U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

72–171 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–185 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 NOAA BUDGET REQUEST 

AND OVERSIGHT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, 

FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 13, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Chief of Staff 

JAMES REID, Deputy Chief of Staff 

BRUCE H. ANDREWS, General Counsel 

ANN BEGEMAN, Republican Staff Director 

BRIAN M. HENDRICKS, Republican General Counsel 

REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST 

GUARD 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska, Chairman 

PDANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Ranking 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 13, 2011 .............................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Begich .................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Snowe ................................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Isakson ................................................................................. 16 

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

Statement of Senator Ayotte ................................................................................... 33 

WITNESSES

Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department Of Commerce ................................................... 5 

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

APPENDIX

Responses to written questions submitted to Dr. Jane Lubchenco by: 

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV ............................................................................ 39 

Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 44 

Hon. Mark Begich ............................................................................................. 58 

Hon. Olympia J. Snowe .................................................................................... 70 

Hon. Jim DeMint .............................................................................................. 73 

Hon. Roger F. Wicker ....................................................................................... 75 

Hon. Johnny Isakson ........................................................................................ 78 

Lee R. Crockett, Director of Federal Fisheries Policy, Pew Environment 

Group, prepared statement ................................................................................. 79 

Letter dated April 12, 2011 to Hon. Barbara Mikulski and Hon. Kay Bailey 

Hutchison from 130 organizations representing a diverse range of commercial and recreational fishing associations, commercial seafood dealers, the 

charter and for-hire industry, fishery dependent businesses and ocean conservation organizations ........................................................................................ 84 

(1) 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 NOAA BUDGET REQUEST 

AND OVERSIGHT 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Begich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. We’re going to call this meeting to order. 

Thank you, Dr. Lubchenco, for being here, and good afternoon. 

Again, welcome, and thank you for joining us. 

The Ranking Member will be here shortly, but we wanted to go 

ahead and start to keep things as much on schedule as possible. 

Before we start, I want to commend NOAA for its work in recent 

weeks in detecting and monitoring the Pacific tsunami that followed the massive earthquake in Japan. 

Thanks to the professionals at the tsunami warning centers in 

Hawaii and Alaska, they had a good sense of where and when the 

tsunami would hit. We were able to monitor the progress of the 

tsunami in Alaska in real time from our office by using NOAA’s 

network of online tide gauges. 

While my state was spared, Hawaii, California, and Oregon suffered some damage, but it could have been far worse without the 

improvements we made to NOAA’s warning system in 2004. 

NOAA, of course, is responsible for the stewardship of our 

oceans, coasts and Great Lakes, stewardship which includes managing the nation’s important fisheries, resources and protecting our 

ocean and coastal economic zones. 

Part of the reason we are here today is to discuss the funding 

necessary to keep these programs operating and to hear from you, 

Dr. Lubchenco, about how you plan to prioritize and implement 

NOAA’s programs during the evermore challenging and politicized 

budget climate. 

Of course, the yearly budget battles are hardly a new fight. 

Every administration has its own priorities. As you know well, 

Congress occasionally has different opinions, and I am pleased to 

see that the President’s budget for Fiscal Year 2012 requests $5.49 

billion, includes funding for ensuring the continuing and continuity 

2 

of the critical weather- and climate-predicting satellites that my 

state, as well as the rest of the nation, relies upon. I wish we would 

have been able to support and make sure that Fiscal Year 2011 

had that same thing. 

And we know we have some gaps. Those gaps will likely affect 

the military, marine and aviation safety and search-and-rescue efforts. 

I want to hear more from NOAA about how it plans to deal with 

the likely gap in weather satellite coverage impacting Alaska and 

the rest of the Nation. 

I recognize that the budget also proposes a reorganization within 

NOAA that brings together the existing climate research and monitoring services under a single line office, the Climate Service. 

Alaska, as you know, Dr. Lubchenco, is ground zero for climate 

change. Change is occurring in the Arctic twice as fast as anywhere 

else on the planet. 

I look forward to hearing more about how this reorganization will 

affect NOAA’s ability to support the decisions of city planners, 

water managers, farmers, businesses and others who need longrange climate forecasts. 

I have questioned the agency’s recent spending to advance the 

ocean and marine spatial planning efforts. In part, because they, 

like all new priorities, come at the expense of core statutory obligations required by NOAA. 

While some states welcome the idea of marine spatial planning, 

I can tell you, as I have said before, and I know, Dr. Lubchenco, 

when I say ocean zoning, the idea runs into stiff resistance in Alaska, mainly because they fear the Federal bureaucracy supplanting 

and planning work they’ve already done in ensuring Alaskans have 

a strong local voice in the process, including the North Pacific Fisheries Council. 

I’m worried, too, that while you move forward with this, in just 

the last few weeks fishery observers are missing critically important days at sea because of a lack of funding and the budgetary uncertainty of the current fiscal year. 

We, as authorizers, must be made aware of both the opportunities and challenges presented for the agency under different funding scenarios. 

Funding will remain tight into the future, and as the missions 

and priorities expected of your agency appear to increase each year, 

I look forward to collaboration with you to accomplish the core 

functions of NOAA in Alaska and the rest of the nation, managing 

marine fisheries for sustainability, growing jobs in the seafood sector, providing accurate and timely delivery of weather-service forecasts and advisories for safety of pilots, mariners and general public, conducting the baseline research needed to protect our oceans 

and resources, while also addressing the nation’s need for energy. 

Dr. Lubchenco, I welcome your testimony today and thank you 

for being here. 

What I’d like to do is ask the Ranking Member—I know she 

came from another meeting and was rushing over here, so I appreciate it. And that’s all we do around here it seems, rush from one 

place to another. 

Senator SNOWE. Exactly right. That’s right. 

3 

Senator BEGICH. But I want to let Ranking Member Snowe have 

some opportunity to make some comments, and if she wants to 

catch her breath for a minute, that’s fine, too. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have 

yet to figure out how to be in two places at the same time, but 

that’s—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BEGICH. When you figure that out, I think every Senator 

would like that opportunity to know. 

Senator SNOWE. That’s right. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this timely hearing today to review the President’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget 

request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

And I want to welcome you, Dr. Lubchenco, and I appreciate 

your ability to be here today to answer our questions. 

Today marks the 35th anniversary of the enactment of Magnuson-Stevens, which this committee reviewed last month and has 

been the foundation that has ultimately led to the announcement 

that overfishing in the United States has ended an historic achievement which should catalyze efforts to streamline regulations and 

build our fisheries in coastal economies. 

One unifying message from all of our witnesses that day was 

that adequate funding for the survey data to inform stock assessments is absolutely essential for effective management decisions, 

choices that have serious implications on our coastal economies. 

And so it’s appropriate that we’re now conducting oversight of 

NOAA’s budget proposal for 2012. 

Yet, as the Senate is finally debating this year’s budget, nearly 

7 months after the current fiscal year commenced, by any measure, 

Congress has abjectly failed to provide the resources, make the critical budget-constrained choices and provide certainty for agencies 

and departments. 

Furthermore, while failing to pass a budget, we were unable to 

compare the administration’s budget proposal to the results from 

this year’s enacted budget. 

As a result, I’d like to work with the Chairman, along with the 

Appropriations Committee, to ensure that we enact a timely budget 

for 2012—I won’t hold my breath—and ensure that key investments in basic research will be provided to job creators that rely 

on this data. 

I appreciate your work, Dr. Lubchenco, under this challenging 

fiscal impasse, to maintain the crucial operations of NOAA. I look 

forward to continuing our ongoing conversations about how to improve NOAA’s efforts to manage our nation’s oceans, coasts and 

Great Lakes, and to provide accurate and timely weather forecasts 

and climate projections. 

The budget that the administration proposes requests a 15.8 percent increase over the Fiscal Year 2010 enacted levels, which is 

dedicated almost exclusively to satellite procurement. Clearly, in 

this fiscal situation, we must redouble our efforts to examine and 

implement methods that will better leverage Federal funding at a 

4 

time when the fiscal reality is that we must prioritize discretionary 

spending at every agency. 

At the same time, more than half of our population lives in coastal communities and oceans and coasts are the lifeblood of our economy. 

We have had an ongoing dialogue about fisheries management 

issues, particularly as they relate to the northeast region. It’s absolutely imperative that the budget sustains momentum to programs 

such as the sector-based approach that have delivered results. 

For example, while I appreciate key investments in the Presi- dent’s proposals, including an additional $15 million for expanding 

stock assessments, at the same time, the budget proposes to cut 

nearly $6 million from cooperative research, a program that has 

helped improve relationships between NOAA’s fishery and fishermen. 

According to the administration’s own budget justification, poor 

or antiquated stock assessments, and I quote, ‘‘force fishery managers to resort to ad hoc methods for setting annual catch limits 

in an overly conservative manner, thus limiting fishing opportunity 

in order to prevent overfishing.’’ 

Both the National Research Council and the Ocean Commission 

report concluded that a strong fishery stock assessment program is 

the foundation of successful management of commercial and recreational fisheries. The fact is this budget will only increase the 

number of fishery stocks with adequate stock assessments by 12 

percent over the next five fiscal years. 

Frankly, we must have a budget that provides the data that underpin critical management decisions that, again, have dramatic 

consequences on coastal economies. 

In Maine, hypothetical stock assessments—as I’ve mentioned repeatedly here in this committee—for herring directly led to the closure of the Stinson cannery in Prospect Harbor, exacting further 

job losses in an economically distressed community. 

These are jobs throughout our country, and we must develop a 

budget plan that will ultimately provide stock assessments for all 

fisheries that are adequate and are representative of the fishery at 

large. 

By contrast, there is more than $2 billion in this request for a 

drastic overhaul of NOAA’s environmental monitoring satellites, 

more than the amount for fisheries, ocean and coastal programs 

and fundamental research combined. 

I remain concerned that the execution of acquiring and developing the Joint Polar Satellite System has been overly costly for 

the American taxpayer, and prior to supporting any budget that includes this level of funding, we need assurances that this program 

will be on time and on budget. 

Finally, NOAA’s budget must be developed to be commensurate 

with the economic challenges confronting coastal economies, whether it is the Gulf Coast that continues to recover from the BP oil 

spill almost 1 year ago or Prospect Harbor, Maine, which now is 

transitioning from the closing of the last herring cannery to a new 

lobster processing facility, because coastal economies require a 

budget with a laser-like focus on economic growth and diversification. 

5 

I appreciate the administration’s inclusion of $8 million for distressed fishing communities and displaced fishermen. However, I’m 

concerned, Dr. Lubchenco, that with the spread throughout the 35 

coastal states, commonwealths and territories in the United States, 

these funds will do little to transition our fishery-based communities to diverse economies. 

So, once again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this 

critical hearing. And I thank you again, Dr. Lubchenco, for being 

here before the Committee today. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you, Senator Snowe. 

Senator Isakson, if you have something to state before, I’ll be 

happy to—I’ll open that up, but then we’ll go right into Dr. 

Lubchenco. 

Senator ISAKSON. I will when it’s time to question, but I’m looking forward to hearing Dr. Lubchenco’s opening statement. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Thank you. 

Dr. Lubchenco, again, thank you very much for being here. And 

I appreciate that we’re finally on the 2012 budget cycle. I’m sure 

you’re excited about that. I’m as optimistic as the Ranking Member 

on the 2012 budget. So, hopefully, you’ll raise that optimism as you 

present today. So thank you very much again. Please. 

STATEMENT OF JANE LUBCHENCO, PH.D., UNDER SECRETARY 

OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE AND 

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC 

ADMINISTRATION (NOAA), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Thank you very much, Chairman Begich, Ranking Member Snowe, Senator Isakson. It’s a pleasure to see each of 

you. Thank you for your leadership and your support of NOAA. 

As you know, we are one of the nation’s premier environmental 

science and stewardship agencies. The vital role that we play in the 

protection of life and property has, indeed—as you mentioned— 

been exemplified by NOAA’s actions in the wake of the tragic 

events in Japan last month. 

The earthquake and resulting tsunami had far-reaching effects, 

and many of NOAA’s programs played a critical role in issuing lifesaving information to emergency officials and the public in the U.S. 

and around the world. 

I’m honored to be here today to discuss the President’s Fiscal 

Year 2012 budget. It recognizes the central role that science and 

technology play in creating jobs and improving the health and security of Americans. 

I want to highlight several lynchpins of our Fiscal Year 2012 request—key savings, climate services, weather, satellites, fisheries 

and protected resource management and coastal and ocean services. 

As part of the administration’s administrative efficiency initiative, NOAA analyzed its administrative costs and reduced non-essential spending by $67.7 million. We conducted a rigorous review 

of our programs and activities and identified additional savings. 

The Fiscal Year 2012 request, as you noted, is $5.5 billion, a decrease from the Fiscal Year 2011 request and an increase above the 

Fiscal Year 2010 enacted due primarily to our requirements to execute the restructured civil polar satellite program. 

6 

The Fiscal Year 2012 budget request includes a proposed budgetneutral reorganization that brings together NOAA’s existing but 

widely disbursed climate capabilities under a single line office 

called the Climate Service. The Climate Service, if approved by 

Congress, would have a budget of $346.2 million. 

The climate services that we currently provide demonstrate their 

utility. Advances in science make it possible for us to provide useful information about the months-to-years timeframe, which is of 

immense utility to businesses, communities and military operations. 

The National Weather Service provides critical information to 

communities and emergency managers and is the nation’s first line 

of defense against severe storms and disasters like tsunamis and 

flooding. 

The Fiscal Year 2012 request for this service is $988 million. 

This request envisions using cutting-edge technologies to achieve 

our vision of delivering more reliable forecasts, reducing weatherrelated fatalities and improving the economic value of weather, 

water and climate information. 

This includes a $26.9 million increase to modernize our aviation 

weather forecasts and warnings to support the NextGen development activities allowing for better integration of weather information into decisionmaking solutions for the FAA, potentially reducing the number of air delays and saving billions of dollars. 

NOAA’s satellites provide the data and information for forecasts 

that are vital to every citizen. They enable safe transportation, 

smart construction and emergency rescue missions. 

The Fiscal Year 12 budget request for the satellite service is $2 

billion, which we’ll invest in multiple satellite acquisition programs 

for the continuity of critical weather, climate and oceanographic 

data. This includes an increase of $687.8 million for the essential 

Joint Polar Satellite System. 

As Senator Snowe noted, as we look toward Earth Day next 

week, I want to acknowledge and highlight the 35th anniversary of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 

This law will and continues to be the driver for NOAA as we deliver on our commitment to environmental stewardship, sustainable fisheries and healthy marine ecosystems. 

Because of MSA, we are on track to end overfishing in federally 

managed fisheries, also to rebuild stocks and ensure sustainable 

use of our ocean resources, all of which are essential to preserving 

the livelihoods of fishermen and related industries. 

In Fiscal Year 2012, NOAA requests $1 billion to support fisheries and protected resources management. This request includes 

investments to expand annual stock assessments and improve the 

quality of catch monitoring and recreational fisheries. 

We will also continue to support the consideration of catch share 

management by the councils. Catch shares have yielded significant 

financial and ecological benefits as well as improved safety for fishermen where they have been utilized. 

It is expected that the nation’s coastal population will grow by 

more than 11 million by 2015. The president’s Fiscal Year 2012 

budget includes $559 million to enable NOAA to continue delivVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:21 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 072171 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\72171.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
7 

ering a dynamic range of services promoting safe, healthy and productive oceans, coasts and Great Lakes. 

This request includes $2.9 million to develop an oil spill research 

and development program within NOAA’s Office of Response and 

Restoration, and a $5 million increase to implement the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System’s Surface Current Mapping Program. 

In closing, I would like to note that I have a nickel in my hand. 

I believe that this nickel represents one of the best bargains in the 

world. It costs each American slightly less than five cents a day to 

operate NOAA. And for this nickel you get the best weather forecasts in the world that allows us to save lives and property when 

severe storms strike. 

This nickel helps make our coasts more healthy and vibrant. It 

supports American business owners, from fishermen on the coast 

to farmers in the heartland, and this nickel helps keep our homeland secure. 

At NOAA, our work is everyone’s business. We take our work seriously because we know that citizens and businesses depend on us 

each and every day. 

I look forward to working with the members of this committee 

and our constituents to achieve the goals that we’ve laid out in the 

implementation of the 2012 budget. 

I’m happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lubchenco follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANE LUBCHENCO, PH.D., UNDER SECRETARY OF

COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE AND ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE

Chairman Begich and members of the Committee, before I begin my testimony I 

would like to thank you for your leadership and the support you have shown the 

Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), one of the nation’s premier environmental science and stewardship agencies. Your continued support for our programs is appreciated as we work to improve 

the products and services that are vital to supporting America’s businesses, communities, and people. I am honored to be here as the Under Secretary of Commerce 

for Oceans and Atmosphere at NOAA to discuss the President’s FY 2012 budget. 

Secretary Locke is singularly focused on how the Department of Commerce can 

help American businesses compete for the jobs of the future. As part of the Commerce Department, NOAA generates value for the Nation by providing the information and services that communities, managers, businesses, and individuals rely on 

every day to make decisions about their lives and businesses. NOAA touches the 

lives of every single American; we work 24/7 to keep families safe, property protected, living marine resources vibrant, communities thriving, and businesses 

strong. NOAA works everywhere, in every state, and from the surface of the sun 

to the depths of the ocean. Our research informs our many services and science 

guides our stewardship of the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. 

The vital role NOAA plays in the protection of life and property has recently been 

exemplified by NOAA’s action in the wake of the earthquake and resulting tsunami 

in Japan last month. NOAA played a critical role in issuing life saving information 

to emergency officials and the public in the U.S. and around the world. I’m sure 

I echo the sentiments of many when I say that our hearts, thoughts and best wishes 

are with the people of Japan and the survivors of the cataclysmic earthquake and 

tsunami that, in a matter of minutes, took the lives of thousands and forever 

changed the lives of millions. NOAA will continue to provide whatever support we 

can as those affected recover and rebuild from this tragedy. 

The President’s FY 2012 budget request promotes innovation and American competitiveness and lays the foundation for long-term economic growth, while making 

8 

responsible reductions. In particular, the budget recognizes the central role that 

science and technology play in stimulating the economy, creating new jobs, and improving the health and security of Americans. 

FY 2012 Budget Request and FY 2010 Highlights 

Secretary Locke has brought a dedicated focus on efficiency and good management 

to the Department of Commerce. As part of the Administration’s Administrative Efficiency Initiative, an aggressive government-wide effort to curb non-essential administrative spending, NOAA analyzed its administrative costs and reduced non-essential spending by $67.7 million. Beyond administrative savings, NOAA engaged 

in a rigorous review of its programs and activities and identified additional savings 

that were achievable. For example, we were able to reduce the cost of operating our 

current satellite programs, and we restructured our international portfolio of climate research. Further, as a member of the newly established Gulf Coast Ecosystem 

Restoration Task Force we are working with Federal and state agencies to find efficiencies, improve coordination and accountability in restoring Gulf Coast ecosystems. 

In short, the FY 2012 budget for NOAA reflects our efforts to focus on program 

needs, identify efficiencies, and ensure accountability. It sustains core functions and 

services, and proposes increases for only the most critical programs, projects, or activities necessary to address the growing demand for NOAA’s science, services, and 

stewardship. The FY 2012 request is $5.5 billion, which is a decrease from the FY 

2011 request. The FY 2012 request is an increase above FY 2010 enacted due primarily to our requirements to execute the restructured civil polar satellite program. 

As I will discuss later, this new generation of satellites is needed to replace satellites that will go out of service in the years to come. They are essential for both 

routine weather forecasts on which the private weather industry depends, and for 

storm warnings and watches that only the government can issue. The expenditures 

on satellites are mission critical for NOAA. People’s lives and property depend on 

them. This year 21 people have been rescued because of NOAA satellite tracking, 

and 91 have been rescued since last October. Beyond weather forecasts, fishermen 

and recreational boaters count on NOAA satellites to keep them safe in the event 

of an emergency at sea. 

The FY 2012 NOAA budget recognizes that environmental and economic sustainability go hand in hand. We learned through the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and 

other events that we cannot have healthy economies without healthy communities 

and healthy ecosystems and that good science and stewardship is good business. 

NOAA’s 2012 budget makes the investments needed to save lives and livelihoods, 

to understand these critical connections, and to ensure sustainable communities, 

economies, and ecosystems. 

Now I will turn to the details of the FY 2012 budget request and outline areas 

of significant investment. 

Climate Service 

The FY 2012 budget request includes a proposed budget-neutral reorganization 

that brings together NOAA’s existing widely dispersed climate capabilities under a 

single line office management structure called the Climate Service. The proposed organization mirrors the structure recommended by the National Academy of Public 

Administration expert panel that, at Congress’ request, completed a study on options for a climate service in NOAA. The principal goal of this budget-neutral reorganization is to better align NOAA’s existing assets under a unified leadership to 

more efficiently and effectively respond to the rapidly increasing public demand for 

climate services. The Climate Service would provide reliable and authoritative climate data, information, and decision-support services, and to more effectively coordinate with other agencies, partners, and the private sector. And—important to 

this committee and to me—the proposed structure would strengthen the world-class 

science for which NOAA is justly known. Without continued advances in the science 

that supports our mission, the utility of services will degrade with time. Hence, the 

success of this organization requires attention to strengthening our core science capacity, strengthening the service-provision capacity and strengthening the connections between the two. 

NOAA is continually improving our scientific and technological capacity to develop 

and deliver a range of science and services. For example, NOAA’s improved maximum precipitation predictions have been used to develop new standards for dam 

design that are being implemented around the Nation to improve dam safety and 

reliability. Similarly, through collaboration with the National Association of Home 

Builders and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, NOAA developed 

9 

an Air Freezing Index that the home building industry estimates saves $300 million 

annually in construction costs and the equivalent of 9 million gallons of gasoline. 

The budget-neutral realignment of resources within the current NOAA budget 

would not change staffing levels, would not require employee relocations, physical 

relocation of programs or labs, any new facilities, and would not increase the size 

of NOAA’s overhead. The Climate Service headquarters would be located in Silver 

Spring, Maryland. 

The NOAA Climate Service, if approved by Congress, would have a budget of $346.2 million. Of this amount, NOAA proposes $3.0 million to support the Regional 

Climate Centers (RCC) in FY 2012. This funding will maintain support for RCCs 

as critical NOAA partners in the development and delivery of regional climate services. The RCCs will be aligned with the six NOAA Climate Service Regions and fully 

integrated as core components of NOAA’s regional climate services partnership. 

Each center will function as a source of expertise in the region, working to identify 

stakeholder needs and matching these needs with the emerging science and decision 

support services flowing from the Climate Service’s core capabilities. For example, 

this work could improve products for farmers, who already rely on NOAA climate 

data, particularly in El Nin ̃ o/Southern Oscillation years, to make smart decisions 

about what variety of seed to plant and the amount of fertilizer to use. These types 

of forecasts can potentially provide a $500–$960 million per year benefit to the U.S. 

agriculture industry. 

National Weather Service (NWS) 

NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS) is the Nation’s first line of defense 

against severe weather. NOAA provides weather, hydrologic, and climate forecasts 

and warnings for the United States, its territories, and adjacent waters for the protection of life and property and the enhancement of the national economy. More sectors of the U.S. economy are recognizing the impacts of weather, water, and climate 

on their operations and are becoming more sophisticated at using weather-related 

information to make better decisions. The NWS provides critical information to communities and emergency managers. In 2010, the United States experienced a number of extreme weather events including the historic winter blizzards in the Northeast early in the year, historic flooding in the Midwest and Tennessee, and the third 

most active Atlantic hurricane season on record. The tragedy of the March 2011 tsunami in Japan, which had far reaching effects including the U.S. West Coast, reinforces the very real threat of severe weather events, and underscores the value of 

comprehensive warning systems and a prepared public. 

The FY 2012 request for NWS is $988 million. The request envisions using costcutting and cutting-edge technologies to better support the programs necessary to 

achieve NOAA’s vision of delivering more reliable forecasts, reducing weather-related fatalities, and improving the economic value of weather, water, and climate 

information. 

Weather-related air traffic delays cost the U.S. economy over $41 billion in 2007, 

according to the Congressional Joint Economic Committee. Two thirds of these 

delays could be avoided with more accurate and better-integrated weather information for decision-making. To meet the rising demands of the air transportation industry, NOAA is involved in a collaborative partnership with the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) and other Federal agencies to create the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen). NOAA requests a $26.9 million increase to modernize our aviation weather forecasts and warnings. This funding supports NextGen 

development activities, allowing for better integration of weather information into 

decision-making solutions for the FAA—potentially reducing the number of air 

delays. 

Wind shear is hazardous to aviation and critical to hurricane formation and intensity. The nation’s upper air (UA) network enables unmatched ability to detect this 

wind shear and enables much improved ability to define the jet stream core by providing approximately 78,000 atmospheric profiles (wind, humidity, temperature, 

pressure and altitude) per year from ground level to up to 60,000 feet. To improve 

the UA network, NOAA requests a $5 million increase for new GPS radiosondes to 

provide a 50 percent improvement in wind measurement accuracy and a 6-fold improvement in vertical resolution. With this investment, NOAA will fully fund the 

purchase of GPS radiosondes for all 102 UA observing stations, ensuring improvements to weather models. 

Large maritime data voids exist where no meteorological or oceanographic data 

are routinely sampled due to poorly maintained buoys. This lack of data makes it 

difficult for forecasters to make accurate and timely marine warnings and forecasts 

and to measure the accuracy of their forecasts. NOAA currently operates 101 

moored, weather observation buoys and 49 coastal, marine automated network staVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:21 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 072171 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\72171.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
10 

tions. However, over the last 8 years, system performance has trended downward 

to the current low of 67 percent data availability as of February 2011. This trend 

will continue downward to 65 percent data availability by 2011 without increased 

support. NOAA requests a $4 million increase to provide operations and maintenance funding for damaged and destroyed buoys and to comply with new international regulations. Funds will also be used to begin reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance by employing charter vessels to supplement the diminishing 

availability of U.S. Coast Guard ship time for servicing the weather buoy network. In FY 2012 NOAA requests a total of $41 million, including $10.2 million from 

mandatory funds provided by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, to support our tsunami warnings and research activities. Within minutes after the March 11th earthquake struck, NOAA issued its first tsunami warning for Japan, Russia, Marcus Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands as part of the coordinated global response to 

this tragic natural disaster. Shortly thereafter, timely watches, advisories, and 

warnings were extended to vulnerable coastal areas of Alaska, British Columbia, 

California, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii well ahead of the arrival of the first 

waves. To maintain the effectiveness of these services, NOAA’s Tsunami Program 

will use the FY 2012 funding to continue operations of NOAA’s Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami (DART ) buoy network, maintenance of its 164 

sea-level stations, and funding of its two Tsunami Warning Centers (TWC). NOAA 

will continue to expand community preparedness and finalize the balance of the tsunami hazard mitigation models (to cover all U.S. coastal areas). NOAA will also continue research to improve its tsunami warning and forecast capabilities, and the 

completion of high resolution models for tsunami inundation forecasts for tsunami 

threatened local communities. 

Although NOAA’s Tsunami Warning Centers and DART stations are operated by 

NWS, NOAA drew from the capabilities of all our line offices to provide a comprehensive response to the March 2011 tsunami. The following are examples of the 

contributions from other parts of NOAA: 

• NOAA’s DART stations, a result of research performed at NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, detected and tracked the tsunami as it traveled 

from Japan across the Pacific Basin. 

• National Ocean Service tide gauges, which help detect the presence of a tsunami wave, use GOES satellites operated by NOAA’s Satellite Service to relay 

data to the tsunami warning centers. 

• NOAA response teams from the National Ocean Service are in California to assist with detection of submerged debris resulting from the tsunami in marine 

transportation arteries along the coast. 

Finally, the underpinning of NOAA’s products and services mentioned previously 

is the model-based guidance of NOAA’s operational high performance computing 

(HPC). HPC provides models and model-based estimates of both current and future 

states of the Earth’s environment, which are a key component of modern weather 

forecasts. NOAA requests an $11 million increase toward transitioning NOAA’s 

HPC to a new contract, as well as continuing regular improvements to our numerical weather prediction modeling. 

National Environmental Satellite Service (NESS) 

NOAA’s satellites provide the data and information for forecasts that are vital to 

every citizen in our Nation. From safe air, land, and marine transportation to construction and emergency rescue missions, we all use satellite products in our everyday lives. In FY 2010, our satellite program saw a major milestone accomplished 

with the launch of Geostationary Orbiting Environmental Satellite (GOES)—15, the 

final spacecraft in the latest series. GOES–15 joined three other GOES spacecraft 

in assisting the Agency’s forecasters to more accurately track life-threatening 

weather from tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes to solar activity that can impact satellite-based electronics, communications, and power industries. In FY 2010, NOAA 

satellites also provided key support in the rescue of 281 people throughout and near 

the United States by providing their location to emergency responders. 

The proposed reorganization would also affect some programs within the National 

Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), which would be 

renamed the National Environmental Satellite Service (NESS), as all three of its 

Data Centers would be transferred to the Climate Service. The FY 2012 budget request for NESS is $2 billion, which we will invest in multiple satellite acquisition 

programs for the continuity of critical weather, climate, and oceanographic data. 

NOAA requests an increase of $687.8M for the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), 

which is NOAA’s responsibility under the former National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) program. Polar satellites provide 

11 

critical weather forecasting for the $700 billion maritime commerce sector and provide a value of hundreds of millions of dollars to the fishing industry. The satellites 

save approximately $200 million each year for the aviation industry in ash forecasting alone and provide drought forecasts worth $6–8 billion to farming, transportation, tourism and energy sectors. Both civilian and military users will use JPSS 

data and products, which will continue to fulfill NOAA’s requirements to provide 

global environmental data used in numerical weather prediction models for forecasts. On behalf of NOAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) will serve as the lead acquisition agent for JPSS, which supports the afternoon mission requirements. The Department of Defense will continue the acquisition of early morning orbit assets. NOAA is committed to working with our partners 

to complete the transition from the NPOESS program and to assure the continuity 

of Earth observations from space. 

The GOES–R series satellites will provide critical weather observations for severe 

weather events, such as hurricanes, and also provide key enhancements in observational capabilities for climate, oceans and coasts, and the space environment. This 

program is the next-generation of geostationary satellites and provides mission continuity through 2036. NOAA continues to support the GOES–R program with a rephasing, taking us from a two-satellite program to a four-satellite program with the 

addition of two optional satellites (GOES–T&U), while still providing continued satellite engineering development and production activities for GOES–R and GOES–S. 

An uninterrupted climate record is critical to understanding global sea level rise, 

which directly threatens coastal communities and ecosystems through increased exposure and erosion, more intense storm-surge and tidal flooding, and loss of natural 

habitat due to drowned wetlands. Therefore, NOAA is requesting an additional 

$33.0 million to continue development of the Jason–3 satellite, which will provide 

continuity of sea surface height measurements, ensuring an uninterrupted climate 

record of over 20 years. The Jason–3 mission is a joint U.S.—European funded partnership. NOAA requests an $11.3 million increase to partner with the Taiwan National Space Organization for the launch of 12 satellites to replenish and upgrade 

the Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (COSMIC) satellite constellation. This program is a cost effective means of obtaining information about temperature and moisture in the atmosphere around the globe, 

which will improve forecasting accuracy. 

In addition, a requested increase of $47.3 million will support, in cooperation with 

NASA, refurbishing the existing NASA Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) 

satellite and its solar wind sensors and developing a Coronal Mass Ejection Imager. 

The data and information provided by DSCOVR will support the operations of the 

Space Weather Prediction Center, which generates accurate and timely 1 to 4 day 

space weather forecasts and warnings. Space observations of geomagnetic storms 

are vital to reduce negative effects to power grids, GPS, telecommunications, the 

health and safety of astronauts, and the viability of satellite systems. 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) 

The major change as a result of the proposed reorganization to create a Climate 

Service (described above) is that NOAA would also strategically realign its existing 

core research line office, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), to 

strengthen the agency’s overall science enterprise and advance the atmospheric and 

ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research and applied science goals expressed in the 

America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. OAR will refocus its work to 

serve as an innovator and incubator of new science, technologies, and applications, 

and an integrator of science and technology across all of NOAA. 

NOAA is committed to strengthening and integrating NOAA’s science enterprise 

consistent with the President’s call for science and innovation. NOAA’s request includes $212 million for OAR to continue strengthening core capabilities, such as improving our understanding of ocean acidification and its impacts, and promoting 

conservation and use of America’s coastal resources through our renowned Sea 

Grant Program, one of our many direct links to universities, citizens, and communities around the Nation. NOAA will also invest in the future by supporting innovation in weather forecasting science that can inform clean, renewable energy generation, which is related to an MOU with the Department of Energy. In FY 2012, 

NOAA requests $2 million to support research in targeted wind resource regions 

across the Nation. Funding will advance weather forecast accuracy and quality to 

allow for more efficient implementation of wind power usage in the United States. 

Another core capability at NOAA is exploration. The NOAA Ship Okeanos Explorer is among the most technologically advanced research vessels and platforms 

for ocean exploration in the United States. In FY 2012, NOAA is requesting an additional $1.5 million to advance the operations of the Okeanos Explorer with the operVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:21 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 072171 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\72171.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
12 

1Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2008: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/fisheriesleconomicsl2008.html. 

ation of telepresence technology, which enables scientists, educators, and others to 

participate and lead ocean exploration missions from remote shore-based Exploration Command Centers; to operate and upgrade the ship’s autonomous and remotely-operated vehicles; provide additional scientific days at sea; and reduce our 

huge knowledge gap of what lies in the deep ocean. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

NMFS conserves, protects, and manages living marine resources to sustain marine ecosystems, afford economic opportunities, and enhance the public’s quality of 

life. Rebuilding our nation’s fisheries is essential to preserving the livelihoods of 

fishermen and related industries. In 2008, U.S. commercial and saltwater recreational fisheries supported 1.9 million full- and part-time jobs and generated $163 

billion in sales impacts.1 In FY 2012, NOAA requests $1.001 billion to support fisheries and protected resource management to ensure an optimal balance between 

conservation objectives and economic opportunities. 

NOAA is making important strides to end overfishing, improve fishery management, and put fisheries on a path to sustainability. Working with the Regional Fishery Management Councils, in FY 2010, five fisheries stocks were rebuilt. Based on 

estimates, rebuilding U.S. fisheries would increase the current dockside value by an 

estimated $2.2 billion (54 percent) annually from $4.1 billion to $6.3 billion annually. In FY 2012, NOAA will continue to maximize the potential of the nation’s most 

economically important fish stocks through sound science and management. NOAA 

will invest $67 million to expand annual stock assessments to continue to ensure 

Annual Catch Limits (ACL) are based on the best available science. ACLs and accountability measures (AM) are required under the 2007 reauthorization of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act for all non-exempt 

fish stocks, including overfished stocks, by the end of 2011 to end overfishing. This 

investment will help verify that NOAA successfully ended overfishing ensuring 

ACLs are set at the most optimal level possible so that the return for fishermen 

is maximized while maintaining the health of the resource. 

NOAA will invest $3 million to improve the timeliness and quality of catch monitoring in recreational fisheries to ensure recreational fisheries are not unnecessarily 

restricted due to a lack of data. This is part of a broader effort to work more closely 

with the recreational fishing community. 

In addition to sound science, robust management strategies are vital to sustainable fisheries. In 2010, NOAA released the National Catch Share Policy, and we will 

continue to support consideration of catch share management by the Councils. Catch 

share programs, which include limited access privilege programs and individual 

fishing quotas, dedicate a secure share of fish to individual fishermen, cooperatives, 

or fishing communities. In the United States, catch shares are currently successfully 

implemented in 15 fisheries from Alaska to Florida, and local Fisheries Management Councils are in the process of developing them in several additional fisheries. 

Catch share programs are difficult and sometimes controversial to implement, and 

we recognize that some in Congress are concerned about them. But they have yielded significant financial and ecological benefits to the fisheries that utilize this system. Both here and in other countries, catch shares help to eliminate overfishing 

and achieve annual catch limits, improve fishermen’s safety and profits, and reduce 

the negative biological and economic effects of the traditional ‘‘race for fish.’’ This 

budget includes $54 million to support the voluntary establishment of catch share 

programs by those Councils that want to utilize this tool to achieve the MagnusonStevens Act requirements. We want to support those Councils that believe that catch 

shares are the way to better manage their fisheries but need assistance in designing 

and implementing them. 

In addition to fisheries, NOAA manages protected resources, such as marine 

mammals and turtles. This requires balancing conservation objectives and economic 

opportunities, including commercial fishing activities and energy development. Investments in priority research in recovery actions are required to mitigate harm and 

maximize economic potential. In FY 2012, NOAA will invest an additional $2.5 million to increase NOAA’s capacity for protected species stock assessments that provide the foundation of information for decisionmakers. We will continue supporting 

the Species Recovery Grants Program with a requested $8.0 million increase to provide grants to states and tribes to conduct priority recovery actions for threatened 

and endangered species, including restoring habitat, monitoring population trends, 

developing conservation plans, and educating the public. 

13 

2Kildow, J.T., C. S. Colgan, and J. Scorse. 2009. State of the U.S. Ocean and Coastal Economies 2009. National Ocean Economic Program. 3Population Trends Along the Coastal United States: 1980–2008, NOAA 2004. 

Managing fisheries and protected species to their full biological and economic potential requires additional efforts focused on maintaining habitat and ecosystem 

functioning. NOAA requests $24 million for the Community Based Restoration Program, including a new $5 million effort to address larger restoration projects. NOAA 

plans to increase fish passage, spawning, and rearing habitat by implementing 

large-scale ecological restoration in targeted areas such as wetlands. To support the 

restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay, we request a $5 million increase 

for regional studies in the Bay. NOAA supports the President’s Executive Order to 

restore the Chesapeake Bay by providing enhanced understanding of the relationships between the Bay’s living resources and habitat, coordinating protection and 

restoration of key species and habitats across jurisdictional lines, and supporting a 

coordinated system of monitoring platforms distributed across the Bay. 

National Ocean Service (NOS) 

In July 2010, President Obama signed Executive Order Number 13547 that adopted the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and established the National Policy for the Stewardship of the Oceans, Coasts, and the 

Great Lakes—reinforcing the notion that ‘‘healthy oceans matter.’’ NOS supports 

this policy by translating science, tools, and services into action to address coastal 

threats such as climate change, population growth, port congestion, and contaminants in the environment. A pivotal event in 2010 was the explosion of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig on April 20. Within hours, NOAA responded, providing targeted weather forecasts and oil spill trajectory maps and mobilizing personnel and 

assets to respond to what evolved into the largest oil spill in U.S. history. The Office 

of Response and Restoration (OR&R) played a critical role in our response and is 

leading our efforts to assess damage caused by the event. Over half of the U.S. 

Gross Domestic Product is generated in coastal counties,2 and it is expected that 

the nation’s coastal population will grow by more than 11 million by 2015 so NOS’ 

services will become more vital to the coastal environment and economy.3 Increasing 

population density, growing economies, and increased vulnerability to damages from 

hazards such as sea level rise or storms, habitat loss, and other threats makes the 

task of managing coastal resources more difficult. The President’s FY 2012 Budget 

includes $559.6 million to enable NOAA to continue delivering a dynamic range of 

nationwide coastal and Great Lakes scientific, technical, and resource management 

services to meet the vision of being a Nation with safe, healthy, resilient, and productive oceans and coasts. 

Human uses of ocean resources (e.g., ocean-based energy, marine aquaculture, 

commercial and recreational fishery products, shipping and navigation services, and 

other activities) need to be managed holistically. In FY 2012, NOAA requests $6.8 

million to develop an agency-wide capability to conduct and support Coastal and 

Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) in U.S. waters. CMSP will help us manage ocean 

resources in a systematic way by evaluating competing ocean uses, assessing opportunities and potential cumulative impacts, and working with industry, state and 

local decisionmakers and other stakeholders, to explicitly make trade-off decisions. 

CMSP is designed to focus on up front planning. There are no regulations involved. 

It does not add another layer of government but is designed to be more efficient, 

effective, and reduce redundancies in decisionmaking. With the new Ocean Policy 

we are already witnessing efficiencies in our mapping and data collection across the 

Federal Government, with data and information from the Departments of Defense 

and the Interior, and from Coast Guard, being integrated into a common data base, 

which will be available to the public in the future. 

The Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force include 

a framework for implementing CMSP across the United States in a manner that respects regional variation of issues and priorities. This initiative will significantly advance the Nation’s capability to effectively and transparently match competing 

human uses to appropriate ocean areas. To further support CMSP and regional 

ocean governance, NOAA requests $20 million to establish a competitive grants program that will support regional ocean partnerships, such as the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, South Atlantic Governor’s Alliance, and the West Coast Governor’s Agreement 

on Ocean Health that are vital for advancing effective ocean management. In addition, a proposed increase of $1 million in our mapping program will significantly improve the accessibility of integrated ocean and coastal mapping data. 

The BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill is a stark reminder that spills of national significance can occur despite the many safeguards and improvements that have been 

14 

put into place since the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was enacted. The risk of oil spills 

remains a concern given increases in marine transportation, pressures to develop 

domestic areas for drilling offshore, aging infrastructure susceptible to sea level rise 

and violent storms in U.S. coastal areas, and opening the Arctic to both shipping 

and oil development. NOAA’s OR&R is the lead trustee for the public’s coastal natural resources and an international scientific leader for oil spill response, assessment, and restoration. NOAA requests $2.9 million to develop an oil spill research 

and development program within OR&R to advance response technologies and capabilities, especially in deep water and Arctic environments. With this funding, NOAA 

will support external grants for essential research to provide useful information, 

methods, and tools for planners, oil spill responders, and assessment practitioners. 

Also in support of oil spill response, NOAA requests a $5.0 million increase to implement the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS ) Surface Current Mapping Plan using high frequency (HF) radar surface current measurements. HF radar 

provides information vital to oil spill response, national defense, homeland security, 

search and rescue operations, safe marine transportation, water quality and pollutant tracking, and harmful algal bloom forecasting. 

The BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill made it apparent that the economic and social 

well being of our coastal communities depends on the environmental suitability of 

our coastal resources. Numerous coastal communities, not only in the Gulf but all 

along our coasts, are being impacted by the loss of fishing opportunities. In FY 2012, 

NOAA requests $8 million to create a National Working Waterfronts grant program 

to assist fishing-dependent coastal communities. These grants will assist distressed 

or at-risk fishing communities by providing resources for planning, capacity building, and other activities to support economic diversity, resource conservation, and 

economic capital growth. 

Program Support 

To deliver sound science and services, NOAA must continue to invest in its information technology (IT) infrastructure, the maintenance and construction of NOAA 

facilities, and the specialized aircraft and ships that complete NOAA’s environmental and scientific missions. A requested $9.1 million increase will reduce the 

risk of cyber attacks by enhancing security monitoring and response capabilities and 

consolidate our IT infrastructure into a single enterprise network. This budget includes an additional $10 million to support major restoration and modernization 

projects to address critical facility condition deficiencies and to improve safety and 

operating conditions in support of NOAA’s mission. The FY 2012 request ensures 

that NOAA’s fleet of vessels is able to provide reliable, compliant, and high-quality 

ship support to NOAA programs through several increases. For example, $3.4 million is requested to support environmental compliance costs, including ensuring that 

NOAA ships are not contributing to water quality degradation. Efforts to extend and 

maintain the life of the NOAA ships will be supported through an $11.6 million increase for repair periods. 

Also critical to the execution of NOAA’s mission is our investment in the future. 

Students in K–12 we support today become our workforce of the future; undergraduate and graduate fellowship recipients provide immediate dividends; and each 

and every citizen touched by our literacy and outreach efforts become stewards of 

our natural resources. These down payments help to fulfill the President’s commitment to education. The FY 2012 budget includes $20.8 million for NOAA’s Office 

of Education to implement and manage scholarship programs aimed at fostering 

competitiveness in science, technology, engineering and math by providing quality 

educational opportunities. 

Conclusion 

Overall, NOAA’s FY 2012 budget request reflects the commitment that Secretary 

of Commerce Gary Locke and I have made to the President to out-educate, outbuild, and out-innovate our competitors in support of robust economic job growth. 

We have made tough choices to cut lower priorities and identify cost-savings measures. The resources that are requested in this budget are critical to the future success of meeting our needs in climate, fisheries, coasts, and oceans. I look forward 

to working with you, the Members of this committee, and our constituents to 

achieve the goals I have laid out here through the implementation of the FY 2012 

budget. Thank you for the opportunity to present NOAA’s FY 2012 budget request. 

I am happy to respond to any questions the committee might have. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. And let me—I’m going 

to hold my questions. I’ll go to the Ranking Member, then Senator 

Isakson after that. Senator Snowe. 

15 

And we’ll limit this to—we’ll probably have a couple of rounds, 

but we’ll do this first round 5 minutes and then we’ll go from that. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Lubchenco, I wanted to get to the sector-based 

management issues in the northeast, and based on the latest figures from NMFS, only 16 percent of the allowable catch of the haddock from the Georges Bank has been caught and only 31 percent 

of pollock. 

The more than 54,000 metric tons of haddock and pollock that 

can be caught this year are restricted by the choke species, the 

other species that obviously are strictly limited, and also by poor 

science and regulations that are preventing the optimum yield from 

our fisheries. 

I was wondering, given the fact that in your budget you include an increase of $36 million for catch shares—and that’s a $36 million increase over the $18 million that was provided in this current 

fiscal year—how is that going to be allocated, spread across the nation, because, obviously, that is critical. 

I don’t want this funding to be consumed by bureaucracies, but 

rather to expand the maximum yield and the ability of fishermen 

to be able to catch the maximum available fish that currently isn’t 

the case, and we want to be sure that it too preserves the fishing 

community. 

And so that comes down to cooperative research. It comes down 

to technology and practices that will allow the fishermen to target 

healthier species. 

So can you give us an indication of how you’re going to use that $36 million, in addition to the $18 million that was provided this 

year? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, thank you for highlighting the importance of this request. 

NOAA Fisheries works closely with the councils to identify which 

fisheries are appropriate for catch share management programs 

and then to help design and then subsequently implement, if it is 

approved, a catch share program. 

Each of the councils has drawn up a list of which of the fisheries 

they think are ripe for development of new opportunities, and the 

request enables the development of new catch share programs as 

well as the continued implementation of existing ones. 

As you very correctly pointed out in your opening remarks, it is 

vitally important that we have the best possible stock assessment 

data, so that we can set catch limits that are appropriate regardless of the type of fishery management program that is used. And 

so the request that we have for an increase in $15 million in stock 

assessments is intended to address the high priority stocks and 

give us additional information so that we can both set good catch 

limits on a variety of species, but also know how well we’re doing 

in ending overfishing for many of those stocks. 

Senator SNOWE. So would the councils be making the decisions 

in terms of what activities? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, we have worked with the councils too. 

They have each identified which fisheries they believe are appropriate for a catch share program. And they have identified their 

own priorities, and that’s what we have put into this request. It’s 

16 

based on their setting of priorities for the next programs that they 

believe are teed up. 

It’s, I think, important to recognize that many of these catch 

share programs take years to develop. The one that just went into 

effect on the West Coast, the trawl ITQ groundfish fishery, took 

seven to eight years to actually develop, and each one is different 

from another. 

So careful planning, learning from past experience, figuring out 

how we’re going to fund the increased monitoring that is required 

as observers on the boats, how to transition that to the industry 

picking up the tab for that, that’s all part of the design elements 

that are needed. 

Senator SNOWE. I hope, though, that the focus could also be 

placed on the maximum yield and maximum harvesting on the part 

of the fishermen. I mean, the point is they have to have enough 

of a harvest to sustain themselves, and that’s one of the key concerns. 

Given the difference between what fishermen catch and what’s 

available for catching, but because of all these other limitations for 

the other species that are strictly limited, what is it that we can 

do to help them expand that capacity and that capability? 

For instance, I know that currently 10 percent of the catch that 

is not caught can be carried forward, and there have been requests, 

for example, to expand or increase that 10 percent to a higher 

level. 

So, one, I’d like you to answer the question whether or not you 

would support such an increase; and, two, what are we doing to 

focus on the maximum harvest that’s available? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, the $15 million request for an increase 

in stock assessments will help that very significantly, and that’s 

why that is one of our priorities this year. We need those good 

data. 

Focusing on New England, for a moment, there are periodic new 

data that are taken on many different species and that allows us 

to make adjustments to the annual catch limits that are set on an 

annual basis. 

And for a number of the species, because our fishery management practice or our management has been working, we have recently been able to increase those catch limits based on new scientific information. So we need the new science to raise the catch 

limits. This request will help us get the new knowledge that enables us to do that down the road. 

Senator SNOWE. And would you support an increase in the 10 

percent? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I would support an increase for any catch limit 

if we have the science to underpin that that would not jeopardize— 

is consistent with Magnuson-Stevens. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Senator BEGICH. Senator Isakson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

17 

I’d like to ask unanimous consent that a complete statement that 

I want to issue in the record be printed and included in the record. 

Senator BEGICH. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Isakson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA

Dr. Lubchenco, as we have discussed in the past, in order for studies regarding 

the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project (SHEP) to come to conclusion and the 

project to move forward, final decisions on pending issues relative to the environmental mitigation plans must be made. 

The Corps of Engineers must have decisions from multiple Federal agencies including the Department of Commerce, NOAA, and National Marine Fisheries in 

order to complete the Final General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact 

Statement. The Corps and the agencies appear to be close to reaching an agreement 

on the project mitigation. 

However, with respect to Commerce, NOAA and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service is recommending an unfeasible option of removing the New Savannah Bluff 

Lock & Dam as a component of SHEP in order to improve spawning habitats for 

the shortnose sturgeon. 

Although the Corps of Engineers has proposed fish by-pass or ‘‘fish ladder’’ around 

the dam, NOAA and NMFS have settled on removal of the dam. The New Savannah 

Bluff dam provides an important reservoir used by both Georgia and South Carolina 

for water supply, recreation, and industrial use, and I have heard from a number 

of my constituents, including leadership of the communities affected by this, in opposition to this plan. 

I have had a number of conversations with Secretary Locke and he and I share 

the view that the Department of Commerce must balance habitat protection with 

that of the economic development needs of this country. As he and I have discussed, 

and I think it is fair to say he shares this viewpoint, the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project is critical to the economic growth and recovery of the Southeast. 

Savannah is a balanced, though slightly export dominant port. It is the fourth 

largest and fastest growing port in the country and the Savannah Harbor Expansion 

Project has been developed in an open and collaborative manner with coordination 

amongst Federal, state and nongovernmental entities. 

Certainly, we must be able to come up with an out of the box approach to mitigation that will work for this project. I and my staff have a number of suggestions 

which we will submit to you in a written format for your consideration, and I hope 

you personally will take a look at them and get back to me as to why they may 

or may not be feasible. I am concerned though that NOAA and Marine Fisheries 

are now raising this issue so late in the process. I just don’t understand why, if this 

is so important, it wasn’t insisted upon more seriously back in 2000 when the fish 

passage was first discussed. 

Senator ISAKSON. Dr. Lubchenco, thank you very much for being 

here, what you do, and thanks for our previous conversation before 

this testimony. 

The statement that I’ve asked to be included in the record is regarding the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project on the Savannah 

River in Georgia with the home of the Port of Savannah. 

As you know, in 1996, under the WRDA bill, expansion of that 

port was authorized. And in the 15 years since then, the State of 

Georgia has invested millions of dollars and the Corps of Engineers 

has invested significant money to do all the necessary planning, including the environmental impact study, to end up getting the authorization executed and expand the harbor of the Savannah Port. 

That expansion is necessary because in 2014, the ships that will 

come through the newly expanded Panama Canal will come to the 

East Coast of the United States, and without a deepening of the 

channel, many of those ships will not be able to come to the Port 

of Savannah, which would be, obviously, bad for the Port of Savannah, but, quite frankly, since it’s the second largest port on the 

18 

Eastern Seaboard, it would be bad for commerce in the United 

States. 

Your agency, the Department of Commerce and National Marine 

Fisheries, all have final input on the environmental impact statement before that project can move forward. 

Since 2000, there has been an issue with regard to the shortnose 

sturgeon, and NOAA has made a recommendation—very late in the 

game, I might add—that the solution to the shortnose sturgeon 

spawning at the new Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam is to tear the 

dam down. 

That dam holds a reservoir that services many people in the 

state of Georgia for their drinking water and for recreation. And 

the Savannah River, which supplies water to both South Carolina 

and Georgia, had been, as recently as 3 years ago, through a Category 4 drought, which made water use absolutely essential and 

very limited. 

So to destroy an impoundment like that would be bad for the 

health, safety and welfare and the existence of the human species, 

in terms of in South Carolina and Georgia. 

The Corps of Engineers has made a recommendation of a fish bypass or a fish ladder to mitigate the problem to allow the sturgeons’ concerns to be addressed, the human concerns to be addressed and the Port of Savannah to be expanded. 

My request to you is if you would, as expeditiously as possible, 

meet with the appropriate people, including the Corps of Engineers 

and myself, if necessary, to work collaboratively to come up with 

a mitigation process for the sturgeon that does not cause such a 

draconian thing such as the destruction of the dam to take place 

and allows us to move forward on the Savannah River Harbor Expansion Project in the city of Savannah in the state of Georgia. 

And I would very much appreciate your commitment to help us 

find a reasonable way to address the environmental concern and 

expand the port. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator Isakson, you’ve rightly highlighted the 

importance of maritime commerce in our country. It is valued currently at around $700 billion and so really is vitally important to 

the nation. 

I fully appreciate the importance of having capacity to accommodate Panamax vessels. 

As you know, the analyses that we have done suggests that both 

the dredging and the hydrological changes that are expected to do 

the harbor expansion would have adverse impacts on the shortnose 

sturgeon populations and that, therefore, to mitigate for that adverse impact it would be appropriate for them to have access to upstream habitats. 

The proposal that the Corps originally drew up for fish passages 

we believe would not adequately allow sturgeon to go upstream. We 

believe that the fish passages that the corps proposed are not wide 

enough and not deep enough and that there’s not enough water 

flow. 

Understanding the importance of all of the issues you raise, we 

have offered to work with the Corps of Engineers to see if there are 

alternative mitigation measures to accommodate all of those needs 

and we are happy to continue to have a dialogue with them. 

19 

I believe that the Section 7 consultation on both ESA and Essential Fish Habitat issues is due to be completed in June, but we will 

be working with the Corps, just as you suggest, because there are 

a range of very complex issues here. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, I appreciate that. And I’m going to steal 

a great idea that you had in your presentation. You held up a nickel. I want to hold up a dollar, which is 20 times a nickel. 

And the revenue that comes to the United States of America and 

the income that helps us support this economy and pay for our 

budget, like at NOAA, comes from revenues that come from imports into this country and products we export in this country. So 

there’s a cost-benefit analysis on this port expansion equal to the 

cost-benefit analysis of all that NOAA provides. And that was a 

great analogy with the nickel. 

So this is not just a home-state issue. This is about the commerce 

of the United States of America and the access of our ports on the 

Eastern Seaboard and what that produces in revenue to the country. 

So as you are working to find a suitable mitigation process that 

avoids blowing up a dam and destroying a reservoir, which I hope 

we can, understand this is critical to the commerce of the country, 

not just the State of Georgia. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I understand, senator. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Senator Isakson. 

Let me—I want to follow that. I don’t know what I have in my 

pocket. I might have a five or a ten, but I—you know, Alaska’s a 

little larger in size, but let me follow up. 

And it’s a continuing issue, as you know, I’ve had with your 

agency and that is the economic analysis and tradeoffs. I mean, 

that’s what was just played out by Senator Isakson, and how—and 

just brief because I have a series of questions here on other issues, 

but how do you or do you have analysis or process that analyzes 

the economic tradeoffs in situations like that or, as we’ve talked 

about, other type of species that may have impact to our fisheries 

or other types of industries, oil and gas, so forth? 

Do you do that within your agency and do you have the resources 

to do it? And then, to follow that, is there ever a time that your 

agencies ever will say that the tradeoff or the mitigation is too 

much for what the national need of the project or the issue is? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Mr. Chairman, I think the short answer is it depends, which I know is not very satisfying, but is the truth. 

Some of the legislative mandates that we have require economic 

analyses. Magnuson-Stevens is one of those. And so we do routine 

economic analyses so that we understand the implications of a particular fishery regulation on the economics of the fishing industry, 

for example. 

In other situations, an economic analysis is not required, and, in 

some cases, there is a mandate that is oblivious to economic impact. So it really varies considerably from one mandate to another, 

and, of course, our responsibilities cross so many different areas it 

really is quite variable from one to another. 

We have historically had individuals that do routine economic 

analyses. Since my coming to NOAA, I’ve highlighted the need to 

20 

improve our capacity to do more and more sophisticated economic 

analyses in a broader way than was traditionally done, and we are 

currently, for example, searching for—we have a chief economic advisor and have been trying to enhance our capacity, to the extent 

that we are able with the resources that we have, to beef up the 

capacity to do that. 

We also, fortunately, have access to economists in the Department of Commerce, have been working with them to identify areas 

where there are good synergies. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Let me go to the Joint Polar Satellite 

System. As you know, in the Fiscal Year 2011, we tried to get some 

money back in. We were not successful. 

What’s the plan? As you know, the data gap that’s going to occur 

there—and I forget what year. I want to say 2016, but I may be 

off a year there. What are the plans for the agency to try to fill 

that now that we’re behind schedule because of that lack of funding? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. You’re absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. Because 

the funds for JPSS, Joint Polar Satellite System, were not included 

in the year-long CR—at least to date, the one that’s on the table 

for your consideration—that means that there will be a gap in data 

starting in 2017. 

There is great uncertainty now with respect to what the fiscal future of this program is. So we’re still in the process of doing planning to try to figure out how we can minimize the damage. 

But I think it’s safe to say that there will almost certainly be a 

gap in coverage that at this point looks like it may be at least 18 

months, based on the fact that the launch date will now slip at 

least 18 months. So the earliest launch date that we are envisioning is September of 2016. And that would be if we would get 

resources in Fiscal Year 2012. 

So there will be a data gap. That data gap will have very serious 

consequences to our ability to do severe storm warnings, long-term 

weather forecasts, search and rescue and good weather forecasts 

for your state. 

Senator BEGICH. So let me—and I’ll summarize and I have a series, but we’ll flip back and forth here between the Ranking Member and myself on questions, but let me ask are you then on kind 

of a Plan B? Are you preparing some sort of—you know—here’s the 

action plan we’ll have to take? 

I mean, we tried to get it into the Continuing Resolution. You 

can pretty much assume it’s not coming in for 2011. So we’re moving to the next stage. 

Can you and will you be developing a plan of action, one, a timetable of impacts that will have across departments, and where, and 

if you have to buy data, and where you might have to get that and 

what that cost may be? And is that something you are preparing 

or will prepare? And will you share that, obviously, with the Committee? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. We do know what some of our options are, and 

they are quite limited. 

Senator BEGICH. What are those? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. That’s one of the challenges. There is no other 

polar-orbiting satellite that will be flying in the orbit that JPSS 

21 

was intended to fly in, and so that’s why there will be a data gap. 

There isn’t redundancy. This is not a situation where we have another satellite that—— 

Senator BEGICH. That you can buy off of or utilize. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Exactly. There is a satellite that is in place now 

that’s providing us with a lot of the very sophisticated capability 

that we have. 

We have another one called NPP that is due to launch in September that will take the place of the one that’s up there now when 

its lifespan is expended. 

It’s beyond that NPP period where there will be this gap. And 

there really isn’t another alternative for replacement of that particular orbit. 

Senator BEGICH. So is it fair to say—and then I’m going to ask 

the Ranking Member to continue with some of her questions, but 

let me ask is it fair to say, then, after 2016, for that period—and 

I think you said 16 months or—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Eighteen. 

Senator BEGICH. Eighteen months. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. At least. 

Senator BEGICH. At least that there is no substitute because timing was the issue here. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. That’s correct. 

Senator BEGICH. Purchasing the satellite, putting it up and then 

hitting the orbit at the right time. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. We have to actually build—— 

Senator BEGICH. That’s my simplistic—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. You build the satellite and you build the instruments and you have to test them and make sure that they work. 

Senator BEGICH. And then you have to launch—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. And then you have to launch it. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. And then once it’s launched, you have to go 

through an 18-month period of checking everything out, making 

sure that it’s working, having all of the instruments be calibrated, 

and so that’s why there is this data gap. 

Senator BEGICH. Can you provide to the Committee what impacts 

that would have on those 18 months, and then also to step to the 

next stage, because of this, what additional costs may be incurred 

now because of this inability to arrive at additional funding you 

needed? Can you provide that—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. We would be happy to do that. 

I can tell you now that for every dollar that we didn’t spend this 

year on JPSS, we will need to spend $3 to $5 down the road, because—— 

Senator BEGICH. OK. Can you—Go ahead. I’m sorry. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. We have to cancel the contracts. We have to let 

people go. These are very sophisticated, skilled workers. And then 

you need to bring the programs back up. So I’d be happy to provide 

that to the Committee. 

Senator BEGICH. And if you can provide in that response the cost, 

if there is contract-termination cost to the private contractor for 

construction and building, the employee issue and just kind of—— 

22 

Doesn’t have to be long and lengthy, but a good detail on the 

costing and what additional costs will be incurred, because I think 

a lot of times when we deal with these budgets, we have to understand that if we don’t spend it now that nickel turns into a dollar 

very quickly. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. So if you could do that, I’d appreciate that. 

I have a series of other questions. I’ll turn to Ranking Member 

Snowe. We’ll do about 10 minutes each, so we have a little bit of 

flexibility here. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Lubchenco, I just wanted to raise a concern about 

the petition that NOAA is currently considering to list the bluefin 

tuna under the endangered species, and I know I’ve written to you 

just a couple of weeks ago on this issue. So I hope that we can at 

least discuss this issue today, because it obviously has serious implications for domestic industry, and there are obviously some serious concerns if we attempt to manage this species both through 

both ICCAT as well as through the Endangered Species Act. 

Already, there are serious limitations with respect to our industry, frankly. I mean, we adhered to some very tough standards, unlike many of our counterparts in other countries, and we certainly 

have the strictest standards. 

So can you give me today, and the Committee, your thinking on 

the ESA listing petition currently? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, I can bring you up to speed—where we 

are in the process. As you know, we received a petition on May 24, 

2010 from the Center for Biological Diversity, and we are currently 

doing what’s called a status review in response to that petition. 

And that status review, because of the information in the petition and the agency’s files, indicate that a listing may be warranted, and, therefore, we are conducting a status review. 

We have one year to do that status review, so in May that period 

will be up. I do not know what that status review is saying. We 

will let you know when we have something to share on that. 

Senator SNOWE. OK. So, at that point, when the year is up in 

May, then you will have a recommendation—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. We would—— 

Senator SNOWE.—based on the information? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I’m sorry. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, it would be the information that would be 

completed or also the decision regarding that listing? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. So, at that point, we would have a proposed rule 

that would go out for public comment. 

Senator SNOWE. Wow. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. For the full-on public comment period. And then 

we would take that into consideration in making any final determination. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, that’s certainly a double whammy if this 

industry is managed both through, obviously, the international organization and then, at the same time, under the Endangered Species Act, because it’s a highly migratory species, as you know. 

And so here we are adhering to the strict standards, and this effort could be transferred to other countries that don’t adhere to the 

23 

same kind of standards we do, and yet it’s being managed internationally, and then, at the same time, we’re being affected if there 

is a listing. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I understand. And, as you know, we have 

worked diligently with ICCAT, the international regional fishery 

management organization, to bring those other countries who also 

fish on bluefin into much greater compliance and to have them adhere to many of our standards. We’re making some progress in 

that, but not enough, but we have been working very diligently on 

that. 

Senator SNOWE. Under the law concerning the listing under ESA 

is it a very strict process that you have to adhere to? For example, 

in the status review, I mean, is it all encompassing? Is it delineated under law through regulations exactly what you have to review that would prompt proposing a rule? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking, senator. There are things that we have to take into—I mean, we have 

to make a determination about whether a species meets the criteria 

for a listing. 

Senator SNOWE. And I’m not so certain that that’s always abundantly clear. 

Between the status review and proposing a rule, there seems to 

be no other period. I mean, it just goes from one to the other. 

That’s a quantum leap into a proposed rulemaking from a status 

review, because once you trigger that rulemaking process, that’s it. 

It’s over. 

I mean, it’s a very difficult process, and I just wonder if there’s 

an interim period by which everybody can reflect on the status review before it prompts a rulemaking. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, I’m not certain about that, but I will 

find out and get back to you. 

Senator SNOWE. I appreciate it and thank—— 

Senator BEGICH. Can I ask one quick—— 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, you may. 

Senator BEGICH. Should there be? 

Senator SNOWE. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. Should there be? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes. Well, let’s explore that based on what the 

answer is, because it seems to me there could be some issues at 

stake or in dispute or a conflict before it even warrants a rulemaking process, because that obviously triggers so many other 

issues and timeframes. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Right. I understand what you’re saying. We’ll 

find out. 

Senator SNOWE. OK. Thank you. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. We’ll get back to you. 

Senator SNOWE. On the implementation of the Department of 

Commerce inspector general report on the Office of Law Enforcement within NMFS, as you know, that was conducted six months 

ago, and I know that your office has issued corrective actions including a freeze of criminal investigators within the Office of Legal 

Enforcement. 

24 

Couldn’t we go beyond a freeze and make some reductions, because it really does open the question as to why this office should 

have 149 personnel dedicated to criminal enforcement actions when 

most of the activity is 98 percent non-criminal. 

Why is it such a high level of criminal investigators, which I 

guess 90 percent of the personnel are constituted as criminal investigators. So why is that such a high number and couldn’t we reduce 

that number? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, the inspector general recommended 

that we look at that very closely, and we did two things. I did two 

things immediately. One was to freeze any hiring of new criminal 

investigators and also initiated a workforce review to really take a 

step back and say, What is the right balance of criminal versus 

civil agents that we need to actually do the job that they are supposed to do? 

We are close to completing that workforce analysis, and I would 

be delighted to share the analyses with you when we have that. 

I think that we will be able to make adjustments according to 

this analysis, and I think that it will most definitely strengthen our 

ability to do good law enforcement, which, in fact, is vitally important, because the fishermen who are abiding by the rules need to 

know that the rules are being enforced. 

And one of the things that has come from this attention are pleas 

from many parts of the country saying, please don’t have this undermine the importance of having effective law enforcement. We 

don’t want it to be out of hand, but we need to have good law enforcement, especially when it comes to international fisheries. 

Senator SNOWE. I don’t dispute that. I think that, obviously, the 

results of the reports speak in themselves in terms of what happened in our region—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Yes. 

Senator SNOWE.—of the country, where the penalties and fines 

were twice as high. So that was egregious and indisputable. 

So I would hope that it would be proportionate in terms of how 

we construct the workforce—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Yes. 

Senator SNOWE.—composition and whether or not it’s necessary. 

It sounds to me a little disproportionate given the level of noncriminal actions as opposed to criminal and having 90 percent of 

the personnel—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. That’s exactly why we initiated the review. And, 

of course, that’s just one of many of the things that we have underway in response to the IG reports. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, I’d like to have the benefit of that review. 

When will that be completed? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, I don’t remember the time frame on 

that, but it’s soon, and I’ll get back to you on that. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, I hope that we would have a consideration 

of reductions in that category, given the fact we’re having to grapple with so many issues in reductions overall. I mean, this seems 

to me one of the areas in which we could have some reductions that 

may not warrant the level of criminal investigators. 

I’ll look forward to your review. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. OK. 

25 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me follow up on that. I always get nervous—no disrespect, Dr. Lubchenco—when administrators use the 

word soon. Can you let the Committee know tomorrow when you 

expect that report to be completed? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I will certainly do that. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. Good. Not that I’ve been on this side in the 

Federal Government, but I’ve been in that side from the Municipality of Anchorage. We would also use the word soon quite a bit, 

and so now I’m on this side, I get to ask what does soon mean? 

So if you could let us know that would be appreciated. 

Let me follow up, if I can, on one of the issues that was brought up on the $15 million increase to expand stock assessments, which 

I think is very important, I think for a lot of reasons you already 

detailed. I know in Alaska it’s been a huge piece of the equation 

in ensuring that we have long-term sustainable fisheries. 

But I’m getting some reports that there is reduction of sea time 

for the research or the vessels in Alaska, as one example. So I’m 

trying to make sure I understand, as you increase the assessments, 

what will happen to sea time for the vessels? Because if they’re 

stagnant or decreasing, then there is, at least in my mind, a disconnect here. 

So can you help me out? What does the new budget do for sea 

time for NOAA research vessels and so forth? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, the vessels, the days at sea and the 

vessels support a number of important functions. One of them are 

fishery surveys. 

Senator BEGICH. Correct. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. But there are also hydrological surveys, the 

mapping for nautical charts, for example, oceanographic and climate research. Those are all functions provided by different ships, 

and, as you know, some ships do some and some do another. 

In general, the increasing costs of operating on the ocean and 

greater constraints in our budgets are resulting in very significant 

challenges to the number of days at sea that we have that we are 

able to operate. 

Senator BEGICH. But isn’t it pretty important to have—as you increase the assessments, especially the budget, you’ve got to have 

more sea time. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Correct. 

Senator BEGICH. So this is the issue that when we met in my office that I’m concerned about and that is as we think of new items, 

new projects—and we’ll get into the spatial planning in a minute— 

but there’s $20 million there that is being spent, but yet we have 

less sea time because of costs. 

I would argue the core mission or one of the core missions of your 

office is this data. It is why the Northeast is having issues. It is 

why we have been successful in creating sustainable fisheries is the 

data has been very important for us. 

So if you’re increasing that budget, but you’re decreasing not just 

the stock assessments—because I also, on mapping, you know, I 

don’t know what century we’ll be done with mapping, but at the 

rate we’re going, my bet is it will be decades from now, and by 

then, if we take all the issues of climate change into account, we’ll 

26 

be back into mapping again. We’re so far behind on mapping. So 

but if you’re reducing all the sea time down in the vessels, then 

how will you accomplish some of the main goals? 

And then I would argue that here, then we’re going over here and spending $28 million on spatial planning when we’re now having a problem here. 

By your statement, it sounds like we don’t have enough money 

to get the sea time we need for all the different functions of NOAA. 

Is that fair to say? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, it’s probably fair to say we don’t have 

enough money to do a lot of the things that we think are important. 

Senator BEGICH. But is that an important piece of your core mission? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Oh, absolutely. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. So here’s what I’m struggling with as we 

deal with these budgets—And, as you know, I think NOAA has a 

lot of important responsibilities, but we just don’t have the money. 

So how do we manage this in a way that gets to our core mission? 

If we are losing valuable sea time for all these different functions 

of NOAA, then it means each element of your core business that 

you do will be harmed, but, at the same time, we’re doing some 

new initiatives. 

We could argue that new initiatives are important. You know, we 

can argue that in Alaska we have a different view on it, but I know 

in the Northeast they have a different view, but, at the end of the 

day, we have to make some choices, and they’re hard choices. 

And the worry that I have—be very frank with you—is when left 

to us, we will have these traumatic choices, as proven by the satellite, not funding it. And that will cost us three to one to pay it 

back or put it back into the system. 

So what I’m trying to do is say to you we need your help to figure 

out these priorities, knowing you do not have and will not have the 

money at the level that will be necessary. And sea time is critical 

for the work you do. And I use my phrase, maybe you might have 

a different phase as critical, but I think it’s critical. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. So how do we do this? And what choices are we 

going to have to make? And what choices would you make with us 

to keep your core mission active? Because that—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, the request for the increase in $15 million in stock assessments is exactly for the reasons that you’ve 

highlighted. It’s very important, and part of that includes days at 

sea. The other thing that we are including—— 

Senator BEGICH. Will days at sea increase—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Some of that budget includes funds to pay for 

days at sea. In addition—— 

Senator BEGICH. Well, does it increase days at sea? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Well, it funds—— 

Senator BEGICH. I understand it funds days at sea, probably increased cost, but does it increase the amount of days at sea—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. The days at sea are, for a variety of purposes—— 

Senator BEGICH. Understood. 

27 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. The fisheries budget includes funds for fishery 

stock assessments and some of that is for the days at sea required 

to do that. 

In addition to that, the Fiscal Year 2012 request has a request for funding for critical maintenance of vessels. That’s $9.56 million 

for that, which will also assist with this particular problem. 

Senator BEGICH. Is that the maintenance of the infrastructure as 

well as operational or is it just the maintenance of the structures? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. It’s the vessels themselves. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. Let me ask you this, if you can provide this 

document for the different components of NOAA, as you described, 

that require days at sea can you give me—give the Committee a 

report of the last three years and what you project for 2011 as it 

comes to completion and 2012 in your budget of how many days at 

sea you’ll have for the different operations that NOAA is required 

to do? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. We can do that. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. You know, sometimes I need it very simple, 

and that’s probably the simplest, just so I can see how many days 

of operation you’re doing, and that will then probably beg some 

other questions, if that’s OK. 

Let me go to the—and this is interesting because of the conversation we just had on enforcement—IUU fishing, which, as you know, 

from Alaska’s perspective, I mean, the number we put out there is 

the legal catches by Russia on crab, for example, was probably, in 

the last 10 years, costs Alaska fishermen over a half a billion, $500 

million over the last 10 years. 

Tell me kind of what the enforcement efforts you’re doing out 

there, and are there issues outside of your kind of command and 

control that other agencies need to deal with—maybe the State Department, others—that we need to be aware of that we need to put 

some pressure on? But let me pause there and see if you can answer that. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Mr. Chairman, within the U.S. exclusive economic zone, NOAA works closely with the Coast Guard to do enforcement of our fishery management laws. So Coast Guard is a 

key partner here. 

When it comes to international waters, we work closely with the 

appropriate regional fishery management organizations to try to 

ensure the best compliance and monitoring possible. 

Frankly, that varies significantly from one regional fishery management organization to another. Some countries are good partners 

in that, others, less so. 

IUU is a very significant problem globally and we are doing what 

we can to address it, but I would just flag that that is a very real 

issue, especially on the high seas. 

Senator BEGICH. Are there additional resources or legislative action or work with other departments, especially on the international waters, that we need to be doing? 

If you have some that are cooperative, obviously, those are good 

relationships. The ones that are—You know, I would say Russia is 

not too cooperative, if we’ve lost a half-a-billion dollars, but you 

may have a—I don’t know what the opinion of NOAA is on that, 

but that’s my opinion. 

28 

So is there something that we need to be doing from a different 

perspective than just the budgetary-enforcement dollars here, 

something else we should be doing or that you would recommend 

or could come back to us and recommend? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure what the other possibilities are. I know that the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act 

does give us some authority, and we are absolutely using that, but 

there may, indeed, be some additional measures that we might 

want to have a discussion with you about. 

I know that the Senate’s International Fisheries Stewardship 

and Enforcement Act would actually be very helpful in this regard, 

and that’s exactly the kind of—— 

Senator BEGICH. Tool you need or—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Tool, exactly. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. Well, let us look at that and we’ll have 

some further discussion. 

Let me go back to Senator Snowe for her—— 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one additional question that actually may involve Alaska, too. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Bicoastal. 

Senator SNOWE. Exactly. Is concerning the renewable energy 

siting, and, obviously—the agencies, NOAA recognizes and the 

challenges with global climate change. 

And I commend you for the proposal to include in your budget 

the consolidation of all the climate research services under one umbrella. I think that’s appropriate and so critical to the future challenges that we face, but also developing clean energy alternatives. 

And I know that you have, obviously, a role to play in assessing 

the science behind the climate change, but also the environmental 

impact assessments of energy projects as well. 

And, as I understand it, in the 2012 budget proposal there’s a decrease for energy licensing and appeals program by 63 percent. 

And, for example, when we talk about clean energy technology, 

there is a company that’s looking at developing world-class technology to harness the tidal power and energy, and that’s both in 

Alaska and, of course, off the coast of Maine, but it has actually 

been slowed by NOAA and the U.S. Fishery and Wildlife. 

Is there a reason for such a significant reduction when we’re 

looking to actively pursue alternatives with clean energy? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, I don’t know the answer to your question, but I’ll find out. 

Many of the reductions that are in our Fiscal Year 2012 request 

were a consequence of removing earmarks from previous budgets. 

So that’s one possibility, but I don’t know for sure in this case, and 

I will find out. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, because it’s the overall licensing program. 

I’d be interested in knowing, because, obviously, this is a very important option for clean technology that has been pursued over the 

years, but it has some very specific technology that may be very 

viable, very effective. So I’d be interested in knowing, because I 

gather that’s what’s holding this program up. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, we do agree with you completely that 

renewable is very important for us to pursue. We believe that we 

29 

have an important role in helping to do the evaluations of tradeoffs 

as well as provide information to help siting decisions, be it wind 

or wave or tidal. 

We also have—in the context of spatial planning, there is also an 

opportunity through the ways we are promoting spatial planning to 

consider the range of uses of different areas, and we’ve been developing new tools along with partners in the academic world to help 

do the kinds of analyses that will enable communities to evaluate 

the tradeoffs among different types of uses to identify potential 

conflicts. 

And there’s a new tool that’s called Marine InVEST, which was 

developed at Stanford University as part of the Natural Capital 

Project in conjunction with NOAA and other partners, and one 

thing that they did recently with InVEST was to do an analysis for 

Vancouver Island in British Columbia. 

The community there was interested in siting wave energy off 

the coast of Vancouver Island. They wanted to know which places 

would be the best places for generating energy, but also what the 

financial consequences would be. So they wanted an economic analysis of the tradeoffs. But they also wanted to avoid conflicts with 

fishing, existing fishing operations. 

And so this tool allowed the community to understand what 

those tradeoffs were and to identify the site that was the best economically, based on the economic analyses, the most amount of 

wind to be generated, but also the one that would avoid conflicts 

with fishing. 

And so instead of evaluating each different activity in a vacuum, 

one of the compelling arguments for marine spatial planning is to 

do a more holistic look at how do these activities effect one another, 

which ones are compatible and which ones aren’t, and this tool allows us to do it. 

So we’re thinking not only of the tradeoffs for renewable energy, 

but how that fits into the larger picture of uses of ocean and coastal areas. 

Senator SNOWE. The interesting part about all that is whether or 

not it would allow compatibility of all these different activities. At 

the same token, you’re still dealing the permitting process involved. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Absolutely. 

Senator SNOWE. And that’s another dimension. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Well, that’s one of the—again, one of the compelling arguments for having all of the—both the stakeholders and 

the regulators together from the outset, both the feds and the 

states to work together on plans that don’t have any regulatory authority, but that can streamline the kinds of regulations. 

And, as you know, there are more than 140 different statutes 

and regulations just on the Federal side that affect activities in the 

ocean. And to have a protocol and methodology for considering 

those together as they affect a particular place just makes a lot of 

sense in making things go more efficiently, more effectively, more 

economically. 

And this particular example was a case in point where, for British Columbia, that process actually worked very nicely. 

30 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. Well, I appreciate that. And thank 

you for also getting back to me on that particular question. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Just a few more questions and then I think—unless the Ranking 

Member has some additional ones, but let me—— 

In Alaska, you know, we don’t really have an issue on overfished 

stocks, but I know elsewhere there are some questions on the 10- 

year rebuilding timeline. 

One, kind of what is the basis for the 10-year rebuilding 

timeline? Is there flexibility within it as we reach that 10-year rebuild? It’s more—I know for the Northeast, there’s a concern that 

we started to hear. So can you respond to that kind of what was 

the basis for the 10-year rebuild timeline, but also is there flexibility in it? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Mr. Chairman, the 10-year rebuilding time 

frame was specified by Congress in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and 

it applies to most, but not all—there were some exceptions that 

were articulated. 

Senator BEGICH. Correct. Right. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. So that’s why it’s in there. That was part of the 

legislation. 

Senator BEGICH. So not really. Maybe I should ask this: was 

there a scientific reason for the 10-year or just a legislative reason? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. It was a legislative reason. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. So do you believe—I think I know the answer to this. Is there flexibility in that timeline, from your perspective as an agency, or will it take legislation to create flexibility? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. It’s my understanding that we don’t have the 

authority to change that. 

Senator BEGICH. Got you. So from your perspective, in order to 

add time, it would take legislative action. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. As far as I am aware, yes. But I think it’s important to recognize that much of the good progress that we are 

making in rebuilding fishing—— 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO.—is because we haven’t gone down the road of 

extensions, extensions, extensions. 

Senator BEGICH. I understand. I understand. I guess I would love 

to. Maybe another day we’ll probably have this discussion a little 

more longer, but I just want to kind of flag that as an issue that’s 

cropping up a little bit. 

You know, from our perspective, from my state, it’s not an issue, 

but I know there are other states that are starting to ask this question. So I just want to put that to you. 

Let me, if I can, just go through a couple more and then I’ll see 

if Senator Ayotte has some questions in regards to the budget. 

Well, two things. One, this is a concern, and if you have a comment on this, as we’re dealing in the national issue about the 

earthquake in Japan, the radiation issues, all that, we’re starting 

to hear from wholesalers, fish wholesalers, concerned about Alaska 

fish stock, even though there are no signs of any kind of radiation 

impact, so forth. 

31 

Are you doing anything from NOAA’s perspective on really an information campaign about our fish stocks? And the reason we’re 

getting concerned, we already had one country indicate that, unless 

we go through a whole process of proving that we are not impacted 

by the radiation, that they won’t be buying our product, which, of 

course, we’re not being impacted. So the rumor mill around these 

issues can grow very rapidly. 

Does NOAA have a plan to take aggressive action with our international trading partners around our fishing industry to ensure 

that they recognize that our fish are not impacted negatively? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Mr. Chairman, NOAA has some responsibilities 

in the arena and some of our federal partners have other responsibilities. 

Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has the responsibility for 

certifying the safety of seafood, and they have the lead in doing 

monitoring of fish that are coming into our ports, for example, from 

overseas. So they are the lead agency on that. 

NOAA has been involved extensively in the modeling for both 

airborne radiation and ocean-borne radiation, any movement of 

oceans that are contaminated—ocean water that has been affected 

by radiation. So we are very keenly involved in that. 

And, as you noted, the modeling shows that there is very little 

likely impact to American shores from airborne, and we believe the 

same is likely true from any radiation that is in the ocean. There’s 

a significant degree of contamination, it appears, in the immediate 

area, but farther afield, it gets very dilute very, very rapidly. It’s 

just a huge volume of water. 

Nonetheless, I fully appreciate the need for consumers to want 

to know that their seafood is safe. What we have been doing in that 

regard is to—we’ve been having discussions with other federal 

agencies about the kind of monitoring of ocean water that we need 

to begin to do that’s not currently in place adjacent to our shores. 

So the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security 

have the lead authority in that regard, and NOAA would be a supporting agency for that. 

Senator BEGICH. Great. We’ll put that on the Coast Guard’s list 

when we see them next month then. 

Let me—a couple more, and then, again, Senator Ayotte probably 

has some questions, too. 

There is a pilot program the National Weather Service was kind 

of the lead on developing several pilot projects with employees on 

new weather services and forecasts around the country. 

I’m getting reports that it just kind of isn’t moving forward. I 

think there are about 15 or 20 of these pilot programs. Are you familiar with this? And, if not, we’ll put something together and send 

it to you and maybe get your office to respond. But it seems like 

it just is not moving as aggressively as it was originally. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. So I’m not sure the programs that you’re speaking of, but I’d be happy to respond to—— 

Senator BEGICH. Great. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. We’d need a little more information about what 

it is that you’re talking about, but we’d be happy to respond. 

Senator BEGICH. You bet. I’ll put something together. 

32 

Let me end with one last question in regards to the—NOAA and 

Coast Guard have—pretty old fleets, to say the least. And I know 

yours is always—no disrespect to NOAA, but it’s always Coast 

Guard always gets talked about first. Then they say, Oh, yes, 

NOAA, and we know both you have major issues with your fleets. 

Can you tell me or maybe provide to the Committee kind of 

where you’re at budgetary wise? I know you’re making a request 

in 2012 for some money, but kind of where you’re at and how many 

ships you have to finish out and how much money that will require 

based on today’s dollars? 

But, first, just kind of a—if you can give me a few sentences on 

kind of where you’re at with—I know it’s a money issue, but kind 

of can you give me that for the record and then maybe the document at a later time? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. We, as you know, did a fleet recapitalization 

plan in—I think it was 2006, but I’m not positive about that—that 

laid out what would be required to keep our fleet in good working 

order and doing the things that we needed to do. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. The requests in the current budget are consistent with that plan. We are continuing to make requests for 

major vessel repair periods, for example. 

Senator BEGICH. Correct. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. And to have requests for building, for example, 

new fishery survey vessels. I don’t have all the details in my head, 

and I’d be happy to get them to you. 

Senator BEGICH. That’d be great—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. It really is an issue of finances and trade-offs, 

and I think it has been challenging to date, and in the current fiscal climate where we fully appreciate the need to live within our 

means, it’s going to be increasingly challenging. 

Senator BEGICH. If you could, maybe, kind of show me kind of 

what the plan was and kind of where you are with the plan and 

then what you kind of project. I know it’s hard to project too far 

out because the budget issues are so much in flux, but maybe help 

me understand kind of what that means. 

And then if you have any commentary in that presentation back 

to us, if there are opportunities from the shipbuilder’s perspective, 

if we had a more sustainable plan what that might mean in savings, because my understanding is from the shipbuilder is that if 

we actually had a plan that could be adhered to—in other words, 

not your fault. Congress’s fault for not putting a robust funding 

mechanism to it—that there actually could be a planning and a 

real savings over the long haul over the ships, more likely the 

backend ships than the frontend, because of the workforce development. 

Is that something you could kind of put together maybe with 

whoever is your contractors now and get some commentary from 

them? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I think I understand what you’re asking, and, 

yes, but we’d want to make sure that I know exactly what—it’s the 

part of—with the contractors, that’s the part I’m not sure about 

what you’re asking. 

33 

Senator BEGICH. Let me make it—We know you need so many 

ships built. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Right. 

Senator BEGICH. And we know if you have a start-and-stop process, the contractors cannot really mobilize for that on a sustainable 

basis. So they kind of stop, start, stop, start. So there’s a cost that 

they’re incurring for retraining or like you described—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Correct. 

Senator BEGICH.—with one of your organizations where you have 

to let them go—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH.—and then have to come back. There’s a cost. 

And if we can quantify that, I think that’s a helpful thing for us 

when we talk about a long-term capital budget of how to ensure 

that you get the resources, that there is a trade-off. If we don’t do 

it by a plan, then here is—fill in the blank—the cost for not doing 

it. Even though we’re going to build them over time, there are 

costs. 

And I think the shipbuilders probably will know that because, as 

they gear up on how much training they need, if they can maintain 

that workforce for a period of time, there’s a savings, but if they 

have to go like this with their workforce, then there’s a cost. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I understand now. 

Senator BEGICH. Does that make sense? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Absolutely. 

Senator BEGICH. And I think they’ll—I don’t know how they do 

magic and they can quantify, and that’s what I’m looking for is to 

quantify that. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Yes. OK. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me end there. Senator Ayotte. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I wanted to thank you, Dr. Lubchenco, for your testimony. 

I had several other hearings I had to be at, so if my questions are 

repetitive, I apologize in advance. 

I just wanted to express concerns that have been rendered by colleagues of mine on both sides of the aisle about the catch share 

program. 

The catch limits and sectors established by NOAA for the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan have represented significant obstacles for the fishing industry in my beautiful home 

state of New Hampshire, and because NOAA has been relying on— 

from my view and the fishermen in my state—incomplete and 

sometimes non-existent data, it’s difficult for us to assess the agency’s current basis for establishing the catch limits and assigning 

the catch shares. 

NOAA has been measuring fish stocks and catch limit history in 

New Hampshire based on insufficient records, and I think the result for us and for our fishermen, who are great business people 

and just literally salt of the earth, and what they do is so important to not only our economy, but a tradition we want to preserve 

34 

in our state, subjecting this fishing industry to unnecessary and 

burdensome regulations. 

Sustainable fisheries are in everyone’s best interest, and New 

Hampshire’s geographically-limited small fleet has been unable to 

fish beyond the closed areas established by regulation off the New 

Hampshire shore, causing a loss of close to 50 percent of the fleet 

during the past decade and a substantial loss of catch history for 

those who manage to stay in business. This puts us at a disadvantage in catch share allotments as it favors a place where you can 

have a good, well-documented history. 

So as a follow up to that, I know that your budget request for 

2012 includes $54 million for the catch share program, and that’s 

increasing budgetary authority for $36.6 million over Fiscal Year 

2010 levels. 

So based on the feedback that you’re hearing, I’m sure not only 

from myself for the State of New Hampshire, but other Members 

of Congress, can you tell me how those funds will be used and let 

us know also how does NOAA plan to correct the policies, so that 

these fishermen really aren’t robbed of their livelihood, and, obviously, I think a very important not only livelihood, but tradition to 

our state and many others? So if you can address that, I’d very 

much appreciate that. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, thank you for the question. And fishing 

is a very important part of the heritage of many of our coastal 

states. You know, fishermen are small business owners. It’s important economically to the country, especially to those states and especially to those counties. It’s also important in putting food on our 

table. So for all those reasons, the goals of having sustainable fishing are paramount, and we want good jobs now and also good jobs 

in the future. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires us to regulate fishing and to 

do so in a way that can be sustained through time to end over fishing and to rebuild depleted fisheries. The annual catch limits that 

are put in place, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, are intended to do exactly that. 

And those annual catch limits are based on the best available 

scientific information that we have, and that is something that we 

need to continually renew, which is why, in this year’s budget, we 

have requested an increase of $15 million for fishery stock assessments, so we have the good information that feeds into setting the 

annual catch limits for each species. 

Now, those catch limits apply regardless of whether a fishery is 

managed using catch shares or other tools more traditionally used, 

such as number of days at sea or bag limits or something else. 

Catch shares, those programs are voluntary programs. They are 

not mandatory. The fishermen and the councils in each region 

make a decision based on the characteristics of a fishery whether 

that fishery is appropriate for a catch share management program. 

The funds that NOAA provides then enable a council to design 

a catch share system that will be in place once the council decides 

for sure that that’s what they want for that fishery. 

So the requests for the funding in this year’s budget are to go 

for those fisheries where councils have decided, the fishermen inVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:21 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 072171 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\72171.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
35 

cluded, that that’s the kind of management system that they believe is appropriate for a particular fishery. 

And there has been a lot of misconception about catch shares. It’s 

not true that NOAA is imposing them on anyone. They’re voluntary. The councils decide. And where they have been in place, 

the fishermen, by and large, believe that they have been very much 

to their benefit. 

Fishermen have more latitude in deciding when to fish. They 

know how much quota they have for the year and they can go out 

when the market price is right, when the weather is good, when 

it’s convenient for them. 

It ends overfishing much more effectively than days at sea. Catch 

share programs typically don’t exceed their quotas. And so there 

are many, many benefits to those programs, but they’re not a panacea and they aren’t appropriate for each and every fishery. 

And so we really believe that the councils should have the right 

to decide for which fisheries catch shares are appropriate and 

which ones they are not appropriate for. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, Doctor, I appreciate your answer, but I 

can tell you that the fishermen in my state don’t feel like this is 

a voluntary process, so to speak, and they also don’t like the program and feel that it’s basically putting them out of business. 

So I think that this is an issue that crosses party lines. So I appreciate what you’re saying, but I think that we here in Congress 

really have a responsibility to look at this and to do things differently, and that’s why I’m concerned that even when we’ve looked 

at the regulatory oversight for NOAA, there are concerns about duplication in regulatory oversight, the dockside monitoring. The way 

that the reporting is being done for fishermen, too, has been very 

onerous. 

So I guess I’m saying to you I, for one, want to make sure that 

we preserve the opportunities for our fishermen, and so I appreciate how you’re describing it. It’s just not the perspective that I’m 

certainly hearing from my constituents that I’m very deeply concerned about. 

And, as a follow up to that, just to ask you about your overall 

budget, in looking at where the NOAA budget was from 2008 to the 

2012 budget request, our calculations have that it’s about 41 percent higher between 2008 and 2012. And this is a very fiscally-challenging time for our country with $14 trillion in debt. 

So I would just like to understand how we get a 41 percent increase from 2008 to 2012 when we’re all looking to make some difficult decisions around here in terms of getting our deficit in order, 

the debt that certainly threatens our country. So if you can help 

me understand that, I would really appreciate it. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, I do believe that we need to live within 

our means. These are very serious fiscal times. The deficit is real. 

We need to be addressing that. 

The budget proposal that we have in the President’s budget for 

Fiscal Year 2012 is, in fact, a very disciplined budget that has undergone very intense scrutiny and some very, very hard choices already. There were many more mandates that we have, many more 

things that people would like us to do that we did not include in 

this budget, because they weren’t the highest priority. We cut out 

36 

a number of things that under normal times would have been very 

appropriate to fund. 

Because of the diversity of our mandates, from providing weather 

forecasts and disaster warnings to managing fisheries, and all of 

the science that it takes to deliver that information, from the satellites that provide 93 percent of the information that go into our 

numerical models that give us our weather forecasts and disaster 

warnings—— 

Those satellites are very expensive, and some of the very significant increases that we have certainly in the Fiscal Year 2012 budget are due to those satellites. And those satellites, in turn, though, 

provide our ability to do the severe storm warnings, to tell your 

constituents when they have a major significant snowstorm coming 

their way, to provide the kind of fishery survey information that 

enables us to manage our fisheries responsibly. 

So part of our challenge is managing that diversity of responsibilities that we have, and you see that reflected in what I believe is 

a very disciplined budget. 

Senator AYOTTE. So just to follow up, if we go back and look at 

the breakdown, the primary driver in your costs is satellite, in 

terms of overall cost? 

When I look at the drivers of a 41 percent increase, for example, 

if I compare 2008 to 2012, based on your testimony, the primary 

driver of that increase would be satellite costs? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I haven’t compared 2008 to 2012 that way. We 

could certainly do that. I can certainly tell you that the increase 

in satellites for between 2011 and 2012—Between 2010 and 2011 

and 2012, certainly the largest single item were for satellites. And 

if you are interested in it, we can give you the breakdown on those 

numbers. 

Senator AYOTTE. I actually would appreciate the breakdown on 

that. That would be very helpful to me. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. And a lot of people see those satellites and they 

think, satellites, what good is that to me? Why do I need your 

weather satellites? I’ve got the weather channel, for example. 

But, in fact, the reality is that’s where we get 93 percent of the 

information that goes into our weather forecasts, disaster warnings, et cetera. Plus, they give us information that enables maritime commerce to happen. It enables search and rescue. 

So when your fishermen are out on the water, if they’re in trouble and they activate an emergency transponder beacon, that beacon goes up to the satellite program that we’re talking about, and 

then that’s relayed to somebody on land to go out and help them. 

So the satellites do a wide variety of things that are very important to saving lives and property and enabling commerce in our 

country. They’re operational satellites. They’re delivering information day in and day out that is vitally important for us to deliver 

on our mission. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you very much, Doctor, and, you know, 

I want my fishermen to have the opportunity to utilize those satellites that we’re going to be spending a lot of money on. 

So I hope that we can continue to make sure that we address 

this issue of the catch share program, so that we maintain a viable 

37 

and thriving fishing industry. And I appreciate your testimony 

today. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Thank you. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you, again, Dr. Lubchenco, and I would 

add also the joint effort with the weather satellites also for the 

military. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Thank you. 

Senator BEGICH. Very, very critical. As I know Senator Ayotte 

and I were at a military hearing in Armed Services and one of the 

issues with Libya was 3 days of inability to fly was because of 

weather, and it has a kind of a far-reaching—I think if I remember 

right, 2010 to 2012 was about a $600-million-plus increase just for 

the satellite segment of your $5.5 billion budget. So it’s fairly significant in that equipment establishment. 

Again, just for Senator Ayotte’s information, I asked for some 

documentation on the satellites. So we’re going to get some information in regards to the costs and some other things. So that will 

be used for the Committee. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you. 

Again, thank you for your time. Thank you for willing to go 

through this. I have some others. I’ll just submit them for the 

record, and, if you get time, please respond to those. I appreciate 

it. 

Again, thank you for all the work you do, and thank you to your 

staff that I know has to get very geared up and prepared for these 

events that we have here. So thank you very much. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me check someone’s staff. 

Again, thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV 

TO DR. JANE LUBCHENCO

Question 1. Dr. Lubchenco, there has been talk of ‘‘turning the corner’’ with regard to measures in place to end overfishing in U.S. waters in 2011. Would we be 

at this place today if Congress had decided not to fund key NMFS programs, including stock assessments, observers, cooperative research and survey and monitoring 

projects? 

Answer. Funding from Congress for NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) programs including stock assessments, observers, cooperative research, and 

survey and monitoring projects has been crucial toward ending overfishing in U.S. 

waters in 2011, and the U.S. would not be in this place today had Congress not 

funded these programs. Sustainability of our Nation’s fisheries takes continual effort 

to monitor fisheries and update scientific information. With continued support, 

NMFS will make substantial progress toward science-based, effectively managed, 

and economically viable commercial and recreational fisheries that will benefit 

coastal communities and the Nation as a whole. The potential economic and social 

benefits of rebuilt fisheries that the U.S. stands to gain are considerable, including 

generating billions of dollars of economic activity across the broader U.S. economy, 

increased and more stable employment, sustainable working waterfronts, and economically resilient coastal communities. 

Congressional support for expansion of stock assessments, observers, cooperative 

research and survey and monitoring projects has been an important factor in the 

detection, cessation, and prevention of overfishing. These programs allow detection 

of overfishing by analyzing trends in fish stock abundance relative to the historical 

level of catch, then forecast future levels of catch that would prevent overfishing and 

allow rebuilding if the stock has been depleted. Fishery management programs then 

establish Annual Catch Limits to control the catch below the overfishing level. Accurate and timely commercial and recreational fishery monitoring and observer programs then provide the information needed to track catch relative to the Annual 

Catch Limit and to determine when Accountability Measures need to be implemented. Subsequent assessments determine if overfishing has been successfully curtailed, track the rebuilding of overfished stocks, and forecast levels of sustainable 

catch for rebuilt and healthy stocks. Without the funding available today, NMFS 

would not be able to track most stocks and their fisheries beyond baseline monitoring, and it would not be able to attain optimum yield without great risk of substantial overfishing, which harms fishing communities and coastal ecosystems. 

Question 2. How would the President’s FY 2012 request address the need to improve the timeliness and frequency of fisheries stock assessments so that information can be more quickly incorporated into management decisions? 

Answer. Stock assessments are based on: fishery-independent data on population 

trends, obtained from field surveys; and fishery-dependent data, obtained from landings data, fishery observers, and, where appropriate, from surveys of recreational 

fisheries. NMFS is taking several steps to increase operational efficiency and reduce 

the time between data collection and the application of the data to management decisions. 

In the FY 2012 President’s Request, NMFS is requesting $67.1 million to expand 

annual stock assessments, an increase of $15 million. The requested increase in 

funds will allow for a significant increase in the output capacity of stock assessments, which will allow optimum fishing opportunities in more fisheries without the 

risk of overfishing. Assessments of high priority stocks will be improved; updated 

assessments for stocks will be conducted more frequently; and additional fisheryindependent surveys funded now will enable assessment of more stocks, including 

data poor stocks, 3–5 years from now. NMFS will conduct workshops to improve 

standardization and public understanding of assessment methods, and will conduct 

improved surveys using advanced technologies to estimate fish abundance in addiVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:21 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 072171 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\72171.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
40 

tional habitats. Advanced technologies will support near real-time processing of survey data as it is collected at sea and more rapid delivery of these data to shorebased analysts. and will build the capability to conduct new types of surveys for 

some currently data-poor stocks. 

NMFS is also working to increase observer coverage and the number of staff 

available to process and manage the data collected by observers. This is important 

because observers collect high quality information on catch and bycatch that is directly incorporated into stock assessments. Biological samples such as ear bones 

(otoliths), fin rays, or vertebrae collected by observers are used to determine the age 

of fish, a critical component of high quality stock assessments. Unbiased, fisherydependent catch and bycatch data from observer programs are also used in stock 

assessments. 

Question 3. How would the President’s budget improve recreational data collection—particularly in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic regions? 

Answer. Through its Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), NMFS is 

developing and testing new survey methodologies to improve the accuracy, geographic resolution and timeliness of recreational fishing catch and effort data. These 

improvements are necessary to support successful management of fisheries with Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures. The President’s FY 2012 budget request includes an increase of $3 million to begin implementing improvements developed through MRIP, of which $1 million will support the phased implementation of 

electronic logbook reporting for charter boats and headboats, including for-hire vessels in the Southeast Region. 

The remaining $2 million is requested to implement monthly, rather than bimonthly, surveys of shore and private and or rental boat fishing efforts that would 

support updates to catch estimates in the Southeast and Northeast Regions by the 

end of FY 2014. 

Question 4. What progress has NMFS made toward ending overfishing and rebuilding depleted fish populations, and how would the President’s FY 2012 requests 

further this progress? 

Answer. Significant progress has been made in improving the status of fish stocks. 

Of the 81 stocks determined to be overfished between 2000 and 2010, 33 stocks are 

no longer overfished. Of the 76 stocks determined to be subject to overfishing in the 

same time period, 36 stocks are no longer subject to overfishing. In addition, 23 

stocks have been rebuilt over this same time period. The Fish Stock Sustainability 

Index, (FSSI), an overall index of sustainability for 230 U.S. fish stocks selected for 

their importance to commercial and recreational fisheries increased by 63 percent 

over the last 10 years (from 357.5 to 583 points out of 920 possible points). The 

FSSI will continue to increase as regular stock assessments confirm that overfishing 

has ended and stocks rebuild to the levels that provide for maximum sustainable 

yield. 

For fisheries subject to overfishing, the Regional Fishery Management Councils 

and NMFS have taken final actions to end overfishing and put Annual Catch Limits 

(ACL) in place, with 26 ACLs implemented in 2010. The Councils and NMFS are 

working to meet the 2011 deadline to have Annual Catch Limits included in Fishery 

Management Plans for all managed stocks. NOAA’s FY 2012 budget request includes $7.6 million in the Magnuson-Stevens Act Implementation portion of the 

Fisheries Research and Management PPA for NMFS to support the establishment, 

monitoring, and compliance of Annual Catch Limits, and $5.6 million, split between 

the Regional Councils and Commissions PPA and the Fisheries Research and Management PPA, for the Councils to set, evaluate, and revise Annual Catch Limits and 

associated regulatory measures to end overfishing. The FY 2012 budget also provides also $62.1 million, an increase of $15.0 million, to increase the number of 

stocks with adequate assessments to help verify that overfishing is no longer occurring and safely allow optimum catch levels to be set to support the sustainability 

and economic vitality of the FSSI. 

Question 5. What is NMFS currently doing to help fishermen and coastal communities with the economic transition to sustainability and how will FY 2012 appropriations impact those efforts? 

Answer. NMFS is very concerned about the hardships that some fishermen and 

fishing communities have experienced recently as NMFS and the Regional Fishery 

Management Councils (Councils) work to fulfill the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to end 

and prevent overfishing. As overfished stocks rebuild, it is anticipated that there 

will be more harvest opportunities as the stocks reach their sustainable abundance 

level. NMFS and the Councils work closely with fishermen and other stakeholders 

in a highly participatory public process during the development of fishery manageVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:21 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 072171 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\72171.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
41 

1 Internal analysis using the National Marine Fisheries Service Commercial Fishing & Seafood Industry Input/Output Model. For additional information on this model, see ‘‘The NMFS 

Commercial Fishing & Seafood Industry Input/Output Model.’’ available at https:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/documents/Commercial Fishing IO Model.pdf. 

ment programs to minimize impacts to the industry and coastal communities. The 

Council process is highly adaptive and flexible allowing for new information to drive 

modifications to management measures. For example, if there is new scientific information that supports raising the catch limits, which could provide more opportunities for some fishermen to re-enter the fishery, then management options will be 

revisited through the Council process. 

In addition, the FY 2012 President’s Budget includes, in the National Ocean Service, a proposal for $8 million to create a working waterfronts grant program. This 

program will assist fishing-dependent coastal communities adversely affected by 

changes in the fishing industry on which they depend. This program will assist distressed or at-risk fishing communities by providing resources for communities to engage in planning, capacity building, and other activities. NMFS is also committed 

to working with fishermen, state and local governments, public and private nonprofit organizations, tribal entities, and others to help communities build their capacity to address long-term fishery and community sustainability by working across 

the Federal Government to provide technical assistance related to community economic development. 

Catch shares are another management tool that NOAA supports where appropriate to achieve economically and biologically sustainable fisheries. Specifically, the 

NOAA policy recommends that Councils develop policies to take advantage of the 

special community provisions in section 303A of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. For example, New England Council actions are underway to assist small fishing communities including the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island in establishing several permit banks of Northeast multispecies fishing vessel 

permits to provide small vessels and small communities with an opportunity to obtain additional quota or days-at-sea on the open market at a reduced cost. 

NOAA is also seeking to increase loan authority in FY 2012 from $16 million to 

$24 million under NOAA’s Fisheries Finance Program (FFP) to provide quota share 

loans in support of the catch shares program. The Magnuson-Stevens Act allows 

Councils to specify up to 25 percent of cost recovery fees be used for FFP loans to 

assist small operators and first time buyers of catch share privileges, thus lowering 

the threshold for entry. These programs, as authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, are limited to entry-level fishermen and fishermen who fish from small boats. 

These loans can be used to purchase or refinance Individual Fishing Quota in these 

fisheries, but may not be used to acquire quota share beyond specific percentages 

within each fishery (i.e., consistent with existing excessive share caps to limit consolidation). The financing supports a more competitive, market-oriented fishery that 

also helps to preserve sustainable yields in those fisheries over time. 

Question 6. What does the agency estimate the economic benefits will be of rebuilding in FY 2012 and beyond? 

Answer. NMFS estimates that if the stocks that are currently under rebuilding 

plans were rebuilt and all stocks were harvested at their maximum sustainable 

yield this could increase ex-vessel value by as much as $2.2 billion, and would generate an additional $31 billion in sales impacts and support 500,000 jobs across the 

broader economy.1

Question 7. Can you explain how information generated from NMFS data collection and analysis programs are used by fishermen and other fishery-related businesses in terms of their own business planning and investments? 

Answer. NMFS provides time series information on prices and landing trends for 

commercially harvested species. The price information may be broken down by product form or product size, which provides fishermen information on the price differential associated with each form and size category. Coupled with landings information 

and information on inventory, fishermen can draw inferences on whether the market appears to be growing, is saturated, etc. In addition, NMFS provides information 

on trade data and trade patterns, which fishermen can use to identify new and 

emerging markets or to anticipate increased competition from imports. 

Question 8. Recently, Senator Inouye reintroduced legislation to strengthen Federal consumer product safety programs and activities with respect to commercially 

marketed seafood. In your view, how would S. 50, the Commercial Seafood Consumer Protection Act, enhance the ability of NOAA and the Department of Commerce to ensure that commercially distributed seafood in the United States—parVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:21 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 072171 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\72171.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
42 

ticularly imported seafood—meets the food quality and safety requirements of applicable Federal laws? 

Answer. The Commercial Seafood Consumer Protection Act would enhance the 

ability of NOAA and the Department of Commerce to support the safety of commercially distributed seafood in the United States. Section 4 would do this by increasing 

the capacity of NOAA labs to test seafood for safety and fraud, strengthening seafood inspection effectiveness and providing additional assurance that seafood products comply with applicable Federal laws. The bill would enhance NOAA’s statutory 

authority to examine and test imported seafood and foreign facilities, increasing the 

percentage of imported seafood subject to inspection and testing as needed and consistent with U.S. international obligations, thereby enabling NOAA to be a more effective partner with FDA in ensuring seafood safety. Greater interagency coordination and leveraging of resources and expertise, as called for in the legislation, would 

also enhance seafood safety protections for U.S. consumers. 

While there are sections of the bill that would enhance the Department’s/NOAA’s 

effectiveness in testing seafood, there are provisions in S. 50 that are duplicative 

or inconsistent with the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). The final version 

of S. 50 should be clear that all seafood inspections and examinations conducted by 

NOAA in partnership with FDA must be scientifically valid with relative risk taken 

into account and in accordance with international obligations under WTO and SPS. 

Also, current language in S. 50 changes an existing standard for refusal of admission of imported seafood in a way that could limit FDA and NOAA’s efforts to keep 

unsafe seafood out of the U.S. food supply. We look forward to the opportunity to 

work with Senator Inouye, the Committee, FDA and other agencies to ensure that 

new legislation that addresses problems already addressed by FSMA will not result 

in unnecessary duplication of efforts and administrative costs without appreciable 

public-health benefit, and that new legislation is consistent with U.S. international 

trade obligations. 

Question 9. Leading scientists have argued that many depleted fish populations 

are capable of rebuilding in a 5-year time frame (see Safina, et al., Science, Vol. 309, 

July 29, 2005). Can it be concluded that the MSA’s 10-year time frame—a time 

frame which is twice the amount of time the majority of populations require for rebuilding—represents a balance between rebuilding depleted stocks as quickly as 

possible and minimizing social and economic harm, and therefore is not arbitrary? 

Answer. The statute requires that the time period for rebuilding be ‘‘as short as 

possible’’ and not to exceed 10 years in certain circumstances. The amount of time 

needed to rebuild fish stocks varies depending on the fish life history characteristics 

and reproductive capacity. For many highly productive stocks, 10 years is adequate 

time to rebuild, although many rebuilding timeframes are required to be shorter 

than 10 years. For stocks that cannot rebuild in 10 years, the National Standard 

1 Guidelines provide a method to determine the maximum time to rebuild, still constrained by the overall directive that the time be ‘‘as short as possible.’’ Of the 38 

rebuilding plans with timeframes of 10 years or less, the majority provides for rebuilding and continued fishing opportunities. 

Question 10. Isn’t it true that Section 304(e)(4)(A)(ii) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) provides flexibility to extend the 

rebuilding timeframe beyond 10 years where the biology of the stock of fish, other 

environmental conditions, or management measures under an international agreement in which the United States participates dictate otherwise? Specifically, isn’t 

it the case that the significant majority of stocks in rebuilding plans have timeframes for rebuilding that exceed 10 years, either as a result of the application of 

one or more of these exceptions or for other reasons, including the resetting of the 

start date for the rebuilding time frame, delay in rebuilding plan implementation, 

or the lack of a rebuilding timeframe end date because of lack of data? 

Answer. Within the constraint that rebuilding timeframes be ‘‘as short as possible,’’ the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Standard 1 Guidelines provide 

flexibility in rebuilding timeframes to consider the biological needs of the species, 

as well as the social and economic needs of fishing communities. More specifically, 

National Standard 1 Guidelines provide that for stocks that cannot rebuild in 10 

years, the maximum time to rebuild is based on the productive capacity of the stock. 

Many rebuilding plans for overfished stocks exceed 10 years; the longest of which 

is 100 years. There are 64 rebuilding plans (past and current) with specified 

timelines; additionally, there are 1 past and 8 current rebuilding plans with no specified timelines. Out of 64 rebuilding plans with specified timelines, both past and 

current, 26 (41 percent) have or had rebuilding timeframes that exceed 10 years, 

and the average rebuilding plan time-frame was 21 years. 

43 

Question 11. How many fish stocks are under 10 year rebuilding timeframes that 

have been restarted or extended since they first went into effect? What’s the average 

length of time that they’ve been extended for and/or the number of times the clock 

has been restarted? For example, in the case of south Atlantic black sea bass, how 

many times has the 10 year rebuilding time-frame been extended or the clock restarted? 

Answer. South Atlantic Black Sea Bass and Mid Atlantic Summer Flounder are 

the only two formal rebuilding plans under Section 304(e)(4)(A) of the MagnusonStevens Act that were originally 10 years or fewer and were extended. For South 

Atlantic Sea Bass, the rebuilding plan was revised in 2006 to create a 10-year rebuilding program in compliance with Section 304(e)(4)(A), as the original rebuilding 

plan timeline was created prior to the rebuilding amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Mid Atlantic Summer Flounder rebuilding plan was Congressionallyextended from a 10-year plan to a 13-year plan as part of the reauthorization of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act in 2006, based on the status and biology of the stock and 

the rate of rebuilding. 

Question 12. How many have stocks been already rebuilt pursuant to the 10 year 

rebuilding requirement? How many are almost rebuilt? 

Answer. Eighteen stocks have already been rebuilt under rebuilding plans that 

were 10 years or less. Twenty stocks are under rebuilding plans that are no more 

than 10 years; 25 stocks are under rebuilding plans that are more than 10 years; 

and another 8 stocks are under rebuilding plans that have no estimated time to rebuild because there is insufficient information to estimate rebuilding time. In each 

case, the length of the rebuilding plan is ‘‘as short as possible’’ taking into account 

the following criteria: the status and biology of the stock, the needs of fishing communities, recommendations by international organizations in which the U.S. participates, and interaction of the stock within the marine ecosystem. Of the 20 stocks 

under rebuilding plans that are no more than 10 years, the abundance of five stocks 

has increased such that they are no longer considered overfished, and one of these 

stocks is above 80 percent of the fully rebuilt level. Overall, of the 53 rebuilding 

stocks, 14 are no longer overfished, and three of these are above 80 percent of the 

rebuilt biomass level. As their abundance continues to increase toward the level that 

supports the maximum sustainable yield, annual catch amounts can also increase. 

Question 13. Does NOAA have current repositories of historical weather data 

other than those contained in the Climate Database Modernization Program? 

Answer. The Climate Database Modernization Program (CDMP) is not a data repository, but a means to rescue data that is at risk of loss by converting it to electronic form and placing the rescued data in NOAA’s Comprehensive Large Arraydata Stewardship System (CLASS). CLASS is NOAA’s data repository. Along with 

NOAA’s National Oceanographic Data Center and the National Geophysical Data 

Center, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) places its data in CLASS, making CLASS the Nation’s repository for historical U.S. and international weather and 

climate, oceanographic, and geophysical data. 

Question 14. Is it an agency priority to ensure that scientists have access to data 

that includes a broad historical perspective from the earliest recorded weather observations? Is such data useful to today’s climate scientists, as they seek to build 

models off current data that can help predict future climate change? 

Answer. Yes, and yes. Part of NOAA’s mission and a priority for the agency is 

providing comprehensive, accessible, timely, and reliable climate and historical 

weather data and information, and being a trusted objective authority on climate 

monitoring. NCDC provides long-term preservation, stewardship, and access to the 

Nation’s resource of global climate and historical weather and climate data going 

back to the 16th Century and includes pre-instrument paleoclimate data such as ice 

rings, tree rings, and coral cores going back thousands of years. NOAA provides access to all its data holdings to the public and scientific community. These data are 

invaluable to the scientific community, providing the means to document the past 

behavior of the climate system, and are used as benchmarks for verifying the climate models used to project future changes in climate. 

Over 2.5 petabytes (PB) of data are now directly accessible from NCDC’s website 

(www.ncdc.noaa.gov). 1,098 TB of data were delivered on-line during FY 2010, with 

over 800 million hits and downloads from NCDC’s website during that time; a nearly 50 percent increase over the same period in FY 2009. Several factors account for 

this increase, including: continued infrastructure improvements at NCDC to accommodate user demand, the Climate Services Portal prototype release in the second 

quarter of FY 2010 (www.climate.gov), and access to large volumes of Climate Forecast System Reanalysis data via the NOAA National Climate Model Portal (NCMP) 

(over 125 million downloads, and 465 TB of data) in FY 2010. NOAA climate data 

44 

users and data requests-retrievals are placed into four general categories: Business 

44 percent, Public 33 percent, U.S. Government 12 percent, and Academia 10 percent. 

NCDC, in partnership with other agencies, continues to improve web-based, online, real-time access to many of the digitized data and near real time access to data 

stored on the tape library system. New web-based ‘‘portals’’ are on-line and being 

improved to ensure easy and convenient access, search, and retrieval by users. The 

increase in the accessibility of these long-term records is helping researchers worldwide and is useful to today’s climate scientists, as they seek to build better models 

from current data and long term historical data that can help improve future climate variation and change predictions. 

For those who are not ready or choose not to use the on-line access system, requests are serviced by customer specialists and the information is provided by other 

means. In FY 2010, 71,540 paper subscription copies, CD ROMs and DVDs, etc. 

were issued. 

Question 15. Now that the FY 2011 appropriations agreement is in place, how 

does NOAA intend to continue the work of the Climate Database Modernization 

Program without interruption? Answer. NOAA intends to allocate $4.1 million for CDMP work in FY 2011, the 

funding that was requested in the President’s FY 2011 Budget request. At this level 

of funding, the CDMP work will support imaging and keying of current NWS observations that continue to arrive on paper forms. At this level of funding, there will 

be no further data rescue or conversion of historical records from analog, paper and 

microfiche to digital formats. 

Question 16. Absent the Climate Database Modernization Program, how would 

NOAA provide historical weather data preservation services and requests for historical data sets to U.S. regional climate centers, state and local planning offices, universities, climate researchers, state climatologists, the World Metrological Organization, and meteorological services in Europe, Africa, Asia, and North America? 

Answer. The NOAA Data Centers will continue to provide access to all historical 

weather data in both the digital and physical archives. However, absent the Climate 

Database Modernization Program, the digitization of historical weather records for 

data preservation and online access will cease. 

Question 17. Do you agree with the National Academies of Science observation 

that the new method in climate science—reanalysis—is important to NOAA’s and 

other’s efforts to understand and model climate effects? Is the Climate Data Modernization Program an important tool in NOAA supporting the use of reanalysis in 

the climate science community? 

Answer. Reanalysis is an essential tool for climate science as it provides a physically complete and historically continuous representation of the global climate system. Historical observations are the indispensable input that draws the climate 

model solution into alignment with the known state of the environment in order to 

create the reanalysis. The Climate Database Modernization Program has contributed millions of observations in support of reanalysis projects, such as: 

• Upper Air Data Recovery (CHUAN) 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009BAMS2852.1; 

• Re-analysis 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.776/abstract; 

• Century Reanalysis Project 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/20thClRean/; 

• Atmospheric Circulation Reconstructions over the Earth (ACRE) 

http://www.met-acre.org/; 

• 20th Century Reanalysis (20CR) dataset 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.776/abstract 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

DR. JANE LUBCHENCO

Question 1. If the relocation of the Marine Operations Center-Pacific (MOC–P) to 

Newport, Oregon proceeds as planned, what expenditures do you anticipate related 

to that move, and from what specific accounts within NOAA’s budget will those 

costs be paid? 

Answer. The relocation to Newport, Oregon is complete, the facility complete, occupied and fully operational. Costs for the lease and move of employees were paid 

from the Marine Operations ORF (Operations, Research, and Facilities) account. 

45 

Question 2. NOAA Operation funds took a serious (>97 percent) cut in the FY 

2011, receiving only 3.185 million which is 119 million below FY 2010. How is this 

cut impacting the MOC–P move? If funding for the move is not coming from this 

account, what specific accounts are funding the MOC–P move? 

Answer. The FY 2011 appropriation did not impact funding for the MOC–P move. 

Funding for the MOC–P move was paid for from the Marine Operations ORF (Operations, Research, and Facilities) account. 

Question 3. Do you anticipate ANY increased expenditures or costs related to a 

MOC–P move to Newport, Oregon (either direct or indirect) in FY 2011 and FY 2012 

that will be incurred to accounts outside of the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations? If so, what accounts/programs, for how much, and for what? 

Answer. OMAO does not expect any other direct or indirect costs outside of the 

OMAO accounts. 

Question 4. With the rise in transportation costs (gas price increase as one example) has NOAA revisited a cost analysis to the Newport move? Has NOAA revisited 

estimates of the annual operating costs after the move has taken place (transportation to airports and the fleet for example)? What specific account will these onetime and ongoing costs come from? 

Answer. OMAO did an analysis of the one time and ongoing costs in 2009. No 

reanalysis has occurred as the lease has been signed and NOAA executed the move 

of MOC–P from Seattle to Newport in accordance with lease requirements. Costs 

will be paid from Marine Services ORF account. 

Question 5. As many as 80 NOAA-employed families have decided to remain in 

the Seattle area and ‘‘commute’’ to Newport. Will NOAA compensate employees for 

transportation costs between Newport and Seattle? If so, were these costs built into 

the overall MOC–P cost estimate? 

Answer. Where an OMAO employee chooses to maintain a residence is a personal 

decision. Since this would be personally identifiable information, OMAO Human Resources is not at liberty to disclose the location of individual’s residences. However 

it is not accurate that 80 employees are commuting to Newport from Seattle. 

Seattle will no longer be a duty station for any MOC–P employee. The civilian 

employees assigned to work in the facility at Newport will have a duty station assigned of Newport, OR and will not be compensated for commuting if they choose 

not to relocate. Seattle ship based personnel who have a duty station of Seattle will 

need to elect a duty station other than Seattle. As is current practice, ship based 

employees who choose a residence other than the homeport of the ship, are responsible for any commuting expenses to the ship’s homeport. All employees assigned 

to either the Marine Center or a Seattle based ship are entitled to relocation expenses. 

Question 6. NOAA scientists have raised concerns about the vulnerability of the 

Newport harbor to Tsunamis, because Newport Harbor is more vulnerable than the 

Seattle harbor. Is NOAA planning to add infrastructure in Newport to protect the 

fleet? How much will this infrastructure cost? What specific line office, program, and 

account will this funding coming from? 

Answer. There are no plans to add infrastructure at this time. MOC–P employees 

are covered within NOAA’s existing Tsunami response plans for Newport, OR including necessary evacuation procedures. 

Question 7. The National Marine Fisheries Service released a recovery plan for 

Puget Sound southern resident orcas in January 2008 that outlines the problems 

facing this orca population and the proposed actions to delist the species. The Report says the cost to delist southern resident orcas will be at least $50 million over 

28 years. What is the amount of funding included in the FY 2012 NOAA budget 

devoted specifically for efforts called for under the Puget Sound Southern Resident 

Orca Recovery Plan? 

Answer. Fiscal Year 2012 funding for orca recovery is currently $1.052 million. 

Based on the life history of orcas and the nature of the threats, progress toward 

recovery will be a long-term effort which could take 28 years or more. NMFS strives 

to identify the highest priority and most cost-effective research and recovery actions 

to fund and ensure that we are contributing to the recovery of the Southern Residents and moving toward our goal of delisting. 

The Southern Resident Orca Whale research program funding distribution to the 

NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center has remained at approximately $750,000 

per year since FY 2008. The NMFS Northwest Regional Office receives approximately $250,000 per year for management. This does not include the values of support from NOAA ships for the offshore winter research when vessel time is made 

available. 

46 

There are no specific increases for Orca research in the protected species budget 

lines in the FY 2012 request; however NMFS anticipates that funding needs for this 

program should remain constant in 2012. 

Question 8. Does this funding level put us on track to delist the species within 

28 years as the recovery plan states? 

Answer. The FY 2012 funding level will assist researchers at the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center as they continue to advance their understanding of 

the population of Southern Resident Killer Whales, their behaviors, prey and habits, 

which will contribute directly to the management of the population to achieve recovery goals of the plan. There is an ongoing need for at-sea data collection to monitor 

and assess the status of the stocks and their use of habitat especially during the 

winter months. 

While some of the $50 million cost of recovery is attributed to actions for which 

NOAA is the lead responsible party, many of the actions include other responsible 

parties as well. Recovery of the Southern Residents will require contributions from 

a variety of government agencies and stakeholder groups as identified in the Recovery Plan. With specific funding for killer whales that was available in 2003–2007, 

NMFS made gains in establishing a recovery program including designating critical 

habitat, completing the Recovery Plan, and implementing recovery actions. Now 

NMFS uses available resources to implement actions in the Recovery Plan. NOAA 

has developed many valuable partnerships to leverage available funding from a 

number of sources to maximize our resources for the benefit of the whales. For example, NMFS has made significant progress working with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife on oil spill response planning and reducing vessel impacts 

through enforcement presence on the water and education. In coordination with the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NOAA finalized vessel regulations to 

protect the whales. NMFS also developed a transboundary scientific workshop process to assess potential impacts of salmon fisheries on the whales. Orca recovery is 

part of the Puget Sound Partnership Action Agenda and we are coordinating with 

salmon recovery programs. In addition, there is an active research program including NOAA, universities, and private research organizations working to help fill in 

data gaps and guide recovery. 

Question 9. Vessel-based research is an important component of many NOAA research programs. Research directives such as stock assessment surveys, wide scale 

ocean acidification, offshore critical habitat determination and global climate change 

research can only be completed using vessel based data collection.How much funding was requested for NOAA ship time in the President’s proposed FY 2012 budget? Answer. In the FY 2012 President’s Budget Request, NOAA requested $105.3 million for ship operational costs. Of the total, $24.2 million is allocated to wage mariners salaries and augmentation costs (costs associated with additional people hired 

to substitute wage mariners on leave); $31.5 million is allocated for shoreside support, including training, travel, lease, guard services, contracts, administrative overhead, etc; $23.6 million is allocated to maintenance; and $26 million is allocated to 

variable costs mainly comprised of fuel and overtime. 

Question 10. How much funding was allotted to ship time each fiscal year, since 

FY2000? 

Answer. Please see below for funding for all NOAA ships within each FY from 

FY 2007–2010. 

Fiscal year OMAO 

Ship Cost 

LO 

Ship Cost 

Total 

Ship Cost 

% 

LO funded 

2007 $73M $0M $73M 0% 

2008 $87M $0M $87M 0% 

2009 $91M $4M $95M 4.2% 

2010 $92M $3M $95M 3.2% 

Information prior to FY 2007 is not available due to a different accounting system 

and structure. 

Question 11. Which specific account does ship time come from? What percentage 

of ship time cost is paid by the program office? What percentage is paid by Office 

of Marine and Aviation Operations? Is that a consistent ratio for all NOAA ship 

time, or does this ratio vary between program offices? 

Answer. OMAO ship time costs are expended from the Operations, Research, and 

Facilities Marine Services activity. Most of the funds come from Data Acquisition 

47 

and some funds come from Fleet Planning and Maintenance (FP&M) account. In FY 

2010, program offices paid for 3 percent of the total ship time costs. The ratio of 

program time versus OMAO varies by ship and by program and by year. 

Question 12. If this ratio does vary between program offices, please list program 

offices that utilize ship time and the specific sources of that funding. 

Answer. The chart below shows a breakdown of actual FY 2010 Program Funded 

Days (PFD) by Line Office. 

FY 2010 Program Funded 

Days (PFDs): Source of Funds 

NMFS 108 ESA Recovery and Research 

Expand Annual Stock Assessment 

Fisheries Research & Management Programs 

OAR 37 Laboratories & Cooperative Institutes Ocean Exploration 

NOS 44 Navigation Services and Charting Response & Restoration 

NWS 31 Local Warnings & Forecasts 

Question 13. NOAA has relocated the McArthur II to the Gulf of Mexico for the 

National Resource Damage Assessment following the Deep Horizon Oil Spill. This 

vessel is permanently stationed in Seattle, WA. Prior to reassignment, the McArthur 

II completed research missions primarily in the Eastern North Pacific. How long 

will the McArthur II be stationed in Gulf Waters? 

Answer. NOAA Ship McArthur II is expected to complete its mission in support 

of Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) by mid-October. 

Question 14. Please list all research missions and program offices which utilized 

the McArthur II from FY 2008–FY 2010. What research missions in FY 2011 and 

FY12 would have occurred on the McArthur II before the vessel was reassigned? For 

example, the canceled offshore Southern resident orca surveys. 

NOAA Ship McArthur 

Fiscal Year Mission Line Office 

FY 2008 Dolphin, Whale and Killer Whale Marine Mammal Surveys NMFS 

FY 2008 Larval Transport Studies NMFS 

FY 2008 Estuary Research NOS 

FY 2008 West Coast National Marine Sanctuary Research NOS 

FY 2008 Biotoxin Studies NMFS 

FY 2009 Dolphin, Whale and Killer Whale Marine Mammal Surveys NMFS 

FY 2009 Ice Seal Research NMFS 

FY 2009 Fishery Stock Assessments (e.g., Juvenile Salmon, Shark) NMFS 

FY 2010 Dolphin, Whale and Killer Whale Marine Mammal Surveys NMFS 

FY 2010 Ice Seal Research NMFS 

FY 2010 West Coast National Marine Sanctuary Research NOS 

Fiscal Year Mission Cancelled Due to Reassignment Line Office 

FY 2011 & FY 

2012 

Dolphin and Killer Whale Marine Mammal Surveys NMFS 

FY 2011 & FY 

2012 

Deep Sea Coral NOS 

FY 2011 & FY 

2012 

West Coast National Marine Sanctuary Research NOS 

Question 15. Will NOAA be compensated for the temporary reassignment of the 

McArthur II? If so, how will this funding be used to maintain research in the North 

Pacific? Will this funding be used to contract a third party vessel? 

Answer. OMAO is receiving full reimbursement for NOAA Ship McArthur II for 

its work in the Gulf of Mexico. The reimbursement covers all costs associated with 

48 

ship usage including personnel salaries, fuel, food, maintenance, and support services. Since McArthur II was planned to be inactive for FY 2011, only missions funded by NRDA are being executed. 

Question 16. If research missions are transferred to other NOAA vessels, which 

research missions will no longer take place on those vessels? For example, will this 

indirectly effect ship time for other NOAA or academic collaborations which conduct 

research on the NOAA fleet? 

Answer. There is no impact to NOAA ship time from transferring research missions from the McArthur II to other NOAA vessels. In the FY12 Fleet Allocation 

Plan (FAP), ship time, or Days at Sea (DAS), was increased on other vessels to compensate for the loss of the ship. 

Question 17. Does NOAA plan to reassign the home port of the McArthur II? 

Answer. NOAA plans to have the homeport of NOAA Ship McArthur II remain 

the Marine Operations Center—Pacific. Upon completion of its current mission in 

the Gulf of Mexico, McArthur II will return its homeport at the Marine Operations 

Center—Pacific, now located in Newport, Oregon. 

Question 18. NOAA and academics have stated the need continue to collect orca 

diet and habitat use data within the Puget Sound, but also during winter when 

orcas are offshore and little is known. This year, ship time for Southern resident 

orca research was cut, eliminating offshore vessel based survey research. In addition, small vessel surveys have not been used offshore due to safety reasons in this 

region. Without ship time, how will NOAA collect vital survey data used to determine critical habitat of Southern resident orcas as required by the Endangered Species Act? 

Answer. The NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center will continue to use small 

research vessels to conduct Southern Resident Orca Whale studies in the inside 

waters of Puget Sound during the portion of the year when the animals are present 

in inland waters. Working with the NOAA Fleet Allocation process, the program will 

request NOAA ship time for the winter offshore research component which is critical 

to monitoring the status of the stocks, and to adequately address risk factors and 

data gaps that require sea days. 

Question 19. Which program offices and accounts funded this research in the 

past? Please list funding levels for at sea vessel based orca surveys over the past 

5 fiscal years. 

Answer. The North Pacific Southern Resident Orca Whale research program line 

enacted distribution (program code: 02–20–12–003) to NMFS Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center for the last 5 years is listed below. This includes the program’s support for small boat activities in inland waters: 

FY 2007—$1,091,857 

FY 2008—$749,250 

FY 2009—$748,864 

FY 2010—$748,864 

FY 2011—$742,582 

OMAO provided the following support aboard the McArthur II: 

FY 2006—19 Days-At-Sea—$150,252 

FY 2007—13 Days-At-Sea—$102,804 

FY 2008—10 Days-At-Sea—$90,170 

FY 2009—18 Days-At-Sea—$121,896 

FY 2010—0 Days-At-Sea—$0 

FY 2011—0 Days-At-Sea—$0 

Question 20. In the FY12 budget request, have you restored that funding? If so, 

please identify specifically where that funding was increased (both in the program 

office and OMAO). 

Answer. The funding for the Southern Resident Orca Whale research program is 

funding from the Marine Services Operations, Research and Facilities account or 

funding provided by NMFS. Allocation of fleet resources in any given year is based 

on a prioritization process conducted by the Fleet Council. 

NMFS anticipates that the FY 2011 and FY 2012 allowances will continue to be 

at the $750,000 level for the Southern Resident Orca Whale research program. 

Question 21. Chinook catch limits in the Puget Sound were decreased due to impacts on endangered Southern resident orcas as required by the Endangered Species 

Act. This decision was based on data collected from Southern residents in the Puget 

49 

Sound, however peer reviewed scientific literature routinely identifies data deficiencies for winter months: when orcas are offshore. Without adequate ship time 

funding, how does NOAA plan to manage the Chinook salmon fishery and conserve 

Southern resident orcas without adequate scientific data? 

Answer. The Recovery Plan for Southern Residents identifies high priority studies 

on the whales’ coastal habitat use and diet that are needed to fill important data 

gaps and inform fisheries management. Under Section 7 of the ESA, NMFS has 

analyzed the impacts of Chinook salmon fisheries on the endangered Southern Resident killer whales both in Puget Sound and along the West Coast. Our analyses 

have been challenging in light of data deficiencies, particularly for winter months. 

NMFS has considered the limited information regarding the diet of the whales in 

their coastal habitat and made reasonable assumptions based on the more detailed 

data collected in Puget Sound. To help us address uncertainties and inform fishery 

management, NMFS is coordinating with Canada to develop a transboundary independent scientific review panel process to: (1) summarize the status of the available 

science regarding effects of prey reductions resulting from fisheries and (2) identify 

means for reducing data gaps and scientific uncertainties. 

For salmon research, NOAA chartered a commercial vessel to provide 37 days at 

sea on 5 survey legs spread over the summer months of June, July and September 

for the 2011 field season. This charter time will be used to support forecasts on Chinook and coho stocks, and to observe the overall condition of the Northern California Current ecosystem in support of NOAA’s responsibilities to support ecosystem 

based management goals for the agency and Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 

NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center uses small boats, including the Center’s 

small research vessel the HAROLD W. STREETER and chartered a commercial 

fishing vessel to support salmon research within Puget Sound in 2011. The research 

programs will be participating in the NOAA Fleet Allocation process to request 

salmon research time on NOAA ships and will charter commercial vessels in FY 

2012 for the offshore ocean conditions studies. 

Question 22. At-sea observers are the most reliable source of fishery catch information, bycatch and at-sea discards, and are a central pillar of the national fishery 

bycatch strategy. The President’s FY 2012 budget requests $39.1 million to the national fishery observer program, a cut of nearly $2 million from the enacted FY 2010 

level.Approximately how many U.S. fisheries will be considered to have adequate 

observer coverage with this level of funding? 

Answer. NMFS currently provides observer coverage in 45 fisheries nationwide, 

of which three fisheries include industry-funding for observers: North Pacific 

groundfish, West Coast trawl, and Northeast scallop. The requested level of funding 

for FY 2012 will provide adequate or near-adequate observer coverage for approximately 28 fisheries and pilot or baseline coverage for 17 fisheries. Approximately 

70,000 days at sea are observed annually using both NOAA and industry funding, 

and data are used for catch and bycatch estimation, stock assessments, and to support research on biology of the species, factors that influence the bycatch rates, and 

economic factors that affect fishing behavior. In addition, $15.7 million for observers 

and monitors is requested in the FY 2012 National Catch Share Program request. 

If NMFS receives the requested increase in National Catch Share Program funds, 

the total number of sea days observed in FY 2012 could potentially increase by approximately 10–12,000 to a total of 75,000–77,000. 

Question 23. Will the 2 million dollar cut impact newly rationalized fisheries in 

the North Pacific, such as the West Coast Pacific Groundfish Fishery which provides 

72,000 jobs on the West Coast? 

Answer. No. These cuts do not affect the observers in the West Coast Pacific 

Groundfish Fishery Catch Share program. Congress provided $3 million above the 

request for FY 2010 to supplement the Hawaiian Longline Observer Program in 

three fisheries. 

Question 24. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service are restructuring the existing Alaska groundfish observer 

program in accordance with the objectives of the research plan outlined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This includes the establishment of a North Pacific Fishery Observer Fund based on industry fees that will be available to the Secretary for the 

purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section, subject to the restrictions and 

criteria in subsection 313(b)(2). Will NOAA’s requested FY12 funding level cover the 

estimated $3.5 million start-up cost to get the program underway until industry fees 

have accumulated in sufficient amounts to pay for deployment of observers? 

Answer. The North Pacific Council (Council) and industry groups in the region 

have been at the forefront of fisheries management, including the use of catch share 

programs, for a long time. The current North Pacific Observer program supports the 

50 

North Pacific and Bering Sea Groundfish, Trawl, and Fixed Gear Fishery. A restructured program will expand observer coverage, including smaller vessels in the 

groundfish fishery and the halibut/sablefish fishery. Under this restructured program the Council and NMFS are planning for the collection of fees to arrange contracts to support more observers and reduce conflict of interest. NOAA recognizes 

the value of startup funds as these fisheries transition to this restructured observer 

program and the importance of the restructured observer program to overall fisheries management in the region. NOAA is working closely with the Council to ensure that the funding provided supports the program until industry can pay for observer deployment. 

Question 25. Scientific based management is critical to setting catch limits that 

allow Washington fishermen to optimize the yields in the North Pacific groundfish 

fisheries. Do the continuing resolutions for FY 2011 and the President’s budget for 

2012 provide sufficient funding to maintain these stock assessments? 

Answer. The NMFS stock assessment activities conducted in the North Pacific has 

been able to provide adequate assessments for most important stocks on a timely 

basis. In Fiscal Year 2011, NMFS allocated an additional $1.3 million of Expand Annual Stock Assessment funds to assure full coverage of the North Pacific bottom 

trawl surveys which support most assessments in this region. With this information, 

NMFS is able to maintain adequate assessments for 29 out of 35 of the important 

North Pacific stocks and continues to work to obtain information needed to assess 

the other stocks. NMFS continues to work toward providing adequate assessments 

that are more fully linked to ecosystem considerations in order to address critical 

and emerging issues such as Steller sea lions and Arctic ice-dependent stocks. Nationwide, NMFS is only able to maintain 132 of 230 important stocks with adequate 

assessments as of the end of Fiscal Year 2010. The continuing resolution delayed 

implementation of some programs in FY 2011, but was resolved in time to resume 

critical activities this year. The President’s budget for FY12 requests an additional 

$15 million for stock assessments and will allow NMFS to continue to close the gap 

in the North Pacific and elsewhere. 

Question 26. What proportion of the FY 2012 President’s budget fund stock assessment surveys, versus stock assessment modeling? How has this proportion 

changed since FY 2009 and FY 2010 enacted budgets? Will the amount of stock assessment surveys be comparable with previous years, increase or decrease? Please 

answer in terms of the specific fish stocks, ship time, and allotted budget for each 

fish stock. 

Answer. NMFS does not routinely report budgets on this detailed basis because 

there is significant crossover between survey and modeling staff; most large-scale 

surveys simultaneously provide data for assessment of many stocks that live in the 

surveyed region; and stock assessment staff routinely work on teams that may do 

multiple assessments. For these reasons, NMFS believes it best not to attempt to 

report assessment costs per fish stock. 

The proportion of the Expand Annual Stock Assessment budget that is used for 

surveys versus stock assessment staff varies regionally. NMFS assembled information on this topic in 2010. The greatest percentage used for surveys is in the Alaska 

region at 72 percent, the least is in the Pacific Islands at 20 percent, and the national average is 52 percent. Overall, the proportions have not changed much over 

time as NMFS has used the increases in the Expand Annual Stock Assessment 

budget to support and expand survey programs and to expand stock assessment 

modeling staff. Overall, the reasons for the large differences between regions are related to the availability of other funding, for example from Survey and Monitoring 

budget lines, and the availability of Days-At-Sea on NOAA vessels to conduct some 

of the surveys. NMFS relies on a combination of NOAA vessel Days-At-Sea and program-funded charter vessel Days-At-Sea to achieve its overall fish survey program, 

as described in the 1998 NOAA Fisheries Data Acquisition Plan. 

In FY 2010, NMFS added two assessment scientist positions to each Regional 

Fisheries Science Center, except for the Southeast where a greater number were allocated. In FY 2012, NMFS plans to use the funds to create 1–2 additional assessment positions in each Regional Fisheries Science Center and to initiate planning 

for additional surveys, some of which will involve advanced technologies such as autonomous underwater vehicles. 

Question 27. Will stock assessment surveys be directly or indirectly impacted by 

the McArthur II temporary reassignment? For example, if missions from the 

McArthur II are reassigned to other NOAA vessels which are currently completing 

stock assessment surveys, can you commit to keeping the level of stock assessment 

surveys stable? 

51 

Answer. The NOAA Ship McArthur II provides at sea support for a variety of ecosystem process studies that contribute to better understanding of the California 

Current Large Marine Ecosystem and has also been used to conduct marine mammal studies. The McArthur II is not configured to conduct trawling operations for 

fisheries surveys, and the information collected onboard MCARTHUR II is not typically used in stock assessments. 

The NOAA Ships Bell M. Shimada and Oscar Dyson are operating in FY 2011 

to support high priority fishery independent data collections to support stock assessments on the West Coast and Alaska in addition to the use of chartered commercial 

fishing vessels. 

In FY 2011, NOAA chartered a commercial fishing vessel to provide scientists 

with 110 days at sea on the West Coast to support work that could not be accomplished on a NOAA Ship this year. 

Question 28. In 2006, Congress enacted the Tsunami Warning and Education Act. 

I was a cosponsor of Senator Inouye’s bill and I credit it with helping us improve 

tsunami detection and preparedness. The bill authorized $28 million in FY 2011. 

Can you tell me how much NOAA is requesting for activities authorized by the Act 

and how you will spend this funding? Answer. NWS is requesting $23.5 million in FY 2012 for the Strengthen United 

States Tsunami Warning Network. The following is a breakout of how the funding 

will be spent: 

• Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami (DART) buoy Operations and 

Maintenance: $12.5 million 

• National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP) Partner Funds (Education and Awareness programs): $4.0 million 

• Tsunami Warning Center Operations (24 x 7) support: $3.0 million 

• Observational Systems (seismic, sea-level monitoring): $1.3 million 

• TsunamiReady TM Program and International Tsunami Information Center sup- port (outreach, education, international engagement): $0.75 million 

• Tsunami Research and Development: $2.0 million 

In addition, between FY 2009 and FY 2012, the NWS Tsunami program is aug- mented by $49.7 million from the NTIA analog spectrum auction proceeds as specified by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. These funds currently support many operational, mitigation and research tsunami activities. For FY 2012, they include: 

• NTHMP Partner Funds: $1.1 million 

• Tsunami Warning Center Operations and upgrades: $2.75 million 

• Observational Systems: $0.8 million 

• TsunamiReady TM Program and International Tsunami Information Center sup- port (outreach, education, international engagement): $1.69 million 

• Tsunami Research and Development: $1.0 million 

• Inundation modeling: $3.0 million 

Question 29. What are the most difficult challenges that NOAA faces detecting, 

forecasting, and modeling tsunamis? 

Answer. The most difficult challenges are presented by tsunamigenic events that 

occur very near coastlines. The vast majority of tsunami-related deaths and destructive inundation occur in these near source regions, where presently we have limited 

ability to provide accurate and timely forecasts. The first tsunami waves can reach 

an impacted coast in just minutes after an earthquake, or underwater landslide or 

volcanic eruption. When a near-shore tsunami is generated, as occurred with the recent Japan tsunami, having sufficiently dense arrays of near real-time seismic stations and sea level gauges close to shore in the high-risk tsunami-prone areas contributes to our ability to quickly get warning messages out when minutes count. 

In addition to adequately detecting and forecasting near-shore events, public education continues to challenge appropriate response to tsunami events. This is especially important for communities at risk of near shore tsunamigenic events where 

initial waves can reach the coast within minutes. Increasing the capacity for development of high resolution inundation models and mapping, which would improve 

forecast accuracy, is the first step in effective education and hazard planning for at 

risk communities. Currently, 75 high-priority communities are planned to have 

these high resolution models to facilitate specific inundation forecasts, but several 

hundred more are needed. 

Question 30. At the time of the most recent tsunami, which was generated by the 

8.9 earthquake off Japan, at least 3 critical tsunami buoys off Washington State 

52 

2Sustainable Fisheries Partnership from data provided by the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers 

Association, 2009. 

were inoperable. At any given time, what is the percentage of tsunami buoys are 

inoperable? 

Answer. The DART network was structured with the knowledge that a certain 

number of buoys would be inoperable at any given time, and that adjacent or nearby 

buoys would offer back-up capability. At the time of the Japan earthquake, one 

DART buoy off of the Washington coast was inoperable, although the critical buoys 

within the network closer to the earthquake source were functioning and provided 

invaluable data for subsequent forecasts and warnings. 

The entire DART network is maintained on a yearly basis. The number of DART 

buoys that are inoperable at any time varies through the year. The failure rate 

averages about 1 DART per month, due to electronics or mooring failures, and vandalism. Our ability to maintain or repair the DARTS on a supplemental basis is contingent in part on ship time and the time of year the maintenance or repairs are 

needed. NOAA monitors not only the number of buoys that are inoperable, but 

prioritizes emergency maintenance based on the DART location. For example, we 

want to avoid adjacent buoys out of service at the same time. At the end of 2010, 

there were 6 of the 39 U.S. DART stations out of service, and 7 out of service at 

the time of the Japan earthquake & tsunami. 

Question 31. NOAA scientists maintain that maintenance of tsunami buoys is critical to Tsunami modeling. How is reduced ship time impacting Tsunami buoy maintenance? Does the FY11 CR and the President’s FY12 proposed funding level allow 

for improvements on buoys which are our primary tsunami warning system? 

Answer. Buoys are critical to effective tsunami modeling. The DART network of 

39 buoys located in their current positions is the minimal number necessary to support the modeling requirement and ensuring redundancy for fail safe operations. 

Due to the fact that these systems are not 100 percent reliable, there will be some 

number out at any given time. 

Since the DART network was completed in FY 2008, the National Data Buoy Center has been steadily improving system performance by introducing engineering upgrades to the system as part of its normal maintenance practice. This has been successful in reducing operations and maintenance costs while improving system reliability and availability. Funding constraints under the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution affected the ability of NWS to procure ship time for DART buoy repairs. The 

FY 2012 President’s Budget will provide funding to continue improved systems performance. 

Question 32. Ocean acidification and warming are threatening our living marine 

resources and the people that rely on them for their livelihood. The Puget Sound 

is disproportionately impacted by ocean acidification. Shellfish growers in the Sound 

are struggling to find support to help them adapt to climate change and ocean acidification impacts. How would NOAA’s budget help communities, ecosystems, and industries respond to ocean acidification? 

Answer. NOAA leads the national effort to understand the impact of ocean acidification on the Earth’s environment and to conserve and manage the impacted marine 

organisms and ecosystems in U.S. marine and Great Lakes waters. This research 

is conducted across the agency, but primarily within the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). 

NOAA currently conducts ocean acidification research in three main areas, coordinated through the Ocean Acidification Program Office, within OAR. These areas include: (1) field monitoring of ocean carbon chemistry and selected marine species, 

(2) species response experiments, and (3) ecosystem modeling. The research can help 

inform managers and stakeholders, which in turn will help communities, ecosystems, and industries respond to ocean acidification. 

One example of the value of ocean acidification research is evident in the Pacific 

Northwest oyster aquaculture industry. Beginning in 2005, production at some Pacific Northwest oyster hatcheries began declining at an alarming rate, posing severe 

economic impacts and challenging a way of life held by shellfish growers for over 

130 years. Oyster production represents 76 percent of the West Coast shellfish industry, which supports more than 3,000 jobs. A 2010 $500,000 federal stimulus investment in monitoring coastal seawater enabled hatchery managers to schedule 

production when water quality is good. This change is helping to restore commercial 

hatcheries and is expected to reap an estimated $35 million 2 for coastal communities in Oregon and Washington. 

NOAA’s FY 2012 budget request includes funds to continue and expand experiments on the effects of acidified water on vulnerable ecologically and commercially 

53 

important species. Funds have also been requested for additional field surveys of 

vulnerable species like shellfish, and deployments of new moorings to monitor shifts 

in ocean chemistry. These results will directly inform industry and resource managers around the country. Funds will also be used to complete work on specialized 

lab facilities necessary for this type of work, establish carbon parameter analytical 

capabilities to ensure consistent sampling and measuring methods, and for the development of advanced ocean acidification technologies and sensors. Because many 

of the effects of ocean acidification on living marine resources will be through 

changes in food webs, funding is also proposed for the development of new ecosystem models to help understand the indirect effects of changing ocean chemistry. 

Finally, the FY 2012 budget request includes funds to establish a coral reef monitoring network to investigate the ecological and socioeconomic consequences of ocean 

acidification in these vulnerable ecosystems. 

The current NOAA budget has shown tremendous results at a regional level. Research activities described in the NOAA Ocean and Great Lakes Acidification Research Plan and included in NOAA’s FY 2012 budget request will greatly enhance 

understanding of ocean acidification. Advances in ocean acidification research will 

inform national and international mitigation and adaptation decision-making to best 

conserve marine ecosystems and sustain the critical services that ocean, coastal, and 

Great Lakes ecosystems provide to the national economy. 

Question 33. How is NOAA engaging fishermen and other stakeholders in developing ocean acidification monitoring and research plan to make sure the research 

conducted is relevant to them? How do you plan to involve marine resource managers and users in research activities? 

Answer. NOAA is actively engaging fishermen and other stakeholders in developing ocean acidification monitoring and research plans and in implementing these 

plans. Scientists at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) have 

been engaging fishermen and stakeholders on the best sampling locations for our 

surveys and potential locations for our moorings. An active partnership between 

PMEL chemists, shellfish industry professionals, and academic colleagues in the region has generated new insights into the magnitude and seasonal patterns of ocean 

acidification in Puget Sound and along the Washington and Oregon coasts. This research has shown that our coastal ecosystems are currently exposed to some of the 

most acidified waters observed in marine environments anywhere to date, due to the 

convergence of human and natural processes that can exacerbate the effects of ocean 

acidification in these habitats. PMEL scientists are in continuous discussions with 

stakeholders to ensure that products developed from our research are relevant to 

the needs of the shellfish industry and natural resource managers. 

Researchers at the National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center in Seattle, WA are currently working with Taylor Shellfish Farms on ocean 

acidification experiments involving the growth of Pacific oysters, Olympia oysters, 

geoducks and other shellfish in high-CO2 environments. The hatchery is providing 

the animals used for the studies and is helping guide the questions addressed by 

the research. In another example of interactions with stakeholders, researchers at 

the Northwest Fisheries Science Center are working on a joint research project with 

biologists from the Suquamish tribe in Washington State to understand the impact 

of ocean acidification on Dungeness crab, a major fishery for the tribe and others 

on the West Coast. Similar sorts of collaborative interactions are happening between 

stakeholders and NOAA researchers at all of the regional Fisheries Science centers, 

and they are focused on local species and the needs of local communities. 

NOAA scientists and managers have also been involved in numerous outreach activities around ocean acidification. These range from presentations to regional Fisheries Management Councils, to participating in shellfish industry national meetings 

and workshops on acidification, to displays at museums and primary school curriculum development. Last year, NOAA scientists helped found the California Current Acidification Network, a group representing Federal and state science agencies, 

NGO’s, and the West Coast shellfish industry (http://c-can.msi.ucsb.edu/). This effort grew out of concern for the future of shellfish on the West Coast. NOAA also 

helped fund the Ocean Acidification Impacts on Shellfish Workshop in July 2010 

that brought together West Coast stakeholders, including scientists, shellfish growers, fishermen, and environmental managers, to stimulate collaborations among 

these sectors. The final report, which includes the findings and recommendations 

from the workshop, is available here: http://www.sccwrp.org/Meetings/Workshops/ 

OceanAcidificationWorkshop.aspx. 

Question 34. Would NOAA’s proposed Climate Service provide a way for the Federal Government to help industries like Washington’s shellfish farmers deal with 

the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification? 

54 

Answer. NOAA’s climate science and information helps federal, tribal, state, and 

local fisheries resource managers prepare for, and respond to, the impacts of climate 

on large marine ecosystems through improved understanding of how changes in climate can alter ocean circulation and composition, and how such changes in ocean 

properties impact living marine resources. 

The proposed Climate Service Line Office would function to better integrate and 

coordinate NOAA’s existing core capabilities in observations and data stewardship, 

understanding and modeling, predictions and projections, and service development. 

This information would help industries such as Washington’s shellfish farmers 

make informed decisions based on climatic trends, and the industry’s specific requirements, on when, where, and what to be aware of, regarding the impacts of climate. 

Though ocean acidification research would not be part of the proposed Climate 

Service directly, NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Program Office, within the Office of 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), will continue to conduct this type of research and develop ecological models and forecast tools to help industries respond 

to and adapt to the consequences of ocean acidification. NOAA envisions close coordination and collaboration between the Ocean Acidification Program and the proposed Climate Service as many products that would flow from the proposed new 

Line Office, such as long-term sea surface temperature, wind, and sea surface 

height, would be critical to forecasting coastal ocean acidification conditions. 

Question 35. If the Climate Service is cut, how do you will you continue to address 

ocean acidification and it’s impacts on both wildlife and local economies? 

Answer. NOAA has recently established a formal Ocean Acidification Program Office within the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) as mandated by 

Congress in the FOARAM Act. At this time, most of NOAA’s ocean acidification resources are focused on the research needed to develop forecasting tools for predicting the future chemistry of the ocean and its impacts on marine organisms. The 

program currently resides within OAR and is not proposed to be included in the Climate Service. NOAA ocean acidification research is currently underway or is 

planned within OAR, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Ocean Service, 

and National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service. 

NOAA’s current major ocean acidification activities include: 

• establishment and maintenance of an ocean acidification monitoring network; 

• hydrographic cruises on the U.S. east and west coasts and the Gulf of Mexico; 

• studies on commercially and ecologically important marine organisms to determine species-specific effects of ocean acidification; 

• development of ecological models and forecast tools for predicting, responding 

and adapting to the consequences of ocean acidification; 

• synthesis of data and information on ocean acidification; 

• leading the Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (SOST) Interagency Working Group on Ocean Acidification; and, 

• participation in the international IMBER (Integrated Marine Biogeochemistry 

and Ecosystem Research) and SOLAS (Surface Ocean Lower Atmosphere Study) 

Ocean Acidification Working Group. 

If the proposed Climate Service is not approved by Congress, NOAA will continue 

to study ocean acidification and its impacts on marine resources and local communities. Should NOAA’s Climate Service proposal be approved, however, NOAA’s climate capabilities would be better organized to more efficiently and effectively deliver climate science products, such long-term sea surface temperature, wind, and 

sea surface height data that would help to advance forecasting of coastal ocean 

acidification conditions and in turn assist stakeholders in responding and adapting 

to the consequences of ocean acidification. 

Question 36. How long can NOAA wait to launch JPSS before our weather modeling systems begin to suffer? 

Answer. Any gap in polar coverage will degrade our weather models. Due to the 

funding shortfall and instability for JPSS, the launch date for JPSS–1 has already 

slipped and we are now in jeopardy of not having JPSS–1 on-orbit when the 

NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) reaches end of life. A gap in NOAA polar satellite coverage in the afternoon orbit would result in a degradation of the forecast 

accuracy at 3 days and longer. For example, the higher confidence forecasts currently achieved at 7 days would be achievable only out to 5 days. This degradation 

would cause NWS to suffer a loss of decade’s worth of continual improvements in 

forecast ability. 

55 

Question 37. Will the geostationary satellite system (GOES–R) maintain weather 

prediction at or near current levels during the gap in JPSS coverage? If not, how 

will coverage now be different during the gap including GOES–R in your analysis? 

Answer. While some GOES data is assimilated into forecast models, the primary 

purpose of the GOES system is to provide cloud and moisture imagery for real time 

detection of weather events. These satellites are not currently designed to provide 

the detailed vertical profile of temperature and moisture data crucial to weather 

models. In the afternoon orbit, the primary role of the operational polar satellite 

sounders on NOAA spacecraft is to provide the detailed data for input into National 

Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) weather models. NPP and JPSS 

sounders will provide these critical data in the afternoon orbit once they are operational. The EUMETSAT Metop satellites provide and will continue to provide these 

observations in the mid-morning orbit. 

As such, the GOES–R satellite will offer little to no mitigation to the loss of detailed vertical temperature and moisture data that the JPSS system is expected to 

provide. 

Question 38. Can you produce a figure showing where these gaps in coverage will 

occur offshore in the Gulf of Alaska and the greater North Pacific? How will the 

gaps in coverage impact fishermen and the marine shipping industry? Please answer in terms of safety and economic impacts. 

Answer. From a weather modeling perspective, the operational polar satellites 

provide critical vertical temperature and moisture data for NOAA’s global forecast, 

especially for the data-sparse regions such as the Gulf of Alaska and the Northern 

Pacific. Models are run 4 times per day at 0000, 0600, 1200, and 1800 GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). Since the sounding data is perishable, only a limited time window 

around each of these model run times is usable. The upper panel of the figure below 

shows the usable data for the morning model run using only the mid-morning 

Metop-A satellite sounder. The lower panel of the figure shows the increased data 

coverage available when the afternoon satellite data is added to the mid-morning 

Metop-A where the colored dots represent data acquired by the satellites while the 

blank (white) areas represent areas where no data is acquired. 


413LUCA1.eps
56 

3Fisheries of the United States—2009 [http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus09/index 

.html]. 

Note this pattern is retained but shifted spatially during the other three model 

runs. Polar sounding data is especially critical in the Gulf of Alaska and the Northern Pacific where satellite soundings represent virtually the only type of vertical 

temperature and moisture data available. 

The Alaska fishing industry consistently leads all states in volume with fish landings; 3 providing the fishery industry with accurate weather forecasts to support 

safety at sea remains a priority for NOAA. 

Since Alaska does not benefit from receiving data from geostationary satellites 

due to its latitude, polar-orbiting data becomes an increasingly important source of 

space-based data for weather forecasting in Alaska. In addition to the loss of sounding data to the models, the loss of polar-orbiting imagery data has critical operational impacts. For example, the loss of imagery would limit the ability of weather 

forecasters to monitor, detect, and track weather features that affect Alaska. This 

is especially true over the data-sparse oceans that surround Alaska on three sides. 

Such a loss could degrade forecasting the timing and accuracy of high-impact maritime weather events and endanger lives and property. Polar-orbiting imagery from 

NOAA satellites is also used to detect and produce volcanic ash products for aviation interests. This imagery is a mission-critical tool for Alaskan forecasters to detect and track airborne volcanic ash, providing forecasts that have a direct impact 

on flight safety and help minimize unnecessary disruption to the aviation industry. 

This imagery is also used to support sea ice forecasts that are critical to indigenous 

natives traveling on sea ice on hunting and fishing trips necessary to sustain families and villages during winter months. 

Improvements in weather forecasting and warnings directly translate into benefits 

for maritime commerce, fishing, oil exploration and extraction, search and rescue, 

and hazardous spill mitigation. More than 95 percent of U.S. international trade by 

volume is transported by ship. The $200 billion global marine shipping industry is 

increasingly relying on accurate marine warnings and forecasts to keep ships on 

schedule and safe from dangerous ocean storms (Kite-Powell 2000). These maritime 

and fishing concerns are readily understood in Alaska. 

Question 39. At the NOAA budget hearing, you mentioned that rescue beacons 

would become ineffective if there is a gap in satellite coverage. What is NOAA doing 

to compensate for the impending safety risk to my constituents in the fishing, maritime shipping and recreational maritime industries? Are you working with the 

Coast Guard to implement new measures to locate, rescue and protect lives at sea? 

If so, what do you plan to do to maintain or increase safety at sea? 

Answer. NOAA is working to preserve the capabilities of the Search and Rescue 

Satellite system (SARSAT) in the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) program. 


413LUCA2.eps
57 

Since the JPSS–1 spacecraft bus will not be able to accommodate the SARSAT payload, NOAA is exploring several options to ensure that satellite-enabled SARSAT 

coverage is maintained. NOAA will utilize the current in-orbit satellites for as long 

as they continue to operate. NOAA is also working with European and Canadian 

partners to possibly manifest a SARSAT instrument on the Metop-C satellite which 

is currently scheduled for launch in 2016. Other possibilities being evaluated include a SARSAT-only dedicated satellite or placing an instrument on a commercial 

satellite. NOAA is working with the Russian Federation to reaffirm their commitment to their portion of the COSPAS–SARSAT system since the complete SARSAT 

system requires both Russian and U.S. satellite support. 

Question 40 NOAA’s Pacific Northwest B–WET was highlighted by the President 

in his State of the Union address. BWET received continuous earmark funding to 

provide environmental activities to support STEM education and watershed education programs in Oregon and Washington. The vast majority of B-WET funding 

was redistributed locally through jobs, supplies, student activities, and has direct 

economic impacts in the communities it serves. If this program is not absorbed by 

NOAA’s education mission, an estimated 6,000 students and 400 teachers and community leaders will not be reached in Washington and Oregon. In the FY 2012 Presidential budget request, BWET received no funding. Does NOAA plan to fund 

BWET in FY 2012? If so, which program office will fund the program, and how 

much funding will the program receive? 

Answer. NOAA’s education programs and networks focus on areas where investments in science and management can best be leveraged in order to have the broadest impact with the resources available. While NOAA is not specifically requesting 

funds for B–WET, the FY 2012 President’s Budget request provides $5.0 million for 

the broader Competitive Education Grants Program, for which qualified education 

programs are eligible to apply. 

Question 41. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting a scientific assessment of the Bristol Bay watershed to evaluate how large-scale development projects may affect water quality and Bristol Bay’s salmon fishery. NOAA scientists conduct stock assessments and other scientific research on multiple commercially valuable stocks in this region such as king crab, Pollock, and cod among others. Is NOAA working with the EPA to assess the potential impact that a largescale hard rock mine could have on Bristol Bay and the Eastern Bering Sea? 

Answer. Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has requested 

that NMFS provide assistance with EPA’s Bristol Bay watershed assessment. 

NMFS’s primary contributions will be to address the range and distribution of Bristol Bay salmon; the hydro-geomorphic processes that support spawning and rearing 

habitat for salmon; the contribution of salmon to the diets of fish and marine mammals in Bristol Bay and the eastern Bering Sea; and the ecological links between 

the watershed, estuary, nearshore, and offshore ecosystems. NMFS will draft the 

marine section of the watershed assessment and contribute to the freshwater section. 

Question 42. Is NOAA sharing data with the EPA for the purpose of the Bristol 

Bay assessment? If so, which data sets has NOAA contributed to this project? 

Answer. NOAA has not yet contributed any data sets to this assessment. We have 

begun examining pertinent data to see what we may be able to provide, such as 

data regarding the contributions of Bristol Bay salmon to the diets of commercially 

valuable marine species in the eastern Bering Sea and to marine mammals. 

Question 43. Are there additional NOAA datasets or stocks that you would like 

EPA to consider when developing their experimental design and environmental impact analysis? If so, which data, species or areas would NOAA like considered? 

Answer. Until NOAA sees the annotated outline for EPA’s proposed assessment, 

we are unable to identify any gaps. EPA has requested that our review of the annotated outline highlight any additional material EPA should consider, so we intend 

to provide that feedback to EPA. 

Question 44. Will NOAA scientists contributed flow, current and wind models to 

the EPA assessment? Specifically, have NOAA scientists contributed to models that 

would estimate how leaked pollutants used in mining could flow into productive 

fishing grounds in Bristol Bay and throughout the Bering Sea? Why or why not? 

If there has been collaboration between NOAA and EPA, is there cost sharing for 

this analysis/modeling? 

Answer. At this point NOAA anticipates providing data on the contribution of 

salmon to the diets of marine fish in the eastern Bering Sea; input regarding potential effects of large-scale hard rock mining on hydrology and water quality that 

would be of concern for salmon production; information regarding the effects of copper and other contaminants (e.g., ore processing chemicals) on salmon; data on maVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:21 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 072171 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\72171.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
58 

rine mammal use of Bristol Bay (belugas, fur seals, etc.) and reliance on salmon; 

trends in abundance of Bristol Bay marine mammal species that feed on salmon; 

and possibly some socioeconomic information about the role of salmon in supporting 

the subsistence culture and lifestyle in Native Alaskan communities from regulatory 

impact reviews conducted in western Alaska. NOAA has not yet discussed with EPA 

whether flow, current, or wind models would be useful for the analysis. NOAA also 

has not discussed cost sharing with EPA. 

Question 45. NOAA oversees management and conservation species under ESA 

and/or MMPA protection in Bristol Bay and other regional ecosystems. These species include, but are not limited to, the Steller’s eider, spectacled eider, shearwaters, 

multiple highly migratory albatross species, beluga whales, harbor seals, ice seals, 

transient orcas, Steller sea lions, and northern fur seals. Are NOAA biologists sharing data collected on these species with EPA for the Bristol Bay large scale mine 

environmental impact assessment? If so, which data and which species’ data sets 

are shared? 

Answer. NOAA does not have jurisdiction over seabirds protected via the Endangered Species Act. Those species are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. NMFS will provide data to EPA regarding marine mammal usage 

of Bristol Bay, including available data regarding food web connections. 

Question 46. How much funding goes into NOAA protected Species research off 

Alaskan waters? How has this funding changed over the last five fiscal years? How 

does these recent funding levels compare to the FY 2012 request? 

Answer. Set forth below is information on what is spent on marine mammal research in Alaska waters, which represents the majority of the expenditures by 

NOAA on protected species research in Alaskan waters. 

2007: $3.33 million 

2008: $9.50 million 

2009: $9.26 million 

2010: $15.40 million (includes $5 million in reimbursable support from the U.S. 

Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation 

& Enforcement) 

2011: $15.63 million (includes $5 million in reimbursable support from U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation & 

Enforcement) 

2012 request: $11.88 million 

There are 45 stocks of marine mammals under NMFS stewardship in the Exclusive Economic Zone waters off Alaska, distributed throughout 3.8 million km2 (1.5 

million miles2) of ocean, and along 44,500 miles of coastline. NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center conducts surveys and other studies critical for support of stock 

assessments for 37 of these 45 stocks, including all 19 stocks of seals, fur seals, and 

sea lions, and 18 of the 26 stocks of whales, dolphins, and porpoises. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK BEGICH TO

DR. JANE LUBCHENCO

Question 1. JPSS funding in 2011 unfortunately didn’t make it into the CR. What 

is NOAA’s ‘‘Plan B’’ to cover the data gap? Will NOAA be buying data from foreign 

nations? If so, which ones? 

Answer. NOAA has traditionally flown its polar-orbiting satellite in the afternoon 

orbit, and provided that data to the Department of Defense (DOD) and to the Europeans, who maintain other compatible satellites in complementary orbits. There are 

no currently deployed alternatives which will cover the data gap in the afternoon 

orbit that will occur due to the delayed launch of the first Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) satellite. Should any nation field an appropriate satellite in the afternoon orbit, NOAA would assess the quality and cost of using its data and leverage 

as much useful data as possible. 

There are potential commercial solutions being proposed, in the form of data buys 

or hosted payloads. These solutions propose to mitigate the JPSS gap in part and 

preserve some critical data feeds necessary for continuity of weather forecasting and 

climate records. NOAA is evaluating these options for technical merit, risk, and cost. 

Question 2. If we do buy data, will those satellites also pick up signals from emergency beacons? 

59 

Answer. Currently, NOAA POES and EUMETSAT Metop-A are the only polar-orbiting satellites that carry the SARSAT instruments. There is no foreign entity flying SARSAT capabilities in the polar orbit from which to purchase this data. 

Question 3. What activities will NOAA be able to keep going with the limited 

JPSS funding that was provided? 

Answer. With the limited funding, and due to the fact that NOAA plans to use 

the NPP data operationally, NOAA has focused its efforts on preparing for the NPP 

launch, specifically, fielding and testing of the ground segment. Due to the current 

budget constraints, NOAA has significantly reduced efforts on JPSS–1 spacecraft 

and instrument development, which has resulted in a slip in the launch of JPSS– 

1 beyond launch dates originally planned in the February 1, 2010 announcement by 

the Administration to stand up the JPSS program. 

Question 4. Will the additional funds NOAA requested in 2012 be sufficient to get 

the JPSS program back on track, given the increased costs related to canceling contracts in 2011? 

Answer. The program has been impacted by the FY 2011 appropriations, and as 

a result the original launch readiness date for JPSS–1 has already slipped and cannot be recovered. Receiving the funding requested in President’s budget for FY 2012 

will prevent further delays in the launch of JPSS–1. More delays will further jeopardize the availability of satellite data that informs NOAA’s weather forecasts. The 

JPSS program has managed to minimally fund existing contracts in order to allow 

for rapid resumption of work toward JPSS–1. 

Question 5. In other words, if the 2012 request is the same as the 2011 request, 

and we anticipate greater costs due to a lack of 2011 funding, will the 2012 request 

cover all the capabilities the 2011 request would have or will some capabilities have 

to be removed? 

Answer. The JPSS Program required $1.060 billion in FY 2011 to implement the 

program envisioned by the Administration’s February 2010 decision to restructure 

the NPOESS program. The FY 2011 Continuing Resolution (PL 112–10) did not approve the needed increase over FY 2010 enacted levels for the JPSS program. This 

resulted in a necessity to delay the launch of the first JPSS satellite to the first 

quarter of FY 2017. 

The President’s FY 2012 Budget request of $1.070 billion for JPSS and an additional $30.4 million for the NOAA Climate Sensor program attempts to retain the 

scope of the program (i.e., retain the same suite of instruments). However, this alone 

will not allow recovery of the launch date slippage. 

If the JPSS Program is funded at $1.070 billion in FY 2012, NOAA will retain 

the current suite of instruments as announced in the February 2010 decision, but 

the JPSS program would still be expected to launch in the first quarter of FY 2017. 

Question 6. Please provide more details on how the $15M for stock assessment 

improvements will be used, if made available. Will the funds go to cooperative research efforts, more days for NOAA research ships, more funding for NMFS personnel? How will NOAA decide which fisheries need improved assessments? Have 

any already been identified? 

Answer. In the FY 2012 President’s Request, NMFS is requesting $67.1 million 

to expand annual stock assessments, an increase of $15 million. These funds will 

be used to support stock assessment scientists, charter vessels to conduct fisheryindependent surveys not supported by the NOAA fleet, and conduct biological studies, all to improve assessments for high priority stocks, especially stocks that currently have an overfishing status; increase the frequency of assessments being conducted in support of fishery management using Annual Catch Limits; and expand 

our assessment capabilities to include data poor stocks, 3–5 years from now. None 

of the $15 million will be dedicated to cooperative research efforts as these are funded out of separate budget lines. However, NMFS proposes to improve fishery-independent surveys using advanced sampling technologies, including near real-time 

processing of survey data as it is collected at sea and more rapid delivery of these 

data to shore-based analysts. 

NMFS tracks closely the quality and timeliness of assessments being conducted 

today across the country. This information is made publicly available through our 

Species Information System public portal (https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/sisPortal/ 

sisPortalMain.jsp), and from our Regional Science Centers in more detail. Within 

each region, NMFS works closely with the respective Regional Fishery Management 

Councils to determine which stocks need updated assessments and which currently 

un-assessed stocks need to be targets for new monitoring and assessment. NMFS 

is currently working to align and standardize these prioritization efforts to help assure that the highest national priorities are being addressed. 

60 

Question 7. What progress has been made toward implementing the recommendations of the Inspector General’s report on Fishery Law Enforcement and specifically 

the concerns over potentially excessive fishery penalties? 

Answer. NOAA has taken a number of actions in response to the series of Office 

of Inspector General (IG) reports beginning in February 2010. A summary of these 

actions is below. With respect to the IG’s concerns regarding potentially excessive 

penalties, after the IG issued the first report, NOAA immediately began requiring 

the NOAA General Counsel or Deputy General Counsel to approve all charging and 

settlement decisions. To date, the NOAA General Counsel and Deputy General 

Counsel have reviewed almost 400 proposed charging and settlement decisions. Additionally, NOAA developed and recently implemented a new nationwide penalty 

policy that ensures penalties are consistently assessed throughout the country. 

NOAA Enforcement Program Improvements 

June 2009 

• June 2—Hearing concerns about NOAA’s law enforcement program from members of the fishing community and Congress, Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Oceans and Atmosphere, Dr. Jane Lubchenco requested the Inspector General 

review of NOAA enforcement activities. 

January 2010 

• January 21—DOC’s Inspector General issued a report entitled ‘‘Review of 

NOAA Fisheries Enforcement Program and Operations. 

February 2010 

• February 3—NOAA announces steps to improve fisheries law enforcement in response to Inspector General Report, Review of NOAA Fisheries Enforcement Programs and Operations. 

• Under Secretary Lubchenco asked NOAA’s General Counsel to lead a high 

level review of existing policies and procedures, and recommend ways to increase coordination and consistency, transparency, accountability, and fairness nationwide in agency law enforcement efforts. 

• Under Secretary Lubchenco issued directive freezing immediately the hiring 

of criminal investigators pending an internal workforce analysis. 

• Under Secretary Lubchenco issued a directive immediately transferring oversight of the Asset Forfeiture Fund from NMFS to NOAA’s Comptroller. 

• Under Secretary Lubchenco issued a directive immediately instituting higher 

level review of all proposed charging decisions and settlements. 

• Under Secretary Lubchenco announced that NOAA will convene a national 

summit on enforcement policies and practices in order to hear from constituents and experts in the field. 

• The IG’s report noted that NOAA’s General Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation made improvements to policies and procedures to increase coordination 

and consistency in law enforcement efforts, calling them a ‘‘good start to 

building transparency.’’ These steps included: 

• Revising procedural regulations and the penalty schedule; 

• Developing an internal operations and procedural manual; 

• Establishing a new case tracking database that links enforcement 

and legal case management systems; 

• Increasing communications with the Fishery Management Councils, especially in the Northeast U.S.; 

• Providing explanatory notes to case files; 

• Tracking priorities; and, 

• Providing public access to information on charges brought and 

cases concluded. 

• February 5—NOAA issued requirement that the NOAA Comptroller approve expenditures of $1,000 or more from the Asset Forfeiture Fund. 

March 2010 

• March 18—NOAA submitted detailed plan of action in response to IG’s January 

2010 report. 

61 

April 2010 

• April 8—NMFS appointed Alan Risenhoover as new Acting Director for the 

NOAA Office of Law Enforcement. 

• April 8—NOAA issued an agency -wide notice on records retention and began 

targeted training with NMFS on records retention. 

May 2010 

• May 3—NOAA Office of General Counsel appointed Charles Green as new Acting Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation. 

June 2010 

• June 23—NOAA Office of General Counsel issued final rule requiring NOAA to 

justify proposed penalties/sanctions in hearings before administrative law 

judges. 

July 2010 

• July 1—Inspector General issued Review of National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) Asset Forfeiture Fund. 

• July 7—First combined Office of Law Enforcement/General Counsel Office for 

Enforcement and Litigation monthly enforcement report covers actions taken in 

June. Report used to facilitate oversight of NOAA’s enforcement program, assessment of the program’s efficacy, and informed decision-making with respect 

to regional and national enforcement priorities. 

• July 29—NOAA issued detailed corrective action plan in response to Inspector 

General’s report regarding the Asset Forfeiture Fund. 

August 2010 

• August 1—Posted biannual report on enforcement charging decisions and settlements covering period March to July 2010. 

• August 3—Held National Enforcement Summit in Washington, D.C. to seek 

ideas from a range of stakeholders on improving NOAA’s enforcement program. 

• August 3—Published for comment proposed protocol for establishing national 

and regional enforcement priorities. 

• Completed a review and confirmation of the $8.7 million Asset Forfeiture Fund 

balance as of March 31, 2010 by independent certified public accounting firm. 

• Reduced the number of NOAA Enforcement and General Counsel staff with government purchase card authority by 32 percent. 

September 2010 

• September 13—NMFS appointed Tim Donovan as new Acting Special Agent in 

Charge for Northeast enforcement office. 

• September 16—NOAA Office of General Counsel appointed Benjamin Friedman 

as the new, permanent NOAA Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement & 

Litigation. 

• September 23—In response to the release of the Inspector General’s Final Report—Review of NOAA Fisheries Enforcement Programs and Operations, Secretary Locke and Under Secretary Lubchenco took a series of actions to 

strengthen the public’s trust in NOAA’s law enforcement program. 

• Appointed Special Master to Review NOAA Law Enforcement Cases; 

• Implemented new policy limiting use of the Asset Forfeiture Fund, and 

sought public comment on the new policy; 

• Issued final protocol for establishing national and regional enforcement priorities, and sought public comment; 

• Posted on the NOAA web page enforcement charging decisions and settlements from March to July 2010; 

• Established e-hotline for enforcement related complaints. 

October 2010 

• October 18—Published proposed nationwide penalty policy for comment. 

• October 19—Posted nationwide job announcement for new Director, NOAA Office of Law Enforcement. 

62 

November 2010 

• November 29—Announced a compliance assistance pilot program in the Northeast, which included a new compliance liaison position, a new outreach specialist, and eight new enforcement officers. 

December 2010 

• December 31—Issued Practice Manual for NOAA General Counsel Office for 

Enforcement and Litigation, to include guidance on case evaluation, administrative hearings, and case management. 

January 2011 

• January 4—Issued new vehicle policy for NOAA Office of Law Enforcement that 

reduces the number of vehicles within the Office of Law Enforcement by 30 and 

ensures the number of vehicles is appropriate for needed enforcement activities. 

February 2011 

• February 1—Posted biannual report on enforcement charging decisions and settlements covering period August to December 2010. 

• Included the Asset Forfeiture Fund in NOAA’s annual budget submission as 

well as NMFS and General Counsel Office for Enforcement and Litigation annual operating plans. 

• Initiated an audit of the Asset Forfeiture Fund for the period ending March 31, 

2011 by an independent audit firm which is scheduled for completion in June 

2011. The independent audit firm will also review a retrospective sample of 

transactions from Fiscal Years 2005 to 2010. 

March 2011 

• March 16—Secretary Locke announced additional reforms to the NOAA’s Law 

Enforcement Program: 

• Fishermen and businesses can request Special Master review of enforcement 

cases through May 6, 2011; 

• Issued final policy limiting use of Asset Forfeiture Fund; 

• Issued final nationwide Penalty Policy; and, 

• Committed to working with Regional Fishery Management Councils, fishermen 

and stakeholders to streamline and simplify fishing regulations. 

April 2011 

• April 4—Brought online new enforcement database for NOAA Office of the General Counsel. 

• April 4—Reposted nationwide job announcement for new Director, NOAA Office 

of Law Enforcement. 

• April 14—Named compliance assistance liaison to continue outreach to industry 

in Northeast. 

• April 26—Released phase one of an independent assessment of the fishery management system in New England, requested by the New England Fishery Management Council and NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Eric 

Schwaab. 

May 2011 

• May 17—Secretary Locke announces NOAA will remit funds to 11 Claimants 

in response to the Special Master’s recommendations. 

June 2011 

• June 16—NOAA releases report from the accounting firm Clifton Gunderson, 

LLP, which conducted an independent audit of NOAA’s Asset Forfeiture Fund 

and the Fund’s audited financial statements. NOAA received an unqualified 

(clean) opinion, or the best type of audit opinion one can receive. 

July 2011 

• July 25—NOAA announces appointment of Bruce Buckson as the new, permanent Director for the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement. 

Ongoing 

• Working with the U.S. Coast Guard and Office of Personnel Management to 

transition from the current use of Coast Guard administrative law judges to another system based on concerns raised in the Special Master’s Report. 

63 

• Developing updates and revisions to the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement 

(OLE) Operations Manual. 

• Completing process for identifying draft enforcement priorities. 

• Upgrading the enforcement database for NOAA OLE. 

• Requiring all enforcement personnel and enforcement attorneys to attend annual professional and ethics training to ensure they follow fair, effective and 

professional procedures. 

• Expanding the compliance liaison program nationwide to assist fishermen at 

the waterfront to better understand and have stronger incentives to comply 

with regulations. 

• Finalizing a workforce review to more appropriately balance the number of enforcement officers and special agents. 

• Working with all the Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) to simplify fishery management regulations, including: instruction on regulatory reform/review as part of its annual, new Council Member Training and as part 

of training modules for agency staff; 

• Continue working with the Councils’ enforcement and compliance committees to 

look at the issues of regulatory complexity and burdens. 

• Conducting routine training for the fishing industry and other stakeholders as 

needed on regulatory compliance in each region at least once per year, to be 

conducted by staff from the NMFS’ Office of Sustainable Fisheries in conjunction with the OLE, the General Counsel Office of Enforcement and Litigation, 

the Councils, and others as appropriate. 

• Working with the Councils and the NOAA Office of the Chief Information Officer to explore how to improve web-based delivery of information on fishery management regulations. 

Question 8. The Pacific Salmon Treaty line items was recommended by the U.S. section of the Pacific Salmon commission to be funded at $9.8M, yet NOAA only 

asked for $5.7M. This is the level they have been funded at since 1992. Is this 

amount sufficient for the U.S. to meet its international treaty obligations? Answer. The FY 2012 President’s Request includes $5.7 million for the base pro- grams necessary to continue implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty and $3.0 

million to implement specific provisions of the 2008 Chinook agreement of which 

$1.5 million is for the Puget Sound Critical Stocks program and $1.5 million is for 

improvements to the Coded Wire Tagging Program. Funding for base programs supports research projects conducted by NMFS and the States of Alaska, Washington, 

Oregon and Idaho including personnel support to the Pacific Salmon Commission’s 

panels and technical committees to conduct a broad range of salmon stock assessment and fishery monitoring programs to implement provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The $8.7 million requested will satisfy the mandates agreed to with Canada. 

Question 9. NOAA’s regulatory actions have significant economic impacts. The 

Steller Sea lion biop closed a $30 million fishery in the western Aleutians. The assessment of potential impacts of critical habitat declared for Cook Inlet Belugas was 

criticized in my state as widely underestimating the potential economic impact. How 

does NOAA assess the economic impacts of its actions and is this something we 

need to strengthen? If so, what steps should be taken? 

Answer. Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Critical Habitat Designation—NMFS conducted 

an economic and socioeconomic assessment of the expected impacts (positive and 

negative) uniquely attributable to designation of critical habitat for Cook Inlet 

beluga whales. NMFS designed an analytical methodology that first established the 

baseline condition, against which the directly attributable incremental costs and 

benefits of critical habitat designation would be compared. The baseline characterized the status quo condition (e.g., Cook Inlet beluga whales ‘‘listed,’’ but without 

‘‘critical habitat designated’’). This approach facilitated identification of impacts that 

derive uniquely from the change made in the status quo baseline state, following 

critical habitat designation. 

Using the best available scientific data and commercial information, the analysis 

monetized those impacts for which meaningful (useful) estimates could be made, 

quantifying those that could not be monetized, and including qualitative evaluations 

of all other relevant costs and benefits, as required by Executive Order 12866 and 

OMB Circular A–4. The assessment of critical habitat excludes economic impacts 

uniquely associated with the listing of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population because Congress indicated in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that economic impacts should not be considered during listing determinations. Those costs are, approVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:21 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 072171 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\72171.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
64 

priately, part of the baseline condition, because the Cook Inlet beluga is now a ‘‘listed’’ species under ESA. This is significant because the species ‘‘listing,’’ itself, mandates a series of consultation, monitoring, accommodation, and compliance costs 

that accrue whether or not critical habitat is designated for the species. Indeed, this 

is why the NMFS economic impact analysis was designed to evaluate the incremental costs and incremental benefits uniquely attributable to the designation, to 

the fullest extent practicable. 

The analysis, nonetheless, identified some economic effects (both costs and benefits) that are necessarily co-extensive; that is, not readily amenable to unique attribution. The critical habitat designation mainly affects activities that involve Federal 

action (e.g., a Federal permit, license, or funding) that may destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat. Such activities would not necessarily be precluded from 

going forward, but may require some analysis to determine if and how those activities may proceed in a manner that would not adversely modify or destroy critical 

habitat. It will often be the case that a proposed activity in critical habitat, involving Federal action, will simultaneously initiate a consultation, based on the ESA 

jeopardy standard. In these instances, the majority of associated costs would be incurred by the parties to the action, even in the absence of designated critical habitat 

(i.e., under the pre-designation status quo). As noted, only incremental additional 

costs, above those that accompany the jeopardy consultation, are appropriately attributed to the critical habitat designation in such instances. The analysis was careful to identify such impacts associated with ESA section 7 consultation obligations 

to the extent practicable. 

Procedurally, the designation of critical habitat will focus future ESA section 7 

consultations with Federal agencies on key habitat attributes, and avoid unnecessary attention to other, non-essential habitat features. Critical habitat designation 

may also trigger complementary protections (i.e., benefits) under state or local regulations. 

Critical habitat is designated in specific areas of Cook Inlet in which the physical 

and biological features essential for the conservation of the Cook Inlet beluga whale 

are found. NMFS described the potential impacts of the designation in the proposed 

rule and does not expect that critical habitat designation will hamper development 

or cause any significant economic harm. 

In summary, the attributable incremental effect from critical habitat designation 

does not appear to have the potential to impose significant net adverse effects on 

the Anchorage area economy. 

Steller Sea Lion Biological Opinion and Associated Management Measures— NMFS prepared an economic analysis (Regulatory Impact Review) of the impacts of 

the protection measures identified in the Steller Sea Lion Biological Opinion and 

further refined by the agency. NMFS estimated that the action could lead to wholesale revenue losses on the order of $44 million to $61 million per year in directly 

affected fisheries. Actual revenue losses might be smaller if fleets are able to redeploy to some extent into other fisheries. Job losses in Alaska (including jobs held 

by residents of other states) were estimated to range between 250 and 750 persons, 

depending on the ability of the affected fleets to redeploy. Impacts, among them the 

loss of fishing opportunities, of processing and fleet support business, and of tax or 

Community Development Quota revenues, would be felt in Alaska and the Pacific 

Northwest. The remote community of Adak faces the greatest proportional impact 

from this action. 

NMFS Efforts to Improve Economic Analyses—NMFS has efforts underway both 

in Alaska and nationally to improve its economic analyses of spatial management 

measures. 

In Alaska, predictive models of fishing behavior that estimate the net costs on 

fisheries of regulatory actions such as closed areas have been developed in the Bering Sea pollock catcher vessel fishery to examine the emergency closure of the 

Steller Sea Lion Conservation Area in 2000. Qualitative results of this model were 

utilized in the economic analysis of the recent Steller sea lion protective measures. 

This model is being updated and will be available to evaluate regulatory actions by 

2012. Modeling of the catcher processor and mothership sectors of the Bering Sea 

fishery is also underway. 

Similar models have been developed using historical data to examine vessel behavior in the Bering Sea flatfish fishery. Current research is focused on evaluating 

how the implementation of the Amendment 80 catch share program for this fishery 

has altered fishing behavior and reduced halibut bycatch, which has enabled increased fish production and revenue from a number of the species targeted by the 

fishery. Depending on the behavior of the vessels displaced by the most recent 

Steller sea lion protective measures, this modeling effort may also provide insight 

into the net impacts of that action on the fishery. Other research is underway to 

65 

develop spatial economic models for the Alaska sablefish fishery and the Gulf of 

Alaska Pacific cod fishery. 

Building upon the spatial modeling efforts of Alaska, NMFS has just launched a 

national initiative to improve analysts’ abilities to estimate the impacts of different 

regulations on fisheries through the development of a spatial economics toolbox for 

fisheries (FishSET). The primary goal of this project is to provide analysts with the 

data and modeling tools necessary to perform better economic analyses of the costs 

of spatial management actions on fisheries. This initiative is administered by the 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and is overseen by NMFS staff in the 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center. After the toolbox is completed, its first application 

will be to Alaska fisheries and the first version of the toolbox will be completed in 

2012. 

Question 10. Section 304(e)(4)(A)(ii) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) provides flexibility to extend the rebuilding timeframe beyond 10 years where the biology of the stock of fish, other environmental 

conditions, or management measures under an international agreement in which 

the United States participates dictate otherwise. How many fish stocks are currently under rebuilding plans? How many of those are under rebuilding plans that 

are longer than 10 years? How many are under rebuilding plans that are 10 years 

or less? 

Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Standard 1 Guidelines provide a great deal of flexibility in rebuilding timeframes to consider the biological 

needs of the species, as well as the social and economic needs of fishing communities. There are currently 45 fish stocks in rebuilding plans with target end dates; 

there are currently an additional 8 rebuilding plans that have no target end date 

due to data limitations. Of those 53, 25 are currently under rebuilding plans that 

are longer than 10 years; 20 are currently under rebuilding plans that are 10 years 

or less. Eight rebuilding plans do not have target end dates because the stocks are 

data-poor and NMFS is unable to predict when they will be rebuilt. 

Question 11. How many have had their 10-year clock restarted, and for how long 

are the extensions, on average? 

Answer. South Atlantic Black Sea Bass and Mid Atlantic Summer Flounder are 

the only two formal rebuilding plans under Section 304(e)(4)(A) of the MagnusonStevens Act that were originally 10 years or fewer and were extended. For South 

Atlantic Sea Bass, the rebuilding plan was re-started in 2006 to comply with Section 

304(e)(4)(A) as the original rebuilding plan timeline was created prior to the Sustainable Fisheries Act Section 304(e)(4)(A) authorization. The Mid Atlantic Summer 

Flounder rebuilding plan was extended from a 10-year plan to a 13-year plan as 

part of the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 2006, based on the status and biology of the stock and the rate of rebuilding. 

Question 12. How many stocks have already been rebuilt pursuant to the 10 year 

rebuilding requirement? How many are almost rebuilt? 

Answer. Eighteen stocks have already been rebuilt under rebuilding plans that 

were 10 years or fewer. Twenty stocks are under rebuilding plans that are no more 

than 10 years, 25 stocks are under rebuilding plans that are more than 10 years, 

and another 8 stocks are under rebuilding plans that have no estimated time to rebuild because there is insufficient information to estimate rebuilding time. In each 

case, the length of the rebuilding plan that is selected is based on the following criteria: the status and biology of the stock, the needs of fishing communities, recommendations by international organizations in which the U.S. participates, and 

interaction of the stock within the marine ecosystem. Fourteen stocks in rebuilding 

plans have seen increases in biomass so they are no longer considered overfished. 

As their abundance continues to increase toward the level that supports the maximum sustainable yield, annual catch amounts can also increase. 

Question 13. I am concerned that CMSP efforts will have significant economic impacts—deciding who can do what and where (which is what zoning is), inevitably 

creates economic winners and losers. How will these regional planning bodies will 

consider these economic impacts of their decisions? Who, exactly, will be sitting at 

the table with the deep background and expertise in these matters that such 

weighty decisions require? 

Answer. There are over 140 different statutes and regulations that govern the use 

of our oceans, coasts and Great Lakes. Every day, agencies make ocean-related permitting decisions without accounting for potential impacts beyond their sector of 

regulation. CMSP is a tool designed to improve data integration and support, provide greater opportunity for stakeholder and scientific input, and create a collaborative, regionally based planning approach to improve decision-making over the 

long-term. Such multi-use planning will help improve permitting and regulatory 

66 

processes by facilitating dialogue to work through potential conflicts prior to permitting decisions. Evaluating economic, social and environmental data concurrently will 

increase certainty and predictability for all ocean stakeholders as they make investments in future ocean projects for a variety of uses. 

Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) made up of Federal, State and tribal entities 

with authorities relevant to CMSP will undertake the planning process to develop 

CMS plans for their respective regions. They are charged with considering the interests of all users and stakeholders including economic, social and environmental interests. One of the essential elements of the CMSP process is for RPBs to consult 

scientists and other technical experts to ensure that CMSP decisionmaking is based 

on sound science and the best available information, which includes socioeconomic 

data on a variety of ocean uses. 

As the demand for ocean space continues to increase, a comprehensive, forwardlooking planning process is necessary to help define needs and describe the interplay of those needs to illustrate a vision for the future landscape of our ocean. The 

CMSP process is designed to bring the best data and information to bear on oceanuse decision-making processes under the guiding principle of sustainability—sustainability of healthy and resilient coastal communities, economies, and resources. 

Question 14. Reports indicate a huge plume of debris generated by the tsunami 

is headed out to sea which in a few years will hit Hawaii, the Pacific Northwest 

and Alaska. What is being done to monitor this and what can be done in reauthorization of the Marine Debris Research, Prevent and Restoration Act to prepare for 

this unprecedented amount of debris heading our way? 

Answer. NOAA is currently exploring various methods to monitor the debris as 

it moves across the Pacific Ocean. NOAA’s Marine Debris Program and Pacific Islands Regional Office’s Observer Program have developed protocols and methods for 

collecting at-sea information on tsunami debris through the Hawaii swordfish and 

tuna longline fleets. The Marine Debris Program is also coordinating with NOAA’s 

Office of Marine and Aviation Operations to report observations of marine debris 

while at sea. 

Conversations are also under way to collect observational data from the shipping 

industry, both through the Chamber of Shipping of America and through international shipping organizations, as well as recreational sailors. An MARAD Advisory is being drafted to warn of possible hazards to navigation and encourage reporting of debris sightings. In addition, an existing partnership between NOAA and 

NASA to develop at-sea detection capabilities for marine debris may allow overflights to look for marine debris north of the Hawaiian archipelago in spring 2012. 

NOAA has revised shoreline monitoring protocols to include potential tsunami debris monitoring on existing projects, including the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

debris cleanup in summer 2012. An existing ‘‘rapid response’’ project spearheaded 

by NOAA to coordinate county, state, Federal, and non-governmental debris removal 

efforts can be called on and expanded if tsunami debris washes up in the Main Hawaiian Islands. 

Many variables affect whether and how long it will take debris items from Japan 

to reach the United States. It is a matter of years, not days or weeks. It is also 

impossible to accurately predict ocean currents and winds very far into the future, 

and thus an exact date of arrival for the debris cannot be given. Independent models 

run by NOAA and University of Hawaii researchers agree on the general direction 

and drift rate of debris generated by the tsunami in Japan. If the models are correct, debris could pass near or wash ashore in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

in spring 2012, approach the West Coast of the United States in 2013 or 2014, and 

circle back to Hawaii in 2015 to 2016. The impacts in U.S. waters and along U.S. 

shorelines are difficult to predict without a better idea of debris types and density. 

However, the most likely impacts include those to navigation, pelagic fisheries, 

recreation and tourism in coastal areas, and marine and coastal species through 

habitat alteration and ingestion. 

The Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act (Act) created NOAA’s 

Marine Debris Program. The legislation allows NOAA to support national and international efforts focused on preventing, identifying, and reducing the occurrence of 

marine debris and its impacts. NOAA accomplishes this goal through scientific research and assessment of marine debris; prevention and reduction efforts; developing partnerships, tools and techniques; and education and outreach. The Act was 

signed into law in 2006 and is up for reauthorization in 2011. Reauthorization of 

the Act will ensure NOAA can continue to have the legislative mandate to continue 

the important tasks of addressing high-priority marine debris issues that arise 

across the country, including events such as the Japan tsunami. 

67 

Question 15. Please provide a summary of NOAA Ship sea days for FY08, 09, 10 

and your best projections for FY11, broken down by broad mission areas (fisheries 

surveys, hydrography, etc.). Please also provide your best estimate of total number 

of sea days which can be accomplished with proposed FY12 funding. We understand 

that the FY12 numbers may not be broken down by mission area yet, and the total 

number will be subject to change depending on how the days are allocated between 

missions and many other variables. Fuel prices are also an important variable that 

cannot be precisely predicted, but assume current fuel prices remain in effect for 

2012 for this exercise. 

Answer. Please see below for a breakdown of FYs 08, 09, 10, and 11 by broad mission areas: 

Days at Sea 

NOAA Ship Mission FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Comments 

Albatross IV Fisheries Research 132 43 — — Decommissioned FY09 

Bell M. Shimada Fisheries Research — — 91 131 Commissioned FY10 

David Starr 

Jordan 

Fisheries Research 229 85 — — Limited operational status 

Mar. 2009, Decommissioned 

FY10 

Delaware II Fisheries Research 195 200 174 160 Includes DAS for NRDA/ 

DWH Emergency Response in 

FY 2010 

Gordon Gunter Fisheries Research 118 224 170 171 Includes DAS for NRDA/ 

DWH Emergency Response in 

FY 2010 & FY 2011 

Henry Bigelow Fisheries Research 158 170 149 185 Includes DAS for NRDA/ 

DWH Emergency Response in 

FY 2010 

John N. Cobb Fisheries Research 48 — — — Decommissioned FY08 

Miller Freeman Fisheries Research 194 131 150 14 

Oregon II Fisheries Research 221 213 115 170 Includes DAS for NRDA/ 

DWH Emergency Response in 

FY 2010 & FY 2011 

Oscar Dyson Fisheries Research 217 208 202 123 

Oscar Elton Sette Fisheries Research 213 202 196 148 

Pisces Fisheries Research — 46 157 180 Commissioned FY 2010—Includes DAS for NRDA/DWH 

Emergency Response in FY 

2010 & FY 2011 

McArthur II Fisheries Research 170 183 162 192 Includes DAS for NRDA/ 

DWH Emergency Response in 

FY 2011 

Nancy Foster Fisheries Research 0 0 26 19 

Fairweather Hydrographic Survey 125 173 196 132 

Ferdinand Hassler Hydrographic Survey — — — 27 Expected Commissioning 

FY12 

Rainier Hydrographic Survey 185 183 0 61 Major Repair Period FY10 

Rude Hydrographic Survey 21 — — — Decommissioned FY08 

Thomas Jefferson Hydrographic Survey 184 172 185 129 Includes DAS for NRDA/ 

DWH Emergency Response in 

FY 2010 

Ka’imimoana Climate Research 222 145 205 210 

Hi’ialakai Oceanographic Research 205 178 206 168 

68 

Days at Sea 

NOAA Ship Mission FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Comments 

McArthur II Ecosystem Survey 35 0 44 0 

Nancy Foster Ecosystem Survey 181 157 150 132 Includes DAS for NRDA/ 

DWH Emergency Response in 

FY 2010 

Ronald H. Brown Oceanographic Research 193 216 140 111 

Okeanos Explorer Ocean Exploration 35 127 180 143 

Total DAS 3,281 3,056 2,898 2,606 

For FY 2012, the planned DAS are 2,675. 

Question 16. NOAA and the Coast Guard have an aging ship fleet and you are 

working to replace the oldest ships. Is your fleet recapitalization plan on track? 

Please provide an update on how the schedule provided in the original 2008 Fleet 

Recapitalization plan is proceeding. Are the replacements it identified on schedule? 

Answer. In accordance with the plan, in FY 2009, NOAA was able to support the 

acquisition of Fisheries Survey Vessel 6 (FSV6), to replace David Starr Jordan, as 

well as to undertake the Major Repair Period (MRP) for the Rainier. In FY 2010, 

NOAA decommissioned David Starr Jordan and undertook the MRP for Oregon II. 

Below is the status of additional milestones outlined in the plan: 

FY 2009 

• $78 million FSV6 (ARRA funded) 

• $6.98 million Rainier MRP (PAC funded) 

FY 2010 

• $4 million Oregon II MRP (ARRA funded) 

NOAA Fisheries Survey Vessel 5 (FSV5) to replace Oregon II 

• NOAA requested funding for the FSV5 design in the FY 2010 and FY 2011 

President’s Budgets. Funding was not appropriated. Because a key requirement 

for the FSV5 is that it be a shallow draft vessel, NOAA cannot use the current 

Dyson-class design. NOAA is reconsidering design and procurement options for 

FSV5 which will reduce acquisition risk and improve the quality of the end 

product. 

• Within the Ship Recapitalization Plan, a MRP to extend the service life of Miller Freeman was planned for FY 2013, however in FY 2009 an assessment confirmed that the vessel was rapidly deteriorating and required an accelerated 

MRP. An MRP to extend the service life of Ka’imimoana was planned for 

FY2020-FY2021. However, recent ship assessments have shown that vessel has 

degraded to a point where an MRP is required earlier. $11.6 million is requested in the FY2012 President’s Budget for repairs to Miller Freeman and 

Ka’imimoana. 

Question 17. We’re excited about the University of Alaska’s new Arctic-capable research ship, the R/V Sikuliaq, whose keel was just laid. NOAA’s research ships 

often need different capabilities than University ships, such as special sonar systems for making nautical charts, or the ability to tow large nets for fisheries research. As we look for NOAA to expand its capabilities to provide critical services 

like charts and fish stock assessments in the Arctic, do you have plans or a need 

for a similar Arctic-capable research ship? How will NOAA conduct its unique atsea research missions in the Arctic? 

Answer. NOAA does not have a separate Arctic fleet. NOAA’s hydrographic survey 

vessels Rainier and Fairweather meet the old American Bureau of Shipping standard for ice-strengthened hulls, as do the T–AGOS vessels transferred from the Navy, 

such as the McArthur II. NOAA’s newer fisheries research vessels Oscar Dyson and 

Bell M. Shimada have limited ice capability. All five vessels work in and around 

Alaska and could operate north of the Bering Strait in a limited capacity during the 

summer months and in loose ice. NOAA also continues to investigate use of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (UAVs) and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) which 

could potentially be used at or near ice edge boundaries for survey operations. 

NOAA, however, cannot currently sustain long-term projects in the Arctic with its 

own fleet and would instead rely on the Coast Guard’s HEALY for ice breaker capacity, with other alternatives for ice capability including contractors and UniverVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:21 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 072171 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\72171.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
69 

sity-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) or other academic infrastructure. 

Question 18. In Alaska, we have several villages which are in need of relocation 

because of the impacts of climate change (reduced sea ice has increased erosion). 

It is difficult for city planners to know whether it is worthwhile to invest in basic 

infrastructure like water and sewer services, because we don’t know when the villages will have to move. As a result, many rural Alaskans don’t have running water 

or indoor plumbing and are living in Third World conditions. Would the NOAA Climate service help rural Alaskans plan for climate change? How? 

Answer. More than anywhere in the United States, NOAA is keenly aware of the 

rapidly unfolding changes in Alaska’s climate and the significant impacts already 

being experienced. NOAA’s proposed reorganization to establish a Climate Service 

Line Office would consolidate management of the agency’s existing climate science 

and service capabilities. In doing so, NOAA would be organized to more efficiently 

and effectively respond to the increasing user demands for climate information, including those of rural Alaskans needing to plan for, and respond to, the effects of 

their changing climate. NOAA has many existing capabilities and assets based in 

Alaska to help communities who are experiencing, or are at risk of experiencing, a 

changing climate. The proposed Climate Service would enable NOAA to better integrate these types of climate activities within the agency and with other partners, 

including Federal, state, local and tribal organizations, and would also provide Alaskans with easier access to this critical climate information. 

NOAA has significant existing climate and weather assets in Alaska including the 

Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy, which is one of NOAA’s Regional 

Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISAs), the NOAA-funded Cooperative Institute for Alaska Research (CIFAR), a regional climate services director based in Anchorage, and National Weather Service (NWS) offices in 16 locations statewide, including the Alaska-Pacific River Forecast Center in Anchorage. These assets currently provide a wide variety of services to Alaskan communities. For example, 

NOAA’s River Forecast Center is responsible for issuing hydrologic forecasts and 

warnings, including both short-term weather forecasts (between 1 and 5 days) and 

seasonal climate forecasts (e.g., the Spring Outlook) for river ice and floods. These 

hydrologic forecasts are issued across the state to help guide community planning 

in the areas of water resource and flood plain management. 

The proposed Climate Service would allow NOAA to more easily and effectively 

provide integration of these existing assets across multiple capabilities, a common 

problem when tackling the multidimensional problems associated with a changing 

climate. One example of this integration is in facilitating the development of regionally-scaled models to predict erosion rates for rural Alaskan communities by linking 

existing research on Alaskan permafrost melting and coastal storms. Additionally, 

the proposed Climate Service could efficiently link different capabilities within 

NOAA to realize operational products that predict, at long lead time, when conditions would be especially favorable for freezing rain. This would help subsistence 

hunters in Alaska by predicting caribou die-offs when the animals cannot get to 

their food sources under winter snow and ice. Advanced notice of these precipitation 

events could allow for changes in limits or quotas and avoid food shortages. 

Today, NOAA’s climate science and service capabilities in Alaska and around the 

country fall under multiple line offices, each with separate budget execution responsibilities and leadership. The goal of the proposed reorganization to create a Climate 

Service is to bring many of these climate capabilities under a single Line Office 

management structure. This would allow for coordination and execution of these 

services in a more efficient manner; thus delivering much needed climate information to Alaskan communities more effectively. 

The proposed Climate Service line office within NOAA would create a structure 

by which local user needs for reliable and authoritative climate data, information 

and decision support services could be communicated up through NOAA to help inform science and service priorities, and in turn, feedback would be provided to users 

on a regular basis. This will help NOAA strengthen our ability to respond to the 

rapidly increasing demand for accessible and timely climate services—the kind of 

services that rural Alaskans need to plan for and adapt to changing climate conditions. 

Question 19. NOAA’s weather radio program is a great service, but these days a 

large part of the population has smart phones and is so connected to information 

by means other than radio, like text messaging and twitter. How is NOAA using 

these new pathways to get the word out about tornados, flash floods and other dangerous storms? 

70 

Answer. NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS) encourages the public to receive official Emergency Alert System notifications for severe weather warnings and 

alerts in multiple ways, including via NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) All Hazards, 

commercial television and radio, the Internet, cell phone and other wireless services, 

and through local systems like tornado sirens and reverse 911, a telephone messaging system that warns those at risk in a specific geographical location. NWS also 

encourages use of state and local emergency management and also private sector 

services such as AccuWeather, The Weather Channel, and many television stations, 

which provide texts or e-mails to individuals who opt to receive weather warning 

information for their area. 

NWS is exploring new pathways to deliver urgent information, such as social 

media. For example, NWS uses Facebook, in addition to its routine methods, to communicate its life-saving information. Local weather forecast offices in the South used 

social media during the April tornado outbreak to spread the word of these dangerous storms. NWS is also improving its mobile service to provide an improved 

interface and graphical features such as radar and satellite imagery. 

In addition, NWS has been using Twitter for about a year to collect storm reports 

from spotters. NWS is currently formulating a prototype for issuance of warnings 

via Twitter. Additionally, for its core partners such as emergency managers, community leaders, and other government agencies, NWS launched an experimental mobile 

alerting service, iNWS, to communicate important decision-making information. 

Another important new Federal pathway supported by NWS and FCC is FEMA’s 

automated Personal Localized Alerting Network (PLAN), announced the week of 

May 9 in New York City. The service will be available through participating wireless carriers nationwide by April 2012. PLAN is a new public safety system that 

allows customers who own an enabled mobile device to receive geographically-targeted, text-like messages alerting them of imminent safety threats in their area, 

even while they are traveling. 

Question 20. NOAA’s weather websites can be a bit tricky to use, and finding the 

right information can be a challenge. Do you all have any plans to overhaul your 

weather web interface to make it easier to use? 

Answer. NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS) recognizes the need to improve 

the ease of use and discovery of the suite of products, services and information provided to the public and our partners through Weather.gov. With available resources, 

the NWS is making improvements to Weather.gov’s look and feel this year. Future 

improvements to the functionality, navigation and content offerings will be reviewed 

as resources are available. 

Question 21. The National Weather Service recently ran pilot projects to improve 

aviation weather and emergency response meteorology services. The aviation 

projects in Chicago, New York and Atlanta resulted in significant reductions of 

weather delays for commercial air traffic. Does NOAA plan on expanding on the successes of these pilot projects? How are those efforts going? If NOAA does plan on 

expanding these pilots, when should we expect to see the results in place? 

Answer. NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS) plans to extend the processes 

created for the pilot project known as Golden Triangle to San Francisco. Unlike the 

Golden Triangle area that encompasses Chicago, Atlanta, and the New York metro 

airports, San Francisco experiences delays not only due to land and sea-based fog, 

but also from higher cloud ceilings in the approach corridor that would not pose 

problems for other airports. Thus, accurate cloud and visibility forecasts are crucial, 

especially in the early morning national air traffic planning timeframe, for deciding 

when to release trans-continental and regional flights to ensure timely landing and 

avoid costly airborne holds or diverts to other airports. NWS is currently evaluating 

the service and resource requirements to implement improvements in San Francisco 

and expects to implement in 2012. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

DR. JANE LUBCHENCO

Question 1. As you know, the first phase of the independent review of New England’s groundfishery ‘‘A Review of the New England Fishery Management Process,’’ 

was released on April 26. One finding of the report states that, ‘‘Cooperative research is seen as an effective tool for fostering trust between NMFS and stakeholders. Many see the value of cooperative research as a method for improving 

science and fostering trust between stakeholders and NMFS.’’ Do you believe the report suggests that NOAA should reprioritize cooperative research in its Fiscal Year 

2012 budget? 

71 

Answer. The Federal Cooperative Research program has been operating in the 

Northeast since 1999. NOAA strongly supports cooperative fisheries research and 

included a total of $13.2 million for cooperative research in the President’s FY 2012 

budget request. In response to the Management Review, we are redoubling our efforts to plan and work together with research and academic institutions and fishermen to answer some of the critical questions facing New England fisheries. Additionally, we will conduct expedited mid-term review of the 2009 strategic plan for 

cooperative research to involve all regional cooperating institutions. The results will 

be incorporated into FY 2012 prioritization decisions. 

In addition to fostering trust between fishery managers and stakeholders, cooperative research is an important source of information for fishery management decisions. To improve the prioritization of available funds, NOAA’s National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) needs to ensure that all cooperative research projects are 

meeting the priority requirements of NMFS, the Regional Fishery Management 

Councils, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and our stakeholders. 

NMFS also needs to ensure that the research is complementary and not redundant. 

In 2009, NMFS conducted a strategic review of the Northeast Cooperative Research 

Program and has been implementing the highest priority themes of that review. 

Since many things have changed in the ensuing period, NMFS will conduct another 

round of stakeholder meetings from Maine to North Carolina to ensure that up-todate stakeholder priorities are considered in funding decisions. NMFS has formed 

an informal ‘‘roundtable’’ committee to review programs and ensure efficient use of 

funds and expertise in the region. The committee began in 2009 and includes members of the Northeast Cooperative Research Program, NMFS Mid-Atlantic Research 

Set-Aside Program, Northeast Consortium, and Commercial Fisheries Research 

Foundation. The School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) and the Gulf 

of Maine Research Institute have been participating since February 2011. These discussions will continue and help ensure that redundant activities are identified and 

this information is used in making final Northeast Cooperative Research Program 

funding decisions. 

Question 2. Are there any other conclusions from the report that alter NOAA’s assessment of budget priorities? 

Answer. NOAA plans to build on the current fishery management system and improve the overall process as a result of Phase I of the Management Review and we 

can do this within existing resources. Two specific issues that we will be working 

on within current resources are explained below. Some of the recommendations will 

require much more thought and analysis and the agency plans to explore that in 

more depth in Phase II of the Management Review. 

Data Management—System Design 

NMFS is taking immediate specific steps to improve our data management systems. Over the years, data collection programs and data management systems have 

been developed in our Northeast Regional Office and Science Center as needed. The 

Management Review finds that our systems are not integrated, some data collections seem redundant, stakeholders are unsure of where to turn for data, and there 

are inefficiencies in the delivery of data and analytical products. We will work to 

address this. 

Under the current budget, NMFS plans to initiate a program to develop requirements for consolidation of fishery-dependent reporting/collection systems and the 

underlying data management systems in the Northeast region. 

Data Management—Electronic Vessel Trip Reports 

To improve the timeliness and accuracy of fisherman-reported data and simplify 

industry reporting requirements, our Regional Office and Science Center have been 

working with the industry to transition from paper to electronic logbooks. 

Federal permit holders are required to maintain and submit fishing logs for each 

fishing trip, regardless of target species—Vessel Trip Reports. Electronic logbooks 

(e-Vessel Trip Reports) will speed processing of data, likely reduce errors in the data 

and relieve the industry of having to obtain, carry and fill-out paper logbooks. The 

program will be available initially on a voluntary basis to vessels in multispecies 

sectors. 

Question 3. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has developed a streamlined permitting process for innovative tidal facilities that are under five megawatts 

or less. As you know there are major opportunities for renewable energy in our 

oceans, but the permitting process can sometimes delay innovative companies from 

developing the next generation of energy facilities. FERC’s streamlined permitting 

process is for projects of five megawatts or less, that are removable or able to shut 

down on relatively short notice, located in waters that have no sensitive designaVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:21 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 072171 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\72171.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
72 

tions, and for the purpose of testing new hydro technologies or determining appropriate sites for ocean, wave, and tidal energy projects. Do you believe that NOAA 

could implement a similar permitting process, would you support developing this 

proposal, and if necessary would you support legislative changes allowing NOAA to 

streamline permits for pilot scale innovative clean-energy projects? 

Answer. NOAA is not considering implementing new or separate permitting/consultation processes for hydrokinetic technologies. NOAA is actively collaborating 

with industry, FERC and other agencies to meet permitting requirements as efficiently as possible. NOAA continues to encourage FERC and potential applicants to 

consult early with NOAA staff to facilitate intra-agency coordination and minimize 

adverse environmental effects as well as delays in FERC’s permitting process. 

NOAA believes that the current process is sufficient and additional legislation is not 

necessary. 

Hydrokinetic energy encompasses wave, tidal, ocean current, and in-stream 

riverine energy production. States and private entities looking to develop 

hydrokinetic energy are turning to coastal areas that overlap with NOAA’s trust resources to site their projects. NOAA reviews these projects and endeavors to provide 

scientific expertise on trust resources, such as fisheries, marine mammals, endangered species, marine sanctuaries, and the coastal zone to minimize adverse environmental impacts from siting and operation of projects in the early stages of development. NOAA’s review may result in the need for consultations or authorizations 

related to several important statutory mandates. While some of these environmental 

consultations or authorization processes allow for more expedited reviews under certain circumstances, the potential environmental impacts of some offshore energy 

projects may necessitate a lengthier review and assessment process. 

For example, NMFS is responsible for authorizing the take of certain marine 

mammals incidental to specific activities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

provided certain legal requirements are met (16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(5)). For activities 

with no potential to cause marine mammal mortality, Congress implemented an expedited 120-day process for issuing 1-year Incidental Harassment Authorizations. 

For activities with a potential to cause marine mammal mortality, NMFS must promulgate 5-year regulations to govern the authorization of take incidental to those 

specific activities and issue Letters of Authorization pursuant to those regulations. 

Although it varies, these regulations typically take about 18 months to process. If 

an incidental take authorization is needed, NMFS anticipates that the expedited Incidental Harassment Authorization process is likely appropriate for the pilot activities described in the question. 

Also, Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2)) 

requires all Federal agencies to consult with NMFS when their actions ‘‘may affect’’ 

federally threatened or endangered species, or their designated critical habitat. Actions for the purpose of consultation are all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the 

United States or upon the high seas, including the granting of licenses and permits 

for hydrokinetic energy. NMFS has an expedited informal consultation process for 

activities that are not likely to adversely affect endangered and threatened species. 

This process takes approximately 30 days. For projects that meet FERC’s streamlined hydrokinetic pilot project permitting process requirements (five megawatts or 

less, removable or able to shut down on relatively short notice, located in waters 

with no sensitive designations), and where environmental baseline information is 

readily available, the 30-day process may be appropriate. For those projects that do 

not meet the requirements or are lacking baseline information, a formal ESA consultation would likely be necessary. This is a 135-day process that is completed with 

the issuance of a biological opinion. There have been at least two instances where 

formal ESA consultation was required for marine hydrokinetic projects, both of 

which were proposed for siting within, and were likely to adversely affect, sensitive 

areas designated as critical habitat for the conservation of ESA-listed Pacific salmon. There are a few issues that FERC could address in their guidance and regulations that may help to streamline the ESA consultation process for pilot projects: 

• defining ‘‘sensitive designations’’ for areas that will not be suitable sites for pilot 

projects; 

• defining ‘‘unacceptable environmental effects’’ to living marine resources and 

their habitats; 

• developing explicit steps in the pilot licensing process for interested parties to 

submit conditions, prescriptions and recommendations to avoid/minimize adverse environmental effects. 

73 

NMFS also conducts Essential Fish Habitat consultations for marine hydrokinetic 

projects under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). Opportunities currently exist under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act to streamline the Essential Fish Habitat consultation process for Federal actions 

with existing environmental review processes, such as the Endangered Species Act 

and National Environmental Policy Act (see 50 C.F.R. § 600.905–930). NMFS looks 

forward to using these streamlined procedures, as appropriate, with FERC. 

It should be noted that many of the environmental impacts of emerging renewable 

ocean energy technologies are unknown. Limited scientific information by which to 

assess potential environmental effects of marine hydrokinetic devices can challenge 

NOAA’s ability to implement its mandates and authorities. NOAA recognizes the 

importance of having an environmental baseline for these projects, and is working 

to address knowledge gaps in order to ensure smoother permitting and licensing of 

renewable ocean energy projects. For example, in FY 2010, NOAA, along with the 

U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, funded the following 

projects under the National Oceanographic Partnership Program: 

• Characterization and Potential Impacts of Noise Producing Construction and 

Operation Activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (Cornell University) 

• Protocols for Baseline Studies and Monitoring for Ocean Renewable Energy (Pacific Energy Ventures) 

• Roadmap: Technologies for Cost Effective, Spatial Resource Assessments for 

Offshore Renewable Energy (University of Massachusetts) 

• Evaluating Acoustic Technologies to Monitor Aquatic Organisms at Renewable 

Energy Sites (University of Washington) 

• Developing Environmental Protocols and Monitoring to Support Ocean Renewable Energy and Stewardship (University of Texas) 

• Visual Impact Evaluation System for Offshore Renewable Energy (University of 

Arkansas) 

• Bayesian Integration Marine Spatial Planning and Renewable Energy Siting 

(Parametrix) 

• Developing Environmental Protocols and Monitoring to Support Ocean Renewable Energy and Stewardship (University of Rhode Island) 

NOAA looks forward to working with the Committee on this issue. 

Question 4. Could you please provide the Committee with both the current number of employees within the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries and the number 

employed 10 years ago? 

Answer. The table below provides an overview of the number of FTEs and NOAA 

Corps officers with the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries in both FY 2002 and 

FY 2011: 

Year Federal (FTEs) NOAA Corps Total 

2002 116 7 123 

2011 182 8 190 

The reason for the staff increase is largely due to: (1) the hiring of additional staff 

at Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary following finalization of its designation 

in 2002 (designation was initiated in 2000); (2) the hiring of new staff following designation of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in 2007; (3) the 

hiring of staff to assist in the development and implementation of management 

plans at all 14 field sites; (4) the addition of staff to manage increased system-wide 

IT requirements; and (5) the hiring of staff to coordinate construction and/or renovation of 18 major facilities, visitor centers, and exhibits at 10 sanctuaries. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JIM DEMINT TO

DR. JANE LUBCHENCO

Question 1. Dr. Lubchenco, I believe you are aware of concerns that were recently 

raised at a recent House Natural Resources Committee hearing, which you were 

present at, regarding the relicensing of the Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project in 

South Carolina. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which has an advisory role in the relicensing of hydropower facilities, seems to be going to great 

lengths to delay this project in order to protect a fish, the shortnose sturgeon, that 

74 

hasn’t been within 70 miles of the dams in question over 100 years. In light of this, 

I have four questions for which I would like to request a response. If the actual Federal agency in charge of approving the hydropower license, FERC, believes that the 

Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project poses no adverse risk to shortnose sturgeon and the 

local and state resource agencies are in agreement, then why is the NMFS delaying 

the project and indicating that anything less than constructing fish passages on all 

the dams or removing them entirely is unacceptable? 

Answer. While FERC is the agency responsible for approving a license, the Federal Power Act grants NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) authority 

to: (1) issue mandatory fishway prescriptions to ensure safe, timely, and effective 

upstream and downstream fish passage (e.g., fish ladders, juvenile bypass facilities); 

and (2) provide recommendations to protect, mitigate damages to, and enhance fish 

and habitats at FERC-licensed hydropower projects. Further, the Endangered Species Act requires FERC to consult with NMFS to ensure that proposed Federal actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed as endangered or threatened, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for those species. NMFS believes the dams, flow rates and 

other components of the Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project are likely to adversely affect the endangered shortnose sturgeon by: 

• Capturing the fish; 

• Subjecting the fish to poor water quality; 

• Impeding the fish’s access to suitable spawning habitat upstream of the dams; 

and 

• Reducing suitable spawning habitat downstream of the dams. 

When NMFS determines a project is likely to adversely affect a threatened or endangered species, then the agency must formally evaluate these effects in a biological opinion pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 

§ 1536). The agency is in the process of gathering the information needed to prepare 

this biological opinion and, thus, has not yet made any determinations regarding 

fish passage requirements. NMFS will continue to work cooperatively with Duke 

Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to identify the best 

solutions to mitigating project impacts to shortnose sturgeon and other listed species. 

The Catawba-Wateree branch of the Santee River Basin likely provided important 

spawning habitat for shortnose sturgeon and other anadromous fish before dam construction and hydropower operations blocked access for the fish to migrate between 

their spawning and feeding grounds. With limited research on a rare fish and the 

barriers to migration, it is not surprising that sturgeon had not been detected at 

the Wateree Dam for many years. At a May 24, 2011, meeting between FERC, 

NMFS, and Duke Energy to discuss the relicensing of the Catawba-Wateree Project, 

the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources reported that they had 

tracked two spawning-condition shortnose sturgeon to the Wateree Dam this spring. 

Question 2. What new data is the NMFS basing its position on in this case? 

Answer. The Endangered Species Act requires that NMFS and all Federal agencies use the best available scientific and commercial information when making decisions regarding endangered species, including current information available regarding life history. NMFS has been working with Duke Energy and FERC to identify 

the best available information to use in this consultation, and is considering data 

and information from research projects funded by NMFS, state partners and others. 

The agency understands the need for better data on shortnose sturgeon in the 

Southeast Region and is currently supporting a 3-year project for that purpose at 

$4 million through South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 

Question 3. When can we expect the NMFS to produce a BiOp for the relicensing 

of the hydro project, which FERC requested completion of over a year ago? 

Answer. NMFS has been working with Duke Energy and FERC for some time to 

better understand the details of this project, including how FERC intends to implement the Federal Threatened and Endangered Species Protection Plan for Shortnose 

Sturgeon filed with the license application. The agency met with Duke and FERC 

on May 24, 2011, to resolve all outstanding questions and issues so they may initiate the consultation process. The meeting provided for a positive exchange of information that will allow NMFS to initiate consultation. 

The Endangered Species Act provides NMFS up to 135 days to issue a biological 

opinion once they initiate consultation. However, the agency understands the relicensing of this project is of great importance to the regional economy and is committed to producing a biological opinion on the project as soon as possible once it 

receives the information needed to effectively evaluate the project. 

75 

Question 4. When can we expect resolution on this issue? 

Answer. NMFS has worked, and will continue to work, with the utilities, state 

and Federal resource agencies, and FERC to develop science-based, practical fish 

passage prescriptions and flow recommendations for this project. However, FERC is 

the action agency for purposes of ESA Section 7 consultation, with the ultimate responsibility to determine the license conditions that will avoid jeopardizing listed 

species. NMFS will continue working with FERC and all parties involved in this 

project to ensure good communication and effective resolution of issues regarding 

project impacts to listed species as they complete their role in the relicensing and 

consultation process. NMFS’s goal is to expeditiously meet both the business needs 

of the utilities for relicensing and the passage needs of the endangered shortnose 

sturgeon and other species adversely impacted by the project. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ROGER F. WICKER TO

DR. JANE LUBCHENCO

Question 1. In the Gulf of Mexico, NOAA has relied on long-standing research 

partners, particularly within its Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric research, which 

have been leveraged for their expertise and capabilities to, ‘‘more efficiently and effectively serve the Nation,’’ according to NOAA’s own FY2012 Budget Summary. 

Two such programs are the Northern Gulf Institute (NGI) and the National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology (NIUST). These institutions partner with 

NOAA to conduct critical research in the northern Gulf, and were particularly crucial to NOAA fulfilling its mission following the Deepwater Horizon explosion and 

subsequent oil spill. As long-term impacts on the Gulf ecosystem are studied following the oil spill, how will NOAA utilize the expertise and resources of NGI and 

NIUST? 

Answer. NGI and NIUST are both valuable partners to NOAA, providing research 

and expertise that advance NOAA’s mission. Specifically, the Seabed Technology Research Center (STRC) within NIUST at the University of Mississippi is the managing partner of the Methane Hydrate Seafloor Observatory, which provides NOAA 

with methane hydrates research capability in the Gulf. Current STRC research activities focus on understanding the formation and dissociation of gas hydrates, 

which are ice-like crystalline structures that encapsulate methane gas molecules. 

This research capability and the proximity of the observatory to the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill site proved critical to our understanding of the ultimate fate of oil 

from the spill, and NOAA will continue to utilize this expertise as a result of the 

long-standing relationship with NIUST. NOAA also utilizes NIUST’s significant capability in biotechnology, including the development of new products from the sea 

(primarily drug discovery and agrochemicals) for commercial use, and an extensive 

marine biotechnology repository. In addition, new technologies have been applied to 

questions related to healthy coasts, sustainable fisheries, predicting environmental 

change, corals, reefs and marine ecosystems. 

NGI also provides considerable expertise that NOAA utilizes directly. As a competitively-awarded NOAA Cooperative Institute (CI), NGI develops, operates, and 

maintains an increasingly integrated research and transition program focused on 

filling priority gaps and reducing limitations in current Northern Gulf of Mexico 

awareness, understanding and decision support. Partnering with five academic institutions and NOAA, NGI is a collaboration led by Mississippi State University 

that includes the University of Southern Mississippi, Louisiana State University, 

Florida State University, and the Dauphin Island Sea Lab. Specifically, NGI has 

three areas of expertise that NOAA relies heavily on: social science, remote sensing, 

and coastal geomorphology. Each of these topical areas is critical to research investigating the long-term impacts on the Gulf ecosystem following the oil spill. 

Question 2. Considering NGI and NIUST’s expertise in and contributions to ocean 

research in the northern Gulf of Mexico, will NOAA find ways to support these partnerships in FY 2012 and beyond? 

Answer. NIUST has received congressionally directed funding in FY09 and FY10 

through the NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). NOAA did 

not request or receive funds for NIUST in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011. NOAA will continue to look for opportunities, possibly through competitive grants, to continue 

strong partnerships with institutions like NIUST in the future. 

With regard to NGI, NOAA is also committed to the long-term health of the program. NGI funding historically has been funded through a combination of congressionally-directed and administration-requested funding. NGI was established as a 

competitively-awarded CI in 2006. As part of the CI review process, NGI underwent 

a thorough external review, chaired by NOAA’s Science Advisory Board, in 2010. 

76 

The independent review team gave NGI a score of ‘‘outstanding,’’ and NOAA has 

renewed an additional 5 year extension for NGI as a result. The score of ‘‘outstanding’’ is only given in cases where the research themes of the CI are of clear 

scientific benefit to NOAA’s mission goals through the partnership. 

Question 3. As we approach the 1-year anniversary of the BP oil spill, many questions remain regarding the fate and transport of the oil, the economic and environmental impacts of the spill, and how best to respond to future events. Academic institutions and research organizations in the northern Gulf are particularly well 

qualified to gather necessary information, as well as utilize existing resources to effectively study this unique ecosystem. Will NOAA look to local expertise first, with 

priority over experts from other regions of the U.S., to conduct research related to 

the BP spill? 

Answer. As the scientific lead for coastal and marine spills, it is critical that 

NOAA bring the best available science and tools to improve decision-making during 

responses. 

The NOAA Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) works closely with academic institutions and research organizations along the Gulf Coast in many facets 

of oil spill response, assessment and restoration. For example, NOAA utilizes experts at the Environmental Studies Department of Louisiana State University 

(LSU) for analytical chemistry support for oil spills across the country. LSU provides NOAA with chemical hazard and risk assessment analyses to understand the 

behavior of oil and chemicals in the environment and associated risks to natural resources and human health. In addition, NOAA sponsored a workshop titled ‘‘Coordinating Research and Development on Oil Spill Response in the Wake of Deepwater 

Horizon’’ on March 22–24, 2011 in Baton Rouge, LA. The purpose of this meeting 

was to bring together experts from across a broad spectrum of organizations, including state agencies, Gulf Coast academic institutions and private research organizations, to address the state of future oil spill response research and best practices. 

The FY 2012 President’s Budget request includes an increase of $2.9 million for 

NOAA to develop an oil spill research and development (R&D) program. The funds 

would support external grants in an open and competitive process. The grants will 

be focused on priority oil spill research areas, including: oil fate and behavior effects 

from deepwater releases, response and mitigation techniques in extreme and remote 

environments (e.g., outer continental shelf or arctic regions), long-term effects on 

species and habitats, tools for natural resource damage assessment and restoration, 

and human dimensions of oil spills. 

Question 4. NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS) provides critical services 

which defend our Nation against severe weather. As part of its mission, the NWS 

collaborates with other Federal agencies, the private sector, and academic institutions to collect weather-related data to accurately forecast severe weather events 

and issue proper warnings to Americans. Such severe weather includes hurricanes, 

which produce high winds and storm surges, posing a dire threat to life and property, particularly for our Nation’s coastal residents. What existing capabilities do 

the NWS and its partners currently utilize to measure wind speeds and storm 

surges associated with storms that impact coastal zones of the U.S.? 

Answer. NOAA operates an array of surface and marine observing systems to 

measure winds and surges associated with coastal zone storms. 

NOAA’s National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) maintains a network of buoys. The 

buoys provide continuous observations, including sustained wind speed and gusts, 

wind wave and swell heights. 

NOAA’s National Ocean Service (NOS) maintains the National Water Level Observing Network (NWLON) to provide astronomical tide predictions. This network 

of water level observations, combined with tide predictions, is critical to NWS forecasts and warnings for the coastal flooding associated with major storms. In addition, meteorological sensors are installed on most NWLON stations and these data 

are also used by NWS forecasters. These observations are an important part of the 

historical meteorological and oceanographic record, archived at NOAA’s National 

Climate Data Center. 

The NWS has Automated Surface Observing Systems throughout the Nation, including coastal locations, which provide continuous observations of wind direction, 

wind speeds and gusts, among other measurements. 

In addition, marine mesonet data (from nearshore and offshore observing platforms) are also provided by international partners, Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) partners, universities, private companies, and local governments. These 

observations are shared among governments and private organizations. In addition, 

nearshore and offshore observing platforms are maintained by universities, private 

77 

companies, and local governments; these observations are shared with governments 

and private organizations. 

Question 5. What other data measures do the NWS and its partners collect before, 

during, and after storms strike American coastal zones, and how are these data 

used? 

Answer. NOAA and its partners collect storm damage data, water level information, and storm extent and timing. 

Local NWS offices and Centers gather data through storm surveys. Trained employees of the NWS offices survey damage on the ground and sometimes through 

the air. These efforts provide good estimates including valuable information on aspects of the storm that may not have been measured at official observing sites. An 

example of a key measurement could be high water marks at locations along the 

coastline after a significant storm surge event. Local NWS offices also train severe 

weather spotters who also provide the office with similar information. 

The reporting, collection and analysis of storm surge data are critical for NWS 

forecasts and warnings during tropical and extratropical storm events. After these 

storms, the data are used for forecast and model verifications. Data are also used 

by other Federal, state, and local governments and the insurance industry in poststorm response activities and for planning purposes. 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has developed a mobile storm-surge network 

to capture information on the timing, extent, and magnitude of storm surge. This 

mobile network consists of water level and barometric pressure monitoring devices 

that are deployed in the days and hours just prior to a hurricane landfall. This information is shared with NOAA’s National Hurricane Center and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE). 

Question 6. How are partnerships or collaborations between NOAA and academic 

institutions, private sector entities, or other organizations leveraged to collect 

weather related data in the coastal zones of the U.S.? 

Answer. NOAA leverages partnerships in order to fill data gaps. In exchange, 

NOAA provides value by developing data standards and quality control. 

The best example of organizational leveraging for collection of weather data in the 

nation’s coastal zones is the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). IOOS is 

a Federal, regional, and private sector partnership working to enhance our ability 

to collect, deliver, and use ocean and nearshore information. IOOS draws together 

many networks of disparate Federal and non-Federal observing systems to produce 

data, information, and products at the scales needed to support decisionmakers. 

As another example, The United States Lifesaving Association (USLA) shares its 

data related to fatalities, injuries, and rescues associated with hazards in the surf 

zone such as rip currents, high surf and rough seas. In return, the NWS assists the 

USLA with outreach and education on surf zone hazards. Both agencies work together on determining the best methods for surf zone and beach safety awareness 

and education. 

Question 7. What estimated costs are saved by NOAA’s partnerships with these 

institutions and entities for the collection of weather-related data in the coastal 

zones of the U.S.? 

Answer. NOAA does not currently have an assessment of these cost savings. 

Question 8. NOAA’s NWS has an official storm surge model named the Sea Lake 

and Overland Surges from Hurricane’s (SLOSH) model, which the National Hurricane Center uses to create historic runs of winds and storm surges caused by a hurricane using the best available data. How accurate is the current SLOSH model in 

recreating the magnitude and timing of winds and storm surges associated with severe storms such as Hurricane Katrina? 

Answer. Several SLOSH verification studies have shown that forecasted storm 

surge magnitude is generally within ± 20 percent of the observed peak surge. 

Question 9. What is the scale, or precision, of the SLOSH model? 

Answer. Though the scale varies, an average precision for all SLOSH basins is 

1.9 kilometers. Additionally, SLOSH subdivides some areas in order to model rivers 

or streams, on a scale of tens of meters. 

Question 10. What areas of the United States are covered by the SLOSH model? 

Answer. SLOSH has 38 tropical storm basins covering all of the East Coast, Gulf 

of Mexico, Bahamas, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Hawaii and Guam. 

An extratropical version of SLOSH is run to predict high water levels from 

extratropical storms (e.g., winter storms such as Nor’easters). These 6 basins cover 

the East Coast, Gulf of Mexico, the West Coast and Alaska. 

Question 11. Currently, is there well-established infrastructure to support SLOSH 

modeling? What comprises this infrastructure? 

78 

Answer. The infrastructure consists of the SLOSH team including developers and 

operational managers at the National Hurricane Center; observational data, the 

SLOSH modeling and visualization software, websites, and the NWS’ central 

Weather and Climate Operational Supercomputer Systems (WCOSS). 

SLOSH is run in a forecast mode on the WCOSS for estimating the storm surge 

threat associated with hurricane evacuation plans prior to landfalling storms. 

SLOSH is also run on local work stations in real time at the National Hurricane 

Center during an active landfalling hurricane. 

Question 12. How does the National Data Buoy Center contribute to the infrastructure supporting SLOSH? 

Answer. After a storm event, wind observations from NDBC’s buoys are part of 

the data used to validate and verify the hurricane wind fields forecast by SLOSH. 

Buoy wave observations are used to verify forecast from wave models, a critical component of storm surge. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON TO

DR. JANE LUBCHENCO

Question 1. If NOAA is opposed to a fish ladder, can other habitat be identified 

that can be improved or protected near the New Savannah Bluff Lock & Dam? 

Answer. NOAA is not opposed to a fish ladder in principle. The U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (the Corps) has proposed constructing fish passage around the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam as a way to restore access for sturgeon (and other fish) 

to the high quality spawning areas that exist upstream of the dam and mitigate for 

the loss of sturgeon foraging habitat as the result of the Savannah Harbor deepening. NOAA has recommended that dam removal be considered as an alternative 

to constructing fish passage, because removal is expected to provide the greatest 

benefit to species and would not require long-term monitoring and maintenance. 

NOAA and the Corps continue to work together to explore fish passage design alternatives, as well as downstream mitigation alternatives. The Corps, with NMFS 

assistance, hosted a workshop of technical experts on April 25–27 in Augusta, Georgia, to develop and evaluate more effective fish passage design structures that 

would retain the dam and to explore the possibility of improving or protecting other 

habitats as sturgeon mitigation in the Savannah River. NOAA would support such 

habitat conservation measures in addition to fish passage, but our primary goal is 

to provide sturgeon access to existing spawning habitat upstream of the dam. 

Question 2. The Nature Conservancy has focused their efforts on an area which 

is critical habitat to many species, including the shortnose sturgeon. From their 

website, ‘‘The lower Savannah River, beginning just below the Thurmond Lake reservoir near Augusta and extending to the coastal estuaries, is fed by a number of 

tributaries, including Brier Creek and Stevens Creek. This portion of the river system—which is the focus of The Nature Conservancy’s work—harbors more than 110 

species of fish including the robust redhorse and the endangered shortnose sturgeon.’’ 

Answer. The New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam currently blocks sturgeon access 

to important parts of the Savannah River below the Thurmond Reservoir and Stevens Creek. This area contains large stretches of rocky shoal habitat that does not 

exist below the dam. The technical workgroup the Corps gathered together in Augusta, Georgia, last month to evaluate mitigation alternatives, concluded no spawning habitat improvements could be made below the dam that would adequately mitigate for expected project impacts to sturgeon foraging and refuge habitat. This 

group included sturgeon scientists from Georgia and South Carolina, among them 

a scientist from The Nature Conservancy. 

Question 3. In addition to the fish passage, are there some properties in this region that could be secured for habitat protection? 

Answer. The technical workgroup did not identify any habitats that could be reasonably expected to improve the spawning success of shortnose sturgeon, and NOAA 

is not aware of any potential properties. However, we have asked the Georgia Department of Natural Resources for assistance in identifying properties that could potentially serve this function. 

Question 4. My understanding is that while NOAA prefers that mitigation be accomplished within the Basin that is impacted, since the sturgeon are not thriving 

in the Savannah (monitoring has proven very few exist within the estuary), why not 

improve habitat in an area that has better success for the species for example in 

the Altamaha or the Ogeechee? Are there improvements to habitat in those basins 

that might be accomplished instead of or in addition to the fish passage? 

79 

1 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2010, ‘‘Fisheries Economics of the United States, 

2008,’’ <http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/index.html>. 2 NMFS, ‘‘2010 Status of U.S. Fisheries: Fourth Quarter Update,’’ December 30, 2010. 

<www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm>. 

Answer. Mitigating project impacts on the Savannah River shortnose sturgeon 

population is critical. Habitat improvements to conserve the shortnose sturgeon populations of other rivers, such as the Altamaha or Ogeechee, would benefit those populations but would not be appropriate mitigation for this project, which impacts the 

Savannah River shortnose sturgeon population. The best available information indicates the size of the Savannah River shortnose sturgeon population is second only 

to that of the Altamaha River and larger than all other assessed populations in the 

Southeast. Thus, the survival of the Savannah River population is essential to the 

species’ overall conservation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEE R. CROCKETT, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL FISHERIES

POLICY, PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP

The Pew Environment Group (PEG) appreciates the opportunity to provide a 

statement for the record on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) FY 2012 budget request, particularly as it relates to the implementation 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the 

law that has governed management of America’s ocean fish since signed into law 

on this very day in 1976. 

The Pew Environment Group (PEG) offers qualified support for the President’s FY 

2012 budget request of $346.3 million for data collection and analysis programs at 

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We are concerned that this request 

does not provide the long-term funding needed to maintain sustainable fisheries. 

Therefore, we consider it the minimum necessary to keep our fisheries on the road 

to recovery. 

In the 35 years since the MSA was enacted on April 13, 1976, the law has enjoyed 

strong bipartisan support, including the most recent 2006 reauthorization, which 

was sponsored by the late Senator Ted Stevens and signed into law by President 

George W. Bush. The MSA provides the tools to sustainably manage ocean fish, one 

of America’s most valuable natural resources. Healthy fish populations are the backbone of America’s commercial and recreational saltwater fishing industries, which 

according to NMFS generated $163 billion in sales impacts and supported nearly 

1.9 million full and part-time jobs in 2008 alone.1 Ocean fish conservation is good 

for fishermen, America’s economy and the environment. For this reason, diverse 

stakeholders including commercial fishermen, recreational anglers and environmental groups are united in advocating for data collection and analysis appropriations. 

Relatively modest Federal investments in fisheries data collection and analysis in 

FY 2012 will help deliver over time billions of dollars in economic benefits and hundreds of thousands of jobs for U.S. taxpayers. PEG urges you to continue the bipartisan tradition of support for the MSA and provide adequate resources for data collection and analysis for the benefit of our fishing industries and ocean fish populations. 

The MSA—Ending Overfishing in the United States 

Fish have been a staple in our diet and an important part of our Nation’s economic health since the time of the early settlers. George Washington managed a 

shad fishery at Mount Vernon, and Atlantic cod were critical to the survival and 

development of the early colonies. Unfortunately, overfishing (taking fish faster than 

they can reproduce) has diminished the economic potential of our Nation’s ocean fish 

populations, particularly in recent decades. Today, nearly a quarter of our commercially and recreationally important ocean fish populations—including some tuna, 

cod, flounder, snapper and grouper species—are severely depleted.2

Congress first attempted to address this problem in 1976 when it passed the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the precursor to the MSA, to ‘‘Americanize’’ 

our fisheries by eliminating foreign fishing off the U.S. coast and promoting the domestic fishing industry. However, over the course of the next two decades, policies 

focusing on expanding fishing, as well as dramatic improvements in technologies to 

locate and catch fish, resulted in overfishing becoming a national problem. Historic 

overfishing led to the collapse of many important fish populations around the country, most notably in New England, where severe declines in catch of such staples 

as cod wrought tremendous damage to fishing communities. 

80 

3Supra note 1. 4 J. M. Gates, ‘‘Investing in Our Future: The Economic Case for Rebuilding Mid-Atlantic Fish 

Populations,’’ Pew Environment Group (2009), <www.endoverfishing.org/resources/PEGl rebuilding.pdf>. 5 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Southeast Regional Office, 2010. 

‘‘Southeast Fishery Bulletin FB10–027.’’ <http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/bulletins/pdfs/2010/FB10- 

027%20Gulf%20Red%20snapper%20FR%20Reg%20Amend.pdf>. 6Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2007. ‘‘Final Amendment 27 to the Reef Fish 

Fishery Management Plan and Amendment 14 to the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan.’’ 

<http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/RedSnapper/pdfs/FinalRFAmend27-ShrimpAmend14.pdf>. 7 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2010 Final Crab SAFE, September 20010. 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/membership/planlteams/CPT/CRABSAFE2010l910.pdf. 8 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries News Release. October 1, 2010. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fishing/PDFs/commercial/newsreleases/shellfish/westward/nr112010–5.pdf. 9 NOAA Northeast Regional Office, 2011. ‘‘Sector Vessel Landings & Revenue, 2009 & 2010.’’ 

<http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/Sectorlmonitoring/Tablel4.pdf> Accessed 3/2/ 

2011. 

A bipartisan group of lawmakers crafted the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996, 

which changed the focus of the MSA from promoting fishing to conserving fish, because they recognized the toll that overfishing was taking on fishermen and fishing 

communities across the country in the form of lost jobs, reduced catch and idle 

boats. Unfortunately, these changes did to not put an end to overfishing, and in 

2006 Congress overwhelmingly supported amendments to the MSA to end overfishing once and for all. Specifically, Congress required the establishment of sciencebased annual catch limits (ACLs) that do not allow overfishing and rebuild depleted 

fish populations and accountability measures to ensure success. President George 

W. Bush signed these amendments into law on January 12, 2007. 

Thanks to these bipartisan reforms, today we are witnessing rebounding fish populations and increased fishing opportunities for commercial fishermen and recreational anglers across the country. For example, overfishing is no longer occurring 

in the Mid-Atlantic region; and summer flounder, which supports a valuable commercial and recreational fishery, is nearly fully rebuilt because managers finally reduced fishing pressure to sustainable levels. Just over twenty years ago, summer 

flounder had declined to less than 15 percent of healthy levels as a result of overfishing.3 Now, the population has rebounded to 89 percent of a healthy level, enabling managers to increase the 2011 quota by 7.35 million pounds to 29.48 million 

pounds, an 86.9 percent increase in just over 3 years from a low of 15.77 million 

pounds in 2008. In 2009, we commissioned an economic study that found rebuilding 

all Mid-Atlantic fish populations to healthy levels would generate $570 million in 

annual economic benefits.4 Sound fisheries management is clearly a good economic 

investment. 

In the Gulf of Mexico, conservation measures put in place by managers to finally 

end decades of overfishing on Gulf red snapper have allowed red snapper populations to increase, enabling managers to raise the allowable catch by 39 percent 

in 2010 to 6.945 million pounds.5In 10 years, the red snapper catch is expected to 

increase from current levels to more than 10 million pounds annually, providing enduring economic benefits for fishermen and coastal communities hit hard by hurricanes and the recent Deepwater Horizon oil spill.6

In Alaska’s Eastern Bering Sea, Snow Crab was heavily fished throughout the 

1980s and 1990s and was subsequently declared overfished in 1999. In 2000, the 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council implemented a rebuilding plan for snow 

crab which reduced harvest rates and led to a population that is now at 96 percent 

of healthy levels.7 Due to these management measure and increase in population 

size, fishery managers were able to increase the total allowable catch for the 2010 

fishing season to 54.3 million pounds, a boost of 13 percent over the previous year.8

In New England, the Fishery Management Council is reforming the important 

groundfish fishery by adopting for the first time science-based annual catch limits 

and creating the voluntary ‘‘sector’’ management system that enables fishermen to 

form cooperatives that allow them greater flexibility in when they fish and control 

over how they fish. Preliminary data from NMFS show that these reforms are working: in the first 9 months of the fishing year, revenues were up 5 percent over the 

same time period in 2009, and the number of fish landed was down 14 percent.9

When the fishing year ends in April, we will join Congress in carefully evaluating 

the economic and environmental performance of this new management system. 

However, if early reports are any indication, we can expect an end to overfishing, 

which in time will lead to growing fish populations, healthier ocean ecosystems and 

greater profits in New England. 

81 

10 United States Department of Agriculture (2010), ‘‘USDA Agricultural Projections to 2019,’’ 

See Table 39, page 99. <http://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/archivelprojections/USDA 

AgriculturalProjections2019.pdf>. 11 NMFS, 2011, ‘‘Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2009’’, <http://www.st.nmfs. 

noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus09/index.html>. 12Testimony of Eric Schwaab on Implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and 

Management Act before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation 

Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and the Coast Guard, p. 3, March 8, 2011: 

<http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/112testimony.html>. 13 NOAA Northeast Regional Office. September 13, 2010. ‘‘NOAA and Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Announce $1 Million Initiative to Establish Rhode Island 

Groundfish Permit Bank.’’ <http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/hotnews/RIGroundFishpermit 

bank/RIPBlPR9l13l10.htm>. 

Return on Investment 

As described above, America’s investment in the MSA is providing tangible returns to fishermen, coastal communities and the Nation. America’s fish are almost 

certain to become more valuable over time. While there are many factors that impact the market value of our ocean fish, the U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts 

that the price of fish and seafood in the U.S. is expected to increase significantly 

over time, faster than any other food through 2019.10 Protecting and expanding the 

U.S. wild fish supply is increasingly important because America has developed a 

seafood deficit, with over 80 percent of seafood consumed in the U.S. being imported 

in recent years.11 The relatively modest Congressional investment of $346.3 million 

for data collection and analysis programs that we recommend for FY 2012 is critical 

to begin reversing that trade deficit. NMFS estimates that rebuilding all of our depleted fish populations will deliver U.S. taxpayers an additional $31 billion in annual sales every year and support for 500,000 new American jobs.12

Supporting the Transition to Long Term Sustainability 

Though we are beginning to see early returns on our investments as the MSA is 

implemented around the country, we recognize that the transition to sustainability 

has resulted in challenges for some fishermen. Decades of overfishing have reduced 

many fish populations to very low levels, increasing the difficulty and cost of their 

recovery. Management measures such as significantly reducing catch in the nearterm or closing areas to fishing for a limited period of time are sometimes necessary 

to end overfishing and restore these fish populations. 

Unfortunately, some fishermen are calling on Congress to weaken the MSA’s conservation requirements to address these short-term economic challenges. This would 

be a mistake, because it was the loopholes in the law prior to the 1996 and 2006 

amendments that allowed fishery managers to put short-term economics ahead of 

long-term conservation, resulting in overfishing and depleted fish populations. Rather than repeating the failed policies of the past, Congress should look for ways to 

help fishermen transition to sustainability while allowing federal managers to fulfill 

the promise of the MSA’s conservation provisions. For example, regional permit 

banks in New England are a possible solution for fishermen in the groundfish fishery who need a low cost way to obtain more quota. NMFS has already provided $6 

million to date to help New England states establish public permit banks to enhance 

fishing opportunities for small-scale groundfish fishermen.13

Another challenge we face in the transition to sustainable fisheries management 

is setting science-based catch limits for fish populations that lack recent stock assessments, a situation that is most pressing in the South Atlantic, Gulf and Caribbean regions. Some assert that managers are making decisions based on inadequate 

science and advocate for weakening or eliminating the requirement to set ACLs for 

these so called ‘‘data poor’’ species. Decades of experience have proven that failing 

to establish ACLs creates demonstratively negative consequences for many important fisheries across the country. For example, managers did not set hard fishing 

quotas for South Atlantic black sea bass for over twenty years despite multiple assessments indicating the dire status of this fish. Now, twenty years later, managers 

must take difficult steps to restore South Atlantic black sea bass, including most 

recently closing the commercial and recreational season 5 months early. This example shows that eliminating the requirement to set ACLs for data poor species in the 

short-term can have severe long-term costs. 

It is important to note that there are no fish species managed under the MSA 

for which there are no data. Information is available on basic biology, life history 

characteristics or commercial and recreational catch numbers that can be used to 

set catch limits even for fish without complete assessments. For these fish populations, there are tools available for managers to set annual catch limits, some as 

simple as locking in current catch levels until more complete scientific evidence indiVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:21 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 072171 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\72171.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
82 

14 NMFS, 2010, ‘‘Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2008,’’ <http://www.st.nmfs 

.noaa.gov/st5/publication/fisheriesleconomicsl2008.html>. 15 NOAA, ‘‘Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 2009, Congressional Submission,’’ p. 166. Available 

at: http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/fy09lrolloutlmaterials/NOAAlFY09lFinal 

lCJ.pdf. 16 NOAA, ‘‘Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO–56: Marine Fisheries Stock Assessment Improvement Plan: Report of the National Marine Fisheries Service National Task Force for Improving Fish Stock Assessments,’’ October 2001. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

sars/improvement/pdfs/marinelfisherieslsaip.pdf. 

cates that the population can support more fishing. These short-term measures will 

avoid the long-term costs incurred from unwittingly allowing overfishing. 

FY 2012 Appropriations—Investing in Data Collection, Analysis and 

Monitoring Programs 

Substantial progress toward ending overfishing in the storied New England 

groundfish fishery and the rebound of recreationally and commercially important 

fish populations like summer flounder in the Mid-Atlantic illustrate that the MSA 

is working. In order to build on this success, we must give managers the tools to 

fully implement the MSA. Data collection programs in particular are the lifeblood 

of good fisheries management, generating information that helps managers make informed decisions, and fishermen and other fishery-related businesses plan their investments and business actions. Congress should support these programs because 

they are critical for maintaining healthy fish populations that support stable and 

productive fisheries. 

As such, PEG supports the President’s FY 2012 request of $346.3 million for the 

following core data collection, analysis and monitoring programs, an increase of $1.4 

million over FY 2010 enacted funding levels. We note that proposed reductions 

made by the Administration (described below) from FY 2010 levels will negatively 

impact programs that are important for monitoring, building bridges with fishermen 

and collecting important biological and socioeconomic data. PEG recognizes the difficult fiscal climate in the U.S., and we would like to follow-up with the Committee 

to discuss the long-term investment levels needed to support productive fish populations and fisheries. With regard to FY 2012, we support the following specific lineitem requests: 

• Expand Annual Stock Assessments: $67.1 million as requested, an increase of 

$16.2 million over the FY 2010 enacted level. Fish stock assessments are critical 

for setting science-based ACLs that prevent overfishing and maintain productive fisheries over time. This funding would provide NMFS greater capability 

to assess the 230 commercially and recreationally important fish stocks managed by the Federal Government. Timely, updated stock assessments reduce the 

scientific uncertainty associated with ACL-setting and can help fishery managers to increase commercial and recreational fishing opportunities while minimizing the risk of overfishing. We strongly support this critical increase in funding. 

• Fisheries Statistics: $24.4 million as requested, an increase of $3.4 million over 

the FY 2010 enacted level. This budget line item supports programs that provide advice, coordination and guidance on matters related to the collection, 

analysis and dissemination of statistics in both commercial and recreational 

saltwater fisheries. The Marine Recreational Information Program, created to 

improve the quality and accuracy of recreational fishing data per the 2006 MSA 

amendments, is funded primarily through this budget line-item. Higher quality 

data on marine recreational fishing, which contributes $59 billion in sales impacts to the U.S. economy and supports 384,000 jobs, will allow scientists to better estimate fishing mortality and set ACLs more accurately, thus reducing the 

risk of overfishing.14 At a time when recreational fishermen and scientists agree 

that better data are critical for both restoring fish populations and increasing 

recreational fishing opportunities, we urge Congress to support this increase in 

funding. 

• Survey and Monitoring Projects: $24.2 million as requested, an increase of $.5 

million over the FY 2010 enacted level. NOAA has stated that ‘‘many fisheries 

lack adequate and timely monitoring of catch and fishing effort.’’ 15 Survey and 

monitoring projects provide critical support for implementation of the new ACL 

requirement. Increased funding will improve the accuracy of ACLs and increase 

the percentage of stocks with assessments16 Additional funding for fishery-independent surveys, monitoring and research will improve estimates of ecosystem 

change, fishing mortality and population size. 

83 

17 NOAA, ‘‘NOAA FY 2012 President’s Budget’’, Chapter 2: National Marine Fisheries Service, 

p. 315–19. Available at: http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/∼nbo/fy12lpresidentslbudget/ 

NationallMarinelFisherieslServicelFY12.pdf. 18 NOAA/NMFS, Evaluating Bycatch: A National Approach to Standardized Bycatch Monitoring Programs, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO–66, October 2004. 108 p. 19 NMFS’ 2003 5 year assessment estimated the need for cooperative research to be $22.8 million above FY 2003 levels by FY 2009, for a total of $25.5 million. 

• Observers/Training: $39.1 million as requested, a decrease of $1.9 million from 

the FY 2010 enacted level. Trained fisheries observers provide essential data on 

the amount and type of fish caught by fishermen, which is used for compliance 

monitoring and scientific stock assessments.17 NOAA considers at-sea observers 

the most reliable source of information about fishing catch and bycatch (i.e., incidental catch of non-target ocean wildlife).18 We feel that this request does not 

reflect the annual investment needed for observer programs. 

• Cooperative Research: $7.2 million as requested by the President, a decrease of 

$10.3 million from the FY 2010 enacted level. Cooperative research programs 

pay fishermen, working under the direction of Federal scientists, to collect fisheries data and test new sustainable fishing gear and practices. These programs 

provide jobs for fishermen and also enable managers to tap into their on-thewater knowledge and expertise. In 2003, NMFS estimated that it would need 

$25.5 million for cooperative research by FY 2009.19 We are concerned about 

the effect of the proposed reduction on fishermen and would suggest that cooperative research should be funded at this level. 

In addition, the President’s FY 2012 budget request transfers $6 million out of 

the cooperative research line item and into the National Catch Share Program 

line item. We believe that any increases for catch share programs should be 

made with new money, not transferred from existing general research programs 

that should be available for all fisheries. Although NMFS asserts that the $6 

million will be used for cooperative research in catch share fisheries, there is 

no guarantee that it will continue to be used for cooperative research in the future. Taking funding from general cooperative research, where it would be 

available for all fisheries, and restricting it to only catch share fisheries, short 

changes the vast majority of fisheries, which are not catch share fisheries. 

• Fisheries Research and Management Programs: total of $184.3 million as requested, a $6.5 million decrease from the FY 2010 enacted level. Fisheries research and management programs provide accurate and timely information and 

analysis of the biology and population status of managed fish, as well as the 

socioeconomics of the fisheries that depend on those populations. Such information is critical for the development of management measures to ensure that they 

end overfishing, and we have concerns regarding the reduction from FY 2010 

levels. Because of their vital role, Fisheries Research and Management Programs should be funded at no less than the FY 2012 request of $184.3 million. 

In NOAA’s FY 2012 budget request, $11.4 million is transferred from the Fisheries Research and Management Programs line item into the National Catch 

Share Program line item. As with Cooperative Research, no funds from this line 

item should be transferred to the National Catch Share Program because those 

funds would become permanently unavailable to support research and management of the vast majority of federally managed fisheries that are not currently 

in a catch share program, and may not be included in one in the future. 

Conclusion 

Good fisheries management leads to healthy fish populations, a stable and productive fishing industry and robust recreational fisheries—a win-win for conservation, 

anglers and marine-related businesses. Today, because of the MSA, fishery managers are using science-based catch limits that do not allow overfishing and rebuild 

depleted fish populations to healthy levels. These requirements are working, providing economic benefits to fishing communities and the Nation as a whole, and 

promise to provide even greater returns in the future. We cannot afford to leave the 

job of bringing all fish populations to healthy levels unfinished—our nation’s fishermen and our fish resources depend on it. The relatively modest investments that 

we are requesting today will lead to tremendous yield in the future. According to 

84 

20Testimony of Eric Schwaab on Implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and 

Management Act before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation 

Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and the Coast Guard, p. 3, March 8, 2011: 

<http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/112testimony.html>. 

NMFS, rebuilding all U.S. fish populations will lead to a $31 billion increase in annual sales and support for half a million new U.S. jobs.20

We ask the Committee to continue its support of the MSA and invest at least 

$346.3 million in FY 2012 in one of America’s most valuable natural resources, our 

ocean fish populations, so that they can continue to provide significant and growing 

benefits for U.S. taxpayers through fishing jobs, healthy oceans, local seafood and 

vibrant coastal communities. 

April 12, 2011 

Hon. BARBARA MIKULSKI, 

Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 

Science, and Related Agencies, 

Committee on Appropriations, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 

Science, and Related Agencies, 

Committee on Appropriations, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Hutchison, 

We, the undersigned 130 organizations representing a diverse range of commercial and recreational fishing associations, commercial seafood dealers, the charter 

and for-hire industry, fishery dependent businesses and ocean conservation organizations, collectively urge the Subcommittee and all Members of Congress to support 

the President’s FY 2012 NOAA budget request of $91.5 million for the Expand Annual Stocks Assessments and Fisheries Statistics line-items. We request that you 

make these data collection and analysis line items a top priority in FY 2012. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service estimates that U.S. commercial and saltwater recreational fishing contributes over $160 billion to the economy annually and 

supports nearly 2 million jobs. These industries rely on healthy fish populations, 

which provide food for our tables, offer recreational opportunities for millions of 

Americans and sustain jobs and communities on every coast. Congress should invest 

in America’s fish populations and fishing businesses by providing the funding necessary to ensure that managers use the best science possible to guide stewardship 

of our ocean fish resources. 

Expand Annual Stock Assessments ($67.1 million, as requested) 

Stock assessments provide the basic information that scientists use to determine 

the health of fish populations. Assessments provide estimates of abundance and 

catch levels that a fish population can support. Increased funding will reduce scientific and management uncertainty and will allow managers to set catch levels and 

accountability measures that maximize fishing opportunities while rebuilding those 

that have been determined to be overfished and maintaining healthy fish populations. 

Fisheries Statistics ($24.4 million, as requested) 

The 2006 amendments to the Magnuson Stevens Act required the Agency, within 

2 years, to improve the quality and accuracy of their primary private angler data 

collection program. These amendments led to the establishment of the Marine Recreational Information Program which is funded primarily through the Fisheries Statistics budget line. Investment of funds for this line item will improve data on recreational catch levels and participation, and will help scientists to better estimate 

recreational fishing mortality and set more accurate catch limits. This program will 

also result in more timely decisions that both the regional fishery management 

councils and the fishing industry need to improve management and potentially lead 

to more fishing opportunities. 

Thank you for your consideration of our requests. Rarely does such a diverse 

group of U.S. stakeholders agree on fishery-related issues, but on the need to adequately fund fisheries data collection there is no disagreement. If we are going to 

have abundant fisheries, Congress must provide the resources to necessary to 

sustainably manage ocean fish by ensuring that management decisions are based 

on timely and accurate information and analysis. The health of America’s ocean fish 

85 

populations and the jobs, income, recreation, seafood and communities that they 

sustain depend on your investments in FY 2012. 

Sincerely, 

National: 

Jim Martin, Conservation Director, 

Berkley Conservation Institute, Pure 

Fishing 

Aaron Adams, Ph.D., Director of 

Operations, Bonefish and Tarpon 

Trust 

Norris McDonald, President, Center for 

Environment, Commerce & Energy, 

African American Environmentalist 

Association 

Michael Gravitz, Oceans Advocate, 

Environment America 

Carl Safina, President, Blue Ocean 

Institute 

Amanda Leland, Associate Vice 

President, Oceans Environmental 

Defense Fund 

Tobias Aguirre, Executive Director, 

FishWise 

Phil Kline, Senior, Ocean Campaigner, 

Greenpeace USA 

Lewis Regenstein, Interfaith Council for 

the Protection of Animals and Nature 

Rob Kramer, President, International 

Game Fish Association 

Bruce J. Stedman, Executive Director, 

Marine Fish Conservation Network 

Sean Saville, National Field Director, 

National Audubon Society 

Jason M. Patlis, President and CEO, 

National Marine Sanctuary 

Foundation 

Sarah Chasis, Director, Oceans Program, 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Chris Dorsett, Director, Fish 

Conservation and Gulf Restoration 

Program Ocean Conservancy 

Michael Stocker, Director, Ocean 

Conservation Research 

Diane Buccheri, Publisher, OCEAN 

Magazine 

Beth Lowell, Federal Policy Director, 

Oceana 

Lee Crockett, Director, Federal Fisheries 

Reform, Pew Environment Group 

Fabien Cousteau, Founder and 

President, Plant a Fish 

Paul G. Johnson, State Programs & 

Policy Director, Reef Relief 

David Jenkins, Vice President for 

Government and Political Affairs, 

Republicans for Environmental 

Protection 

Dan Pingaro, Executive Director, Sailors 

for the Sea 

Jamie Pollack, Co-Founder and Director, 

Shark Savers 

Doug Olander, Editor in Chief, Sport 

Fishing Magazine 

Marc A. Yaggi, Interim Executive 

Director, Waterkeeper Alliance 

Randy Repass, Founder and Chairman, 

West Marine 

Alabama: 

Tracy Redding, Owner, AAA Charters, 

Orange Beach, AL 

Alaska: 

Dorothy Childers, Program Director, 

Alaska Marine Conservation Council, 

Anchorage, AK 

California: 

Cynthia D’Vincent, Director, Intersea 

Foundation, Carmel Valley, CA 

Dr. Jan Freiwald, Director, Reef Check 

California, Pacific Palisades, CA 

Will McFarland, Owner, World of Diving, 

Hermosa Beach, CA 

Delaware: 

Michael Riska, Executive Director, 

Delaware Nature Society, Hockessin, 

DE 

Florida: 

David W. Hartman, President and Dive 

Instructor, Fantastic Endeavors, Key 

Largo, FL 

Justin Rieger, Captain, Just-in-Time 

Charters, Fort Pierce, FL 

Terry Gibson, President, North Swell 

Media, Jensen Beach, FL 

Ryan Floyd, Captain, Off the Bank 

Charters, Fort Pierce, FL 

Hawaii: 

Rick Gaffney, President, Hawaii Fishing 

& Boating Association, Kailua Kona, 

HI 

Lynn Webber, Office Manager, 

SeaPics.com, Kailua Kona, HI 

Maine: 

Jennifer Litteral, Policy Director, Island 

Institute, Rockland, ME 

Landis Hudson, Executive Director, 

Maine Rivers, Yarmouth, ME 

Glen Libby, Chairman, Midcoast 

Fishermen’s Association, Port Clyde, 

ME 

Glen Libby, President, Midcoast 

Fishermen’s Cooperative, Port Clyde, 

ME 

Maryland: 

Theaux Le Gardner, Owner, Backwater 

Angler, Monkton, MD 

Gary G. Allen, Executive Director, 

Center for Chesapeake Communities, 

Annapolis, MD 

Bill Goldsborough, Senior Scientist, 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 

Annapolis, MD 

86 

Brad Heavner, State Director, 

Environment Maryland, Baltimore, 

MD 

Jim Chambers, Founder and Owner, 

Prime Seafood, Kensington, MD 

Massachusetts: 

Antony Cignoli, President, A L Cignoli 

Company, Springfield, MA 

Art Benner, President, Alewives 

Anonymous, Rochester, MA 

David Klotsbach, President, Bach Corp, 

Plymouth, MA 

William Wynne, CEO, Byson 

Investments, Duxbury, MA 

Robert Avilla, General Manager, Capt. 

John Boats, Plymouth, MA 

Jason Cincotti, Principal, Cence Cincotti 

Strategies, Boston, MA 

Peter Shelley, Senior Counsel, 

Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, 

MA 

Robert Almond, COO, Full Armor, 

Boston, MA 

Alan Costello, Owner, FV Alyson Marie, 

Plymouth, MA 

Thomas O’Reilly, Owner, FV Karen M., 

Plymouth, MA 

Kerry Mackin, Executive Director, 

Ipswich River Watershed Association, 

Ipswitch, MA 

Jane Lane, Vice President, Johnston 

Associates, Boston, MA 

Joseph DiLorenzo, Partner, MD Group, 

Scituate, MA 

Carol Carson, President, New England 

Coastal Wildlife Alliance, Middleboro, 

MA 

Paul O’Sullivan, President, O’Sullivan & 

Associates, Quincy, MA 

Denis Hanks, Executive Director, 

Plymouth Area Chamber of Commerce, 

Plymouth, MA 

New Jersey: 

Doug O’Malley, Field Director, 

Environment New Jersey, Trenton, NJ 

Fred Akers, River Administrator, Great 

Egg Harbor Watershed Association, 

Newtonville, NJ 

Mary M. Hamilton, Executive Director, 

SandyHook SeaLife Foundation, 

Medford, NJ 

New York: 

Bernie Chowdhury, President, Alpha 

Dive Training, Middletown, NY 

Adrienne Esposito, Executive Director, 

Citizens Campaign for the 

Environment, Farmingdale, NY 

Ralph Towlen, Captain, Coastal Water 

Guides, Hampton Bays, NY 

Margaret Lydecker, Founder, Green 

Drinks NYC, New York, NY 

Jack Pollack, President, Integrated 

Electronic Systems, New York, NY 

David Blinken, Captain and Fishing 

Guide, North Flats Guiding, East 

Hampton, NY 

Michael Feld, Founder and President, 

Ocean Blue Divers, New York, NY 

Phillip Musegaas, Esq., Hudson River 

Program Director, Riverkeeper, 

Ossining, NY 

Stephen J. Scigliano, Owner, Swim and 

Scuba, Rockville Centre, NY 

Ed Tiedemann, Owner, Tiedemann’s 

Diving Center, Levittown, NY 

North Carolina: 

Will Morgan, Director of Governmental 

Affairs, NC Sierra Club, Raleigh, NC 

Larry Baldwin, Lower Neuse 

Riverkeeper, Neuse Riverkeeper 

Foundation, New Bern, NC 

Alissa Bierma, Upper Neuse 

Riverkeeper, Neuse Riverkeeper 

Foundation, New Bern, NC 

Dan Crawford, Director of Governmental 

Relations, North Carolina League of 

Conservation Voters, Raleigh, NC 

Kelly Jochim, Pamlico-Tar Riverkeeper, 

Pamlico-Tar River Foundation, 

Washington, NC 

Tess Sanders, Executive Director and 

Riverkeeper, White Oak-New 

Riverkeeper Alliance, Jacksonville, NC 

Ohio: 

Cheryl Patterson, Owner, Deep Blue 

Adventures, Swanton, OH 

Oregon: 

Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director, 

Northwest Environmental Advocates, 

Portland, OR 

Pennsylvania: 

Stan Kotala, M.D., Conservation Chair, 

Juniata Valley Audubon, 

Hollidaysburg, PA 

Adam Garber, Field Director, 

PennEnvironment, Philadelphia, PA 

Rhode Island: 

Roland St.John, Owner, Big Blue 

Aquatic Gifts, Tiverton, RI 

Charlie Donilon, Owner and Captain, 

Snapper Charters, Wakefield, RI 

South Carolina: 

Dana Beach, Executive Director, South 

Carolina Coastal Conservation League, 

Charleston, SC 

Texas: 

Michael Miglini, Board Member, Charter 

Fishermen’s Association, Corpus 

Christi, TX 

Scott Hickman, Owner and Operator, 

Circle H Outfitters, Galveston, TX 

Luke Metzger, Director, Environment 

Texas, Austin, TX 

Captain Shannon LaBauve, Owner and 

Operator, Geaux Fishing Charters, 

Houston, TX 

Captain Darrell Hingle, Owner and 

Operator, Hingle’s Guide Service, 

Galveston, TX 

87 

Captain Mike Segall, Owner and 

Operator, Reel Threel Saltwater 

Charters, Galveston, TX 

Evonn Caraway, Operations Manager, 

Underwater Expeditions, Freeport, TX 

Virginia: 

Bev Sell, 5 Point Norfolk Farm Market, 

Norfolk, VA 

Bethina Essert, Owner, Alchemy 

Redefined, Norfolk, VA 

Jesse Scaccia, Owner, Alt Daily, Norfolk, 

VA 

William Cox, Owner, And Design 

Collective, Virginia Beach, VA 

Romayne Byrum, Owner, Batten Bay 

Farm, Virginia Beach, VA 

Lyn Cherry, Owner, Beach Flavor, 

Virginia Beach, VA 

Jessica Whitaker, Owner, Bull Dog 

Beads, Virginia Beach, VA 

Dan Boyle, Manager, Central VA Wind 

Energy and Manufacturing, 

Charlottesville, VA 

Michael Cherry, Owner, Cherry Brothers 

Railing Company, Virginia Beach, VA 

Pat Okerland, Chair, Chesapeake for 

Change, Chesapeake, VA 

Kara Morisette, Manager, Counseling 

Interventions, Virginia Beach, VA 

Laura Wood-Harbor, Owner, Croc’s EcoBistro, Richmond, VA 

Frederick Perry, Owner, Dominion 

Fuels, Hampton, VA 

Scott Barta, Owner, Echelon Pavers, 

Virginia Beach, VA 

Christina Trapani, Owner, Eco Maniac, 

Norfolk, VA 

Amelia Baker, Owner, Green 

Alternatives, Norfolk, VA 

Randy Gilliland, Director, Green Jobs 

Alliance, Hampton, VA 

Laura Wood Harbor, Restaurants and 

Hospitality Green Advisor, Greener 

Results Virginia, Norfolk, VA 

Zac Jungers, Director, Hampton Roads 

Green Caffeine, Hampton, VA 

Zac Jungers, Director, Hampton Roads 

Green Drinks and Green Caffeine, 

Hampton, VA 

Tyler Joran, Owner, ModTra Corp, 

Virginia Beach, VA 

Joe Cook, Virginia Organizer, 

MoveOn.Org-Hampton Roads, Norfolk, 

VA 

Tench Phillips, Owner, Naro Expanded 

Cinemas, Norfolk, VA 

Courtney Simmons, President, Nuckols 

Tree Care, Virginia Beach, VA 

Jessica Riehl, Owner, Riehl Photography 

and Green Irene, Chesapeake, VA 

Duane Thompson, Owner, Sabrosa 

Foods, Norfolk, VA 

Jeff Kelble, Riverkeeper, Shenandoah 

Riverkeeper, Boyce, VA 

Richard Good, Owner, Solar ServicesVirginia Beach, Virginia Beach, VA 

Stephen Hoots, Owner, Stephen Hoots 

Contracting, Virginia Beach, VA 

Richard Hahn, Owner, Sunrise Solar and 

Wind, Norfolk, VA 

Terra Pascarosa, Owner, Terra-Scapes 

Environmental Consulting, Virginia 

Beach, VA 

Tom Robatham, Owner, Treehouse 

Magazine, Norfolk, VA 

Washington: 

Cleve Steward, Executive Director, 

Sustainable Fisheries Foundation, 

Snohomish, WA 

cc: The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations The Honorable Thad Cochran, Vice Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on 

Appropriations Members of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 

Science and Related Agencies The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV, Chairman, 

U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation 

The Honorable Mark Begich, Chairman, U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard 

The Honorable Olympia J. Snowe, Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard 

The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman, U.S. House of Representatives Committee 

on Natural Resources 

The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member, U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

The Honorable John Fleming, Chairman, U.S. House Subcommittee on Fisheries, 

Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs 

The Honorable Gregorio Sablan, Ranking Member, U.S. House Subcommittee on 

Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs 

Æ