U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–220 PDF 2016

THE IMPLICATIONS OF PRESIDENT 

OBAMA’S NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Tuesday, May 17, 2016 

Serial No. 114–43 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

Ryan K. Zinke, MT 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Thomas MacArthur, NJ 

Alexander X. Mooney, WV 

Cresent Hardy, NV 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Lois Capps, CA 

Jared Polis, CO 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jason Knox, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

Sarah Lim, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS 

JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman 

JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Garret Graves, LA 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

Thomas MacArthur, NJ 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Jim Costa, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 ............................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Louisiana ....................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Arizona ........................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Keppen, Dan, Executive Director, Family Farm Alliance, Klamath Falls, 

Oregon ............................................................................................................ 21 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22 

Lanard, Jim, Chief Executive Officer, Magellan Wind, Collingswood, New 

Jersey ............................................................................................................. 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17 

Lapp, Meghan, Fisheries Liaison, Seafreeze, Ltd., North Kingstown, 

Rhode Island .................................................................................................. 12 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14 

Zales, Bob, President, National Association of Charterboat Operators, 

Hurley, Mississippi ....................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

Farr, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 44 

National Ocean Policy Coalition, May 31, 2016 Letter to Chairman 

Fleming .......................................................................................................... 45 

Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, 

May 13, 2016 Letter to Chairman Fleming ............................................... 46 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE IMPLICATIONS 

OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S NATIONAL OCEAN 

POLICY 

Tuesday, May 17, 2016 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Fleming, McClintock, Duncan, Gosar, 

LaMalfa, Graves, Newhouse, Bishop; Huffman, Costa, Lowenthal, 

and Torres. 

Also present: Representative Beyer. 

Dr. FLEMING. The Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans 

will come to order. The subcommittee meets today to hear testimony on an oversight hearing entitled, ‘‘The Implications of 

President Obama’s National Ocean Policy.’’ We will begin with 

opening statements, starting with myself. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Dr. FLEMING. Today’s hearing is about shining some sunlight on 

what has become a non-transparent Administration agenda aimed 

at curtailing multiple-use access in our oceans and lands. 

The Administration’s so-called National Ocean Policy (NOP) is 

not new to this committee, as this is the sixth oversight hearing 

on this subject. What is also not new is that the Administration 

continues to hide its actions on its questionable policy. 

Many questions remain unanswered. For example: Under what 

authority is the President acting to implement this policy? Who is 

funding activities of the National Ocean Council and the Regional 

Planning Bodies? How will this affect Federal and state fisheries 

management and offshore energy development, two industries that 

are vital to Louisiana’s economy? How far inland does this policy 

actually reach? 

The first Regional Planning Body will release its plan for the 

Northeastern United States later this month. Yet, scarce information has been provided. It will undoubtedly become a blueprint for 

other regional plans that really won’t be regional, but will be 

straight out of Soviet-style command-and-control casting since 

these bodies consist primarily of Federal agencies. 

The Administration was invited to answer our concerns and 

questions related to this hearing. Indeed, the other side of the aisle 

has insisted that we invite more Federal agencies to our hearings. 

In this case, inviting the Director of the National Ocean Council 

2 

was warranted. So, we did just that. If you follow the television 

screen, Majority staff for this committee sent an email to Ms. Beth 

Kerttula on May 5, followed by a formal invitation on May 9, and 

then with another email on May 11. There were also a number of 

phone calls made to Ms. Kerttula’s office and cell phones in between this correspondence. 

There was no response from the Administration until late last 

week. At the end of the day, the Administration is a no-show, and 

I have little doubt that is by design. What is the Administration 

hiding? Their absence is telling and indicative of this whole effort: 

share as little information as possible, even though their stated 

goal is ‘‘Federal coordination and transparency.’’ 

We will hear today that coastal and marine spatial planning, or 

what some call Federal zoning, is necessary to combat competing 

uses among the traditional marine industries, recreational activity, 

and offshore development. That is a false choice. If you go out into 

the Gulf of Mexico—and a witness here with us today can attest 

to this—some of our best fishing takes place right off of our offshore oil rigs. These different uses are not conflicting, but can be 

complementary of each other in some cases. 

The Administration is aloof of what is going on in the Gulf, continually ignores the boundaries of the law, and does whatever it 

pleases until checked by the judicial branch like last week with 

Obamacare, or is held accountable through congressional actions. 

We will hear from those potentially impacted today. From the 

Eastern Seaboard, to the Gulf Coast, to the inland farming communities of the West, we will listen to strong concerns about these 

vague policies being implemented by unaccountable bureaucrats 

behind the scenes. 

It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that the Administration 

could not be here to listen to these legitimate concerns—or should 

I say would not be here. I look forward to hearing from all of you 

here today. 

This hearing will be the first of a number of actions this subcommittee will take to hold the Administration’s feet to the fire on 

this gross executive over-reach aimed at curtailing multiple-use 

access to our ocean resources. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER, POWER AND OCEANS

Today’s hearing is about shining some sunlight on what has become a nontransparent Administration agenda aimed at curtailing multiple-use access in our 

oceans and lands. 

The Administration’s so-called National Ocean Policy is not new to this committee, as this is the sixth oversight hearing on this subject. What’s also not new 

is that the Administration continues to hide its actions on this questionable policy. 

Many questions remain unanswered. For example: 

• Under what authority is the President acting to implement this policy? 

• Who is funding activities of the National Ocean Council and the Regional 

Planning Bodies? 

• How will this affect Federal—and state—fisheries management and offshore 

energy development—two industries that are vital to Louisiana’s economy? 

• How far inland does this policy actually reach? 

3 

The first Regional Planning Body will release its plan for the northeastern United 

States later this month. Yet, scarce information has been provided. It will undoubtedly become a blueprint for other regional plans that really won’t be regional but 

will be straight out of Soviet style command-and-control casting since these bodies 

consist primarily of Federal agencies. 

The Administration was invited to answer our concerns and questions related to 

this hearing. Indeed, the other side of the aisle has insisted that we invite more 

Federal agencies to our hearings. In this case, inviting the Director of the National 

Ocean Council was warranted. So, we did just that. If you follow the television 

screen, Majority staff for this committee sent an email to Ms. Beth Kerttula on May 

5, followed by a formal invitation on May 9, and then with another email on May 

11. There were also a number of phone calls made to Ms. Kerttula’s office and cell 

phones in between this correspondence. There was no response from the Administration until late last week. At the end of the day, the Administration is a no-show 

and I have little doubt that is by design. Their absence is telling and indicative of 

this whole effort: share as little information as possible even though their stated 

goal is ‘‘Federal coordination and transparency.’’ 

We will hear today that Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning—or what some call 

‘‘Federal zoning’’—is necessary to combat competing uses among traditional marine 

industries, recreational activity, and offshore development. That’s a false choice. If 

you go out in the Gulf of Mexico—and a witness here with us today can attest to 

this—some of our best fishing takes place right off of our offshore oil rigs. These 

different uses aren’t conflicting, but can be complementary of each other in some 

cases. 

This Administration is aloof of what’s going on in the Gulf, continually ignores 

the boundaries of the law and does whatever it pleases until checked by the judicial 

branch like last week with Obamacare, or is held accountable through congressional 

actions. 

We will hear from those potentially impacted today. From the Eastern Seaboard, 

to the Gulf Coast, to the inland farming communities of the West, we will listen 

to strong concerns about these vague policies being implemented by unaccountable 

bureaucrats behind the scenes. It’s unfortunate—but not surprising—that the 

Administration couldn’t be here to listen to these legitimate concerns. I look forward 

to hearing from you all here today. 

This hearing will be the first of a number of actions this subcommittee will take 

to hold the Administration’s feet to the fire on this gross executive over-reach aimed 

at curtailing multiple-use access to our ocean resources. 

Dr. FLEMING. And I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Huffman, for his comments. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

The Majority has called today’s hearing to discuss the implications 

of the National Ocean Policy. This hearing, consistent with prior 

hearings on the same subject, continues this implication that the 

policy has somehow been harmful, or is an over-reach. And I am 

certain that my colleagues across the aisle will engage in the same 

type of narrative, that this is unprecedented abuse of executive 

power, the same things that we have heard in many identical hearings which the Administration has participated in in the past. 

This familiar refrain, unfortunately, ignores the fact that the 

National Ocean Policy, at its core, is nothing more than air traffic 

control for the ocean. It is common sense. This policy coordinates 

the actions of Federal agencies and regulated activities at sea and 

along our coast, so that we can reduce user conflict, cut through 

red tape, and support sound decisionmaking with better information and strategic planning. It does not create new laws or new 

regulations. It is not Soviet-style command-and-control regulation. 

4 

It certainly is not non-transparent, as was described. It is the 

antithesis of that. It is an attempt to improve communication and 

transparency. 

The policy is appropriate. It is a necessary use of the chief executive’s authority to direct coordination of executive branch agencies. 

And, in my opinion, President Obama should be applauded for 

building on what was—and this is important to remember—a 

bipartisan action plan in 2004, an action plan that was an initiative of the George W. Bush administration. 

The United States and its territories have exclusive jurisdiction, 

economically, over approximately 4.5 million square miles of our 

ocean. These areas are a vital part of our economy. They support 

tens of millions of jobs; contribute billions of dollars annually to our 

national economy and coastal communities, which make up about 

18 percent of our country’s land area; and are home to nearly 120 

million people, 37 percent of our Nation’s population. And these 

numbers are steadily increasing. 

These growing uses within our ocean and coastal areas are inherently going to put significant pressure on our natural resources. So, 

planning is needed to help ensure that everything works together, 

that we have healthy, natural resources, and continued economic 

growth in these areas. 

Instead of taking the opportunity to ask how we can continue to 

support the growth of our ocean and coastal economies, the 

Majority will likely accuse the President of lacking authority to implement the ocean policy, despite the fact—and this has been explained repeatedly—that there are no fewer than 55 separate laws 

and regulations that speak to the need and the requirement for 

adequate ocean planning. 

Six years after the Executive Order created the policy, some on 

the other side of the aisle still refuse to accept the facts: the fact 

that it does not over-ride state water law, for example, does not restrict use of private property in any way, does not regulate the 

raindrops on your roof, and so on. 

Contrary interpretations are potentially deliberate attempts to 

mislead the public, and have long ago been debunked as such, including through several hearings in the Natural Resources 

Committee. 

I had hoped that instead of revisiting this tired argument, we 

might hold a hearing on any one of several really important timely 

issues facing communities that many of us represent. I have made 

formal requests in this Congress for hearings on many such issues, 

including improvements to agricultural and municipal water management and conservation in the face of this persistent and historic 

drought in California; an examination of current drought climate 

and weather science to help us understand the long-term prospects 

for water shortages; the impacts of ocean acidification on aquaculture and ocean ecosystems; and how to incorporate climate 

science into marine fisheries management. 

Unfortunately, none of these hearing requests have been granted. We have not had conversations on these subjects. Instead, 

today, we are trying to manufacture some controversy out of a completely legal and, frankly, non-controversial good government 

initiative. 

5 

If we really must revisit the National Ocean Policy, how about 

talking about how the ocean-related economy has grown at a faster 

pace than the national economy since 2008. We should be talking 

about how increasing support for chronically underfunded coastal 

and marine resources management and ocean science programs 

could support further economic growth, and how addressing the impacts of climate change on fisheries, aquacultures, agriculture, and 

ocean ecosystems could actually boost income and save jobs in 

coastal communities, including those that I represent. 

We should be talking about how the National Ocean Policy can 

connect all of these things in a more coherent policy and permitting 

framework, and ensure that all who benefit from America’s oceans 

can continue to do so in an economically and environmentally sustainable way. 

I thank the witnesses for joining us today, and I look forward to 

our conversation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER, AND OCEANS

Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman. The Majority has called today’s 

hearing to discuss the ‘‘implications’’ of the National Ocean Policy. And this hearing, 

consistent with prior hearings on this subject, continues this implication that the 

Policy has somehow been harmful or is an over-reach, and I’m certain that my colleagues across the aisle will engage in the same type of narrative that this is unprecedented abuse of executive power, the same things that we’ve heard in many 

identical hearings which the Administration has participated in in the past. 

So, this familiar refrain unfortunately ignores the fact that the National Ocean 

Policy at its core is nothing more than air traffic control for the ocean. It’s common 

sense. This policy coordinates the actions of Federal agencies, regulated activities, 

at sea and along our coast so that we can reduce user conflicts, so that we can cut 

through red tape, support sound decisionmaking with better information and strategic planning. It does not create new laws or new regulations. It is not Soviet style 

command and control regulation. It certainly is not non-transparent as described. 

It’s the antithesis of that. Its intent is to improve communication and transparency. 

Policy is appropriate. It’s a necessary use of the chief’s executive authority to direct 

coordination of executive branch agencies, and in my opinion, President Obama 

should be applauded for building on what was, and this is important to remember, 

a bipartisan action plan in 2004. An action plan that was an initiative of Bush 

administration. 

Now the United States and its territories have an exclusive jurisdiction economically over approximately 41⁄2 million square miles of our ocean. These areas are a 

vital part of our economy. They support tens of millions of jobs; contribute billions 

of dollars annually to our national economy and coastal communities, which make 

up about 18 percent of our country’s land area; are home to nearly 120 million people, 37 percent of our Nation’s population, and these numbers are steadily increasing. These growing uses within our ocean and coastal areas are inherently going to 

put significant pressure on our natural resources, and so planning is needed to help 

ensure everything works together, that we have healthy natural resources and continued economic growth in these areas. 

Instead of taking the opportunity to ask how we can continue to support the 

growth of our ocean and coastal economies, the Majority will likely accuse President 

Obama of lacking authority to implement the Ocean Policy, despite the fact, and 

this has been explained repeatedly that there are no fewer than 55 separate laws 

and regulations that speak to the need and the requirement for adequate ocean 

planning. Six years after the Executive Order created the Policy, some on the other 

side of the aisle still refuse to accept the facts. The fact that it does not over-ride 

state water laws, for example, does not restrict use of private property in any way, 

does not regulate the raindrops on your roof and so on. Contrary interpretations are 

potentially deliberate attempts to mislead the public and have long ago been debunked as such, including several hearings in the Natural Resources Committee. 

Now I had hoped that instead of revisiting this tired argument, we might hold a 

6 

hearing on any one of several really important timely issues facing communities 

including the one I represent. 

I’ve made a formal request in this Congress for hearings on many such issues including improvements to agricultural and municipal water management conversation in the face of this persistent and historic drought in California, an examination 

of current drought climate and weather science to help us understand the long term 

prospects for water shortages, the impact of ocean acidification on aquaculture and 

ocean ecosystems and how to incorporate climate science in the marine fisheries 

management. 

Unfortunately, none of these hearing requests have been granted. We have not 

had conversations on these subjects. And instead, today, we are trying to manufacture some kind of controversy out of the completely legal and, frankly, noncontroversial good government initiative. 

If we really must revisit the National Ocean Policy, how about talking about how 

the ocean related economy has grown at a faster pace than the national economy 

since 2008? We should be talking about how increasing support for chronically underfunded coastal and marine resources management and ocean science programs 

could support further economic growth and how addressing the impacts of climate 

change on fisheries, aquacultures, and ocean ecosystems could boost income and 

save jobs in coastal communities, including those that I represent. And we should 

be talking about how the National Ocean Policy can connect all of these things in 

a more coherent policy permitting framework and ensure that all who benefit from 

America’s oceans can continue to do so in an economically and environmentally 

sustainable way. 

I thank the witnesses for joining us today. I look forward to our conversation. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman and now recognize Dr. 

Gosar for his comments. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you, Chairman, for calling today’s hearing. We 

will hear a lot today about our Nation’s oceans and the impacts 

that the President’s National Ocean Policy might have on those 

who want to enjoy and protect the boundary of our saltwater resources. We have before us witnesses from Rhode Island and 

Mississippi, who will rightly discuss their concerns that the working men and women, recreationalists and others, could be negatively impacted by this policy. 

Since I represent parts of a land-locked state, one wouldn’t immediately think that Arizona would care about what impacts our 

Nation’s offshore resources. But, we Arizonans like our seafood and 

our domestic energy. 

Just as importantly, Arizona has thousands of miles of reservoir 

shoreline at Lake Havasu, Lake Mead, Roosevelt Lake, and others, 

created or managed by the Bureau of Reclamation, the State, and 

the Salt River Project, just to name a few. That shoreline, and the 

people who depend on the water within those reservoirs, could very 

well be roped into the federally-based National Ocean Policy. 

Don’t take my word for it, though. Look at the Appendix to the 

Implementation Plan for the following items: (1) restoration of 

100,000 acres of wetlands and uplands; (2) developing measures to 

evaluate national forest best management practices; and (3) studying impacts from land-based sources of pollution. 

In addition, we have Mr. Dan Keppen, Executive Director of the 

Family Farm Alliance, which includes a number of Arizona’s irrigation districts, testifying that the policy’s regional bodies could 

‘‘dramatically increase the role of Federal agencies on inland rivers 

7 

and adjacent land uses . . . at a time when other hydropower 

dams are under ongoing litigation by certain environmental 

groups.’’ 

As he will testify, the policy’s ecosystem-based management 

scheme ‘‘involves vague and undefined policies that we know from 

experience can be used by critics of irrigated agriculture as a basis 

for lawsuits to stop or delay federally permitted activities.’’ Of 

course, the Administration may challenge this, but they did not 

even bother to show up today. 

This policy is another chapter in the death-by-a-thousand-cuts 

strategy this Administration employs against the people and communities who depend on our natural resources on land and under 

water. Federal zoning on both land and water creates uncertainty, 

which in turn breeds litigation. It is a clever way to impose a web 

of Federal layers of bureaucracy—a recipe for stagnation. 

On its way out the door, the Administration is creating farreaching tentacles that will only harm existing uses and makes it 

nearly impossible to permit future traditional uses with some remote nexus from the oceans, even in the Grand Canyon State. 

I thank the witnesses for their courage to ask the tough questions and for their transparency, which is sorely lacking from the 

‘‘most transparent administration in history.’’ I look forward to 

working with you and my colleagues on getting some answers and 

clarity on this notorious policy. 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gosar follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Thank you for holding today’s hearing. 

We will hear a lot today about our Nation’s oceans and the impacts that the 

President’s National Ocean Policy might have on those who want to enjoy and protect the bounty of our saltwater resources. We have before us witnesses from Rhode 

Island and Mississippi who will rightly discuss their concerns that the working men 

and women, recreationalists and others could be negatively impacted by this policy. 

Since I represent parts of a land-locked state, one wouldn’t immediately think 

that Arizona would care about what impacts our Nation’s offshore resources. But, 

we Arizonans like our seafood and our domestic energy. 

Just as importantly, Arizona has thousands of miles of reservoir shoreline at Lake 

Havasu, Lake Mead, Roosevelt Lake and others created or managed by the Bureau 

of Reclamation, the State and the Salt River Project, to name a few. That shoreline—and the people who depend on the water within those reservoirs—could very 

well be roped into the federally-based National Ocean Policy. 

Don’t take my word for it though. Look at the Appendix to the Implementation 

Plan for the following items: 

• restoration of 100,000 acres of wetlands and uplands; 

• developing measures to evaluate National Forest Best Management Practices; 

and 

• studying impacts from land-based sources of pollution. 

In addition, we have Mr. Dan Keppen, Executive Director of the Family Farm 

Alliance—which includes a number of Arizona’s irrigation districts—testifying that 

the policy’s Regional Planning Bodies could ‘‘dramatically increase the role of Federal agencies on inland rivers and adjacent land uses . . . at a time when other hydropower dams are under ongoing litigation by certain environmental groups.’’ As 

he will testify, the policy’s ecosystem-based management scheme ‘‘involves vague 

and undefined and policies that we know from experience can be used by critics of 

irrigated agriculture as the basis for lawsuits to stop or delay federally permitted 

activities.’’ Of course, the Administration may challenge this, but they didn’t even 

bother to show up today. 

8 

This policy is another chapter in the death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy this 

Administration employs against the people and communities who depend on our 

natural resources on land and under water. Federal zoning on both land and water 

creates uncertainty, which in turn breeds litigation. It’s a clever way to impose a 

web of Federal layers of bureaucracy—a recipe for stagnation. 

On its way out the door, the Administration is creating far-reaching tentacles that 

will only harm existing uses and make it nearly impossible to permit future traditional uses with some remote nexus from the oceans—even in the Grand Canyon 

State. 

I thank for the witnesses for their courage to ask the tough questions and for 

their transparency, which is sorely lacking from the ‘‘most transparent administration in history.’’ I look forward to working with you and my colleagues on getting 

some answers and clarity on this notorious policy. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman. We are now ready for 

witness testimony. 

I will explain how the lights work. You have 5 minutes for your 

oral testimony. The written testimony will be entered into the 

record, no matter how large it is. So, you will be under a green 

light for the first 4 minutes. Then, when it turns yellow, be thinking about wrapping up. If you have not finished by the time it is 

red, please wrap up as soon as possible. Otherwise, you will be gaveled down so we can keep things moving, of course. 

We have introductions today. First, Mr. Bob Zales, President of 

the National Association of Charterboat Operators based out of 

Hurley, Mississippi; Ms. Meghan Lapp, Fisheries Liaison for 

Seafreeze, Ltd., which is in North Kingstown, Rhode Island; Mr. 

Jim Lanard, Chief Executive Officer of Magellan Wind, based out 

of Collingswood, New Jersey; and then Mr. Dan Keppen, Executive 

Director of the Family Farm Alliance, based out of Klamath Falls, 

Oregon. 

How large is Klamath Falls, Oregon? 

Mr. KEPPEN. About 50,000. 

Dr. FLEMING. About 50,000? The reason why that catches my attention is about a century ago a branch of my ancestors followed 

the timber industry to Klamath Falls, Oregon, which is all I know 

about it. But if you know any Flemings in Klamath Falls, they are 

my cousins. 

Mr. KEPPEN. I do. Some of them are turf farmers. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. FLEMING. Yes. Well, I come from a long line of dirt farmers. 

As I mentioned in the opening statement, the Director of the 

National Ocean Policy, Ms. Beth Kerttula, was invited to testify 

today, but unfortunately, did not accept our invitation. 

I now recognize Mr. Zales for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BOB ZALES, PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERBOAT OPERATORS, HURLEY, 

MISSISSIPPI 

Mr. ZALES. Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, and 

members of the subcommittee, my name is Robert F. Zales, II, and 

I am appearing today on behalf of the National Association of 

Charterboat Operators. I wish to thank you for your kind invitation 

to present testimony on the implications of President Obama’s 

National Ocean Policy. 

9 

H.R. 21, Oceans 21, the precursor to the National Ocean Policy, 

was introduced to the House in the mid-2000s. It never had broad 

public support, and thanks to the wisdom of our Representatives 

and Senators was never approved by Congress. Due to rejection of 

the proposed legislation and no action by Congress, on July 19, 

2010, President Obama signed and executed Presidential Executive 

Order 13547, creating the National Ocean Policy and resulting 

National Ocean Council. 

Now, almost 6 years later, this one stroke of a pen that created 

an unfunded mandate, has provided for the creation of the 

National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan and led to the creation 

of Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, 

Pacific, Caribbean, and, most recently, the West Coast. 

Thankfully, we have no functioning RPB in the Gulf of Mexico 

region, and do not need one. The last thing we need in the Gulf, 

and any region, is the creation of a new government body and a 

process that the Federal Government itself has likened to ocean 

zoning, neither of which have been authorized by Congress, that is 

trying to solve a problem that does not exist. 

Apparently, Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues are not necessary to the proper management and care of our natural marine 

and land-based resources, as Congress has been left totally out of 

the NOP process. 

Under the coastal and marine spatial planning process, RPBs are 

comprised solely of government officials who are charged with developing a zoning plan. No private-sector stakeholders are allowed 

to be included. 

Why do we need another bureaucratic entity and overlaid costs, 

costing untold sums of taxpayer dollars on top of all those already 

in existence to provide more management? Few, if any, Federal legislators know where the funding for the NOP comes from now, and 

who will control the funding and oversight in the future. 

In the Gulf, as well as all areas of the country, recreational and 

commercial fishermen are currently over-regulated, and negatively 

impacted in every arena. The fishing industry, both recreational 

and commercial, cannot absorb any more regulatory burden. 

The NOP process has the potential and is likely to create new 

and expanded regulatory requirements in addition to those we already have, creating more regulatory burdens and increasing costs 

on our businesses. 

In the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy 

Task Force July 19, 2010, page 30 states, ‘‘The plans would be 

adaptive to allow for modification and addition of new actions 

based on new information or changing conditions. Their effective 

implementation would also require clear and easily understood requirements and regulations, where appropriate, that include 

enforcement as a critical component.’’ 

While several lead agencies have stated the NOP has no 

regulatory authority, it is clear that the NOP will be adding new 

regulatory impacts, including potential regulations on already overly regulated industries and activities. 

Fishing activity and boating are at an all-time low. Government 

requirements and expenses keep growing. Allowing the NOP to 

continue as is will only continue to reduce this fishing and boating 

10 

activity, which will result in lost jobs, lost wages, and lost taxes, 

which will harm families in our communities. Furthermore, the 

Gulf has a decades-long history of successful co-existence and environmental stewardship of our natural resources by commercial and 

recreational fishermen. Our historical experience reflects that we 

do not need this unauthorized process to create problems where 

none exist. 

The foundational recommendations adopted by the NOP noted 

‘‘these recommendations may create a level of uncertainty and anxiety among those who rely on these resources, and may generate 

questions about how they align with existing processes, authorities, 

and budget challenges.’’ Six years later, that uncertainty and anxiety is higher than ever, and those questions are more significant 

today. 

The unforced error created by a stroke of the pen continues to 

needlessly drain resources and energy away from what our industries should and need to be focused on, which is generating 

economic activity and providing recreational and commercial opportunities and outlets to enjoy our natural resources, all under the 

oversight of responsible regulation as authorized by Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Again, I totally 

appreciate the invitation and opportunity to provide you and the 

subcommittee with this information. I will be pleased to respond to 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zales follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAPT. ROBERT F. ZALES, II, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERBOAT OPERATORS

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Robert F. Zales, II and I am appearing today on behalf of 

the National Association of Charterboat Operators (NACO). I wish to thank you for 

your kind invitation to present testimony on the ‘‘The Implications of President 

Obama’s National Ocean Policy.’’ 

NACO is a non-profit 501(c)(6) association representing charterboat owners and 

operators across the United States including the Great Lakes. I also serve on the 

Board of several other recreational fishing associations as well as the National 

Ocean Policy Coalition. I have been involved in fishing for over 50 years with over 

25 years of that time involved with local, state, and Federal fishery management 

providing expert testimony, serving on a host of advisory panels, and working to ensure that reason and common sense are applied to the management of our natural 

resources. 

H.R. 21 (Oceans 21), the precursor to the National Ocean Policy, was introduced 

to the House in the mid 2000s. It never had broad public support and thanks to 

the wisdom of our Representatives and Senators was never approved by Congress. 

Due to rejection of the proposed legislation and no action by Congress, on July 19, 

2010, President Obama signed and executed Presidential Executive Order 13547 

creating the National Ocean Policy and resulting National Ocean Council. I provided 

my 1 minute of testimony at one of the first public announcement meetings held 

in New Orleans, LA a few weeks after the EO was executed. Now, almost 6 years 

later, this one stroke of a pen that created an unfunded mandate has provided for 

the creation of the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan and led to the creation of Regional Planning Bodies (RPB) in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Pacific, 

Caribbean, and most recently the West Coast. Thankfully, we have no RPB in the 

Gulf of Mexico Region and do not need one. 

The National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan calls for the RPBs to adopt a 

comprehensive national ecosystem-based management principal, implement comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem-based coastal and marine spatial planning and 

management, and a host of other management objectives. All of these proposals are 

already being researched and in some cases proposed under the Magnuson Stevens 

Fishery and Conservation Management Act and other Federal agencies management 

efforts. The last thing we need in the Gulf, and any Region, is the creation of a new 

11 

government body and a process that the Federal Government itself has likened to 

Ocean Zoning—neither of which have been authorized by Congress—that is trying 

to solve a problem that does not exist. Apparently, Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues are not necessary to the proper management and care of our natural marine 

and land based resources as Congress has been left totally out of the NOP process. 

We recently heard of the latest effort by 33 environmental NGOs forming the ‘‘High 

Seas Alliance’’ to push the United Nations to move forward with the development 

of an international legally binding instrument under the U.N. Convention of the 

Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. As you can fully understand we are seriously concerned about the continued and ever growing efforts by enviro NGOs to 

circumvent the normal operation and regulatory activity of Congress. 

The current NOP process, has from day one, suggested that the Nation’s stakeholders have been actively involved and able to provide input. Reality shows this 

is blatantly untrue. The fast tracking underground, lack of adequate public notice, 

and haphazard manner where vital stakeholders are left out by the Administration 

is clear indication they want this policy to be fully implemented before anyone is 

aware of the real impacts of the proposed policy. One has to wonder, if a policy is 

so great then why has Congress been left out of the process and why do the citizens 

of this country know so little? 

Under the Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning process there are nine (9) 

Regional Planning Bodies proposed that will include membership of Federal, state, 

and tribal representatives, no fishing or other stakeholder representatives are to be 

included. We already have eight (8) Regional Fishery Management Councils and the 

agencies of NOAA/NMFS along with EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, three (3) Interstate 

Fishery Commissions, coastal State Resource Management Agencies, and a host of 

others providing management of our resources. Why do we need another bureaucratic entity costing taxpayers millions of dollars on top of all of these to provide 

more management? Few Federal legislators know where the funding for the NOP 

comes from now, who will control the funding and oversight in the future? 

In the Gulf, as well as all areas of the country, Recreational and Commercial 

Fishermen are currently over regulated and negatively impacted in every arena. No 

fishing seasons, overly restrictive bag limits and quotas, closed areas to boating and 

fishing, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, EPA Engine Emission 

regulations, Marine Protected Areas, Marine Mammal Interactions, gear restrictions, U.S. Coast Guard regulations that include a host of vessel safety requirements, specific manning requirements, life saving requirements, licensing, drug and 

alcohol testing, medical review process, navigation restrictions, FCC radio licensing 

and requirements, and more. Every agency and every requirement costs fishermen 

and our communities dollars. 

The Fishing Industry (recreational and commercial) cannot absorb any more 

regulatory burden. Many fishermen have left fishing because they have simply been 

regulated out of business. The costs and regulatory burdens have driven private recreational fishermen to find other forms of recreation. They have forced the 

recreational for-hire owner out of business because the consumer is unwilling to continue to pay more for the government requirements as the costs of regulations cannot be passed on. Commercial fishermen are being forced out of business because 

the profit margins are not sustainable. All of this also impacts the support businesses such as tackle shops, boat builders, and seafood dealers. 

The NOP process has the potential and is likely to create new and expanded regulatory requirements in addition to those we have, creating more regulatory burdens 

and expanding costs to our businesses. According to information provided at a past 

hearing, then Representative Steve Southerland, found in the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, July 19, 2010 on page 30, it states, 

‘‘The plans would be adaptive to allow for modification and addition of new actions 

based on new information or changing conditions. Their effective implementation 

would also require clear and easily understood requirements and regulations, where 

appropriate, that include enforcement as a critical component.’’ While several lead 

agency heads have stated the NOP has no regulatory authority, it is clear that the 

NOP will be adding new and expanded regulations, without any rulemaking authority, on already overly regulated industries and activities. 

Fishing activity and boating are at an all time low. Government requirements and 

expense keep growing and allowing the NOP to continue without congressional oversight will only continue to reduce this fishing and boating activity which will result 

in lost JOBS, lost WAGES, and lost TAXES which will harm families and our communities. The NOP does nothing but add new layers of unaccountable Federal 

Government employees while doing nothing to enhance our economy or our 

12 

resources. Everything the NOP proposes is already being implemented, proposed, or 

thought of. 

In addition the NOP will continue the strangulation of our Gulf offshore oil and 

gas industries by further restricting exploration, mining, and production of these resources. This further hampers fishermen due to the ever increasing fuel costs. In 

the Gulf of Mexico the expanded effort to remove non-productive oil and gas platforms that have become essential fish habitat is a growing problem when the 

NOAA/NMFS requires sustainable fisheries. How do you sustain a resource without 

habitat? 

The Gulf has a decades long history of successful coexistence and environmental 

concern of our natural resources by commercial and recreational fishermen. Our historical experience reflects that we don’t need this unauthorized process to create 

problems where none exists. In addition to the negative impacts on our Gulf fishing 

industries and in other regions where RPBs have been established, in the Gulf we 

are concerned with Federal members who were identified to serve on a Gulf RPB 

in 2012, although the five Gulf states did not agree to participate. Our concern is 

amplified due to the fact that the NOP states that Federal entities are to implement 

marine planning in regions even where states decide not to participate. 

The foundational recommendations adopted by the NOP noted ‘‘these 

recommendations may create a level of uncertainty and anxiety among those who 

rely on these resources and may generate questions about how they align with existing processes, authorities, and budget challenges. Six years later that uncertainty 

and anxiety is higher than ever and those questions are more significant today. The 

unforced error created by a stroke of the pen continues to needlessly drain resources 

and energy away from what our industries should and need to be focused on which 

is generating economic activity and providing recreational and commercial opportunities and enjoyment of our natural resources, all under the oversight of responsible 

regulation as authorized by Congress. If the Federal Government wants to help fix 

a problem it should bring industry to the table as an equal partner to work together 

to address the regulatory maze that is strangling our ability to operate, not create 

unnecessary uncertainty and anxiety by creating government only entities and 

regulatory overlays by Executive Order. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Again, I truly appreciate the invitation and opportunity to provide you and the committee with this information. I will 

be pleased to respond to any questions. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Zales. The Chair now recognizes 

Ms. Lapp for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MEGHAN LAPP, FISHERIES LIAISON, 

SEAFREEZE, LTD., NORTH KINGSTOWN, RHODE ISLAND 

Ms. LAPP. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 

today. My name is Meghan Lapp and I represent Seafreeze, Ltd., 

the largest producer and trader of sea frozen fish on the U.S. East 

Coast. 

I am here today to convey that the impacts of President Obama’s 

National Ocean Policy are already being implemented through the 

Fishery Management Councils and NOAA science and policy, even 

prior to any finalized regional ocean action plan. Rather than detail 

every specific instance, I would like to relate my personal experiences thus far, and our increased concerns as the NOP process 

moves forward. 

NOAA science is the driving force of fisheries management, and 

has embraced the fundamental shift to ecosystem-based management embodied in the NOP. Therefore, regulatory bodies such as 

the Regional Fishery Management Councils are forced to embrace 

this approach. As a result, the New England Council now has an 

Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Committee, which is conducting an experimental fishery ecosystem plan, as is outlined in 

13 

the Policy’s Implementation Plan, to implement pilot projects that 

use an ecosystem-based approach. 

Similarly, the Mid-Atlantic Council now has an Ecosystem and 

Ocean Planning Committee. As an advisory panel member to this 

committee, I have been asked to give input on policy toward industrial ocean use, habitat impacts, and potential trade-offs, much as 

is discussed in the Task Force Recommendations on Coastal and 

Marine Spatial Planning. While incorporating ecosystem considerations in fishery management is not a new concept, it is only 

recently that directed management efforts have been focused on 

implementation. While the NOP is touted as non-regulatory, it is 

clearly controlling the agenda of Federal agencies and regulatory 

bodies, which will result in new regulations. 

One serious concern from a fishery stakeholder perspective is the 

NOP’s commitment to the conservation of important ecological 

areas, such as areas of high productivity. As part of data collection 

for the NOP, confidential fisheries data has been compiled into 

public charts, detailing where concentrated commercial fishing activity currently takes place, a.k.a. areas of high productivity. 

For the sake of consistency with NOP conservation, does this 

mean we could lose access to our fishing grounds? According to the 

NOP Task Force, the specific questions and concerns of those who 

rely on marine resources will be addressed as implementation progresses. I find this outrageous. 

My experience at a Northeast Regional Planning Body meeting 

does not serve to ease our concerns. It was very apparent from the 

discussion that the push was to get the RPB plan done at all costs 

by 2016. 

After the public comment period, during which I raised real fisheries issues, one RPB member stated that the short timeline had 

reduced the RPB’s ability to be transparent and conduct thorough 

stakeholder engagement, and that they were just going to create a 

plan because of a timeline without concerns for credibility. To this, 

one of the co-chairs responded, ‘‘We’re going to produce a plan, and 

it’s going to get adopted.’’ The NOC Director quietly nodded. As a 

stakeholder, this tells me that our interests do not really matter. 

Another comment that, ‘‘At the end of 16 months you want to 

make this so hard to shut off,’’ tells me that the regional plan is 

designed to be railroaded through, regardless of future objections. 

The Administration’s top-down approach on NOP implementation 

is apparent in the recent marine monument discussion. Last year, 

an unexpected email announcement was distributed via NOAA’s 

Listserv. It gave stakeholders a 2-week notice that the Administration was considering designating several deep sea canyons as 

marine national monuments for protection of deep sea corals. 

This initiative came soon after the Mid-Atlantic Council had completed a deep sea corals amendment, which included extensive 

stakeholder input, including an interactive workshop to draw 

boundary lines. It was also the same time that the New England 

Council intended to resume work on its own deep sea corals 

amendment in that very area. 

The canyon areas under consideration as marine monuments are 

extremely productive, and have great economic importance to 

Seafreeze. 

14 

Holding just one public meeting to allow for stakeholder input, 

NOAA released a comment portal through which stakeholders were 

directed to submit further comment. Attempting to protect our interests, I submitted not only written comments, but proprietary 

charts, documenting our vessels’ fishing activity in the area to 

argue that our fishing grounds needed to be kept open. 

When I inquired, no one at NOAA could tell me how long the 

comment period would remain open. Neither could anyone at the 

agency inform me how or why this discussion was initiated, if there 

was any specific process being followed, who would be reviewing 

our comments, who would be presenting them, and to whom. It was 

like a black hole; we had no idea what was going on. 

This is the antithesis of transparency and how decisions should 

be made. We still live in the uncertainty of what may happen. 

Since NOP implementation, we have had less clarity and input into 

our future, not more. 

Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Meghan Lapp follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MEGHAN LAPP, FISHERIES LIAISON, SEAFREEZE LTD. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Meghan Lapp, and I represent Seafreeze, Ltd., the largest producer and trader of sea frozen fish on the U.S. 

East Coast. We operate two freezer vessels out of Davisville, RI, that fish from the 

Canadian line to North Carolina. 

I am here today to tell you that the implications of President Obama’s National 

Ocean Policy (NOP) are already being felt and implemented through the Fishery 

Management Councils and NOAA/NMFS science and policy, even prior to any finalized regional Ocean Action Plan by a Regional Planning Body. Rather than detail 

every specific, I would like to relate my personal experiences thus far, and the increased concerns I have as the process moves forward. 

NOAA science is the driving force of fisheries management, and has embraced the 

‘‘fundamental shift’’ to ecosystem-based management. Therefore, fisheries regulatory 

bodies such as the Fishery Management Councils have also been forced to embrace 

this fundamental shift. As a result, the New England Fishery Management Council 

now has an ‘‘Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Committee,’’ which is conducting an eFEP (experimental Fishery Ecosystem Plan), much as is outlined in the 

National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, i.e. to ‘‘implement pilot projects that 

use an ecosystem-based approach’’ (p. 20; ‘‘Pilot projects will . . . enable decisionmakers and managers to understand how ecosystem-based management can be 

most effectively implemented at regional scales . . .’’). The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council now has an Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee, of 

which I am an Advisory Panel member. To date as an AP member, I have been 

asked to give input on policy toward industrial ocean use, as well as habitat impacts/policy, and potential trade-offs, much as is discussed in the Task Force 

Recommendations on Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. While incorporating ecosystem considerations in fishery management is not a new concept, it has only been 

recently that directed management efforts have been concentrated on implementation. While the National Ocean Council and National Ocean Policy are touted as 

non-regulatory, they are clearly controlling the agenda of regulatory agencies and 

bodies. This will result in regulations to the end user. 

One serious concern from a fishery stakeholder perspective is the policy’s commitment to the ‘‘reduction of cumulative impacts from human uses on marine ecosystems’’(Task Force, p. 33) and the ‘‘conservation of important ecological areas, 

such as areas of high productivity’’ (Task Force, p. 44). Currently, as part of data 

collection for the National Ocean Policy, confidential fisheries data has been complied into public charts that detail where concentrated commercial fishing activity 

takes place, a.k.a. areas of high productivity. For the sake of NOP ‘‘conservation,’’ 

does that mean we will lose access to our fishing grounds? (Will state or Federal 

Fishery Management Plans be required to close these areas, due to the fact that 

NOAA, which must comply with these Task Force Recommendations, has the final 

say on FMPs? And that the States and Fishery Management Councils on the 

Regional Planning Bodies will be bound by RPB Plans? The Northeast Regional 

15 

Planning Body has a chart on its Web page that states: ‘‘Regulatory: Use of Ocean 

Plan Data in NEPA and regulatory processes,’’ and documents containing the Task 

Force mandate as well as potential corresponding regulations for fishery management.) According to the Task Force, the specific questions and concerns of those who 

rely on marine resources will be addressed ‘‘as implementation progresses’’ (Task 

Force, p. 9). I find this outrageous. 

My experience at a Northeast Regional Planning Body (RPB) meeting does not 

serve to ease my concerns. It was very apparent from the discussion that the push 

was to get the RPB Plan done at all costs by 2016. After the public comment period 

during which I raised real fisheries issues with the process, data, and impacts to 

fisheries from both an equity and ecological perspective, one RPB member stated 

that the short timeline had reduced the RPB’s ability to be transparent and do 

stakeholder engagement, and that they were just going to create a plan because of 

a timeline without the credibility needed. To this, one of the Co-Chairs responded, 

‘‘We’re going to produce a plan and it’s going to get adopted’’ (by the NOC), to which 

the NOC Director responded by nodding. As a stakeholder, this tells me that my 

interests don’t matter and that the only goal is implementation by 2016. Another 

comment that ‘‘at the end of 16 months you want to make this so hard to shut off’’ 

tells me that the Plan is designed to be railroaded through regardless of future 

objections. 

The Administration’s top down approach cannot be made clearer than through the 

recent Marine Monument discussion. Last year, an unexpected email announcement 

went out over NOAA’s Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office listserve. It gave 

stakeholders a 2-week notice that there was consideration by the Administration to 

designate several deep sea canyons as Marine National Monuments, one reason of 

which was protection of deep sea corals. This came soon after the Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council had completed a Deep Sea Corals Amendment, which 

included extensive stakeholder input, including an interactive workshop to draw 

boundary lines. (Seafreeze was a participant in this workshop.) It was also right 

about the time when the New England Fishery Management Council intended to 

resume work on its own Deep Sea Corals Amendment in that very area, during 

which stakeholders expect a similar interactive process. Many of the environmental 

NGOs who had taken credit for collaboration in the Mid-Atlantic workshop were 

among those championing a National Monument designation and a bypassing of the 

New England Council process. The canyon areas under consideration as Marine 

Monuments are extremely productive and of great economic importance to 

Seafreeze. Holding just one public meeting to allow for stakeholder input, NOAA released a comment portal through which to submit further comment. (The original 

meeting notice stated that comments through the portal had to be submitted by the 

date of the meeting. The day after the meeting, a notice was released that asked 

for further comments to be sent ‘‘as soon as possible.’’) In a frenzied attempt to protect Seafreeze’s interests, I submitted not only written comments but proprietary/ 

confidential charts documenting our vessels’ fishing activity in the area as an argument that our fishing grounds needed to be kept open. When I asked, no one at 

NOAA could tell me how long the comment period would remain open. Neither could 

anyone at the agency inform me how or why this discussion was initiated (whether 

executive request, response to petitions, etc), if there was any specific process being 

followed, who would be reviewing our comments, who would be presenting them, 

and to whom. It was like a black hole; we had no idea what was going on. This 

is disturbing especially considering the type of confidential information I felt necessary to submit. From a current stakeholder’s perspective, this is the antithesis of 

how decisions should be made. We still live in the uncertainty of what may happen 

with this. 

Since this Policy, we have had less input into our future, not more. Thank you 

and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Dr. FLEMING. Ms. Lapp, your timing is perfect. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. FLEMING. I couldn’t do any better than that. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lanard for his testimony. 

16 

STATEMENT OF JIM LANARD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

MAGELLAN WIND, COLLINGSWOOD, NEW JERSEY 

Mr. LANARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and 

members of the committee. Good morning. 

My name is Jim Lanard. I am CEO of Magellan Wind, which is 

an offshore wind developer looking to develop projects on both the 

West and East Coast of the United States. Formerly I was the 

founder and first president of the Offshore Wind Development 

Coalition, which represented offshore wind developers and the 

supply chain, as we tried to move forward a new policy for the 

United States. And before that I was Managing Director of Deep 

Water Wind, which is now building the first offshore wind farm in 

the United States, off the coast of Rhode Island in state water— 

five 6-megawatt turbines. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before you 

today on the implications of the President’s National Ocean Policy. 

I am delighted to have been here 5 years ago, when we first addressed this issue, and now we can give you some updates on our 

experience. 

Let me start by saying that we are proud to report that the implications of the President’s National Ocean Policy are strongly 

positive. The National Ocean Policy looks to support science-based 

decisionmaking, conflict resolution, data sharing, proactive planning, all leading to sustainable development. 

We have a big coast in the United States, 32 states border on 

coastal waters, about 200 million people live in those states out of 

our 320 or so million folks, and there are really huge ocean users 

and valuable resources in those waters: military—national security 

and national defense are huge users; commercial fishing and aquaculture; cultural and archeological sites for tribal nations; national 

and international commerce—shipping; recreational uses—fishing, 

boating, surfing; energy and natural resources—sand mining, oil 

and gas, soon offshore wind, and eventually marine hydrokinetics; 

wildlife—sea birds, fish and all marine life; habitat; and aesthetics, 

the viewshed. 

None of these user groups think they are taking up too much 

space in the ocean. None of them have offered to give back any 

space to the United States. In fact, there is one thing that all of 

these groups have in common: they would like more access to larger and larger swaths of the ocean. 

There are new defense technologies that need more space out 

there. There are expanding shipping lanes being proposed. Fishing 

and aquaculture needs more space. Expanded oil and gas programs 

are all over the place. There are more protected areas being proposed, and offshore wind wants to come in and work, as well. So 

how do we decide how to balance all those uses? 

I can tell you what definitely doesn’t work. What doesn’t work is 

a single-sector decisionmaking process that results in multiple conflicting policy recommendations from too many perspectives. So, 

what does work to coordinate all those uses? Coordinated, multisector, multi-stakeholder process with negotiations and problemsolving, where all interests and stakeholders can work together. It 

is just common sense, and it is exactly what the President has 

called for with the National Ocean Policy. 

17 

We have had great success in Rhode Island with the Rhode 

Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan that coordinated 

Federal and state involvement and came out with a really efficient 

permitting process. 

Offshore wind is new to the oceans. We bring really important 

things, we think. We are proud that we are going to support energy 

independence, carbon reduction, efforts to fight climate change, reduce sea level rise, and create high-skilled, high-wage jobs, long 

term, for the United States. 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Department 

of the Interior has worked very hard and already is applying the 

ideas and the concepts of the National Ocean Policy. They are coordinating with 15 states, they have a Federal-state task force, and 

they are working to de-conflict the uses with the military, with the 

Coast Guard, with commercial fishing in these initiatives, and we 

have had great luck. 

There is a bipartisan nature to this. Where Ms. Lapp is in Rhode 

Island, the Special Area Management Plan was proposed by Republican Governor Don Carcieri. Governor Chris Christie in New 

Jersey has supported funding for ocean planning processes, as has 

Deval Patrick, former governor in Massachusetts. And, as the 

Ranking Member said, these ideas for the NOP came from 

President Bush’s U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 

This is not ocean zoning, this is ocean planning. There is no regulatory authority in any of the National Ocean Policy requirements, whatsoever. It is more for data collection, so that we can get 

to a rational decisionmaking process, and have a multi-sector 

outcome, not a single-sector outcome. 

The NOP establishes an excellent planning process for better 

planning, better cooperation, and better management. There is still 

much to be done, but when we achieve these results we will see 

conservation of ecosystems, we will ensure an orderly and economically sustainable development of ocean resources, comprehensive 

data ports, and maps for all users. Minimizing conflicts for existing 

and for future users, we balance the needs of all users, and we will 

ensure environmental constraints will be considered before a 

project is fully developed. 

We are going to find common ground. That is what this purpose 

is. 

Thank you very much for the time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lanard follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM LANARD, CEO, MAGELLAN WIND

INTRODUCTION

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Jim 

Lanard, co-founder and CEO of Magellan Wind, an offshore wind development company. Previously I was co-founder and president of the Offshore Wind Development 

Coalition (OffshoreWindDC) and, before that, Managing Director of Deepwater 

Wind, developer of the Block Island Wind Farm, which is scheduled to begin operation later this year as the Nation’s first offshore wind farm. Thank you for the opportunity to present our testimony to you today on ‘‘The Implications of President 

Obama’s National Ocean Policy.’’ I’m delighted to report that the implications of the 

President’s National Ocean Policy are strongly positive. The National Ocean Policy 

seeks to promote industry development that is sustainable and complements the variety of development activities already occurring in the ocean, reducing industrial 

risk and conflict. 

18 

In October 2011, I had the privilege to present testimony to this committee on 

President Obama’s new National Ocean Policy (NOP), at which time I was serving 

as president of OffshoreWindDC, an industry trade group, which has since been 

merged with the American Wind Energy Association. I’ve reviewed what I said in 

2011, appearing as president of OffshoreWindDC and those comments align with my 

views in 2016 as CEO of an offshore wind development company. I’d like to summarize some key points I made in 2011 and update them with comments on the impressive progress the Administration has made toward full implementation of the 

National Ocean Policy. 

THE PRESIDENT’S NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY

October 2011 Testimony of OffshoreWindDC. Offshore wind resources can 

play a vital role in the Nation’s effort to restructure its electrical power sector in 

a manner that increases employment and manufacturing opportunities, improves 

national security, reduces price volatility, and combats climate change. 

OffshoreWindDC supports the Administration’s efforts to create a national oceans 

policy and implement coastal and marine spatial planning in U.S. waters. 

May 2016 Update. Multiple states have already developed plans for their state 

waters. The National Ocean Policy seeks to build on these state-driven initiatives. 

For example, one of the best examples of a successful broad-based stakeholder ocean 

planning process is the development of Rhode Island’s Ocean Special Area Management Plan (Ocean SAMP). The Ocean SAMP was supported by the U.S. Department 

of the Interior, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RI Department of 

Environmental Management, RI Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC), 

the Chair of the CRMC’s Fisheries Advisory Board (a lobsterman), and the 

Conservation Law Foundation—a group whose members aren’t always on the same 

side of the table with industry. 

The Ocean SAMP research and final reports enabled Deepwater Wind to expedite 

development of the Block Island Wind Farm without compromising on the thoroughness of reviews needed to avoid environmental harms, protect health and safety, 

and resolve stakeholder conflicts. In a recent news article celebrating the 5-year 

anniversary of the development of the Ocean SAMP, Grover Fugate, CRMC 

Executive Director, stated that, ‘‘People ask why would [the state] want to engage 

in marine spatial planning? It comes down to, who do you want to control your destiny? In terms of the science and uses and what we wanted to protect, the state 

took the role in setting forth a plan of where they wanted to see development go, 

rather than reacting to proposals.’’ We anticipate that the regional planning underway for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic will help our industry and others to identify 

successful locations. We’ll also be able to plan ahead for potential ocean use conflicts, including taking environmental constraints into consideration, before a project 

is fully developed, saving the industry time and money. 

October 2011 Testimony of OffshoreWindDC. One critical goal of the National 

Ocean Policy is to create better planning to protect our oceans in the future, especially as demands on them continue to grow. Planning requires informed, broadbased data collection and data integration managed by a vast array of Federal 

agencies. My earlier testimony made the point that better plans lead to road maps 

that can guide current and future users of the oceans about how to best achieve 

their business plans. Thus, these types of planning and data collection efforts will 

help industry by providing more certainty about the rules of the road. Certainty can 

help to avoid conflict and improve efficiency. 

Comprehensive, science-based management of ocean resources can supply needed 

data on existing and potential uses of ocean resources and a critically needed framework for analyzing those data to characterize and resolve conflicts. 

May 2016 Update. The NOP’s planning framework favors multi-sector participation and decisionmaking, in contrast to the previous framework’s focus on separate, 

single-sector planning efforts. The siloed, single-sector approach sometimes resulted 

in multiple, conflicting policy recommendations from numerous Federal and state 

planning agencies. Multi-sector planning reduces conflicts and improves the decisionmaking process thereby supporting efficient and coherent outcomes. The NOP 

is making great strides to improve offshore permitting efficiency and Federal agency 

coordination. 

October 2011 Testimony of OffshoreWindDC. Unlike some users of the oceans 

and Great Lakes, we don’t consider coastal and marine planning to be an ocean zoning exercise. Rather, we see it as a process to identify ecologically and socially significant areas that should be considered whenever any use is proposed for a specific 

area. While it is true that these plans could indicate preferences and priorities, proVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:54 Oct 27, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\114TH CONGRESS\WATER, POWER & OCEANS\05-17-16\20220.TXT DARLEN
19 

1For more information see: the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan, (http:// 

www.mass.gov / ?pageID=eoeeaterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Ocean+%26+Coastal+Management 

&L2=Massachusetts+Ocean+Plan&sid=Eoeea&b=terminalcontent&f=eea_oceans_mop&csid= 

Eoeea), the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan (RI SAMP), http:// 

seagrant.gso.uri.edu/oceansamp/, and the New Jersey Ocean/Wind Power Ecological Baseline 

Studies, http://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/ocean-wind/. 2http: / / www.cnas.org / sites / default / files / publications-pdf / OceanMapping_MedinaSmith 

Sturgis.pdf. 

posed uses for any site will still have to be studied separately. We also think ocean 

planning is important to protect marine ecosystems while ensuring the orderly and 

sustainable development of ocean resources in a manner that respects and minimizes conflicts and existing uses including commercial fishing, recreational boating, 

surfing, aesthetic appreciation, wildlife, habitat, shipping, oil and gas and national 

defense activities. 

Ocean planning is not new to the United States. And it’s not a partisan issue, 

either. In the past, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey led by governors 

from both parties have relied upon their states’ ocean planning processes to identify 

the best sites for offshore wind farms. None of these processes has resulted in ocean 

zoning outcomes; rather, they have identified areas with the least conflicting uses 

for the potential development of offshore wind farms.1 In each of these state’s processes there was extensive stakeholder involvement. The National Ocean Policy 

requires the Regional Planning Bodies to ensure similar extensive stakeholder participation, a critical component as ocean planning evolves in the United States. 

May 2016 Update. The NOP calls for the establishment of Regional Planning 

Bodies (RPB), two of which, the Northeast RPB and the Mid-Atlantic RPB, are expected to publish their draft regional ocean plans for public comment in the next 

month or two. Both of these RPBs adopted processes that engaged a broad set of 

stakeholders including those from a range of ocean industries from shipping, ports, 

offshore energy, tug and barge operators, commercial and recreational fishing, undersea cable companies, and recreational boating to name a few, who contributed 

industry data, identified future industry trends, and made recommendations to improve coordination. These efforts prove the value of collaboration among stakeholders with varied interests working together to find common ground and to collect 

data on environmental resources and human use that can be used to make better 

management decisions. 

Planning not only promotes better management decisions but also improves 

national security. In a policy brief by the Center for American Security,2 authors 

stated that ‘‘[a]s a primary user of the coastal ocean, the U.S. military needs dedicated and charted offshore areas in which to train and conduct exercises to prepare 

for war, thwart terrorist activities and prevent other threats against the United 

States. For the Navy, Coast Guard and Marine Corps, operating in the coastal ocean 

is critical to maintaining operational readiness. Although the ocean may seem vast, 

a unified effort is necessary to balance increased offshore activity with the need to 

maintain U.S. military proficiency and national security and ensure the safety and 

sustainability of this vital resource . . .. The development of a national coastal 

ocean mapping system would benefit all coastal ocean users and is an integral step 

toward more effective and thorough ocean planning. Through comprehensive awareness of major offshore activity, the United States would simultaneously advance national security, economic development and ocean conservation.’’ 

Ocean planning has been and should continue to be bi-partisan. I would like to 

remind this committee that the National Ocean Policy came out of recommendations 

from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the members of which were appointed 

by George W. Bush. Additionally, the Rhode Island Ocean SAMP, referenced above, 

was actively supported by former Republican Governor Donald Carcieri during his 

tenure in the State House. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former 

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick have also supported funding for state ocean 

planning processes. In a letter submitted in March 2016 to this body, the Chamber 

of Shipping of America, East Coast Shellfish Growers Association, Northeast Marine 

Pilots Association, Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association, Oregon Wave Energy 

Trust, and Lenape Indian Tribe of Delaware along with 117 other organizations representing a huge array of interests from conservation to industry supported ocean 

planning for our coastal communities, economies, and ecosystems. I hope this committee recognizes the value of RPBs, the bi-partisan nature of ocean planning, and 

will choose to support additional funding for the NOP and the important work of 

states, Federal agencies, industry and conservation stakeholders, and tribes. 

20 

Three other topics addressed in OffshoreWindDC’s October 2011 testimony to the 

committee also merit re-emphasis in updated form: 

Job creation. 

The offshore wind industry has the potential to create thousands of highly skilled 

jobs in the United States. Offshore wind creates employment in the manufacture of 

wind farm components as well as in the installation and operation of the wind 

farms. To realize the full job-creating potential of offshore wind development, however, it will be necessary to build offshore wind farms at scale, as is occurring today 

in Europe and China. Manufacturers will invest in the United States only if they 

have the orders needed to justify the investment. Factories for the manufacture of 

wind turbines (composed of as many as 8,000 discrete parts), plants that manufacture submarine cable, and shipbuilding facilities needed to build special purpose 

vessels for the offshore wind industries. We hope the committee and the rest of the 

Congress will support initiatives to spur development of these facilities so that U.S. 

workers can join the world’s growing offshore wind workforce. 

Utility-scale offshore wind farms: a new use of the oceans and Great Lakes. 

U.S. coasts and the adjoining exclusive economic zone, along with the Great 

Lakes, have historically supported a wide range of industrial, commercial, national 

defense, and cultural and recreational activities. These areas are coming under 

growing competitive pressure from a variety of sources. There are calls for expanded 

oil and gas drilling and for new and expanded shipping lanes, commercial fishing, 

aquaculture, and new defense technologies; increased recreational demand also contributes to the pressure. Offshore wind power, which has the potential to generate 

clean, renewable energy for millions of homes up and down our coasts, adds another 

use to the mix. 

Lease areas for offshore wind farms can be as large as 200 or 300 square miles. 

Distances between turbines, which increase with rotor diameter due to the need to 

limit turbulence and wake effects, range from a half mile to almost a mile. This ensures that many other ocean uses will be feasible at wind farm sites. We recognize, 

however, that advancement of the public interest in balanced, sustainable use of 

ocean and Great Lakes resources will require better planning, better cooperation, 

and better management. Magellan believes that the President’s National Ocean 

Policy provides an essential framework for achieving the needed improvements. 

DOI’s Smart-from-the-Start 

Congress, when it enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005, mandated that regulations related to the use of the Outer Continental Shelf for offshore wind be adopted 

within 180 days of the bill becoming law. Five years later, on April 29, 2009, those 

regulations were finally adopted by the Department of the Interior. Interior, in collaboration with the governors of many East Coast states, announced in November 

2010 the Smart-from-the-Start initiative, a program designed to accelerate the responsible development of offshore wind resources in Federal waters. 

Interior noted that the Smart-from-the-Start process and associated data collection efforts can inform the Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans that will be developed 

by Regional Planning Bodies created pursuant to the National Ocean Policy. Smartfrom-the-Start takes into account existing information on wildlife and ecosystems 

and other uses of the ocean (e.g., fishing and shipping) and thus attempts to ‘‘take 

into account the national CMSP (Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning) goals and 

principles,’’ as recommended in the Final Report of the Ocean Policy Task Force. 

Final Report at 63. In important ways, the development of offshore wind farms can 

provide a test case for putting CMSP principles into practice. 

CONCLUSION

In summary, we congratulate the Administration for the effective implementation 

of the National Ocean Policy. While there is still much to be done, the progress to 

date bodes well for ocean management so that all stakeholders can continue to use 

and enjoy ocean resources in balanced, sustainable ways. The National Ocean Policy 

is helping conserve marine ecosystems and ensure the orderly and economic development of ocean resources, in a manner that respects and minimizes conflicts with 

existing users while promoting emerging technologies. We are eager to support our 

Nation’s efforts to create more jobs for U.S. workers; thoughtful implementation of 

the National Ocean Policy will achieve this goal and promote greater certainty for 

American businesses. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts with you. 

21 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Lanard. 

And finally, Mr. Keppen, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF DAN KEPPEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FAMILY 

FARM ALLIANCE, KLAMATH FALLS, OREGON 

Mr. KEPPEN. Good morning, Chairman Fleming, Ranking 

Member Huffman, and members of the subcommittee. My name is 

Dan Keppen, and on behalf of the Family Farm Alliance, I thank 

you for this opportunity to present this testimony on implications 

of the Obama administration’s National Ocean Policy. 

Family Farm Alliance is a grassroots organization of family 

farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts, and allied industries in the 

16 Western states. A critical issue that the Western family farmers 

and ranchers are confronted with at this time is the daunting number of Federal administrative policy initiatives they face. 

Nearly 6 years ago, President Obama signed an Executive Order 

to implement a National Ocean Policy, or NOP. The policy sets 

forth yet another level of Federal management oversight intended 

to improve the way inland ocean and coastal activities are managed. Unfortunately, this has the potential to impose negative impacts, intended or not, on the Western interests we represent. 

In early 2012, the White House released its draft NOP 

Implementation Plan, which made it clear that activities that 

might adversely affect the ocean ecosystems may also be impacted. 

Because of this, we are uncertain as to whether the Administration’s ocean policy intends to revise existing regulations or impose 

new regulations on activities that are already permitted by the 

Federal Government. 

We certainly can support the goals of the NOP, which are intended to guide Federal agencies to, among other things, ensure 

the protection, maintenance, and restoration of the health of 

oceans, enhance ocean and coastal economies, and preserve our 

maritime heritage. We support the NOP’s intent to provide financial assistance to private landowners who want to apply voluntary 

conservation practices. NOP’s acknowledgment of the importance of 

collaborative watershed restoration efforts is also a good thing. 

On the other hand, we fear that the Regional Planning Bodies 

with a strong Federal presence proposed under the ocean policy 

framework could dramatically increase the role of Federal agencies 

on inland areas. We believe NOP will affect already budgetstrapped agencies that interact closely with Western agricultural 

irrigators, including the USDA. Despite USDA’s involvement in the 

National Ocean Policy over the past 3 years, the full extent of the 

Department’s activities and role in the process are still not clear. 

The NOP would also establish a framework for collaboration and 

a shared set of goals to promote ecosystem-based management, 

which would allow new Regional Planning Bodies to potentially 

impact activities that occur on lands that drain into the ocean. This 

objective involves vague and undefined goals and policies that we 

know from experience can be used by critics of irrigated agriculture 

as a basis for lawsuits to stop or delay federally permitted 

activities. 

Finally, we believe there is a risk of unintended economic and societal consequences associated with implementing this policy. The 

22 

NOP creates the potential for unforeseen impacts to inland sectors, 

like agriculture. The family farmers and ranchers we represent are 

part of a $172 billion contribution that Western irrigated agriculture makes to our economy every year. Our producers also contribute to a luxury our Nation’s citizens enjoy. That is, they spend 

less of their disposable income on food than anywhere else in the 

world. 

We must move away from spending Federal funds to support 

new bureaucracies and procedures that could lead to further uncertainty, restrictions, and delays. Instead, taxpayer dollars should be 

allocated to existing and proven entities, programs, and activities 

that have already been authorized. Congress should work to delay 

implementation of this ocean policy, which would provide more 

time for oversight and examination of potential impacts of the 

NOP. Requiring a report on the activities that USDA and other 

Federal entities have engaged in and the resources expended related to implementation of this policy could, in fact, lead to better 

public policy. 

The proposed NOP is just one Federal regulatory initiative of 

dozens that we have been tracking in recent years. In fact, the 

president on my board of directors at this very moment is participating in another oversight hearing just down the hall, focusing on 

the myriad of new regulations he and other farmers and ranchers 

currently face. 

As is often the case, it is unclear how this new policy and others 

will impact watershed planning efforts being conducted at the state 

and local levels, some with the assistance of Federal agencies. 

Many of these processes and actions will have very real and yetto-be-measured negative impacts on Western irrigated agriculture. 

Others simply offer the potential for disruption. 

In conclusion, I ask that you put yourself in the shoes of our 

family farmers and ranchers as they try to assess the cumulative 

effects of all these regulatory measures. It is time to call time out, 

and take a look at these impacts before we add new chapters to 

what our members already see as a very large rulebook. We welcome your leadership to help make this possible. We are pleased 

that your committee is paying attention and providing this opportunity to voice our concerns. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide this testimony today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keppen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN KEPPEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

FAMILY FARM ALLIANCE

Good morning Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman and members of the 

subcommittee. My name is Dan Keppen, and on behalf of the Family Farm Alliance 

(Alliance), I thank you for this opportunity to present this testimony on the implications of the Obama administration’s National Ocean Policy. The Alliance is a grassroots organization of family farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts, and allied 

industries in 16 Western states. The Alliance is focused on one mission: To ensure 

the availability of reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to Western farmers 

and ranchers. We are also committed to the fundamental proposition that Western 

irrigated agriculture must be preserved and protected for a host of economic, sociological, environmental, and national security reasons—many of which are often 

overlooked in the context of other national policy decisions. 

The Family Farm Alliance has a reputation for helping to solve Western water 

challenges in a constructive way. There are critical issues that the Western family 

farmers and ranchers we represent are confronted with at this time. At the top of 

23 

the list is the daunting number of Federal administrative policy initiatives that are 

facing Western agricultural producers. 

In this instance, we are uncertain how the Administration’s ocean policy will be 

implemented. What will the role of states and stakeholder user groups be? Have 

potential impacts to the economy, the Federal budget, and existing statutes and regulatory processes been assessed? How will this complement or conflict with the 

authority of states? For these reasons, we are concerned that this policy could dramatically increase the role of Federal agencies on inland rivers and adjacent lands 

as they might pertain to the much larger problem of ocean health, as further outlined in this testimony. 

BACKGROUND OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 13547

On July 19, 2010, President Obama signed Executive Order 13547 to adopt the 

final recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force to implement a 

new National Ocean Policy (NOP). The policy sets forth yet another level of Federal 

management and oversight intended to improve the way inland, ocean and coastal 

activities are managed. Unfortunately, this has the potential to impose negative 

impacts—intended or not—across a spectrum of sectors, including the Western agricultural producers and irrigation organizations we represent. 

In early 2012, the White House released its draft National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, which made it clear that activities that might adversely affect the 

ocean ecosystems may also be impacted—no matter how far inland they may occur. 

While the NOP states that National Ocean Policy nor marine planning ‘‘creates or 

changes regulations or authorities,’’ it also proposes that agencies will ‘‘coordinate 

to use and provide scientifically sound, ecosystem-based approaches to achieving 

healthy coastal and ocean habitats.’’ From our standpoint, this presents significant 

uncertainty as to whether the Administration intends to revise existing regulations 

or impose new regulations on activities that are already permitted by the Federal 

Government. 

SUPPORT FOR THE NOP’S VOLUNTARY INCENTIVE-DRIVEN PROVISIONS

The Family Farm Alliance has long advocated a voluntary, incentive-driven 

philosophy to advance conservation, and thus we support the NOP’s intent to provide financial assistance to private landowners seeking to apply voluntary conservation practices. We were pleased to see the NOP acknowledge that ‘‘collaborative 

watershed restoration efforts are important to the overall success of coastal and 

marine habitat conservation,’’ a principle we also embrace. 

However, the NOP then points to restoration efforts for Pacific Northwest salmon 

as an ‘‘excellent example of collaborative, voluntary upland watershed conservation 

and restoration.’’ Unfortunately, the courts do not always agree, as underscored by 

the recent decision by U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon, who ruled the Federal 

Government hasn’t done nearly enough to improve Northwest salmon runs. ‘‘These 

efforts have already cost billions of dollars, yet they are failing,’’ he wrote earlier 

this month. 

Now, certain environmental groups say the Snake River Dams—which fuel much 

of the Northwest’s baseload power supply (backing up wind energy and other renewables) and make possible irrigation and navigation for moving agricultural commodities to market—are seen as the problem, and must come down. As further described 

below, our members fear that the ‘‘Federal Regional Planning Bodies’’ proposed 

under the Ocean Policy framework could dramatically increase the role of Federal 

agencies on inland rivers and adjacent land uses, including all uses (Ag, irrigation, 

ports, etc.), at a time when other hydropower dams are under ongoing litigation by 

certain environmental groups. 

CONCERNS OF WESTERN FAMILY FARMERS AND RANCHERS

The Family Farm Alliance certainly can support the goals of the NOP, which are 

intended to guide Federal agencies to ‘‘ensure the protection, maintenance and restoration of the health of ocean, coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources, 

enhance the sustainability of ocean and coastal economies, preserve our maritime 

heritage, support sustainable uses and access, provide for adaptive management to 

enhance our understanding of and capacity to respond to climate change and ocean 

acidification, and coordinate with our national security and foreign policy interests.’’ 

However, we have several concerns that extend beyond this broad intent. 

Funding Concerns 

We believe NOP will affect already budget-strapped agencies that interact closely 

with Western agricultural irrigators, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

24 

(USDA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the 

Departments of Commerce and the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Despite USDA’s involvement in 

the National Ocean Policy over the past 3 years, the full extent of the Department’s 

activities and role in the process is not clear. As Federal budgets are further reduced, it is unclear how much funding the agencies will be taking from existing 

programs to develop and implement this new initiative. 

Uncertain Impacts to Inland Areas 

The NOP proposes that, working through the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, agencies will coordinate to address key threats to coral reef ecosystems, including impacts from land-based sources of pollution. Through ‘‘more effective use’’ of 

voluntary programs, partnerships and pilot projects, agencies will work to ‘‘reduce 

excessive nutrients, sediments and other pollutants.’’ The NOP would also establish 

a framework for collaboration and a shared set of goals to promote ‘‘ecosystem-based 

management,’’ where agencies will ‘‘develop principles, goals and performance measures’’ that support this management philosophy. 

The ‘ecosystem-based management’ objective created by this Executive Order 

would allow federally dominated Regional Planning Bodies to reach as far inland 

as deemed necessary to protect ocean ecosystem health. It could potentially impact 

all activities that occur on lands adjacent to rivers, tributaries or watersheds that 

drain into the ocean. For example, although the policy is portrayed by the Administration as primarily targeting ocean-related activities, the draft implementation 

plan specifically states that the policy plans to address ‘‘the major impacts of urban 

and suburban development and agriculture—including forestry and animal 

feedlots.’’ 

The ‘ecosystem-based management’ objective involves vague and undefined goals 

and policies that we know from experience can be used by critics of irrigated agriculture as the basis for lawsuits to stop or delay federally permitted activities. For 

example, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has determined that 

Central Valley salmon populations will go extinct unless government agencies 

change their water operations in California. In a draft ruling, NMFS concluded that 

the southern resident population of killer whales may go extinct because its primary 

food—salmon—is imperiled by California’s network of dams and canals. Similar sinister linkages between orcas and potato farmers (located hundreds of miles from the 

Pacific Ocean) were contemplated as a biological opinion was being drafted by 

NMFS for the Klamath Irrigation Project. In addition to opening up the possibility 

of further such ‘ecosystem-based’ relationships, the NOP sets up ‘pre-application 

consultations’ where requested Federal permits would be subject to additional consultation processes prior to any formal consideration, adding yet another layer of 

Federal oversight and bureaucratic controls. 

Finally, we believe there is a high risk of unintended economic and societal consequences associated with implementing this policy, due in part to the unprecedented geographic scale under which the policy is to be established. As currently 

set forth, the National Ocean Policy creates the potential for unforeseen impacts to 

inland sectors such as agriculture, which is connected via the ‘‘ecosystem’’-based 

approach to the ocean. The family farmers and ranchers we represent are part of 

a $172 billion contribution the ‘‘Irrigated Agriculture Industry’’—made up of direct 

irrigated crop production, agricultural services and the food processing and packaging sectors—makes to our economy every year. Our producers also contribute to 

a luxury our Nation’s citizens enjoy: spending less of their disposable income on food 

than anywhere else in the world. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Rather than expend Federal funds to support new bureaucracies, procedures and 

regulations that could lead to further uncertainty, restrictions and delays, scarce 

taxpayer dollars should be allocated to existing entities, programs and activities 

that have already been authorized by Congress and are necessary for businesses 

and the economy to properly function. Given these concerns, Congress should work 

to delay implementation of the National Ocean Policy. This would provide more time 

for oversight and examination of potential impacts of the NOP, and help ensure an 

ocean policy that appropriately reflects and enhances the role that our oceans, coastal areas and marine ecosystems play in our Nation’s economy, national security, 

culture, health, and well-being. 

USDA is a member of the National Ocean Council, and USDA representatives 

have been identified to serve on ‘‘Regional Planning Bodies’’ charged with developing 

‘‘Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans’’ in regions including the Northeast and Gulf of 

Mexico. Since the National Ocean Policy was established pursuant to Executive 

25 

Order 13547 in July 2010, entities across the Federal Government, including USDA, 

have been committing unknown amounts of resources and personnel toward the development of an initiative that has not been authorized by Congress. Requiring a 

report on the activities that USDA and other entities across the Federal Government have engaged in and the resources expended in furtherance of National Ocean 

Policy implementation could lead to better public policy and would ensure the kind 

of transparency that the American taxpayer deserves and expects. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF NEW REGULATIONS IN THE WEST

The proposed National Ocean Policy is just one Federal regulatory initiative of 

dozens that we have been tracking in recent years. As with many of these administrative proposals, the related implications and estimated impacts on our members 

are often difficult to ascertain. However, our members are wary of how these plans 

may impact existing and ongoing watershed planning efforts being conducted at the 

state and local levels, some with the assistance of these Federal agencies 

themselves. 

Thousands of watershed councils exist throughout the West and they are engaged 

in a variety of conservation and restoration projects which could be derailed or delayed by the imposition of new Federal planning requirements. Water users are 

often active participants in these efforts and have a large stake in ensuring that 

these projects continue. We need to be sure that new overarching planning groups 

and programs are really necessary or are wasteful expenditures of public resources. 

In addition, the Obama administration needs to be cognizant of the difference between water resource regulation under Federal environmental laws and water 

resource management which is conducted pursuant to state law. 

At a time when our Nation is struggling to return to the path of economic prosperity, we cannot support the creation of a new Federal watershed planning program linked to ocean health, particularly for those states that already have existing, 

productive watershed programs in place. Federal participation should be channeled 

through these existing state programs, rather than creating uncertainty through potentially cumbersome, overarching new Federal requirements which threaten to derail important water quality and water conservation projects already underway. 

We have yet to see if many of the administrative policy initiatives proposed by 

the Obama administration in the past 7 years have been successful in their intent. 

More importantly, we still are trying to determine what their cumulative impacts 

will be on Western irrigated agriculture. These types of Federal water resources actions and regulatory practices could potentially undermine the economic foundations 

of rural communities in the arid West by making farming and ranching increasingly 

difficult. 

At multiple times over the past 7 years, we have updated a growing list of these 

and other newly proposed actions. While we are not yet sounding the alarm of imminent destruction of irrigated agriculture as we know it, we do believe many of these 

processes and actions will have very real and yet-to-be measured negative impacts 

on Western irrigated agriculture. Others simply offer the potential for disruption. 

We ask that you, the members of this subcommittee, put yourself in the shoes of 

our family farmers and ranchers as they view these daunting administrative initiatives in the course of growing food and fiber for our Nation and the world in an 

already daunting environment of risks beyond their control. It is difficult to assess 

the cumulative effects of these regulatory measures, which really should be assessed 

and calculated before adding additional chapters to what our members already see 

as a very large rulebook. 

CONCLUSIONS

American family farmers and ranchers for generations have grown food and fiber 

for the world, and we will have to become more innovative than ever before to meet 

the critical challenges ahead, including feeding a growing world population on less 

land and with less resources. That innovation must be encouraged rather than stifled with new layers of Federal regulations and uncertainty. Unfortunately, many 

existing and proposed Federal water resource policies make it even more difficult 

for farmers in an arena where agricultural values are at a disadvantage to Federal 

ecological and environmental priorities. 

Many of these administrative changes are drawing praise from environmental 

organizations that have been advocating for them for some time, but ultimately the 

huge negative impacts of such destructive policies will be aimed at the heart of the 

economy in rural America. We can only hope that the Federal Government will give 

equal consideration to the concerns of our farmers, ranchers and agricultural 

organizations. 

26 

We welcome your leadership to help make that possible. We are pleased that your 

committee is paying attention and providing this opportunity to voice our concerns. 

We look forward to working with you and other Members of Congress toward this 

end. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide this testimony today. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Keppen. 

Thank you all for your valuable testimony. At this point, we 

would begin our questions for our witnesses. We may not finish our 

questions in the first round, we may have a second round. I see a 

lot of interest around the dais. I yield myself 5 minutes to begin 

questions. 

First of all, just a commentary. We have heard it said that this 

is, at worst, benign but could actually be helpful. Mr. Lanard 

talked about that. Mr. Huffman talks about how this is sort of a 

new kind of air control system that would be in the water. 

I understand all of that, but let’s look at what has actually been 

happening. Today the regulatory system of the Obama administration has become the fourth branch of government, writing laws and 

enforcing them by unelected bureaucrats who have absolutely no 

accountability. And what gives us even more pause for concern is 

the lack of transparency in this entire process. That is another 

danger sign that we are going to have a continued growth of this 

unaccountable new form of government. 

Captain Zales, Mr. Lanard testified that this is necessary to 

eliminate conflicts between industries, such as offshore development, and commercial and recreational fishing. You have been fishing in the Gulf for some time now. What is your understanding of 

the relationship between our offshore oil rigs and commercial and 

recreational fisheries? 

Mr. ZALES. It is an excellent relationship. I mean, clearly—and 

I was told red snapper is not to be discussed, but in the Gulf of 

Mexico, according to some key scientists such as Dr. Bob Shipp, 

without the oil rig situation and the energy production in the Gulf 

of Mexico, red snapper probably would not be rebuilt and expanding the way that it is today. Because of the platforms and the artificial structure that they create, they have enhanced the resource 

in areas of the Gulf to where, traditionally and historically, those 

areas did not produce. 

Dr. FLEMING. Red snapper is a reef fish and it loves oil rigs. 

Mr. ZALES. Exactly. And a lot of other artificial structures. 

Corals have formed up on some of these platforms in the 

Northern Gulf that previously were non-existent. So it is clear that 

the impact is a healthy impact. The relationship is good. There are 

a lot of fish. People fish around those rigs where they are located 

every day. 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, by the same token, if we had this coastal and 

marine spatial planning, could it disrupt or possibly destroy the 

harmony that is currently in place? 

Mr. ZALES. It very well could. I mean, in existence today because 

of the BOEM situation and the mine-utilized rigs that they have 

taken out, and places in offshore Texas where they have taken out 

a lot of rigs that were non-productive, fishing is not near as good 

as what it once was because those rigs have been removed. 

27 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. 

Mr. ZALES. Whenever you take that habitat out of the water, fish 

have to have a place to live. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. 

Mr. ZALES. It destroys the situation. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Captain. 

Ms. Lapp, you are very involved in the Regional Planning Body. 

Talk to me about transparency. What kind of transparency in this 

process are you seeing? 

Ms. LAPP. At that Northeast Regional Planning Body meeting 

that I did attend, one of the members acknowledged that they were 

lacking in transparency, and that it was undermining the credibility of the whole process. Stakeholders are not involved. 

Dr. FLEMING. And as a stakeholder and industry representative, 

what sort of message does this send? 

Ms. LAPP. That they are going to get an agenda pushed through 

at all costs by the end of this year. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. So, it is a determined bureaucratic body, 

unelected officials who are accountable to no one, including 

Congress, that push through their agenda, whatever it is, regardless of what industries are affected, what citizens believe, what voters think, and what Americans in general would believe and would 

clearly understand. 

Mr. Keppen, do you have any comments about any of the issues 

we have brought up here? 

Mr. KEPPEN. Well, again, I like the comment I heard earlier by 

one of the Members, death by a thousand cuts. In the last 7 years, 

a good portion of my time and my organization’s time has been 

spent just trying to weigh in on all these various rulemakings that 

are occurring; and cumulatively, what does it mean? 

Dr. FLEMING. Do you think this suppresses the economy of your 

industry and others around you? 

Mr. KEPPEN. Well, it definitely creates uncertainty, and I think 

it opens the potential for actions that could be taken that could 

definitely have an impact on producers in the Western United 

States. 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, you heard Mr. Huffman say that the ocean 

industry has outstripped our economy. But what kind of affects me 

about that is the fact that our economy in the last 10 years has 

had the worst growth in history. It does not take much to outstrip 

our general economy today. 

Thank you, and I yield to Mr. Huffman. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I would like to start with Mr. Lanard. 

Mr. Lanard, I guess about 5 years ago, there was a series of 

hearings by the Majority on this National Ocean Policy. I believe 

you may have participated and testified in at least one of them. 

And, instead of supporting the plan for our oceans that had been 

recommended on a bipartisan basis, and supported by President 

George W. Bush, the Republican Majority pursued some of the 

same things we are hearing today, a lot of speculative scare tactics 

about things that might happen, about additional regulations that 

could come into play and hurt American jobs. 

But we now have the benefit of a few years of actual practice. 

I wanted to ask you about that, because it seems to me that we 

28 

are seeing real results. Better coordination between agencies and 

stakeholders, I am told has helped spur the first aquaculture permits in both the Atlantic and Pacific waters, and generated more 

than $100 million for our states in multi-use Rigs-to-Reefs projects. 

I am told that the National Ocean Policy has actually facilitated 

extension of Rigs-to-Reefs into Federal waters in places like the 

Gulf of Mexico, which should be a good thing for fishing, going forward, to Mr. Zales’s point; supported the growing offshore wind industry; and encouraged job growth and independence from foreign 

energy pressures. 

I want to ask you, Mr. Lanard, having heard from other 

witnesses and my colleagues across the aisle, do you agree that the 

National Ocean Policy causes more uncertainty and confusion for 

stakeholders? You certainly heard all these arguments back in 

2011, when you testified at a similar hearing. But in your experience, has the policy helped increase or reduce stakeholder participation and certainty? 

Mr. LANARD. We have worked with the Department of the 

Interior, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and many of 

the other departments to find out how to move offshore wind into 

the commerce sector of the ocean, which has so many other competing uses. And the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has 

been remarkably efficient. They have created state and Federal 

task forces that bring in all the different interests so that people 

can comment and weigh in, and then de-conflict those uses. It is 

a really good process, and it is efficient. 

I think one of the things that is very important for this committee to fully appreciate is that these are voluntary ocean plans. 

There is no Regional Planning Body that has to adopt a plan. And 

when it does, as the Northeast plan is coming up, it is going to be 

open to public comment again for the public to weigh in. 

The majority of members of these planning bodies are state officials and representatives, not Federal officials. So, we are not creating a Federal bureaucracy, we are helping the states inform the 

Federal Government how all of us can do a more efficient job to 

manage these different uses. 

And Mr. Huffman, directly personal to you, I want to tell you 

that the northern part of your congressional district has some of 

the best winds for offshore wind in the United States, and we will 

be looking forward to putting a lot of your constituents to work out 

there, building these wind farms. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I appreciate the reference to the beautiful Second 

Congressional District. 

I want to ask you, though, about marine spatial planning, which 

is not fully implemented at this point. Many ocean decisions are 

single sector, single agency. You referred to that in your testimony. 

Mr. Lanard, are there times right now where you have seen the 

wind industry struggle to have its interests represented by other 

Federal agencies because of that single sector, single agency 

process? 

Mr. LANARD. No, and let me bring up the Department of Defense, 

which is going to be the most resistant to any effort to cede its territory. We have a great working relationship with the Department 

of Defense. We go to the Pentagon, we meet with the Regional 

29 

Clearinghouse on Renewable Energy. We meet with the Department of Navy, of course, which is the most important of those agencies for surface water use and subsurface water use. And they are 

working really hard with us to de-conflict this and find ways of 

working together. 

I think the biggest issue with the Navy might be a radar issue, 

because our towers 15 or 20 miles off the coast might have some 

radar issues. We will resolve that, just like they have on land. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Well, let me just say, back to the second district, 

it is going to be a real regulatory challenge for you or anyone else 

to do a project in an area that has such an overlay of coastal act, 

coastal commission, marine-protected areas, sanctuaries, et cetera. 

I am not sure that needle can be threaded. But if there is a spot 

that is suitable for offshore wind—and I don’t know, you would 

know better than me—it is inconceivable to imagine you ever navigating all of those layers of law and regulation and permitting 

without agencies talking to each other. 

So, it seems to me a pretty good example of a case study of why 

this sort of coordination and communication is needed, and I appreciate your testimony. 

Dr. FLEMING. Chairman Bishop is recognized. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And I am making an assumption 

here that when you said California, the Second District of 

California had great opportunity for wind farms, I am assuming 

you are talking about natural occurrence and not the rhetoric of 

the Representative from California. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LANARD. Talking far off the coast. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I guess it is both. OK, fine. 

One of the issues for which we are here is because when 

Congress does something, as slow as it is, our attempt is to do it 

correctly. When the Administration tries to do something, they just 

want to do it, and not necessarily do it right. We have a perfect 

example here with the National Ocean Policy. 

This National Ocean Council was done, what, 6 years ago? And 

there still is, at least if I listen to the testimony here, some confusion about what it was. And I thank the Subcommittee Chair, because his purpose was to try and bring together the National 

Ocean Council and the Council of Environmental Quality and have 

a discussion here. Unfortunately, they refused to show up because 

6 years later they are still not quite sure what they are really 

doing with this policy. That is a long time to get ready for a hearing. I suppose in another 6 years they might be ready for a hearing 

again. 

So, Captain, I appreciate what you said, especially on the fact 

that legislation tried to put this into place and it failed. There was 

a reason why it did not work. But the National Ocean Council, 

have they provided any clarity on any of the outstanding questions 

regarding how this policy is going to be implemented, how it is 

going to directly impact your industry? 

Mr. ZALES. No, sir, they have not responded to anything from 

me, as a stakeholder, or fellow stakeholders. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, you got it. Thank you. 

30 

Ms. Lapp, let me ask you the same question. Have they provided 

clarity to you? Do you know how this is going to impact your industry yet? 

Ms. LAPP. No, except that we might get a marine monument on 

top of our fishing grounds. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will talk about that in a second. 

How about you, Mr. Keppen? Do you have clarity? 

Mr. KEPPEN. Well, I get notifications from just about every agency out there every day, and I still have no sense really of what is 

happening, process-wise, or where they are at on the West Coast. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, 6 years is a very short time. I am sure they 

will get it down eventually. 

Ms. Lapp, when the comment was made here about voluntary actions, you were shaking your head. Why were you shaking your 

head on that one? 

Ms. LAPP. Because there are already regulations being created in 

conjunction with this National Ocean Policy. The Fishery Management Councils are moving on this policy. We are going to get regs 

handed down to us, and it is not voluntary. 

The CHAIRMAN. While I have you there, let’s talk about the potential monument because, obviously, the Antiquities Act is one of 

the fun things that we get to talk about all the time. The Act itself 

has three criteria that should be done, but recent administrations—not just this one, but recent administrations—have refused 

to go through that criteria. Instead they are saying that they have 

had local input to it. 

I understand the fishery managers from Maine to Florida have 

all written to the President this last week, asking them not to 

designate a monument. I know the entire delegation of 

Massachusetts—not necessarily a bastion of Republicanism—has 

written to the President, asking for at least more input, which, unfortunately, under the Antiquities Act, they can’t do—otherwise, it 

triggers NEPA. 

Does your experience with a potential New England marine 

monument reassure you that this is not going to be a top-down 

Federal approach that will afford adequate public participation, 

and you will get your say in how it will actually be managed if, indeed, it takes place? 

Ms. LAPP. Not at all. 

The CHAIRMAN. Your answers are all very simple and very direct. 

I am sorry it comes back to the same thing, that this is an institution that has not provided clarity, which they were supposed to do. 

They have had a long time to do it. They are still piddling around 

with where they are coming from, and it is creating more uncertainty, and it certainly is not helping the industry, and it is not 

helping the environment. What we are doing is just plain wrong 

and we have to change it somehow. 

I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. The Chairman yields back. Mr. Costa is recognized. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. 

Mr. Keppen, according to your testimony, the National Ocean 

Policy could have significant impacts on agricultural producers and 

31 

farmers that are adjacent to inland waterways as it relates to both 

direct and indirect, non-point source discharges. 

We have had, as a result of the drought—and you have testified 

here before—devastating impacts as it relates to not only the lack 

of water, but the regulatory impacts that have compounded the 

lack of our ability to move water. 

In your opinion, could the National Ocean Policy result in further 

harm, as it relates to these inland waterways? And if so, how? 

Mr. KEPPEN. I think so. Again, it is unclear because it is sort of 

vague; but based on the experience that I have had, both with the 

Central Valley Project and I would say the Klamath project in 

Oregon where I live, when you start tying inland areas to the ocean 

and you use the ecosystem approach, it is easier for critics of agriculture to make links and provide other stresses to reliability of 

water supplies. 

For both the CVP and Klamath, I know orcas, for example— 

there is talk about possibly doing consultation on orcas, killer 

whales. And some folks have even suggested that farmers in the 

Klamath Basin hundreds of miles from the ocean, because of potential impacts to salmon downstream, could be having an impact on 

orcas. So, folks are actually talking about—guys I represent, driving a tractor around a potato field in California—having an impact 

on orca whales in the Pacific Ocean. It is that sort of linkage that 

definitely causes concern. 

Mr. COSTA. Do you think the National Ocean Policy, if it was 

clearer, more concise and focused, could have an opportunity that 

it would increase the recovery of species? 

Too often we see contradictions, it seems to me, anyway, of this 

stovepipe mentality. We are treating smelt separately from striped 

bass. We have policies that are in contradiction of one another 

while we are propagating striped bass. On the other hand, salmon 

are impacted as a result of that. Do you have any thoughts about 

that? 

Mr. KEPPEN. Well, it is hard to say what they have accomplished 

so far. I think having a report or something, and I have mentioned 

USDA putting together a report that describes their involvement. 

Maybe NOAA Fisheries could do the same thing, so we could kind 

of assess how effective some of this coordination could be, and what 

those opportunities are. But right now I just don’t see what is out 

there. It is uncertain. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. How about for you and Mr. Lanard, the whole 

notion with this policy of just trying to prioritize—I think Chairman Bishop’s comments are well taken, there just seems to be a 

lack of clarity. Not only clarity, but a lack of prioritization in terms 

of how you deal with policies that can actually be coordinated with 

all the other agencies, both Federal and state. There seems to be 

no prioritization in this process. Do you care to comment, Mr. 

Keppen? 

Mr. KEPPEN. I would agree. 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Lanard? 

Mr. LANARD. Thank you. The regulatory authorities were created 

long ago. They exist. There are no new regulatory authorities 

created. 

32 

Mr. COSTA. That is not my question, though. In terms of coordinating a policy and developing priorities, do you think that is 

occurring? 

Mr. LANARD. Absolutely, it is occurring. With a new industry, we 

can point to the offshore wind industry as a perfect example of how 

that is working. Twenty-nine different Federal laws and regulations are going to apply to our industry. Those folks have never 

worked on this before. They are now coming together and coordinating it, and making sure that it does not contradict regulations 

that they have to impose and apply to other ocean users. It is 

working very well. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, let me just make a comment here, for what it 

is worth. 

I am a supporter of wind power, both onshore and offshore, as 

well as all the other energy tools in the energy toolbox. But I would 

not waste a lot of your time trying to deal with proposing wind 

sites either in the Second Congressional District in California or 

many of the other sites there, frankly. If you cannot get it in 

Massachusetts, there are a whole lot of folks who feel, notwithstanding the merit, that that is not something that they want to 

live with for, I think, personal reasons more often than policy reasons for energy for the Nation. 

Focus elsewhere. That would be my advice. Thank you. My time 

has expired. 

Mr. LANARD. Can I respond, or should I—— 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields. Mr. McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, I don’t know about that, Mr. Chairman. 

These wind farms are such an attractive addition to our coast. I am 

sure the people in the second district will enjoy looking out at this 

sea of windmills on what was once pristine coastline. 

Mr. LANARD. Congressman, they will not see them, they will be 

20 miles off the coast. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Let me go to Ms. Lapp. Mr. Lanard tells us 

there is no regulatory authority in the NOP, it is only for data 

collections to get various agencies talking to one another and coordinating information. 

What is the beef if the NOP is simply collecting information? 

Ms. LAPP. They are collecting information that they are going to 

use in regulations. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I am sorry? 

Ms. LAPP. They are collecting information that they are going to 

use in regulations, at least on the fishing industry. I know that. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Zales, what is your view point? 

Mr. ZALES. In the whole plan with the ocean policy, it is clear 

that when people say that there is no regulatory impact here, it is 

clear it states in there that the National Ocean Policy and the 

Federal people that are on these RPBs, if states refuse to comply, 

they over-ride the state and they take over and it will essentially 

take states’ rights away. They are going to do whatever they want 

to do. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, that gets me to my next question. Can 

you give us a wiring diagram of how the NOP will produce a much 

more restrictive regulatory environment for commerce? 

33 

Mr. ZALES. Essentially, they take over what has already been out 

there—the Fishery Management Plans, the Coast Guard, EPA, 

there is a Clean Water Act, there are a host of regulatory issues 

out there already that, apparently, the National Ocean Policy can 

over-rule. And if things aren’t going the way they want to do it, 

they come back and create a new regulation and say, ‘‘This is the 

way it is going to be,’’ because of what they see, and they say, ‘‘OK, 

well, this hasn’t worked, we are going to do something else.’’ 

The big problem with it is that, even though they can have a 

Mexican official or a Canadian official on a Regional Planning 

Body, me, as an industry person who has been fishing in the Gulf 

of Mexico for 51 years—I started fishing in the Gulf when I was 

12 years old—I have no say. I cannot provide information, except 

from the outside. And maybe I can do like I did in New Orleans 

a few weeks after the President signed this order. I drove from 

Panama City, Florida to New Orleans and back in 1 day to give 

1 minute of information to a panel that they came telling everybody, ‘‘Here is this great and wonderful National Ocean Policy.’’ 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, let’s—— 

Mr. ZALES. That 1 minute does nothing. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Lanard just said the regulatory authority 

already exists. Is that the implementing function, then, of the 

NOP, that basically the NOP will be driving a new range of regulatory restrictions through a process that is already in place? 

Mr. ZALES. Pretty much, from what I can tell. I mean, when you 

talk about ecosystem-based management, the South Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council has been working on ecosystembased management for the past 10 to 12 years, way before the 

National Ocean Policy was even thought of. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, we are told that this is simply going to 

provide a framework for stakeholders to provide input. Yet, in response to Mr. Bishop, you said you have not felt that they have 

received your input. Is that correct? 

Mr. ZALES. Yes, that is pretty much correct. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Ms. Lapp, what has been your experience? 

Ms. LAPP. They will listen to your comments, but they do not do 

anything with them. They do not incorporate it into whatever they 

are doing. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Is it your impression that this is basically a 

conclusion-driven process? They have already made their conclusions and are simply listening to those who agree with them? 

Ms. LAPP. Absolutely. When I was at the RPB meeting where I 

raised my concerns and I sat down, one of the members said, ‘‘Hey, 

look. We are implementing a policy just because of a timeline. I 

think we need to slow it down.’’ And the co-chairman and the NOC 

chair were like, ‘‘We are going to produce a plan by the end of this 

year,’’ so, regardless—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Kenard? 

Mr. LANARD. No, it is not my experience. In fact, at the 

regional—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I said Mr. Kenard, but I will take you, Mr. 

Lanard. You have had a positive experience. They have listened to 

you. So, I have to wonder if perhaps some stakeholders are more 

equal than others. 

34 

Ms. Lapp, is that what you are picking up out there? 

Ms. LAPP. I would agree with that, from a fisheries standpoint, 

yes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I do want to push back briefly on one thing 

the Chairman said. He called this a fourth branch. It is not a 

fourth branch, it is the combination of the three branches of government that the American founders meticulously separated 

through our Constitution. That is what keeps us free. 

Combining all of the powers in the same hands is the very definition of tyranny, and yet we are seeing these regulatory agencies 

now writing rules—that is, legislating—enforcing those rules—that 

is executive—and then adjudicating those rules—that is judicial. 

And then, when they fine people, keeping the money for their agencies. That is recombining all the powers of government the 

Constitution sought to separate. That is a very dangerous development. I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman. And you say tomatoes, I 

say tomatoes. It is all the same to me. Thank you. 

Mr. Lowenthal, you are recognized. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A little background, I 

represent a coastal district in Southern California. I know firsthand that we can have both a thriving ocean economy and at the 

same time protect and conserve our precious ocean resources. Off 

the coast of my district, you see many, many things: there are marine protected areas; there are state waters, Federal waters; we 

have a coastal zone; we have Department of Defense installations; 

we are a marine hotspot, some of the best blue whale watching occurs in my district; we now have the large shellfish aquaculture 

ranch being installed; we have beautiful beaches; we have oil and 

gas activity with some rigs right off the shores of Long Beach; it 

is also the home of the Nation’s second-largest port, and combined 

with the Port of Los Angeles, which is part of that district, it is the 

largest port complex in North America. 

When we are having so much activity going on, it makes sense 

if NOAA is trying to cite a new aquaculture installation, that the 

Navy is at the table; that Fishery Management Councils weigh in 

when oil rigs are to be decommissioned; and when we are talking 

about bringing in massive ships, it is a no-brainer that NOAA, the 

Coast Guard, and the ports all work together when we collaborate. 

I am getting very confused. My first question is to Mr. Lanard. 

When I see Executive Order 13547—when the President in 2010, 

6 years ago, not 10 years ago as has been stated, just adopted the 

regulations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, and set up 

in the Executive Order, what will this National Ocean Policy 

attempt? 

I keep hearing that they are a regulatory agency. Will you please 

describe? Is this a regulatory agency? I have looked through the 

Executive Order and see nothing about the setting of regulations. 

I would like to ask. Tell us what is a regulatory agency, and is this 

a regulatory agency? 

Mr. LANARD. The National Ocean Policy is not authorized to 

mandate any new regulations. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. It is not authorized to develop regulations. Is 

that not true? 

35 

Mr. LANARD. It is a planning process to work exactly, Congressman, with the challenges that you face in your district off your 

coast, all these different competing and conflicting uses, and how 

do we make sense of them, and that is what the policy does. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. We are hearing that this is kind of an underhanded way of regulating. I would like to know about the National 

Ocean Policy. Is the idea of multi-stakeholder collaboration, for example in the Northeast, is this a new idea? Or have we been trying 

to do this for a long time and this brings us together? 

Mr. LANARD. We have been doing it for a long time, but now in 

a more coordinated way. 

The Regional Planning Bodies that are getting sort of disparaged 

today, painfully listening to this, have included very active processes with a broad set of stakeholders. Commercial and recreational fishing were involved. Recreational boating, shipping, 

ports, offshore energy, undersea cable companies, tow and barge 

companies have all participated in a plan that is about to be proposed for another round of public comment. 

This is democracy and it is working. People are going to weigh 

in, and then the plan will be considered by the regulatory agencies 

which Congress has empowered to act, and then implemented if the 

laws that Congress has created gives them that authority. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. We have spent a lot of time—I am 

going to go back—Congressman Graves has introduced and brought 

to our attention some of the issues about the decommissioning of 

oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Last year, I offered an amendment 

to kind of deal with this. It was not accepted, but it was an attempt 

in good faith to kind of deal with oil rigs. I offered an amendment 

to bring all the stakeholders to the table to use the National Ocean 

Policy, as a way of trying to conserve snapper habitat and to decommission these rigs. 

To me, it sounds like—and to Mr. Zales—that the National 

Ocean Policy is a solution to bringing people together, not a problem. Can you respond to that? 

Mr. ZALES. Yes, sir, and I appreciate you asking me that 

question. 

Rigs-to-Reefs was established years before the National Ocean 

Policy was ever thought of. The reason why Rigs-to-Reefs is a success today is because stakeholders like me worked with the oil companies, worked with the Fisheries Service, worked with EPA, 

worked with a whole host of agencies to continue Rigs-to-Reefs so 

that we could have them there. The National Ocean Policy had 

nothing to do with that. That was a cooperative effort from the 

stakeholders in the Gulf of Mexico that saw the benefit of leaving 

platforms in the water; and if you couldn’t leave it where it was, 

to move it someplace else so that you could enhance the habitat to 

create places for fish and corals to live. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t really have a lot 

of questions. I am interested in possibly learning why some states 

are left out of some of the regional planning efforts. For example, 

36 

Washington State, when they have a huge watershed, but yet they 

are left out, and that is curious to me. 

Just two things. We, as a Nation, are gifted with abundant natural resources. And when we have ocean policies that begin furthering the restriction of access to those natural resources, we limit 

ourselves in the future of being able to meet our energy needs. 

We see ocean policies not necessarily exactly tied in with this, 

but we see ocean policies that limit seismic activity in areas like 

the South Atlantic, where we, as a Nation, can just discover what 

resources might be there. When we allow groups to use fearmongering tactics that are not based on fact, such as Oceana, who 

claim that mammals are harmed by seismic, when there is not a 

single verifiable instance, and you go to BOEM’s Web site and see 

they say that as well, even BOEM’s experts. But yet the Administration will restrict the use of seismic in places like the South 

Atlantic, just so that we can find out what resources might be 

available for future exploration. I think it is very short-sighted as 

a Nation. 

The second thing is management. If we are talking about the 

health of the oceans with regard to nutrients, fertilizers, and what 

not that have washed in the ocean, places like the Louisiana Delta 

and Mississippi Delta that experience huge plumes in the ocean because there are a lot of nutrients out there now that flow down the 

Mississippi, we need to step back and ask why. 

Why that plume is further out in the ocean and why we see those 

nutrients further out in the ocean is because of past practices by 

the Corps of Engineers to levee, drain, and dredge certain areas 

along the Mississippi River. We need to realize that maybe mistakes were made in the past because the natural delta would allow 

that water to flow out and those nutrients that come down the 

river, whether they are natural nutrients or whether they are manproduced and applied, there is a natural filtration system in the 

marsh that takes those nutrients out before they reach the ocean. 

It creates a healthy marsh situation. Actually, it creates barrier islands and a marsh that helps lessen the impact of storms. 

But what we see is this huge plume out in the ocean of nutrients 

that have flowed down the Mississippi River and now travel further out to sea because of past mistakes by the Corps of Engineers. 

We need to make sure that we acknowledge that some of those 

practices we did in the past of leveeing up and dredging certain 

areas were wrong, and possibly step back and see what we can do. 

We have resources now, because of Deepwater Horizon, when 

Steve Scalise, the whip here, is focused on using some of that 

money to rebuild the barrier islands and address some of the canals and waterways that have been dredged in that area that have 

allowed this unencumbered flow of water directly out into the 

ocean. I don’t know if that is what Mr. Graves is going to talk 

about when he gets on this subject, but it is something that I am 

aware of. 

And the point I wanted to make is maybe we should acknowledge 

past mistakes, and figure out how we can rectify the situation before we start imposing stricter and more stringent regulations on 

farming and the oceans themselves and what we do there. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

37 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. 

Mrs. Torres. 

Mrs. TORRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lanard, many of my colleagues seem to prefer the use of the 

term ‘‘ocean zoning’’ to ‘‘marine spatial planning.’’ As someone who 

has participated in this process, can you explain the difference between zoning, as they would have us understand it, and spatial 

planning, as it was intended by the National Ocean Policy? 

Mr. LANARD. Sure. Zoning would be more of a regulatory requirement that would either allow certain activities or would restrict 

certain activities. Coastal marine spatial planning would suggest 

the best areas for the best uses, and it would come after a very deliberative process with all the different users in a region so that we 

can get to an area of common ground. That is the process. 

And Congresswoman, if I could just mention one thing about 

seismic to the Congressman who was concerned about seismic impact on marine mammals. We are an industry that will be creating 

noise in the ocean when we use fixed foundations into the sea bed 

and we do drilling. Our drilling does have the potential to impact 

marine mammals, particularly the North Atlantic right whale. So, 

we are willing to be carefully regulated, carefully monitored. We 

will have four or five protected species observers on every vessel we 

take out there to do any type of work during whale migration season. We are prepared to live by those regulations, because we think 

we make a greater contribution to the environment by reducing 

climate-threatening carbon dioxide emissions. 

Mrs. TORRES. As you stated, sir, in your testimony, the Department of the Interior now has a process for Federal waters called 

Smart-from-the-Start that incorporates principles of coastal and 

marine spatial planning in bringing stakeholders to the table to 

identify areas suitable for development of this resource. 

Is this type of planning component of the policies needed to make 

U.S. offshore wind competitive, globally? 

Mr. LANARD. Absolutely. There are 50,000 or so workers in the 

offshore wind industry in Europe, and we have almost none. 

Smart-from-the-Start, under Secretary Salazar, has really started 

to jumpstart this industry. You are going to see this summer five 

turbines spinning off the coast of Block Island, Rhode Island, and 

it is going to be a very national and newsworthy event. It is going 

to be a great visual, people are going to really be excited about this, 

and it is going to spur the interest in governors and states up and 

down the East and West Coast to look at this. 

Remember, other than pilot and demonstration projects, these facilities will be 15 to 20 miles offshore. So, you might see the very 

little tip of the blade, but you are not going to see the structures; 

and they are going to be spread out enough so that other uses can 

be applied. 

And to Captain Zales, we are also creating artificial reefs out 

there with our foundations that will serve as places for habitat. 

Mrs. TORRES. Thank you. As an ocean user, can you please list 

the regulations and policies that have been forced upon your 

business because of the National Ocean Policy? 

Mr. LANARD. I can’t. 

Mrs. TORRES. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

38 

Dr. FLEMING. Mr. LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Keppen, you were talking about the far-reaching effects here. 

Does that mean we won’t be seeing any land sharks doing 

candygrams for horseradish growers in Newell, California any time 

soon, then? 

Mr. KEPPEN. Good one, Congressman LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Playing off your orca comments, you know. 

Mr. KEPPEN. Yes, that was a good one. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes, but seriously, folks, does this start reminding 

you of this policy, when you get to orcas or land sharks, of the 

Waters of the United States over-reach with the regulating down 

to a horseradish field or what have you, 200 miles from the ocean? 

This is something we have had great concern about in this committee and my district, as well, that this NOP is starting to resemble the Waters of the United States ruling a little bit. Do you see 

parallels there? 

Mr. KEPPEN. Yes. Well, this one is a little more troubling, just 

from the standpoint that it is uncertain. The Clean Water Rule 

that the Administration put out was pretty detailed. We kind of 

knew what the impacts might be there. 

But I would say, generally, that is a concern that we have with 

a lot of these regulations, is just how is it going to impact—you 

have to kind of assume the worst, hope for the best. 

But with a lot of them, there is uncertainty. And just the cumulative impact and how it can affect the farmers, ranchers, and 

water users in so many different ways, that is the big concern. But 

I would say, in general, your observation is good. There are somewhat similar concerns that we have. 

Mr. LAMALFA. In the ballpark? So, the issue is—you have mentioned a couple of times—uncertainty. There is a lot of uncertainty 

with WOTUS, too. Like some of my ranchers, they can’t plow, for 

example, without somebody coming down on them, thinking this is 

going to somehow change the hydrology, Clean Water Act, or what 

have you. 

When their own counsel says they will address questions or specifics as implementation progresses, this sounds like a make-it-upas-you-go type thing, that we are going to put that out there and 

then figure out how to fill in the blanks later, as it affects people. 

Is that what you are picking up on this, as well? 

Mr. KEPPEN. That is a concern. And again, like with the Clean 

Water Act, I still think there is a lot of uncertainty associated with 

how tributaries are defined, and those sort of things. We were able 

to get some certainty on how ditches and O&M issues will be handled by irrigation districts, but there is a lot of uncertainty and we 

are not talking about just the Clean Water Act. 

There are land management issues. They talk about best management practices with this particular policy that bring to my mind 

what is going on with the Forest Service and their groundwater 

management proposal, their directive they put out here a year or 

two ago. It is pretty wide-ranging and uncertain. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So, to clarify for my own purposes here, we hear 

a lot about stakeholders. Has anyone from the National Ocean 

39 

Council contacted the Family Farm Alliance to be part of a 

discussion or a stakeholder in this? 

Mr. KEPPEN. No. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Not yet. I mean if they are still talking about 

orcas in horseradish fields, basically, so to speak. 

All right. So, it is kind of the deal—again, coming back to the uncertainty, let’s vote for it and then we can read it later? Yes. And 

it also reminds me of the parallels of the high-speed rail system in 

California. We have already spent billions, and they do not even 

have the route settled yet, or whether it is going to go through the 

mountains, heading into Southern California. You have billions of 

dollars on the line. And it looks like another example of government jumping out there, making a goal without talking to the people involved or without knowing what the effects are going to be. 

So, what message do you want us to hear from your growers, 

from your constituents? Bottom line for me, please, on what you all 

need. 

Mr. KEPPEN. Again, it is just this overwhelming sort of deluge of 

a lot of rulemaking that has happened in the last several years. We 

are still trying to process the impacts. We have not gotten answers 

back on some of the concerns that we have raised on many of these 

rulemaking efforts. 

And I think, as far as this particular policy goes, it is like what 

I said in our testimony, it would be nice to get a report, perhaps, 

from the individual agencies that are involved to say, ‘‘Here is what 

has happened, here is what we see coming out of this.’’ Until we 

get something like that, we ought to put a little bit of a pause on 

this program, which is something that we have asked for on other 

rulemaking processes that have happened over the last couple of 

years. 

Mr. LAMALFA. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Lanard, will they be able to see any of the windmills from 

the Kennedy compound? 

Mr. LANARD. I guess it depends when Massachusetts decides to 

move forward with revenue streams for the different developers. 

There is going to be a very aggressive competition between four or 

five or six developers over the next year or two, and then we will 

see where they get located. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Awesome answer. Thank you. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields. We have been joined by Mr. 

Beyer, and I ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. Beyer to 

participate. 

[No response.] 

Dr. FLEMING. Hearing no objection, I recognize Mr. Beyer for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. BEYER. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I just 

want to be here today to speak and strongly defend our National 

Ocean Policy. Plain and simple, coordinated ocean planning is common sense and good economic policy for our coastal communities. 

It allows for a comprehensive mapping of existing ocean uses. It 

helps to identify and resolve conflicts between stakeholders before 

they play out in specific permitting processes. 

In Virginia, this process has been crucial to preserve public 

access to the ocean, to sustain economic growth, address marine 

40 

debris, create migration corridors for marine mammals, and support promising new ocean industries such as wind power and 

marine aquaculture. 

I am proud to note that Virginia was selected by BOEM to be 

the first state in the Nation to receive a wind energy research lease 

in Federal waters. 

Ocean planning has a demonstrated record of reducing conflict 

for assisting wind developers, especially with the commercial fishing community, where prime fishing habitat is often an ideal location for wind turbines. Eliminating the National Ocean Policy 

would undermine regional collaborative efforts to manage existing 

and future ocean policy challenges. 

Let’s not roll back the valuable work and resources that many 

states, industries, and communities have already devoted to implement this policy. 

The National Ocean Policy makes Federal agencies talk to each 

other and to the states about their ocean-related responsibilities, 

and requires them to work together to improve their job performance. We should be working with the National Ocean Policy to 

streamline Federal permitting, cut through bureaucratic red tape, 

and maximize the safety and economic productivity of our oceans 

and coasts. 

The National Ocean Policy is not a law. It is not a new regulation, and does not supercede state or local authority. All it does is 

coordinate ongoing Federal activities. The alternative is less coordination and less efficiency. 

If we want to run our government like a business, we should ask 

ourselves: Would you invest in a business where different departments don’t talk to each other? Would you invest in a business that 

is not responsive to its shareholders? Would you invest in a business with no business plan? This is, essentially, what the National 

Ocean Policy is, a business plan for the ocean that seeks to maximize the benefits to the shareholders, the American people. The 

policy is a win-win-win for economic growth, public safety, and environmental protection. 

I do have one question, though, for Mr. Lanard. The opponents 

of coastal marine spatial planning claim that it is a threat to business and business interests. But in a letter sent to House leaders 

in March of this year, nearly 120 national, regional, and state conservation, recreation, and business groups expressed their support 

for regional ocean planning efforts that ‘‘have emerged from the 

ground up with the roots in state-sponsored partnerships.’’ 

So, Mr. Lanard, should fishermen, farmers, and businessmen 

consider the National Ocean Policy and marine spatial planning a 

threat? Or should they consider it an opportunity to protect their 

interests and livelihoods? 

Mr. LANARD. Thank you for the question, Mr. Beyer. For the 

record, you and I have not met before, but I would like, with the 

Chairman’s permission, to revise and extend my remarks and attach your statement to part of my testimony, because I agree with 

it verbatim. It was really well said, thank you. 

We have to work together. You said it in your comments. There 

are growing uses and growing demands on the ocean: military, 

commercial fishing, recreational fishing, energy, sand mining, oil 

41 

and gas, offshore wind. We need to work together, or else we are 

not going to find common ground, and we are going to then pit developer against developer, industry against industry, and slow 

down everything. Nobody wins. You nailed it. It is a win-win-win. 

Mr. BEYER. Great. Thank you, Mr. Lanard. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Graves is 

recognized. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lanard, I am curious. Have you had conversations with anyone from CEQ, or National Ocean Council in the past week and a 

half? 

Mr. LANARD. I have not spoken to CEQ or the National Ocean 

Council in about 4 years. 

Mr. GRAVES. In 4 years? No Federal officials? 

Mr. LANARD. Oh, yes, plenty of Federal officials. 

Mr. GRAVES. In the last week and a half, 2 weeks? 

Mr. LANARD. No oral communications with them. About this 

issue? 

Mr. GRAVES. Yes. 

Mr. LANARD. None. I talk regularly with the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management. I let them know I was testifying, but we have 

not spoken about it. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. I want to follow up on Congressman 

Duncan’s statement earlier. The Federal Government, through the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—their actions in regard to the management of the river system in south Louisiana has largely resulted in the loss of about 1,900 square miles of coastal wetlands. 

That is some of the most productive ecosystem or habitat on the 

North American continent. 

As Congressman Duncan mentioned, the largest dead zone in 

North America is off the coast of Louisiana. Again, another issue 

where the Federal Government has a role and has a task force set 

up, and we have actually had a worsening dead zone, not an improvement. As Mr. Zales noted earlier, the Federal Government is 

also in charge of management of the red snapper fisheries, which 

has become a complete debacle—not de-conflicted, but actually increased tension, conflict, and using poorer science than the states 

have. 

I am just curious. Why in the world would we want to bring the 

Federal Government and their record of success into an area that 

actually has an excellent record of managing resources for energy 

development, commercial and recreational fishing, and multiple 

other uses in the Gulf of Mexico? What benefit are we introducing 

by bringing them into this? Mr. Lanard? 

Mr. LANARD. They are already in. The regulations—— 

Mr. GRAVES. Well, that is the problem, though. That is my point, 

that is the problem. The Federal Government is causing the problems, from an economic and from an environmental perspective. 

They are not improving it. So, why you would expand upon those 

failures. I have no idea. 

If someone in office or in business is not doing well, you do not 

give them additional responsibility, you get rid of them. That is 

what we are trying to do here. 

42 

Mr. Zales, would you like to comment on that? 

Mr. ZALES. [No response.] 

Mr. GRAVES. Would you like to comment? 

Mr. ZALES. On why we would continue that? 

Mr. GRAVES. Yes. 

Mr. ZALES. To be honest, like you, I don’t know why. In the Gulf 

of Mexico, and my organization, we represent charterboat owners 

and operators across the country. But in the Gulf of Mexico, from 

my personal experience, there is coordination amongst agencies. 

There is involvement with stakeholders. 

I mean in my 25-plus years of involvement in the fishery management—what I call a game because it is kind of like it is 

played—I have been actively involved. A lot of my fellow fishermen 

have been actively involved. And things do not always turn out the 

way we necessarily want them, but we have impact, so we are able 

to mitigate some of the things that are there. 

In this current situation, I was one of 30 people who were first 

appointed to the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory 

Committee, which was created by an Executive Order, I think, in 

2000. That Executive Order was similar to this one, no regulatory 

impacts. Today, the marine protected area has a division within 

the National Marine Fisheries Service so they could set up marine 

protected areas. I was one of the 30 people who developed that 

plan. 

That unfunded mandate has evolved into a division of the 

National Marine Fisheries Service that regulates us, creates marine protected areas, and does everything that people are saying 

this National Ocean Policy will not do. Well, I am sorry, it is headed there. 

Mr. GRAVES. Yes. And I want to make one other note. Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed the Administration has chosen to not 

respond to an invitation to come testify today. This entire effort in 

regard to the National Ocean Policy and coastal marine spatial 

planning initiative was billed as being a voluntary initiative. The 

Gulf of Mexico chose not to participate. 

And I will say again, we have some of the most robust commercial and recreational fishing in the Nation. We have the most robust offshore energy production in the Nation. We have the most 

robust maritime industry in the Nation, in the Gulf Coast. And we 

do not need to bring in the Federal Government’s expertise in this 

case, because all they are doing is screwing things up, not improving upon it. 

Now, why would the Federal Government be naming officials to 

a Gulf Coast marine and spatial planning panel when the Gulf 

Coast chose to not participate in this ‘‘voluntary effort’’ ? I am really struggling. That does not sound like anything that is voluntary 

to me. 

Last, Mr. Zales, I just want to make note that the five Gulf 

states have come to an agreement on a management regime for the 

red snapper fishery. I know you have been in this committee before 

on this. Do you believe that that is a superior approach to continuing this trajectory we are on now with Federal management? 

43 

Mr. ZALES. No, sir. I fully support your bill that is there to give 

it over to the states, because it is clear to me the National Marine 

Fisheries Service is incapable of managing recreational fisheries. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Zales. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Mr. Newhouse is recognized. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all of 

the panel members here this morning, on both sides of the issue. 

It is very informative and enlightening. I just wanted to make one 

comment about some of the things that I have heard from the dais 

today, about uncertainty as a Majority party tactic. I would just 

say, as a production farmer myself, and having had to live under 

an environment where there is uncertainty when it comes to expectations from government entities, there certainly is a cost to that. 

People are less likely to make investments to solve any particular 

problem when you don’t know what policy or what regulation you 

are supposed to adhere to. When you serve more than one master, 

the result is nothing gets done. So, I think this uncertainty issue 

is real and is something that needs to be addressed. 

A question for you, Mr. Keppen, and thank you for being here. 

One of the core principles of the NOP, the ocean policy, is a government-wide fundamental shift to ecosystem-based management, at 

least as I understand it. While many questions on this implementation need to be answered of this policy, in your estimation how 

could this shift in resource management policy affect farmers such 

as in my state of Washington, but also across the United States? 

Mr. KEPPEN. Well, again, I kind of elaborated on it in my written 

testimony. The focus of these activities on the coast and in the 

ocean move inland using an ecosystem approach. 

For example, in the appendix there are at least two or three 

things that caught my eye in this plan that show that forest actions or farming actions are going to be looked at, as far as impacts 

on the ocean. Again, the national forest best management practices 

are listed in the appendix. Restoring wetlands and upland areas is 

another action that is listed. And then, studying impacts from landbased sources of pollution, those three things caught my attention 

and suggest that because you have this ecosystem-based approach, 

you can make those sort of ties to the ocean. So, folks far inland 

may not think that this will have an impact, but it could. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Yes, but it will. Certainly those of us that 

depend on river systems, which, in my neck of the woods, we certainly do. 

Just last month, as you probably know, being a Northwesterner 

yourself, in an act of judicial over-reach, a U.S. district court judge 

handed down a ruling that upended salmon recovery efforts in the 

Pacific Northwest, which really put at risk hundreds of millions of 

dollars in investments by ratepayers on dam mitigation. 

This ruling already creates great uncertainty in the region. 

Coupled with the NOP, how might the planning bodies proposed 

under this NOP framework impact efforts in states like 

Washington and Oregon to ensure access to predictable and sufficient water supplies for irrigation, affordable energy through hydropower, and also for flood control? 

44 

Mr. KEPPEN. As I recall, I think that the Pacific Northwest 

salmon recovery efforts were actually identified in the NOP as an 

example of sort of a collaborative success; but this recent court decision kind of shows it necessarily was not all collaborative and 

voluntary. There was a huge dollar impact associated with what is 

going on there. 

Like you said, the ratepayers have paid a lot. There have been 

biological opinions that drive how those dams in the Columbia operate, which has caused a huge impact, both to power generation 

and the ability to use water. 

But what has happened with this recent court decision that you 

talked about, the judge has said those actions apparently are not 

good enough, all those activities that have been undertaken are not 

good enough. So now, that is kind of providing fuel for the critics 

of the dams on the Snake River, in particular, to go after the dams 

as a possible solution to take care of the problem. 

The sort of things that are laid out in this NOP, again, may be 

providing the potential for more of those sorts of actions to occur 

in the future, which creates tremendous uncertainty for irrigators 

in the Northwest, in particular. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Right. I see my time is just about to expire, so 

not enough time to ask a question. But thank you very much, all 

of you. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields. I want to thank the panel. 

You have been very patient with us. We have had a lot of questions 

today, and I think it has been very productive. I want to thank you 

for your valuable testimony. 

Members of the subcommittee may have additional questions for 

the witnesses, and we would ask you to respond to these in writing. 

The hearing record will be open for 10 business days to receive 

these questions. 

If there is no further business, without objection the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF THE NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY

Our ocean economy generates $360 billion a year, and puts 3 million Americans 

to work in ocean-related industries such as shipping, marine construction, energy 

development, defense operations, commercial fishing, boating, aquaculture, and 

tourism. These jobs and the economic wealth the ocean generates are spread out all 

across the Nation, not just in coastal communities. With so many livelihoods dependent on the success of these numerous and disparate ocean-related industries, 

we should be embracing the National Ocean Policy, which is no more than a planning tool to reconcile and coordinate these activities. 

Let me set the record straight about several NOP ‘‘myths.’’ First of all, we spend 

absolutely no money on ocean planning. NOP does not cost the government anything 

and it does not alter any Federal, state, or local government authorities. What it 

does is spur economic growth and helps create jobs. In the Northeast, stakeholders 

in offshore wind development, infrastructure projects, and the first-ever offshore 

mussel aquaculture facility utilized the tools of the NOP to leverage millions of dollars of private investment and create jobs. 

Secondly, I want to emphasize that the NOP does not supersede any local or state 

regulations, or create any new Federal regulations, despite what its critics suggest. 

The fundamental role of the NOP is to create a mechanism by which the 41 ocean 

45 

agencies, departments, working groups and committees can coordinate and communicate to manage more efficiently. 

This results in ‘‘ground up’’—not ‘‘top down’’—opportunities for locals to have 

input to local and regional resource management policies. In so doing, not only does 

the NOP provide greater local say in management, but it also results in a stronger 

return on investment of taxpayer resources by reducing duplication between agencies, increasing coordination, and streamlining the data collection and public 

involvement that informs decisionmaking. 

I urge the subcommittee to step away from the anti-NOP generated talking points 

and actually read the Executive Order. Without our inherent biases, each of you 

should come to the same conclusion that I know to be true: the National Ocean 

Policy is a tool for planning, not a mandate that strips local and stakeholder control 

of our ocean’s resources. 

Thank you for allowing me to submit testimony. 

NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY COALITION

May 31, 2016 

Hon. JOHN FLEMING, Chairman, 

House Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans, 

1324 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: May 17, 2016 Oversight Hearing on ‘‘Implications of President Obama’s 

National Ocean Policy’’ 

Dear Chairman Fleming: 

On behalf of the National Ocean Policy Coalition (Coalition), thank you for 

convening an oversight hearing to address implementation of the National Ocean 

Policy (NOP). 

Established in 2010, the Coalition is an organization of diverse interests 

representing sectors and entities that support tens of millions of jobs, contribute 

trillions of dollars to the U.S. economy, and seek to ensure that actions under the 

NOP are implemented in a manner that best benefits the National interest, 

including protection of the commercial and recreational value of the oceans, marinerelated natural resources, and terrestrial lands of the United States. 

Since its creation by Executive Order in July 2010, uncertainty and the potential 

for negative impacts to result from NOP implementation have continued to increase, 

and have already resulted in new burdens, regulatory overlays, and governmental 

bodies such as the National Ocean Council and Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) 

with which regulated entities must contend. Just months after its issuance, the 

NOP Executive Order was cited in an Interior Department statement announcing 

the prohibition of potential conventional energy leasing in new areas through 2017. 

Two of the policy’s most troubling aspects, both of which could also impact inland 

activities, are its coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) initiative—likened by 

several federal agencies to ocean zoning—and its ecosystem-based management 

(EBM) component, which requires the federal government to make a ‘‘fundamental 

shift’’ in how it manages ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. 

CMSP has been portrayed as voluntary and as simply a means to improve 

communication and coordination across agencies. In reality, the NOP and documents developed in support of regional marine plans clearly indicate otherwise. 

Regulatory impacts are certain to result from CMSP implementation by virtue of 

the requirement that federal agencies comply with regional marine plans to the 

maximum extent (including through regulations where necessary), which also introduces the potential for conflicts between unauthorized marine plans and plans and 

decisions made under statutorily-authorized and mandated processes. Actions expected to be included in the final Northeast and Mid-Atlantic marine plans include 

federal commitments to use and apply newly-developed maps of ‘‘core areas’’ and 

‘‘hot spots’’ in agency decision-making activities. Concerns over CMSP are underscored by the promotion of certain uses and resources over others, and the fact that 

critical details on how agencies specifically intend to implement regional marine 

plans in their decision-making activities remain unknown and may not be disclosed 

until after public review periods conclude. 

In addition, the NOP Implementation Plan makes clear that federal agencies are 

to engage in marine planning even if all states in a region decide not to participate. 

46 

Yet, six years after the Executive Order was issued, scant information exists about 

what actions federal agencies have taken over the last six years to implement 

marine planning in such regions, which include the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, 

Alaska, and the Great Lakes. 

Significant concerns also exist regarding the NOP requirement that federal 

agencies implement EBM, including through the incorporation of EBM into environmental review and planning processes by 2016. In addition to creating unknown impacts on well-known and statutorily-guided processes and the economic activities 

that they govern, given the current state of EBM science and technology, imposition 

of such an artificial deadline increases the risk that this requirement will lead to 

decisions that lack a proper scientific foundation. 

Moreover, although Congress has not authorized or appropriated funds for this 

initiative, entities across the federal government have devoted significant time and 

undetermined amounts of resources toward NOP implementation, with unknown 

impacts on agency budgets and missions. This raises important questions about how 

regulated industries are being affected by potential diversions of funds and resources away from authorized and mandated activities. 

Finally, concerns about the impact of NOP implementation on economic and societal interests have been heightened by deficiencies in transparency and user group 

engagement, highlighted in part by inadequate review opportunities and the imposition of deadlines that are limiting the ability to provide informed input on the development of the first regional marine plans. All the while, in addition to being 

excluded from directly participating on RPBs tasked with developing marine plans, 

the RPBs established so far have declined requests to establish formal advisory 

committees for user groups to provide advice and guidance, even though such committees are explicitly authorized under the NOP Executive Order. 

For all these reasons, the Coalition appreciates your efforts to shine more light 

on NOP implementation and address the many questions that remain unresolved. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN M. BELCHER, 

Managing Director. 

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, 

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA

May 13, 2016 

Hon. JOHN FLEMING, Chairman, 

House Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans, 

1324 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: Oversight Hearing on National Ocean Policy 

Dear Chairman Fleming: 

The Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. (RDC) is writing to thank the 

Subcommittee for holding an oversight hearing on National Ocean Policy and to provide our member’s perspective on the policy. 

RDC is an Alaskan non-profit, membership-funded organization founded in 1975. 

Our membership is comprised of individuals and companies from Alaska’s oil and 

gas, mining, timber, tourism, and fisheries industries, as well as Alaska Native corporations, local communities, organized labor, and industry support firms. RDC’s 

purpose is to link these diverse interests together to encourage a strong, diversified 

private sector in Alaska and expand the state’s economic base through the responsible development of our natural resources. 

With 34,000 miles of coastline, 3,000 miles of rivers, and over three million lakes, 

Alaska has a significant stake in National Ocean Policy, and will be impacted more 

than other states by it. 

Alaska has seen significant federal overreach that RDC has long opposed, 

including the introduction of a National Ocean Policy (NOP). Alaska has been under 

assault from numerous regulatory headwinds that have negatively impacted our resource development industries, and our energy sector in particular. 

RDC is very concerned NOP is another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy and a 

potential obstacle our private sector will be forced to face at a time when strengthening our economy through responsible resource development is our top priority. 

47 

Federal agencies have already begun taking steps to implement actions tied to 

this policy that could negatively impact the Alaskan economy, such as Integrated 

Arctic Management and Ecosystem-Based Management requirements. 

While marine planning is required in every region, including Alaska, Alaskans 

have no information as to what marine planning actions federal agencies have taken 

or plan to carry out in our state. 

Additionally, the geographic coverage of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning will 

include inland bays and estuaries, and upland areas as deemed appropriate by 

Regional Planning Bodies established to create these plans. There are additional 

concerns with federal entities setting ocean management priorities associated with 

marine planning, especially in regions like Alaska that choose not to participate. 

This policy, and its marine planning and ecosystem-based management components in particular, is not something Alaska wants or needs, and it should not be 

forced upon us. These federal efforts cause further uncertainty, especially in Alaska 

where geographical and harsh climate conditions already result in higher costs for 

projects. 

Further, RDC is concerned coastal and rural Alaskan communities may become 

financially devastated by National Ocean Policy implementation. The devastation of 

rural communities will likely result in outmigration of indigenous people, and the 

loss of culture and traditional lifestyles. 

Thank you for your consideration of RDC’s perspective. 

Respectfully, 

MARLEANNA HALL, 

Executive Director. 

Æ