[Senate Hearing 108-757]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-757
REPORT OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND
RELATED AGENCIES
and the
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARINGS
APRIL 22, 2004--WASHINGTON, DC
SEPTEMBER 27, 2004--DURHAM, NEW HAMPSHIRE
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
93-902 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
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�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
James W. Morhard, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio)
Professional Staff
Scott Gudes
Katherine Hennessey
Dennis Balkham
Jill Shapiro Long
Shannon O'Keefe
Lila Helms (Minority)
Kate Eltrich (Minority)
Chad Schulken (Minority)
Administrative Support
Jessica Roberts
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Page
Statement of Admiral James D. Watkins, U.S. Navy (Ret.),
Chairman, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy...................... 1
Accompanied by:
Ed Rasmuson, Member, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy......... 1
Paul A. Sandifer, Ph.D., Member, U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy; and Senior Scientist, National Centers for Coastal
Ocean Science, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration................................. 1
Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D., Member, U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy; and Professor, University of New Hampshire......... 1
Thomas Kitsos, Executive Director, U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy..................................................... 1
Call to Action................................................... 3
National Ocean Policy Framework.................................. 3
President's Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy.................. 4
Regional Ocean Councils.......................................... 5
Offshore Management Regime....................................... 5
Strengthening the Federal Agency Structure....................... 5
Ocean Policy Trust Fund.......................................... 6
Prepared Statement of Admiral James D. Watkins................... 8
The Value of the Oceans and Coasts............................... 8
Trouble in Paradise.............................................. 9
Vision and Strategy for the 21st Century......................... 9
Improving Governance............................................. 11
Science-based Decisions: Advancing Our Understanding of the
Oceans......................................................... 17
Promoting Lifelong Ocean Education............................... 23
Specific Management Challenges................................... 28
Improving Management of Coasts and Watersheds.................... 28
Coastal and Ocean Water Quality.................................. 33
Enhancing the Use and Protection of Ocean Resources.............. 37
Advancing International Ocean Science and Policy................. 43
Implementing a New National Ocean Policy......................... 44
Monday, September 27, 2004
Statement of Ann Weaver Hart, President, University of New
Hampshire...................................................... 59
Statement of Robert Ballard, Ph.D., Member, U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy; and Professor, University of Rhode Island........ 62
Prepared Statement of........................................ 66
Statement of Paul A. Sandifer, Ph.D., Member, U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy; and Senior Scientist, National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administra-
tion........................................................... 67
Prepared Statement of........................................ 70
Statement of Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D., Member, U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy; and Professor, University of New Hampshire.... 77
Prepared Statement of........................................ 80
REPORT OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met at 2:03 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Gregg, Burns, and
Leahy.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL JAMES D. WATKINS, U.S. NAVY
(Ret.), CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN
POLICY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
ED RASMUSON, MEMBER, U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY
PAUL A. SANDIFER, Ph.D., MEMBER, U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN
POLICY; AND SENIOR SCIENTIST, NATIONAL CENTERS FOR COASTAL
OCEAN SCIENCE, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ANDREW A. ROSENBERG, Ph.D., MEMBER, U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN
POLICY; AND PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
THOMAS KITSOS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN
POLICY
Senator Gregg. We are going to begin the hearing. The
chairman of the full committee will be here, and we are
expecting Senator Hollings.
The hearing today is on the issue of the oceans and we have
a report from Admiral Watkins and the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy. It is the first major review of Federal ocean policy
and programs in probably 35 years. It has the imprimatur of the
Government on it. Its purpose was to give us an assessment of
where we are in ocean policy and where we should go. I want to
congratulate the Commission for doing an extraordinary job. I
have had a chance to read it, look at and study it in some
depth, and I am very impressed with the product. I have issues
and concerns obviously, as anybody would, because there are so
many issues involved.
But as we all know, the ocean is such a key part of our
environment, our economy, our society, our definition of
ourselves, that having a coordinated and intelligent and
thoughtful policy on it is critical. I want to congratulate the
Commission for putting a proposal forward that we as a Congress
can use as a road map.
I think it was Arthur C. Clarke who said, and I quoted him
a couple of days ago, that instead of planet Earth, we should
call our planet ``planet ocean'' because so much of it is
ocean. And we now know that most of the ocean has not been
explored. We are off to Mars to try to explore it and find
water; however, we do not even know what is in the water off
our shores. I think it is about time we focussed on that. What
this Commission does is give us guideposts for how we can
accomplish that effectively.
And Senator Stevens is here so I will turn it over to the
chairman.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you for coming. It has been a full
day for you and it is a fuller day for us running back and
forth, I will tell you, but we thought we ought to have this
hearing so that we had on the record and clearly delineated the
enormous concepts that are in your report and how they will
affect this committee because the estimates of the additional
costs of the recommendations you have made to the Federal
Government I understand will be at least $1.273 billion in the
first year, $2.318 billion in the second year, and level off
somewhere around $3.192 billion in the years thereafter.
Now that is an enormous increase and I spent this morning
with the NIH people; they are seeking another increase. There
is not a section of the Government that is not seeking an
increase to meet the technological challenges that they face.
The National Science Foundation, all of them legitimately
request additional amounts of money.
We currently have programs in the area that you are dealing
with and in 2001 alone--that is the latest figure I could grab
together--was $8.3 billion and NOAA represented $1.6 billion of
that total.
So your comments we welcome and certainly there is no
question that we support but the real problem is going to be to
find the commitment for not only the Congress but for the
administration to get behind this report from the point of view
of commitment of dollars on a steady basis so we know what we
are dealing with.
I do want to thank once more my good friend Ed Rasmuson. He
has discussed with me some of the problems involved here,
particularly the pollution problem, and we have to be--I think
you said we wanted a policy of no sewage left behind.
Mr. Rasmuson. Yes.
Chairman Stevens. So we here, some of us are members of
both committees and we want to assist to the maximum extent
possible and thank you all for being here.
Senator Gregg, you are the chair of this committee.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have no statement, although I have quite a lot of
interest on how we approach this and I want to thank the
Commission. From what we have seen, and I have not read the
entire report, you have done really good work and I
congratulate you on that.
We are watching and I am concerned, like the chairman of
the full committee is concerned, about what commitment we get
out of Congress and from the administration on some of the
things that we must address--I feel like they must be
addressed--and how we fund those things in a way that has some
predictability about it.
So I thank you for your work and I will be interested more
in your testimony today. Thank you for coming and thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. I thank the chairman of the full committee.
I understand he has to come and go, but I do intend to be here
for the full hearing. The subcommittee which I chair, which
Senator Hollings is the ranking member of, does have
jurisdiction over NOAA, which receives a lot amount of the
attention in this report. Therefore, we are very interested in
your thoughts in that area.
Admiral Watkins, we would love to have you make a
presentation in any form you want to make it. I would note we
do have a vote scheduled for 2:45-2:50, which does put some
time restraints on us.
Admiral Watkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In deference to
Senator Stevens, who heard this 10-minute oral statement this
morning, I do not think he could live through another one of
those so what I would like to do is ask you if you would take
my oral statement, put it in the record so we can cut the time
down at the front end and have more time for discussion during
the next 40 minutes.
Senator Gregg. Of course, we would be happy to do that.
Admiral Watkins. Let me start out with the very bottom line
of our morning statement to the Commerce Committee. As a
specific call to action for the United States Senate, we
believe it is critical for the following actions to occur as
soon as possible. This obviously relates to our preliminary
report recommendations.
CALL TO ACTION
First, authorize the establishment in the Executive Office
of the President, a National Ocean Council, a President's
Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, and an Office of Ocean
Policy, and I will expand on that in a minute.
Second, enact an organic act for NOAA. We believe it is
critical for NOAA to come into the modern world of ecosystem-
based management. The agency is not configured in that way now
and it needs to restructure itself in a more powerful way. Then
we want to give NOAA many new responsibilities, like running
the integrated ocean observing system, a component of what it
looks like the President is now going to commit to--an Earth-
observing system.
And third, create an Ocean Policy Trust Fund, which
obviously had some controversy at the prior committee hearing
this morning. We would like to discuss that in great depth and
I have asked the Executive Director of the Commission, the
former Acting Director of the Minerals Management Service in
Interior, who is an expert in dealing with offshore oil
revenues, to be at the table here to answer some questions I
know that this committee is going to be interested in.
NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY FRAMEWORK
So let me talk about the first item, which is the
establishment of the National Ocean Council (NCO) in the
executive branch. The National Ocean Council is composed of
Cabinet secretaries and heads of independent agencies with
ocean-related responsibilities. The NOC would be responsible
for coordinating Federal ocean activities. Today there are 15
departments and independent agencies that have functions
related to the oceans and we have outlined them in tabular form
in one of our figures in the report. There is much redundancy,
overlap, and failure to collaborate with each other on issues
of common interest for a variety of reasons. I am not
condemning them. That is just the way the system works. It is a
vertically oriented, standpipe structure. They are mission-
oriented agencies. They come before 60 committees of the House
and Senate dealing with matters in ocean policy across the
board, 44 alone for science and technology. So there are a lot
of reasons why it is a Byzantine network today and does not
work.
At any rate, we are saying there should be a head on this
unruly network. We believe the National Ocean Council should be
headed up by a representative of the President, which we
designate as an assistant to the President. We do not specify
which assistant to the President should lead the NOC, it can be
the Council of Economic Advisers. It could be the head of the
Domestic Policy Council. It can be anybody, but he or she needs
to hear from the President: ``I want to do something about the
oceans.''
That will give the OMB Director the signal to move. He can
coordinate through this National Ocean Council an integrated
budget submission that can be viewed as a package. How are we
going to implement the integrated ocean observing system? Well,
the Interior Department is going to have some part of it, EPA
is going to have some part of it, Navy is going to have some
part of it. Almost every agency that we have outlined in our
report is going to have a piece of that and they should come
together in a seamless web, horizontally integrated. This could
be done through a modified National Ocean Partnership Program,
which has already been established by the Congress.
So there are ways to make this work without bringing the
Secretary of Defense himself to the table and we believe that
the Assistant to the President has that power if the President
wants to do it.
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON OCEAN POLICY
We have also said that there should be a President's
Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, composed of
representatives from the State and local government, industry,
nongovernmental organizations, and others who can provide non-
Federal perspectives on ocean policy. All over the Nation,
including our hearings up in Boston, counties, States and
regions are calling for a greater role in the up-front planning
of all of these issues. They do not want to have unfunded
mandates. They do not want to be told how to clean up every
piece of debris that is out there and every pollution item.
They want to be given some national goals and policies within
which their own programs can fit, and this would provide a
mechanism at the highest level of Government, similar to the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
The Congress is the one that set up the Office of Science
and Technology, not the White House, and it was a good idea.
And if the President wants to listen to the science adviser he
certainly can. If he does not, then it does not get the time of
day. So we recognize that but we think it is very important for
the non-Federal component of the leadership team in Washington
to be set up as a kind of a co-leader, and we have asked also
that the Assistant to the President co-chair this Council of
Advisors, along with a non-Federal co-chair, much as we do in
the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
REGIONAL OCEAN COUNCILS
The Commission recommends that there be a network of
broadly inclusive, voluntarily established regional ocean
councils to help coordinate programs at the regional ecosystem
level. The Oceans Act of 2000 directed us not to impose
specific recommendations on a single State but to recommend
improved Federal cooperation with the States because it's the
people out there that have the real job of doing the work, in
the coastal areas in particular.
So we said these councils should be voluntary at the
outset. We should incentivize pilot programs for those that
want to participate. If the regions do not want to come
together and participate, that is their business, but for those
that do, we want to incentivize those programs, learn from
them, and perhaps sometime downstream make it more formal, with
legislative support. We do not ask for that right now because
we think it is premature to try to force anything in the
system. Let us try it, see if it could work, see if we can set
up this President's Council of Advisors, see if they can work
with the National Ocean Council and do the job.
OFFSHORE MANAGEMENT REGIME
We say there needs to be a coordinated offshore management
regime that encompasses traditional and emerging uses and is
flexible enough to incorporate uses not yet foreseen. Off Cape
Cod we have proposals for wind farms, and in other areas we
have people moving toward deep ocean aquaculture, we may have
bioprospecting, all of these issues, and they need some kind of
national regime within which they can fit. We do not have such
a structure today.
Right now it is the Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10 I
believe it is, that the Corps of Engineers is using to
determine whether it is appropriate to put the wind farms off
of Cape Cod. We believe that this, along with the other issues,
needs a comprehensive and coordinated offshore regime
established by the Congress in consultation with the NOC.
STRENGTHENING THE FEDERAL AGENCY STRUCTURE
We also need a strengthened and streamlined Federal agency
structure achieved through a phased approach, as outlined in
our report. During this morning's hearing we had quite a
discussion about that. We are saying, let's not try to do
everything now. Let us do phase one, which is to get our act
together at the National Ocean Council level. Let us get
Congress to authorize that. Let us enact a new law for NOAA, an
organic act that puts them into the ecosystem-based management
mode, and let us do that right now.
Then we can begin to bring under the strengthened NOAA
concept, a variety of entities out of Interior, EPA, Energy,
Navy, Corps of Engineers, that could begin to play a part in
this ecosystem-based management approach. NOAA is not there
today, so we need to let it grow a little bit.
Then 5 to 7 years from now, if the Congress feels it is
time to have a department of natural resources or some other
concept, you are ready to do it. You have already gone through
all the growing pains, the lessons learned, and we are ready to
do it in a sensible way without putting so much energy on
reorganization that we end up ignoring the other 195
recommendations that have to be carried out.
We have a lot of issues in here that have to be addressed
today. We cannot wait for some organizational monster to be
created and focus all of our energies on that. So it is a
phased approach we are talking about.
An organic act for NOAA we think is essential and that is
where the Congress can get in and fine tune the agency
structure so that it matches the ecosystem-based approach we
have recommended.
OCEAN POLICY TRUST FUND
Let me now turn to the Ocean Policy Trust Fund. I asked the
committee if it would be appropriate for me to bring the
Executive Director along because he is the pro in this area for
the Commission and he knows how those revenue streams work. He
knows what is allocated out of the $5 billion a year revenue
that comes in from offshore oil and gas. He knows what happens
with the unallocated portion. We think there is a legitimate
claim that the unallocated funds should be used to help pay for
ocean and coastal activities. We think it is a method to do it.
We understand how you score it up here. It is still a budget
issue. It is still subject to appropriations, but we think the
Highway Trust Fund has worked; we think the Ocean Policy Trust
Fund can be similarly important.
So those are the things we are asking. We can go into
greater detail and I have my commissioners up here who are
experts in all of these areas and ready to answer questions.
That is sufficient for an oral presentation, without going into
the economic benefits of this and the status of the oceans.
Everybody agrees. The Pew Commission and we all agree that the
oceans are in trouble. They need addressing and the management
regime we have today just is not adequate to the task.
So at any rate I would like to wrap up by asking Tom
Kitsos, our Executive Director, to summarize in more detail the
creation of an Ocean Policy Trust Fund, which is obviously very
important to this committee.
Mr. Kitsos. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I will try to do this
in about a minute or two, if possible.
In recent years, revenues from offshore oil and gas
development coming into the Federal Government total, on
average, about $5 billion. Of that $5 billion, some money is
allocated to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Not all of
it is appropriated but it goes into that fund. Some money is
allocated to the National Historic Preservation Fund. Not all
is appropriated but it goes into the fund. And some money goes
directly to coastal States under what is called the section
8(g) part of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. I will not
go into detail about that but essentially 27 percent of the
revenues that come from the area from 3 to 6 miles offshore, an
area from which, arguably Federal lessees are draining State
resources, go to the States.
So with those three allocated or dedicated funds--Land and
Water Conservation, Historic Preservation, and 8(g)--roughly
speaking about $1 billion is allocated, give or take a few
hundred million dollars. So if you take the $5 billion that
comes in, you hold harmless the Land and Water Conservation,
Historic Preservation, and 8(g) funds, that leaves $4 billion
which, under section 9 of the OCS Lands Act, goes into
miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury of the United States.
What the Commission is recommending is that those
unallocated monies, rather than going into miscellaneous
receipts, be deposited into a special newly created fund called
the Ocean Policy Trust Fund in the Treasury of the United
States. It is not mandatory spending. We understand that it is
a Treasury receipt and currently miscellaneous receipts count
toward the deficit. We understand also that the appropriation
is still scored as discretionary budget authority and outlays;
it is general fund revenue. What we are suggesting is that
rather than acting as miscellaneous receipts, there should be a
dedicated fund, money coming from offshore activities, from oil
and gas, to be dedicated for use for ocean and coastal
purposes.
We also suggest that in the future when other revenues come
into the Treasury from marine aquaculture or wind farms if they
become profitable or marine biotechnology projects or other
projects that occur in Federal water for which resource rents
are charged by the lead Federal agency, that those monies also
go into the fund.
And of the monies that go into the Ocean Policy Trust Fund,
they would be basically given back to Federal agencies and to
States. For the Federal agencies we suggest that the money go
to the Federal agencies that need this money to carry out any
additional responsibilities they will incur as a result of
implementation of recommendations made by the Ocean Policy
Commission and that such allocation among the Federal agencies
would be determined by the National Ocean Council, which the
Admiral just referred to as a newly created institution within
the White House.
Of the money that would be allocated to the States, what we
are suggesting in the Commission report is, after about a 3-
year ramp-up, roughly $1 billion would be made available to all
coastal States, a disproportionate amount going to States for
which there is oil and gas development off their shores. But of
the amount that would remain, we suggest that the money be
allocated among all coastal States based on a formula to be
determined by Congress for two purposes for the States.
One, to carry out any additional responsibilities that they
may incur as a result of recommendations of this report, thus
fulfilling the Commission's goal not to impose any unfunded
mandates on States if these recommendations are implemented.
Two, because States through their land and water use and zoning
authorities within their sovereign borders and submerged lands,
have responsibilities for the protection and conservation and
sustainability of ocean and coastal resources and these
responsibilities have historically not been well funded. It is
the suggestion of the Commission that using this fund, some of
those programs can, in fact, be enhanced.
I am obviously leaving out many details, Mr. Chairman, but
in a sense, that is the trust fund proposal from the
Commission.
Admiral Watkins. That completes our oral presentation, Mr.
Chairman. We open the floor for any questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral James D. Watkins
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
before you to discuss the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy, which was released to the public on Tuesday, April 20. We
believe this report offers a blueprint for a coordinated, comprehensive
national ocean policy for the 21st century. It includes nearly 200
action-oriented recommendations that present workable solutions for a
broad range of ocean- and coastal-related issues.
As you know, the last comprehensive review of U.S. ocean policy
took place more than 35 years ago when the Commission on Marine
Science, Engineering and Resources--known as the Stratton Commission--
issued its report, Our Nation and the Sea. Since then, considerable
progress has been made, but many challenges remain and new issues have
emerged. The value of the oceans to our nation has only grown in 35
years, and the time to act is now.
The simple fact is that the oceans affect and sustain all life on
Earth. They drive and moderate weather and climate, provide us with
food, oxygen, transportation corridors, recreational opportunities,
energy resources and other natural products, and serve as a national
security buffer. In our travels around the country, we heard and saw
first-hand how communities care about the ocean and coasts, and how
they worry about their future.
THE VALUE OF THE OCEANS AND COASTS
America's oceans and coasts provide ecological and aesthetic
benefits with tremendous value to our national economy. In 2000, the
ocean economy contributed more than $117 billion to American prosperity
and supported well over two million jobs. More than $1 trillion, or
one-tenth of the nation's annual GDP, is generated within the
relatively narrow strip of land immediately adjacent to the coast.
Considering the economies of all coastal watershed counties, that
contribution swells to over $4.5 trillion, fully half of the nation's
GDP. The contribution to employment is equally impressive, with 16
million jobs in the nearshore zone and 60 million in coastal watershed
counties.
The country also remains highly dependent on marine transportation.
More than thirteen million jobs are connected to the trade transported
through the nation's network of ports and inland waterways. Annually,
the nation's ports handle more than $700 billion in goods. The cruise
industry and its passengers account for another $11 billion in
spending.
Offshore oil and gas operations have expanded into deeper waters
with new and improved technologies. The offshore oil and gas industry's
annual production is valued at $25 to $40 billion, and its yearly bonus
bid and royalty payments contribute approximately $5 billion to the
U.S. Treasury.
The commercial fishing industry's total annual value exceeds $28
billion, with the recreational saltwater fishing industry valued at
around $20 billion, and the annual U.S. retail trade in ornamental fish
worth another $3 billion. Nationwide, retail expenditures on
recreational boating exceeded $30 billion in 2002.
In the last three decades, more than 37 million people and 19
million homes have been added to coastal areas. Every year, hundreds of
millions of Americans and international visitors flock to the coasts to
enjoy the oceans, spending billions of dollars and directly supporting
more than a million and a half jobs. In fact, tourism and recreation is
one of the fastest-growing business sectors--enriching economies and
supporting jobs in communities virtually everywhere along the coasts of
the continental United States, southeast Alaska, Hawaii, and our island
territories and commonwealths.
These concrete, quantifiable contributions to the national economy
are just one measure of the oceans' value. We also love the oceans for
their beauty and majesty, and for their intrinsic power to relax,
rejuvenate, and inspire. Unfortunately, we are starting to love our
oceans to death.
TROUBLE IN PARADISE
Development comes with costs, and we are only now discovering the
full extent of those costs. Pollution, depletion of fish and other
living marine resources, habitat destruction and degradation, and the
introduction of invasive non-native species are just some of the ways
people harm the oceans, with serious consequences for the entire
planet.
In 2001, 23 percent of the nation's estuarine areas were not
suitable for swimming, fishing, or supporting marine species. In 2002,
about 12,000 beach closings and swimming advisories were issued across
the nation, most due to the presence of bacteria associated with fecal
contamination. Marine toxins afflict more than 90,000 people annually
across the globe and are responsible for an estimated 62 percent of all
seafood-related illnesses. Such events are on the rise, costing
millions of dollars a year in decreased tourism revenues and increased
health care costs.
Experts estimate that 25 to 30 percent of the world's major fish
stocks are overexploited, and many U.S. fisheries are experiencing
similar difficulties. Since the Pilgrims first arrived at Plymouth
Rock, over half of our fresh and saltwater wetlands--more than 110
million acres--have been lost.
Our failure to properly manage the human activities that affect
oceans and coasts is compromising their ecological integrity and
diminishing our ability to fully realize their potential. Congress
recognized this situation when it passed the Oceans Act of 2000 calling
for a Commission on Ocean Policy to establish findings and develop
recommendations for a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean
policy. Pursuant to that Act, the President appointed 16 Commission
members, including individuals nominated by the leadership in the
United States Senate and the House of Representatives. These
individuals were drawn from diverse backgrounds with knowledge in ocean
and coastal activities.
Because of the vast scope of topics the Commission was required to
address, it sought input from individuals across the country. The
Commission members traveled around the United States obtaining valuable
information from diverse marine-related interests. They heard testimony
on ocean and coastal issues during nine regional meetings and
experienced regional concerns first-hand during seventeen site visits.
The regional meetings also highlighted relevant success stories and
regional models with potential national applicability.
Four additional public meetings were held in Washington, D.C.,
after completion of the regional meetings, to publicly present and
discuss many of the policy options under consideration for the
Commission's recommendations. In all, the Commission heard from some
445 witnesses, including over 275 invited presentations and an
additional 170 comments from the public, resulting in nearly 1,900
pages of testimony (included as Appendices to the report).
The message we heard was clear: the oceans and coasts are in
trouble and major changes are urgently needed. While new scientific
understanding shows that natural systems are complex and
interconnected, our decisionmaking and management approaches have not
been updated to reflect that complexity and interconnectedness.
Responsibilities remain dispersed among a confusing array of agencies
at the Federal, State, and local levels. Better approaches and tools
are also needed to gather data to understand the complex marine
environment. Perhaps most important, people must understand the role
the oceans have on their lives and livelihoods and the impacts they
themselves have on the oceans.
As the result of significant thought and deliberation and the
consideration of a wide range of potential solutions, the Commission
prepared its preliminary report containing bold and broad-reaching
recommendations for reform--reform that needs to start now, while it is
still possible to reverse distressing declines, seize exciting
opportunities, and sustain the oceans and their valuable assets for
future generations.
VISION AND STRATEGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Any strategy for change must begin with a clear picture of the
desired endpoint. In the desirable future we wish to create, the oceans
and coasts would be clean, safe, and sustainably managed. They would
contribute significantly to the economy, supporting multiple beneficial
uses such as food production, development of energy and mineral
resources, recreation, transportation of goods and people, and the
discovery of novel medicines and other products, while preserving a
high level of biodiversity and a full range of natural habitats. The
coasts would be attractive places to live, work and play, with clean
water and beaches, easy public access, sustainable economies, safe
bustling harbors and ports, adequate roads and services, and special
protection for sensitive habitats. Beach closings, toxic algal blooms,
proliferation of invasive species, and vanishing native species would
be rare. Better land use planning and improved predictions of severe
weather and other natural hazards would save lives and money.
The management of our oceans and coasts would also look different:
it would follow ecosystem boundaries, considering interactions among
all elements of the system, rather than addressing isolated areas or
problems. In the face of scientific uncertainty, managers would balance
competing considerations and proceed with caution. Ocean governance
would be effective, participatory, and well coordinated among
government agencies, the private sector, and the public.
Managers and politicians would recognize the critical importance of
good data and science, providing strong support for physical,
biological, social, and economic research. The nation would invest in
the tools and technologies needed to conduct this research: ample,
well-equipped surface and underwater research vessels; reliable,
sustained satellites; state-of-the-art computing facilities; and
innovative sensors that withstand harsh ocean conditions. A widespread
network of observing and monitoring stations would provide data for
research, planning, marine operations, timely forecasts, and periodic
assessments. Scientific findings and observations would be translated
into practical information, maps, and products used by decisionmakers
and the public.
Better education would be a cornerstone of ocean policy, with the
United States once again joining the top ranks in math, science, and
technology achievement. An ample, well-trained, and motivated workforce
would be available to study the oceans, set wise policies, apply
technological advances, engineer new solutions, and teach the public
about the value and beauty of the oceans and coasts throughout their
lives. As a result of this lifelong education, people would understand
the links among the land, sea, air, and human activities and would be
better stewards of the nation's resources.
Finally, the United States would be a leader and full partner
globally, sharing its science, engineering, technology, and policy
expertise, particularly with developing countries, to facilitate the
achievement of sustainable ocean management on a global level.
The Commission believes this vision is practical and attainable. To
achieve it, national ocean policy should be guided by a set of
overarching principles including the following:
Sustainability.--Ocean policy should be designed to meet the needs
of the present generation without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their needs.
Stewardship.--The principle of stewardship applies both to the
government and to every citizen. The U.S. government holds ocean and
coastal resources in the public trust--a special responsibility that
necessitates balancing different uses of those resources for the
continued benefit of all Americans. Just as important, every member of
the public should recognize the value of the oceans and coasts,
supporting appropriate policies and acting responsibly while minimizing
negative environmental impacts.
Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Connections.--Ocean policies should be based
on the recognition that the oceans, land, and atmosphere are
inextricably intertwined and that actions that affect one Earth system
component are likely to affect another.
Ecosystem-based Management.--U.S. ocean and coastal resources
should be managed to reflect the relationships among all ecosystem
components, including humans and nonhuman species and the environments
in which they live. Applying this principle will require defining
relevant geographic management areas based on ecosystem, rather than
political, boundaries.
Multiple Use Management.--The many potentially beneficial uses of
ocean and coastal resources should be acknowledged and managed in a way
that balances competing uses while preserving and protecting the
overall integrity of the ocean and coastal environments.
Preservation of Marine Biodiversity.--Downward trends in marine
biodiversity should be reversed where they exist, with a desired end of
maintaining or recovering natural levels of biological diversity and
ecosystem services.
Best Available Science and Information.--Ocean policy decisions
should be based on the best available understanding of the natural,
social, and economic processes that affect ocean and coastal
environments. Decisionmakers should be able to obtain and understand
quality science and information in a way that facilitates successful
management of ocean and coastal resources.
Adaptive Management.--Ocean management programs should be designed
to meet clear goals and provide new information to continually improve
the scientific basis for future management. Periodic reevaluation of
the goals and effectiveness of management measures, and incorporation
of new information in implementing future management, are essential.
Understandable Laws and Clear Decisions.--Laws governing uses of
ocean and coastal resources should be clear, coordinated, and
accessible to the nation's citizens to facilitate compliance. Policy
decisions and the reasoning behind them should also be clear and
available to all interested parties.
Participatory Governance.--Governance of ocean uses should ensure
widespread participation by all citizens on issues that affect them.
Timeliness.--Ocean governance systems should operate with as much
efficiency and predictability as possible.
Accountability.--Decisionmakers and members of the public should be
accountable for the actions they take that affect ocean and coastal
resources.
International Responsibility.--The United States should act
cooperatively with other nations in developing and implementing
international ocean policy, reflecting the deep connections between
U.S. interests and the global ocean.
Ecosystem-based Management
Ecosystem-based management emerged as an overarching theme of the
Commission's work. To move toward more ecosystem-based approaches,
managers must consider the relationships among all ecosystem
components, including human and nonhuman species and the environments
in which they live. Management areas should be defined based on
ecosystem, rather than political, boundaries. A balanced precautionary
approach should be adopted that weighs the level of scientific
uncertainty and the potential risk of damage before proceeding.
In moving toward an ecosystem-based approach, the U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy considers the following actions absolutely critical.
First, a new national ocean policy framework must be established to
improve Federal leadership and coordination and enhance opportunities
for State, territorial, tribal, and local entities to improve responses
at the regional level. Second, decisions about ocean and coastal
resources need to be based on the most current, credible, unbiased
scientific data. And third, improved education about the oceans is
needed to give the general public a sense of stewardship and prepare a
new generation of leaders to address ocean issues.
IMPROVING GOVERNANCE
Many different entities at the Federal, regional, State,
territorial, tribal and local levels participate in the management of
the nation's oceans and coasts. At the Federal level, eleven of the
fifteen existing cabinet-level departments and four independent
agencies play important roles in the development of ocean and coastal
policy. All of these Federal agencies also interact in various ways
with State, territorial, tribal, and local entities.
A lack of communication and coordination among the various agency
programs at the national level, and among Federal, State and local
stakeholders at the regional level, continues to inhibit effective
action. A new National Ocean Policy Framework is needed to provide
high-level attention and coordinated implementation of an integrated
national ocean policy.
National Coordination and Leadership
A first step in enhancing management, and a central part of the new
National Ocean Policy Framework, is improved coordination among the
many Federal programs. A number of attempts have been made to
coordinate on particular topics, such as coral reefs or marine
transportation, or within a broad category, such as ocean science and
technology. Within the Executive Office of the President, three
entities have specific responsibilities relevant to oceans: the Office
of Science and Technology Policy that addresses government-wide science
and technology issues and includes an ocean subcommittee; the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that oversees broad Federal
environmental efforts and implementation of the National Environmental
Policy Act; and the National Security Council's Policy Coordinating
Committee that addresses international issues and also includes a
subcommittee on international ocean issues.
While all these coordinating bodies are helpful in their designated
areas of interest, they do not constitute a high-level interagency
mechanism able to deal with all of the interconnected ocean and coastal
challenges facing the nation, including not only science and
technology, the environment, and international matters, but the many
other economic, social, and technical issues that affect the ocean.
The value of the ocean to American society also cries out for
greater visibility and leaderships. Only the Executive Office of the
President can transcend traditional conflicts among departments and
agencies, make recommendations for broad Federal agency reorganization,
and provide guidance on funding priorities, making it the appropriate
venue for coordinating an integrated national ocean policy.
National Ocean Council
Congress should establish a National Ocean Council within the
Executive Office of the President to provide high-level level attention
to ocean and coastal issues, develop and guide the implementation of
appropriate national policies, and coordinate the many Federal
departments and agencies with ocean and coastal responsibilities. The
National Ocean Council, or NOC, should be composed of cabinet
secretaries of departments and directors of independent agencies with
relevant ocean- and coastal-related responsibilities and should carry
out a variety of functions including the following: developing broad
principles and national goals for ocean and coastal governance; making
recommendations to the President on national ocean policy; coordinating
and integrating activities of ocean-related Federal agencies;
identifying statutory and regulatory redundancies or omissions and
developing strategies to resolve conflicts, fill gaps, and address new
and emerging ocean issues; and developing and supporting partnerships
between government agencies and nongovernmental organizations, the
private sector, academia, and the public.
Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy
A Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, co-chaired by
the chair of the National Ocean Council and a non-Federal member,
should advise the President on ocean and coastal policy matters and
serve as a formal structure for input from non-Federal individuals and
organizations. It should be composed of a representative selection of
individuals appointed by the President, including governors of coastal
states, other appropriate State, territorial, tribal and local
government representatives, and individuals from the private sector,
research and education communities, nongovernmental organizations,
watershed organizations and other non-Federal bodies with ocean
interests. The members should be knowledgeable about and experienced in
ocean and coastal issues.
Need for Presidential Action--the Assistant to the
President
Although Congress should establish the National Ocean Council and
the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy in law to ensure
their long-term future, the Commission is cognizant of the complex and
often lengthy nature of the legislative process. While awaiting
congressional action, the President should immediately establish these
entities through Executive Order, and should appoint an Assistant to
the President to chair the Council. As chair of the NOC and co-chair of
the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, the Assistant to
the President should lead the coordination of Federal agency actions
related to oceans and coasts, make recommendations for Federal agency
reorganization as needed to improve ocean and coastal management,
resolve interagency policy disputes, and promote regional approaches.
The Assistant to the President should also advise OMB and the agencies
on appropriate funding levels for important ocean- and coastal-related
activities, and prepare a biennial report as mandated by section 5 of
the Oceans Act of 2000.
Office of Ocean Policy
Because the National Ocean Council will be responsible for planning
and coordination rather than operational duties, the support of a small
staff and committees will be required to carry out its functions. An
Office of Ocean Policy should support the Assistant to the President,
the National Ocean Council, and the Presidential Council of Advisors on
Ocean Policy. The Office of Ocean Policy should be composed of a small
staff that reports to the Assistant to the President, managed by an
executive director responsible for day-to-day activities. Strong links
should be maintained among the National Ocean Council, its committees
and staff, other parts of the Executive Office of the President, and
ocean-related advisory councils and commissions.
Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and
Operations
A committee under the National Ocean Council will be needed to
assume the functions of the current National Ocean Research Leadership
Council (NORLC), a congressionally-established government coordination
and leadership organization for oceanographic research programs on the
national level. By placing the NORLC under the NOC and broadening its
responsibilities to include operational programs and educational
activities in addition to research, it will become more visible and
more effective. In recognition of its broader mandate, the NORLC should
be redesignated as the Committee on Ocean Science, Education,
Technology, and Operations (COSETO). Strong connections between the
Office of Science and Technology Policy and the NOC (through COSETO)
will be essential. To eliminate overlapping functions, the National
Science and Technology Council's Joint Subcommittee on Oceans, should
be subsumed into COSETO.
Committee on Ocean Resource Management
The National Ocean Council will need a second committee, to
coordinate Federal resource management policy, including the many
existing, single-issue coordination efforts such as the Coral Reef Task
Force, the Interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation System,
the National Dredging Team, Coastal America, and many others. The NOC
Committee on Ocean Resource Management (CORM) would perform high-level,
cross-cutting oversight of these issue-specific efforts to ensure
consideration of cumulative impacts, minimize conflicting mandates, and
implement an ecosystem-based management approach. Because of the
Council on Environmental Quality's role in environmental issues, this
office should also maintain strong connections with the National Ocean
Council and its CORM.
A Regional Approach
In addition to improved coordination at the national level, an
important component of the new National Ocean Policy Framework is the
promotion of regional approaches that allow decisionmakers to address
issues across jurisdictional lines. The nation's ocean and coastal
resources are affected by human activities that span cities, counties,
States, and sometimes nations. Federal, State, territorial, tribal, and
local governments need the ability to respond to ocean and coastal
issues in a coordinated fashion within regions defined by the
boundaries of ecosystems rather than somewhat arbitrary government
jurisdictions. The voluntary establishment of regional ocean councils,
improved coordination of Federal agency efforts at the regional level,
and dissemination of regionally significant research and information
would enhance regional coordination and improve responses to regional
issues.
Creating Regional Ocean Councils
There are many examples where concern for the health of a
particular ecosystem (such as the Chesapeake Bay, Pacific Northwest,
Gulf of Mexico, or Mississippi River Basin) has motivated a wide range
of participants to create new structures for addressing regional
concerns. There is a growing awareness that existing regional
approaches can be strengthened and similar approaches can benefit the
health and productivity of all the nation's ocean and coastal regions.
Regional ocean councils can serve as mechanisms for a wide range of
participants to join forces to address issues of regional concern,
realize regional opportunities, identify regional goals, and promote a
sense of stewardship for a specific area among all levels of
government, private interests, and the public. It will be up to the
participants--including representatives from all levels of government,
the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and academia--to
determine how the council will operate in each region. Possible council
functions might include: designating ad hoc subcommittees to examine
specific issues of regional concern; mediating and resolving disputes
among different interests in the region; monitoring and evaluating the
state of the region and the effectiveness of management efforts;
building public awareness about regional ocean and coastal issues;
facilitating government approvals or permitting processes that involve
several Federal, State, and local government agencies within the
region; and helping to link activities located in upstream, coastal,
and offshore areas within an ecosystem-based management context.
Regional ocean councils should be created by interested parties at
the State and local level, rather than mandated by the Federal
Government. However, to stimulate the process, the National Ocean
Council should develop flexible guidelines for the voluntary creation
of regional ocean councils. Initial efforts should be encouraged in
regions where readiness and support for a regional approach is already
strong. The first councils can then serve as pilot projects, allowing
those involved to learn what works in the region, building support to
implement a regional ocean council, and paving the way for councils in
other regions. Once established, regional ocean councils will most
likely evolve, as participants identify the structure and functions
that best suit their needs. Whether a council has decisionmaking
authority will be up to the regional participants. National involvement
may be necessary to implement more formal decisionmaking mechanisms
such as legislation, interagency agreements, and interstate compacts.
Regional ocean councils should encompass an area from the inland
extent of coastal watersheds to the offshore boundary of the nation's
EEZ. The boundaries of the Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs)
may be considered as a starting point, although these regions may not
always be suitable. For example, more than one regional ocean council
will probably be necessary within California where there is only one
RFMC. A regional ocean council for the Great Lakes region is also
desirable.
Improving Regional Coordination of Federal Agencies
While the process of planning, establishing, and testing regional
ocean councils is underway, Federal agencies should be directed to
immediately improve their own regional coordination and provide
stronger institutional, technical, and financial support for regional
issues. Currently, the actions of Federal agencies often overlap,
conflict, or are inconsistent with one another at the regional and
State levels. Although several Federal agencies already divide their
operations into regions, the boundaries of these regions differ from
one agency to the next, the functions of regional offices vary widely,
and it is common for the regional office of one agency to operate in
isolation from the regional offices of other agencies. Improved
regional coordination should be a first step, followed in time by
Federal reorganization around common regional boundaries.
Enhancing Regional Research and Information
Decisionmakers at all levels need the best available science,
information, tools, and technology on which to base ocean and coastal
management decisions. However, research and data collection targeted at
regional concerns is severely limited. Furthermore, the data that do
exist are rarely translated into products that are useful to managers.
Regional ocean information programs should be established to set
priorities for research, data collection, information products, and
outreach activities in support of improved regional management. Where
and when they are established, regional ocean councils will be the
logical bodies to administer these programs.
Improved Governance of Offshore Waters
Converging economic, technological, legal, and demographic factors
make Federal waters an increasingly attractive place for enterprises
seeking to tap the ocean's resources. The challenge for policymakers
will be to realize the ocean's potential while minimizing conflicts
among users, safeguarding human and marine health, and fulfilling the
Federal Government's obligation to manage public resources for the
maximum long-term benefit of the entire nation. While institutional
frameworks exist for managing some ocean uses, increasingly
unacceptable gaps remain.
The array of agencies involved, and their frequent lack of
coordination, can create roadblocks to public participation, discourage
private investment, cause harmful delays, and generate unnecessary
costs. This is particularly true for new ocean uses that are subject to
scattered or ill defined Federal agency authorities and an uncertain
decisionmaking process. Without an understandable, streamlined, and
broadly accepted method for reviewing proposed activities, ad hoc
management approaches will continue, perpetuating uncertainty and
raising questions about the comprehensiveness and legitimacy of
decisions.
To start, each existing or foreseeable activity in Federal waters
should be overseen by one lead Federal agency, designated by Congress
to coordinate among all the agencies with applicable authorities while
ensuring full consideration of the public interest. Pending such
designations, the NOC should assign agencies to coordinate research,
assessment, and monitoring of new offshore activities.
But better management of individual activities is only a first
step. To move toward an ecosystem-based management approach, the
Federal Government should develop a broad understanding of offshore
areas and their resources, prioritize all potential uses, and ensure
that activities within a given area are compatible. As the pressure for
offshore uses grows, and before serious conflicts arise, coordination
should be improved among the management programs for different offshore
activities. The National Ocean Council should review each single-
purpose program that regulates some offshore activity with the goal of
determining how all such programs may be better coordinated.
Ultimately, the nation needs a coordinated offshore management
regime that encompasses traditional and emerging uses, and is flexible
enough to incorporate uses not yet foreseen. The new regime will need
to make decisions and resolve disputes through an open process accepted
by all parties. Congress, working with the NOC and regional ocean
councils, should establish such an offshore management regime and
establish principles for offshore use, including the need to: integrate
single-purpose programs within the broader offshore regime; create a
planning process for new and emerging activities; and ensure a
reasonable return to the public in exchange for allowing private
interests to profit from public resources.
Establishing a coordinated offshore management regime will take
time, and it will not be easy. No regime for governing ocean activities
will eliminate all conflicts, given the complexity of the problems and
the diverse perspectives of competing interests. However, the National
Ocean Council, Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy,
regional ocean councils, and other components of the National Ocean
Policy Framework provide a promising basis for more coordinated,
participatory management of ocean activities.
Marine Protected Areas
In contemplating the coordinated, ecosystem-based management of
both nearshore and offshore areas, marine protected areas can be a
valuable tool. Marine protected areas can be created for many different
reasons, including conserving living marine resources and habitat,
protecting endangered or threatened species, maintaining biological
diversity, and preserving historically or culturally important
submerged archaeological resources. These areas have also been
recognized for their scientific, recreational, and educational values.
The creation of new MPAs can be a controversial process: supported
by those who see their benefits, while vigorously opposed by others who
dislike the limitations MPAs impose on ocean uses. Thus, it is
important to engage local and regional stakeholders in the design and
implementation of marine protected areas to build support and ensure
compliance with any restrictions. Because marine protected areas also
have national implications, such as possible impacts on freedom of
navigation, Federal involvement and oversight will still be needed.
With its multiple use, ecosystem-based perspective, the National
Ocean Council should oversee the development of a flexible process--
which is adaptive and based on best available science--to design and
implement marine protected areas. Regional ocean councils, or other
appropriate entities, can provide a forum for applying the process
developed by the NOC, with broad stakeholder participation.
Strengthening and Streamlining the Federal Agency Structure
Although improved coordination is a vital aspect of the new
National Ocean Policy Framework, changes to the Federal agency
structure itself will also be needed. The proliferation of Federal
agencies with some element of responsibility for ocean and coastal
activities immediately suggests that some consolidation is possible.
Combining similar ocean and coastal functions and programs could
improve government performance, reduce unnecessary overlaps, facilitate
local, State, and regional interactions with the Federal Government,
and begin to move the nation toward a more ecosystem-based management
approach.
However, the complex Legislative and Executive Branch process for
making such changes compels a cautious, methodical, multi-phased
approach for improving the Federal structure.
Strengthening NOAA--Phase I
NOAA's mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's
environment and to conserve and manage ocean and coastal resources to
meet the nation's economic, social, and environmental needs. Since its
creation, NOAA has made significant strides in many areas, despite
programmatic and functional overlaps and frequent disagreements and
disconnects among its five line offices. Although the organization has
evolved over time, including the recent creation of a sixth line office
to improve integration on specific issues, these changes take time and
results can be hard to quantify.
There is widespread agreement that NOAA needs to manage its current
activities more effectively. Moreover, if the recommendations in the
Commission's preliminary report are implemented, NOAA will be required
to handle a number of new responsibilities. A stronger, more effective,
science-based and service-oriented ocean agency--one that contributes
to better management of oceans and coasts through an ecosystem-based
approach--is needed.
NOAA's three primary functions can be summarized as follows:
(1) Assessment, prediction, and operations for ocean, coastal, and
atmospheric environments, including mapping and charting, satellite-
based and in situ data collection, implementation of the Integrated
Ocean Observing System, data information systems, and weather services
and products.
(2) Marine resource and area management, including fisheries, ocean
and coastal areas, vulnerable species and habitats, and protection from
pollution and invasive species.
(3) Scientific research and education, including a focus on applied
research, the availability of scientifically valid data, and promotion
of educational activities.
One of the critical objectives for a strengthened NOAA is improved
performance within these categories and smoother interactions among
them. For example, resource management decisions should be based on the
best available science, research itself should be planned to support
the agency's management missions, and research in different areas--sea,
land, and air--should be connected and coordinated. Changes of this
nature will likely require adjustments to the internal operation of the
agency, including possible additional changes to the current line
office structure.
These changes can be promoted by codifying the establishment and
functions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
through passage of an organic act for the agency. The act should ensure
that NOAA's structure is consistent with the principles of ecosystem-
based management and with its primary functions: assessment,
prediction, and operations; management; and research and education.
NOAA will require budget support commensurate with its important,
varied, and growing responsibilities.
Reviewing NOAA's Budget
NOAA's placement within the Department of Commerce has an unusual
history and continues to be questioned by many observers. If nothing
else, this affiliation has distinct budgetary implications. As part of
DOC, NOAA's budget is reviewed within the Office of Management and
Budget's General Government Programs, along with other DOC programs
with fundamentally different characteristics and missions. NOAA's OMB
review also fails to consider its ocean and atmospheric programs in
context with other Federal resource management and science programs. To
support the move toward a more ecosystem-based management approach,
NOAA's budget should be reviewed within OMB's Natural Resources
Programs, along with the budgets of more similar departments and
agencies.
Consolidating Ocean and Coastal Programs--Phase II
As I have said, many agencies across the Federal Government--in
addition to NOAA--administer ocean- and coastal-related programs.
Although I have focused on NOAA as the primary ocean agency, the other
agencies should also be strengthened in similar ways.
However, even solid performance within each agency will not
eliminate the many similar or overlapping activities. In some cases,
programmatic overlap can provide useful checks and balances as agencies
bring different perspectives and experiences to the table. In other
cases, the number of separate agencies addressing a similar issue is
not helpful. Such fragmentation diffuses responsibility, introduces
unnecessary overlap, raises administrative costs, inhibits
communication, and interferes with the development of a comprehensive
management regime that addresses issues within an ecosystem-based
context.
The Commission's preliminary report presents specific
recommendations on program consolidation in areas such as nonpoint
source pollution, area-based ocean and coastal resource management,
vessel pollution, invasive species, marine mammals, aquaculture, and
satellite-based Earth observing. Using these recommendations as a
starting point, the Assistant to the President, with advice from the
National Ocean Council and the Presidential Council of Advisors on
Ocean Policy, should review Federal ocean, coastal and atmospheric
programs, and recommend further opportunities for consolidation.
Programs not suitable for consolidation--such as security-related
programs that cannot be transferred without harm to the overall
enterprise--should continue to be coordinated through the National
Ocean Council and the regional ocean councils. However, in most cases,
judicious consolidation of ocean- and coastal-related functions will
improve policy integration and program effectiveness.
Presidential Reorganization Authority
The recommended program consolidation will not be easy within the
current legislative process. The creation and reorganization of
agencies is often contentious, lengthy, and uncertain, involving
multiple committees in both houses of Congress. Recognizing this
shortcoming, Congress has several times in the past chosen to give the
President limited reorganization authority. Renewing this authority by
allowing the President to propose agency reorganization, with an
expedited and limited congressional review and approval process, would
provide an excellent mechanism to achieve reorganization of Federal
ocean- and coastal-related agencies in a timely fashion.
Managing all Natural Resources in an Ecosystem-based
Management Context--Phase III
Strengthening the performance of ocean, coastal, and atmospheric
programs through coordination and consolidation are important steps in
moving toward an ecosystem-based management approach. By immediately
establishing the National Ocean Council and strengthening NOAA,
followed by the consolidation of suitable ocean and coastal programs
and functions, the nation will be poised to take a further step in
strengthening the Federal Government structure.
Based on a growing understanding of ecosystems, including
recognition of the inextricable links among the sea, land, air, and all
living things, a more fundamental reorganization of Federal resource
agencies will eventually be needed. Consolidation of all natural
resource functions, including those involving oceans and coasts, would
enable the Federal Government to move toward true ecosystem-based
management. This could be implemented through the establishment of a
Department of Natural Resources or some other structural unification
that brings together all of the nation's natural resource programs.
SCIENCE-BASED DECISIONS: ADVANCING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE OCEANS
Ecosystem-based management provides many potential benefits, but
also imposes new responsibilities on managers. The need to collect good
information and to improve understanding is perhaps foremost among
these new responsibilities. Despite considerable progress over the last
century, the oceans remain one of the least explored and most poorly
understood environments on the planet.
Greater knowledge can enable policymakers and managers to make
wise, science-based decisions at the national, regional, State, and
local levels. However, existing research and monitoring programs, which
tend to be agency-specific and single issue oriented, will need to be
reorganized to support ecosystem-based management. The current mismatch
between the size and complexity of marine ecosystems and the fragmented
research and monitoring programs for coastal and ocean ecosystems must
be resolved.
The nation also lacks effective mechanisms for incorporating
scientific information into decisionmaking in a timely manner. As
knowledge improves, it must be translated into useful terms and
actively incorporated into policy through an adaptive process. To make
the translation effective, local, State, regional, and national
managers need avenues to communicate their information needs and
priorities to the research community. In addition to these practical
needs, ocean science and technology will continue to be an integral
part of the overall U.S. basic research enterprise and future
discoveries will undoubtedly contribute greatly to society. Fundamental
knowledge about the oceans is essential to understanding the Earth's
environment and how it changes over time, assessing and predicting the
status of marine resources, finding beneficial new uses of ocean
resources, and protecting national security.
Federal Leadership in Ocean Science and Technology
Our Commission defines ocean science and technology broadly to
include: exploration of new ocean environments; basic and applied
research to increase understanding of the biology, chemistry, physics,
and geology of the oceans and coasts, their interactions with
terrestrial, hydrologic, and atmospheric systems, and the interactions
between ocean and coastal regions and humans; and the development of
new methodologies and instruments.
Today, 15 Federal agencies support or conduct diverse activities in
ocean science, technology, assessment, and management. The heads of
these agencies direct the National Oceanographic Partnership Program
(NOPP), which coordinates national oceanographic research and
education. NOPP has provided a useful venue for agencies to support a
small number of ocean science and technology projects, but it has not
realized its full potential as an overarching mechanism for
coordination among Federal agencies and State, local, academic, and
private entities.
Under the proposed National Ocean Policy Framework, the National
Ocean Council's Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and
Operations (COSETO) will assume leadership of NOPP to implement a broad
national strategy for ocean research, education, observation,
exploration, and marine operations. NOPP's existing offices and
committees will be incorporated within this structure. Ocean.US, the
lead office for planning the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS),
and the Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee which provides
advice on oceanographic facilities, will both report to COSETO.
Creating a National Strategy for Ocean Science and Technology
The United States needs a national strategy for ocean and coastal
research, exploration, and marine operations that can help meet the
ocean resource management challenges of the 21st century and ensure
that useful products result from Federal investments in ocean research.
Much more needs to be known about how marine ecosystems function on
varying spatial scales, how human activities affect marine ecosystems
and how, in turn, these changes affect human health. Coordinated and
enhanced research activities and marine operations are needed to:
understand biological, physical, and chemical processes and
interactions; maintain overall ecosystem health and biological
diversity; observe, monitor, assess, and predict environmental events
and long-term trends; explore the ocean depths for new resources; and
map ocean and coastal areas for safe navigation and resource
management.
Furthermore, the ocean and coastal environment is rife with
conflicts among competing users and between groups of people applying
different sets of values to the same issues. To resolve these
conflicts, information is needed not only about the natural environment
but also about relevant social, cultural, and economic factors.
Better coordination and increased support of ocean science and
technology activities nationwide will help the United States to address
numerous management challenges, and will position the nation to quickly
tackle new issues as they emerge.
Advancing Ocean and Coastal Research
The United States has a wealth of ocean research expertise spread
across a network of government and industry laboratories and world-
class universities, colleges, and marine centers. With strong Federal
support, these institutions made the United States the world leader in
oceanography during the 20th century. However, a leader cannot stand
still. Ocean and coastal management issues continue to grow in number
and complexity, new fields of study have emerged, new interdisciplinary
approaches are being tried, and there is a growing need to understand
the ocean on a global and regional scale. All this has created a
corresponding demand for high-quality scientific information. And while
the need for increased information continues to grow, the Federal
investment in ocean research has stagnated in recent decades.
The current annual Federal investment in marine science is well
below the level necessary to address adequately the nation's needs for
coastal and ocean information. Unless funding increases sharply, the
gap between requirements and resources will continue to grow and the
United States will lose its position as the world's leader in ocean
research.
Congress should double the Federal ocean and coastal research
budget over the next five years, from the 2004 level of approximately
$650 million to $1.3 billion per year. As part of this increase, the
National Ocean Council or Congress should: fund the research component
of the regional ocean information programs to provide practical,
management-oriented information at regional, State, and local levels;
create a national program for social science and economic research to
examine the human dimensions and economic value of the nation's oceans
and coasts, with funding of at least $8-$10 million a year; establish a
joint Oceans and Human Health Initiative funded at $28 million a year;
and significantly increase the budget of the National Sea Grant College
Program.
To ensure that increased investments are used wisely and that
important research activities continue, Federal agencies will need to
create long-term strategic plans. A mechanism is required to coordinate
federally-funded ocean research, support long-term projects, and create
partnerships throughout all agencies and sectors. Transparent and
comprehensive research plans would achieve these goals and ensure that
research results can be translated into operational products in a
timely manner. The National Ocean Council should develop a national
ocean research strategy that reflects a long-term vision, promotes
advances in basic and applied ocean science and technology, and guides
relevant agencies in developing ten-year science plans and budgets.
Ocean Exploration
About 95 percent of the ocean floor remains unexplored, much of it
located in harsh environments such as the polar latitudes and the
Southern Ocean. Experience teaches us, however, that these vast and
remote regions teem with undiscovered species and resources. On
virtually every expedition, oceanographers discover fascinating new
creatures. Advances in deep-sea technologies have also made it easier
to locate shipwrecks and historical artifacts lost in the ocean depths,
such as the stunning discovery of the RMS Titanic in 1985. The
continued exploration of marine archaeological sites will help us to
better understand human history and our global cultural heritage.
Very little is known about the ocean depths due primarily to the
lack of a long-term, large-scale national commitment to ocean
exploration. In 2000, recommendations from the President's Panel on
Ocean Exploration led to the establishment of the Office of Exploration
within NOAA, at a modest funding level of $4 million in fiscal year
2001, and $14 million in each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003. This
program is helping NOAA to fulfill its applied science, environmental
assessment, and technology development responsibilities; although the
program's small budget and agency-specific focus limit its
effectiveness.
NOAA and NSF, by virtue of their missions and mandates, are well
positioned to lead a global U.S. ocean exploration effort. NOAA
currently runs the Office of Ocean Exploration, but NSF's focus on
basic research provides an excellent complement to NOAA's more applied
mission. Working together, the two agencies have the capacity to
systematically explore and conduct research in previously unexamined
ocean environments. To succeed, coordination, joint funding, and
interactions with academia and industry will be essential. Congress
should appropriate significant funding for an expanded national ocean
exploration program and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the National Science Foundation should be designated
as the lead agencies. An expanded national ocean exploration program
will require a budget of approximately $110 million annually, plus
additional funds for required infrastructure.
Mapping, Charting, and Assessments
The need for routine mapping, monitoring, and assessment of U.S.
waters has grown significantly in the past two decades. Accurate, up-
to-date maps and charts of harbors, coastlines, and the open ocean are
necessary for many activities, including shipping, military operations,
and scientific research. In addition, expanded regulatory regimes rely
heavily on routine assessments of living and nonliving marine resources
and water quality. Modern sensor technologies, which can detect new
variables in greater detail in the water column and seafloor, have
improved our ability to follow changing ocean and terrestrial dynamics.
But as these new technologies are implemented, they need to be
calibrated against previous methods, as well as with each other, to
provide useful environmental characterizations and ensure the
consistency of long-term statistical data sets.
At least ten Federal agencies, almost all coastal states, and many
local agencies, academic institutions, and private companies are
involved in mapping, charting, and assessing living and nonliving
resources in U.S. waters. However, different organizations use varying
methods for collecting and presenting these data, leading to disparate
products that contain gaps in the information they present. Ideally, a
variety of information (e.g., bathymetry, topography, bottom type,
habitat, salinity, vulnerability) should be integrated into maps using
Global Positioning System coordinates and a common geodetic reference
frame. In addition, these maps should include living marine resources,
energy resources, and environmental data when available, to create
complete environmental characterizations necessary for developing and
implementing science-based ecosystem-based management approaches.
Coordination of the many existing Federal mapping activities will
increase efficiency and help ensure that all necessary surveys are
conducted. Drawing upon the mapping and charting abilities found in the
private sector and academia will also be necessary to achieve the best
results at the lowest cost.
The National Ocean Council should coordinate Federal ocean and
coastal resource assessment, mapping, and charting activities with the
goal of creating standardized, easily accessible national maps that
incorporate living and nonliving marine resource data along with
bathymetry, topography, and other natural features.
Achieving a Sustained, Integrated Ocean Observing System
About 150 years ago, this nation set out to create a comprehensive
weather forecasting and warning network and today most people cannot
imagine living without constantly updated weather reports. Recognizing
the enormous national benefits that have accrued from the weather
observing network, it is time to invest in a similar observational and
forecasting capability for the oceans. This system would gather
information on physical, geological, chemical, and biological
parameters for the oceans and coasts, conditions that affect--and are
affected by--humans and their activities. The United States currently
has the scientific and technological capacity to develop a sustained,
national Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) that will support and
enhance the nation's efforts for: improving the health of our coasts
and oceans; protecting human lives and livelihoods from marine hazards;
supporting national defense and homeland security efforts; measuring,
explaining, and predicting environmental changes; and providing for the
sustainable use, protection, and enjoyment of ocean resources.
The National Ocean Council should make the development and
implementation of a sustained, national Integrated Ocean Observing
System a central focus of its leadership and coordination role. The
United States simply cannot provide the economic, environmental, and
security benefits listed above, achieve new levels of understanding and
predictive capability, or generate the information needed by a wide
range of users, without implementing the IOOS.
The IOOS is based on two components: (1) open ocean observations
conducted in cooperation with the international Global Ocean Observing
System (GOOS) and (2) a national network of coastal observations
conducted at the regional level. The coastal component will include the
U.S. exclusive economic zone, the Great Lakes, and coastal and
estuarine areas.
A strong national governance structure is required to establish
policy and provide oversight for all components of the IOOS and to
ensure strong integration among the regional, national, and global
levels. Interagency coordination and consensus through the National
Ocean Council and Ocean.US will be essential. While regional systems
will retain a level of autonomy, achievement of the IOOS with
nationwide benefits will require the regional systems to follow some
national guidelines and standards. In addition, developers of the IOOS
must ensure that the global component is not minimized and that the
connectivity with the GOOS, including U.S. funding and leadership,
remains strong and viable.
Formalizing Ocean.US
Ocean.US has made significant progress as the lead organization for
the design and implementation of the national IOOS. However, a
fundamental problem current exists in that Ocean.US has a number of
responsibilities without any real authority or control over budgets.
Its ephemeral existence under the Memorandum of Agreement which created
it, its dependence on personnel detailed from the member agencies, and
its lack of a dedicated budget severely detract from its stature within
the ocean community and its ability to carry out its responsibilities.
Congress should formally establish Ocean.US under the National Ocean
Council structure so that it may effectively advise the NOC and achieve
its coordination and planning mandates. The office requires consistent
funding and dedicated full-time staff with the expertise and skills
needed to ensure professional credibility. In addition, outside experts
on rotational appointments could help Ocean.US better meet its
responsibilities.
Coordinating Regional Observing Systems
Ocean.US envisions the creation of a nationwide network of regional
ocean observing systems that will form the backbone of coastal
observations for the IOOS. Although Ocean.US has proposed the creation
of Regional Associations, coordinated through a national federation, as
the governing bodies of the regional systems, this concept is
unnecessarily narrow. To fully address the needs of coastal managers,
ocean observations need to be integrated into other information
gathering activities such as regionally-focused research, outreach and
education, and regional ecosystem assessments. Thus, the proposed
regional ocean information programs provide a more comprehensive
mechanism for developing and implementing regional ocean observing
systems, in coordination with their broader responsibilities. Regular
meetings among all the regional ocean information programs and Ocean.US
will be important for providing regional and local input into
developing requirements of the national IOOS.
Reaching Out to the User Community
The IOOS must meet the needs of a broad suite of users, including
the general public. To get the most out of the IOOS, resource managers
at Federal, State, regional, territorial, tribal, and local levels will
need to supply input about their information needs and operational
requirements and provide guidance on what output would be most useful.
Other users, including educators, ocean and coastal industries,
fishermen, and coastal citizens, must also have a visible avenue for
providing input. Ocean.US and the regional ocean information programs
will need to devote significant time and thought to proactively
approaching users and promoting public awareness of the enormous
potential of the IOOS.
Planning Space-based Observations
An integral part of the national IOOS are the space-borne sensors
that provide comprehensive, real-time, widespread coverage of ocean
conditions and features. However, implementing sustained observations
from space requires intense planning with long lead times. Given the
cost, the time frame for constructing and launching satellites, and the
inability to modify satellites once in orbit, five- to ten-year plans
are required to ensure that satellite observations will be available on
a continuous basis and employ the most useful and modern sensors.
Ocean.US and NOAA must work with NASA to ensure that ongoing satellite
operations are fully integrated into the national IOOS.
Both NOAA and NASA currently operate civilian, space-based, Earth
observing programs that measure terrestrial, atmospheric, and oceanic
variables. NOAA's primary mission in this area is to provide sustained,
operational observations for monitoring and predicting environmental
conditions and long-term changes, with a focus on weather and climate.
In contrast, NASA's mission is to advance research efforts and sensor
development. A NASA project can last from a few days to a few years,
and NASA has repeatedly asserted that it is not in the business of
providing data continuity. In many instances, the lifetime of a NASA
satellite, and its continued ability to collect and transmit data,
outlasts its funding, resulting in premature termination at odds with
the pressing demands for data in the operational context. Thus NASA's
efforts have not, and will not, result in the sustained capabilities
needed for the national IOOS. Congress should transfer the operation of
NASA's Earth environmental observing satellites, along with associated
resources, to NOAA to achieve continuous data collection. NOAA and NASA
should work together to plan future missions and then ensure the smooth
transition of each Earth environmental observing satellite after its
launch. By consolidating Earth, and particularly ocean, observing
satellite missions in NOAA, more seamless, long-term planning will be
possible, resulting in a smooth concept-to-operations data collection
process.
Information Product Development
To justify large Federal investments in the IOOS, the system must
result in tangible benefits for a broad and diverse user community,
including the general public, scientists, resource managers, emergency
responders, policymakers, private industry, educators, and officials
responsible for homeland security. National Weather Service and
commercial meteorological products have applications ranging from
scientific research to human safety, transportation, agriculture, and
simple daily forecasts. Similarly, IOOS products should be wide-ranging
and based on the needs of regional and local organizations and
communities, as well as national needs. The regional ocean information
programs should help produce information products of benefit to
regional, State, and local managers and organizations. These regional
programs will also provide important feedback to national forecasters
and modelers about ways to make national IOOS products more useful.
Funding the IOOS
To fulfill its potential, the IOOS will require stable funding over
the long haul. The lack of long-term funding for existing regional
ocean observing systems has contributed to their isolation and
piecemeal implementation. But consistent funding will help ensure that
the American public receives the greatest return for its investment in
the form of useful information, reliable forecasts, and timely
warnings. The estimated start-up costs for the implementation of the
national IOOS over the first five years is close to $2 billion.
Continuous improvements to IOOS observation and prediction
capabilities will also require sustained investments in technology
development. Considering the costs of sensor development,
telecommunications, computer systems, and improvements in modeling and
prediction capabilities, annual costs for operating, maintaining, and
upgrading the national IOOS are estimated to be $650-$750 million a
year.
Whole Earth Observations
The IOOS cannot exist as a stand-alone system, developed without
considering associated observations. Rather, it should be integrated
with other environmental observing systems to link weather, climate,
terrestrial, biological, watershed, and ocean observations into a
unified Earth Observing System. The National Ocean Council should
oversee coordination of the IOOS with other existing and planned
terrestrial, watershed, atmospheric, and biological observation and
information collection systems, with the ultimate goal of developing a
national Earth Observing System. Such a system would improve
understanding of environmental changes, processes, and interactions,
making ecosystem-based management possible.
Enhancing Ocean Infrastructure and Technology Development
A robust infrastructure with cutting-edge technology forms the
backbone of modern ocean science. It supports scientific discovery and
facilitates application of those discoveries to the management of ocean
resources. The nation has long relied on technological innovation,
including satellites, early-warning systems, broadband
telecommunications, and pollution control devices to advance economic
prosperity, protect life and property, and conserve natural resources.
Ocean research, exploration, mapping, and assessment activities will
continue to rely on modern facilities and new technologies to acquire
data in the open ocean, along the coasts, in polar regions, on the
seafloor, and even from space.
The three major components of the nation's scientific
infrastructure for oceans and coasts are:
--Facilities--land-based laboratories and ocean platforms, including
ships, airplanes, satellites, and submersibles, where research
and observations are conducted;
--Hardware--research equipment, instrumentation, sensors, and
information technology systems used in the facilities; and
--Technical Support--the expert human resources needed to operate and
maintain the facilities and hardware as well as participating
in data collection, assimilation, analysis, modeling, and
dissemination.
The number and types of assets included in the national ocean
science infrastructure are extensive and cover a wide range of Federal,
State, academic, institutional, and private-sector entities.
Together, they represent a substantial public and private
investment that has made possible great strides in modern oceanography
over the last 50 years. But a recent assessment of these assets
revealed that significant components of the U.S. ocean infrastructure
are aged or obsolete and that, in some cases, current capacity is
insufficient to meet the needs of the ocean science and operational
community. The National Ocean Council's Committee on Ocean Science,
Education, Technology, and Operations should develop a national ocean
and coastal infrastructure and technology strategy to achieve and
maintain an appropriate mix of federally-supported, modern ocean
facilities that meet the nation's needs for quality resource
management, science, and assessment.
Funding Needed Assets
There are currently several critically needed components of the
ocean science and technology infrastructure, including: Surface
vessels, such as new University National Oceanographic Laboratory
System vessels and fishery research ships; undersea vehicles, including
an array of manned, remotely operated, and autonomous submersibles;
aircraft, both manned and unmanned; modern laboratories and
instrumentation; dedicated ocean exploration platforms;
telecommunications technology; and environmental and biological
sensors.
Congress should establish a modernization fund to support these
critical ocean infrastructure and technology needs. Such a fund would
be used to build or upgrade facilities and acquire related
instrumentation and equipment. It would also provide a mechanism to
coordinate similar equipment purchases across agencies, where feasible,
creating significant economies of scale. Current and future spending
priorities for the fund should be based on the National Ocean Council's
ocean and coastal infrastructure and technology strategy.
Transferring Technology
The development of needed ocean technologies--whether identified by
the national strategy or through interagency communication--requires
directed funding and coordination. Federal agency programs will benefit
by having a centralized office responsible for accelerating the
transition of technological advances made by Federal and academic
laboratories into routine operations.
NOAA should create, and Congress should fund, an Office of
Technology to expedite the transition of experimental technologies into
operational applications. This office should work closely with academic
institutions, the regional ocean information programs, the National
Science Foundation, the U.S. Navy, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and other relevant agencies to achieve this mission.
Modernizing Ocean Data and Information Products
Ocean and coastal data are essential for understanding marine
processes and resources. They are the foundation for the science-based
information on which resource managers depend. But storing and
processing large amounts of data, and converting them into information
products useful to a broad community of end users, remains a huge
challenge.
There are two major challenges facing data managers today: the
exponentially growing volume of data, which continually strains data
ingestion, storage, and assimilation capabilities; and the need for
timely access to these data by the user community in a variety of
useful formats. Meeting these challenges will require a concerted
effort to integrate and modernize the current data management system.
The ultimate goal of improved ocean data management should be to
effectively store, access, integrate, and utilize a wide and disparate
range of data needed to better understand the environment and to
translate and deliver scientific results and information products in a
timely way.
Interagency Coordination
An interagency group, dedicated to ocean data and information
planning, is needed to enhance coordination, effectively use existing
resources for joint projects, schedule future software and hardware
acquisitions and upgrades, and oversee strategic funding.
Congress should amend the National Oceanographic Partnership Act to
create and fund Ocean.IT as the lead Federal interagency planning
organization for ocean and coastal data and information management.
Ocean.IT should consist of representatives from all Federal agencies
involved in ocean data and information management, be supported by a
small office, and report to the National Ocean Council's Committee on
Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations.
Ocean.IT should coordinate the development of a viable, long-term
data management strategy which includes:
--The implementation of an interagency plan to improve access to data
at the national data centers, Distributed Active Archive
Centers, and other discipline-based centers. This plan will
need to be appropriately integrated with other national and
international data management plans, including those for the
Integrated Ocean Observing System and Global Ocean Observing
System.
--Opportunities to partner with the private sector to enhance
environmental data and information management capabilities.
This organization should not have an operational role, but instead
should be responsible solely for interagency planning and coordination,
similar to the role of Ocean.US for the IOOS.
Informational Product Development
Compared to a few decades ago, an impressive array of data and
information products for forecasting ocean and coastal conditions is
now available from a wide range of sources. A mechanism is now needed
to bring these data together, including the enormous amounts of
information that will be generated by the national IOOS, and use these
data to generate and disseminate products beneficial to large and
diverse audiences.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S.
Navy should establish a joint ocean and coastal information management
and communications program to generate information products relevant to
national, regional, State, and local needs on an operational basis.
This program should build on the Navy's model for operational
oceanography and take advantage of the strengths of both agencies to
reduce duplication and more effectively meet the nation's information
needs. This partnership will also allow for the prompt incorporation of
classified military data into informational products without publicly
releasing the raw data. A NOAA-Navy joint program would rapidly advance
U.S. coastal and ocean analyses and forecasting capabilities using all
available physical, biological, chemical, and socioeconomic data.
Interactions between private companies and the NOAA-Navy national
ocean and coastal information management and communications program
could lead to the production of a wide range of general and tailored
forecast and warning products. An interface between national
forecasters at the NOAA-Navy program and the regional ocean information
programs would also help identify ocean and coastal informational
products of particular value at the regional and local levels.
PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN EDUCATION
Education has provided the skilled and knowledgeable workforce that
made America a world leader in technology, productivity, prosperity,
and security. However, the emergence of rampant illiteracy about
science, mathematics, and the environment now threaten the future of
America, its people, and the oceans on which we rely.
Testing results suggest that, after getting off to a good start in
elementary school, by the time U.S. students graduate from high school
their achievement in math and science falls well below the
international average. Ocean-related topics offer an effective tool to
keep students interested in science, increase their awareness of the
natural world, and boost their academic achievement in many areas. In
addition, the links between the marine environment and human experience
make the oceans a powerful vehicle for teaching history, culture,
economics, and other social sciences. Yet teachers receive little
guidance on how they might use exciting ocean subjects to engage
students, while adhering to the national and State science and other
education standards that prescribe their curricula.
In addition, a 1999 study indicated that just 32 percent of the
nation's adults grasp simple environmental concepts, and even fewer
understand more complex issues, such as ecosystem decline, loss of
biodiversity, or watershed degradation. It is not generally understood
that nonpoint source pollution threatens the health of our coastal
waters, or that mercury in fish comes from human activities via the
atmosphere. Few people understand the tangible value of the ocean to
the nation or that their own actions can have an impact on that
resource. From excess applications of fertilizers, pesticides, and
herbicides on lawns, to the trash washed off city streets into rivers
and coastal waters, ordinary activities contribute significantly to the
degradation of the marine environment. Without an acknowledgement of
the impacts associated with ordinary behavior and a willingness to take
the necessary action--which may incur additional costs--achieving a
collective commitment to more responsible lifestyles and new policies
will be difficult.
Excellent lifelong education in marine affairs and sciences is
essential to raising public awareness of the close connection between
the oceans and humans, including our history and culture. This
awareness will result in better public understanding of the connections
among the ocean, land, and atmosphere, the potential benefits and costs
inherent in resource use, and the roles of government and citizens as
ocean stewards.
Ocean Stewardship
To successfully address complex ocean- and coastal-related issues,
balance the use and conservation of marine resources, and realize
future benefits from the ocean, an interested, engaged public will be
needed. The public should be armed not only with the knowledge and
skills needed to make informed choices, but also with a sense of
excitement about the marine environment. Individuals should understand
the importance of the ocean to their lives and should realize how
individual actions affect the marine environment. Public understanding
of human impacts on the marine environment should be balanced with
recognition of the benefits to be derived from well-managed ocean
resources. Because of the connection among the ocean, the atmosphere,
and the land, inland communities need to be just as informed as seaside
communities.
Science Literacy
Ocean-related education has the potential to stem the tide of
science illiteracy threatening to undermine the nation's health,
safety, and security. Children have a natural curiosity about the world
around them and this allure could be parlayed into higher achievement
in other subjects as well. The influence of the ocean on nearly every
aspect of daily life, and the central role it plays in the development
of the nation, make ocean-based studies ideal for enhancing student
performance in areas such as geography, history, economics, policy, and
law. Strengthening science literacy, therefore, encompasses not only
natural sciences, but a full suite of social sciences.
Future Ocean Leaders
The nation needs a diverse, knowledgeable, and adequately prepared
workforce to enhance understanding of the marine environment and make
decisions regarding complex ocean- and coastal-related issues. The
education of the 21st century ocean-related workforce will require not
only a strong understanding of oceanography and other disciplines, but
an ability to integrate science concepts, engineering methods, and
sociopolitical considerations. Resolving complex ocean issues related
to economic stability, environmental health, and national security will
require a workforce with diverse skills and backgrounds. Developing and
maintaining such a workforce will rely, in turn, on programs of higher
education that prepare future ocean professionals at a variety of
levels and in a variety of marine-related fields.
Coordinating Ocean Education
Although not all ocean-related Federal agencies have a specific
education mission, most have made efforts to reach out to students,
teachers, and the public to inform them about ocean issues, sometimes
by adding ocean-related components to larger science and environmental
education efforts. And while it is valuable for ocean-related
information to be included as part of broader environmental and science
education efforts, it is also important to support educational efforts
that focus specifically on oceans, coasts, and the human relationship
with them.
Federal programs can provide many opportunities for ocean-related
education, but ultimately education is a State responsibility, and
control is exerted primarily at the local level. Therefore, the
interaction between education administrators at the State, district,
and individual school levels and Federal agencies will be fundamental
to the success of any effort to use ocean-based examples to enhance
student achievement. Aquariums, zoos, and other informal education
centers also provide the public with opportunities to learn about the
marine environment and should be integral components of a national
effort to increase ocean-related education.
Despite the existence of many positive efforts, ocean education
remains a patchwork of independently conceived and implemented programs
and activities. These efforts cannot provide the nationwide momentum
and visibility needed to promote sustained ocean education for
students, teachers, and the general public. Within the Federal
Government, there is little discussion of ocean education, even among
those agencies with the greatest responsibility for ocean issues.
Different programs and funding mechanisms are not coordinated and
resources are seldom leveraged. Even within individual agencies,
offices that have education components often do not collaborate or
communicate.
To strengthen ocean education and coordinate Federal education
efforts, the National Ocean Council should establish a national ocean
education office (Ocean.ED) under its Committee on Ocean Science,
Education, Technology, and Operations. This office should coordinate
and integrate Federal agency programs and leverage resources; serve as
a central, visible point of contact for K-12, university-level, and
informal education partners; and work with all parties to develop
coherent, comprehensive planning for ocean education efforts.
To fulfill its coordination activities, Congress should provide
dedicated funding for Ocean.ED operations and program implementation.
However, this national effort is not meant to replace other successful
programs and activities, but rather provide a mechanism for
communication, coordination, and joining of forces.
Developing Ocean Curricula
The value of ocean-based learning must be recognized within local
school districts to create a demand for ocean-related education
products. Federal, regional, State, and local education professionals
need to advocate for the inclusion of ocean-based examples in State and
local education requirements and testing. Collaborative efforts will be
needed to develop research-based, ocean-related curricular materials
that are aligned with State and national educational standards and meet
the needs of teachers. Ocean.ED, working with State and local education
authorities and the research community, should coordinate the
development and adoption of ocean-related materials and examples that
meet existing education standards.
Teaching the Teachers
Higher expectations for our youth mean higher expectations for
teachers as well. Students cannot achieve without instruction by
capable teachers who are knowledgeable in the topics being presented.
Thus, improving the quality of science and math education must begin
with improving preparation of undergraduates studying to be teachers
(referred to as pre-service teachers) and professional development for
certified teachers in the classroom (referred to as in-service
teachers).
The ocean research community is brimming with potential for
engaging K-12 educators in the excitement and satisfaction of the
scientific enterprise, and the nation's research infrastructure
provides significant opportunities for formal preparation, hands-on
involvement, and teacher certification. Although several public and
private sector programs can provide teachers with research experience
in ocean-related topics, access to these programs is quite limited,
very few have long-term, stable funding, and the different efforts are
poorly coordinated. Ocean.ED, working with academic institutions and
local school districts, should help establish stronger and more
effective relationships between the research and education communities
to expand professional development opportunities for teachers and
teacher educators.
Bringing Oceans Education to All Students
Through field and laboratory experiments, oceans offer a natural
avenue for students to gain first-hand exposure to science while
developing an awareness of the importance of the ocean. Not all
students are near, or able to travel to, the shore, but new ocean
research technologies represent a tremendous and virtually untapped
avenue to overcome this limitation, allowing students anywhere to be
involved in real oceanographic investigations. The same remote-access
technologies that make advanced ocean research possible can also help
students and teachers participate in collecting, analyzing, and
distributing ocean data. Enabling students to interact with practicing
scientists, even if they are thousands of miles away, can help create a
lifelong affinity for learning.
Social, economic, and cultural factors can also play an influential
role in inhibiting a student's access to education opportunities,
especially science-based opportunities. These factors are unusually
strong among minority students and other groups that have been
traditionally underrepresented and underserved in scientific fields,
including marine sciences. Repairing this broken link will depend on
exposing minority students to ocean-related studies early in their
education, continuing that exposure throughout their school years, and
demonstrating the possibilities and rewards of a career in ocean-
related fields.
Federal agencies and academic institutions should find ways to
provide all students with opportunities to participate in ocean
research and exploration, virtually or in person, including summer
programs, field trips, remote participation in ocean expeditions, and,
most important, after-school activities. Mentoring, especially near-
peer guidance, is critical and should be a component of any student-
oriented program. Ocean.ED should promote partnerships among school
districts, institutions of higher learning, aquariums, science centers,
museums, and private laboratories to develop more opportunities for
students to explore the marine environment, both through virtual means
and hands-on field, laboratory, and at-sea experiences. Ocean.ED should
also ensure that ocean-based educational programs and materials
acknowledge cultural differences and other aspects of human diversity,
resulting in programs that expose students and teachers from all
cultures and backgrounds to ocean issues.
Drawing Students into the Field of Ocean Science and
Management
The ocean community must compete with countless other professions
in attracting the talent it needs. Success lies, in part, in promoting
marine-related career opportunities among undergraduate students from a
broad range of disciplines. First-hand experiences in marine fields can
be influential in demonstrating the possibilities and rewards of an
ocean-related career.
Intellectually stimulating and financially attractive options for
pursuing graduate studies in an ocean-related field must follow, so a
student's developing interest in ocean studies is not overshadowed by
other professions that actively pursue, encourage, and support their
future leaders. Ocean sciences have another potentially important role
to play at the undergraduate level. Marine science courses can be
attractive options for non-science majors who need to fulfill science
requirements for graduation, presenting an excellent opportunity to
raise general ocean awareness.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Science Foundation, and Office of Naval Research should support
colleges and universities in promoting introductory marine science
courses to expose students, including non-science majors, to these
subjects.
Training Ocean Professionals
Because ocean science is fundamentally interdisciplinary, well-
trained ocean professionals can find excellent careers in many areas
including engineering, economics, education, law, management, policy,
science, and technology. Individuals considering or pursuing graduate
studies in a marine field should be aware of these options, and
exploration of nontraditional marine areas should be encouraged.
Equally important, professionals educated and trained in other fields
should be made aware of the exciting opportunities available to them in
marine-related fields.
Ocean.ED should guide and promote the development of the nation's
ocean-related workforce by: promoting student support, diversified
educational opportunities, and investment in innovative approaches to
graduate education that prepare students for a broad range of careers
in academia, government, and industry; and encouraging graduate
departments of ocean sciences and engineering to experiment with new or
redesigned programs that emphasize cross-disciplinary courses of study.
Complementing the need to create an adequate workforce is the need
to sustain and enhance that workforce through professional development
and continuing education opportunities. Learning does not stop once the
formal education process is complete; ocean professionals in all fields
must be provided the means and liberty to continually build upon their
knowledge and skills throughout their careers.
Informing the Public
Public information needs are as varied as our population is
diverse. Some individuals will benefit from detailed information on how
specific issues directly affect their jobs or business. Others may need
information presented in a language and media tailored to their culture
and community. Still others seek advice on how to alter their own
activities to support responsible ocean stewardship. This information
is as critical for those who live in the heartland as for those who
live near the shore.
Informal education requires outreach programs, in partnership with
local communities, to make contact with individuals where they live and
work, regarding issues that affect how they live and work, in a style
that speaks to them. Information supplied to the public should be
timely and accurate. It should also be supported by a system that
allows for follow-up and the acquisition of additional information or
guidance. Ocean.ED, working with other appropriate entities, should
enhance existing and establish new mechanisms for developing and
delivering relevant, accessible information and outreach programs to
enhance community education.
Regional Outreach--Connecting the Research and Education Communities
Collaboration between the research and education communities must
be improved if ocean-based information, including ocean data and new
discoveries, is to be transformed into exciting and accessible
materials to stimulate student achievement and enhance public
awareness. Some efforts do exist to make these connections, most
notably through the Centers for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence
(COSEE) and National Sea Grant College Program.
COSEE
The COSEE network, supported primarily through NSF, includes
regional centers and a central coordinating office that work to
integrate oceanographic data and information into high-quality
curricular materials, to provide ocean scientists with opportunities to
learn more about educational needs and requirements, to provide K-12
teachers with the knowledge and skills they need to effectively
incorporate ocean-related information into their lessons, and to
deliver ocean-related information to the public. Though recognized as a
model for enhancing education and bringing accessible ocean-related
information to the public, COSEE currently has only seven regional
centers, each serving a limited number of schools in its area. The
program does not have the level of committed, long-term support
required to fully realize its potential.
While COSEE is currently a National Science Foundation program,
placing it within the National Ocean Council (NOC) structure would
capitalize on the tremendous potential to enhance and expand the
program. The NOC and the NSF should relocate COSEE within the larger
NOC structure as a program to be organized, overseen, and funded
through Ocean.ED. In addition, the number of COSEE regional offices
should be tripled to 21 with each center receiving at least $1.5
million a year for an initial five-year period.
National Sea Grant College Program
The National Sea Grant College Program was created by Congress in
1966 as a partnership between the nation's universities and NOAA. Sea
Grant programs sponsor research, education, outreach, and technology
transfer through a network of Sea Grant Colleges and research
institutions.
Sea Grant has forged connections between the research and education
communities since its inception. Its programs provide K-12 teacher
preparation and professional development programs consistent with State
education standards, offer hands-on educational experiences for
students, and develop research-based curricular and communications
materials for students and the public. The Sea Grant network relies on
longstanding local partnerships, with many connections to populations
that have been traditionally underrepresented and underserved by the
ocean community.
Despite its successes, however, Sea Grant is currently an
underutilized resource. The existing Sea Grant network requires
increased funding to expand its roles and responsibilities,
particularly in education and outreach. In particular, Sea Grant
extension and communications programs, familiar to many resource
managers and others in coastal communities, should become the primary
mechanisms for delivering and interpreting information products
developed through the regional ocean information programs.
Specific Federal Responsibilities
Each Federal agency with ocean-related responsibilities--most
notably NOAA, NSF, and Office of Naval Research--has a responsibility
to help ensure a vibrant ocean-related workforce. These agencies need
to develop interrelated and crosscutting educational opportunities at
the undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral levels.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAA should be particularly concerned with creating a pipeline of
students in areas it identifies to be of critical importance to the
agency. Opportunities should include both research experiences,
especially exposure to mission-oriented research, and experiences
beyond the research arena. Student exposure can begin as early as the
junior or senior level in high school, continuing through postdoctoral
education. A range of programs will help identify and recruit the best
and brightest to careers in marine-related fields and ensure a
continuing source of essential human capital. At the graduate and
postdoctoral levels, NOAA should support fellowships and traineeships
that emphasize interdisciplinary approaches and real-world experiences
beyond the university setting.
NOAA should establish a national ocean education and training
program, patterned after the National Institutes of Health model,
within its Office of Education and Sustainable Development to provide
diverse, innovative ocean-related education opportunities at the
undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral levels.
In addition, NOAA should establish competitive ``Distinguished
Professorships in Marine Studies'' within Sea Grant Colleges or other
leading institutions of higher education with a demonstrated commitment
to marine programs. Disciplines of interest to NOAA for such
professorships could include fisheries science, climate research,
atmospheric studies, and marine resource economics, policy,
aquaculture, genomics, education, and ecosystem studies. The intent
would be to create a cadre of distinguished NOAA endowed chairs at
universities around the nation.
National Science Foundation
At the undergraduate level, NSF's Research Experience for
Undergraduates program could be expanded to include more marine-related
experiences. At the graduate and postdoctoral levels, opportunities
could include fellowships that encourage cross-disciplinary research,
interdisciplinary traineeships, and master's degree fellowships.
Programs such as NSF's Integrative Graduate Education and Research
Training program, Centers for Learning and Teaching, and Graduate
Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education should be supported and enhanced
both within NSF and adopted by other Federal ocean agencies. The
National Science Foundation's Directorates of Geosciences, Biological
Sciences, and Education and Human Resources should develop cooperative
programs to provide diverse educational opportunities at the
undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral levels in a range of ocean-
related fields.
Office of Naval Research
The success of the Navy depends on a well-developed understanding
of the environment in which it operates. Understanding the ocean
environment--including the atmosphere above it, the seafloor beneath
it, and the coastlines that encircle it--will always be a core naval
requirement. Thus the Navy should play a central role in ensuring
support for the education of future generations of ocean professionals.
The Office of Naval Research should reinvigorate its support of
graduate education in ocean sciences and engineering. This could be
partly accomplished by increasing the number of ocean-related awards
made under ONR's National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate
Fellowship Program.
SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
Although the areas I discussed--improved governance through a new
National Ocean Policy Framework, the incorporation of scientific
information in decisionmaking, and broad public education--represent
the overarching areas that this nation must address using the guiding
principles I mentioned earlier, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy did
not stop there in its deliberations and recommendations. The Commission
also addressed a wide range of specific ocean management challenges--
challenges that will continue to be addressed individually, but which
now must also become part of more ecosystem based management approach,
applying the guiding principles throughout the management process.
These individual ocean and coastal management challenges include:
Linking the management of coasts and watersheds; Protecting life and
property from natural hazards; Restoring and conserving habitat; Better
managing sediments and shorelines; Supporting marine commerce and
transportation; Reducing water pollution from all sources, including
from vessels and through the introduction of marine debris; Preventing
the introduction of invasive species; Sustainably managing our
fisheries; Protecting marine mammals and other marine species;
Conserving corals and corals reefs; Enabling the environmentally-sound
development of marine aquaculture; Understanding and safeguarding
Oceans and Human Health; and, developing offshore energy resources and
marine minerals.
IMPROVING MANAGEMENT OF COASTS AND WATERSHEDS
Let me begin by addressing some of the issues in our coastal areas.
While coastal counties (located entirely or partially within coastal
watersheds) comprise only 17 percent of the land area in the contiguous
United States, they are home to more than 53 percent of the total U.S.
population. Coastal population trends indicate average increases of
3,600 people a day moving to coastal counties, reaching a total
population of 165 million by 2015. These figures do not include the 180
million people who visit the coast every year.
Population growth and tourism bring many benefits to coastal
communities, including new jobs and businesses and enhanced educational
opportunities. The popularity of ocean and coastal areas increases
pressures on these environments, creating a number of challenges for
managers and decisionmakers. Increased development puts more people and
property at risk from coastal hazards, reduces and fragments fish and
wildlife habitat, alters sedimentation rates and flows, and contributes
to coastal water pollution.
The pattern of coastal growth--often in scattered and unplanned
clusters of homes and businesses--is also significant. Urban sprawl
increases the need for infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and
sewers, degrading the coastal environment while making fragile or
hazard-prone areas ever more accessible to development. Because of the
connections between coastal and upland areas, development and sprawl
that occur deep within the nation's watersheds also affect coastal
resources.
To reap economic benefits and mitigate pressures associated with
growing coastal development, State and local governments needs more
Federal support to enhance their capacity to plan for and guide growth,
and to employ watershed management approaches. A complex combination of
individuals and institutions at all levels of government make decisions
that cumulatively affect the nation's ocean and coastal areas. These
institutional processes determine where to build infrastructure,
encourage commerce, extract natural resources, dispose of wastes, and
protect or restore environmental attributes.
Although most coastal management activities take place at State and
local levels, coastal decisionmaking is also influenced by Federal
actions, including funding decisions and standard setting. Of the many
Federal programs that provide guidance and support for State and local
decisionmaking, some address the management of activities and resources
within designated geographic areas, while others address the management
of specific resources, such as fisheries or marine mammals.
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) is the Federal Government's
principal tool for fostering comprehensive coastal management. The CZMA
created the Coastal Zone Management Program CZM Program, a unique
partnership between the Federal and coastal state governments, whose
goal is to balance the conservation of the coastal environment with the
responsible development of economic and cultural interests. The tools,
assistance, and resources provided by the CZMA have enabled States and
territories to increase their management capacity and improve
decisionmaking to enhance the condition of their coastal areas.
However, the CZM Program can be strengthened in a number of ways,
including by developing strong, specific, measurable goals and
performance standards that reflect a growing understanding of the ocean
and coastal environments and the need to manage growth in regions under
pressure from coastal development. A large portion of Federal funding
should be linked to program performance with additional incentives
offered to States that perform exceptionally well. In addition, a
fallback mechanism is needed to ensure that national goals are realized
when a State does not adequately participate or perform. Finally, the
landside boundaries of State coastal management programs should also be
reconsidered. At a minimum, each State should set the inland extent of
its coastal zone based on the boundaries of coastal watersheds.
In addition to the CZM Program, other Federal area-based coastal
programs include NOAA's National Estuarine Research Reserve System and
National Marine Sanctuaries Program; EPA's National Estuary Program;
and Fish and Wildlife Service's Coastal Program and Coastal Barrier
Resources System. These programs have made significant progress in
managing coastal resources in particular locations, working with
communities and decisionmakers in those areas, and fostering improved
coordination between different levels of government. However, because
these programs generally operate in isolation from one another, they
cannot ensure effective management of all ocean and coastal resources
or achievement of broad national goals. As NOAA is strengthened through
the multi-phased approach described earlier, consolidation of area-
based coastal resource management programs will result in more
effective, unified strategies for managing these areas, an improved
understanding of the ocean and coastal environment, and a basis for
moving toward an ecosystem-based management approach.
Federal programs related to transportation, flood insurance,
disaster relief, wetlands permitting, dredging, beach nourishment,
shoreline protection, and taxation also exert a profound influence on
the coast. While these laws and policies address specific issues, and
have each provided societal benefits, in many cases Federal activities
under their purview have inadvertently led to degradation of coastal
environments. For this reason, policies should be re-evaluated to
ensure consistency with national, regional, and State goals aimed at
achieving economically and environmentally sustainable development.
Linking Coastal and Watershed Management
For well over a decade there has been a growing interest in
watershed management. This approach addresses water quality and
quantity issues by acknowledging the hydrologic connections between
upstream and downstream areas and considering the cumulative impacts of
all activities that take place throughout a watershed. Watersheds are
optimal organizing units for dealing with the management of water and
closely related resources. The benefits of a watershed focus have also
been recognized at the state, regional, national, and international
levels through successful efforts such as the Chesapeake Bay Program,
the Delaware River Basin Commission, and the bi-national Great Lakes
Commission. At the Federal level, EPA has supported efforts to address
a variety of problems at the watershed level.
Many watershed groups are formed at the local level by community
members concerned about water quality or the health of fish and
wildlife populations. Often, these groups work to improve watershed
health through partnerships among citizens, industry, interest groups,
and government. However, the environmental and political
characteristics of the nation's watersheds vary tremendously, and
watershed management initiatives can differ widely in size and scope.
As interest in watershed management continues to grow, so does the need
for a framework to guide such initiatives and evaluate their
effectiveness.
The Federal Government can play an important role by helping to
develop this framework and by providing assistance to States and
communities for watershed initiatives. Congress should amend the
Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Water Act, and other Federal
laws where appropriate, to provide better financial, technical, and
institutional support for watershed initiatives and better integration
of these initiatives into coastal management.
Assessing the Growing Cost of Natural Hazards
The nation has experienced enormous and growing losses from natural
hazards. Conservative estimates, including only direct costs such as
those for structural replacement and repair, put the nationwide losses
from all natural hazards at more than $50 billion a year, though some
experts believe this figure represents only half or less of the true
costs. More accurate figures for national losses due to natural hazards
are unavailable because the United States does not consistently collect
and compile such data, let alone focus on specific losses in coastal
areas. Additionally, there are no estimates of the costs associated
with destruction of natural environments.
Many Federal agencies have explicit operational responsibilities
related to hazards management, while numerous others provide technical
information or deliver disaster assistance. The nation's lead agencies
for disaster response, recovery, mitigation, and planning are the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE). These agencies implement programs that specifically
target the reduction of risks from natural hazards. NOAA and USFWS also
have a significant influence on natural hazards management.
Opportunities for improving Federal natural hazards management,
include: Amending Federal infrastructure policies that encourage
inappropriate development; Augmenting hazards information collection
and dissemination; Improving the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP); and Undertaking effective and universal hazards mitigation
planning.
Conserving and Restoring Coastal Habitat
The diverse habitats that comprise the ocean and coastal
environment provide tangible benefits such as buffering coastal
communities against the effects of storms, filtering pollutants from
runoff, and providing a basis for booming recreation and tourism
industries. These habitats also provide spawning grounds, nurseries,
shelter, and food for marine life, including a disproportionate number
of rare and endangered species.
As more people come to the coast to live, work, and visit, coastal
habitats face increasing pressures. Most human activities in coastal
areas provide distinct societal benefits, such as dredging rivers and
harbors to facilitate navigation, converting forests and wetlands for
agriculture and development, and building dams for flood control and
hydropower. But these activities can also degrade coastal habitats and
compromise their ability to adapt to environmental changes.
Conserving valuable ocean and coastal areas protects significant
habitat and other natural resources. Millions of coastal acres have
been designated for conservation by various levels of government, and
the tools for implementing conservation programs are found in a
multitude of statutes. A number of Federal programs aim to preserve the
natural attributes of specific areas while providing varying levels of
access to the public for educational, recreational, and commercial
purposes. In addition, nonregulatory conservation techniques--including
fee simple land acquisition, the purchase or donation of easements, tax
incentives and disincentives, and tradable development rights--play a
special role in enabling willing landowners to limit future development
on their land for conservation purposes. Land acquisition and easements
are often implemented through partnerships among governments,
nongovernmental organizations such as land trusts, and the private
sector. Funding and support for continued conservation of coastal and
estuarine lands is important to ensure the ability to maintain critical
habitats and the benefits they provide.
Conservation is cost-effective, avoiding the much larger expense
and scientific uncertainties associated with attempting to restore
habitats that have been degraded or lost. Even so, once critical
habitat has been lost, or the functioning of those areas diminished,
restoration is often needed. Habitat restoration efforts are
proliferating in response to heightened public awareness of and concern
for the health of the nation's oceans and coasts.
Restoration efforts, particularly large-scale projects, are
challenging in a number of ways. First, the success of these efforts
requires an understanding about how to recreate natural systems and
restore historical ecosystem functions, a field still in its infancy.
Second, these efforts cross political boundaries and affect a broad
range of human activities, requiring support and intense coordination
among a wide range of governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders.
While some restoration projects have been successful, continued
progress will depend on sustained funding, government leadership and
coordination, scientific research, and stakeholder support.
In addition to the large-scale, regional restoration efforts, there
are numerous small-scale efforts that collectively make significant
contributions. These activities often demonstrate the power of public-
private partnerships, bringing together community members, government
agencies, and businesses to solve common problems. However, as long as
each project continues to be planned and implemented in isolation, its
overall impact will be constrained.
Currently the many entities that administer conservation and
restoration activities operate largely independently of one another,
with no framework for assessing overall benefits in an ecosystem-based
context. The multitude of disjointed programs prohibits a comprehensive
assessment of the progress of conservation and restoration efforts and
makes it difficult to ensure the most effective use of limited
resources. An overarching national strategy that sets goals and
priorities can also enhance the effectiveness of individual efforts and
provide a basis for coordinating measures and evaluating progress of
both habitat conservation and restoration activities.
Managing Sediment and Shorelines
Sediment in Great Lakes, coastal, and ocean waters is composed of
inorganic and organic particles created through erosion, decomposition
of plants and animals, and human activities. Sediment may be carried by
wind or water from upland areas down to coastal areas, or may originate
in the marine environment. Once sediment arrives at the ocean, it is
transported by wind, waves, and currents in dynamic processes that
constantly build up and wear away cliffs, beaches, sandbars, inlets,
and other natural features.
From a human perspective, sediment has a dual nature--desirable in
some locations and unwanted in others. Sediment can be used to create
or restore beaches and to renew wetlands and other coastal habitats.
Such activities are referred to as beneficial uses. Undesirable
sediment can cloud water and degrade wildlife habitat, form barriers to
navigation, and contaminate the food chain for marine plants, animals
and humans.
The dual nature of sediment as both a threat and a resource to
humans and the environment makes its management particularly
challenging. To complicate matters further, the natural processes that
create, move, and deposit sediment operate on regional scales, while
management tends to focus on discrete locations--a single beach,
wetland, or port. In addition, the policies that affect sediment
location, transport, and quality fall under the jurisdiction of diverse
programs within multiple agencies at all levels of government. This
complex governance approach makes it difficult to manage sediment at
the appropriate scale and in consonance, rather than in conflict, with
natural processes.
Coastal stakeholders have increasingly recognized the need to
develop more proactive and preventive strategies. However, their
absence from broad watershed planning efforts--where decisions about
land use and water management could reduce excess and contaminated
sediments at their source--makes such change difficult to realize. The
nation needs both a better understanding of the interactions between
human activities and sediment flows, and a better mechanism for
involving all potentially affected parties.
Moving toward an ecosystem-based management approach is a critical
step. Participation by Federal, State, and local entities in watershed
management efforts, along with key stakeholders such as coastal
planners and port managers, is one way to diminish upland sources of
excess and contaminated sediment that harm the marine environment.
Ecosystem considerations should be included in the process for
permitting any activity that alters sediment flows.
Dredged materials have long been used to create new land for
commercial, residential, and infrastructure developments, as well as to
bolster beaches and barrier islands to protect against storm and
erosion hazards and enhance tourism and recreation. Since the 1970s,
these beneficial uses of dredged materials have also included
environmental enhancement, such as restoration of wetlands, creation of
wildlife habitat, and improvement of fish habitat. Surprisingly,
navigation-related dredged materials do not find their way into
beneficial use projects as often as perhaps they should. This is due in
part to sediment contamination, but also to USACE policies that favor
disposal in open waters or in upland dump sites. These policies may be
unnecessarily foregoing opportunities to support economic growth or
environmental protection and may have serious unintentional
consequences for aquatic ecosystems. A more accurate system for
selecting and ranking projects would be based on a comparative net
economic and environmental return for the United States rather than a
narrow cost-benefit analysis for a specific project.
Finally, the characterization, containment, removal, and treatment
of contaminated sediment continue to be technically difficult and
prohibitively expensive, and point to the importance of adopting an
adaptive management approach to the problem. Scientifically sound
methods for identifying contaminated sediment and developing innovative
technologies to improve dredging and treatment of this material are
critical steps toward improving the economic and ecological health of
coastal areas. To be successful, these efforts will require new
resources and effective regional planning.
Supporting Marine Commerce and Transportation
As the world's largest trading nation, the United States imports
and exports more merchandise than any other country and has one of the
most extensive marine transportation systems in the world. U.S. marine
import-export trade is an essential and growing component of the
national economy, accounting for nearly seven percent of the nation's
gross domestic product. Domestically, coastal and inland marine trade
amounts to roughly one billion tons of cargo, worth more than $220
billion a year. The marine transportation system itself is a highly
complex public-private sector partnership consisting of an
interconnected mix of waterways, ports and terminals, water-based and
land-based intermodal connections, vessels, vehicles, equipment,
personnel, support service industries, and users.
For the nation's marine transportation system to meet current and
future demands, ongoing maintenance, improvement, and expansion will be
required. A key prerequisite for a robust system is better
coordination, planning, decisionmaking and allocation of resources at
the Federal level. In particular it will be essential to enhance the
connections between this system and other modes of transportation, such
as highways, railways, and airports. At the same time, in moving toward
an ecosystem-based management approach, planning for the movement of
cargo and passengers should be coordinated with the management of many
other ocean and coastal uses and activities, and with efforts to
protect the marine environment.
Within the Federal Government, responsibilities for marine commerce
and transportation are spread among numerous agencies, primarily the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Coast Guard, USACE, NOAA,
U.S. Customs Service, and EPA. These agencies have many roles,
including vessel traffic management, national security, marine safety,
waterway maintenance, environmental protection, and customs. These
responsibilities are poorly coordinated and do not mesh well with the
structure and function of such system. Statutory, regulatory, and
policy differences among Federal agencies with roles in marine
transportation lead to fragmentation, competition, and in some cases,
an inability to work collaboratively due to conflicting mandates.
National leadership and support will be needed to achieve better
integration within the Federal government, better links with the rest
of the nation's transportation infrastructure, and coordination between
marine transportation and other important ocean and coastal uses and
activities. The logical agency to assume this responsibility, as it
does for the highway, aviation, and railway systems, is DOT.
Even with one clearly mandated lead Federal agency, coordination
will be needed among the Federal and non-Federal participants in the
marine transportation system. Given the significance of domestic and
international trade to the nation and the complexity of the components
that make up the system the Interagency Committee for the Marine
Transportation System (ICMTS) should be strengthened, codified and
placed under the oversight of the National Ocean Council. And because
marine transportation involves many actors outside the Federal
Government, the Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council
should be maintained to coordinate among non-Federal participants in
the marine transportation system and a venue for providing input to the
Federal Government on important national issues.
An important step in allowing the U.S. marine transportation system
to grow, while minimizing increased congestion, delays, and costs to
U.S. businesses and consumers, is to improve the movement of cargo into
and out of ports. Existing intermodal connections are inadequate to
meet the expected increase in foreign and domestic trade. The nation's
transportation infrastructure is largely an agglomeration of competing
transportation modes, each focusing on its own priorities. While this
approach has produced an extensive infrastructure, a national strategy
is needed to enhance the connections among these modes, including the
nation's ports, and ensure greater overall effectiveness.
DOT, working with the ICMTS, should draft a new national freight
transportation strategy to support continued growth of the nation's
economy and international and domestic trade. Based on the new
strategy, investments should be directed toward planning and
implementation of intermodal projects of national significance. In
developing the national freight transportation strategy, DOT should
emphasize strategic planning with States, regions, and the public
sector as is already being carried out for the U.S. highway system.
Planning for the future of the U.S. marine transportation system
requires accurate and timely information, including estimates of the
volume of current and future cargo transportation, their origins and
destinations, and the capacity of the various transportation modes.
Such information is essential to understand the strengths and
weaknesses of the current system and the challenges and opportunities
for improving its effectiveness. DOT, working with other appropriate
entities, should establish a national data collection, research, and
analysis program to provide a comprehensive picture of freight flows in
the United States and to enhance the performance of the nation's
intermodal transportation system. DOT should periodically assess and
prioritize the nation's future needs for ports and intermodal
transportation capacity to meet expected growth in marine commerce.
Finally, natural disasters, labor disputes, terrorist attacks, ship
collisions, spills of hazardous materials, and many other human and
naturally caused events can disrupt the flow of marine cargo and
passenger services, causing severe economic and social ramifications
nationally and internationally. Diminished port capacity could also
affect vital military operations. In developing a national freight
transportation strategy, DOT should work closely with the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security and the FEMA to incorporate port
security and other emergency preparedness requirements. The strategy
should focus on preventing threats to national security and port
operations and on response and recovery practices that limit the
impacts of such events, including an assessment of the availability of
alternative port capacity.
COASTAL AND OCEAN WATER QUALITY
Coastal and ocean water quality is threatened by multiple sources
of pollution, including point and nonpoint source pollution,
atmospheric deposition of pollutants, vessel pollution, invasive
species, and trash being washed into the ocean and onto beaches.
Addressing these multiple pollutants will require development of an
ecosystem-based and watershed management approach that includes a
variety of management tools, coordination, and ongoing monitoring.
Addressing Coastal Water Pollution
Coastal waters are one of the nation's greatest assets, yet they
are being bombarded with pollution from all directions. The heavy
concentration of activity in coastal areas, combined with pollutants
flowing from streams far inland and others carried through the air
great distances from their source, are the primary causes of nutrient
enrichment, hypoxia, toxic contamination, sedimentation, and other
problems that plague coastal waters.
Any solution must be founded on an ecosystem-based and watershed
management approach involving a broad range of agencies, programs, and
individuals. The complex array of laws, agencies, and programs that
address water pollution, and the number of parties involved, will
require greatly enhanced coordination among Federal agencies, primarily
EPA, NOAA, USDA, and USACE. Greater coordination is also needed between
the Federal Government and managers at the State, territorial, tribal,
and local levels, watershed groups, nongovernmental organizations,
private stakeholders, and the academic and research communities.
Solutions will also require a substantial financial investment and will
take time.
Reducing Point Sources of Pollution
Over the last few decades, great strides have been made in
controlling water pollution from point sources, although further
improvements could be realized through increased funding, strengthened
enforcement, and promotion of innovative approaches such as market-
based incentives. The Commission also addresses several specific point
sources of pollution, including wastewater treatment plants, sewer
system overflows, septic systems, industrial facilities, and animal
feeding operations.
Increasing the Focus on Nonpoint Sources of Pollution
While considerable progress has been made in reducing point sources
of pollution, further progress toward improving coastal water quality
will require significant reductions in nonpoint sources as well. This
pollution occurs when rainfall and snowmelt carry pollutants over land,
into streams and groundwater, and down to coastal waters. Ninety
percent of impaired water bodies do not meet water quality standards at
least in part because of nonpoint source pollution. The majority of the
nonpoint source pollution entering rivers, estuaries, coastal waters,
and ultimately the oceans is from agricultural and stormwater runoff.
To address nonpoint source pollution, the NOC should establish
significant reduction of nonpoint source pollution in all impaired
coastal watersheds as a national goal, and set measurable objectives to
meet water quality standards. The nation has a number of opportunities
to reduce the impacts of nonpoint sources of pollution on coastal
waters. Because agricultural runoff contributes substantially to
nonpoint source pollution, USDA should align its conservation programs
and funding with other programs aimed at reducing nonpoint source
pollution, such as those of EPA and NOAA. Other opportunities for the
nation to reduce nonpoint source pollution include coordination of
Federal nonpoint programs so they are mutually supportive, more
targeted and aggressive use of state revolving loan funds, broader
implementation of incentives and disincentives, and improved monitoring
to assess compliance and overall progress. State and local governments
also have important roles to play in land use planning and stormwater
management decisions.
Watersheds are often the appropriate geographic unit for addressing
water-related problems and collaborative watershed groups have had
significant successes in addressing nonpoint source pollution.
Therefore, the NOC and regional ocean councils should strengthen the
ability of collaborative watershed groups to address problems
associated with nonpoint source pollution by developing and
implementing strategies to provide them with adequate technical,
institutional, and financial support.
Addressing Atmospheric Sources of Pollution
Atmospheric deposition of pollutants can also harm water quality,
aquatic resources, and human health. To address atmospheric deposition,
EPA, States, and watershed groups should explore regional approaches
for managing atmospheric deposition, particularly when it affects water
bodies in states far from the source.
Creating a National Water Quality Monitoring Network
Pollution of the nation's coastal waters has led to beach closures,
oxygen depletion, health impacts from toxic contamination, and many
other problems. Despite these threats to coastal waters, there is no
national network in place to monitor water quality changes and their
causes, facilitate estimates of their economic impact, and measure the
success of management efforts. Increased monitoring is needed not only
along the nation's coasts, but also inland where pollutants make their
way downstream, ultimately impacting coastal waters. A national water
quality monitoring network is essential to support the move toward an
ecosystem-based management approach that considers human activities,
their benefits, and their potential impacts within the context of the
broader biological and physical environment. An essential step toward
controlling pollution will be to strengthen and coordinate monitoring
efforts to provide decision makers with necessary information.
A number of monitoring efforts are currently conducted by Federal
agencies, State governments, research institutions and academia,
nongovernmental organizations, and individual volunteers. Existing
monitoring programs vary in many respects, including sampling design
and intensity, parameters tested, analytical methodology, data
management protocols, and funding. Even when the same properties are
measured, different data management protocols may make the integration
of that information difficult. Consequently, while a number of
monitoring programs exist, they are not designed to support a
comprehensive and coordinated national monitoring network.
Ensuring Comprehensive, Coordinated Coverage
The nation's coastal margin is the most densely populated and
developed region of the nation, and its waters have been significantly
degraded by pollution. Yet in recent years, due largely to lack of
funding, monitoring has been extremely sparse along the coasts. Much
remains unknown about the status of coastal waters, and increased
monitoring will be required to make informed management decisions about
this economically and ecologically valuable region. Yet the close
connections between coastal and upstream waters dictate that any water
quality monitoring network must be national in scope. NOAA, EPA, and
USGS should lead the effort to develop a national water quality
monitoring network that coordinates existing and planned monitoring
efforts, including Federal, State, local, and private efforts. The
network should include a federally-funded backbone of critical stations
and measurements needed to assess long-term water quality trends and
conditions.
Because of the inherent overlap between inland, coastal, and open-
ocean monitoring and observing, the national water quality monitoring
network should be closely linked with the Integrated Ocean Observing
System (IOOS) and ultimately with a broad Earth observing system. NOAA
should ensure that the water quality monitoring network includes
adequate coverage in both coastal areas and the upland areas that
affect them, and that the network is linked to the IOOS, to be
incorporated eventually into a comprehensive Earth observing system.
Creating an Effective Monitoring Network and Making Data
Accessible and Useful
In addition to coordinating existing monitoring efforts, an
effective national water quality monitoring network should have
specific goals and objectives, reflect user needs, and be helpful in
assessing the effectiveness of management approaches. The overall
system design should determine what and where to monitor, including
definition of a set of core variables. Technical expertise will be
needed to standardize procedures and establish quality control and data
management protocols. The network should be periodically assessed and
modified as necessary. Most important, the data collected through the
national monitoring network should be useful to managers and
stakeholders in evaluating management measures, determining best
management practices, and making continual improvements in reaching
ecosystem goals. This data should also be translated into timely and
useful information products that are readily accessible to decision
makers and the public. The design and implementation of the national
monitoring network will require not only Federal coordination, but also
significant input from the States.
Limiting Vessel Pollution and Improving Vessel Safety
The benefits from vessel activities are significant--ships carry
more than 95 percent of the nation's overseas cargo--but these
operations also present safety, security and environmental risks that
must be effectively addressed.
Success in addressing these concerns will depend on a broad
domestic and international framework comprised of three key components.
The first component is a strong voluntary commitment on the part of
vessel owners and operators to build a workplace ethic that
incorporates safety, security, and environmental protection as
important and valued aspects of everyday vessel operations. Reliable
means of measuring the success of these efforts, as reflected in crew
and company performance, are essential and should include extensive use
of third-party audits. The U.S. Coast Guard, through incentives and
partnership programs, should encourage industry partners to develop
stronger voluntary measures, particularly those that reward crew member
contributions, as part of a continuing long-term effort that focuses on
building a culture of safety, security, and environmental compliance.
The second key component is effective oversight and control by the
primary vessel regulator, the vessel's flag state. Foreign flag
vessels, subject primarily to the jurisdiction and control of other
governments, carry more than 90 percent of international commercial
freight entering and departing the United States and account for 95
percent of passenger ships and 75 percent of cargo ships operating in
U.S. waters. Although many flag states take their responsibilities
seriously, oversight and enforcement vary dramatically. Over the past
decade, the International Maritime Organization has developed
guidelines to improve flag state oversight and enforcement. However,
implementation of these measures has met with mixed results. Mounting
international security concerns have made effective flag state
oversight and control more urgent today than ever before. The United
States should work with other nations to accelerate efforts at the
International Maritime Organization to enhance flag state oversight and
enforcement. Initiatives should include expeditious promulgation of a
code outlining flag state responsibilities, and development of a
mandatory external audit regime to evaluate performance and identify
areas where additional technical assistance can be used to best
advantage.
The third key framework component is effective control over vessels
visiting U.S. ports. The Coast Guard currently carries out a port state
control program that allocates limited inspection resources to the
highest-risk vessels, based on an assessment of the vessel owner, flag
state, classification society, performance history, and vessel type.
Performance-based vessel inspections, while the most effective means of
verifying compliance, are resource intensive. These inspections have
played a critical role in identifying and correcting potential
problems, and in assessing the effectiveness of overall efforts to
improve safety and environmental compliance. Concerns have been
expressed in Congress and elsewhere about the adequacy of Coast Guard
resources to meet new security demands while fulfilling other important
responsibilities. Congress should provide the U.S. Coast Guard with the
resources necessary to sustain and strengthen the performance-based
inspection program for marine safety and environmental protection while
also meeting new vessel security inspection and other maritime security
requirements. In addition, the Coast Guard should work at the regional
and international levels to increase effective coordination and vessel
information sharing among concerned port states.
In addition to outlining a framework to address vessel safety,
security and environmental concerns, our report also recommends more
comprehensive approaches to address waste stream, oil and air pollution
from commercial and recreational vessels. Recommendations include:
establishing a uniform national regime to deal with cruise ship waste
streams; ratifying and working to strengthen MARPOL Annex V1 air
emission standards; developing comprehensive policy guidance and
contingency plans for vessels seeking places of refuge in the United
States; developing a long-term plan that identifies and addresses the
greatest risks associated with marine oil transportation systems; and
updating and accelerating efforts to reduce recreational vessel
pollution. We also place particular emphasis on the use of market-based
mechanisms and incentives to reduce pollution and encourage appropriate
voluntary actions.
Preventing the Spread of Invasive Species
The introduction of non-native marine organisms into ports, coastal
areas, and watersheds has damaged marine ecosystems around the world,
costing millions of dollars in remediation, monitoring, and ecosystem
damage. Invasive species policies are not keeping pace with the problem
primarily because of inadequate funding, a lack of coordination among
Federal agencies, redundant programs, and outdated technologies.
Making Prevention the First Line of Defense
The discharge of ballast water is considered a primary pathway for
introduction of non-native aquatic species. Exchanging ballast water in
the middle of the ocean to reduce the risk of transferring organisms
from one ecosystem to another is the primary management tool currently
available for ships to control the introduction of invasive species.
To better control the introduction of invasive species, the U.S.
Coast Guard's national ballast water management program should: apply
uniform, mandatory national standards; incorporate sound science in the
development of a biologically meaningful and enforceable ballast water
treatment standard; include a process for revising the standard to
incorporate new technologies; ensure full consultation with EPA; and
include an interagency review, through the NOC, of the policy for ships
that declare they have no ballast on board.
While ballast water is considered a primary pathway, there are also
other important ship-related sources of non-native aquatic species,
including ships' hulls, anchors, navigational buoys, drilling
platforms, and floating marine debris. Other pathways include
intentional and unintentional human introductions of fish and
shellfish, and illegally released organisms from the aquaculture,
aquarium, horticulture, and pet industries. There is increasing concern
that an expanding trade through the Internet and dealers of exotic pets
is exacerbating the invasive species problem.
To address these pathways of introduction, the NOC, working with
the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the National Invasive
Species Council, should coordinate public education and outreach
efforts on aquatic invasive species, with the aim of increasing public
awareness about the importance of prevention.
Accelerating Detection and Response
Only the most draconian prevention strategy could hope to eliminate
all introductions of non-native species and thus prevent the
possibility of an invasion. Yet no effective mechanism is in place for
rapidly responding to newly discovered aquatic invasions when they do
occur. Therefore, the National Invasive Species Council and the Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force, working with other appropriate entities,
should establish a national plan for early detection of invasive
species and a system for prompt notification and rapid response.
Improving the Control of Invasive Species
As biological invasions continue, there is a pressing need to
improve the control of invasive species by reducing the overlaps and
redundancies caused by the involvement of so many agencies with
insufficient interagency coordination. The NOC should review and
streamline the current proliferation of Federal and regional programs
for managing marine invasive species, and coordinate Federal, regional
and State efforts.
The study of marine biological invasions is a relatively new
research area and little is understood about how or why certain species
become invasive, what pathways of introduction are most important, and
whether certain factors make an ecosystem more susceptible to
invasions. To better understand marine biological invasions, the NOC
should coordinate the development and implementation of an interagency
plan for research and monitoring to understand and prevent aquatic
species invasions.
Reducing Marine Debris
The trash and other waste that drifts around the global ocean and
washes up on the nation's shores poses a serious threat to fishery
resources, wildlife, and habitat, as well as human health and safety.
Approximately 80 percent of debris is washed off the land, blown by
winds, or intentionally dumped from shore, while 20 percent comes from
vessels and offshore platforms.
NOAA currently addresses marine debris as a part of several other
efforts, but there is a need to coordinate, strengthen, and increase
the visibility of the marine debris efforts within NOAA by creating a
centralized marine debris program within the agency. This program
should be coordinated with EPA's marine debris activities, as well as
with the significant efforts conducted by private citizens, state,
local, and nongovernmental organizations.
Interagency Coordination
Although strengthening NOAA's work on marine debris through
establishment of an office within the agency is an important step, an
interagency committee under the NOC is needed to unite all appropriate
Federal agencies around the issue. Such a committee could support
existing marine debris efforts by agencies and nongovernmental
organizations, and should expand and better coordinate national and
international marine debris efforts, including: public outreach and
education; partnerships with state and local governments, community
groups, nongovernmental organizations, and industry; and monitoring,
identification and research.
Eliminating Derelict Fishing Gear
Whether intentionally discarded or unintentionally lost during
storms or fishing operations, derelict fishing gear poses serious
threats, entrapping marine life, destroying coral reefs and other
habitat, and even posing danger to humans. Although derelict fishing
gear is a worldwide problem, currently no international treaties or
plans of action address it. A strong need exists for the U.S.
Department of State and NOAA, working with the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization, to develop a plan of action to address
derelict fishing gear, to be implemented on a regional, multi-national
basis. In addition, within the United States, a public-private
partnership program is needed to prevent, remove, and dispose of
derelict fishing gear.
Ensuring Appropriate Port Reception Facilities
Under requirements for port reception facilities in Annex V of
MARPOL, member nations must provide waste disposal facilities in their
ports to receive waste from ships. Despite this requirement, many ports
do not have adequate facilities. In addition, Annex V calls for the
designation of Special Areas that receive a higher level of protection
than is required in other ocean areas. Special Areas have been
designated for many parts of the world, however, for a Special Area to
receive extra protection, there must first be a demonstration of
adequate port reception facilities. Some important Special Areas, such
as the Wider Caribbean, are not yet eligible to receive extra
protection because of inadequate port reception facilities. Therefore,
the U.S. Department of State should increase efforts to ensure that all
port reception facilities meet the criteria necessary to allow
implementation of Special Areas protections.
ENHANCING THE USE AND PROTECTION OF OCEAN RESOURCES
The ocean's biological and mineral resources are of enormous value
to the nation, not only for their direct economic output, but also for
their incalculable aesthetic importance.
The commercial fishing industry's total value exceeds $28 billion
annually, with the recreational saltwater fishing industry valued at
around $20 billion. NOAA estimates that U.S. coral reefs cover
approximately 7,600 square miles. In 2001, coral reefs in the Florida
Keys alone supported $105 million in income and more than 8,000 jobs.
Further, approximately one-half of all federally managed commercial
fish species depend on coral reefs for at least part of their life
cycle. Currently, energy development in Federal waters accounts for
more than 30 percent of domestic oil production and 25 percent of
natural gas, with a total annual value of between $25-$40 billion, and
a contribution of about $5 billion in royalties to the U.S. Treasury.
In order to provide for sustainable use, management needs to be
strengthened in a broader context that looks at impacts of management
decisions on the ecosystem as a whole.
Fisheries Management
The last 30 years has seen the evolution of an industry from being
largely unregulated but with seemingly boundless potential, to one that
is highly regulated and struggling to regain its potential as we move
toward a sustainable, ecosystem-based fisheries management regime.
In 1976, based in part on the recommendations of the Stratton
Commission, Congress approved the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act to manage and assert U.S. control over fishery
resources within 200 nautical miles of the coast. Eight Regional
Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) were created to develop management
plans for fisheries in Federal waters. The Act required regional plans
to be consistent with broad national guidelines, but otherwise granted
considerable flexibility to the RFMCs. The regional flexibility that
had been seen as a great strength of the new law now showed its
downside as some RFMCs set unsustainable harvest levels, leading to the
collapse or near-collapse of several important fisheries.
In the over 30 years since the Stratton report, some fishery
management bodies have revealed fundamental weaknesses in the system
that led to overexploited stocks and ecosystem degradation in some
regions. However, the management practices in some regions,
particularly the North Pacific, protected fisheries from over
exploitation and served as a model for many of the Commission's
fisheries recommendations. The Commission fishery recommendations can
be grouped into six areas: strengthening the link between science and
management, clarifying jurisdiction representation, expanding the use
of dedicated access privileges, improving enforcement, and
strengthening international management.
The link between fishery management decisions and peer-reviewed
scientific info must be strengthened, including developing an expanded
research program that is more responsive to managers' needs. To
accomplish this, a number of management improvements are needed. RFMCs
should be required to rely on the advice of their Scientific and
Statistical Committees (SSCs), especially when setting harvest levels.
RFMCs should not be allowed to approve measures less conservative than
recommended by the SSC. SSC members should be nominated by the RFMCs
and appointed by the NOAA Administrator. To ensure that SSC members are
of the highest quality, their credentials and potential conflicts of
interest should be reviewed by an external organization. To ensure
sufficient external review of the scientific advice of the SSCs, NOAA
should develop a standardized, independent peer-review process for
implementation by all RFMCs. To ensure that needed conservation
measures are implemented in a timely manner, default measures should be
developed that would go into effect with a lack of action on the part
of the RFMCs. Finally, to ensure that manager's have the information
they require, NOAA's process for developing research plans should
incorporate manager's priorities to the extent practicable. An expanded
cooperative research program and increased emphasis on in-season
recreational fishery data collection should be an important component
of this effort.
Responsibilities and jurisdiction of the various Federal and
interstate fishery management entities need to be clarified, and the
representation on the Federal regional fishery management councils need
to be broadened. To ensure that jurisdictional confusion does not lead
to delaying conservation measures, Congress should assign a lead
management authority among the various Federal and interstate
management authorities, based primarily on proportion of catch
occurring within each entities jurisdiction. To ensure that the RFMCs
have appropriate representation, particularly as we move toward
ecosystem-based management, the governors should be required to submit
a broader slate of candidates to be appointed by the NOAA
Administrator. To ensure that RFMCs members have the necessary
knowledge to properly manage fisheries, members should be required to
take a training course. Finally, to ensure that all interstate fishery
commissions have the necessary means to manage the fisheries under
their jurisdiction, Congress should grant authority similar to the
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act to the Gulf and
Pacific States Commissions.
To reverse existing incentives that create an unsustainable ``race
for the fish,'' fishery managers should explore widespread adoption of
dedicated access privileges to promote conservation and help reduce
overcapitalization. Congress should amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act to affirm that fishery managers are
authorized to institute dedicated access privileges, subject to meeting
national guidelines; and every Federal, interstate, and State fishery
management entity should consider the potential benefits of adopting
dedicated access programs. In addition, Congress should directly
address overcapitalization by revising Federal programs that subsidize
overcapitalization, as well as work with NOAA to develop programs that
permanently address overcapitalization in fisheries.
Fishery enforcement must be improved through adoption of better
technology, such as Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) and better
cooperation among Federal agencies and States. Funding should be
increased for Joint Enforcement Agreements between NOAA's National
Marine Fisheries Service and coastal states as the best method of
restoring the enforcement presence of the Coast Guard diminished
because of the increased need for maritime security following the 9/11
terrorist attacks. The expanded use of VMS is another cost effective
way of increasing enforcement capabilities.
Fishery management needs to continue the move toward ecosystem-
based management in order to improve management, reduce conflicts
between socio-economic impacts and biological sustainability, and
provide a proper forum to address difficult management issues. In
particular, issues such as habitat damage and bycatch should be
approached from an ecosystem basis and management plans should be
designed to reduce impacts from these factors.
Because many of the stocks targeted by U.S. fishermen traverse
international waters, it will be impossible to conserve some stocks
without the aid of other countries. In addition, many endangered
species such as sea turtles and whales travel the high seas. To promote
international cooperation to conserve living marine resources, the
Commission makes the following recommendations. The United States
should work to encourage other countries to adopt and enforce existing
international agreements to promote worldwide adoption of sustainable
fisheries practices, in particular the Fish Stocks Agreement and the
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's Compliance
Agreement. The National Ocean Council should recommend effective
methods to promote adoption of other important international
conservation agreements, such as the Code of Conduct for responsible
fisheries. In addition, the United States should continue to press for
the inclusion of environmental objectives--particularly those specified
in international environmental agreements--as legitimate elements of
trade policy.
Marine Mammals and Endangered Species
Because of their intelligence, visibility and frequent interactions
with humans, marine mammals hold a special place in the minds of most
people and are afforded a higher level of protection than fish or other
marine organisms. The American public has also consistently been
supportive of efforts to prevent species from becoming endangered or
extinct from human-caused activities. Because of the concern that the
American public has shown for marine mammals and endangered species,
specific legislation was enacted to provide them greater protection.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act are
landmark laws that have protected marine mammals and populations in
danger of extinction since their passage. However, both Acts need to
move toward a more ecosystem-based regime to improve protections for
these populations.
The biggest threat to marine mammals worldwide today is their
accidental capture or entanglement in fishing gear (known as
``bycatch''), killing hundreds of thousands of animals a year.
Commercial harvesting contributed to major declines in the populations
of marine mammals but only a few nations still allow hunting for
purposes other than subsistence. Hunters from those nations continue to
kill hundreds of thousands of seals, whales, dolphins, and other marine
mammals each year while legal subsistence hunting accounts for
thousands more. Other potential causes of death and injury to marine
mammals, such as ships strikes, pollution and toxic substances, and
noise from ships and sonar, cause many fewer deaths than bycatch and
hunting.
The threats to endangered marine species such as sea turtles and
sea birds are myriad and not easily categorized. One factor that is
common to declines in many species is the destruction or degradation of
their natural habitat. Thus the successful recovery of a species
depends to a large degree on protection or restoration of this habitat.
One of the critical components to improving protections for
protected species is expanding the knowledge base. We know very little
about the basic biology for these species, particularly marine mammals.
The lack of basic scientific information has perhaps contributed to the
frequent mismatch between causes of impacts to marine mammal
populations and the amount of management attention paid to them. For
example, the top two impacts to marine mammals by orders of magnitude
are bycatch and hunting, yet most recent attention is being paid to
other causes. Under ecosystem-based management, the most critical
impacts should be addressed first. However, our overwhelming lack of
knowledge of marine mammal and endangered species makes it difficult to
properly rank and address impacts to these species. As the foundation
to improving management, the Commission recommends an expanded
research, technology, and engineering program, coordinated through the
National Ocean Council, to examine and mitigate the effects of human
activities on marine mammals and endangered species. In particular,
Congress should expand Federal funding for research into ocean
acoustics and the potential impacts of noise on marine mammals. The
United States should increase efforts to extend the benefits of the
expanded research program to other countries.
Another important component to improving protections for protected
species will be to clarify and coordinate Federal agency actions. The
Commission recommends that jurisdiction for marine mammals be
consolidated within NOAA, and that the NOC improve coordination between
NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to the
implementation of the Endangered Species Act, particularly for
anadromous species or when land-based activities have significant
impacts on marine species.
The MMPA, with limited exceptions, prohibits the hunting, killing,
or harassment of marine mammals. One of the exceptions authorizes the
issuance of permits for the unintentional and incidental taking of
small numbers of marine mammals provided it has only a negligible
impact on the species. This provision has been problematic because
terms such as small numbers and negligible impact are not defined in
the Act, resulting in a lack of clarity about when a permit is
necessary and under what circumstances it should be granted. Congress
should amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to require the NOAA to
more clearly specify categories of activities that are allowed without
a permit, those that require a permit, and those that are prohibited.
Specifically, Congress should amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to
revise the definition of harassment to cover only activities that
meaningfully disrupt behaviors that are significant to the survival and
reproduction of marine mammals.
As an adjunct to clarifying allowed and permitted activities, the
permitting process itself should be streamlined. Specifically,
programmatic permitting should be used where possible to simplify
agency permitting.
Coral Communities
Tropical and deepwater coral communities are among the oldest and
most diverse ecosystems, rivaling tropical rainforests in biodiversity
and economic value. But, tropical coral reef health is rapidly
declining, with pristine reefs being rare or nonexistent and possibly
one-third of the world's reefs severely damaged. The existing
management structure is inadequate and agencies and laws overseeing
coral reef management have made little progress in actually protecting
corals. Immediate action is needed to avoid irreversible harm.
In the short-term, the Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF) should be
strengthened by placing it under the NOC, and adding the U.S.
Department of Energy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
strengthened CRTF should begin immediate development of actions to
reverse impacts of coastal pollution and fishing on coral communities.
The EPA and USDA, at the minimum, should be charged with implementing
the coastal pollution reduction plan and NOAA should be charged with
implementing the plan for reversing impacts from fishing. In addition,
the CRTF's area of responsibility should be expanded to include
deepwater coral communities as well.
In the long-term, the Congress should enact a ``Coral Protection
and Management Act'' that provides direct authority to protect and
manage corals, and provides a framework for research and cooperation
with international protections efforts. This legislation should include
the following elements: support for mapping, monitoring, and research
programs; support for new research and assessment activities to fill
critical information gaps; liability provisions for damages to coral
reefs similar to those in the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act; support for outreach activities to educate the public
about coral conservation and reduce human impacts; and, support for
U.S. involvement, particularly through the sharing of scientific and
management expertise, in bilateral, regional, and international coral
reef management programs.
As the world's largest importer of ornamental coral reef resources,
the United States has a particular responsibility to help eliminate
destructive harvesting practices and ensure the sustainable use of
these resources. Many of these resources are harvested by methods that
destroy reefs and overexploit ornamental species. A balance is needed
between sustaining the legitimate trade in ornamental resources and
sustaining the health and survival of the world's coral reef resources.
The United States should develop domestic standards for the importation
of coral species, to ensure that U.S. citizens do not indirectly
promote unsustainable practices in coral harvesting countries.
Aquaculture
Marine aquaculture has the potential to supply part of the ever
increasing domestic and worldwide demand for seafood. However, there
are two major concerns that need to be addressed: environmental
problems with existing aquaculture operations, particularly net-pen
facilities, and a confusing, inconsistent array of State and Federal
regulations that hinder private sector investment.
To oversee a comprehensive and environmentally sound management
regime, Congress should amend the National Aquaculture Act to designate
NOAA as the lead Federal agency for implementing a national policy for
environmentally and economically sustainable marine aquaculture and
create an Office of Sustainable Marine Aquaculture in NOAA.
This new NOAA office should develop a single, multi-agency Federal
permit for the aquaculture industry and ensure aquaculture facilities
meet State and national environmental standards to lessen impacts from
escapement and disease and protect the sustainability and diversity of
wild stocks.
Furthermore, the permitting and leasing system and implementing
regulations should: reflect a balance between economic and
environmental objectives consistent with national and regional goals;
be coordinated with guidelines and regulations developed at the State
level; include a system for the assessment and collection of a
reasonable portion of the resource rent generated from marine
aquaculture projects that use ocean resources held in public trust;
require applicants to post a bond to ensure that any later performance
problems will be remedied and that abandoned facilities will be safely
removed at no additional cost to the taxpayers; and, require the
development, dissemination, and adoption by industry of best management
practices that are adaptable to new research and technology advances.
Enhanced investments in research, demonstration projects, and
technical assistance can help the industry address environmental
issues, conduct risk assessments, develop technology, select species,
and improve best management practices. It is also vital for developing
fair and reasonable policies, regulations, and management measures.
Most of the Federal research to support marine aquaculture has been
carried out under the auspices of NOAA's National Sea Grant College
Program, which funds primarily university-based research. Congress
should increase funding for expanded marine aquaculture research,
development, training, extension, and technology transfer programs in
NOAA. The Office of Sustainable Marine Aquaculture should set
priorities for the research and technology programs, in close
collaboration with academic, business, and other stakeholders.
Because the U.S. market for seafood is one of the largest in the
world, we can use our market power as a positive force for promoting
sustainable, environmentally sound aquaculture practices not only in
the United States, but the world as well. The United States should work
to ensure that all countries adhere to aquaculture standards such as
are in the UN FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
Oceans and Human Health
Beneficial and harmful links between human health and ocean health
exist. While several important medical treatments are based on
chemicals discovered in marine animals, increasingly common phenomena
such as harmful algal blooms have demonstrated ability to negatively
impact human health. The health of marine ecosystems is affected by
human activities such as pollution, global warming, and fishing. But in
addition, human health depends on thriving ocean ecosystems. A better
understanding about the many ways marine organisms affect human health,
both for good by providing drugs and bioproducts, and for bad by
causing human ailments, is needed.
Congress should establish an oceans and human health initiative to
create a competitive grant program and coordinate Federal activities.
Existing programs at NOAA, NSF and the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences should be coalesced in this initiative.
This initiative should be expanded to include other pertinent agencies
such as the EPA and FDA.
New knowledge and technologies are needed to detect and mitigate
microbial pathogens. These methods must be quick and accurate so that
information can be communicated to resource managers and the coastal
community in a timely manner. As they are developed, technologies need
to be integrated into biological and biochemical sensors that can
continuously monitor high-risk sites. It is important that site-
specific sensor data and satellite sensor data be incorporated into the
IOOS. To accomplish this task, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Science Foundation, National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, and other appropriate entities should
support the development and implementation of improved methods for
monitoring and identifying pathogens and chemical toxins in ocean
waters and organisms.
Offshore Energy and Mineral Resources
Oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
provides over a quarter of our domestic oil and gas reserves, and
contributes thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to our economy.
In addition to its responsibilities for living marine resources, the
Federal Government also exercises jurisdiction over nonliving
resources, energy and other minerals located in the waters and seabed
of the more than 1.7 billion acres of OCS. Offshore oil and gas
development has the most mature and broadest management structure of
all such resources. Although controversial in many areas, the process
for oil and gas leasing and production is well institutionalized,
reasonably comprehensive, and could be a model for new ocean-based
renewable energy projects as part of a coordinated offshore management
regime.
MMS's Environmental Studies Program (ESP) is a major source of
information about the impacts of OCS oil and gas activities on the
human, marine, and coastal environments. Since 1986, annual funding for
the program has decreased, in real dollars, from a high of $56 million
to approximately $18 million in 2003. The erosion in ESP funding has
occurred at a time when more and better information, not less, is
needed. There continues to be a need to better understand the
cumulative and long-term impacts of OCS oil and gas development,
especially in the area of low levels of persistent organic and
inorganic chemicals, and their cumulative or synergistic effects.
The U.S. Department of the Interior should reverse recent budgetary
trends and increase funding for the Minerals Management Service's
Environmental Studies Program. The development of technologies and
exploratory activities moving into very deep waters requires an
increase in the MMS environmental studies program to keep track of new
and emerging environmental issues. In addition to this program, the
development of the IOOS could provide better information that can
improve management of offshore resources. Industry and Federal agency
partnerships should allow use of industry facilities to be incorporated
into the IOOS.
To make certain that the Federal-State partnership is strengthened
and that critical marine ecosystems are protected, more investment of
the resource rents generated from OCS energy leasing and production
into the sustainability of ocean and coastal resources is necessary.
Specifically, some portion of the revenues received by the Federal
Government annually for the leasing and extraction of nonrenewable
offshore resources need to be allocated to all coastal states for
programs and efforts to enhance the conservation and sustainable
development of renewable ocean and coastal resources. Congress should
ensure that revenues received from leasing and extraction of oil and
gas and other new offshore uses are used to promote sustainable
development of renewable ocean and coastal resources through creation
of a grant program to all coastal states, with a larger share going to
OCS producing States.
Conventional oil and gas are not the only fossil-based fuel sources
located beneath ocean floors. Methane hydrates are solid, ice-like
structures composed of water and natural gas. They occur naturally in
areas of the world where methane and water can combine at appropriate
conditions of temperature and pressure, such as in thick sediments of
deep ocean basins, at water depths greater than 500 meters. The
estimated amount of natural gas in the gas hydrate accumulations of the
world greatly exceeds the volume of all known conventional gas
resources. Conservative estimates reveal the quantity is enough to
supply all of the nation's energy needs for more than 2,000 years at
current rates of use. However, there is still no known practical and
safe way to develop the gas and it is clear that much more information
is needed to determine if methane hydrates can become a commercially
viable and environmentally acceptable source of energy. The National
Ocean Council (NOC), working with the U.S. Department of Energy and
other appropriate entities, should determine whether methane hydrates
can contribute significantly to meeting the nation's long-term energy
needs. If such contribution looks promising, the NOC should determine
how much the current investment in research and development efforts
should be increased.
There is continued interest in offshore renewable technologies as a
means of reducing U.S. reliance on potentially unstable supplies of
foreign oil, diversifying the nation's energy mix, and providing more
environmentally benign sources of energy. As long as Federal agencies
are forced to bootstrap their authorities to address these activities,
the nation runs the risk of unresolved conflicts, unnecessary delays,
and uncertain procedures. What is urgently needed is a comprehensive
offshore management regime, developed by the National Ocean Council,
which is designed to review all offshore uses in a greater planning
context. A coherent and predictable federal management process for
offshore renewable resources that is able to weigh the benefits to the
nation's energy future against the potential adverse effects on other
ocean users, marine life, and the ocean's natural processes, should be
fully integrated into the broader management regime. Congress, with
input from the National Ocean Council, should enact legislation
providing for the comprehensive management of offshore renewable energy
development as part of a coordinated offshore management regime.
Specifically, this legislation should: streamline the process for
licensing, leasing, and permitting renewable energy facilities in U.S.
waters; subsume existing statutes, such as the Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion Act, and should be based on the premise that the oceans are
a public resource; and, ensure that the public receives a fair return
from the use of that resource and development rights are allocated
through an open, transparent process that takes into account State,
local, and public concerns.
ADVANCING INTERNATIONAL OCEAN SCIENCE AND POLICY
The United States has traditionally been a leader in international
ocean policymaking and has participated in the development of many
international agreements that govern the world's ocean areas and
resources. That leadership must be maintained and reinvigorated. The
international ocean challenges of the 21st century will require
improved collaboration among domestic and international policymakers to
establish ambitious objectives and take the actions necessary to
achieve them.
The United States can best advance its own ocean interests and
positively contribute to the health of the world's oceans by first
ensuring that U.S. domestic policies and actions embody exemplary
standards of wise, sustainable ocean management. The new national ocean
policy framework will be instrumental in setting this positive tone for
the international ocean community. The Commission also recommends
several specific actions to maintain and reinvigorate the leadership of
United States in global ocean issues:
U.S. Accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
The United States should accede to the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea--the preeminent legal framework for addressing
international ocean issues. Until that step is taken, the nation will
not be able to fully participate in bodies established under the
Convention that make decisions on issues of importance to all coastal
and seafaring nations, or to assume its important leadership role and
protect United States interests as the law of the sea evolves.
Enhanced Coordination Among U.S. Ocean-Related Federal Agencies
Within the U.S. Government, the U.S. Department of State is the
lead agency for most ocean-related international negotiations. However,
the role of more specialized agencies is extremely important due to the
science and resource focus of many multilateral ocean issues.
Consistent involvement of a wide range of experts is essential both to
establish international standards that reflect U.S. interests, and to
ensure that subsequent actions by the United States and others are in
accordance with those standards.
A new mechanism is needed to provide the optimum degree of
coordination among U.S. agencies sharing responsibility and knowledge
of international ocean issues. An interagency committee should be
established under the auspices of the National Ocean Council to enhance
coordination and collaboration among U.S. Government agencies,
strengthening U.S performance at international negotiations and
improving implementation of international ocean policy.
Successful national and international ocean policy depends on sound
scientific information. It is essential, therefore, to ensure that U.S.
policymakers benefit from timely advice and guidance from the U.S.
marine scientific community. This, in turn, requires procedures that
both give scientists the opportunity to provide input and policy makers
the chance to carefully consider their recommendations. The State
Department should increase its internal training and scientific support
to ensure better integration of ocean-related scientific expertise in
policy and program development and implementation. In addition, the
Department should develop more effective mechanisms to facilitate input
from other government agencies and the broader scientific community.
Building International Capacity in Ocean Science and Management
Implementation of international ocean policy and improved
management of ocean and coastal resources worldwide are affected by the
adequacy of the science and management capacity of every coastal
nation. To maintain progress on a global scale, the United States and
other capable nations must assist coastal nations of more limited
means. To be most effective, assistance should be science-based and
developed within the context of an ecosystem-based approach. The U.S.
Department of State should offer strong support for U.S. scientists
conducting research programs around the world. Existing international
partnerships should be strengthened and new partnerships promoted to
facilitate the conduct of international research.
Capacity-building efforts should be concentrated on issues that
have been identified as particularly critical for the health of an
ecosystem or marine species, and have the greatest potential for
positive impacts. In most instances, effective capacity-building will
require long-term efforts to change detrimental practices and build
support for new, sustainable management approaches. These efforts will
require a funding commitment sufficient to make the changes needed to
preserve or rebuild healthy ecosystems. As part of its international
leadership role, the United States should increase its efforts to
enhance long-term ocean science and management capacity in other
nations through funding, education and training, technical assistance,
and sharing best practices, management techniques, and lessons learned.
IMPLEMENTING A NEW NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY
To implement the blueprint for a new national ocean policy outlined
in our report, several key elements are required: the will to move
forward, the actors to carry out the changes, and the resources to
support sustainable management of our oceans and coasts. Congress and
the President have already demonstrated political will by enacting the
Oceans Act of 2000 and appointing the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
Our preliminary report specifies who should carry out each
recommendation and discusses what the costs will be and how they can be
covered.
Who Should Take Action
In our report, we make 198 specific recommendations to implement a
more coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy. One of our
goals was to ensure that every recommendation was aimed at a clear
responsible party who could take action and be held accountable over
time. As you read the report, you will see the recommendations grouped
according to subject area. However, to highlight the assignment of
responsibility, we also present a summary of all 198 recommendations,
organized by the primary actors, in Chapter 31.
In brief:
--We include 54 recommendations for Congress, 69 for Executive Branch
leaders, and 125 for Federal Government agencies.
--Of the 69 recommendations for Executive Branch leaders, 8
recommendations are for the President, 45 for the new National
Ocean Council, 13 for the offices under the NOC's Committee on
Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations, 2 for the
Assistant to the President, and 1 for the Presidential Council
of Advisors on Ocean Policy.
--Of the 125 recommendations aimed at Federal Government agencies, 44
are for NOAA, 20 for EPA, 10 for the U.S. Coast Guard, 9 for
NSF, 9 for the Department of the Interior, 8 for the U.S. Navy,
8 for the Department of State, 6 for the Department of
Transportation, 5 for NASA, 3 for the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, 2 for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 2 for the Department of Agriculture, and 1 for the
Department of Labor.
(Note that some recommendations include more than one actor. As a
result, the breakdown by organization adds up to more than 198.)
Although we have avoided targeting States (and local, territorial,
and tribal governments) as the primary actors in our recommendations,
they have a critically important role to play in the new National Ocean
Policy Framework--through establishment of regional ocean councils, and
in areas such as coastal development, water quality, education, natural
hazards planning, fishery management, habitat conservation, and much
more. States should also participate in the design and implementation
of regional ocean observing systems and their integration into the
national IOOS, as well as other research and monitoring activities.
How Can the Needed Changes be Achieved: Costs and Revenues
The recommendations I've just alluded to outline a series of
ambitious proposals for improving the use and protection of the
nation's oceans and coasts. But meaningful change requires meaningful
investments. In the case of the ocean, such investments are easy to
justify.
As I explained earlier and as we discuss in more detail in the
preliminary report, more than $1 trillion, or one-tenth of the nation's
annual gross domestic product, is generated each year within
communities immediately adjacent to the coast. By including the
economic contribution from all coastal watershed counties, that number
jumps to around $5 trillion, or fully one-half of our nation's economy.
Those contributions are threatened by continued degradation of ocean
and coastal environments and resources.
Modest levels of new funding will reap substantial dividends by
supporting new management strategies to sustain our ocean and coastal
resources and maximize their long-term value.
Costs
From the start, this Commission pledged to be clear about the costs
of its recommendations. In keeping with that goal, the final report
will include a complete accounting of the startup, short-term, and
continuing costs associated with each issue area, including an analysis
of Federal, State, and local budget implications to the extent
possible.
At this stage, I am able to provide a rough estimate of overall new
Federal spending associated with the Commission's preliminary
recommendations. The Commission continues to refine its calculations
and the information on which they are based, and will have more
detailed costs and revenue estimates in the final report to the
Congress and the President.
The total estimated additional cost for initiatives outlined in our
report will be approximately: $1.2 billion in the first year, $2.4
billion in the second year, and $3.2 billion per year in ongoing costs
thereafter.
A few special investments are worth highlighting:
--Creation of the National Ocean Council and related elements, with
first-year costs of $1 million and ongoing annual costs of $2
million.
--Expansion of ocean education programs, with first-year costs of $7
million, second year costs of $251 million, and ongoing annual
costs of $246 million.
--Establishment of an integrated ocean observing system, with first-
year costs of $290 million, second-year costs of $312 million,
and ongoing annual costs of $652 million.
--Increased ocean science and exploration, with first-year costs of
$230 million, second-year costs of $395 million, and ongoing
annual costs of $760 million.
--Dedicated Federal support for needed State actions, with first-year
costs of $500 million, second-year costs of $750 million, and
ongoing annual costs of $1 billion.
In view of the value generated by the ocean and coastal economy, we
believe these are very reasonable investments.
Revenue: Creation of an Ocean Policy Trust Fund
Mindful of intense budgetary pressures at both Federal and State
levels--and sensitive to the hardship associated with unfunded Federal
mandates--the Commission set out to identify appropriate sources of
revenue to cover the cost of its recommendations. A logical,
responsible funding strategy is outlined in the preliminary report and
will be developed further in the final report.
The Commission proposes creation of an Ocean Policy Trust Fund
composed of rents generated from permitted uses in Federal waters. The
Fund would include Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas revenues that
are not currently committed. It would support the additional
responsibilities we suggest for Federal agencies and prevent the
creation of unfunded mandates to states.
The critical nature of the nation's oceans assets and the
challenges faced in managing them make it clear that the time has come
to establish an Ocean Policy Trust Fund in the U.S. Treasury to assist
Federal agencies and State governments in carrying out the
comprehensive ocean policy recommended by this Commission.
The Fund would include Federal revenues from Outer Continental
Shelf oil and gas development that are not currently committed to other
funds. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, the National Historic
Preservation Fund, and the OCS oil and gas revenues given to coastal
states from the three mile area seaward of their submerged lands would
not be affected. After those programs were funded, in accordance with
law, the remaining OCS monies would be deposited into the Ocean Policy
Trust Fund.
Additional funds may also become available based on new offshore
activities. In several sections of the preliminary report we discuss
revenues that may be generated from permitted uses of Federal waters.
In general, when a resource is publicly-owned, its use by private
profit-making entities should be contingent on a reasonable return to
taxpayers. Creating a link between permitted activities in Federal
waters and the cost of associated regulatory and management
responsibilities is logical and well justified by precedents in Federal
land management.
Approximately $5 billion is generated annually from OCS oil and gas
revenues. Protecting the three programs noted above would remove about
$1 billion. Thus, some $4 billion would remain available for the Ocean
Policy Trust Fund each year under current projections. At this time it
is not possible to specify the amount of revenue that might be produced
by emerging uses in Federal waters, nor predict when they may begin to
flow.
The report recommends that a portion of the revenues received from
the use of offshore resources be granted to States for the conservation
and sustainable development of renewable ocean and coastal resources.
OCS oil and gas producing States should receive a larger portion of
such revenues to address the impacts on their States from extraction
activities in adjacent Federal offshore waters.
In the Commission's view, Trust Fund monies should be used
exclusively to support improved ocean and coastal management consistent
with the nation's new coordinated and comprehensive national ocean
policy. Such funds would be used to supplement--not replace--existing
appropriations for ocean and coastal programs, and to fund new or
expanded duties.
CLOSING STATEMENT
What I have presented to you today is a broad overview of the
Commission's preliminary report--the culmination of 2\1/2\ years of
work by 16 dedicated commissioners, 26 world-class science advisors,
and a tireless staff of experts. To create this report, the Commission
heard testimony and collected other information that shaped our
understanding of the most pressing issues facing our nation's oceans
and coasts.
The Commission balanced environmental, technical, economic, and
scientific factors in making its recommendations. These bold
recommendations for reform call for immediate implementation, while it
is still possible to reverse distressing declines, seize exciting
opportunities, and sustain the oceans and their valuable assets for
future generations. Clearly, the Commission's recommendations will
require some new investments. However, without major change, the
tremendous potential of our oceans and coasts to American prosperity
will continue to deteriorate.
It has taken more than 35 years for the nation to refocus its
attention on these vital resources. Our report provides a blueprint for
the 21st century to achieve a future where our oceans and coasts are
clean, safe, and sustainably managed and continue to contribute
significantly to the well being of all the nation's citizens. The time
to act is now and everyone who cares about the oceans and coasts must
play a part. Leadership from this Committee and others in Congress, and
from the White House, will be essential and we look forward to working
closely with all of you in the months and years to come.
Senator Gregg. Senator Stevens.
Chairman Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I would be interested if
other members of the panel would like to make comments before
we begin asking questions.
Mr. Sandifer, do you have any questions, any comments? Ed?
Mr. Rosenberg?
Admiral Watkins. We have another commissioner, Professor
Marc Hershman, sitting right here in the corner.
Marc, do you have anything?
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much.
I am interested, to begin with, in the integrated ocean
observing system. Is there a cost factor associated with that?
Has that been costed out?
Admiral Watkins. Yes, there is, Senator. In our report we
list it as the first year, $290 million, second year, $310
million, and a continuing cost over time of $652 million. And
in our report we go further than that. We have a whole host of
other things that are independent but somewhat related in ocean
science and exploration, in support for the States. We have
another category called all over recommendations, which
includes the estimated cost of a whole host of small issues,
such as organizational change costs, the cost of running a
national ocean council, about $1 million a year, that kind of
thing.
But the answer to your question is costed out in our table
30.1, estimated cost of recommendations, and the cost of the
integrated ocean observing system is pretty well flushed out
with all the Federal agencies through the National Ocean
Partnership Program. We actually have an office called Ocean.US
that is supposed to be managing the program, getting the
architectural design, and so forth. They have not been given
the support they need. This is one of the hopes we have and one
of the recommendations in the report, that we establish that
office officially, that it comes under the National Ocean
Council's purview, and that we get on with building the system
as a component of the Earth observing system endorsed at the G-
8 meeting in Tokyo and prior to that in France.
Chairman Stevens. What is the IOC for that, Admiral?
Admiral Watkins. Pardon me?
Chairman Stevens. How long would it be before it was up and
running?
Admiral Watkins. Pieces of it are up and running now, as
you know. We have a research set of buoys in the Pacific that
tell us about the advances of El Nino, so they will be part of
it. But I would say it is probably going to take 5 to 10 years
to get this thing going, but it ought to be on a track that you
all can watch up here and not just sit giving money to the
researchers. We are not asking for that. We are saying no, we
want to get applied research, we want to get funding for the
system to actually field this. A lot of this can be fielded now
if we put the resources behind it, and we know how to do that
internationally. We know how to connect with the international
community that also wants the United States to take a
leadership role in this area.
So I think that we are ready to move. We know what the
research ought to be. We know what the applied research ought
to be, we know what instruments we ought to have today, and we
know that we do not have adequate instruments in the whole area
of living marine resources, for example, biological
instruments. They are being developed by our researchers as
best they can but those things need funding and need focus and
each region should make demands on us to say here is what we
need for products coming out of your database. We need these
products in the Southeast, these in Alaska, these in the
Northeast, these in the Great Lakes region. They are different,
yet we can help coordinate all that and provide it.
So I would say if you had one recommendation that could
pull all these communities together, it is probably going to be
integrated ocean observing systems. That includes a major and
very underfunded coastal ocean observing system. Currently, our
biggest observations are in the middle of the oceans, not
ashore, and the nearshore area is the most complicated to
observe and monitor.
Chairman Stevens. Well, years ago we financed dropping some
similar sensors that were floating. They just floated with the
currents. This recommendation includes ships, airplanes,
satellites, buoys, and drifters that are used for mounting or
deploying instruments, sensors, or other components.
The architecture of that, we need to get some details about
ships. Are we to borrow ships from the Navy? Are we supposed to
put these on Navy ships or on Coast Guard ships? Has someone
got a layout of that, what it will take to really say it is up
and running?
Admiral Watkins. There is a whole different set of issues
connected with funding the marine facilities. Oceans Act 2000
asked us to do a marine facility review, both public and
private. It is an appendix to our report that is about 1\1/2\
inches thick. It is huge and it says these resources are
getting old, they are inadequate to the task. We need to put
some infrastructure monies back into these and get these things
going. Okay, so we have that.
We have the UNOLS fleet, the University Ocean Laboratory
fleet. It is getting old. It is going to have to be replaced,
or pieces of it have to be replaced. We are looking at modern
technology and development of new technologies in the future
that may minimize the number of ships we have to put out there,
but we have to put ships out there.
In fact, one of the expenditures we are asking for in the
research area is a $70 million research vessel and submersible
dedicated to ocean exploration. So in the ocean exploration
initiative up here in the Senate we are saying we need that as
part of this whole program.
We have $445 million over 20 years for the academic fleet,
the Federal ocean facilities program.
These costs are different from those associated with
implementation of an integrated ocean observing system. That is
why you add up to $1.27 billion in the first year, and these
are funds that can be sent now. There are plans available but
there is no money to support the modernization of the research
vessels that are essential over the next, say, 20 years.
Chairman Stevens. I have just been told I have not been
speaking loud enough. You know, that is not a normal comment
for me.
Admiral, this IOOS, you gave us the money for it. Is there
any item in your report that would have priority over that from
the point of view of funding?
Admiral Watkins. Well, you are asking somebody, Chairman
Stevens, that believes that it is going to be very difficult
for us to say that is more important than some of the things
that we are recommending to keep from eliminating certain fish
stocks, for example. I cannot put a priority on it that says
that is so important that you can give up all of these other
areas. That is my problem.
We are going to do the best we can in the final report and
we have made a note in this section, the funding section of
chapter 30, that we have to do a better job of laying out some
of these issues in a way that perhaps is in more detail than we
have in here today. Some of these costs are solid, they are
hard; some are soft. We are going to try to harden those up and
to try to give you more of a sense of priorities, but I am just
worried that the IOOS alone is not going to solve all the
problems.
It is terrifically important, it is absolutely essential to
the game, but so are a lot of other things that we are
mentioning in here in the interim before we can build that
system over the next 5 years. There are things we can do out
there today over the next couple of years and they should be
funded, too.
So I cannot give you a much better answer. I know that is
not as clean as you would like to hear it, but I cannot do much
better than that.
Chairman Stevens. I will just tell you our problem. We
already have a budget, not only the President's budget but we
almost have the congressional budget, and there is no money in
there for any of this. So we are going to have to see if we can
find any money this year to try to get started. Now this is
money for 2005, so if you want money for 2005 we have to find
some and we have to find some in an amount that is doable
within this subcommittee that my friends here are the cardinals
of. I am not the pope but they are cardinals.
We must find some portion of this this year. We cannot run
over $1 billion on this in 2005. I am sure you understand that.
Admiral Watkins. I understand that.
Chairman Stevens. So what we need to do is have some
priorities. What could we do now to start certain portions of
this budget off for this proposal by saying if we had this
money, this money and this money in 2005, we could be on our
way toward implementation of this report?
Admiral Watkins. Well, of course, we have recommended a
National Ocean Council. If the Congress believes that that is
important--and we do--and establishes that council, you could
say all right, we only have, against your total needs of $1.27
billion, we can give you $400 million in 2005 but you cannot
spend any of those dollars until you come back to us with a
priority plan to integrate all these things and do the best you
can with these recommendations and then tell us what you are
going to do to start submitting these things in 2006 and out-
years so that we have some feeling that you are committed to
this.
And if the administration is committed to it, at least they
can take those and come back to you with a plan, and then you
authorize them to go ahead with outlay toward that plan.
So I think there are ways to get around it if you can find
any dough at all, and I understand that. This morning we were
kind of chastised, saying, ``You are not going to get the
money.'' It is not us. I am not getting anything out of this. I
love the subject. It is the American people who are not going
to get it. That is the tragedy.
I am just saying as much as you can squeeze out of the
system and demand that the administration come back with their
plan, their integrated plan to carry out the priorities here.
That is for the National Ocean Council to determine what those
priorities are, along with consultation with the Congress.
Chairman Stevens. I like that approach. Thank you very
much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. I also like that approach and think it is
doable.
In your opinion, how much of what you are talking about is
going to require authorization language? That would have to be
in place before we could appropriate for it.
Admiral Watkins. Let me ask the Executive Director to pick
that up.
Mr. Kitsos. Well, we think that the establishment of the
National Ocean Council would require codification at some
point. Our report does note that the President could probably
establish this by Executive order, but we suggest that if, in
fact, he does that quickly, Congress could come along shortly
after that and codify it. That would require authorization and
also the trust fund that we spoke about would require
legislative action by Congress.
Senator Gregg. Well, the trust fund has some problematic
points to it which are obvious, which is that it is deemed
general fund revenue, so you are not enlarging the pie. You are
simply grabbing a part of the pie that is going somewhere else
and saying it belongs with the oceans, and that is always a
difficult exercise because whoever you took it from is going to
say no, it does not. We all recognize that, I think.
You did mention, Admiral, and your report mentions you are
basically, for lack of a better characterization, suggesting
that we set up something to deal with wind farms and fish
farms. Some might call zoning for the ocean. Is that right?
Admiral Watkins. No, it is not. We are not zoning
enthusiasts. Let me ask--who would like to take that--Dr.
Rosenberg.
Mr. Rosenberg. Senator, I think the idea is not that you
decide in advance what areas you allow particular activities in
but right now we have no structure by which you can determine
that, for example, an exclusive use of a piece of the ocean can
be allowed for a particular activity, except for offshore oil
and gas. So if you wanted to establish an offshore aquaculture
facility in Federal waters right now, what is the mechanism by
which you would actually lease to some business or entity that
area because it would preclude other uses, such as commercial
fishing, in that particular geographic location. Certainly they
would need some protections.
You also have a rather incomplete and not very clear
structure for making the determination on whether it is
appropriate to actually license a particular proposal. Of
course you have National Environmental Policy Act kinds of
considerations but the principal authorities are discharge
permits from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Rivers
and Harbors Act. In other words, do not put it in a place where
you are going to run a boat into it. And, of course, there are
other considerations, whether it be a wind farm or
bioprospecting site or aquaculture facility.
So what we are suggesting is that we establish a clear set
of policies by which those activities can move forward that
also provides the opportunity for somebody who wants to propose
such an activity to have both a point of contact and a clear
process so that they could say okay, this is what I need to do
if I want to establish my aquaculture facility or wind farm or
whatever. Right now there is no regulatory or policy structure
to do that in any clear fashion.
So we are not suggesting anything related to zoning. We are
suggesting that there be a management system that allows these
things to be considered in an appropriate fashion and be
established, of course, if they meet those criteria, and I do
not think that exists----
Senator Gregg. If you want to put a fish farm off of New
Hampshire, which I think has already occurred, there is no
permitting process?
Mr. Rosenberg. There is but, of course, the offshore
aquaculture research farm that you are very familiar with at
the University of New Hampshire is in State waters, not in
Federal waters. And second, the permitting process for
commercial facilities would relate to again the Rivers and
Harbors Act and a discharge permit, with commenting authority
from the resource agencies--National Marine Fisheries Service
and potentially the Fish and Wildlife Service--who could say
well, we have these concerns. Then locally you would go for a
permit and statewide you would go for a permit.
There can be in some cases for aquaculture facilities 25
different places you need to get a permit from before you can
establish the facility. There is no comprehensive structure on
aquaculture.
The same thing is true for bioprospecting. If some company
wants to be able to investigate the biological resources that
they might develop, for example, pharmaceuticals from in an
exclusive piece of the ocean bottom, they have no way by which
they can say all right, we are going to have the rights to look
in this area for a period of time and we agree to do the
following things when we do that. There is no management
structure.
Senator Gregg. Do you see this as preempting State law,
then?
Mr. Rosenberg. No, certainly not, because we are talking
about Federal waters now. We hope that it would help the States
by providing a point of contact, but the States have authority
certainly within 3 miles.
Senator Gregg. We now have a vote and we are 5 minutes into
the vote. We can either recess and come back or if somebody
wants to ask questions? Senator Burns is next.
Senator Burns. I just want to make a comment as far as
appropriators and where we find this money. Right now we are
recommending the expenditure of quite a lot of revenue but not
finding any more revenue coming into the Treasury with which to
pay for that. And I guess that is where I will be coming from,
how we look at that and how we fund this thing and your
recommendations here, how they mesh with what else we have to
do with that particular fund, like the offshore funds that come
in, the OCS funds. I will be looking at that more than anything
else. That falls under my purview. So we will probably have
quite a lot of discussions with regard to that.
But your report, this is as aggressive a report and idea as
we have seen since I have been in the Congress with regard to
policy toward our oceans and I thank you for that because I
think we have to go one step beyond before we get anybody's
attention, before we really start moving on some of the
problems that we see with our oceans. So I thank you for your
work.
Admiral Watkins. Thank you, Senator Burns.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Stevens. I got your message.
Senator Leahy. I am just glad to see here that you are
going to be the pope. I sent to Senator Stevens a note that my
mother always wished I might make it as far as bishop. Bless
her sweet immigrant soul, I never got quite as high as Senator
Stevens. But I want to thank him for holding the hearing. I
want to congratulate Senator Hollings for his vision, helping
to launch the Ocean Commission and the development of this
important report.
Admiral Watkins, it is nice to see you. It has been a
couple of years. It is good to have you and all your colleagues
here.
I am going to miss Senator Hollings' championship of the
oceans and sponsoring and supporting programs that protect this
valuable resource. What he has done for our ecosystem is
amazing.
I also want to acknowledge the Ocean Commission for a very
thorough, very thoughtful report. I hope it gets a lot of
coverage. Take that report and the Pew Ocean Report and they
are the first real comprehensive reviews of ocean policies in
35 years, before I even came to the Senate. The recommendations
in the two reports are somewhat different but they both do one
thing; they ring the alarm bells very, very clearly. They
highlight some of the changes I have been witnessing over the
years, not from a scientific point of view but just as an
individual.
I started exploring coral reefs and other ocean ecosystems
over 30 years ago. I am an avid diver and beginning about 10 or
15 years ago I began to notice that some of these same reefs
that we used to snorkel on were gone. They were gone and the
fish around them were gone. The ecosystem had been destroyed.
Because of these changes, over the years I dove more with the
idea of seeing what the changes are, again not as a scientist
but just as an individual. Except in rare instances, the
changes have not been for the better.
So I am glad we are having this hearing on the anniversary
of Earth Day. Although Congress enacted the pivotal
environmental protection acts of our Nation so that we have
clean air, safe drinking water, and cleaner rivers and streams,
the report shows our oceans and coastal resources have fallen
between the gaps in our environmental and natural resource
policy webs. I think our ocean policies have not kept pace with
the demands we have put on this.
Admiral, you and the others know the oceans look very, very
big and look inexhaustible. You also know they are not. We
cannot treat the oceans as bottomless pits and harvest their
fisheries at will or pollute them or plunder them or grab what
we want for this year's harvest, irrespective of next year's
harvest and the year after and the year after that.
Just like we needed in the environmental acts of the early
1970s to reverse the course of the polluting of our lakes,
rivers, and air, we have to do something similar for our
oceans--create policies geared toward restoration and
sustainable things.
I am not saying anything to you that you do not know but I
think about the coral reefs I saw 30 years ago versus what I
see now. I think what my children might see or my three, or
soon to be three grandchildren might see. I am afraid they are
not going to see the things that we saw and maybe their
children never will. It is really our responsibility to make
sure something is done to protect the oceans.
I will submit, because of the vote, Mr. Chairman, some
questions for the record. I know we need money, we need vision.
These people have given us some vision and it is up to us to
get the money and I think on this topic maybe the cardinals in
this committee might find some of that money.
Admiral Watkins. Mr. Chairman, Ed Rasmuson has a comment.
Mr. Rasmuson. Senator Leahy, I thank you for those
comments. Briefly, 3\1/2\ years ago this Commission was
constituted. We spent a lot of hard work on it. We have come up
with what we think are concrete recommendations.
You knew when you put this Commission together it was going
to cost us money and I submit that we cannot afford not to
start. We have done the best we can with first, second and
third years of costs and the worst thing that I would fear is
if this thing that we have worked on is shelved and nothing was
done and what have I wasted all my time for?
None of us here, all 16 of us worked hard, plus the staff,
and we are submitting to you that we would like to get some
money in the 2005 appropriation and then be allowed to flesh
out, as the Admiral said, the real priorities for the second
and third year. And I submit in these priorities that our
cornerstone of what we have come up with is the necessary
dollars for research and education. Without that, nothing is
going to happen. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Well, this Senator is not going to put the
report on the shelf, I can assure you, and I expect to be on
this committee for years to come. Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Admiral Watkins, thank you. We appreciate the fine work
that you and the members of this Commission have done. It is
very impressive. This is an overview of 2\1/2\ years' work that
we are getting today and I am glad that we have an opportunity
to see what some of your recommendations are.
Just a few weeks ago I had the pleasure of visiting the
National Data Buoy Center at Stennis Space Center on the
Mississippi gulf coast and I was impressed with the worldwide
reach and effect that that center has and the responsibilities
that it has. I am curious to know whether you make any
recommendations about the continuation of the work of the
National Data Buoy Center or some new incarnation of that
center. Is there a specific proposal that you have come up with
at this point to make with respect to the center?
Admiral Watkins. God bless you, Senator Cochran. I am the
one that started out 2\1/2\ years ago saying data collection,
data assimilation, conversion of that data to useful products
for the good of the country is one of our highest priorities.
If we do not do that, I do not see how we are going to
understand things like climate change, nonpoint source
pollution, the decay of our reefs, the loss of the fisheries.
We are not going to do it unless we bring all of these
databases together. And where best to do it than at Stennis.
They have the Center for Excellence for the Department of
Defense. They know how to take disparate databases and bring
them together. They know how to produce products out of those
data that does not boggle the mind.
We are not talking about scientific information coming out
of there, except for the researchers. We are talking about
conversion of those data to useful decisionmaking products.
That is in our recommendations.
So when we went down to Stennis we were impressed by the
defense capability, and they are probably the only one in the
Nation that can do the kinds of things we are talking about
here, to assimilate large volumes of data, the NOAA database,
the Navy database, the local database, the fisherman database,
and databases on socioeconomic aspects. We cannot forget that
human beings are out there and we do not want to destroy
communities. We want to understand who they are, where they
are, what their needs are and at least listen to them, and we
are not doing that today.
So the data assimilation and use is vital to this and it is
one of our strong recommendations, that the National Ocean
Council make sure that that is set up, that it is funded, and
that people can begin to play in that game. And that gets back
to the locals, the counties and the States. They need to have
access to that information, converted to useful products, and
they need to make a contribution to it, and we have called that
the regional ocean information program. We want the regions to
set up those programs because they know they need the
information the programs would produce.
And I do not see any outfit in the country that can do what
you can do in the Defense Department at Stennis for this
purpose, with a lot of consultation with people like the Navy,
who are ready to do this kind of work for us.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. I hate to have to go
vote but I have to do it.
Do you want me to vote for you?
Chairman Stevens. Yes. Someone did vote for me once. They
are going to hold the vote until we get there and when Senator
Gregg comes back we will leave, and I think we will wind up the
hearing when he comes back, very frankly. I do appreciate your
help.
I did introduce a bill that deals with national ocean
exploration and I do hope that we can get it considered each
year. I do not know if you are familiar with it. It tracks
considerably what you have recommended. But I still am very
worried about the funding stream that we need for this. There
is no question that the funding stream is there. Two-thirds of
the Outer Continental Shelf off Alaska and not one well drilled
in it yet. We ought to find some way to find new revenue
streams to meet this need and I would hope that you would work
with us, the people you talk to.
We only need two votes to pass the energy program and there
is such a fund already in the energy bill. We really need money
to meet your needs.
I want to close my part of this by thanking each of you for
your work. Senator Hollings and I have dreamed of getting such
a commission going and you have fulfilled our dreams because
you have worked hard and produced something I think is salable
and financable and practical and attainable if we only can get
the revenue streams established that will sustain it.
So I do believe you have done a great service for the
country and I hope to work with you in years to come and see
that your report is fulfilled.
Admiral Watkins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stevens. I think we will have to stand in recess
now and wait for Senator Gregg's return.
Do you have a timeframe, Admiral?
Admiral Watkins. Yes, sir, we do.
Chairman Stevens. It has passed already?
Admiral Watkins. No, no, no. We are ready to do work. This
is pretty important to us.
Chairman Stevens. I cannot say that Senator Gregg does not
have any more questions but I do not have any more, obviously,
but I do appreciate what you have done. Thank you.
Admiral Watkins. Thank you.
Senator Gregg. Okay, I appreciate everybody's patience.
This happens when we have votes, which is part of our job.
I understand that Senator Stevens, Senator Cochran, Senator
Burns and Senator Leahy all had an opportunity to at least
briefly inquire and I certainly appreciate your willingness to
go through two hearings today, the Commerce Committee and the
Appropriations Committee.
I did have a couple of other quick questions I wanted to
get addressed. One is the division in the fisheries area
between research and managing the fisheries. That seems to be
an artificial division you are proposing because there is a
fair amount of overlap of those two exercises, is there not?
Admiral Watkins. Dr. Sandifer.
Mr. Sandifer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Within the fisheries
management side we are suggesting that the science part of the
management decision be separated from the allocation decision
so as to ensure that the allocation decision is based on the
best science and there is no potential for any conflicts of
interest.
Within the agency as a whole, we also make some
recommendations that NOAA has three principal missions. One of
those missions is the assessment, prediction and operation,
including things like the Weather Service, would include the
integrated ocean observing system, charting, and all of those
kinds of things. Then there is resource management that is far
more than just fisheries but also includes coastal zone
management, protected area management, like the sanctuaries and
estuarine research reserves. And the third area obviously is
the science, research and education function that could be
organized probably in a way that would better support the
overall mission of the agency.
It is much broader than fisheries because we are
recommending throughout this report that we take an ecosystem
approach to all resource management related to the oceans, not
just for fisheries. And the science structure then should be
organized to better reflect that ecosystem basis, we believe.
Senator Gregg. Okay. Well, how much pressure do you think
the fisheries are under and to what extent are we funding the
correct areas? We spend a lot of money on fisheries. Did you
take a look at whether the money we are spending is addressing
the fisheries that are in need or is it more arbitrary?
Admiral Watkins. Dr. Rosenberg will take that.
Mr. Rosenberg. Senator, I think that yes, we do spend a lot
of money on fisheries but there are some major both research
and science advice questions, as well as management problems
within fisheries. By and large, I do think that we spend the
money well, if you like, although we certainly struggle
particularly with things such as social and economic data in
the fisheries area, and fisheries information systems I would
have to say on the research side.
On the management side, the council system struggles with
their funding needs. They have a very large mandate in terms of
developing fishery management plans and frankly do it with not
very much money. I do not know the total budget for fisheries
management councils but I am going to guess the last I knew it
was about $13 million or something like that. And, at the same
time, they are being asked and the Fisheries Service is being
asked to be more comprehensive in their analysis of impacts,
both on communities as well as on biological resources.
So part of the push here for additional funding for
research and for integration of management within our proposals
do, I think, help that fisheries picture, particularly on the
social and economic side.
To add a little bit to what Paul said on the separation
between the science and allocation, we are suggesting that
within the council process--it is a somewhat different matter
within the agency per se because, of course, it is the councils
that recommend allocation decisions, not the agency. And we
talked with the council chairs yesterday, the Fishery
Management Council chairs yesterday in a briefing and I think
came to a fairly clear understanding of what the recommendation
was. It is really furthering what they are trying to do in
terms of regularizing peer review processes for developing the
science within the system. So that part of it, I think, is
fairly clear.
Mr. Rasmuson. Senator Gregg, one of the things, as Andy
pointed out, the councils themselves--there are eight
councils--have about a $13.5 or $14 million budget but what
they really need is more dollars going into research and
science and this would help all the councils, as well as NMFS,
so that we have better science in order to make our decisions
and, as a result, we will have, I think, less environmental
suits brought on by various interest groups because we will all
be able to share in the same science and we will have a better
idea of what we are doing. That is one of the mandates you gave
us 3\1/2\ years ago.
Senator Gregg. I agree, so I am glad you addressed that.
On a separate issue, I know you discussed this at
considerable length this morning but just for the record, I am
equally interested in whether NOAA should be an independent
agency and whether it should be raised in its visibility.
Certainly your suggestion, Admiral, that we are going to
incrementally move into better ocean policy and as part of that
incremental movement we will learn to walk before we run makes
a lot of sense as a way to approach things, rather than just a
massive reorganization. But I think the end product will be or
should be considered to be a NOAA that has much more strength
and stamina and probably is a free-standing vehicle, a free-
standing entity.
Admiral Watkins. I think, Senator Gregg, we have debated
this at great length and we have communicated back and forth
with key membership on the Hill here about this. We believe
that there is so much to be done here within the existing
structure that if we move out too aggressively on
organizational restructuring of the Federal Government, our
energies are going to be so devoted to that that we are going
to lose the forest for the trees.
We have a lot of things to do here----
Senator Gregg. I agree with that.
Admiral Watkins [continuing]. Within the existing system,
so we are saying let us strengthen NOAA, let us give it a new
underpinning from the Congress, let us give NOAA new
responsibilities, like being the lead agency for running the
integrated ocean observing system. They are not ready to do
that now in an ecosystem management context. Their fiefdoms are
set up in ways that are isolated from each other and we need to
break that and go back to a whole new way of doing things.
We have recommended principles under which an organic act
for NOAA would make a lot of sense. Once we do that, then we
have a functional NOAA set up with an ecosystem-based approach
and into that we can begin to take out those elements of
redundancy that should be in NOAA that are now in Interior, in
EPA, and so forth, and one section of the Corps of Engineers.
Pretty soon now we have built a Department called NOAA that
is operating under an ecosystem approach, that is bringing in
the functions from other agencies that ought to be in the
oceans and atmosphere department, and somebody is going to look
around and if they are running an integrated ocean observing
system, which by the way, includes inputs from upland watershed
monitoring. We cannot predict climate unless we monitor the
land side, as well. What have we done? That is a natural
resource department.
So 5 to 7 years from now if we do this and get serious
about it, the Congress can stand up and say hey, we have done
it and we have not lost any stitch in time here. We keep going
with all of the programs we have and we can keep building on
it.
Also I think there is another thing that we have done in
this report that I think will make a lot of sense right in the
near term. NOAA's budget is reviewed under the General
Government Directorate of OMB. We want the NOAA budget to be
reviewed under the Natural Resources Directorate, which does
the EPA and the Interior Department, and all of the other
resource agencies. So that is where NOAA ought to be.
Now pretty soon, with a budget examiner in natural
resources and with a new NOAA under an organic act passed by
the Congress, have you not built the equivalent of an
independent agency without the unrest and upset that would
otherwise be there if you tried to have some kind of a
guillotine action, just as we were forced to do for Homeland
Security? I think that this logical step approach, three-step
approach, maybe it is too logical for this town but it is a
right way to go, to step it up in a logical fashion so that we
can do the other recommendations in here and carry them out in
the near term.
There is no reason why we cannot do that. We are not doing
it today because we do not have the formal structure. We are
still going after individual species. We are still going after
individual items. Are we going to solve the reef problem with a
task force on reefs. No, we are not. We are kidding ourselves.
The Department of Energy was set up and was very controversial.
What do you need an Energy Department for? But we did it. We
did it because we were so scared because of the oil embargoes
of the 1970s.
We do not want to get into that game. We do not think it is
productive. We are not against an independent NOAA. We are
against moving so quickly and so fast that we do not know what
we are doing and we are going to stumble on the way and who
gets hurt? The fisheries, the estuarine areas, the productivity
of the country, and so forth. So that is why we have taken this
approach to it.
Senator Gregg. Well, I think it is the right approach. I
think the end product, I hope, will develop the way you see it.
It is a logical and excellent road map for us to follow, and I
will certainly do all I can to see that we do follow it.
On the issue of how we fund this with the trust fund, that
is a problem. I am thinking just prematurely that maybe it is a
prospective event, versus looking backwards, and if you were to
do this prospectively you would have much more chance of
getting those funds allocated. It would build up fairly
quickly, depending on what the sources were, rather than to try
to grab money that is already being allocated places.
COMMITTEE RECESS
But in any event, we very much appreciate your work. We
know you put thousands of hours into this. Your staff did an
excellent job. You folks did an excellent job. You have really
given us, as I have said a number of times, a road map. It is
our job to follow it. We look forward to trying to do that,
working with you. Thank you very much.
The hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., Thursday, April 22, the committee
was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
REPORT OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY
----------
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and
State,
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations,
Durham, NH.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in the Courtyard Reading
Room, Diamond Library, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New
Hampshire, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senator Gregg.
STATEMENT OF ANN WEAVER HART, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Ms. Hart. Welcome all of you, especially welcome Senator
Gregg and our panelists, Dr. Ballard, Dr. Rosenberg and Dr.
Sandifer, and members of our audience, to this very important
U.S. Senate hearing on the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
The University of New Hampshire has played a significant
and direct role in the Ocean Commission report with the
involvement of our own Dr. Rosenberg and hosting earlier
Commission field hearing.
UNH is also nationally known for its exploration of the
oceans, coastal areas, and ocean-based management, all areas of
important inquiry in the report; And of course, through our
strong partnership with NOAA.
While this hearing will be conducted under the official
rules of the U.S. Senate, it is also an educational event,
especially for our students. And I want to take this
opportunity to welcome all the UNH students who were able to
come here this morning and thank you for participating in this
very important process of making national policy.
It addresses issues of importance to the future of our
oceans and has a direct impact on our continuing involvement in
the forefront of marine research and education.
I am proud that the University of New Hampshire has been
chosen to host this event. And I now turn to our very own
Senator Judd Gregg to begin the official U.S. Senate hearing.
Senator Gregg. Thank you. Thank you, President Hart. And
thank you for making the university's facilities available to
us today. And it is a great pleasure to be here at UNH, which
has been such a leader in the area of marine biology and
biology generally, atmospherics and marine, nationally and
internationally, and is certainly the appropriate forum for us
to hold this hearing.
We are doing it a little different than the typical Senate
hearing in that I have always found Senate hearings to be
fairly stilted and I wanted to have more of a discussion,
especially between the panelists, who are such experts on how
we approach the implementation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy report, which some of you have had the chance to study
in classes.
This is a fairly significant report and fairly long, also.
And it is really a blueprint for how we propose to address what
is one of the critical needs of the world, which is protecting
and making sure that we continue to have a viable ocean policy
protecting our oceans and the ecosystems which support them.
My role in this is that as chairman of the Commerce, State,
Justice Subcommittee, which is a subcommittee of the
Appropriations Committee--some of you who are familiar with
Washington know that there are two sides to the process of
Washington Government. One is the authorizing side and one is
the appropriating side. Those of us who are appropriators tend
to think there is really only one side, the appropriating side.
But as a practical matter, the Appropriations Committee mirrors
the authorizing committees, but has the responsibility for
allocating and distributing funds. And the committee that I
chair has the responsibility over NOAA, which obviously has the
prime responsibility for oceans policy and programs. And so we
do have direct responsibility for implementing, to the extent
there is a role for the Federal Government, which is fairly
significant in the proposals in the Commission report.
And the Commission report is actually an outgrowth of very
much needed legislation which was introduced and championed by
my ranking member, Senator Fritz Hollings from South Carolina.
I participated with him, as did a number of other Senators,
Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska being a major role player here.
And that is why the Commission was set up and was asked to put
this report forward, because there was a belief that we needed
to focus on oceans and have a very independent and thoughtful
group of people do that.
That brings us to today, which is to review the report and
get ideas from the members of the Commission as to how we can
best implement elements of the report.
The university's role in this is also obviously critical.
Andy Rosenberg, of course, was a member of the Commission and
played a major role in the Commission's findings. But more
importantly than that, UNH has a unique niche as being one of
the leading universities in the world in the area of marine
biology, marine science; and therefore, has a very critical
role in making sure that the interplay between the academic
community and the people who have the hands-on responsibility,
such as policymakers like myself, making sure that there is a
tremendous flow back and forth of information and ideas. And so
UNH's role in implementing the policies of the Commission's
report is absolutely critical.
The planet, of course, is covered 70 percent by oceans, as
all of you know. And there was a fellow named Arthur C. Clarke,
who said instead of being called planet Earth, it should be
called ``planet ocean,'' which is a pretty accurate statement
of the implications of oceans relative to our lifestyle here as
a Nation.
And this Commission has put forward 212 different
recommendations as to how we can better address the issues of
ocean policy. And we will discuss many of them here today,
probably not all 212, but a few of them, anyway.
My subcommittee, the Commerce, State, Justice, has taken a
very serious look at the Commission's report so far. We still
have a lot of work to do, but we have been able, as a result of
taking that serious look, do some funding activity that has
been creative and been able to put approximately $414 million
into initiatives which this Commission has asked for. It is not
as much as the Commission wanted, I have to be honest about
that, but it is a significant step in the right direction and
quite a bit more than the House was able to do; and hopefully
in conference, we will end up at the same place.
We are very fortunate today to have as part of our panel
here three people who are true leaders in the area of ocean
policy and were members of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
And we are going to hear from all three. Let me start and work
our way to the person we are going to hear from first.
We begin with Dr. Paul Sandifer, who is a senior scientist
at NOAA for the National Center for Coastal and Ocean Science.
Now, Dr. Sandifer has a very long history here in New England
of being involved in a lot of issues. He is based out of South
Carolina right now, but he was very active during some of our
fish issues here in New Hampshire and we worked together on
those. And he has a tremendous history and expertise in the
area of ocean policy. And we are very fortunate to have him
here today as one of our expert witnesses.
Of course, Andy Rosenberg needs no introduction here at
UNH. He is a huge force, not only here at the university, but
across the Nation, on ocean policy. And his leadership has been
critical to getting good ideas put into the national agenda.
And our first witness who is going to talk to us today and
give us some thoughts is Dr. Ballard, of course, who is sort of
the successor to Jacques Cousteau in his ability to communicate
with the world the importance of the ocean and to bring it into
perspective that is exciting and vibrant and especially excites
kids who are studying and thinking about what they are going to
do with their lives about the opportunity of maybe getting
involved in ocean policies.
His discovery obviously of the Titanic and the Bismark are
classic, and we have all watched with great fascination the
films he has made.
He is about to embark on a whole new exercise as he has
gotten a new ship, and he is going to talk to us about that,
that is going to give him the ability to reach out to literally
tens of thousands of children across the United States and
probably across the world and bring to them the importance of
the ocean, but excite them about ocean policy and how we
preserve these unique assets and resources.
So it is a great pleasure to have you here, Dr. Ballard,
and we will turn it over to you.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT BALLARD, Ph.D., MEMBER, U.S.
COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY; AND PROFESSOR,
UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND
Mr. Ballard. Thank you, Senator. And thank you, President
Hart.
It is indeed an honor to be here. And I must say that it
was an honor to serve on the President's Commission and I want
to thank you for doing this historic thing.
It has only been twice in the history of our country that
we have had an ocean commission. And the reports that we have
submitted to the President and Congress is, as you said, sort
of the blueprint that we hope our Nation will follow.
When we had a press interview a few minutes ago, the
question was, well, how do you do it? And it is sort of like a
500-pound cake, a bite at a time. I think that the critical
thing is the process has begun.
I was lucky as a commissioner to be put on the committee
that dealt with my two passions: Ocean exploration and ocean
education. In fact, for me, they are one and the same. We were
able to come up with a wonderful new program. You will see it
in the Commission deliberations. But not only did we come up
with a wonderful plan, thanks to the Senator and his
colleagues, we have begun implementing that plan.
The area of ocean exploration, just to calibrate it, NOAA's
present program in ocean exploration is one-tenth of 1 percent
of NASA's budget. I believe in space exploration. My father was
an aerospace engineer. I lived with the Apollo program, as he
helped build that system. So I am not adverse to space
exploration. But I have to have, must say, I have a bias toward
our own planet. In fact, as we sit here today, the maps we have
of Mars are 250 times more accurate than the topographic maps
of the southern hemisphere.
So clearly, we have just begun the age of exploration. I
think we tend to think that exploration is in our history
books. It is not in our rearview mirror; it is in front of us.
And in fact, I like to point out to young people that their
generation, the kids that are in middle school right now, their
generation will explore more of Earth than all previous
generations combined, thanks to the new advance technology of
mapping and exploration.
We haven't even done the Lewis and Clark Expeditions--I
should say Lois and Clark Expeditions in the southern
hemisphere. And that is where I hope this new ship of
exploration will concentrate its time, to go, in Star Trek
terms, ``to go where no one has gone before,'' and that is
primarily the southern hemisphere, which is 85 percent of the
southern hemisphere is oceans, far more than the northern
hemisphere. Certainly the western Pacific, there are vast polar
regions; there is so much of our planet that remains
unexplored.
And yet, in the initial phases of exploration of even that
small percentage that we have looked at, we have come to
realize that the ocean held the key to an understanding, and
the fundamental understanding, of how our Earth works.
It was really the explorations of the mid-ocean ridge that
really led to a fundamental rethinking about global geology and
the emergence of the new concepts of plate tectonics; that came
out of explorations of the land beneath the sea.
We also, in our early explorations of the mid-ocean ridge
realized that there are more active volcanos beneath the sea
than on land by orders of magnitude.
We also made discoveries, important mineral discoveries.
And Karen VonDamm, who is here at the university, has been a
pioneer in the exploration of high temperature hydrothermal
vents that have helped explain--I can remember when I was a
kid, I had a simple question for my teacher: Why was the ocean
salty? You would have thought that they would have known; and
yet, they didn't know.
And it wasn't until the discovery of these high temperature
hydrothermal vents and we realized that the entire volume of
the world's oceans is going inside of our planet and out every
6 to 8 million years. And when we took that second circulation
system--we knew about the hydraulic system, but we did not know
about the hydrothermal system--we finally were able to balance
the equations and finally be able to answer that question, why
is the ocean salty.
But also associated with that was the discovery of
important mineral deposits. I think that when people talk about
how are we going to pay for the ocean initiatives that are in
our recommendation; by increasing the economic wealth of our
Nation. And I think that when you look at the oceans of our
planet that are unexplored, their economic potential has to be
vast. The Easter bunny did not just put all the mineral
resources on our land. There are vast mineral resources beneath
the sea that have yet to be found and exploited.
Also, the discovery of whole new life systems on our
planet. Discovering new life systems led us to realize that the
way in which life may have evolved on our planet was
fundamentally different than what we were being taught in our
classrooms.
It has also greatly increased the probability of finding
life elsewhere within our own solar system, all coming from
explorations of the oceans.
And by the way, all of those things were not in our
research grants to the National Science Foundation; all of
those discoveries were serendipity, being in the right place at
the right time.
Now, when you look at that, not only did we discover these
new chemosynthetic life forms that are the driving engine of
life in the vent systems, we also began to discover that the
deep sea was an undersea museum.
Our discovery of the Titanic and the Bismark and the
Yorktown, all of a sudden we realized that the deep sea was a
preserver of history. More recently, we did a recent expedition
back to the Titanic, where we are beginning to look at how one
can conserve sites beneath the sea as sites for future
memorials, future battlefields, future marine sanctuaries, just
as we have on land.
But we have also begun to discover that the deep sea holds
a history of ancient civilizations. We now think that over the
course of time, the human race has lost over 1 million ships of
antiquity, 1 million ships of antiquity that have gone to the
bottom. Here is a ship just sitting on the bottom of the ocean
that sank at the time of Homer, 750 B.C., the first Phoenician
ship ever discovered in the deep sea, just sitting there.
There are 1 million time capsules of human history in the
ocean and yet, there is no major program to understand and find
those pieces of human history, and more importantly, to protect
them.
The deep sea is a giant museum. The question before our
society is whether we are going through the doors of that
museum to appreciate human history or to plunder it. And the
jury is out. We have no legal regimes in the high seas to
protect antiquity.
But what is important, though, is to begin this process. I
happen to think that we may think we are pretty good, but all
those discoveries I showed you was based upon looking at less
than one-tenth of 1 percent of the world's oceans. I think we
are pretty good, but I can't believe that in our explorations
of one-tenth of 1 percent, we found everything. Absolutely not.
There is no way that we found everything.
So people always say what are you going to find? Well, I
think of when President Roosevelt assembled the National
Academy when he became President, and he asked the National
Academy, you are the great minds of our Nation, please tell me
what the next 20, 30 years are going to bring, they missed
everything. They missed computers, they missed rockets, they
missed Salk vaccines.
I am a member of the scientific estate, but I also know our
track record in predicting the future is not necessarily the
greatest. So do not ask us what we are going to discover, just
let us discover, let us explore.
And a giant step has been taken now with the creation of a
new ship of exploration. Just think about it. Our Nation, for
the first time in its history, has a ship of exploration.
Thanks to the Senator and his colleagues, I want to thank you
for that, because this is an historic moment I think we are
going to be looking back upon. Future generations are going to
be looking back upon the date when this new ship comes online
and begins exploring with the phenomenal technology.
Because our assumption and our exploration paradigm is that
the experts will not be on the ship. They have never been on
the ship when we have made fundamental discoveries. Once in a
while we got lucky; Lost City was a discovery where they
happened to have the right people on the ship, but generally
not. When we found hydrothermal vents, biggest biological
discovery ever made, we didn't have any biologists on the
expedition.
But due to this new concept of telepresent technology, we
are going to be able to outfit this new ship with an incredible
technology. Right now, we are using the Brown as our
experimental laboratory for the development of this new
exploratory technology that will come online in 2007.
But it has incredible vehicle systems that will be able to
have round-the-clock communications with the bottom, up to the
surface, in high band width. This is today's command control
center aboard these research ships, a high fidelity, high
definition plasma displays.
But then they are put on a satellite and they go up on a Ku
band satellite, gyrostabilized; the ship can roll 15 degrees
without loss of lock, can spin on its access without loss of
lock.
We then downlink it up just north of here, in Maine, and we
put it on Internet II. Internet II is the new kid on the block.
Internet I is, to me, compare Internet I, the one we are all
using now, to Internet II, it is a dirt road on the information
highway compared to what we have on Internet II. Internet II's
bandwidth is 10 gigabits; that is a pipe. It's like drinking
information from a fire hydrant. And that permits it possible
to create a telepresence at various sites.
We have been successful, just down south at the University
of Rhode Island, where I am a professor of oceanography, we are
on the ballot in the State of Rhode Island for a $14 million
bond issue to build an Inner Space Center to link to the ship
of exploration. We have built a prototype for our recent
expedition on the Titanic.
We are able to send the entire experience ashore. So to
scientists, our vision is that the ship of exploration will be
out doing its thing, which mostly is surveying, it is mostly
boring. What they say, what's it like to go to sea and search?
Well, it is 99 percent boring with 1 percent of sheer terror
and sheer excitement when you make that discovery.
When we make that discovery, we will be able to replicate
the command center at the universities. And the beauty of this
new system is to completely replicate the command center at sea
is $25,000 because everything is front-end loaded. So it means
that every university that's participating in a cruise can have
that in their lab and be monitoring the expedition.
But the beauty of telepresence is having separated the
physical body from the experience and put them in a telepresent
environment is you can also put kids there. You can take--right
next to the Inner Space Center that we are building is a full-
up television production facility to be able to take the
excitement of exploration, the excitement of discovery and send
it right into the classrooms.
Fortunately, in the State of Rhode Island, all schools in
the State of Rhode Island from kindergarten up are on Internet
II right now. We have already wired all the schools in Rhode
Island to Internet II, which means we can replicate the command
centers in any school. And it is starting to creep into other
schools. And I hope that New Hampshire, all their schools are
on Internet II, because then they will be able to follow these
explorations. Because our job is to take the future generation
of explorers and get what we call a jaw drop. When you can get
a jaw drop like that, then you know you have got them. And we
hope through our allegiance with the Jason Project, through our
important program with the Boys and Girls Clubs of America,
that we are able to not only take these journeys of exploration
and take them to the academic world for their realtime
participation, but to get future explorers. Because if we can
get a child to drop their jaw, we can put information into
their mind. Thank you very much.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Gregg. Thank you. Thank you very much. You can see
that enthusiasm makes a big difference and really has an
impact, obviously.
And we wouldn't have the Explorer unless it were for Dr.
Ballard, quite honestly. It was his energy that caused the
people to be willing to put up the money and make the decision
to go forward with it. And obviously, it's going to be a huge
plus for the country and for the world.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Ballard
Webster defines the act of exploring as follows: ``to penetrate
into or range over for purposes of geographical discovery'' ``to make
or conduct a systematic search''.
Webster, on the other hand, defines the scientific method as
follows: ``principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of
knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the
collection of data through observation and experiment, and the
formulation and testing of hypotheses.''
In other words, exploration results in the discovery of phenomenon
that scientists then seek to explain. Our understanding of the
chemistry of the world's oceans and the potential origin of life on
earth, for example, came after the discovery of hydrothermal vents by
others looking for something else.
As we begin to shape America's emerging program in Ocean
Exploration it is critical that we seize this opportunity to explore
the uncharted regions of our planet for the purpose of making new
discoveries that scientists will then seek to explain ``through
observation, experimentation, and the formulation and testing of
hypotheses.''
Ocean Exploration should not just create a new source of funding
for traditional oceanographic research. The budget for ocean
exploration is small compared to that for oceanographic research. It
must be spent wisely or the program will fail.
If one simply looks back into time, there are numerous successful
examples of the exploration model. The voyages of Captain Cooke as well
as Lewis and Clark's exploration of the Louisiana Purchase are
excellent examples as are the more recent Challenger and Meteor
Expeditions of the 19th and 20th Centuries, even the most recent Deep
Sea Drilling Program of the 20th and 21st Centuries.
In all cases, these were not a series of scientific legs cobbled
together, each having its own purpose, each involving a different group
of scientists with their own particular research focus.
These were ``systematic'' search/survey programs conducted in large
part by non-scientists. Instead, they were led by disciplined military
officers willing to endure hardships while conducting systematic and at
times boring survey efforts.
If one looks at the recent recommendations of the President's Ocean
Policy Commission on Ocean Exploration, one sees that they clearly make
the distinction between exploration and science. They further recommend
that the initial phase of exploration should be conducted by NOAA not
NSF and there are clearly reasons for this.
Before there was a NOAA, there was a U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey
that, like the Lewis and Clark Expedition, can trace its origins back
to the exploratory mind of President Thomas Jefferson who in 1807
signed a bill for the ``Survey of the Coast.''
The Survey charted the nation's waterways, producing topographic
maps of our shorelines, an effort that expanded with the acquisition of
Alaska, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and the military needs associated
with our Nation's global wars.
As a result of this long history, NOAA is ideally suited to be the
lead agency for America's Ocean Exploration Program. But NOAA needs to
return to its roots.
There is a growing criticism of NOAA's OE program that needs to be
addressed. The loudest and strongest criticism is that the program, as
it is presently structured, is not an Exploration Program. It is a
bunch of individual Principle Investigators, myself included, ``doing
their own thing''. It looks more like a ``mini-NSF'' program than an
Exploration program. It is not surveying unexplored regions of the
world.
The recommendations made by the 2000 NOAA Presidential Panel, the
recent Academy Study, and the President's Commission, which is about to
publish its final report, all say the same thing. The program should
center around a large annual global/international expedition on a
``flagship'' for exploration. That is why the program needs a dedicated
ship: so that it can get away from the normal ``traffic patterns'' of
UNOLS and NOAA ships, which spend the vast majority of their time near
the continental United States, and travel to the remote, uncharted
regions of the world to conduct surveys--not science programs--in
search of new discoveries. The scientific world can then react to these
finding by developing research programs with funding from NSF and other
sources.
Now, thanks to the efforts of Senator Gregg and his colleagues in
the Senate, Senator Dodd, Hollings, Inouye, and Stevens, the USNA
CAPABLE has been transferred from the U.S. Navy to NOAA. And America
now has its first ship of exploration!
With this action completed, we must now insure that this ship of
exploration does not fall into the traditional pattern of individual
investigators doing their own thing in the well explored regions around
the continental United States but that it goes where no one has gone
before to the uncharted corners of our planet where new discoveries
await us.
And when we make these new and exciting discoveries of new life
forms, new mineral deposits, new fisheries, and find new natural and
cultural wonders beneath the sea, let us make sure that the children of
our nation are with us in ``real time'' on these voyages of discovery
to excite and motivate them to become America's next generation of
explorers.
Thank you very much for permitting me this opportunity to speak.
Senator Gregg. Dr. Sandifer is now going to give us his
thoughts on what the policy should be relative to the Ocean
Commission. I thought we would save Dr. Rosenberg for last,
since he is the hometown boy, the cleanup hitter.
STATEMENT OF PAUL A. SANDIFER, Ph.D., MEMBER, U.S.
COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY; AND SENIOR
SCIENTIST, NATIONAL CENTERS FOR COASTAL
OCEAN SCIENCE, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Sandifer. Thank you, Chairman Gregg. I also want to,
not only thank you for your tremendous support, but also my
home State Senator, Senator Fritz Hollings, whose leadership
made the Ocean Commission possible.
I had intended to follow Andy's lead, so pardon me as I
digress a little bit from the script here. The Commission
decided on four foundation blocks for its plans for
comprehensive national ocean policy. These are improved
governance, ecosystem-based management and more emphasis on
science and education.
Andy is going to cover the governance and the ecosystem
management issues. I want to focus a little bit of attention on
the other two areas, that is, increased utilization of science
for decisionmaking and education.
Despite the extraordinary efforts in leadership of this
committee and Senator Gregg, ocean science is still woefully
underfunded. To deal with this problem, the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy has recommended a doubling of Federal ocean,
coastal and Great Lakes research budgets over the next 5 years.
The recent actions of the committee that Senator Gregg
already alluded to direct $454 million, including a nearly $206
million increase, to support a number of the Commission's
programatic recommendations within NOAA, is a tremendous first
step toward implementing the Commission's overall science
investment recommendation and we thank you heartily for that
tremendous effort.
Now, the Commission identified many areas where additional
investments in scientific research and education should lead to
measurable improvements in the way we manage and utilize our
ocean and coastal resources.
I have got a long list of those in my written testimony,
and that doesn't cover all of them, but I am only going to hit
on a few today of particular interest to me; that is one of the
perks of being able to give the testimony is I get to choose,
like Bob did, those items that interest me.
Beginning with education: Support for a comprehensive,
national ocean education program that would go from ``K-to-
gray'' pervades the entire Commission report. To develop and
implement such a program, the Commission recommends
establishment of a national Ocean Education Office; tripling
the numbers of Centers for Ocean Science Education Excellence
in the country; improving K through 12 ocean education
activities; supporting more interaction between scholars and
educators to build teacher capacity between scholars,
researchers and educators, something that would be a big deal
in this kind of campus environment; expanding scholarships for
undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral students and
supporting informal education activities delivering the
consistent message at aquaria, museums and zoos across the
country.
In addition, the Commission recognized the strengths of the
National Sea Grant college program in ocean education and
recommended substantial enhancement to that program. Overall,
the Commission estimated ocean education funding needs at $25
million in new money in the first year, growing to $136 million
annually thereafter. And we are grateful that the committee
seems to share our enthusiasm for improving ocean literacy, as
evidenced by your recommendations for notable new investments
in these areas.
Moving to the observing system. None of us today could or
want to imagine a world where we would have to live without
constantly updated weather reports and forecasts. In light of
the very recent and ongoing hurricane threats and impacts in
the southern United States, where I live--and I checked before
going to bed last night and first thing this morning to see
where Jeanne was--the need for an Integrated Ocean Observing
System, or IOOS, is in very real terms a matter of life and
death.
The observing system would measurably improve our abilities
to protect human life and property from marine hazards,
including not only the storms and floods that we are dealing
with now, but also such things as harmful algal blooms,
concentrations of disease-causing microorganisms or toxic
chemicals.
The observing systems could also substantially aid homeland
security efforts and provide a wealth of useful information to
businesses, academic researchers and ordinary citizens across
the country.
The observing system should be built upon a foundation of
strong and diverse partnerships and be planned under the
auspices of something called Ocean.US, an interagency
coordinating arm of that National Ocean Council.
NOAA should be the lead Federal agency for the observing
system, but should work through Ocean.US to integrate the
observing system across all agencies and ensure that the
country ends up with one national observing system, not a whole
bunch of unrelated systems.
The price for implementing the observing system is
considerable, beginning with an investment of $231 million a
year and growing to $753 million annually in new funding.
However, the economic and social costs of not building and
implementing the observing system are probably incalculable.
Again, we heartily thank the committee for supporting
substantial investment in NOAA for integrated coastal and ocean
observations.
The area of living marine resources: The status of the
Nation's fisheries was a topic of concern that we heard about
at every single one of our meetings. As a result, the
Commission devoted a lot of attention to fisheries, focusing
largely on ways to improve the regional fishery management
councils and Federal, regional and State management processes.
Our recommendations deal with strengthening and separating
scientific and allocation decisions; clarifying jurisdiction;
improving public representation; expanding the use of dedicated
access privileges and reducing overcapitalization; improving
enforcement; dealing with bycatch and essential fish habitat
from ecosystem approaches; and strengthening international
management.
The Commission recommends increases in funding for
fisheries management at $29 million for year one, growing to
$88 million annually for following years, with additional
funding for ecosystem science to support fisheries management
as part of the overall doubling of the Federal ocean science
budget. And again, we thank the committee for its support for
improved fisheries management.
Now, indicative of the growing problem of human impacts on
coastal waters are the increasing frequencies of beach
closures, seafood consumption advisories, harmful algal blooms
and occurrences of toxic chemicals and pathogenic
microorganisms in coastal and even offshore environments, all
of which in turn result in increasing cases of human illness.
On the other hand, the oceans represent the greatest global
reservoir of biodiversity, with huge and mostly unexplored
potential for production of pharmaceuticals and other
bioproducts that could measurably improve human existence and
produce billions of dollars annually in new business revenues.
The Commission therefore proposes a national, multiagency
oceans and human health initiative and doubling of current
funding levels for this critical effort. And again, we thank
the committee for doing just that, recommending doubling of
NOAA's oceans and human health initiative from $10 to $20
million a year.
Numerous factors impact populations of marine mammals, sea
turtles, corals and other endangered and vulnerable marine
species, including bycatch in directed fisheries, hunting, loss
of breeding, nesting and foraging areas, ship strikes,
pollution, disease, and the list goes on.
Unfortunately, little is known about the relative
importance or cumulative impacts of such factors on the
survival, and especially the recovery, of most protected
species. So the Commission has recommended that NOAA and other
relevant Federal agencies expand their work on marine mammals,
sea turtles, corals and other vulnerable species, specifically
to get a better understanding of basic biology and population
dynamics and how disease, contaminants, harmful algal blooms
and other human activities impact these and how we can best
respond to strandings and unusual mortality events.
The Commission has recommended increasing funding by $17
million a year, initially, with sustained funding of $26
million over the fiscal year 2004 level. And we applaud the
recent action of this committee to increase funding by $12
million for a NOAA marine mammal initiative to deal with some
of these issues.
The final issue I want to mention is aquaculture. The
Commission has recommended that NOAA become the lead for
offshore marine aquaculture and that an Office of Sustainable
Marine Aquaculture be established within NOAA to deal with both
the policy issues and the environmental concerns that affect
marine aquaculture development.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Commission devoted a great
deal of attention to science and education within NOAA and we
recognize that today's NOAA simply does not have the resources
nor the stature to do the job that tomorrow's ocean demands.
To lead the Nation toward an ecosystem-based approach to
management of coastal, ocean and Great Lakes resources as the
Commission envisioned, NOAA must have the organizational
structure, agency stature and authorities necessary to provide
that leadership and to effectuate change; it must become more
partner and service oriented; and it absolutely must have the
necessary financial resources to do the job that the Nation so
desperately needs it to do.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you, Senator Gregg, for your continuing high level of
interest in and support for the activities of the Commission
and especially for the outstanding efforts of this committee to
put NOAA well on its way to gaining the funding required to
implement many of the Commission's recommendations. Thank you,
sir.
Senator Gregg. Thank you very much, Doctor. We very much
appreciate your thoughts and input and the great work you have
done relative to the Commission.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul A. Sandifer
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Paul Sandifer,
and I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on
behalf of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, along with my colleagues
and fellow Commissioners, Drs. Andrew Rosenberg and Robert Ballard.
When I was appointed to the Commission in 2001, I was Director of
the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) and the only
state official to serve as a Commissioner. In April of 2003, I retired
from the SCDNR and joined NOAA as Senior Scientist within the National
Ocean Service's National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. Please note
that I am appearing today solely in my capacity as a member of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy and that my testimony is based on
recommendations from our Final Report which was submitted to the
Administration and the Congress just one week ago on September 20,
2004.
Without doubt, the highlight of my professional life has been my
service on the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. It has been an
immensely rewarding and educational experience, and I believe that the
Commission has crafted many well-thought-out recommendations for the
improvement of ocean policy in this country. In my opinion, we are at a
truly pivotal point of human life on this planet. Simply put, the
oceans make Earth habitable for humans, yet we are in the process of
disturbing, dismantling, and even poisoning this life engine. As my
colleague, Dr. Rosenberg, has so eloquently stated, our ocean
environment is truly at risk, and we must change course to reduce that
risk and maintain a vibrant marine environment and its untold economic
and environmental benefits to society.
Rather than focusing on just the alarming trends, the Commission
began its work by envisioning a better future for our oceans, coasts
and Great Lakes. Early in our deliberations, we established a series of
13 overarching principles to guide our work. Based on these principles
and detailed evaluations of the myriad problems and opportunities
associated with the nation's ocean, coastal and Great Lakes
environments, the Commission focused on four foundation blocks that we
deemed essential for a new and comprehensive national ocean policy.
These are:
(1) Improved governance.--The Commission believes that little
progress will be made unless we first fix the way we do business in the
marine environment, moving from an agency-by-agency or smokestack-by-
smokestack approach to a much more coordinated, interrelated and
comprehensive ocean governance structure. As Dr. Rosenberg has pointed
out, this entails creation of an ocean policy framework at the national
level and substantial strengthening of and changes to NOAA, the
nation's lead civilian ocean agency.
(2) Ecosystem-based approach to management.--The centerpiece of the
Commission's recommendations for management of U.S. coastal and ocean
resources is that they be managed to reflect the relationships among
all ecosystem components, including humans and nonhuman species and the
environments in which they live and that eco-regional management areas
be defined based on ecosystem, rather than political, boundaries.
(3) Best available science.--Ocean policy decisions should be based
on the best available understanding of the natural, social, and
economic processes that affect ocean and coastal environments.
Substantial and carefully targeted new investments are absolutely
essential to provide the science foundation for improved decision-
making.
(4) Broad public education.--Studies show that integrating ocean
topics into curricula can boost student motivation, scientific
literacy, and overall achievement. Increasing formal and informal
educational opportunities will also result in greater public awareness
and a stronger stewardship ethic for our ocean and coastal resources.
Dr. Rosenberg has already talked about the first two of these
foundation blocks, governance and ecosystem-based management. I would
like to focus my testimony on science and education.
The key element necessary to foster a new era of science- and
ecosystem-based management of ocean and coastal resources is
significant new investment in ocean-related natural and social
sciences. Despite the extraordinary efforts and leadership of this
Committee--for which everyone in the greater ocean community is truly
grateful--ocean science is still woefully underfunded, especially in
light of the increasing demands for more and better scientific
information and advice to deal with homeland security and defense
issues, declining natural resources, emerging health threats and many
other problems.
Recognizing the absolute necessity for greater investment in ocean-
related science, the Commission recommends a doubling of the federal
ocean, coastal and Great Lakes research budgets over the next five
years. Such investments are absolutely essential if the United States
is to be able to assess and predict the status of marine resources;
find beneficial new uses of ocean resources such as bioproducts,
pharmaceuticals and aquaculture; restore fisheries and rebuild a
vibrant fishery economy and fishery communities; grow coastal tourism
while protecting those natural attributes of clean water and
functioning habitats that make our coasts such attractive places to
recreate, live and work; and the list goes on and on. The recent
actions of this Committee to direct $454 million, including a nearly
$206 million increase, to support a number of the Commission's
programmatic recommendations is a tremendous first step toward
implementing the Commission's proposal for a doubling of federal ocean
science expenditures over a five-year period. Thank you very much for
your magnificent support for the Commission's work and most especially
for caring so deeply about the future of our coastal, ocean and Great
Lakes resources and environments.
Now, the Commission identified a number of very specific areas
where additional investments in scientific research should lead to
measurable improvements in the way we manage and utilize our ocean and
coastal resources and the actual status of those resources. I've listed
these in alphabetical order just for ease of presentation, as follows:
The Commission identified a substantial list of specific areas
where additional investments in scientific research should lead to
measurable improvements in the way we manage and utilize our ocean and
coastal resources and the actual status of those resources including
such diverse topics as biodiversity, climate change, and water
pollution. I have listed more than 20 of these below.
Biodiversity
Climate Change
Coastal Habitat
Coastal Hazards
Coastal Monitoring
Coral Communities
Ecosystem Science
Fisheries
Integrated Ocean Observing System
International Science
Invasive Species
Mapping and Charting
Marine Aquaculture
Marine Debris
Marine Mammals and Protected Species
Ocean Education
Oceans and Human Health
Regional Assessments
Scientific Infrastructure (labs, ships, submersibles, equipment)
Sediments
Socioeconomic Science
Water Pollution
Weather Services
There is simply no way to do justice to such a list today, so I've
chosen to concentrate on just several of particular importance and
personal interest to me. These are: (1) ocean education and literacy;
(2) the Integrated Ocean Observing System; (3) sustainable fisheries;
(4) the interactions of oceans and human health; (5) conservation of
marine mammals, sea turtles and other vulnerable species; and (6)
marine aquaculture.
Ocean Education
The oceans hugely influence the daily life of people across the
country, regardless of whether they live in coastal or inland
communities. In fact, in the view of the Commission, the United States
is an island nation and all its states are coastal states. Development
of an ocean stewardship ethic among the public at large is essential
for the long-term conservation and sustainable use of ocean, coastal
and Great Lakes resources. Perhaps because of the close connection
between humans and the oceans over our entire evolution, ocean topics
have the unique ability to engage students and hold their interest so
that a host of scientific and mathematical concepts can be
communicated. Ocean-based studies can also enhance student performance
in areas beyond the natural sciences, such as geography, history,
economics, law, and literature.
Support for a comprehensive, national ocean education program that
would go from ``K-to-gray,'' that is, from kindergarten through primary
and secondary school, college, graduate and post-graduate school and
lifelong informal learning activities pervades the entire Commission
report. Among many activities, the Commission noted two national-level
ocean education programs of particular value: the Centers for Ocean
Science Education Excellence (COSEE) supported by NSF with additional
funding from the Office of Naval Research and NOAA, and NOAA's National
Sea Grant College Program. In addition, the wealth of U.S. aquariums,
zoos, museums, and other informal education centers also provide the
public with diverse opportunities to learn about the marine
environment.
The problem with ocean education in the United States is not a lack
of interest but more a lack of resources and especially a coordinated,
sustained, comprehensive ocean education program. Instead, we have what
the Commission describes as ``a patchwork of independently conceived
and implemented programs and activities'' that cannot provide the
nationwide momentum and visibility needed to promote sustained ocean
education for students, teachers, and the general public.
Without leadership, no common vision for ocean education will be
developed and no path for achieving such a vision will be laid out.
Thus, the Commission recommends several steps, beginning with
establishment of a national Ocean Education Office funded through
NOAA's budget within an enhanced National Oceanographic Partnership
Program. In addition, the Commission outlined other essential
leadership roles for NOAA, particularly at the college and graduate
school levels. Overall funding needs for ocean education activities are
estimated by the Commission to be $25 million above fiscal year 2004
levels in year 1, growing to $136 million in ongoing new annual
appropriations. Funding at these levels would allow for: establishment
of the Ocean Education office; strengthening of ocean education
activities within NOAA, NSF, NASA, and ONR; tripling the number of
COSEE centers; evaluation and improvements in K-12 ocean education
programs; supporting close interaction between researchers and teachers
to enhance teacher capacity; substantially expanded scholarship support
for undergraduate, graduate and post-doctoral students to ensure the
appropriate training of new generations of ocean scientists; and
support for informal education experiences that can reach millions on a
daily basis. In addition, the National Sea Grant Program, and its
education and outreach efforts, should be enhanced as part of the
doubling of the U.S. ocean research budget. Sea Grant has an excellent
track record of providing teacher preparation and professional
development programs consistent with state education standards and of
offering hands-on educational experiences for students and teachers.
The Commission recognized the strengths of the Sea Grant program and
its long-standing partnerships at the state and local level, and
recommended that the Sea Grant program not only receive higher funding,
but also devote a greater proportion of its resources to ocean
education. The enhancements to the Sea Grant program's educational
portfolio would come from these increases and would be in addition to
the sums identified above. We are grateful that the Committee shares
our enthusiasm for improving ocean literacy, and has already
recommended specific and significant new investments in these important
programs.
Integrated Ocean Observing System
Beginning about 150 years ago, the United States began building
what is now the most comprehensive weather forecasting and warning
network in the world. Today, none of us could or want to imagine a
world where we would have to live without constantly updated weather
reports. In light of the very recent and ongoing hurricane threats and
storm-related impacts in the southern United States where I live, the
need for such a system--and for substantial improvements in
understanding weather, climate, and a broad range of ocean responses
that affect both coastal and inland communities--is in very real terms
a matter of life and death.
The Integrated Ocean Observing System would augment physical
observations and measurably improve our abilities to protect human life
and property from marine hazards, including not only storms and
flooding events, but also such things as harmful algal blooms and
threatening pollution concentrations. One particular effort ongoing
with the observing system network in the South Atlantic where I work is
the development of significantly enhanced ability to predict storm
surge and flooding, both of which contribute to more deaths and
injuries than do the high winds of hurricanes and tropical storms. This
is but one potential utility of the observing system. Others uses are
as diverse as:
--augmenting national defense and homeland security;
--understanding human-induced and natural changes in the environment
and relations between them and predicting effects on humans;
--tracking and understanding climate change and the ocean's role in
it; and
--supplying important information to ocean-related businesses, marine
transportation industry, fishers and fishery managers, and
others.
An integrated ocean observing system that is regionally, nationally
and internationally connected and coordinated can serve the nation much
better than the 40+ coastal ocean observing systems now in various
stages of development and operation. These make important
contributions, but the greatest value is in the synergy that will come
from fully linking them together into a comprehensive network. In this
regard the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommends that the IOOS be
a key element of a new ocean program, building upon strong partnerships
among federal, state, territorial, tribal and local governments, non-
governmental organizations, industry, and academia. The IOOS should be
planned under the auspices of Ocean.US, which would be the interagency
coordinating arm for the observing system under the National Ocean
Council that Dr. Rosenberg briefly described. NOAA should serve as the
lead federal agency for implementing and operating the IOOS. NOAA's
role should be to work through Ocean.US to integrate the observing
system across all agencies, ensuring that the nation ends up with one
national observing system, not a NOAA system, a Navy system and an NSF
system, or a whole bunch of unconnected systems serving different
needs.
The success of IOOS will also depend on its drawing upon a broad
constituency and meeting the needs of numerous users, including the
general public. This will require that it: reach out to many groups,
especially those outside academia; develop a set of core variables to
be measured throughout the system, along with sufficient flexibility to
deal with differing regional priorities and situations; include
fisheries, protected species and other biological data and chemical as
well as physical parameters; and establish a process for migrating from
research to operational modes as quickly and seamlessly as possible.
The price for implementing the IOOS is considerable--beginning with
$231 million in additional funds in year 1 and growing to a sustained
level of $753 million in new funding. However, the cost of not building
and implementing IOOS in terms of economic and other impacts on U.S.
society is probably incalculable. Again, we heartily thank the
Committee for supporting this crucial initiative and making such a
substantial investment in NOAA to support coastal and ocean
observations.
Sustainable Fisheries
The status of the nation's fisheries was a topic we heard about at
every one of our meetings. It is something that people across the
country and from every walk of life are concerned about, and nowhere
was the need for an ecosystem-based management approach more evident
than with regard to fisheries. As a result, 27 of our 212
recommendations deal directly with fishery issues, and numerous more
would affect fisheries indirectly. No other single issue received this
much attention by the Commission.
Because the Regional Fishery Management Council structure contains
so many of the characteristics that the Commission believes are
important as a foundation for ecosystem-based management, the
Commission did not focus on wholesale changes to the Councils but chose
instead to recommend substantial strengthening of the Councils, and
federal and state management processes in six major areas: (1)
strengthening the link between science and management by separating
scientific and allocation decisions; (2) clarifying jurisdiction and
increasing public representation; (3) expanding the use of dedicated
access privileges and decreasing overcapitalization; (4) improving
enforcement; (5) dealing with bycatch and essential fish habitat; and
(6) strengthening international management. In particular, the
Commission found that: ``The role of scientific information should be
as strong as possible in fishery management and subject to the least
possible political influence.''
The Commission recommends increases in funding for fisheries
management at $29 million for year 1 and approximately $88 million for
following years. These new funds would support such activities as
expanded work by the Scientific and Statistical Committees of the
Councils; growth of cooperative fisheries research with participating
fishermen and others; increased joint enforcement agreements with
states to improve enforcement; development and implementation of
improved regional bycatch plans; a more ecosystem approach to essential
fish habitat designations; and other efforts to enhance the work of the
fisheries management councils and the interstate fishery commissions.
Additional funding for ecosystem science to support fisheries
management at federal, regional and state levels should also be part of
the overall doubling of the federal ocean science budget. Further and
very importantly, fisheries science needs to be part of the more
integrated national science program dealing with ecosystems. As the
Commission points out, we need an overall science plan for ecosystem-
based management, and we need data and information management systems
that will help ensure delivery of the best available scientific
information to fishery managers, coastal managers, and others at
federal, regional, state, tribal and local levels. Once again, the
actions of this Committee to support improved understanding and
management of fisheries are truly remarkable, and we thank you for
them.
Oceans and Human Health
Estuarine and coastal processes are being impacted by humans
through urban and agricultural runoff, sewage discharges, deposition of
airborne pollutants, industrial waste streams, shoreline modifications,
wetland dredging and filling, overfishing, introduction of invasive
species, habitat destruction, high density recreational use, climate
change, and other pathways. Indicative of the growing problem are the
increasing frequencies of beach closures, seafood consumption
advisories, harmful algal blooms, and occurrences of toxic chemicals
and pathogenic microorganisms in coastal and even offshore waters,
sediments and biota. These negative human effects on marine ecosystems
in turn result in increasing cases of human illness and other impacts
on human well being.
On the other hand, the oceans represent the greatest global
reservoir of biodiversity, with huge and mostly unexplored potential
for production of bioproducts that could measurably improve human
existence. From these natural products, a broad range of useful
materials could be developed, including pharmaceuticals, nutritional
supplements, medical diagnostics, pesticides and herbicides for
agricultural applications, enzymes and chemical products for disease
research, and many others. The potential annual value of each class of
these marine-derived bioproducts may be in the multi-billion dollar
range.
Based on both such opportunities and the need to understand and
mitigate the increasing risks to humans from coastal and marine
exposures, the Commission recommends several actions, including: (1)
the establishment of a national, multi-agency Oceans and Human Health
Initiative involving NOAA, NSF and NIEHS to sponsor and coordinate
exploration, research, and development of new technologies related to
the various connections between the health of coastal, ocean and Great
Lakes ecosystems and human health; (2) expanded research related to the
complex inter-relations of pollution, harmful algal blooms, emerging
marine diseases, ecosystem degradation, climate change, and
microorganisms and their effects on health of marine organisms and
humans; (3) development of practical natural compounds from marine
organisms; and (4) improved programs to ensure seafood safety and
coastal water quality.
To carry out these functions, the Commission recommends doubling of
current funding levels for this critical initiative. We salute the
Committee for its recommendation to do just that--increase funding for
the NOAA Oceans and Human Health Program from $10 to $20 million, and
again we thank you for your tremendous support.
Marine Mammals and Endangered Species
Numerous factors impact populations of marine mammals, sea turtles,
corals, and other endangered and vulnerable marine species, including
bycatch in directed fisheries, hunting, loss of breeding, nesting and
foraging habitat, ship strikes, pollution, and disease. Unfortunately,
little is known about the relative importance or cumulative effects of
such factors on the survival and especially the potential for recovery
of most protected species. Yet, today the nation must cope with
unprecedented and increasing incidences of unexplained mass mortalities
of marine mammals, regional and global epizootics, increasing discovery
of marine animal diseases that are shared with humans or terrestrial
animals, continuing and accelerating declines of populations of sea
turtles and other marine animals, and a substantial and increasing
scope of disease threats to marine populations. As pointed out by the
Commission: ``The lack of baseline biological data on most marine
mammals and endangered species, coupled with limited stock assessment
data, make it difficult to evaluate population abundance and trends,
isolate causes of mortality, or distinguish management successes from
failures.''
In response to public concerns about the growing numbers of dead
and dying marine mammals washing up on our shores, in the late 1980s
NOAA established a Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program.
Even with rather limited resources, NOAA and its partners and extensive
volunteer network have responded to stranding events encompassing a
wide range of species and numerous causative factors, including
diseases, starvation, toxins from harmful algal blooms, and human
interactions. However, the causes of a substantial portion of these
events are as yet undetermined, and the potential risks to humans are
largely unknown. No similar federal program exists for other marine
organisms like sea turtles or fish, such as the croakers that are dying
off in droves now in mid-Atlantic states.
The plight of marine mammals, sea turtles, corals, and many other
marine organisms threatened by unexplained and unknown diseases and
poor health suggests that the marine environment holds increasing
threats to a variety of biota, including the human populations that are
flocking to our coasts. There is a significant need for a multi-
disciplinary approach to examine the health of marine animal
populations in coordination with the emerging integrated ocean
observing system and the oceans and human health initiatives mentioned
above.
Thus, the Commission recommends that NOAA and other relevant
federal agencies undertake an expanded research program on marine
mammals, sea turtles, and other protected species populations and then
use this information for more comprehensive, ecosystem-based management
and more effective permitting procedures. Specifically, this research
initiative should focus on:
--better understanding of the basic biology, physiology, life
history, and population dynamics of marine mammals, sea
turtles, and other endangered or vulnerable marine species and
how disease, contaminants, harmful algal blooms, human
activities, and other stressors may impact these animals;
--enhanced capability to respond quickly to strandings and unusual
mortality events involving marine mammals and sea turtles;
--the effect of sound on marine mammals; and
--development of technology to eliminate or mitigate human impacts on
marine mammals, sea turtles, and other endangered species.
In these areas, integrated, interagency programs will be essential,
especially in dealing with thorny issues such as the effects of noise
on mammal populations. The Commission recommends increasing funding by
$17 million/year initially with sustained additional funding of $26
million/year over fiscal year 2004 levels, with some additional funding
for research in these areas as part of the overall doubling of the
federal ocean science budget. The Commission applauds recent action of
this Committee to provide $12 million for a marine mammal initiative to
deal with many of the problems noted above.
Marine Aquaculture
The Commission concluded that sustainable marine aquaculture has
potential to become a significant industry in the United States and a
means of reducing the nation's annual $7 billion seafood trade deficit
if developed properly. However, for offshore marine aquaculture to
develop in the United States, three major problem areas must be dealt
with: environmental issues must be addressed; a predictable regulatory
framework must be put in place; and new technologies must be developed.
Recognizing both the potential benefits and the possible negative
environmental impacts associated with marine aquaculture, the
Commission recommends that: (1) NOAA be designated the lead federal
agency for marine aquaculture; (2) an Office of Sustainable Marine
Aquaculture be established in NOAA with responsibility for developing--
in consultation with states, other federal agencies and interested
parties--a comprehensive, environmentally-sound permitting, leasing,
and regulatory program for marine aquaculture and expanding marine
aquaculture research, development, training, extension, and technology
transfer activities; and (3) the United States should work
internationally to encourage global adherence to responsible
aquaculture practices.
Comprehensive marine aquaculture legislation that sets clear goals,
authorities and responsibilities and ensures that aquaculture is placed
within an ecosystem-based ocean management framework will likely be
necessary.
To accomplish these activities will require a minimum of $3 million
in new funding in the first year, growing to $7 million annually
thereafter and augmented by additional research funds through Sea Grant
and other NOAA and federal-agency research budgets.
CONCLUSION
The Commission considers structural improvements in ocean
governance, an ecosystem-based approach to ocean and coastal resource
management, substantially increased investment in scientific research
to underpin management decision-making, and improved ocean literacy to
be essential foundation blocks for a comprehensive and sustainable
national ocean policy for the United States. In its deliberations, it
devoted a great deal of attention to NOAA and considers the agency a
crucial player in all four of these key areas.
While recognizing the central importance of NOAA, the Commission
also is cognizant of its many limitations as it is presently organized,
operated and supported. In place of the ``old'' NOAA, the Commission
envisioned a ``new NOAA'' that would be ``a stronger, more effective,
science-based and service-oriented ocean agency--one that contributes
to better management of oceans and coasts through an ecosystem-based
approach . . .'' Today's NOAA simply does not have the resources or the
stature to do the job that tomorrow's oceans demand. To lead the nation
toward an ecosystem-based approach to management of coastal, ocean and
Great Lakes resources as the Commission envisioned, NOAA must have the
organizational structure, agency stature and authorities necessary to
provide that leadership and effectuate change; it must become more
partner and service oriented; and it absolutely must have the necessary
financial resources to do the job that the nation so desperately needs
it to do.
Thank you for holding this hearing and for the continuing high
level of interest in and support for the activities of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy. The Commission worked diligently to provide
practical, workable recommendations for improvements to the overall
U.S. ocean policy and to a host of management, research, educational,
operational, and international activities. If enacted, the Commission's
recommendations will lead to healthy ocean, coastal and Great Lakes
resources that can sustain us, our children, and their children's
children and provide a literal treasure-trove of economic benefits to
the nation. Thanks to the outstanding work of this Committee, NOAA is
well on its way to gaining a very significant portion of the funding
required to implement many of the Commission's recommendations. Again,
we thank you for this marvelous support, and I thank you for the
opportunity to speak before you today.
I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
Senator Gregg. I note that in the audience, we are joined
by Dr. Berrien Moore, who has spent a lot of time in Washington
recently and is doing a fabulous job of trying to give us some
thoughts and direction for the NOAA research effort overall.
And we certainly appreciate his support and his leadership;
tremendous resource, obviously, here at UNH.
Now, Dr. Rosenberg, we would like to get your input,
thoughts and guidance and concerns.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW A. ROSENBERG, Ph.D., MEMBER, U.S.
COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY; AND PROFESSOR,
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you very much, Senator, and to the
committee for holding this hearing. And I would particularly
like to thank you for your leadership on the Oceans Act of
2000, continuing leadership on new legislation with regard to
ocean policy and for the opportunity that I have had to serve
on the Commission. Plus, I would like to thank the university
for the opportunity to spend 3 years working on the Commission.
It really has been an honor to work with an extraordinary
group of fellow commissioners, including most notably Paul
Sandifer, to my left, and the man who used to be known as
Jacques Cousteau, but is now Robert Ballard on my right. They
really are an extraordinary group of people and it has been a
lifetime educational opportunity for me, which I am very
grateful for.
I believe that our recommendations truly meet the spirit
and intent of the Oceans Act. And our ocean environment is at
risk, as the Commission points out and as I certainly believe.
And the Nation really does need to make policy changes to
reduce that risk.
As you noted, Senator, some of the students here are in an
ocean policy seminar course that I am teaching, graduate course
that I am teaching this semester and are going through the
report. And I hope they will have an opportunity to comment on
and review all of the recommendations.
One of the interesting things that happened to me in the
course of the Commission work was one reporter asked me about
the former Ocean Policy Commission, the Stratton Commission and
said, well, this U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy is the first
commission in 35 years. I said yes, that is correct. The
reporter said, ``Did you serve on the other commission as
well?'' And my response was, ``no, I didn't. I was 12 at the
time and my dad wouldn't let me.''
But I think the important part here is that hopefully some
of the now students and soon to be leaders, nationally and in
some cases internationally, in the room, may have an
opportunity to review our work 20 or 30 years from now and I
hope they have good things to say about it, as we do about the
Stratton Commission.
My comments this morning will focus on two areas, the
governance structure we use for implementing ocean policy and
the adoption of the principle of ecosystem-based management for
the oceans.
Please note that I offer the Commission recommendations as
well as my personal opinion in these comments and I have tried
to be careful in distinguishing between them.
The Commission recommends four components for a new
governance framework to implement ocean policy: National
coordination and leadership; a strengthening and streamlining
of the Federal agency structure; a development of regional
solutions to national problems; and the establishment of a
coordinated offshore management regime.
In my opinion, these four elements should be included in a
National Ocean Policy Act that also specifically sets national
goals for managing our ocean and coastal areas and helps knit
together the extensive and often confusing framework of
statutory mandates and policy direction we now have. So these
goals should be based on the guiding principles in the report
of the Commission.
The Commission found that Federal level coordination and
leadership is fragmented at best and inconsistent in too many
cases. The Commission calls for a National Ocean Council to
coordinate across the agency and that Council can help resolve
conflicting mandates, improve the leverage of those programs in
various agencies, the leverage they can obtain from one
another, as well as provide more coherent leadership for the
Nation on ocean policy.
And I should note here, I worked for NOAA for 10 years and
have enormous respect for the agency and for the other Federal
agencies. They have incredibly talented employees and work
extremely hard, but they need some additional tools in order to
do what they need to do.
I think the Ocean Council must do more than just oversee
ongoing activities. The Council must have the authority to make
real change in ocean governance. The Commission recommends a
stronger NOAA as the lead ocean science and management agency
for the Nation. And in my view, NOAA has remained a collection
of agencies rather than a coherent lead ocean agency.
The National Ocean Policy Act should strengthen NOAA by
drawing programs together from across the Government to reduce
program fragmentation. And as new imperatives come forward,
such as the implementation of an Integrated Ocean Observing
System that Dr. Sandifer mentioned or the implementation of a
ecosystem-based approach to management, which I will discuss
further, NOAA must grow into these programs in stride.
NOAA must remain a science-based agency as one of its core
attributes. Prediction, monitoring and management functions
rely on science and research, the science and research
enterprise of NOAA and its external partners, such as UNH and
many other universities.
As a former NOAA scientist, a NOAA Regional Administrator
and then recently a member of the NOAA research review team
that Dr. Moore chaired, I strongly believe that research and
the provision of science advice for management and operations
must remain together. The linkage between science and
management needs to be strong enough to ensure that science
advice of the highest quality is available on a timely basis to
policymakers and managers. To put it bluntly, researchers can't
refuse a call for science advice because they are more
interested in something else because we rely on that science
advice critically to make management decisions. That means that
as NOAA continues to evolve, separating off research, our very
best scientists from the advisory function is a difficult
challenge that we have to address. And I believe we must keep
the advisory function and the research functions together.
Overall I believe there are a couple of clear options for
NOAA, including restructuring the agency into three lines based
on core functions or possibly based along mission lines. The
core functions being ecosystem-based management; operations and
prediction services; and scientific advice, research and
education. Or the mission lines, coastal and marine ecosystem
services; weather and climate services; and research,
operations and data services.
The budget must, of course, then follow the structure and
allow programs to be streamlined and consolidated.
And in my opinion, the end result may be that the stronger
and bigger NOAA logically becomes an independent agency, but
that decision must wait to see the shape of that agency to
come.
The Commission recommends that we adopt the principle of
ecosystem-based management, that is managing human activities
within a large marine ecosystem in concert rather than
separately, considering the cumulative impacts of those
activities on the functioning of the ecosystem as a whole.
For example, coastal development interacts with the
pollution abatement programs and affects fisheries productivity
in the coastal ocean and salt marshes and nearshore areas, such
as along the New Hampshire coast.
In order to implement ecosystem-based management, five
changes are needed: Creating regional councils and information
management systems; developing the capability for the Federal
Government to manage on an ecosystem basis; structuring science
programs to support ecosystem-based management; having an
overall set of policy goals to guide the process; and
developing a comprehensive offshore management regime to deal
with gaps in the current management authorities.
Regional councils must be developed in order to plan and
coordinate across various sectors of human activities that
impact the ecosystem. The Commission recommends setting up
regional pilot programs where each region may choose the issues
it begins work on; that flexibility is essential.
Finally, there are major gaps in the current set of
authority for management, particularly in offshore waters.
There is no real governance structure for newly emerging
activities, such as energy production, aquaculture and
bioprospecting to name a few. Without an overarching policy
framework that sets goals for ecosystem-based management,
ensures that analysis considers impacts across sectors,
specifically sets criteria for deciding protection and access
privileges, development will be poorly managed.
Senator, and to your committee in general, I thank you for
the opportunity to testify today and particularly for your
holding this hearing in New Hampshire. I have only touched on a
few of the important issues in the Commission report. I was
intending on going through all 212, but thought that perhaps
that might go a little long.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I do recommend that we look across that set of issues, and
as your committee and the Commerce Committee has already done,
begin to focus on the broad scale picture as quickly as
possible, because I think there is no time to waste in terms of
protecting the ocean. Thank you very much.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Doctor. And I presume your
graduate students here took many notes and will be paraphrasing
that statement back to you to assure the A that they deserve.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew A. Rosenberg
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today concerning the future of U.S.
ocean policy. I am Andrew Rosenberg, a member of the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy and a Professor of Natural Resources in the Institute for
the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space at the University of New
Hampshire.
The Ocean's Act of 2000 formed the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
and directed us to ``make recommendations for coordinated and
comprehensive national ocean policy . . .'' The Act set out eight
specific objectives for this policy paraphrased here: (1) protection of
life and property; (2) responsible stewardship of ocean and coastal
resources; (3) protection of the marine environment; (4) enhancement of
marine-related commerce, resolution of conflicts among diverse users of
the marine environment and engagement of the private sector in
developing approaches to the responsible use of marine resources; (5)
expansion of knowledge of the marine environment and the advancement of
education in fields related to the ocean and coasts; (6) development
and improvement in technological capability for ocean related
activities; (7) cooperation among all government agencies to ensure
coherent regulations, appropriate use of funding, efficient operation
of federal agencies, and enhancement of partnerships with state and
local governments; and (8) leadership by the United States in ocean and
coastal activities.
My participation as a Commissioner is an honor and a once in a
lifetime educational opportunity for which I am very grateful. I
believe our recommendations truly meet the spirit and intent of the
Oceans Act. Further, I believe that we must immediately begin to make
changes in U.S. ocean policy to reverse an alarming, widespread
degradation in the health of the oceans and coasts, vital living marine
resources, coastal communities, leadership in ocean science and the
life-support system of the earth. While this may sound dramatic, I
believe that our ocean environment is at risk and a change of course is
needed to reduce that risk.
In this testimony I wish to focus on two overarching themes of the
Commission report; the governance structure we use for managing our
activities and impacts on the ocean and the adoption of the principle
of ecosystem-based management for the oceans. My colleagues, Drs.
Sandifer and Ballard, will be addressing other aspects of the report
for the Committee.
The Commission recommends four components for a new governance
framework to implement Ocean Policy: (1) national coordination and
leadership, including (2) a strengthened and streamlined federal agency
structure, (3) the development of regional solutions to national
problems, and (4) the establishment of a coordinated offshore
management regime. In my opinion, these four elements should be
included in a National Ocean Policy Act that also specifically sets
national goals for managing our ocean and coastal activities and helps
knit together the extensive often confusing framework of statutory
mandates and policy direction we now have. These national goals should
be based on the guiding principles in the report of the Commission. In
particular, I would like to highlight: stewardship, resources are held
in the public trust for all Americans; ecosystem-based management,
understanding and mitigating the cumulative impacts of human activities
on the ecosystem as a whole; adaptive management, continuously re-
evaluating management as new information becomes available and making
adjustments as needed to meet the goals; understandable, clear rules,
making the rules that govern various activities coherent for the
public; accountability, to ensure that government and the public do
what is needed to conserve marine ecosystems; and international
responsibility, working cooperatively on ocean issues and meeting our
responsibilities for global ocean policy. Using these and the other
principles an overarching ocean policy can be articulated for the
nation.
The Commission found that federal level coordination and leadership
is fragmented at best and inconsistent in too many cases. In my
opinion, agencies are working hard to meet their mandates. I had the
privilege of working for NOAA for ten years, and served as Deputy
Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service. The NOAA personnel
are talented and dedicated but they don't have all the tools they need
to do the job. Nor do they have an overarching framework for all of the
conflicting mandates that the various statutes and demands of the day
bring. The Commission calls for a National Ocean Council to coordinate
across the agencies. The Council can help resolve conflicting mandates,
improve the leverage that programs can obtain from one another, and
present a more coherent leadership for the nation on ocean policy. The
Council should be chaired by an Assistant to the President for Ocean
Policy, not by any one agency head. The goal of the Council should be
to work toward a coherent national policy with regard to management,
science and education, with agencies working together, not in
opposition to one another. While Councils may seem just another layer
of bureaucracy, I think this Ocean Council must do much more than just
oversee ongoing activities. Its mandate, following on from the Oceans
Act mandate to the Commission, should be to implement a more coherent
and efficient national governance system. The starting point for the
Council should be planning and coordinating the implementation of the
Commission's recommendations. Somewhat analogous to current discussions
in the intelligence realm, the Council must have the authority to make
real change in ocean governance through the budget process, resolving
conflicting mandates and streamlining of programs across the federal
government. However, note that it will still be the agencies that have
responsibility for implementing specific actions to address mandates.
The Council serves as a planning, coordinating and conflict resolution
body for the implementing agencies, as well as a monitor for progress
toward national goals.
The Commission recommends a stronger NOAA as the lead ocean science
and management policy agency for the nation. We recognize that many
ocean related activities are going to remain in various agencies across
the government and the National Ocean Council will need to coordinate
between these agencies. NOAA was created in response to the Stratton
Commission recommendations and has done an enormous amount for the
nation. However, in my view NOAA has remained a collection of agencies
rather than a lead ocean agency. In some ways, within NOAA there is a
mirror of the problem that we found across the federal ``ocean''
agencies, that is, program fragmentation and conflicting authorities.
The National Ocean Policy Act should serve as an organic act, taking
the opportunity to strengthen NOAA by drawing programs together from
across the government to reduce program fragmentation. It should also
take the opportunity to focus NOAA on its core competencies and
mandates; assessment, prediction and operations, ecosystem-based
management of ocean and coastal areas and resources, and science,
research and education. The current NOAA line structure reflects the
agencies they were created from rather than the tasks they will need to
undertake in the 21st century. Again, I have high regard for the people
and mission of NOAA and in many ways feel a part of the agency. But I
also know it is hard to change the way business is done without a
change in structure because working patterns become set. But as new
imperatives come forward, such as the implementation of a new
integrated ocean observing system, the implementation of an ecosystem-
based approach to management, and increasing demands for research and
scientific advice, NOAA must be restructured in order to grow into
these programs in stride. To take another example, the Commission
recommends as a guiding principle the integration of atmospheric, land
and water related science and policy. Unfortunately, the ``wet'' side
of NOAA still struggles to talk to the ``dry'' side of NOAA.
Restructuring organizations can be a tricky process to say the
least. There is still however an urgent need for the overall agency to
act as a corporate whole. Several principles must be kept in mind. NOAA
must remain a science-based agency as one of its core attributes.
Prediction and monitoring functions for weather to climate to ocean
observations, or the management functions for ocean and coastal areas
and resources including sanctuaries, fisheries, aquaculture or habitat
protection rely on the science and research enterprise of NOAA and its
external partners. There has been much discussion of separating the
research in NOAA from management and operations. As a former NMFS
scientist and a former NMFS Regional Administrator and serving on the
recently completed NOAA Research Review Team, I strongly believe that
research and the provision of the science advice for management and
operations must remain together. Separating out research from the
advisory functions will leave the other parts of NOAA without the best
scientific basis for decision-making. The science advisory function is
a fundamental job of the best scientists in the agency as part of the
science and research enterprise. Then, if the science and research
enterprise is to be structurally separate from management and
operations, the linkage between these lines needs to be strong enough
to ensure science advice of the highest quality is available to respond
to management and operational needs on a timely basis. To put it
bluntly, researchers cannot refuse a call for science advice because
they are more interested in something else. If this linkage cannot be
reliably made then the science and research enterprises must remain
within the operational lines.
Overall, I believe there are a couple of clear restructuring
options for NOAA. One possibility is to restructure the agency into
three lines according to the core functions of ecosystem-based
management; operations and prediction services; and scientific advice,
research and education. This would require the linkage of science with
the other two lines as discussed above. Another alternative is to
structure along mission lines, coastal and marine ecosystem services,
weather and climate services, research, operations and data services.
In this case the research and science functions would remain
distributed across all the lines with the research, operations and data
services line serving an integrating function for the science program.
Clearly there are other configurations, but to me breaking down some
walls is necessary to open the architecture of the agency and create a
new NOAA. The budget must then follow this structure and allow programs
to be streamlined and consolidated. Such restructuring will then
provide the basis for NOAA to grow and strengthen through consolidation
of programs from across the government. The end result may be that the
stronger, bigger NOAA logically becomes an independent agency, in order
to fully meet the challenges of changing ocean policy. The Commission
report doesn't recommend an independent NOAA, but as stated in the
hearing upon release of the report, that remains an option. It is the
function, structure and strength that must be addressed in order to
make the decision on the appropriate location and stature for the
agency.
A major challenge for governance of ocean activities is changing to
a perspective of ecosystem-based management. Ecosystem-based management
means managing human activities within a large marine ecosystem in
concert, rather than separately, and considering the cumulative impacts
of those activities on the functioning of the ecosystem as a whole. The
perspective is that the natural system sets the bounds for management,
rather than political boundaries. This is because within an ecosystem,
effects on one component can logically be expected to impact other
components. Therefore, as we seek to manage across the full range of
human activities and mitigate their impacts on the natural environment,
we need to consider the interactions between different management
actions. For example, coastal development interacts with pollution
abatement programs and affects the productivity of the coastal ocean in
salt marshes and nearshore areas such as along the New Hampshire coast.
In other words, fisheries are affected by more than just fishing and
pollution is affected by more than just controlling the amount of
discharge. Because humans are an integral part of the ecosystem, social
and economic impacts are part of the ecosystem-based management
perspective.
Ecosystem-based management does not mean that we don't have to
manage each of the sectors of human activity. Fishing still needs to be
managed to prevent overfishing or restore overfished resources for
example. But the management of the fishery should be linked to the
management of other sectors to provide a more coherent set of policies.
The focus for ecosystem-based management should be to maintain the
function of coastal and marine ecosystems including both their goods
and services. We want to maintain the ability to harvest fish as goods
from the ecosystem, but we want to ensure the ecosystem services
provided by overall productivity and ocean health isn't undermined. In
other words, we want to enjoy a healthy ocean for many other reasons
than just fishing.
In order to implement ecosystem based management five changes are
needed; creating regional councils and information management systems,
developing the capability for the federal government to manage on a
ecosystem basis, structuring science programs to support ecosystem-
based management, having an overall set of policy goals to guide the
management process and developing a comprehensive offshore management
regime to deal with gaps in current management authorities. I have
already commented on the needed changes in NOAA to support ecosystem
level science and management. For the federal government to have the
capability to bring together the various sector activities and
mandates, and provide the needed flexibility for ecosystem-based
management a stronger NOAA and a National Ocean Council with
substantial authority are needed. Regional councils must be developed
in order to plan and coordinate across the various sectors of human
activities that impact an ecosystem. Large marine ecosystems are
generally on a regional scale such, as the Gulf of Maine, or the South
Atlantic Bight. Multiple jurisdictions are involved and many types of
human activities occur within each ecosystem. The Commission recommends
setting up regional councils on a pilot program basis (voluntary with
substantial flexibility to start) as planning and coordination bodies.
The National Ocean Council needs to facilitate their work. Each region
may choose different issues to begin work on ecosystem based management
and this flexibility is essential. Further, these activities must be
funded in order to foster real change. This means funding data and
information management so policy makers have the science to develop
management plans, funding ecosystem assessments to bring everyone onto
a common footing for planning and impact analysis, and funding the
management actions themselves.
Regional ocean councils have a difficult task, fitting together the
pieces of management across the sectors. This means, for example,
making the fisheries management program work in concert with coastal
zone management programs, pollution abatement programs and protected
species programs. The goal is management plans that specifically
include consideration of the cumulative impacts of all of these
actions, creating a system where they leverage one another. The federal
government must provide sufficient flexibility to allow this to happen
but also ensure that the primary goal of maintaining functioning
ecosystems is met.
Finally, there are major gaps in the current set of authorities for
management particularly in offshore (federal) waters. There is no real
governance structure for newly emerging activities such as energy
production, aquaculture, and bioprospecting to name a few. Also
included are specific conservation measures such as marine protected
areas. Delineating rights and privileges in offshore areas held in the
public trust is complex. For offshore oil and gas there is a well
developed management system in place, but for other activities that
result in exclusive access to areas there is no such system. Without an
overarching policy framework that sets goals for ecosystem-based
management, ensures that analysis considers impacts across the sectors
and specifically sets criteria for deciding protection or access
privileges, development will be poorly managed.
Ecosystem-based management is not some theoretical construct. It is
common sense. It means looking at all the parts of the machine to
understand how they can work together. The goal is a more effective
management system that does a better job of protecting the oceans from
unwanted changes and further degradation.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I have only touched on a few of the
important issues in the Commission report. I would be pleased to
discuss these and other matters with you further at your discretion.
Senator Gregg. I think the essence of a lot of the comments
that have been made is the reorganization of the Federal role
in oceans policy, specifically how NOAA should be structured,
and Dr. Ballard I think touched on it, when you look at NOAA's
role versus NASA's role, why does NASA receive so much more in
the way of funding and why is its role so much more dominant.
I would be interested in the panel's discussion of what
created this historical stepchild treatment of the oceans
policy and how do we get--your report has obviously outlined
it, but how do we push it to the front burner and get it to the
status of what NASA may be or should be?
Mr. Ballard. Thank you, Senator. There are all sorts of
explanations that go back to the very fundamentals on the
creation of NOAA and its placement in the Department of
Commerce. It was not the recommendation of the Stratton
Commission that it be placed in the Department of Commerce.
I think certainly one of the issues is for scientists and
explorers to get into outer space, it is not that easy. It is
not something you can do on your own. And it required the
community to work together, to develop the strength within
Congress to develop the funding for NASA so that they could
pool their resources and provide that gateway into outer space.
The oceans, for better or for worse, you can get into them
pretty easily. And when NOAA was created, there was already a
very, very large oceanographic community, both in academia and
the Government and private sector; whereas when NASA was
created, it was fundamentally the Air Force was the only major
player in outer space.
So I think that it is the history of the genesis of the two
different programs that has led to why they are so different. I
think that there is a lot to be learned from the NASA model; I
think it has been extremely successful. And the difficulty is
getting the oceanographic community throughout the sectors to
see that as a strength as opposed to a weakness.
I am hoping that through the strengthening of NOAA, that it
can be successful. But as Andy points out, there is a lot of
misgivings upon the part of other members of the marine
community about can NOAA pull that off. I vote to try. I think
that the time has come to attempt to strengthen NOAA and to
have it be much more competitive in that world; that is my own
personal opinion. I don't know where Paul is on that.
Mr. Sandifer. Bob, I tend to agree with you. There was some
interesting politics at the time of the Stratton Commission
report, as there always are. And President Nixon at the time,
according to the stories I hear on this, simply was not willing
to place NOAA where it was originally intended because of
personal preferences. So it ended up under the reorganization
order being part of Commerce.
I think though the real difference between the development
of NOAA as the national ocean agency for this country and NASA
has been the lack of a defining crisis. In space, it was the
Sputnik crisis, the concern that the Soviet Union was outpacing
us in the potential development of rocketry and space-based
weapons systems that got the Nation mobilized to really begin
investing, and that investment then morphed into a lot of other
different areas, but all space based.
In the environmental arena, it was Rachel Carson's seminal
text, Silent Spring, that reminded all of us, through my
childhood at least, of the tremendous problems of the
environment and what awaited us if we didn't take action. And a
great number of efforts were made, with the Environmental
Protection Agency being one of them.
And I think what the Ocean Commission is trying to say with
this report, both our preliminary version and this final 3\1/2\
pounder, plus all the appendices, which I have been told by the
chairman now brings the total weight of our weighty document to
13 pounds.
Senator Gregg. A small cod.
Mr. Sandifer. I think what we have tried to do is to tell
you, tell the country that we have the same kind of crisis now
facing the oceans and it is time for us to step up to the plate
as a Nation and deal with it by making the necessary, both
investments in science and management and in the structural
changes in order to be able to deal with the problems.
It is very clear to us that, as Bob described it, the lungs
of the Earth--the oceans produce most of the oxygen we
breathe--we are an island nation, every State is an island
State in that sense, and we must now pay attention. And this
ocean blueprint says that we are in crisis. We are not so far
gone that we cannot turn the corner and protect our resources,
but we are close. And that is what we hope to do with this
message.
Senator Gregg. So do you think NOAA should be a separate
agency or should it be within Commerce or should it be a
quasiagency within Commerce?
Mr. Rosenberg. I actually believe that NOAA requires
substantial independence. Now, whether that is an independent
agency or as in some of the recent legislation I believe that
you have cosponsored, uses some of the mechanisms for other
agencies, like FAA and PTO and so on, to gain that
independence, I think it is essential that NOAA gains some
independence as well as gaining some strength. The reason for
that is partly the size of the agency and to bring it together
into a coherent whole. It is also partly because of the
layering that occurs within NOAA on everything from budgetary
decisions to policy decisions.
Having worked in the Fisheries Service, which is the
largest regulatory part of NOAA--and incidentally, one of the
reasons why it is a little harder for people to like NOAA
better than NASA is that it has a regulatory function. The
layering that occurs right up through the Department, obviously
may be important from a policy perspective, but also hinders
the agency in becoming what it needs to be on its own and
gaining the profile that it has.
So I believe that it does need to have some independence.
But I believe that restructuring of the agency from where it
currently exists is also necessary. It is quite difficult to
make a fundamental change if everybody is in the same place, in
the same job and with the same name as they have had before;
sometimes you need to make that change structurally in order to
get a change in direction.
Senator Gregg. Assuming we were able to follow through on
your report and get NOAA restructured and get the Federal house
in order, how do you address the international issue? I mean,
the oceans are not a regional, national issue; they are an
international issue. You have got the Treaty of the Seas, but
what is the process that we should be pursuing in this area to
try to address, especially your point, Dr. Ballard, about the
artifacts being protected that are out there and proper use of
the minerals and the resources that are out there?
Mr. Ballard. Well, that also goes for fundamental
exploration; this is everyone's planet. I think clearly the
Deep Sea Drilling Program is a wonderful example of
collaboration of many nations to look into the third dimension
of our planet as a great model.
NOAA has historically been the spokesperson in many, many
international discussions. For example, when we did our first
exploration of the mid-ocean ridge, Project Famous, with the
French, NOAA was the lead agency, interacting with its
equivalency, which was IFREMER.
In fact, we find that other countries prefer that. I was
just in Athens a few days ago, working with their equivalency
of NOAA, which is the Hellenic Center for Marine Research.
Other governments tend to be organized around a central agency.
So when it comes to international collaboration, having a
strong NOAA will make that even easier.
Mr. Rosenberg. I agree with Bob, certainly from a science
perspective. From a policy perspective, it is also I think
imperative to have a lead ocean agency and a clearly identified
entity, certainly working with the State Department.
But just as one brief example, I used to be the
representative for the United States to several of the
international fishery organizations. And there was a meeting of
North Atlantic Fishery Ministers to discuss coordinating
fishery policy in the North Atlantic. And the United States
wasn't invited because they couldn't identify a fishery
minister. And so we had this long argument about who was the
responsible official.
Senator Gregg. We could have sent Herbie Drake.
Mr. Rosenberg. Yes. We could have sent Herbie Drake. And I
did suggest that I believe at one point.
But we don't have as clear a face internationally as we
need to on many of the marine environmental issues.
On the science issues, again we struggle because of
fragmentation. And I do think that that is one of the virtues
of having, not only a National Ocean Council, but also a much
stronger lead ocean agency, that you can make that interaction
from a position of greater strength.
Senator Gregg. To get to the fisheries issue, which is
critical, what should we do to address that, specifically
regionally? But NOAA's problems with fisheries are historic.
And probably the most difficult part that we deal with, as
Members of Congress, is NOAA's dealing with fishermen and with
the rights to fish. How do we address that?
Mr. Rosenberg. Well, I will start and then Paul perhaps can
add some comments. I think, of course, as you well know,
Senator, and most of the audience probably knows, it is a
little harder to be popular when you're regulating. And so, you
know, we wouldn't expect--the Weather Service people receive a
service and they are usually happy unless the forecast is
wrong. In the Fishery Service, if they are doing their job,
they are telling people they can't do things. Unfortunately,
that is part of regulation; it is not all of the features.
I think that, first of all, Fisheries need to become less
isolated, in a sense, within the agency. It is not simply about
managing fisheries; it is also about managing the marine
environment. There are lots of other pieces to this puzzle.
What do other scientists, as well as other parts of the agency
bring to the table in terms of cooperative research, in terms
of developing some kind of coherence in how the regulations
work.
And having conflicting mandates on marine mammals and
habitat protection and management of fisheries itself causes a
lot of that friction. So I often use in some of my
presentations on ecosystem-based management a chart of the
Northeast that shows various closed areas. And, you know, I
actually was Regional Administrator when many of those areas
were closed and it is hard for me to figure out where you can
fish and where you can't because it is so confusing. So gaining
the ability to actually put together a coherent plan for the
ecosystem as a whole, I think makes a substantial difference.
Bringing fishermen into cooperative research programs, such
as UNH working with other partners around New England has done
very effectively, I think is incredibly important. I think that
the Cooperative Research Program has been very successful. The
Commission report recommends expanding it very strongly. I
think it is been beneficial for fishermen as well as for the
agency, very broadly. And bringing a broader public focus to
issues, not only of fisheries, but the marine environment in
general, strengthening of Sea Grant, strengthening the ocean
education programs also gets over the isolation.
It is easy to focus on, you know, you have a group of the
regulated community and the regulators and not very many other
people paying attention and that is a really difficult recipe
for conflict. If you can broaden out that community a little
bit, I think that you can actually make some better progress
and also change the climate quite a bit.
Mr. Sandifer. I agree entirely with Andy's comments. I
would like to return for just a moment, Senator, to your
question regarding the international arena. Fisheries in the
international arena has always been controversial and will
remain so. But the Commission report covers a number of
recommendations, specific recommendations dealing with how we
would do better in international arenas. And of course, one of
these, the first one is the first recommendation from the
Commission, made in November 2 years ago, and that was for the
country to accede to the Law of the Sea Treaty as soon as
possible, and hopefully that will still occur.
But there are a bunch of specific things that the
Commission recognizes, international and in some cases just
bilateral fisheries agreements where we have responsibilities.
We need to completely fulfill our responsibilities, make sure
that we are, in fact, at the table. We make a number of
recommendations dealing with things such as corals, where it is
not just the coral environment or the fisheries that depend on
those environments, but in some cases products made from coral
that become part of the problem. And we recommend a number of
steps that could be taken, one of which would be to establish a
better way for us to do business with countries that harvest
coral resources by providing some mechanism of incentive for
them to protect the resources that we then take advantage of.
The same thing holds in the area of aquaculture, where
there is a great deal of interest in this environment and in my
background, where we strongly recommend the utilization of the
U.N.'s Code of Responsible Fisheries, which includes
aquaculture, in not only getting the United States to play by
those rules, but getting as many other countries in the world
to play by the same set of rules.
So I think what we are recommending in a nutshell would be
for us to focus on those international arenas, those
international areas, codes of activities where we can agree
what is responsible activity for this country and for others
and try our best to ensure that all of the countries play by
that same set of rules. It creates a level playing field for
our fishermen and it improves the market that we generate or we
make for imported products. It ensures then that we are, in
fact, buying product that would be harvested sustainably in
other parts of the world's oceans. So there are a number of
those kinds of recommendations in here and I think it is just a
matter of do we have the will to step up to the plate.
Senator Gregg. I guess as part of the will question is do
we have the structure? In other words, much of what you talk
about would fall under the State Department's responsibility.
And how do we coordinate effectively the State Department with
the agency that has knowledge of this, assuming it is NOAA, in
a more effective way?
Mr. Sandifer. Senator, I think you are absolutely correct.
And I believe that the recommendations, both in the report and
in pending legislation that you have, that would not only
strengthen NOAA and strengthen its responsibilities in this
area, but strengthen its response to the State Department and
the State Department's, shall we say, willingness to listen to
the folks who know something about the resource and science
side. So I think that could be a very, very significant step
forward if enacted.
Mr. Rosenberg. If I could just add one brief note about
this. Within NOAA, at least in my experience, there are several
international programs. You don't have an international program
office; you have about four or five for different lines. And
while I can understand well the differences between some of the
specific negotiations within the different lines, I think it is
symptomatic of NOAA that those international program offices in
Fisheries or NOS or the other agencies don't really interact
with each other; they operate as if they are separate agencies.
So that actually weakens the profile of not only the United
States in those negotiations, but also NOAA in the discussions
as well.
Often you deal with different people in the State
Department, depending on which international program you are
sitting in. So I do think, again, there are some structural
changes that are needed that relate to the overall structural
change, such that it is a NOAA program, not a Fisheries program
or an NOS program.
Senator Gregg. Would that apply to pollution also, relative
to the EPA?
Mr. Rosenberg. I think it does. I think in the report we
note that there are a couple of cases related to Clean Water
Act where, you know, the EPA has one program, perhaps the
incentive programs for reducing pollution and NOAA has the
disincentive programs for reducing pollution as opposed to
pulling them together.
There are issues, both on the science side as well as the
policy side, with regard to the Clean Water Act-related
functions. Habitat is an excellent example of that. Section
404, responsibilities under the Clean Water Act, cut across at
least four or five different agencies. And it is unclear where
the lead is on many of the specific actions with regard to
habitat. Most often, NOAA has a commenting authority; EPA has
the implementing authority; but sometimes it is Army Corps and
so on. So that fragmentation means that as opposed to having a
coherent sort of task force, you have a little bit, sometimes
more than a little bit of tug of war between agencies.
I think that we have identified in the report several
opportunities for consolidation of programs that are currently
shared between EPA and NOAA, that in many cases that
consolidation logically should be within NOAA. In other cases,
it might be within EPA. But addressing program fragmentation I
think is a critical issue and it does cut across much more than
NOAA. So if we only think about restructuring NOAA, then we
will have only done a piece of the job.
Senator Gregg. I believe we are running out of time. Which
leads me to my last question, which is, if you had the magic
wand, what would be the three things each of you would do to
make sure that this policy in the oceans blueprint was executed
on most effectively, the three top priorities?
Mr. Ballard. Well, clearly, thanks to you and your
colleagues, we have tremendous support in the Senate. We have a
lot of work to be done in the House. So my dream would be that
the House behaves as the Senate's behaved.
Senator Gregg. Words of wisdom; I have never heard such
words of wisdom.
Mr. Rosenberg. That is a tough act to follow, Bob. Thanks a
lot.
Mr. Ballard. Dream on.
Mr. Rosenberg. Yeah. Well, the three actions that I would
take, the first is I would proceed very strongly with an
overall governance structure, as in the bill that the Commerce
Committee has developed, which I believe is called the Hollings
Oceans Act. I think many of the elements are there from the
Commission report. But begin that fundamental governance
restructuring that needs to happen.
Second, I believe that we do need to fund the development
of regional information programs to enable ecosystem-based
management and have clear guidelines for the development of
regional programs for ecosystem-based management, so that those
solutions come from the region as opposed to being developed by
NOAA and handed off to the region.
And that is going to require pulling together a variety of
data sources on large marine ecosystems around the country and
making that information available in a readily accessible form
to managers within the regions so that they can actually work
through problems, and that they are working together so it is
not fisheries managers in one corner and coastal zone managers
in another.
And third, I think that we absolutely need to move forward
with recommendations such as those in the NOAA research review,
but more broadly for the science enterprise, if you like, of
the Nation, in terms of really strengthening our science
planning, coordination, and then funding for ocean-related
science.
I think the NOAA research review gave a lot of guideposts
in that direction in terms of developing real planning and
partnerships with universities, but we need to actually
implement those things as a high priority activity to create
the structure we need to do the science we need.
Mr. Sandifer. Not surprisingly, after spending 3 years with
these guys, I am in complete agreement with both of them. I
would really like to see the House of Representatives of the
U.S. Congress approach these ocean issues with the same
determination and energy and interest that the Senate has.
Beyond that, I think the enactment of a governance
structure that results in a NOAA that is really a true national
ocean agency in reality as opposed to just name is a
significant first step.
Second most important step would be to fund the necessary
science, education, and other infrastructure needs that we have
identified and this committee has made such a great start on.
And third, I will diverge a little bit from my colleagues
and say that not only do we need to move toward ecosystem-based
science in management, but the academic community needs to
embrace what ecosystem-based science really is and begin
training a new generation of scientists and policymakers who
understand interdisciplinary sciences, that is cross boundaries
beyond traditional disciplines, and are able to converse with
scientists in different fields, policymakers in different
areas, and translate a variety of scientific advances into
practical, everyday applications that normal human beings can
use. Thank you, sir.
Senator Gregg. Well, I want to thank the panel. And I think
what is obvious to everybody here in the audience and to those
who hopefully will be able to watch this, is that we are
incredibly lucky as a Nation to have these types of
individuals, their talent, their ability focused on this issue,
and as a result, making progress on what is such a critical
issue.
You know, you don't have to go very far from here to walk
to the edge of the ocean and look out and see what an
extraordinarily beautiful sight it is, but how vast it is and
how big an issue it is for us as a Nation and as a part of the
world to address.
In this blueprint is a way for us to get our Nation on the
right track, and if America gets on the right track, hopefully
we can lead the rest of the world to the right track.
So you have done an extraordinary job with this Commission.
It is something I hope we can take the initiatives and policies
that are presented and execute on, and certainly I intend to
commit to try to do that.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
And again, thanks to the University of New Hampshire and
President Hart for the courtesy of allowing us to use this
facility. And I thank our extraordinary panel for taking the
time to be here today. Have a great day and thank you all for
attending.
[Whereupon, at 10:59 a.m., Monday, September 27, the
hearings were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]