero out the non-point pollution
implementation grants?
Answer. The Administration has not included specific funding for
non-point pollution implementation grants within NOAA's budget.
However, the Administration has requested funding for non-point
pollution efforts in the budget requests for both the Environmental
Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Within the NOAA budget, existing Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
funding mechanisms can be used to support non-point pollution efforts.
States can use a portion of their CZMA Section 306 funding for non-
point pollution control. While there is no specific request for non-
point pollution, other programs including the National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science, the Coastal Services Center, and the National
Estuarine Research Reserve System, develop and disseminate management
tools and scientific research on non-point source pollution problems
and responses.
Question 32. At the confirmation hearing for you and Dr. Holdren, I
asked both of you how to ensure that NOAA and the National Marine
Fisheries Service had adequate say in the environmental decisions
regarding offshore oil and gas drilling in the Arctic. In particular, I
was concerned that the agency's scientists had been ignored by Minerals
Management Service in the past, and want to make sure that mistake is
not repeated. What steps have you taken within NOAA, and the Obama
Administration taken throughout the Federal Government, to ensure that
environmental agencies' concerns are given the deference they deserve?
Answer. NOAA, the Minerals Management Service (MMS), and other
Federal agencies involved in Arctic oil and gas development issues
coordinate our views at the field level and coordinate on policy issues
at the headquarters level, with significant national issues handled
through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). For example, NOAA
recently provided input to CEQ on the Department of the Interior's
review of its 5 year plan for outer continental shelf exploration and
development.
For Arctic issues in particular, NOAA Fisheries Service's staff in
Alaska routinely meet with MMS to discuss the potential effects of oil
and gas exploration and development on fish stocks, marine mammals,
human users, and other components of the ecosystem. This is done
through a variety of avenues. Examples include coordination and review
of MMS's Annual Studies Plans; consultations under the Endangered
Species Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act on lease sales, exploration (both seismic and
exploratory drilling), and development plans; and coordination of oil
spill response plans.
Question 33. What is NOAA's current involvement in the Department
of Interior's reevaluation of arctic oil and gas drilling plans?
Answer. NOAA recently provided comments to the Minerals Management
Service (MMS) on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas--Oil and Gas Lease Sale Areas
209, 212, 217, and 221, and continues to work with MMS to address
resource issues.
NOAA also works with the Department of the Interior to develop oil
spill contingency plans. These plans include ensuring environmentally
sensitive areas are mapped and strategies are prepared to protect
marine resources.
The week of July 20, 2009, NOAA and MMS held a Strategy Retreat in
Anchorage, Alaska to discuss upcoming Arctic oil and gas activities.
Question 34. What steps are you taking to ensure that as the
Department of Interior reevaluates its arctic oil and gas drilling
plans, NOAA's scientists are free to give their professional scientific
evaluations and that those evaluations are given the weight they
deserve?
Answer. NOAA's primary role in these matters is to provide
scientific information and resource management advice to minimize
adverse effects of oil and gas drilling on the marine mammals and fish
that rely on the fragile Arctic environment. NOAA also has a role in
authorizing the incidental take of marine mammals that may result from
oil and gas activities authorized by the Minerals Management Service
(MMS). NOAA scientists are encouraged to provide their professional
advice on these issues, providing MMS with the best available
information to support informed decisionmaking.
NOAA will continue to work with agencies such as MMS to ensure
sound management decisions by:
Participating in the environmental impact analysis of
proposed actions that may adversely affect living marine
resources and their habitats;
Consulting with the Federal action agencies under the
Endangered Species Act and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act;
Recommending measures to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse
effects;
Providing technical assistance, sharing available data, and
identifying data gaps; and
Working with the oil and gas industry applicants during the
Marine Mammal Protection Act process to prescribe measures to
effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species
that may be harassed by oil and gas activities.
Question 35. Last Congress, the Subcommittee led the successful
effort to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program Act at
substantially higher funding levels. It was disappointing to see that
the program was level-funded in NOAA's recent budget proposal. How can
we work together to build on Sea Grant's more than 40 years of success
in marine and coastal research, education and outreach?
Answer. NOAA appreciates Congressional support for the National Sea
Grant College Program. Sea Grant is NOAA's primary university-based
program in support of coastal resource use and conservation. Sea
Grant's research and outreach programs promote better understanding,
conservation, and use of America's coastal resources, addressing issues
from local to global concerns.
The President's FY 2010 Budget requests approximately $55 million
for the National Sea Grant College Program, consistent with
Administration priorities and FY 2009 levels; the FY 2010 request also
provides an additional $88,000 for an Adjustment to Base (ATB). The ATB
for Sea Grant is part of a larger NOAA ATB request within the
President's request for Fiscal Year 2010. Across NOAA, increases for
ATBs will enable NOAA to fund the estimated FY 2010 Federal pay raise
of 2.0 percent and annualize the FY 2009 pay raise of 3.9 percent. This
request is critical to sustain the current operations level and support
the estimated number of full-time employees in 2010. Without these
funds, NOAA will not be able to support inflation for labor and non-
labor activities including service contracts, utilities, field office
leases and rent charges from the General Services Administration.
Question 36. How can the Sea Grant network be better used by NOAA
to achieve its mission responsibilities?
Answer. NOAA and Sea Grant are aligning their strategic objectives
to new and emerging NOAA and regional mission priorities and
responsibilities. The Sea Grant program's network is being relied upon
to help NOAA better connect with stakeholders at the regional level.
As one example, NOAA is working to better utilize the Sea Grant
program's networks to provide climate services to key stakeholders.
NOAA is expanding regional coordination and communication efforts by
integrating program activities to more effectively address NOAA's
mission at both the national and regional scales. In FY 2010, NOAA is
seeking to advance priority climate engagement strategies throughout
the agency through climate engagement mini-grants. These climate
engagement projects will serve to catalyze collaboration and
cooperation between Sea Grant and the NOAA regional teams and will
jumpstart NOAA's ability to provide climate services to key
stakeholders. These projects will also serve as internal models for all
regions, line offices, and agency programs.
Question 37. What is your vision of Sea Grant's role in the
National Climate Service?
Answer. The impacts of climate change are imminent for coastal and
island communities, which are home to over fifty percent of the U.S.
population, contribute to one-third of the U.S. gross domestic product,
and produce one-half of the Nation's jobs. The Sea Grant extension
network offers a conduit to provide climate services to key
stakeholders, including immediate assistance to mayors and coastal
communities. In addition, Sea Grant can work to develop community
knowledge and expertise related to: renewable production and efficient
use of energy; adaptation to the impacts of climate change; sustainable
approaches to building-scale and community development.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Dr. Jane Lubchenco
Question 1. The Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 (CRCA)
established the Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP) within NOAA and
authorized appropriations to NOAA for coral reef protection and
management through 2004. The CRCA provided NOAA with the authority to
undertake a number of activities to understand, manage, and protect
coral reef ecosystems by authorizing five major activities including
the National Coral Reef Action Strategy (NAS); a granting program for
coral reef conservation projects in the states and territories; the
establishment of the Coral Reef Conservation Fund in partnership with
the non-profit National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; additional
authority for NOAA to implement a national program to conserve coral
reef ecosystems; and authority for the NOAA Administrator to provide
grants to state and local governments to respond to unforeseen or
disaster-related coral reef emergencies.
NOAA's CRCP is a valuable program that should be reauthorized in
order to ensure that these authorities are preserved and updated. It is
my understanding that NOAA currently has a draft bill in preparation. I
look forward to working with the Administration in crafting a bill for
consideration. To this end, when do you estimate the Administration's
proposed bill will be made available?
Answer. NOAA will not be forwarding an Administration proposal to
reauthorize the Coral Reef Conservation Act to Congress for
consideration in the 111th Congress. We intend to work with the Senate
and the House on any introduced legislation to ensure it meets the
needs of the Administration. To that end, NOAA generally supports the
direction taken in S. 1580, which was considered in the 110th Congress.
We look forward to working with the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation when similar legislation is introduced this
Congress.
Question 2. More than 80 percent of seafood consumed in this
country is imported--often from nations that do not have stringent
environmental and conservation regulations. More than half of that
imported seafood is farm-raised, again with little environmental
regulation. In my home state of Hawaii, we are fortunate to have
environmentally-responsible aquaculture as part of our economy, but
many other states and territories are moving their operations abroad
because of the inability to obtain permits in the U.S. Unfortunately we
will lose important jobs in the process. What is your position on
establishing a national framework for domestic aquaculture, fostering a
viable domestic industry, and keeping both environmentally-sustainable
jobs and food supply here in the U.S.?
Answer. NOAA supports establishing a national framework for
domestic marine aquaculture. On September 3, 2009, the agency announced
its intent to develop a national policy in the coming months, including
a comprehensive framework for addressing aquaculture activity in
Federal waters. The national policy will build on NOAA's significant
work to date to safeguard U.S. coastal and ocean environments, while
enabling sustainable domestic aquaculture that adds to the U.S. seafood
supply and supports important commercial and recreational fisheries.
The policy also will include development of coordinated Federal
standards for permitting aquaculture facilities in Federal waters and
strategies to provide the scientific information needed for permitting
decisions. The new national policy also will provide context for the
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Regulating Offshore Aquaculture in
the Gulf of Mexico, which took effect on September 3, 2009, by
operation of law.
The new national policy for aquaculture will help foster a more
robust domestic aquaculture industry that provides safe and sustainable
seafood and jobs for our Nation. At the same time, the policy will
ensure effective management of the industry through reasonable
regulations and policies that protect and conserve marine species and
habitats and ensure that the industry operates in a manner consistent
with NOAA's stewardship responsibilities.
Question 3. What role will aquaculture play, in partnership with
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in the broad mandate to end overfishing? What
level of funding would be required for such an effort?
Answer. One of NOAA's missions is to manage the sustainable use of
marine resources to provide safe and sustainable seafood and create
jobs in coastal communities. Marine aquaculture and traditional harvest
fisheries together achieve both of these goals. With wild capture
harvest at or above sustainable levels for many fisheries, and with
demand for seafood growing, wild capture fisheries should be rebuilt
and domestic marine aquaculture should grow to provide safe seafood and
economic opportunities for struggling coastal towns. The President's FY
2010 Budget requests $7.7 million for the NOAA Aquaculture Program.
Two key areas where aquaculture can help to end are: (1) using
demonstration projects to assist interested fishermen in adopting
aquaculture practices, and (2) using stock enhancement to help rebuild
overfished stocks.
Demonstration Projects: NOAA is currently exploring options to
develop a network of near-shore and onshore aquaculture demonstration
projects with state, local, academic, and traditional fishing and
aquaculture industry partners. These projects would build on lessons
learned from similar projects in Puerto Rico, New Hampshire, and Hawaii
by testing new technologies and serving as ``learning laboratories'' to
further monitor and minimize environmental impacts. These projects
could act as floating classrooms to train interested fishermen in
adopting sustainable marine aquaculture practices.
Stock Enhancement: Stock enhancement is a type of aquaculture that
has shown promise for reducing the natural rebuilding time required for
some depleted fish stocks. NOAA-sponsored stock enhancement research is
underway to help achieve fishery management and habitat restoration
goals around the Nation--such as rebuilding stocks of Alaskan king
crab, Pacific groundfish, and salmon, restoring oyster reefs, as well
as protecting and enhancing depleted near-shore fishery resources in
Hawaii.
Question 4. What role will the Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) tool
have in assisting with proper siting for aquaculture?
Answer. NOAA plans to build on past work as well as the ongoing
work of the Ocean Policy Task Force to create a comprehensive framework
for marine aquaculture that facilitates safe and sustainable U.S.
operations. Within this context, Marine Spatial Planning would provide
an analytical and decision-making tool to help determine where
aquaculture facilities could be located in the context of multiple
other uses. Importantly, in addition to informing where facilities
should avoid siting aquaculture operations, Marine Spatial Planning can
also identify locations where potential synergies could arise from co-
location. For example, a symposium scheduled this Fall in Rhode Island
will explore the idea of co-locating wind farms with aquaculture
operations to achieve multiple benefits and reduce the environmental
footprint of such an operation.
Question 5. Will the lack of a current regulatory framework for
offshore aquaculture prevent it from being an active part of the MSP
process?
Answer. NOAA has funded several Marine Spatial Planning research
projects (now underway) to look at aquaculture siting and carrying
capacity in Federal and state waters. NOAA Aquaculture Program staff is
actively engaged in Marine Spatial Planning discussions within NOAA to
make sure aquaculture is considered in the process. However, a
comprehensive aquaculture regulatory framework in Federal waters, as a
complement to the new national aquaculture policy that the agency is
developing in the next several months, would provide a stronger basis
for consideration of the emerging needs of this sector.
Question 6. U.S. fisheries are among some of the most stringently
managed fisheries globally. However, as mentioned above, more than 80
percent of all seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported. Many of these
countries do little to ensure that their fisheries are sustainable, and
in some cases even fail to comply by their own or international fishery
management measures. In my home state we are facing the challenge of
maintaining a stake in the Pacific domestic tuna market as a result of
the non-compliance of other Pacific nations, and I have explored with
you some creative ideas on how to level the field for U.S. fisherman
and how to preserve our competitiveness in the market. To this end, I
would appreciate your thoughts on how we can work together to move this
issue forward and level the playing field for U.S. fishermen.
Answer. The United States actively supports the adoption of
measures to ensure an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in
multilateral fora, including measures to stop overfishing, rebuild
overfished stocks, and reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality. Given the
highly migratory nature of many of our important U.S. fish stocks, it
is crucial for the United States to work cooperatively with its
international partners to develop sustainable fisheries. NOAA believes
that by working collaboratively through the multilateral process,
agreements can be reached on measures that will have a wide-ranging
impact on marine stewardship.
In addition to these multilateral efforts, NOAA is working through
the new measures in the 2006 reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act to identify countries whose
fishing vessels have been engaged in illegal, unreported and
unregulated fishing and bycatch, and to build capacity in developing
countries to address these issues. Under the international provisions
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
subsequent to consultations with each identified nation, the Secretary
of Commerce is required to certify whether the Nation has taken
corrective action or whether the relevant international organization
has implemented effective measures to address the illegal, unreported,
and unregulated or bycatch activities of concern. The absence of
sufficient steps to address illegal, unreported, and unregulated
fishing or bycatch may lead to the denial of port privileges for
vessels of an identified nation, prohibitions on the importation of
certain fisheries products into the United States from that nation, or
other measures.
In January 2009, NOAA submitted its first report to Congress under
this new authority. The report identifies six nations as having vessels
engaged in illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing during 2007-
2008: France, Italy, Libya, Panama, the People's Republic of China, and
Tunisia. The U.S. Government has informed each nation of their
identification and has sought or initiated formal consultations. To
date, the U.S. Government has met with government representatives from
all of the previously mentioned countries, except Tunisia, to discuss
these issues. These meetings were productive and will help open the way
for continued consultations between the U.S. Government and officials
of these nations to encourage these nations to take corrective actions
to stop illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing by their vessels.
These meetings also served as an invitation for these nations to work
cooperatively with the U.S. Government to address illegal, unreported,
and unregulated fishing on a bilateral basis and through international
fishery management organizations.
One of the most effective ways to promote sound practices is to
provide other nations with tools, training, and resources to increase
their capacity for sustainable fisheries management and enforcement. To
this end, NOAA has hosted several international workshops and training
sessions including bycatch reduction techniques, cooperative research,
and observer programs. There has been a tremendous response to these
successful efforts, and demand for assistance continues to grow. In
addition to improving the capabilities in the developing world, these
collaborative activities can strengthen relations with other countries
and thereby enhance U.S. ability to successfully negotiate at meetings
of international fishery management organizations.
Question 7. Many of the employees in your agency participate in the
Program Planning, Budgeting, and Execution System (PPBES) process to
calculate the needs of their programs over the short- to mid-term in
accordance with NOAA's long-term goals. This information is carefully
derived and will be valuable to you as you continue to come up to speed
about the broad, diverse range of programs within your NOAA portfolio,
and the specific financial resources required. These data also provide
a direct link between NOAA's career employees and the priority-setting
process. Upon review of the system, what do you envision as the future
role of PPBES or other similar system?
Answer. I am still evaluating the PPBES process NOAA uses and need
to better understand the strengths and weakness of the system. I
appreciate the performance measures and justifications that come from
the process, but I feel work needs to be done to better align the
budget process with the strategic process. The current system is
adequate for evaluating the efficiencies of existing resources before
asking for new or additional funding.
Question 8. How do you plan to use these PPBES data?
Answer. PPBES data is useful for evaluating the efficiencies of
existing resources before asking for new or additional funding. It will
continue to be used to calculate the needs of the programs in
accordance with NOAA's goals and missions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Dr. Jane Lubchenco
Question 1. The Gulf longline grouper fishery recently closed due
to interactions with loggerhead sea turtles; best case scenario, it
will reopen in the Fall with a reduced fleet. This fishery provides
over 2,000 jobs not just for fishermen, but also for restaurants and
fish houses. It also generates about $88 million for Florida's economy
along with the tilefish fishery. In order to gain more comprehensive
data about turtle interactions, we need to drastically increase
observer coverage in this fishery. Unfortunately, observer coverage as
a whole historically has been underfunded. How does the President's
budget address this crucial component of fisheries management, and how
will it provide the commercial grouper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico
with the observer coverage it needs?
Answer. The number of sea turtle interactions observed in the
bottom longline fishery was sufficiently high to trigger an Emergency
Rule prohibiting bottom longline gear inside the 50-fathom contour in
the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Estimates of sea turtle interactions were
derived by observing only a small percentage of the bottom longline
fishery. Improved coverage would allow greater confidence in the
estimate of sea turtle interactions. The President's budget for FY 2010
requests an additional $330,000 over the FY 2009 funding level for
observer coverage in the Gulf of Mexico Reef fish fishery. This
increase will provide an additional 315 observer sea days necessary to
achieve greater precision in the turtle interaction estimate. This
increased coverage will allow for more extensive data collection and
documentation of such factors as fishing gear, bait modifications, and
environmental variables that may provide insights into strategies for
reducing bottom longline and sea turtle interactions.
Question 2. I am pleased to see that the FY 2010 Budget Request
includes an increase of $13 million for Hurricane Forecast System
Improvements to accelerate improvements in hurricane track and
intensity forecasting. Senator Martinez and I will be introducing a
bill to support hurricane research and mitigation. In what ways is NOAA
working to build partnerships with the external hurricane research
community, in this effort to improve our collective understanding of
and operational forecasting of hurricanes?
Answer. NOAA is building partnerships with the external hurricane
research community in following ways:
(1) NOAA builds partnerships with the external hurricane
research community through cooperative agreements in which NOAA
scientists are substantially involved in the research and
science.
a. Through the National Hurricane Center's (NHC) Joint
Hurricane Test Bed, NOAA is funding the transfer of
promising research in both academia and other
government labs directly into forecast operations at
NHC. The identification of the most promising research
is done collaboratively between NOAA, academic, and
Department of Defense (DOD) researchers. NOAA has been
investing $1 to $1.5 million per year in this research
since 2001.
b. In partnership with the Office of Naval Research
(ONR), NOAA is actively funding research in the
external community to improve our capability to
forecast hurricane intensity changes through the
National Ocean Partnership Program. NOAA and ONR are
each investing $1 million in this effort.
c. The NOAA Atlantic and Oceanographic Laboratory's
Hurricane Research Division is sponsoring hurricane
modeling and coastal observation research at the
University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and
Atmospheric Sciences (RSMAS), Naval Post Graduate
School, and at the University of South Alabama.
d. NOAA's National Weather Service is also supporting
research at RSMAS to improve our understanding and
prediction of hurricane intensity changes.
e. Florida International University is conducting
hurricane storm surge research on NOAA's behalf.
f. NOAA supports the Florida Hurricane Mitigation
Alliance of 7 public universities research of various
topics related to land falling hurricanes and their
socioeconomic impact.
g. NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research is
jointly sponsoring research with the National Science
Foundation on the mitigation of socioeconomic impact of
hurricanes and tropical cyclones.
(2) In partnership with the National Science Foundation, United
States Navy, National Aeronautical and Space Administration,
and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, NOAA
is working to develop a National Hurricane Research Alliance to
coordinate hurricane research and mitigation efforts. NOAA and
the Navy are jointly leading a taskforce of government research
leaders and managers, through the Office of the Federal
Coordinator for Meteorology and Supporting Research, to
coordinate the overall Federal hurricane research efforts.
(3) NOAA is actively collaborating with the external scientific
community through a visiting scientist program administered at
NHC. This program enables at least 12 scientists to become
familiarized with NHC forecast capabilities and limitations and
to exchange ideas on possible enhancements to forecast
operations.
(4) NOAA's Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project is actively
supporting collaborative research at a number of universities,
including Pennsylvania State University, University of
Wisconsin, Colorado State University and the University of
Arizona, to improve the modeling of hurricanes and improved
hurricane forecast guidance. NOAA is funding collaborative
efforts with the National Center for Atmospheric Research's
Research Applications Laboratory and university scientists to
improve hurricane intensity models. This partnership provides a
collaborative modeling environment for use by the broader
academic community.
NOAA's scientists are actively collaborating with the broader
research community on numerous externally funded projects and in
scientific and administrative workshops, committees, and meetings such
as the American Meteorological Society's Conference on Hurricanes and
Tropical Meteorology.
Question 3. Coastal communities require accurate land elevation
data and water depth data to build levees and flood protection
infrastructure; to ensure safe and efficient marine transportation; to
plan evacuation routes; to estimate storm surge; and to monitor the
impact of sea-level rise.
Dr. Lubchenco, the 2010 President's Budget provides additional
funding to improve elevation and height information throughout the
United States. What is the importance of this initiative to the
National Spatial Reference System, which NOAA manages and maintains?
Answer. The FY 2010 President's Budget requests an increase of $4
million to improve elevation information as a foundation for better
commerce, economic efficiencies, and to better protect the public from
coastal hazards and flooding. This requested funding supports the NOAA
``Gravity for the Redefinition of the American Vertical Datum'' (GRAV-
D) initiative.
The GRAV-D initiative will allow NOAA to enhance the vertical
component of the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS). The NSRS
includes a network of permanently marked points; a consistent,
accurate, and up-to-date national shoreline; a network of continuously
operating reference stations which supports three-dimensional Global
Navigation Satellite System positioning activities (such as using the
global positioning system or GPS); and a set of accurate models
describing dynamic, geophysical processes that affect spatial
measurements.
The GRAV-D initiative will improve elevation and height information
through the collection of high resolution gravity data and will
establish a new vertical datum for the country. This new vertical datum
will provide the baseline for a more accurate NSRS that will improve
transportation and infrastructure planning and repair, shoreline
mapping and charting for commerce and safety, and a multitude of
scientific and engineering applications.
According to a 2009 socioeconomic study,\1\ refining and
modernizing the NSRS by measuring elevation through GRAV-D has the
potential to provide an additional $522 million in annual economic
benefits to the U.S. economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Levenson, Irving (2009) Socio-Economic Benefits Study: Scoping
the Value of CORS and GRAV-D, Final Report. Report available at http://
www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/Socio-EconomicBenefitsofCORSandGRAV-D.pdf).
Question 4. How will this initiative improve our ability to plan
for and adapt to challenges such as inundation from hurricanes,
flooding and sea-level rise?
Answer. The Global Positioning System (GPS) yields accuracies of a
few yards. To improve this accuracy NOAA provides additional
information in the form of Continuously Operating Reference Stations,
and a differential processing service called, ``Online Positioning User
Service.'' These systems allow processing of GPS data to achieve
accuracies of less than one-half inch horizontally.
Even with this additional processing, GPS is currently incapable of
providing accurate elevations, or heights, relative to sea level. Once
GRAV-D is completed, the new gravity-based vertical datum for the U.S.
will, for the first time, enable transformation of ellipsoid (GPS)
heights to orthometric (Sea Level) heights for the entire country and
provide national elevations with GPS to an accuracy of under an inch,
compared to a range of 16 inches to six feet or more today.
The lack of accurate orthometric data is a nationwide problem, and
coastal regions are especially concerned about using current,
unreliable elevation data as the basis for public safety decisions,
evacuation route planning, flooding and storm surge prevention efforts,
and coastal restoration. Improving vertical data through this
initiative will reduce elevation errors in floodplain mapping. This
information will support improved decision-making regarding planning
for building structures, highways, public safety requirements, levee
construction, and evacuation routes, and may subsequently affect
insurance rates. Once completed, the new national vertical datum will
also help users better anticipate the potential damage associated with
coastal storms, river flooding, sea level rise, and climate change that
a home, road, or other structure might incur. The 2009 socioeconomic
study estimated that this new initiative could save the Nation an
estimated $240 million in costs annually through improved floodplain
management alone. If appropriated, the increase requested in the FY
2010 President's Budget will enable NOAA to provide the accurate
orthometric elevation data throughout the United States, beginning in
coastal and at-risk areas prone to flooding after extreme weather
events.
Question 5. How will this initiative support marine spatial
planning efforts?
Answer. Effective marine spatial planning will rely on many sources
of data and information, including accurate geodetic and tidal datum
reference system. The National Spatial Reference System, as enhanced by
the NOAA ``Gravity for the Redefinition of the American Vertical
Datum'' (GRAV-D) initiative, will provide the necessary framework, at
the appropriate accuracy level, for marine and coastal mapping and
delineation of uses.
Because most maritime boundaries were defined without this
framework, many of the world's nautical charts, treaties, and
regulations may contain marine boundary descriptions that are
insufficiently defined for use in effective and accurate marine spatial
planning efforts. These discrepancies can negatively affect many ocean
related activities, including marine managed areas, resource and
alternative energy development, open ocean disposal zones, and
enforcement of fishing and environmental laws. If appropriated, the
increase requested in the FY 2010 President's Budget Request will
enable NOAA to improve the geodetic infrastructure used for marine
spatial mapping and planning throughout the Nation, beginning in
coastal areas.
Improved data providing accurate information regarding water depth
and land elevation will support effective marine spatial planning. In
addition to navigation, accurate and detailed water depth data is vital
to support decisions, such as those related to the development of
offshore renewable energy infrastructure. Data collected through the
GRAV-D initiative will support efforts to map the character of the
seabed at a resolution currently unavailable on the outer continental
shelf, and will therefore help to address one of the challenges for
siting and permit review currently limiting infrastructure development.
Data produced through the GRAV-D initiative will also allow for
accurate determination of state and Federal boundaries, on which
revenue sharing for offshore energy depends. Because these boundaries
are measured from baseline points at the mean low-tide line, it is
important to monitor sea-level rise at the finest possible resolution
as these boundaries will move relative to the rising seas. As a final
example, the data collected through the GRAV-D initiative will support
planning for new energy infrastructure to ensure connection points on
land are not placed in areas vulnerable to sea-level rise and its
related impacts.
Question 6. Florida is at the front lines of climate change. From
2003 to 2008, for example, the coastal populations in St. Johns River,
FL, Cape Canaveral, FL, and Santa Ana, CA, all grew by over 70 percent.
These communities will be directly impacted by sea level rise.
Satellite sensors are indispensable tools for monitoring sea height
globally. The Jason/OSTM satellite missions, jointly led by NASA-NOAA-
EUMETSET, are important for tracking ocean circulation patterns, for
measuring sea-surface heights, and for modeling tropical cyclone
intensity and storm surge. This is a proven technology, and we need to
ensure overlap with Jason-2 for calibration and validation, and for
maintaining data continuity.
During Governor Gary Locke's nomination hearing, I asked Governor
Locke where the Jason satellite mission fell within Commerce's budget
priorities for 2010 and beyond. I am pleased to see that an additional
20 million dollars has been included for the Jason-3 Altimetry mission
in the FY2010 Budget Request. Dr. Lubchenco, perhaps you could briefly
comment on the importance of the Jason-3 mission, and the scientific
research it will support?
Answer. The importance of the Jason-3 satellite altimeter mission
is perhaps best considered in the context of understanding how
maintaining continuity of the satellite record of sea surface height
will help coastal states, like Florida. The data from Jason-3 will help
to inform coastal states about two different climate-related threats,
primarily the threat of an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise
caused by global warming, and possible changes in the number and
intensity of hurricanes.
Sea Level Rise: Sea level rise directly threatens people who live
in coastal areas and coastal infrastructure through inundation;
increased erosion; more frequent storm-surge flooding; and loss of
habitat through drowned wetlands. The only feasible way to resolve the
spatial variability needed to accurately determine global sea level
rise is by means of satellite altimetry, specifically the systematic
collection of sea level observations initiated by TOPEX/Poseidon in
1992 and being continued today by the on-going Jason series of
satellite missions. A complementary global network of tide gauges, each
with geodetic positioning to estimate vertical land motion, provide
essential cross-validation for sea level rise. Together, these
observations indicate that global sea level has been rising nearly
twice as fast over the past 1.5 decades as over the past century (3.1
mm/yr vs 1.7 mm/yr). Whether this increase reflects a true long-term
acceleration or decadal variability remains to be determined. It is
important to note, however, that altimeter observations of global sea
level rise overlay the mid-point of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) projections for the late 21st century (2090-
2099).
The IPCC projections of global sea level rise during the 21st
century range between 18 and 59 cm, and local changes could be
substantially different. In order to understand and improve the
projections of sea level rise, it is necessary to continue the Jason
series of sea level observations and also monitor the major
contributors to change--thermal expansion due to the warming oceans,
and the addition of melt water due to the warming of terrestrial ice
sheets and glaciers (and, to a lesser extent, changes in terrestrial
water storage by lakes, reservoirs and aquifers). Thermal expansion
estimates, previously based on sparse coverage by ship observations,
now principally come from the Argo array of profiling floats. Initiated
in 2000 and having achieved full coverage with 3,000 floats in late
2007, Argo is systematically observing the temperature and salinity in
the upper half of the global, ice-free oceans on a continuing basis.
A number of research programs are directed at estimating the
addition of melt water. For example, these programs measure changes in
the gravity of the ice sheets and oceanic water masses, as well as
changes in the topography and flow rate of glaciers and ice sheets to
help determine how much the additional water is contributing to sea
level rise. Jason-3 and Argo observations will contribute to this
research by providing continuing baseline measurements of the amount of
global sea level rise, as well as estimates of the thermal expansion
component to determine how much of the sea level rise is due to ocean
warming. Together, these estimates can be used to infer a contribution
from melting glaciers and ice sheets as a consistency check for these
research efforts, as well as help assess the performance of climate
models projecting sea-level rise.
Hurricane Intensity Prediction: The Jason-3 mission will also serve
a critical operational function, helping to improve the prediction of
hurricane intensity. Hurricanes feed on heat energy stored in the upper
layer of the ocean and can dramatically increase in strength when
passing over patchy areas of high heat content, such as those often
found in the Gulf of Mexico. The evolution of Hurricane Katrina as it
traversed the Loop Current in the Gulf is a good example of this
process. Professor Lynn Shay of the University of Miami, in
collaboration with NOAA researchers, has developed a method for mapping
the location and magnitude of ocean heat anomalies using altimeter
observations, supplemented with in-ocean temperature measurements. This
information is presently employed by the National Hurricane Center to
initialize their Statistical Hurricane Intensity Prediction Scheme
(SHIPS) for intensity forecasts. The use of Jason altimeter data in
this fashion has been shown to reduce SHIPS forecast errors between 5
to 22 percent. A Jason-3 mission will enable the continued use and
refinement of this important forecast capability.
The Jason series is in the process of being transitioned as a
research endeavor from NASA and CNES (the French Space Agency) to NOAA
and EUMETSAT (NOAA's operational satellite counterpart in Europe) for
joint implementation as a sustained operational capability. This
process has started, as NOAA and EUMETSAT are currently responsible for
the ground system and operation of the Jason-2 satellite launched in
June 2008. The launch of Jason-3 will complete the transition. By
sharing costs with the Europeans starting in FY 2010, both Europe and
the United States have a cost-effective way to assure continuity of sea
surface height measurement.
Question 7. The National Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellite
System (NPOESS) system is considered a critical system for forecasting
the weather, including path and intensity of hurricanes, and for
monitoring global climate change. The NPOESS Independent Review Team,
led by the well-respected Tom Young, will be releasing a report that
calls for an immediate restructuring of the NPOESS program. What are
the best options for NPOESS?
Answer. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is
leading a task force with representation from the Office of Management
and Budget and the National Security Council that is working with NOAA,
the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) to analyze suitable options for strengthening the
NPOESS program.
OSTP is taking into account the IRT recommendations as it proceeds
forward with the goals as laid out for the task force.
Question 8. What immediate steps are being taken by NOAA and the
Administration to address this problem, and who ultimately will be
responsible for making the decisions?
Answer. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has
formed a task force with representation from the Office of Management
and Budget and the National Security Council that is working with NOAA,
the Department of Defense (DOD), and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) to determine suitable options to help make the
NPOESS mission more successful and avoid potential gaps in coverage or
data availability.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Dr. Jane Lubchenco
Question 1. Changes in ocean chemistry caused by carbon dioxide
will affect our food supply and the health of our oceans, yet research
on ocean acidification is still in its infancy. I wrote a bill that
recently became law requiring NOAA to lead an effort to study the
effects of ocean acidification. Is this budget adequate to allow NOAA
to carry out this important work?
Answer. The FY 2010 President's Budget includes a request for $9.9
million for research on ocean acidification, which is an increase of
$5.5 million. The additional funds will implement long-term monitoring
of ocean acidification, and an integrated Ocean Acidification
initiative to understand, monitor and forecast how ocean acidification
affects the Nation's ecosystems and living marine resources. NOAA looks
forward to working with Congress to implement the recently passed
Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act, which creates
an ocean acidification program within NOAA, and it will continue to
assess and evaluate the budget that will be needed to allow NOAA to
carry out this important work.
Question 2. What progress has been made in implementing the ocean
acidification program?
Answer. NOAA looks forward to working with Congress to implement
the recently passed Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring
Act, which creates an ocean acidification program within NOAA. NOAA
maintains a continued leadership role in this issue area, as we work
with our interagency partners to coordinate the development of the
required interagency working group and ocean acidification plan through
the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology. NOAA is
currently developing a coordinated plan to monitor and conduct research
on the effects of ocean acidification on marine organisms and
ecosystems. NOAA is also developing a set of options for evaluation, as
we work to develop the structure of the ocean acidification program
within NOAA. Finally, NOAA scientists met in March 2009 to draft a set
of priorities for ocean acidification research, based on the
anticipated ecosystem and socioeconomic impacts (at both regional and
national scales) that will likely result from increased ocean
acidification. Writing teams are currently drafting these priorities,
and implementation actions will be carried via a prospective
interagency plan.
Question 3. Negotiations will soon take place on international
regulations on fishing for Atlantic tuna. Many U.S. fishermen,
including those in New Jersey, are worried that without a strong U.S.
presence at the negotiations, our fishermen could lose substantial
portions of long-held rights to fish for these tuna. Will you fight to
preserve U.S. fishermen's fishing rights at upcoming meetings of the
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas?
Answer. The U.S. delegation to the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas meetings is keenly aware of the
challenges in ensuring that our fleet's share of the global quota for
Atlantic species such as bluefin tuna and swordfish. Working
collaboratively through the multilateral process, the United States has
addressed allocation issues head-on by insisting that only those
countries who fully comply with the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tuna measures, who actively support an
ecosystem approach to management, and who are members in good standing
of the organization should have a right to fish these quotas. The
United States has numerous bilateral consultations in advance of the
main International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
meeting, with a broad number of partners including the developing and
developed countries. Through NOAA's efforts, the United States has
established a stronger rapport with the member countries around the
table, including development assistance. NOAA will prepare the U.S.
delegation and its strategy with a view to ensuring the preservation of
the rights of U.S. fishermen at the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas meeting in November 2009.
Question 4. Pollution run-off is a major problem for many coastal
states, including New Jersey. To address this problem, New Jersey
depends on assistance from the Federal Government. This proposed budget
fails to fund NOAA's coastal non-point pollution control program. Why
was this program omitted?
Answer. The Administration has not included specific funding for
non-point pollution implementation grants within NOAA's budget.
However, the Administration has requested funding for non-point
pollution efforts in the budget requests for both the Environmental
Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Within the NOAA budget, existing Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
funding mechanisms can be used to support non-point pollution efforts.
States can use a portion of their CZMA Section 306 funding for non-
point pollution control. While there is no specific request for non-
point pollution, other programs including the National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science, the Coastal Services Center, and the National
Estuarine Research Reserve System, develop and disseminate management
tools and scientific research on non-point source pollution problems
and responses.
Question 5. The Magnuson-Stevens fisheries law included a provision
I authored to protect deep-sea corals from destructive types of
commercial fishing. The law also established a coordinated research
program on deep sea corals, which are an essential foundation for
healthy seas. What steps has NOAA taken under this law to protect deep-
sea corals?
Answer. NOAA recognizes the importance of deep-sea coral ecosystems
and is committed to enhancing their conservation. In consultation with
the Regional Fishery Management Councils, and in coordination with
other Federal agencies, educational institutions and non-governmental
organizations, NOAA has taken the following actions pursuant to the
deep-sea coral provisions of the 2006 reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act:
In 2008, NOAA submitted the first report to Congress and the
public on Implementation of the Deep Sea Coral Research and
Technology Program. The report included an initial list of
deep-sea coral areas in the U.S. exclusive economic zone with
limited protection from interactions with fishing gear.
In 2009, NOAA received $1.5 million to begin implementation
of the Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program
(Program). First year activities focused on the following
areas:
Targeted field research and mapping expeditions off
the Southeast U.S. in the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council Region. Three cruises are planned to map and
characterize deep-sea coral habitats and conduct research
on the ecology of deep-sea corals and associated faunal
assemblages, including those associations between corals
and managed fish stocks to address the most pressing
information needs for management. Research will be
conducted during an August 2009 submersible cruise and
August/September deep Remotely Operated Vehicle cruise,
followed by a November 2009 ship-based mapping cruise. The
science program is designed to inform the final design of
the Council's proposed deepwater Coral Habitat Areas of
Particular Concern and reduce potential conflict with users
of bottom-tending fishing gear.
A workshop in July 2009 on deep-sea coral exploration
and research priorities for Southeast Region, designed to
guide subsequent scientific activities under the Program.
Integrating and managing deep-sea coral data in
Geographic Information System databases, with a goal of
making information available in usable formats to the
science and management communities and the general public.
Using data from fisheries and other sources to map the
distribution and intensity of fishing with gears that may
damage deep-sea corals and improving the reporting and
analysis bycatch of deep-sea corals caught in fishing
activities.
Analyzing priority existing data sets on deep-sea
corals and associated species to inform management and
enhancing outreach and education on these ecosystems.
NOAA has requested an additional $1 million in the
President's FY 2010 Budget to expand major field research
activities under the Program to a second region, the U.S. West
Coast in the Pacific Fishery Management Council Region. If
appropriated, this funding will enable work that will support
the Council's five-year review of essential fish habitat as it
relates to deep-sea coral habitats. It will also inform
management plan reviews by the region's five National Marine
Sanctuaries, all of which have rich deep-sea coral resources.
This fall, NOAA will publish the NOAA Strategic Plan for
Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems: Research, Management, and
International Cooperation. This plan identifies goals,
objectives, and approaches to guide NOAA's exploration,
research, management, and international activities needed to
improve the understanding and conservation of deep-sea coral
and sponge ecosystems, and inform emerging ecosystem-based
marine spatial planning efforts.
NOAA is developing guidance on the use of deep-sea coral
discretionary provisions included in the reauthorized Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and has
recommended the Regional Fishery Management Councils evaluate
areas for protection as allowed under these provisions.
NOAA is working closely with Regional Fishery Management
Councils to incorporate deep-sea coral protection measures in
their management. Such measures include the following:
The North Pacific Council's 2008 Bering Sea trawl
closures, which protected nearly 90,000 square miles of
benthic fish habitat from trawling.
The South Atlantic Council's four proposed Deepwater
Coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern covering
approximately 23,000 square miles and including the best
developed Lophelia deep-sea coral reefs known from U.S.
waters.
The New England Council's proposed Essential Fish
Habitat Omnibus Amendment. Phase 1, completed in 2007
recognized 15 deep-sea canyons and portions of two
seamounts that contain deep-sea corals as Habitat Areas of
Particular Concern. The Council is expected to propose
management measures for some or all of these Habitat Areas
of Particular Concern in 2010.
The Pacific Council's review of proposals for
protection for deep-sea coral and sponge areas, which began
in June 2009.
Under the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program, in FY 2009,
NOAA is supporting research and technology development in the
Northwest and Alaska designed to reduce damage to benthic
invertebrates, including deep-sea corals, due to trawl
interactions.
NOAA will report on these and other activities in the 2nd
report to Congress and the public on Implementation of the Deep
Sea Coral Research and Technology Program in January 2010, as
required in the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
In addition to activities called for under the Magnuson Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, several other NOAA programs
actively engage in exploration and research efforts in areas that
contain deep-sea coral and sponge habitat. The Lophelia II project is a
prime example of a contribution being made to assist in our
understanding of deep-sea coral ecosystems. This summer, NOAA, in
partnership with the Minerals Management Service and U.S. Geological
Survey, will embark on the second year of the 4-year project to enhance
our knowledge on the distribution of deep-sea corals in the Gulf of
Mexico. This year's work will focus on studying the community structure
and function of deep-sea corals at both natural and man-made sites.
Question 6. The funding for NOAA's Office of Response and
Restoration would not allow it to respond to two major spills at the
same time, while performing its other duties. What level of funding
would be necessary to give NOAA the capacity to deal with at least two
spills at the same time?
Answer. The FY 2010 President's Request includes $19.1 million for
the Office of Response and Restoration base. The request includes a
$1.4 million program increase to improve innovative response tools,
such as a 3-dimensional oil spill model. The $1.4 million will support
critical NOAA activities mandated by the Oil Pollution Act, the
Superfund Act, and the National Contingency Plan.
From 2003-2008, the Office of Response and Restoration received
appropriations below the President's Budget Request. In FY 2009,
funding was restored to the President's request of $17.3 million and
the Office of Response and Restoration has begun to restore the
capacity and capabilities lost over the past several years. While NOAA
does not currently have the capacity to respond to two simultaneous
large oil spills, the Office of Response and Restoration continues to
provide critical scientific support to numerous smaller oil and
chemical spills. In FY 2008, the Office of Response and Restoration
responded to over 170 events including the DM932 barge incident that
spilled nearly 500,000 gallons of fuel oil in the Mississippi River in
downtown New Orleans.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Warner to
Dr. Jane Lubchenco
Question 1. NOAA has been a key Federal partner in the Chesapeake
Bay restoration effort since 1984. Virginia and the other Bay watershed
states, and our scientific community at VIMS and other universities,
rely heavily on NOAA's programs in fisheries and habitat restoration,
its data management tools and high-tech buoy system for monitoring
changes in the Bay's environmental conditions, and its B-WET education
program for the science, management support and environmental education
necessary to restore the Bay. But restoring the Bay's ecosystem has
proven to be extremely difficult and is taking far longer than anyone
anticipated when the restoration effort was initiated 25 years ago.
What more can NOAA do to accelerate the restoration effort and how is
that additional work reflected in the Fiscal 2010 Budget Request?
Answer. In light of President Obama's Executive Order 13508, signed
on May 12, 2009, the Department of Commerce (through NOAA), as a
partner with several other Federal agencies, is playing a significant
role in using the agency's expertise and resources to contribute to
improving the health of the Chesapeake Bay. NOAA is a co-lead agency
for several of the reports required by the Executive Order, including
climate change impacts and adaptation, monitoring and science to
support decisionmaking, and coordinated habitat and research activities
to protect and restore living resources and water quality. Through the
strategy development process of these coordinative efforts, NOAA will
be examining the full extent of requirements and needs that the agency
will address in executing the Executive Order.
NOAA will leverage its core capabilities in climate science,
observing systems, information management and decision support, and
community-based restoration, along with fisheries science, to engage
partner institutions in new and innovative approaches that address the
new challenges society faces today with knowledge and lessons learned
from past experience. For example, NOAA is using the science and
evaluation of oyster restoration efforts to further delineate
ecological restoration goals as discretely different from economic
recovery goals for the oyster industry. This separation of policy
objectives is key to developing sustainable oyster populations.
The $3.4 million requested for NOAA's Chesapeake Bay activities in
FY 2010 including efforts to monitor and assess the status of living
resources and habitat in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, and identify
science-based management alternatives for restoration and protection in
the Chesapeake Bay through:
Researching, modeling, monitoring, and observing Bay living
resources.
Assessing oyster, blue crab, and fish populations.
Coordinating and partnering with other programs in the
region to ensure maximum effectiveness.
Developing policies and strategies to restore the Bay's
living resources.
Communicating and reaching out to the public.
Creating oyster reefs that can be ``seeded'' with hatchery-
reared juvenile oysters.
Augmenting the capacity to produce oysters, placing oysters
where they will grow successfully, and monitoring their health
and survival.
In particular, NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office Fisheries Science
Program supports ecosystem-based fisheries and habitat research
important to the management of a variety of significant species
through:
Competitive grants and cooperative agreements with multiple
academic recipients; and
State fishery management programs which use the data for
fisheries assessments to regulate commercial and recreational
species.
Question 2. President Obama has issued an Executive Order calling
for ``a new era of shared Federal Leadership with respect to the
protection and restoration of Chesapeake Bay.'' In view of the fact
that the Department of Commerce is charged (as a co-lead with the
Department of Interior) with drafting reports and making
recommendations to address climate change, expanded environmental
research and monitoring, and coordinated habitat and research
activities that protect and restore living resources and water quality
of the Chesapeake Bay, how does NOAA plan to address these new
requirements in both its Fiscal 2010 and Fiscal 2011 budgets?
Answer. Section 205 of the Executive Order specifically calls for
an ``Annual Action Plan and Progress Report.'' Beginning in 2010, the
newly established Federal Leadership Committee will publish an annual
Chesapeake Bay Action Plan describing how Federal funding proposed in
the President's Budget will be used to protect and restore the
Chesapeake Bay during the upcoming Fiscal Year. The Administration is
still developing NOAA's FY 2011 Budget and will carefully consider any
new requirements generated by the recommendations contained in the
reports required by the Executive Order, balanced against other
priorities.
Question 3. For many years, Congress has appropriated additional
funds to NOAA--above the President's Budget Request--to address urgent
unmet needs critical to Chesapeake Bay protection and restoration,
including native oyster restoration, fisheries research, environmental
education, and observational buoys. Why hasn't the Administration
incorporated these long-standing appropriations into the President's
Budget Request particularly in light of NOAA's responsibilities to the
Bay restoration effort and the authorization for the NOAA Chesapeake
Bay Office?
Answer. NOAA's Budget Requests reflect competing demands across
multiple mandates and requirements with a limited amount of resources.
In particular, NOAA has prioritized its investments to meet significant
new requirements under the recently reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act to end overfishing for
federally-managed species.
In light of the President's Executive Order for Chesapeake Bay
Protection and Restoration, NOAA will carefully consider the heightened
emphasis on and interest in accelerating Chesapeake Bay efforts in the
development of future budgets.
Question 4. As you know, I have introduced legislation in the
Senate, S. 1224, to reauthorize the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office. There
is a companion bill (H.R. 1771) that has been introduced in the House.
How will NOAA's Fiscal 2010 and 2011 budget address the programs and
expectations set forth in this new authorization?
Answer. NOAA will evaluate any new requirements established as the
result of new legislative authorization for NOAA's Chesapeake Bay
Office and determine how to best address those requirements through the
FY 2011 planning process.
Question 5. The GAO has criticized the Chesapeake Bay Program for
not having an accurate means for measuring the progress of the Bay
restoration effort, essentially relying too much on modeling forecasts
that have proven to be overly optimistic and not enough on real-time
monitoring data. With support from the Congress, NOAA is developing a
network of environmental observation buoys in the Chesapeake Bay which
provide real-time data on the health of the Chesapeake Bay. The buoys
are part of a broader observing system in the Chesapeake Bay region and
an important component of the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System
(IOOS). But, to date, there are only six of these Chesapeake Bay
Interpretive Buoys (CBIBS) in the Bay--three in Maryland and three in
Virginia. Consequently huge gaps still remain in data on environmental
conditions and water quality. What has the Agency done in its Fiscal
2010 Budget Request to advance these important monitoring tools?
Answer. Though the Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System (CBIBS)
is not specifically included in the FY 2010 request, NOAA has taken a
broad look at its observational capacity and is developing a
recapitalization plan for all of the agency's observing assets,
including CBIBS.
As described above, NOAA's co-leadership role in development of the
required Executive Order report on monitoring and decision support will
include recommendations for ``strengthening environmental monitoring of
the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.'' NOAA envisions that the CBIBS,
and integration of CBIBS into the broader framework for NOAA's
Integrated Ocean Observing System, will be a key part of this
strengthened capacity for improving the tools available for decision
support.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
Dr. Jane Lubchenco
Question 1. The Administration initially zeroed out the PCSRF but
after the issue was raised by West Coast Senators, funding was restored
at $50M, far less than the $80M to $90M in recent years. This program
has been critical in the management of west coast salmon stocks. At a
time when many of these stocks are threatened or endangered, will the
PCSRF be restored to levels of past years?
Answer. The Administration's request for FY 2010 remains at $50
million which is a $15 million increase over the requested level for FY
2009. This amount, in combination with increases to other programs in
NOAA and across the Federal Government in the FY 2010 Administration's
request, represents a substantial investment in salmon recovery.
Question 2. A recent General Counsel's opinion said PCSRF funds
could only be used on endangered stocks of which there are none in
Alaska. Alaska has used and wants to use PCSRF funds for research and
management efforts to maintain salmon stocks' sustainability and
prevent their listing. Do you intend to follow the more restrictive
policy for administering PCSRF funds which would exclude Alaska?
Answer. The FY 2010 Budget Request includes $50 million for Pacific
Coastal Salmon Recovery. The program will be administered similarly to
the FY 2009 program that was authorized by Congress, and Alaska
projects will be eligible to compete for funds along with projects from
other West Coast states. Eligible uses of the funds include actions
that: (1) recover and conserve salmon and steelhead that are listed as
threatened or endangered, or identified by a state as at-risk to be
listed; (2) maintain salmon and steelhead populations necessary for
exercise of tribal treaty fishing rights or native subsistence fishing;
or (3) protect and restore habitat for salmon and steelhead.
Question 3. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) works
cooperatively with NMFS Alaska Region to fulfill fishery management and
research needs that arise from Federal laws and treaties including
management of Bering Sea crab, statewide scallop and groundfish
fisheries, and requirements under the Pacific Salmon Treaty, Marine
Mammals Protection Act and Endangered Species Act. The ADF&G has the
management infrastructure and expertise to efficiently perform these
responsibilities but requires funding that is sufficient and reliable.
Past funding levels have been neither and these programs have been
characterized as chronically underfunded. What levels of funding are
proposed for ADF&G management activities in support to NMFS mission?
Will you support the fully-funding ADF&G requests to NMFS mission?
Answer. In FY 2010, NOAA proposes that Alaska Department of Fish
and Game receive funding for the following items totaling $7,545,000:
Marine Mammals:
Alaska Seals and Sea Lions State of Alaska $1.491M
Salmon Management Activities:
Pacific Salmon Treaty $2.96M
Survey and Monitoring Projects:
FMP Extended Jurisdiction $0.986M
Crab Rationalization $0.958M
Bering Sea Crab $1.000M
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Grants $0.150M
Question 4. The NOAA dock for the R/V Fairweather in Ketchikan has
been condemned and as a result this Alaska-based vessel is now
temporarily home ported in Seattle. Is there funding in the FY 2010
Budget for the necessary design and other work necessary to rebuild
NOAA's Ketchikan dock and if not, what are your plans to rebuild this
facility and return the R/V Fairweather to Alaska?
Answer. NOAA is currently funding an Architectural and Engineering
study to determine the extent of damage to the dock at Ketchikan, but
the FY 2010 Budget does not include a request for funding to rebuild
the dock. This report is expected to be completed by December 2009, and
will provide an estimate of the funding and level of effort required to
repair the dock for use as a home port facility by NOAA Ship
Fairweather. The first funding opportunity for the repair effort would
be FY 2012.
Question 5. NOAA's Kasitsna Bay lab near Homer is the only West
Coast lab in NOAA's National Center for Coastal and Ocean Resources
Program. In partnership with the University of Alaska, the facility is
considered a key component in Alaska's marine research and education
network. NOAA recently spent $12.5M to remodel and update the facility,
however, it is now staffed by just a single NOAA employee and was at
risk of closure this year for lack of $50K. Does the FY 2010 Budget
include funding to maintain and operate the Kasitsna Bay lab?
Answer. The FY 2010 President's Budget Request includes funding for
the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, but does not
specifically allocate funds among the various laboratories. NOAA also
is working with our partners in Alaska to continue important research
and education efforts at the Kasitsna Bay Laboratory.
Question 6. The FY 2010 Budget includes a significant increase for
marine aquaculture, a program that Alaska has voiced serious concerns
over regarding the serious problems of the spread of disease and
pollution from fish farms as well as escapees. How much is budgeted
toward development and or implementation of a national marine
Aquaculture program?
Answer. The President's 2010 Budget requests $7.7 million for the
NOAA Aquaculture Program: $1.6 million for NOAA's Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research and $6.1 million for NOAA's Fisheries Service,
which includes a $2 million increase to bolster scientific research at
NOAA's Fisheries Science Centers in Washington and Connecticut. About
$4 million, including all of the $2 million increase, would support
research by NOAA and its partners on a wide range of marine aquaculture
topics, including coastal shellfish aquaculture, open ocean
aquaculture, development of alternative aquaculture feeds, marine stock
enhancement, and hatchery research.
Question 7. What is your intent on moving forward with this program
that is opposed by some states such as Alaska?
Answer. NOAA recognizes and respects Alaska's concerns with respect
to finfish aquaculture and Alaska's opposition to U.S. commercial
marine finfish aquaculture. At the same time, aquaculture is something
the U.S. Government cannot ignore. Aquaculture currently accounts for
half of the world's seafood supply and the farming of fish, shellfish,
and other seafood products will likely continue to expand globally. The
Department of Commerce, working through NOAA and with partners from
across the public and private spectrum, has a role to play in fostering
a safe, sustainable U.S. aquaculture industry. On September 3, 2009,
NOAA announced its intent to develop a comprehensive national policy
for sustainable marine aquaculture in the coming months, including a
comprehensive framework for addressing aquaculture activity in Federal
waters. The national policy will build on NOAA's significant work to
date to safeguard U.S. coastal and ocean environments, while enabling
sustainable domestic aquaculture that adds to the U.S. seafood supply
and supports important commercial and recreational fisheries. The
policy also will include development of coordinated Federal standards
for permitting aquaculture facilities in Federal waters and strategies
to provide the scientific information needed for permitting decisions.
NOAA is interested only in those aquaculture practices that are
sustainable over the long term and will not compromise the health of
the marine ecosystem. NOAA believes continued refinement of best
management practices for aquaculture, coupled with information sharing
and technology transfer, is the most effective way to ensure
sustainable practices are the rule both domestically and abroad.
Most states have an interest in pursuing some type of aquaculture,
whether it is stock enhancement for commercial and recreational
fisheries, restoration aquaculture for threatened or endangered
species, or commercial production of finfish or shellfish. All of these
different types of aquaculture have the potential to create new jobs,
support working waterfronts and resilient coastal communities, and
provide important economic opportunities for the United States as long
as they are conducted in a sustainable fashion that does not adversely
impact wild capture fisheries or the health of the ecosystem. A robust
domestic aquaculture industry should be seen as a complement to wild-
catch fisheries, as both will be needed to meet the growing demands for
seafood.
Alaska, for example, has a long history of success with using
aquaculture techniques to enhance its wild salmon runs through a system
of state and privately-run salmon hatcheries. For many years, Alaska
has been releasing hatchery-raised fish in significant numbers to
maintain that important commercial fishery. There is also a growing
commercial shellfish aquaculture industry in Alaska. Current NOAA Sea
Grant and NOAA Fisheries Service activities in Alaska provide examples
of how Aquaculture Program initiatives can be aligned with state
priorities. NOAA's Sea Grant program is providing support to Alaska's
existing shellfish farming industry. The Alaska Fisheries Science
Center is collaborating with the University of Alaska-Fairbanks on
stock-enhancement research for king crab and the Northwest Fisheries
Science Center is partnering with the Alaska Fishery Development
Foundation to study innovative ways to use trimmings from Alaska's
fish-processing industry as ingredients in aquaculture feeds.
With ties across the agency, the broad mission of the NOAA
Aquaculture Program is to foster and manage environmentally responsible
and sustainable marine aquaculture for food production and stock
enhancement. We will move forward with this program in a way that
protects the marine environment and wild stocks, complements commercial
fishing, fosters local solutions, and helps maintain working
waterfronts. NOAA has four main goals:
(1) Develop a comprehensive regulatory program for marine
aquaculture;
(2) Enable sustainable commercial marine aquaculture and
replenishment of wild stocks;
(3) Facilitate public understanding of marine aquaculture; and
(4) Increase collaboration and cooperation with international
partners.
NOAA will continue to support Aquaculture Program activities that
reflect the diversity of stakeholder priorities in different states and
regions. NOAA defines aquaculture as the culturing of aquatic organisms
for any commercial, recreational, or public purpose. This broad
definition allows us to support both commercial aquaculture (marine
shellfish, finfish, and algae farming) and the use of hatcheries for
stock replenishment or restoration (e.g., salmon, king crab, redfish,
and oysters). The NOAA Aquaculture Program and the President's Budget
Request support all of these types of aquaculture.
NOAA looks forward to working with Alaska and other states to
develop appropriate forms of environmentally-sustainable marine
aquaculture that meet their needs, so that all states can benefit from
the technologies and techniques developed for marine aquaculture.
Question 8. Our gaps in basic scientific data about the Arctic
(elevations, hydrology, ice thickness, etc.) are significant. The
Arctic is rapidly transforming and we lack baseline data, the
instruments to even measure it, much less be able to model it. We need
a robust system for observation resources much more significant than
the 29 new observing stations your FY 2010 Budget proposes. Are the 29
observing stations that are budgeted enough, and if not, what is your
plan for funding research needed to monitor the rapidly changing
Arctic?
Answer. The FY 2010 President's Budget contains $1.3 million to
begin deploying U.S. Climate Reference Network stations at 29 locations
in Alaska over 5 years. In FY 2010, six stations will be deployed in
Alaska. The U.S. Climate Reference Network sites in Alaska will improve
NOAA's ability to monitor and quantify climate variation and change in
Alaska through a network of integrated climate-observing systems, which
will enable policymakers and resource managers to make informed
regional, national and global policy decisions. Alaska has been
impacted by climate change earlier and to a greater degree than other
regions, and Alaska is projected to have the largest changes in climate
over the next 25-50 years.
A major concern for the Arctic is the potential for climate change
feedbacks that could exacerbate climate change abruptly and
irreversibly. These concerns are not remote possibilities, but
likelihoods under current climate-change scenarios. Importantly, U.S.
Climate Reference Network sites focus on detecting the rate of climate
change through high-precision monitoring of properties such as
temperature, precipitation, radiation, and wind speed. This information
is particularly valuable in the Arctic, where climate is changing more
rapidly (relative to temperate regions).
In addition to the U.S. Climate Reference Network sites, a smaller
number of sites are maintained by or operated cooperatively with NOAA,
and take measurements to address one of these serious feedbacks--rapid
emission of two major greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane,
associated with thawing permafrost in the region. These other six
sites, which are part of NOAA's and the World Meteorological
Organization's global networks, are located high in the Arctic to
capture broad scale signals. NOAA will continue to support these
measurement sites, and recognizes a growing need for sites near the
edge of thawing permafrost (e.g., at locations along the Arctic Circle
in Alaska and Canada).
Question 9. The rapid changes in climate affecting Alaska and the
entire nation warrants a dedicated response such as envisioned in the
National Climate Services Act set for markup in the House committee on
July 3. What are the Administration's views on a National Climate
Service and how is that reflected in the FY 2010 Budget?
Answer. NOAA envisions a National Climate Service as a partnership
established with other Federal agencies, various levels of government,
and the private sector. While there is no specific request for the
National Climate Service in FY 2010, NOAA's budget request provides a
foundation for a National Climate Service to move forward.
NOAA requested $292 million for climate activities in FY 2010.
NOAA's FY 2010 Budget Request includes increases for:
(1) the National Integrated Drought Information System to
implement three regional early warning system pilot projects
and to improve climate forecast products related to drought;
(2) development of decadal climate predictability;
(3) ocean acidification monitoring;
(4) implementation of a portal to generate and house model-
based data records;
(5) deployment of the U.S. Climate Reference Network in Alaska;
and
(6) development of the Jason-3 satellite altimetry mission.
All of these requested activities, along with existing activities,
contribute to NOAA's integrated program of climate observations,
research, modeling, prediction, decision support, and assessment. These
capabilities, along with NOAA's history of data stewardship and
service-delivery capability, will enable NOAA to provide valuable
insight and leadership for the development of a National Climate
Service in partnership with other Federal agencies, service providers,
users, partners, and stakeholders.
NOAA has taken several near-term actions within its existing
authorities to improve how it delivers climate science and services.
NOAA has been evaluating climate services activities within the agency,
and has actively engaged its partners and the user community to
determine their specific information needs and the contributions these
groups may bring to the development of climate services. NOAA looks
forward to engaging in these dialogues with the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, Congress, its
Federal agency partners, and the range of public and private-sector
interests in climate services, as the Administration moves forward to
develop a National Climate Service.
Question 10. The 33rd Center for Ocean Law and Policy held an
international meeting in Seward in May on ``Changes in the Arctic
Environment and the Law of the Sea'' in which the mapping of the U.S.
Continental Shelf in Alaska's Arctic was raised as a serious need
related to ratification of UNCLOS. What is included in NOAA' s budget
for FY 2010 and future years toward completing mapping of the Arctic
continental shelf?
Answer. NOAA's FY 2010 Budget includes a request of $3.4 million
for activities required to define the limits of the U.S. Extended
Continental Shelf (ECS) beyond 200 nautical miles, through the Office
of Ocean Exploration and Research. About $2 million of this is for ECS-
related seafloor mapping in the Arctic in FY 2010.
NOAA, the Department of State, and the U.S. Geological Survey have
been recognized as primary U.S. agencies with the capabilities to
execute the required activities and ensure a successful submission.
Each agency has its own respective role in the project; for example,
NOAA is the lead for collecting bathymetric data and maintaining the
national baseline as depicted on NOAA charts. The ECS Task Force
(established in 2007) is developing a project plan for collaborative
action to define the U.S. ECS. This project plan will refine out-year
requirements for all agencies engaged in this effort.
This work will allow the United States to delineate the area of its
jurisdiction over its ECS, which includes an estimated $1.2 trillion
worth of resources.\2\ The U.N. Convention on Law of the Sea sets forth
a clear process for international recognition of the outer limits of a
coastal nation's continental shelf and the sovereign rights over the
associated seabed resources therein. Russia, Canada, Denmark, and
Norway are actively pursuing submissions to the Commission on the
Limits of the Continental Shelf in the Arctic. According to the U.S.
Arctic Research Commission, if the U.S. were to become a party to the
U.N. Convention on Law of the Sea, its submission could include an area
in the Arctic of about 450,000 square kilometers--an area approximately
the size of California. Although limited information exists pertaining
to potential resources in this area, it is anticipated that petroleum,
gas hydrates, and other mineral resources will be discovered, as well
as new habitats attracting communities of fish, deep-sea coral, and
other benthic organisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Murton, B.J., Parson, L.M., Hunter, P. and Miles, P., Global
non-living resources on the Extended Continental Shelf; Prospects for
the year 2000, International Seabed Authority.
Question 11. In April, Alaska hosted the Indigenous Peoples Global
Summit on Climate Change, in which the impacts of climate change on
indigenous people was detailed, as well as the challenges in adapting
to changes in the environment and with traditional lifestyles. Many
stressed the need to work with our indigenous people in assisting with
adaptation strategies, in recognizing their traditional knowledge and
wisdom, and in developing monitoring strategies and education programs
by which we all can understand the magnitude of the challenges facing
our residents with climate change. What is budgeted to work with
indigenous people in assisting on adaptation strategies to climate
change and the incorporation of local and traditional knowledge?
Answer. NOAA has no funding specifically directed toward assisting
indigenous people on adaption strategies to climate change. NOAA has
several projects that incorporate local and traditional knowledge
related to cooperative management of marine mammals. NOAA routinely
funds projects promoting the role of Alaska Natives in marine mammal
conservation and management efforts, as well as educating and informing
the public about the traditional and contemporary relationship between
Alaska Natives and marine mammals. These projects concentrate on the
cooperative management of protected species, such as cetaceans and
pinnipeds in Alaska. In FY 2009, NOAA anticipates spending over $2.3
million through grants and contracts toward the cooperative management
of marine mammals. NOAA also solicits and funds information gathering
from indigenous people regarding fisheries management, but not for
climate data.
Question 12. The Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, recently
completed for the Arctic Council found that ``based on the information
provided, significant portions of the primary Arctic shipping routes do
not have adequate hydrographic data, and therefore charts, to support
safe navigation.'' What is budgeted to improve the marine navigation
services, including hydrographic surveys, charting and tide and current
information in the United States Arctic, which includes the Bering Sea?
Answer. NOAA's FY 2010 President's Request for Navigation Services,
which include mapping and charting, geodesy, and tides and currents, is
$155.1 million to support the Nation's navigation, positioning and
water level requirements. Of this, roughly $31 million is allocated to
support contract hydrographic surveys of waters critically in need of
survey for safe navigation, which is in addition to in-house survey
work conducted by the NOAA Hydrographic Fleet. Although a large portion
of NOAA's hydrographic survey work occurs in Alaska each year
(approximately 40 percent in calendar year 2008, by area), there have
not been any major projects assigned in the Bering Sea or farther north
in recent years. In 2010, there are plans to send the NOAA Ship
Fairweather north to conduct hydrographic surveys in the Bering
Straits. Survey plans in 2011 and beyond will be based on available
resources and a review of national requirements, but may include
additional surveys by both in-house and contract units.
Question 13. What is NOAA's plan to address backlogs of needed
survey work?
Answer. NOAA is in the process of developing a strategic plan for
the Arctic, given the significant environmental and economic impacts
that the Arctic and Sub-arctic regions are already experiencing due to
climate change. This includes an Arctic Hydrographic Survey priorities
plan based on maritime and other user needs.
Question 14. Coastal inundation and erosion are impacting our rural
communities and is well documented through stakeholder activities with
the Governor's Sub-cabinet on Climate Change, recommendations of the
Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission, and two reports by the
GAO, yet there is a lack of data to assess changes in the sea level
because of limited tide stations and vertical geodetic control. What is
budgeted to monitor and model sea-level rise in the Arctic and support
communities in adapting to the impacts of climate change in the
Arctic's coastal zone?
Answer. NOAA provides the geospatial infrastructure required to
baseline and monitor trends in sea level and land motion, primarily
through the National Water Level Observation Network (NWLON) and
Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS). There are presently
24 NWLON and 36 CORS operating in Alaska. In addition to these
observing networks, NOAA is working to improve the ability to use GPS
to easily and efficiently determine accurate vertical elevations, which
is currently not possible. NOAA's FY 2010 President's Request includes
an increase of $4 million for the geospatial infrastructure needed to
monitor sea-level trends around the Nation. If appropriated, this
increase will enable NOAA to begin collecting data to improve elevation
information as a foundation for better commerce, economic efficiencies,
and to better protect the public from coastal hazards and flooding.
This request supports the NOAA ``Gravity for the Redefinition of the
American Vertical Datum'' (GRAV-D) initiative to improve elevation and
height information through the collection of high-resolution gravity
data. Once GRAV-D is completed, the new gravity-based vertical datum
for the U.S. will, for the first time, provide national elevations with
GPS to an accuracy of under one inch. According to the priorities
defined in the NOAA GRAV-D plan, gravity collection in littoral regions
of Alaska would be completed by FY 2012 and the rest of Alaska by FY
2013.
In addition, NOAA's FY 2010 Budget Request includes support for
coastal community adaptation to climate change in the Arctic through
scientific research, planning, and mitigation activities. NOAA
maintains key observing systems for monitoring the ocean, atmosphere,
and climate change. NOAA supports states, as well as local and regional
authorities, with atmospheric, terrestrial, water, and ecosystem
monitoring, forecasts, predictions and projections, and scientific
support for preparedness and decisionmaking. NOAA support for climate
adaptation science seeks not only to examine the science of climate
change and its impacts, but also to understand the current and
historical state of the climate, as well as socioeconomic implications.
NOAA's adaptation planning support covers marine fisheries, coastal and
ocean habitat, and ecosystems, and also supports and informs coastal
planning and development efforts, maritime transportation, water
resources and water resources management, and other government and
private-sector adaptation issues (e.g., insurance, energy and
agriculture).
Through a Federal-state partnership under its Coastal Zone
Management program, NOAA provides national leadership, technical
assistance, and funding to state and territory coastal management
programs to plan for and adapt to climate change. The Alaska Coastal
Management Program (ACMP) is using enhancement grant funds provided
through Section 309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act to support a
hazard grant program, which supports local government projects and
coastal management plan development and implementation. Alaska's hazard
grant program supports coastal district and state agency efforts to
identify and designate new natural hazard areas and establish specific
enforceable policies applicable to the hazard. Specifically, the ACMP
has set aside $50,000 of section 309 funds in each Fiscal Year from FY
2006 to FY 2010 to fund activities that address the increasing risk
from hazards related to climate change, such as sea-level rise, storm
surge, coastal erosion, and subsidence due to permafrost melting. Using
FY 2009 Federal coastal zone management grant funds, the ACMP will
undertake a natural hazards resiliency effort, coordinated with a
working group of agency and coastal district representatives. This
project will facilitate dialogue about how to make resiliency a part of
district policy, planning, and education efforts, as well as how to
increase resilience in Alaska. The ACMP is expected to fund similar
activities with its FY 2010 grant funds, which it will receive in July
2010.
Question 15. Digital mapping of Alaska is a very important basic
need for Alaska's economy and managing Alaska's environment. The state
has a Statewide Digital Mapping Initiative (SDMI) working through
Federal agencies, and NOAA is embarking on national GRAV-D and NGS
Height Modernization programs, of which Alaska is a priority. The
importance of vertical data is critical to understanding changes to the
permafrost and water levels with climate change as well as more
accurate navigational charts for aviators and Alaska communities
dependent on air service. Could you discuss NOAA's funding plans for
completion of the national GRAV-D proposal as a means to provide
critical geoid model data as support to the SDMI and in improving the
use of GPS in determining vertical heights?
Answer. The FY 2010 President's Budget includes an increase of $4
million to improve elevation information as a foundation for better
commerce, economic efficiencies, and to better protect the public from
coastal hazards and flooding. This requested funding supports the NOAA
``Gravity for the Redefinition of the American Vertical Datum'' (GRAV-
D) initiative, enabling NOAA to finish gravity data collection across
the Nation by 2019 and implement a new gravity-based vertical datum in
2020.
The primary goal of Alaska's Statewide Digital Mapping Initiative
is to acquire new and better maps for Alaska and make existing map
products more easily available and to ultimately produce an accurate
and seamless statewide base map. To reach this goal, accurate elevation
models are required. The existing vertical datum in Alaska is in error
by as much as 6 feet or more and digital imagery and nationally-
accepted standard elevation maps are lacking. It is the only state that
does not have digital imagery and elevation maps at nationally accepted
standards.
NOAA intends to collect airborne gravity measurements in Alaska and
across the Nation according to its 2007 Gravity for the Redefinition of
the American Vertical Datum (GRAV-D) plan, which laid out an efficient
process to acquire gravity measurements across the Nation and redefine
the geoid model. According to the priorities defined in the GRAV-D plan
and if the requested funds are appropriated by Congress in 2010 and
beyond, gravity collection in littoral regions of Alaska would be
completed by FY 2012 and the rest of Alaska by FY 2013. Following the
establishment of the new vertical datum, NOAA will focus on mapping
efforts to update shoreline. These mapping efforts will provide the
accurate shoreline necessary for the Statewide Digital Mapping
Initiative to provide a seamless base map for the State of Alaska.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Dr. Jane Lubchenco
Question 1. I want to acknowledge the significant achievement of
presenting the highest-ever funding request for NOAA. The Fiscal Year
2010 proposed budget of $4.5 billion is a strong step in the right
direction for meeting NOAA's mandated and evolving budget needs, and it
sends a critical message to Congress that managing our oceans and
studying our atmosphere are going to be key priorities for the Obama
Administration. To what extent will the FY 2010 Budget Request enable
NOAA to succeed in meeting all its mandated missions? I understand that
you cannot officially ask for more funding, but are we likely to see
any program performance shortfalls due to insufficient funding?
Answer. NOAA's FY 2010 Budget provides the best balance of
investments to meet our mandated mission. NOAA has worked hard to
reallocate resources, identify efficiencies, and fund our highest
priorities. NOAA does not anticipate any program performance shortfalls
as a result of insufficient funding. At the same time, we recognize the
growing needs for NOAA mission, especially in climate, fisheries, and
weather forecasting. We are working within our planning and budget
processes to ensure sufficient resources are provided to address these
needs.
Question 2. Given the fact that you have a finite pot of money to
allocate among competing programs and line offices, how did you go
about setting priorities and determining how much funding to recommend
for those priorities?
Answer. NOAA has implemented a planning process entitled, Planning,
Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System (PPBES), to help set
priorities and develop our budget allocations. The planning system
allows NOAA to link its strategic planning and policy priorities with
the budget formulation process. Throughout the process, we attempt to
balance fiscal realities with our program demands to ensure our budget
proposals meet our highest priority needs.
Question 3. I was pleased to hear that, on April 8, 2009, you have
pledged to provide $16 million from this year's budget to help with the
transition to sectors in the New England Groundfishery. We understand
that $6 million of that will go toward cooperative research, and $10
million will be used to develop data reporting and fishery monitoring
systems--vital components for facilitating management plan success.
Moreover, on May 19, my staff heard you speak in Boston, in which you
touted an extra $18.6 million in your proposed budget to help
specifically with the New England groundfish transition. Today, more
than 2 months after you pledged that $16 million, none of that funding
has been released to the region . . . what can you tell me about the
status of that money? Exactly when will it be released to the region?
Answer. NOAA has released the funds to the region. The funds are in
the process of being distributed. All sectors approved by the New
England Fishery Management Council for implementation in fishing year
2010 have received some funding and a contractor has been hired to
assist in the preparation of the 19 documents required under the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Question 4. Out of the $16 million, does NOAA still plan to
allocate $6 million to cooperative research and $10 million to data and
monitoring? If not, what changes have you proposed? How does NOAA plan
to spend the $18.6 million for New England groundfish in FY 2010?
Answer. Yes, $6 million is allocated to Cooperative Research and
$10 million is to support and build the infrastructure to monitor and
administer the groundfish fishery.
NOAA FY 2010 request includes $18.6 million for Northeast catch-
share implementation. The $18.6 million is requested in the following
budget lines:
Fisheries Research and Management Programs $5.4 million
Economics and Social Sciences $1.0 million
Observers/Training $3.0 million
Enforcement $3.2 million
Cooperative Research $6.0 million
Question 5. Because you have been working with the New England
Council as they develop and review alternatives for Amendment 16, how
much funding--in total--will be required to make this transition
successful? How much will start-up and ongoing monitoring activities
cost over time?
Answer. The total costs for government and industry to implement
the program are dependent upon decisions made by the New England
Fishery Management Council, the level of industry participation in
sectors, and decisions made by participants about monitoring and
reporting alternatives. The $18.6 million requested for FY 2010 is
sufficient for that year based on our estimate that about half of the
Northeast groundfish fishing fleet joins sectors for the fishing year
starting May 2010.
Question 6. After nearly 10 years of working with NOAA to develop
and enact legislation for a sustained ocean and coastal observation
system, and working with my colleagues to request sufficient funding
for this system, I am troubled to see that NOAA has requested only $21
million for its Integrated Ocean Observing System. Ocean Commissions
and the scientific community recommend hundreds of millions to realize
the full potential of such a system, and I think we can't afford to not
adequately fund ocean observations. After all, ocean data form the very
foundation of every single NOAA mission, and they must be transformed
into usable products to serve America's economy, protect lives and
property, and promote marine and climate science. NOAA is missing the
mark.
Ocean observation buoys are being pulled out of the water,
technical staff is being fired, and data products are not being
delivered to end users--all due to insufficient funding for NOAA's
observations office and its partners. What do these data gaps mean for
NOAA's ocean and climate science, hazard prediction, and service to the
American people?
Answer. The NOAA Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Program
works with other NOAA programs and its external partners to enable the
sharing and application of data. The NOAA IOOS Program is responsible
for developing the national framework for data integration across NOAA
and with the Regional Associations that make up a cohesive, national
network of regional coastal ocean-observing systems. By bringing
together data in a way that ensures comparability with other data sets,
IOOS makes a broader suite of data available to provide the information
scientists need to develop a more complete characterization of our
ocean and coastal ecosystems.
Under the current budget request, NOAA's IOOS program will continue
to provide a robust and consistent data stream for scientists,
emergency responders, natural resource managers, mariners, and the
American public, and enable informed decision-making to produce
economic, environmental, and societal benefits for the Nation.
Question 7. What are the barriers to developing an adequate funding
request for NOAA's coastal and ocean observations?
Answer. It is important to balance the Nation's competing
priorities for NOAA's diverse services when developing its annual
budget request. Funding recommendations are made on an annual basis and
submitted to Congress in the President's Budget Request.
Question 8. How do you intend to meet NOAA's missions with an
insufficient and underfunded ocean observations system?
Answer. The NOAA Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Program
continues to manage IOOS development in partnership with the national
network of regional coastal ocean-observing systems and the Interagency
Working Group on Ocean Observations. The IOOS Program has made great
progress in enabling the delivery of ocean and coastal observation data
through the development of a data integration framework. NOAA will
continue to focus on building a national network to improve
coordination of observation strategies and systems, identify ways to
improve the Nation's ocean observing capacity, and facilitate the
exchange of information to help decisionmakers address pressing policy
issues.
The FY 2010 President's Budget Request includes $21 million for
IOOS activities. This request includes $14.5 million to develop the
regional component of IOOS through competitively awarded grants and
cooperative agreements, and $6.5 million to guide development of the
national network. NOAA must balance many competing priorities within
each budget request. The requested funds will enable NOAA to begin
implementing new requirements under the Integrated Coastal and Oceans
Observation Act.
Question 9. As the guardian and leader of NOAA's scientific
integrity, what is your vision for how NOAA should organize and
implement its ocean and coastal observation mandate? It must be more
than a simple data management system; can you offer a revolutionary new
paradigm for elevating and invigorating this program so it can reach
its full scientific and economic potential?
Answer. The NOAA Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Program
is actively working with seventeen Federal agency partners through the
Interagency Working Group on Ocean Observations to collaborate and
develop the IOOS from a shared vision to ensure it responds to a
variety of information needs. As a part of the larger effort to develop
a Global Earth Observation System of Systems, IOOS contributes valuable
coastal information.
The NOAA IOOS Program includes a national network of regional
coastal and ocean-observing systems, which share the goal of building
and sustaining an IOOS that is focused on interoperable ocean
observation data. By bringing together data in a way that ensures
comparability with other data sets, IOOS makes a broader suite of data
available to provide the information scientists need to develop a more
complete characterization of our ocean and coastal ecosystems.
NOAA has made significant progress since first conducting a peer-
reviewed, competitive grants process for regional IOOS awards in FY
2007. The passage of the Integrated Coastal and Oceans Observation Act
in March 2009, provides NOAA and its Federal and regional partners an
important opportunity to advance the development of a national IOOS
capability with the support of both Congress and the Administration.
NOAA is dedicated to implementing the requirements contained in the Act
to continue building a system to enhance Federal agency missions as
well as regional priorities and needs, and is actively working with the
Interagency Working Group on Ocean Observations, National Federation of
Regional Associations for Coastal and Ocean Observing, and others to
reach the vision for IOOS established in this important statute. NOAA's
IOOS Program is also committed to working across NOAA's line offices
and goal teams, to better leverage agency assets.
Question 10. Would you be willing to work with your partners in the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management and
Budget, and other key White House offices to develop a new ocean
observations vision that can be adequately funded in future requests?
Can you report back to me on your progress with this effort?
Answer. By establishing the Integrated Ocean Observing System
(IOOS) Program in 2007, NOAA has demonstrated a commitment to building
a national integrated system for ocean observations. NOAA's IOOS
Program was included in the President's Budget for the first time in FY
2008, with a request of $14 million.
In March 2009, IOOS was given formal authorization through the
Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-
11). NOAA has been named the lead of this interagency effort and is
already working with other agency partners to coordinate budgets and
leverage each other's assets.
NOAA and the Department of Commerce will work with the Office of
Management and Budget, and other key White House offices to develop
future budget requests.
Question 11. Today we have a remarkable opportunity for attacking
global climate change, but this will require coordinated research from
the Department of Commerce, NASA, and the National Science Foundation.
Earlier this year, the University of Maine issued a report, ``Maine's
Climate Future,'' which assessed the economic and ecosystem
implications on Maine and concluded that climate change will have far
reaching impacts on our forestry industry, our fishing industry, as
well as our ecosystems that support our agricultural products. The
report provided policymakers a preview of how to respond to climate
changes and should be lauded for its vision. Yet, I am concerned that
the report was done without Federal assistance, and the Maine
scientists were asked by the Governor to provide this research without
compensation. Federal agencies must provide technical support, and
financial assistance to support this proactive research. I strongly
believe that we must build scientific research at the Department of
Commerce, the National Science Foundation, and NASA to provide States
that take this project are supported with all pertinent data. Does
NOAA's FY10 budget allow for research support at local universities to
assess climate change risks and potential adaptation opportunities?
Answer. NOAA's FY 2010 Budget does allow for research support at
local universities to assess climate change risks and potential
adaptation opportunities. NOAA's Competitive Research Program, within
the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), sponsors
scientific research aimed at improving predictions and assessments of
climate variability over a variety of time scales in an effort to
better understand how society can best adapt and respond to climate
variability and change. Local universities and other institutions can
submit proposals for consideration in annual competitions held by the
OAR Climate Program Office that include a broad range of research
priorities and objectives.
The FY 2010 request for the Climate Competitive Research Program is
$144.2 million, an increase of $12.1 million over the FY 2009 enacted
level. This increase includes:
$4.5 million for the National Integrated Drought Information
System, to support implementation of the early warning system
pilot project and to improve climate forecasts;
$2.6 million to support work on decadal climate predictions
and abrupt climate change; and
$4.0 million to support work on ocean acidification and
regional climate impacts on living marine resources.
Question 12. I do agree that it is critical that this Committee
also move forward with action on streamlining research at NOAA in order
to support local research such as the University of Maine's work over
the last year. Do you believe that there should be a specific
authorization for support of regional climate change research?
Answer. NOAA currently has authority to support regional climate
change research through the National Climate Program Act (15 U.S.C.
2901 et seq.); through this measure, NOAA is granted authority to enter
into contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements for climate-related
activities.
Question 13. In your official budget request for FY2010, NOAA
proposed replacing the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund with an
alternative program of Species Recovery Grants, which would be funded
at $60 million. Under the new grant program, all entities would be
eligible to compete for salmon recovery funding--even those states,
tribes, and other groups that previously benefited from the dedicated
Pacific salmon funding. However, in the time since the release of the
budget, NOAA amended this portion of the budget, indicating that it
will severely scale back its new grant system and return to the Pacific
Fund as the primary means for funding salmon recovery.
Could you please clarify NOAA's plans on this matter? Why are you
willing to abandon the $60 million request for the Species Recovery
Grants? From a policy point of view, do you think that the Pacific
Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund was inherently superior as a way to fund
species' recovery?
Answer. Although the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund is an
established and effective program, at the time NOAA believed a
nationwide grant program would be the most effective approach for
recovering all of the threatened and endangered species managed by
NOAA. The amended request includes a significant increase for the
Cooperation with States program (to $11 million). This program has been
funded at just under $1 million since 2003.
An increase of $3 million is requested for Atlantic Salmon Recovery
in the President's FY 2010 Budget Request. In addition, under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, two projects totaling
$7.8 million are being funded for Atlantic Salmon Recovery in Maine.
The Great Works Dam Removal (Great Works, Maine) project will receive
$6.1 million to remove the Great Works Dam, which is part of a greater
initiative to eventually restore and open more than 1,000 miles of
river for endangered Atlantic salmon and other fish species. The Maine
Atlantic Salmon Habitat Restoration (Washington County, Maine) project
will receive $1.7 million to remove fish passage barriers throughout
the Machias River watershed, opening 66 miles of habitat for endangered
Atlantic salmon and other migratory fish species.
Question 14. I am concerned that Maine cannot benefit from a
region-specific program like the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund.
If NOAA severely cuts its request for the Species Recovery Grants to
merely $11 million, how can you assure me that Atlantic salmon will
receive sufficient funding in the FY2010 Budget--assuming that Atlantic
salmon will have to compete with proposals to recover other species as
well? Even if combined with the $9 million for Atlantic salmon in the
FY10 Budget, the total funding may be insufficient for the potentially
expanded endangered listing for Atlantic salmon.
Answer. NOAA's request represents a significant increase in its
Conservation and Recovery with States species recovery grant program,
and Maine is eligible for funds under the expanded program. Section 6
of the Endangered Species Act envisions that states will be partners
with the Federal Government in the conservation of listed species, and
it provides a mechanism to assist the states with funding. Unlike the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA did not have a line item in its
budgets for cooperation with the States until 2003, when slightly less
than $1 million was added. In response to that funding, NOAA was able
to attract interest from additional states, expanding the program from
6 to 14 states and to fund small research and management projects.
Recovery of listed species is dependent on collaboration and
cooperation from the states. However most states do not have adequate
resources to address necessary recovery actions, and Federal assistance
is necessary to ensure their ability to engage in an effective
partnership. NOAA's Conservation and Recovery with States Program
leverages additional funding in support of listed species recovery.
NOAA's budget request focuses on strategically leveraging funding for
the recovery of protected species by working with the widest possible
range of partners with interests in species and ecosystem health.
Question 15. Currently, decisions about the status of Atlantic
salmon under the Endangered Species Act are made jointly between NOAA
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Yet, in similar decisions about
Pacific salmon, NOAA is clearly established as the lead agency. This
seems incongruous, and with Atlantic salmon in three Maine rivers--the
Penobscot, Kennebec, and Androscoggin, with watersheds encompassing
two-thirds of Maine's land area--on the cusp of possibly being listed
as endangered or threatened, perhaps as soon as next week, this issue
becomes significant. Industries will need to have timely access to
permitting decisions that will affect literally tens of thousands of
jobs in Maine, and it seems that for this reason alone, a single agency
must have the clear lead in such permitting decisions.
Why is jurisdiction shared among NOAA and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service regarding Atlantic salmon, when no such shared
jurisdiction exists on the West Coast? Do you agree that this
responsibility should be so bifurcated?
Answer. When NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
were first petitioned to list Atlantic salmon under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) in the early 1990s, both agencies had programs
addressing aspects of Atlantic salmon conservation and recovery. NOAA
was working internationally and focusing on the marine environment and
USFWS had an active conservation hatchery program underway for the
species. Because Atlantic salmon are anadromous and were caught
commercially when more abundant, jurisdiction would have fallen under
NOAA per Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970. However, the decision was
made at the time to take advantage of the resources available in both
agencies, work cooperatively to conduct a status review, and consider
whether ESA protection was warranted for the species.
While joint jurisdiction worked very well initially, it has become
more difficult in recent years due to a number of new or changed
conditions including an expanded geographic range of the listing. Time
delays and lack of clarity on some positions resulted due to the need
to have two Federal agencies agree on such issues. To resolve these
issues but maintain the strength of cooperative jurisdiction, in 2006,
the agencies entered into a Statement of Cooperation to attempt to more
cleanly define roles. Additionally, a new Statement of Cooperation was
signed March 2009, which goes a step further to separate roles and
responsibilities between the two agencies in order to increase
efficiency and effectiveness. Our goal is to significantly reduce the
number of joint activities, particularly in light of the expanded
geographic range of the listing, in order to ensure we could be as
responsive to the affected public as possible. For section 7
consultations and permitting activities, this new Statement of
Cooperation assigns one agency jurisdiction by issue so there is a
clear lead and no obligation for joint review or signature.
The new Statement of Cooperation reinforces our belief that it is
critical to the successful recovery of the species that the expertise
and knowledge of staff from both agencies continue to be made
available. The USFWS conservation hatchery program is providing a
critical service to ensure persistence of the species and conservation
of genes. NOAA research and management activities are providing
insights into the threats affecting the species, and tools to avoid and
reduce identified threats. The cooperative work involving the State of
Maine, NOAA, and the USFWS is improving our understanding of hatchery
product success as well as freshwater survival.
Question 16. If this system remains in place, how will you ensure
that the agencies will be able to work together in a timely, accurate
fashion to prevent undue restrictions on industrial activities?
Answer. The 2009 Statement of Cooperation between USFWS and NOAA
significantly reduces the number of potentially overlapping joint
activities. Recovery planning and oversight is identified as a joint
activity moving forward, but USFWS is designated as the administrative
lead for this activity. A single lead agency is designated for section
7 consultations and section 10 permits depending on where these
activities occur or what area they cover. For activities with a single
lead agency, the responsible agency has control over all aspects of the
action and is the sole signatory. We believe this change will avoid
duplication in the consultation and permitting processes by providing a
single point of contact for other Federal agencies and private
individuals, and the review and approval of those activities stays
within a single agency.
Question 17. The economic impacts of endangered species listing can
exacerbate an already fragile economy and has the potential to have a
drastic impact in rural economies. This is especially true with our
country's businesses located adjacent to our river ecosystems, where a
substantial amount of country's industry is centered. Clearly, we must
protect our endangered species and live up to the intent of the
landmark Endangered Species Act, at the same time I think we can all
agree that it is incumbent on Federal agencies that they provide the
resources to implement the species recovery plans. Yet, I am very
concerned that NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are not
preparing for the potential endangered listing and add the three
largest rivers in the State of Maine--the Penobscot, the Kennebec, and
the Androscoggin Rivers. By adding the three largest rivers in the
State of Maine this would encompass nearly two-thirds of the State,
changing the geographic scope from its current 2,000 square miles to
19,000 square miles. Is NOAA planning on expanding their budget by the
same magnitude? If not, how do you justify the increased regulatory
burden and economic impacts the people of Maine and local industries
will incur?
Answer. There is a $3 million increase for Atlantic salmon in the
FY 2010 President's request. This would increase NOAA's direct Atlantic
salmon funding from $6 million to $9 million. In addition to these
Atlantic salmon specific funds, NOAA has been able to direct other
funding to the conservation and recovery of Atlantic salmon and their
ecosystems through other programs including habitat restoration
granting programs. The additional funds in the President's Budget
Request would provide support for conducting critical research to
improve our understanding of habitat needs and salmon survival at sea.
Question 18. As you know, NOAA is currently managing a budget of
$5.2 billion--the sum of the FY09 enacted levels plus the $860 million
in stimulus funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. At
the same time, we can see that the FY2010 Budget Request, if fully
funded, will be--in effect--a $700 million cut from total NOAA funding
for this current Fiscal Year. While we can appreciate the temporary and
one-time funding boost that comes from the stimulus bill, what steps
are you taking to prepare for a significant budget cut for FY2010,
should the enacted levels be similar to the requested levels?
Answer. The FY 2010 requested level is an increase of $110 million
over the FY 2009 enacted level (excluding one-time American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds). The total appropriation for NOAA in
ARRA was $830 million. NOAA has utilized the funding consistent with
the intent of the ARRA to ``preserve and create jobs and promote
economic recovery'' while ``commencing expenditures and activities as
quickly as possible consistent with prudent management''. ARRA funds
are being expended as quickly as possible as stipulated in the bill and
not utilized on long-term projects and investments that required
increased capacity at NOAA in future years. Many of the projects NOAA
has chosen to fund use stimulus money to accelerate the project to
completion earlier than originally planned. Other projects are ongoing
and essential to NOAA's mission and would continue to receive regular
appropriations.
Question 19. While the stimulus funding is intended for ``shovel
ready'' projects, NOAA is using it to address a backlog of research,
restoration, navigation, conservation, and management activities--
including Endangered Species Act consultations, vessel maintenance, and
climate modeling. . . since so many internal NOAA functions are
benefiting from the stimulus funds, is that not a clear message that
NOAA's budget has been woefully inadequate in the past? And that at
least $5 billion--perhaps much more--is a justifiable request?
Answer. NOAA has selected its projects based on several factors:
Congressional intent, job creation, ``shovel readiness'', and those
that address NOAA's needs of long-term infrastructure. Many of these
projects already existed and therefore have been accelerated to meet
the intent of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. With the
stimulus funds, several of the internal projects will be completed
earlier than originally planned.
Question 20. As you know, since April, the lobster industry has
been operating under new rules mandating that they use sinking rope to
connect their strings of pots rather than the floating rope they have
used for generations, in order to reduce the likelihood of entangling
large whales. The Maine Lobstermen's Association has estimated that our
fishermen will each have to pay $10,000-$15,000 to swap out their gear,
and it remains to be seen how significant annual replacement costs will
be. And yet, according to a GAO study I commissioned in 2007, NMFS
cannot estimate the benefit that these new regulations will provide.
The Large Whale Take Reduction Team has already begun meeting to
determine what additional restrictions may need to be imposed for the
next round of regulations in 2014. I will vociferously oppose any new
restrictions on our fishing industry unless NMFS can provide
incontrovertible evidence that such rules will provide a measurable
benefit to endangered whale populations. With that in mind, can you
shed any light on your agency's financial commitment to this work?
Answer. We recognize that information on entanglements and large
whales is limited; however, we do know that entanglements occur and
they result in serious injuries and mortalities of large whales,
including endangered North Atlantic right whales. Under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), we are required to ensure that commercial fishery
operations we authorize are not likely to jeopardize listed whales. In
addition, under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), we are charged
with reducing injuries or mortalities in commercial fishing gear to
levels below the potential biological removal, which in the case of the
North Atlantic right whale is zero. Therefore, we have a clear mandate
under both the ESA and MMPA to reduce interactions. Reducing the amount
of line in the water column, by requiring the use of sinking instead of
floating groundline, reduces the opportunity for entanglement and
therefore reduces the likelihood of takes in support of our mandates
under the ESA and MMPA. NOAA has an extensive history of seeking
additional information for management purposes by providing funding to
researchers, academia, state agencies, and fishermen to support large
whale conservation efforts. In FY 2009, NOAA is providing approximately
$972,000 for gear research projects designed to reduce entanglement
risk associated with vertical lines. The projects funded are consistent
with the research needs discussed with the Atlantic Large Whale Take
Reduction Team at its April 2009 meetings. These projects include:
1. Examining the feasibility of fishing without vertical lines
using trap/pot fishing gear. This project will take place in
both the Mid-Atlantic region (off the coast of Maryland) and
the Gulf of Maine (Jeffrey's Ledge area). The gear without
vertical lines will be fished similarly and compared to
traditional fishing gear (with vertical lines). Information
will be collected and recorded on data logs, including, but not
limited to, bottom type, temperature, depth, setting and
hauling duration, position of the gear, and gear loss/conflicts
(project cost: approximately $150,000).
2. Conducting a study in the Gulf of Maine to examine the
operability of a device that allows gear to switch from a weak
mode to a strong mode (project cost: approximately $128,000).
If a whale were to encounter this weak line, they would be less
likely to suffer serious injury or mortality and more likely to
escape the gear without major injury. The gear must, however,
be strong enough to allow it to be hauled to the surface
without breaking. This device is placed at the bottom of the
vertical line, and while fishing is in a weak link mode to
reduce entanglement risk to a large whale should it encounter
the line. When it is time to haul the gear, an acoustic deck
unit is used to switch the bottom link to the strong link mode
to allow for hauling of the gear.
3. Investigating methods to mark fixed fishing gear to help
identify the gear that is recovered from entangled whales. NOAA
is working with manufacturers to develop an adhesive tape that
can be placed on fishing lines that contains information on the
origin and type of fishing gear (project cost: $100,000).
Increasing the amount of information we can obtain from gear
taken off entangled whales is significant because it can help
us understand where, when, and how entanglements occur, which
can inform future management actions to increase the likelihood
of their success.
4. Assessing the risks of entanglement through an assessment of
entanglement injuries (project cost: $150,000).
5. Collecting data on large-whale distribution and fixed-gear
densities in the Mid-Atlantic region (project cost: up to
$300,000); and examination of how whales become entangled in
fixed fishing gear through the use of models (project cost:
$144,000).
In addition to supporting research designed to reduce entanglement
risk associated with vertical lines, NOAA FY 2009 funding will also
support several gear buyback programs to help offset the cost
associated with converting from floating groundline to sinking
groundline. Approximately $4.8 million in FY 2009 funds were allocated
for gear buyback programs from Maine through New Jersey.
Question 21. This budget requests $47 million for marine mammals.
How much of that funding will go to whale research in the Gulf of
Maine, and what specific work will be funded?
Answer. Of the $47 million for marine mammals included in the
President's FY 2010 Budget Request, approximately $8.2 million or 17.4
percent, is dedicated to right whale funding initiatives. $1.5 million
of the right whale funding is for cooperative state funding. The $8.2
million includes funding for several whale research initiatives that
will provide a better understanding of the relationship between fixed-
gear fisheries and large whales throughout the range of the species,
including in the Gulf of Maine. Specifically, NOAA will continue to
support right whale scarification analysis; aerial survey efforts,
joint enforcement agreements; gear research; and continued development
of a vertical line analysis model to support NOAA's Vertical Line
Reduction Strategy for the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan.
The goal of the scarification analysis is to understand how frequently
whales are encountering gear and the effects of those entanglements on
individuals and the population overall. The vertical line analysis
model is designed to address spatial questions fundamental to species
conservation and fisheries management. The continued development of
this model will help NOAA answer specific management questions such as:
Where do particular fisheries operate?
Where are concentrations of vertical line the greatest?
Which areas have the highest concentration of vertical lines
and the greatest concentration of whales?
These questions are critical in developing meaningful conservation
measures that focus on vertical line measures in areas of highest co-
occurrence between fixed gear and right whales.
Question 22. In recent years, the lobster fishery has landed nearly
$300 million worth of lobster, and while 2007 saw an increase of nearly
5 million pounds over 2007, the value of that catch declined by over
$50 million due to dockside prices which fell to levels not seen since
the 1980s. On top of this, our lobster dealers are soon to be hit with
an additional cost from NOAA--a fee for certificates required by the
European Union for exported fishery products. Recently the program for
issuing EU export certificates for live lobster was transferred from
the FDA to NMFS and I have heard a number of complaints about this
transfer. The primary issue is now exporters must pay for these paper
certificates where the FDA provided them for free. I am concerned that
the cost of these certificates will add costs to our lobster exports
and that we will lose market share to Canada. I understand that NOAA's
seafood inspection program is based on a fee-for-service model,
however, these EU export certificates are not required by U.S. law, but
rather a financial burden placed on our lobster industry by the EU. How
can we offset this cost so that the entire burden doesn't rest on the
lobster industry? Is there any money in this budget to alleviate these
concerns?
Answer. NOAA is making every effort to keep the costs of the export
certificate as low as possible. We have developed several pricing
options that can significantly reduce the cost of an EU health
certificate below the $69 price for non-participants. Firms willing to
enter into a formal contract may be able to obtain certificates for
about the same price as charged by the Canadian government. If a
seafood producer has regular and recurring inspection needs from NOAA,
they can work with NOAA to develop a contract for a specified amount of
hourly service at a less expensive rate. This allows NOAA to better
plan the use of inspection resources. NOAA is aware of the industry's
concerns and has been working with them collaboratively to discuss
their concerns and identify a resolution. Since January 17, 2009, NOAA
has held seven public meetings and worked with many firms individually
to better understand their business needs in shipping live and fresh
product to Europe. Firms who are concerned about cost should contact
the NOAA Fisheries Service Seafood Inspection Program directly so we
can determine how best to deliver this service as economically as
possible.
NOAA does not provide funding to offset fees charged to administer
its programs.
Question 23. NOAA is preparing to take over this program on June
17, 2009, but as with any transition to a new system, there are likely
to be snags, delays, and kinks that need to be worked out. Will NOAA
compensate the lobster industry for any loss of business caused by an
inability to access certificates?
Answer. NOAA adopted most of the methodology the Food and Drug
Administration employed to provide EU health certificates to the
industry in a timely manner, consistent with our regulations. So far,
there have not been any significant problems getting certificates to
the applicant before airplane shipments depart. NOAA is committed to
understanding industry's needs and business practices so trade to
Europe continues in an unfettered fashion. We will continue to closely
monitor our EU health certificate program over the next few months and
will modify our practices as we learn more. It is not anticipated NOAA
will compensate the industry for any loss of business and so far there
has not been any significant problems.
Question 24. The International Convention on the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas, or ICCAT, is an international body responsible for
managing highly migratory fish species that cross national boundaries,
and in many cases, migrate throughout the Atlantic Ocean. In recent
years, the United States has been a global leader in conservation of
these fish, including swordfish and bluefin tuna. But our fishermen
have consistently been unable to land their allocated quota of these
species. In 2008, we caught just 24 percent of our bluefin quota and
just 36 percent of our swordfish quota despite the fact that the
swordfish stock is now healthy. If we do not show legitimate attempts
to bolster these figures, the U.S. will almost certainly lose some of
its hard-earned ICCAT quota to other fishing nations which do not
impose similar conservation requirements. This would be a lose-lose
proposition: a loss for the U.S. economy, and a loss for the fish. I
understand that earlier this month NMFS issued an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking to adjust swordfish regulations. Do you anticipate
that this will ultimately result in increased landings of domestic,
sustainably caught fish?
Answer. NOAA expects that sustainable landings of domestic
swordfish and bluefin tuna may increase as a result of the rulemaking
process. The purpose of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking is
to inform the public of industry requests for regulatory changes for
Atlantic swordfish and bluefin tuna fisheries and to obtain broad
public comment on those requests and their potential impacts.
Consistent with the objectives of ending overfishing, rebuilding
overfished stocks, and minimizing bycatch to the extent practicable,
NOAA will evaluate industry requests as well as other potential changes
and intends to pursue additional rulemaking as appropriate in an effort
to increase domestic landings of bluefin tuna and swordfish in a
sustainable manner.
Question 25. NOAA has been on the forefront of recognizing
widespread benefits of environmental restoration on our fisheries
habitat and has pursued large-scale environmental restoration. In
addition, the vibrancy of our wetlands, river watersheds and coast
lines has long-term economic benefits to tourist industries and
expanded recreational use. Furthermore, North America's fisheries
stocks developed from a symbiotic relationship with our river systems.
Our coastal regions have experienced the detrimental effects of
mismanaged river systems, and we must provide resources to correct
this. I commend NOAA for its past leadership in supporting the
Penobscot River Restoration Project, which will provide a restored
river to more than 10,000 adult salmon and millions of other sea-run
fish. This project will certainly be a tremendous boon to New England's
fisheries and illustrates the ability of NOAA to provide the expertise
to restore essential habitat and the environment, including Atlantic
salmon. Do you believe in large-scale environmental restoration
projects, like the Penobscot River Restoration project? Will you
continue to make this project a priority for NOAA's habitat restoration
program?
Answer. NOAA is supportive of large-scale restoration projects that
can have watershed or regional benefits for coastal and marine
resources, such as endangered species, and commercial and recreational
fisheries. NOAA received $167 million in funding through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to direct toward restoration
efforts. The projects selected after a competitive solicitation process
focus on efforts with regional and ecosystem level benefits, as well as
creating jobs. One example is the Great Works Dam Removal Project,
through which NOAA is funding the removal of the Great Works dam on the
Penobscot River. This project is one step in the effort to remove
barriers in the Penobscot watershed for the recovery of Atlantic salmon
and open more than 1,000 miles of habitat. ARRA has allowed NOAA to
make investments in these types of large-scale projects, which allow us
to maximize the amount of habitat restored to benefit coastal and
marine ecosystems. In addition to projects funded through the ARRA,
NOAA's habitat restoration programs (e.g., Community-based Restoration
Program, Open Rivers Initiative) have contributed smaller amounts of
funding and technical assistance to larger-scale restoration efforts.
For example, these programs have participated in the Bahia Grande
restoration project in Corpus Christi, TX, which re-opened thousands of
acres to natural tidal flow; and the Elwha River restoration in
Washington State, which will open spawning habitat to Pacific salmon
and other anadromous fish.
Question 26. I have worked with the Coastal States Organization and
other constituencies to evaluate strategies for reauthorizing the
Coastal Zone Management Act. The CZMA is vital for enabling coastal
states to manage and fund coastal conservation activities, and it
provides them with a critical tool for weighing in on Federal actions
that affect their coastal waters. To be effective, however, we must
adequately fund the grant programs at the same time that we consider
legislation to renew and improve NOAA's oversight function. I am
concerned that the FY 2010 Budget Request, with flat funding of $66
million to states, will not be sufficient to facilitate success with
our state partners. Does the FY 2010 Budget Request suggest that NOAA
thinks current grants to states are adequate? Has NOAA been working
with its state partners to evaluate the impacts of recent funding
shortfalls?
Answer. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) is a vital tool for
dealing with the pressing issues such as sea-level rise and climate
change facing our Nation's oceans and coasts. NOAA looks forward to
working with you to revitalize the CZMA and strengthen state and
Federal capabilities.
NOAA's FY 2010 Budget Request strives to balance the Nation's
competing priorities for NOAA's diverse services within available
funds, and includes $66.1 million for state coastal zone management
grants to enable coastal states to manage and fund coastal conservation
activities.
Question 27. How does NOAA intend to meet the Nation's need for
coastal management activities at the state and local level with this
funding level, considering the increasing needs for climate change
adaptation and offshore energy development?
Answer. NOAA alone cannot meet all of the needs expressed at the
state and local levels, but we are working to ensure state funding
required by the Coastal Zone Management Act is maintained. In addition,
NOAA is working on ways to provide improved, non-monetary support to
coastal managers. Within NOAA we are continuing to look at ways to
better integrate our programs and abilities to deliver needed products,
services, and assistance to our state partners.
Question 28. What is the Coastal Communities Task Force, which
would receive $2 million in your budget? NOAA has just emerged from a
coastal communities scoping and visioning initiative with the Coastal
States Organization, so how would this differ?
Answer. The Coastal Communities Task Force (CCTF) will be composed
of leaders from around the country who are actively engaged in issues
related to coastal communities and the coastal economy. The CCTF will
help communities manage the use of land and water resources, expand
economic opportunities, and protect and improve the quality of life,
resulting in a more resilient and vibrant future for our Nation's
coasts. The CCTF, in partnership with NOAA, will assist communities as
they improve their environmental and economic health by working across
governmental jurisdictions and at the appropriate scale to address
community problems. Through direct technical and management assistance,
training and collaboration, the CCTF will help to assess coastal
resource conditions and economic health, identify key issues and goals,
establish coordination mechanisms, collect and integrate locally
relevant information into decision-making processes, and develop
recommendations on planning and implementation strategies.
The CCTF differs significantly from the coastal management scoping
and visioning effort done in partnership with the Coastal States
Organization. The ``Envisioning the Future of Coastal Management''
effort was designed to identify shortcomings with existing coastal
planning and management efforts and to learn of techniques that had
been used successfully to resolve coastal and ocean resource use
conflicts. The result was a set of principles to be used as the basis
for Coastal Zone Management Act reauthorization. The CCTF is an
implementation tool to provide specific assistance to communities in
regions around the Nation's coasts to resolve these and similar
conflicts. Because the vast majority of land-use decisions in the U.S.
are made by local governments, the CCTF has been designed to build
capacity with state and local decisionmakers.
Question 29. I am now considering alternative proposals for
language to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act, and I would
like to know NOAA's position as soon as possible. When can you provide
Congress with proposed legislation?
Answer. Drawing on the set of principles developed through the
``Envisioning the Future of Coastal Management'' effort, NOAA's Office
of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management has drafted a proposal to
reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act. NOAA leadership has not
yet had the opportunity to review this proposal and make a
determination as to whether the Administration will submit legislation.
Question 30. For more than a decade, I have authored and overseen
the implementation of NOAA's programs for addressing harmful algal
blooms and hypoxia research and control. On May 1 of this year, I
introduced S. 952, the second reauthorization of the original Snowe-
Breaux Act of 1998. My goal is to continue to promote vital research
into these outbreaks, but to also equip regions with rapid response
plans to minimize economic and ecological impacts. I also want to
promote interagency efforts to further develop methods for preventing
algae blooms and hypoxia. But for any legislation to work, it must be
adequately funded, and I again am concerned about the numbers in the
FY2010 Budget Request for this issue.
The last reauthorization bill authorized up to $28 million annually
to carry out research and projects under the Act, but NOAA's actual
request and spending has traditionally fallen quite short of that.
Exactly how much is NOAA requesting to implement the Act in FY2010?
Under what accounts and line items?
Answer. The FY 2010 President Budget Request includes support for
implementation of the reauthorized Snowe-Breaux Act of 1998 (Harmful
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act) within the funds
requested for the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS)
and Competitive Research under the NCCOS line item in the National
Ocean Service request in the operations, research, and facilities
account.
The request for NCCOS ($36.2 million) includes support for internal
NOAA research on harmful algal blooms (HABs), as well as a $2.7 million
increase dedicated to expanding NOAA's HAB forecasting capabilities on
the west coast of Florida into a national system of operational
forecasts with an event response capability. A portion of the
Competitive Research request (approximately $8.9 million of the $15.8
million request) is used to fund the five national competitive programs
authorized by the Snowe-Breaux Act and administered by the NCCOS Center
for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research:
Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms
Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms
Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms
Coastal Hypoxia Research Program, and
Gulf of Mexico Ecosystems and Hypoxia Assessment
Question 31. Since the frequency and severity of algal blooms and
hypoxia are increasing, will this funding level enable NOAA to
adequately meet this critical mission? What research and control needs
would most likely be shortchanged?
Answer. In coordination with our Federal partners, NOAA has made
considerable progress in the ability to detect, monitor, assess, and
predict harmful algal blooms and hypoxia in coastal ecosystems. This
progress has been accomplished through a mix of extramural and
intramural research, long-term regional ecosystem-scale studies
supported by short-term targeted studies, collaborations between
academic and Federal scientists, and multiple partnerships with
Federal, state, and tribal managers. These advances are helping coastal
managers undertake short- and long-term efforts to reduce, and
ultimately to prevent, the detrimental effects of these phenomena on
human health and valuable coastal resources. The FY 2010 request will
enable NOAA to continue successful programs supporting ongoing and
future advances in this field. It will also support the initiation of
the Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms
program, and the national system of operational harmful algal bloom
forecasts.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Dr. Jane Lubchenco
Question 1. I am pleased that VT Halter Marine shipyard of Moss
Point, MS, is building a number of NOAA fisheries research and mapping
vessels. In December 2008, NOAA launched the fisheries research vessel
PISCES, with a planned homeport of Pascagoula, MS. When is the planned
commissioning and activation date of PISCES and how many permanent
crewmembers will it have?
Answer. NOAA took delivery of Pisces on June 8, 2009. NOAA plans to
have this new fisheries vessel activated by the end of Fiscal Year
2009, after all testing is complete. The planned commissioning date for
Pisces is October 30, 2009. Once fully operational, Pisces will have a
crew compliment of 24 crew and officers with space for 15 scientists.
Total complement will be a maximum of 39.
Question 2. The Gulf of Mexico Alliance is a partnership among
state and Federal agencies across the states of Mississippi, Alabama,
Louisiana, Texas and Florida with the goal of significantly increasing
regional collaboration to enhance the environmental and economic health
of the Gulf of Mexico. I'm pleased to see a $1M increase in the budget
request for this important collaboration from $4 to $5 million. What
specific environmental or economic programs will this increased funding
support?
Answer. The Gulf of Mexico Alliance established six Priority Issue
Teams to work toward implementing the Governors' Action Plan for a
Healthy and Resilient Coasts with each of the five Gulf states serving
as the lead for at least one issue. The State of Mississippi is serving
as lead on two Priority Issue Teams: Nutrient Reduction and Coastal
Community Resilience. The remaining four teams are: Water Quality for
Healthy Beaches and Shellfish (Florida lead), Environmental Education
(Alabama lead), Habitat Conservation and Restoration (Louisiana lead),
and Ecosystem Integration and Assessment (Texas lead). The increased
funding will go toward providing additional competitive grants to
support each team as they work to implement the recently updated
Governors' Action Plan.
Question 3. What are some of the benefits funding for the Gulf of
Mexico Alliance has brought about so far?
Answer. Year one of the NOAA grants to the Gulf of Mexico Alliance
Priority Issue Teams began on October 1, 2008. During these first 9
months, the Alliance has benefited from increased coordination and
collaboration within and between the different priority issue teams.
For example, the Water Quality and Nutrient Reduction teams held joint
meetings in April of 2009 to develop strategies for improving water
quality, monitoring information collection, and sharing. Additionally,
the Coastal Community Resilience Team developed the ``Storm Smart Coast
Network.'' This website is a place for coastal decisionmakers to find
and share the latest information on protecting communities from storms,
floods, sea-level rise, and climate change. The State of Mississippi's
page is the first to be posted on the network
(ms.stormsmartcoasts.org). The Dauphin Island Sea Lab is representing
the State of Alabama as the Lead for Environmental Education Priority
Issue Team activities. During the first 6 months, the Dauphin Island
Sea Lab issued twenty sub-awards to support education and outreach
activities. From these twenty, two represent regional activities: the
Gulf of Mexico Foundation Science and Spanish Club Network and the
National Estuarine Research Reserve Coastal Training Program
facilitated through the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources
Grand Bay Reserve. An additional award went to the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection Office of Education and their Learning in
Florida's Environments program.
Question 4. The University of Mississippi and University of
Southern Mississippi are pleased to be members of the National Sea
Grant College Program. I understand the FY 2010 President's Budget
Request has an increase of $88,000 for this valuable college grant
program. What are some of NOAA's research or educational outreach
priorities for this increased funding?
Answer. The President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Budget requests
approximately $55 million for the National Sea Grant College Program.
Sea Grant is NOAA's primary university-based program in support of
coastal resource use and conservation. Sea Grant's research and
outreach programs promote better understanding, conservation, and use
of America's coastal resources, addressing issues from local to global
concerns.
The $88,000 increase is an Adjustment to Base (ATB) for Sea Grant,
and is part of a larger NOAA ATB request within the President's Budget
Request for FY 2010. Across NOAA, increases for ATBs will enable NOAA
to fund the estimated FY 2010 Federal pay raise of 2.0 percent and
annualize the FY 2009 pay raise of 3.9 percent. This request is
critical to sustain the current operations level and support the
estimated number of full-time employees in 2010. Without these funds,
NOAA will not be able to support inflation for labor and non-labor
activities including service contracts, utilities, field office leases
and rent charges from the General Services Administration.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. David Vitter to
Dr. Jane Lubchenco
Question 1. How much of NOAA's budget is annually allocated toward
recreational fisheries?
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Line Item Name FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisheries Research and $700 $4,200 $4,200 $4,200
Management Programs
RecFIN $2,900 $2,900 $2,900 $2,900
Gulf FIN $2,600 $2,600 $2,600 $2,600
Fishery Statistics $700 $500 $3,200 $5,700
Fish Stats--Atlantic States [$700] [$500] [$500] [$500]
Marine Fisheries Commission
Stock Assessments $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total $9,900 $13,200 $15,900 $18,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The budget support for marine recreational fisheries surveys of
fishing effort and catch is about $15.9 million in FY 2009. The FY 2010
President's Budget Request includes a proposed increase of $2.5 million
for a total of $18.4 million. If appropriated, this funding will
greatly improve marine recreational fisheries data collections.
As noted in the table above, NOAA has been directing additional
funding toward marine recreational surveys for several years. The
increases provided in FY 2008 and FY 2009 are being used to support a
substantial re-design of NOAA recreational fisheries surveys to
incorporate more efficient and statistically valid sampling and
estimation methods. A significant amount of those funds are being
invested in the development and implementation of a National Saltwater
Angler Registry Program. The Registry Program is a cooperative state-
Federal program for the registration of recreational fishing
participants that will build angler and for-hire vessel operator phone/
address directories needed to support more efficient and cost-effective
surveys of fishing effort. The re-design work has included investments
in expert evaluations of possible sampling and estimation improvements,
well-designed pilot studies to test those improvements, and phased
implementation of improved survey designs that will allow evaluation of
possible biases in current and past surveys. As more statistically
sound and cost-effective components of a new survey program are
developed and implemented, the overall costs of the redesign work will
be directed to increase sample sizes for the surveys of fishing effort
and catch. Such increases allow NOAA to provide the higher levels of
statistical precision and spatio-temporal resolution required for
accurate stock assessments and effective fisheries management.
An additional $2.5 million is requested in FY 2010 to support the
development of state registration and/or licensing programs that will
meet the requirements for development and maintenance of a complete and
regularly updated National Registry of marine recreational fishing
participants. Some states already have licensing or registration
programs in place that exempt some participants, and several of those
states do not have registry information management systems that would
meet all of the requirements for supporting the National Registry. Many
additional states are working to implement registration or licensing
programs that will obtain the telephone numbers and mailing addresses
needed for more efficient surveys of all recreational fishing
participants. Funding will be allocated to the states to develop and
maintain registry information management systems that will be
compatible with the National Registry system and will deliver updated
information on all anglers and for-hire boat operators within the
timeframe required for use in improved telephone surveys of fishing
effort.
NOAA currently collaborates with state agencies and interstate
commission partners to conduct the surveys needed to monitor marine
recreational fishing catch and effort. NOAA currently supports four
survey programs:
Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey in the
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, and Hawaii. This is a
survey program to monitor shore and private/rental boat fishing
effort and catch.
For-Hire Survey in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and
California. This is a survey program to monitor fishing effort
and catch on for-hire vessels.
Large Pelagic Survey in the Atlantic from ME to VA. This is
a specialized survey program for monitoring offshore fishing
effort and catch of large pelagic species.
Pacific Coast Surveys on the coasts of Oregon, Washington,
and California. These are telephone and on-site surveys of
shore, private/rental boat, and for-hire boat fishing that are
run by state agencies, with NOAA support.
Question 2. Please elaborate on why recreational fishermen are not
considered in ITQ decisions.
Answer. To date, most catch-share programs, including Individual
Transferable Quota (ITQ) programs, have been developed for commercial
fisheries. The primary reasons is that participation in commercial
fisheries has already been limited through a limited access permit
system, so allocating shares of the overall commercial sector quota to
those participants is relatively straightforward. There has been
consideration of a program for the guided sport sector in the Alaska
halibut fishery, and NOAA expects there will be additional interest in
catch-share programs, including ITQs, for recreational fisheries in the
future. Because of the nature of the fisheries, a catch-share program
for guided sport (charter) fishing seems more likely than one for
individual recreational anglers. Support for catch-share programs by
the affected participants is essential, and NOAA believes the fishery
planning process, involving the Regional Fishery Management Councils,
will be responsive to interest in catch-share programs by the
recreational sector.