AN OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: 

SPECIAL ADDENDUM

GOVERNORS’ COMMENTS 

ON THE PRELIMINARY REPORT

YOU MAY ELECTRONICALLY DOWNLOAD THIS DOCUMENT FROM: 

HTTP://WWW.OCEANCOMMISSION.GOV

THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE CITED AS FOLLOWS:

GOVERNORS’ COMMENTS ON THE PRELIMINARY REPORT

SPECIAL ADDENDUM TO AN OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

FINAL REPORT OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY

WASHINGTON, D.C., 2004 

ISBN 0-9759462-1-8 
Comments on the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

from States, Commonwealths, Territories, Tribal Governments, and Regional 

Governors Associations 

Section 3(g) of the Oceans Act of 2000 requires, in part, that the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy “provide 

a copy of the draft report to the Governor of each coastal State,” and “include in the final report comments 

received from the Governor of a coastal State regarding recommendations in the draft report." 

In recognition of the important contributions oceans and coasts make to inland states, as well as the impacts 

activities in such states can have on marine waters, the Commission determined that it would solicit 

comments on its draft report (Preliminary Report) from the governors of all states, commonwealths, and 

territories and the tribal leaders of federally recognized tribes. This Special Addendum contains all of the 

comments received in response to that solicitation. It also includes one response from a regional governors 

association. 

 

Contents 

Letter of April 14, 2004 from Admiral James D. Watkins to the Governors 

Notification of Extension of the Comment Deadline to June 4, 2004 

Responses from States: Alabama 

 Alaska 

 California 

 Connecticut 

 Delaware 

 Florida 

 Georgia 

 Hawaii 

 Illinois 

 Indiana 

 Iowa 

 Louisiana 

 Maine 

 Maryland 

 Massachusetts 

 Michigan 

 Minnesota 

 Mississippi 

 Nevada 

 New Jersey 

 New York 

 North Carolina 

 Ohio 

 Oregon 

 Pennsylvania 

 Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

 Texas 

 Utah 

 Virginia 

 Washington 

 Wisconsin 

 
Responses from Commonwealths and Territories: 

American Samoa 

 Guam 

 Northern Mariana Islands 

 Puerto Rico 

 US Virgin Islands 

 

Responses from Tribal Governments: 

Chickasaw Nation 

 Lummi Nation 

 Native Village of Eyak 

 Sitka Tribes of Alaska 

 Tulalip Tribes 

 

Responses from Regional Governors Associations: 

Council of Great Lakes Governors 

1120 2 0 T H S TREET , N W * S UITE 200 N ORTH * W ASHINGTON , D C 20036 

P HONE : 202-418-3442 * F A X : 202-418-3475 * WWW . OCEANCOMMISSION . GOV

COMMISSIONERS 

ADM J AMES D . W ATKINS , USN ( R E T .), C HAIRMAN * R OBERT B . B ALLARD , P H .D. * T ED A . B EATTIE * L ILLIAN C . B ORRONE * J AMES M . C OLEMAN , P H .D. 

A NN D’A MATO * L AWRENCE R . D ICKERSON * VADM P AUL G . G AFFNEY II, USN ( R E T . ) * M ARC J . H ERSHMAN * P AUL L . K ELLY * C HRISTOPHER L . K OCH

F RANK E. M ULLER - K ARGER , P H .D. * E DWARD B . R ASMUSON * A NDREW A . R OSENBERG , P H .D. * WILLIAM D . R UCKELSHAUS * P AUL A . S ANDIFER , P H .D. 

T HOMAS R . K ITSOS , P H .D., E XECUTIVE D IRECTOR

April 14, 2004 

Dear Governor: 

I am pleased to present the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy for 

your review and comment regarding its recommendations, as called for by the Oceans Act of 

2000. Please note that you are receiving an advance copy which is embargoed until 9:30 a.m. 

on April 20, 2004. 

Your input is critical to our process. The oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes are national treasures 

of importance to every state and territory. Almost 60 percent of the U.S. population lives in the 

coastal zone, and the coastal economy contributes fully half of the national GDP. Even those 

living far from the coasts are inextricably connected to the bounty—and the problems—of our 

oceans. Every American should feel a sense of stewardship for our oceans. 

As you know, our Commission marks the first opportunity the nation has had in almost 35 years 

to review our ocean policies comprehensively. While the world has changed considerably in that 

time, many of our policies have not. We believe this Preliminary Report offers an exciting and 

realistic blueprint for a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy for the 21st 

century. Our draft findings and recommendations are based on over two years of nationwide 

public meetings, site visits, study, and deliberation, and represent a consensus of the Commission 

members. 

As you will see, our recommendations are action-oriented, providing a logical set of steps that 

can begin immediately. We are sensitive to the needs and concerns of states and territories, and 

propose the development of new bottom-up approaches that involve the people who live near and 

enjoy ocean resources and will be most affected by new policies. In particular, the preliminary 

report offers workable solutions for many specific issues such as coastal development, fisheries 

management, habitat protection, pollution control, natural hazards mitigation, and many others. 

We are acutely sensitive to the funding constraints facing all levels of government. From the 

outset of our process, we agreed not to propose anything that would, if implemented, constitute 

an unfunded mandate. Instead, our report identifies potential sources and mechanisms for 

covering the costs of all our recommendations, linked to the use of certain offshore resources. 
Page 2 

The enclosed materials include a hard copy of the Preliminary Report, as well as an electronic 

version of the full report on a CD located inside the back cover. The CD contains higher 

quality, color versions of many of the report’s graphics, as well as several appendices. Because 

the report is substantial in size, scope, and level of detail, we hope that the executive summary 

and detailed table of contents will help guide you through the document. 

In addition, I invite you to view the short video included as a DVD inside the front cover of the 

report. The video—An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century—provides a visual overview of the 

report and its main recommendations. The complete draft report and introductory video will be 

available to the public through our Web site, www.oceancommission.gov on April 20th. 

All comments on the Preliminary Report are due by May 21, 2004. The Commission eagerly 

awaits your feedback, which we will review before finalizing our report to the President and 

Congress. Our strong preference is for comments to be submitted in electronic form to 

comments@oceancommission.gov. However, we will also accept comments by regular mail 

(1120 – 20th St., NW, Suite 200 North, Washington, DC 20036) or fax (202-418-3475). 

To keep all interested individuals informed, we have supplied copies of the draft report to a 

number of coastal and natural resource officials and other stakeholders in your region. However, 

while we are accepting input from all parties during this review period, only your comments to 

the Commission will be considered as the official response of your state and be included in an 

appendix in the final report as required by section 3(g)(2) of the Oceans Act. 

I want to stress again that you are critical to this process and we look forward to hearing 

from you. If you have any questions, please contact the Commission’s Executive Director, 

Dr. Tom Kitsos, or myself at (202) 418-3442. 

 Sincerely, 

 James D. Watkins 

 Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired) 

 Chairman 

Enclosures 

cc: Members, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

 Dr. Tom Kitsos 
To: GOVERNORS OF ALL STATES AND TERRITORIES 

From: U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY

Subject: COMMENT PERIOD ON PRELIMINARY REPORT 

This is to inform you that the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy is extending its public 

comment period – the date by which gubernatorial and other stakeholder comments on 

the Commission’s Preliminary Report are due -- to June 4, 2004. This extension of two 

weeks will bring the total amount of time that the nation’s Governors will have had the 

report for review to approximately 50 days, a period somewhat longer than that 

requested by the Coastal States Organization (March 16, 2004 letter to Admiral 

Watkins, Chairman).

Notwithstanding this extension, the Commission intends to move ahead with its internal 

process for analyzing comments and presenting a final report to the President and 

Congress. It is our understanding that a number of states are making good progress in 

the development of their comments and should be ready to submit them to the 

Commission on or near the original deadline of May 21. Thus, on May 24, the 

Commission will begin to review comments received. All states and other stakeholders 

are urged to provide their views as close to that date as possible to give the 

Commission more time for review and consideration. Nevertheless, we will continue to 

accept and consider all comments received through June 4.

Governors’ comments received from June 5 through June 30 will not be reviewed by the 

Commission but will, in accordance with section 3(g)(2) of the Oceans Act of 2000 (P.L. 

106-256), be included in the Commission’s final report. Because of our production 

schedule, gubernatorial comments received after June 30 may not be included in the 

report submitted to the President and Congress.

I would like to emphasize that the Commission’s comment period on the Preliminary 

Report represents only one of several opportunities that governors and other 

stakeholders have had, and will continue to have, to express their views on the 

development of a national ocean policy. The Commission’s fifteen public meetings, 

including nine regional hearings, provided an initial opportunity for input and a number 

of state representatives participated in these forums. We believe that the Preliminary 

Report reflects many of the views expressed by those representing state governments. 

Further, in the 90 day period after receiving the final report, the President is directed to 

consult with state and local governments, and other non-Federal interests, prior to 

submitting to Congress his statement of proposals to implement or respond to the 

Commission’s recommendations (Section 4(a) of P.L. 106-256). The White House, 

through the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, has been very clear that 

it intends to carefully consider the concerns and interests of the Governors in this 

process. 
Finally, I refer you to my e-mail message sent at the beginning of this week in which I 

emphasized that the Commission’s Preliminary Report is intended to be a high-level 

ocean and coastal “blueprint” on which we are requesting your state’s very broad policy 

views. Implementation of the Commission’s recommendations will, in many cases, 

require legislative action in what remains of this Congress and in future congresses -- a 

process of course that will continue well after this Commission ceases to exist and one 

which provides ample opportunity for additional and far more detailed gubernatorial 

input.

As I have repeatedly emphasized in every message to you going back almost a year 

now, the views of your Governor and your state are crucial to the Commission in 

developing its proposal for a comprehensive and coordinated national ocean policy. 

Admiral Watkins and I hope this extension will provide states that need it the additional 

time necessary to finish their work and provide a succinct set of comments on the 

recommendations of direct interest to them. 

We look forward to receiving your Governor’s comments as soon as possible – but not 

later than June 4. If you have any questions, please contact either me or Peter Hill, 

Special Assistant for Government Relations, at (202) 418-3442.

Thomas R. Kitsos

Executive Director

 
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alaska

Alaska

Alaska
Page 2 of 7 

State Resource Management Sovereignty and Jurisdiction 

Like the federal government, state governments are constitutionally created 

sovereign organizations. Through the United States and Alaska constitutions, 

the State of Alaska is provided the jurisdictional authority for comprehensive 

management of biological resources, pollution control, coastal management, 

resource development and management of intertidal lands and upland 

watersheds. 

When Alaska was a Territory prior to 1959, the United States government 

asserted exclusive jurisdiction for managing Alaska’s ocean and coastal 

resources. Centralized federal management allowed the use of fish traps with 

devastating impacts to Alaska’s salmon populations. The desire of Alaskans to 

protect fisheries resources with local management was a preeminent 

motivation for petitioning Congress to grant Alaska statehood. 

In granting Alaska statehood in 1959, Congress ratified Alaska’s Constitution 

which includes a provision that; 

“Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources 

belonging to the state shall be utilized, developed and maintained on the 

sustained yield principle.” (Article 8, section 4) 

In addition to natural resource management, Alaska’s sustained yield principle 

is reflected in the state’s pollution control statutes: 

“It is the policy of the state to conserve, improve, and protect its natural 

resources and environment and control water, land, and air pollution, in 

order to enhance the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the state 

and their overall economic and social well being. It is the policy of the 

state to improve and coordinate the environmental plans, functions, 

powers, and programs of the state, in cooperation with the federal 

government, regions, local governments, other public and private 

organizations, and concerned individuals, and to develop and manage 

the basic resources of water, land, and air to the end that the state may 

fulfill its responsibility as trustee of the environment for the present and 

future generations.” (Alaska Statute 46.03.010). 

“Jurisdiction” is a term used frequently in the commission’s report. 

Jurisdiction is commonly understood to mean the authority of a sovereign 

power to govern, legislate, or administer the law, or an entity with the legal 

power, right, or authority to hear and decide a cause considered either in 

general or with reference to a particular matter or place. 1 Jurisdiction is 

generally specific, defined, and justiciable. To achieve the commission’s vision 

of a new national ocean policy framework, it is critical that jurisdictional 

 

1 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary
Page 3 of 7 

authority be appropriately matched with resource management authority. 

Agencies at all levels of government responsible for ocean and watershed 

management must be correctly identified and given corresponding 

responsibility in any resource governance structure. 

The “Primer on Ocean Jurisdictions” in chapter 3 of the report does a fair job 

explaining “the ocean jurisdiction of the United States under international law, 

as well as the domestic distinction between federal and state waters.” In 

addition to the three-mile seaward jurisdiction of state governments reported 

by the commission, state governments exercise considerable jurisdiction 

governing inland coastal watersheds. Regulating land use activities, managing 

fish and wildlife, and controlling discharges to air, land, and water in coastal 

watersheds is primarily a state responsibility. 

The nation’s environmental laws are founded on the “primary responsibilities 

and rights of states”2 to manage and protect environmental resources. National 

standards for environmental quality provide the necessary criteria for 

managing natural resources that are not restricted by state borders. Strategies 

to implement national standards are the responsibility of state governments 

that have the local knowledge and site-specific authorities to regulate and 

enforce compliance. Post implementation monitoring and analysis is used to 

determine if state implementation strategies are achieving the national 

standards. 

Area Specific Ocean and Ecosystem Qualities and Characteristics 

Alaska is the nation’s only arctic state with environmental issues more 

common to Russia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Greenland, and Canada than to 

other states. Alaska is also the largest ocean state in the country and its 

oceans include the North Pacific Ocean, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas. 

Alaska has 33,904 miles of shoreline – twice the length of all the other states 

combined. The estimated tidal shoreline, including islands, inlets and 

shoreline to head of the tidewater is 47,300 miles. Alaska occupies 20% of the 

nation’s land base, 40% of the nation’s surface water, and contains half the 

nation’s wetlands. 

 

Alaska’s oceans are geographically separated and comprise the largest 

contiguous ocean mass in the country. The Report divides Alaska into two 

large marine ecosystems, the Eastern Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska. 

There is a third ecosystem not identified in the Report that comprises Alaska’s 

arctic coast. The Arctic Ocean is a distinct ecosystem of national and 

international significance. 

 

2

 Clean Water Act section 1251, Congressional recognition, preservation, and protection of primary 

responsibilities and rights of States. 

Alaska
Page 4 of 7 

Alaska’s proven and unexplored natural resources are greater than any other 

state. Alaska oceans and coastal watersheds produce 25% of the nation’s oil, 

over 50% of the nation’s seafood, and minerals from several world-class mines 

including the world’s largest operating zinc mine. 

The unique regional qualities of Alaska’s ocean and watershed resources are 

also reflected in their quality. Relative to the oceans and watersheds in the rest 

of the country, Alaska’s resources are healthy, productive, and pollution-free. 

EPA’s 2004 report on the condition of the nation’s coast concludes that, 

“Alaska’s coastal resources are generally in pristine condition. Concentrations 

of contaminants have been measured at levels significantly lower than those in 

the rest of the coastal United States.” Alaska’s oceans also support the most 

productive fisheries in the world and do not suffer from the consequences of 

concentrated coastal development and urbanization that generates much of the 

environmental pollution that is found in the rest of the nation. 

Alaska Resource Management Practices and Results 

The sustained yield principles in Alaska’s Constitution and state law are the 

cornerstone of its resource management success. Alaska’s elected 

representatives have made clear the state’s commitment to environmental 

protection and the responsibility to work with all interests to develop Alaska’s 

resources for the well being of current and future Alaskans. 

Federal programs do not adapt easily to Alaska. Federal and state 

collaboration to balance national policies with local conditions is needed for 

successful resource management. The State of Alaska has a long history of 

working successfully in collaboration with federal and local jurisdictions on 

ocean issues. From joint state and federal oil and gas lease sales in the 

Beaufort Sea, to the continuing work of the North Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council, Alaska has significant experience in the benefits of 

intergovernmental coordination for managing ocean and watershed resources. 

Under existing federal environmental law, state governments are reserved 

significant responsibilities for implementing environmental protection and 

resource management strategies to achieve compliance with federal goals and 

standards. Many of Alaska’s resource management implementation strategies 

are based on federally-approved water quality standards, non-point source 

pollution control plans, impaired water body restoration priorities, coastal 

management standards and enforceable local policies, and ground-fish 

allocation and limited entry plans. 

The State of Alaska appreciates the commission’s recognition of the North 

Pacific Fisheries Management Council model for sustainable management. The 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act established the 
Page 5 of 7 

North Pacific Fisheries Management Council to have primary responsibility for 

allocating Alaska’s halibut and groundfish resources in the federal Exclusive 

Economic Zone. Of the council’s eleven voting members, Alaska’s Governor is 

authorized to appoint six. 

The fishing industry is Alaska’s largest private sector employer and provides 

nearly all of the employment in about half of Alaska’s coastal communities. 

For many of these coastal communities, commercial fishing makes up over 

50% of their economic base. Alaska provides half of all of the seafood 

harvested in the United States. The ex-vessel value (the value paid at the 

docks to fishermen) of Alaska’s seafood in recent years has been approximately 

$1.1 billion annually. These dollars flow throughout Alaska’s economy when 

accounting for wholesale and retail values, taxes paid, and the ripple effects on 

the myriad of support businesses sustained by the fishing industry. 

In the 1890’s, canneries in Alaska began using very effective floating fish traps 

in salmon streams. Managed by the federal government, these traps proved so 

effective that by the 1920s they accounted for 50% of the total salmon catch. 

As a result, salmon populations declined dramatically because not enough 

salmon were allowed to escape and spawn. 

Following statehood in 1959, one of the Legislature’s first acts was to ban fish 

traps in order to conserve and restore salmon populations. A process clearly 

delineating allocation from assessment and conservation was implemented: the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game manages resources for conservation; the 

Alaska boards of Fish and Game determine allocations between the resource 

users. This clear separation in authority between management and allocation 

authorities is a critical factor in the success of Alaska’s fisheries management 

system. A similar management model incorporating this clear distinction 

between the assessment/conservation and allocation functions is utilized by 

the North Pacific Council, and has been acknowledged in the report as a highly 

successful management model. 

The productivity and health of Alaska’s fisheries are a reflection of the quality 

of Alaska’s marine and fresh waters. The Clean Water Act is a comprehensive, 

tested, and credible framework for Alaska’s programs to assess, protect, and 

restore the state’s coastal and freshwater resources. The Clean Water Act 

includes specific provisions for the “recognition, preservation, and protection of 

primary responsibilities and rights of states.”3 Alaska’s federally-approved 

water quality standards are the foundation of the state’s water protection 

programs to protect all water uses and control discharges of pollutants. Alaska 

has also developed a model program called Alaska Clean Water Actions to 

ensure that state resource agencies collaborate on prioritizing waterbody 

needs, actions, and funding decisions. Federal agencies and non-governmental 

 

3

 Clean Water Act section 1251. 

Alaska
Page 6 of 7 

organization are encouraged to coordinate their actions with the state to 

prioritize effective use of limited federal resources for assessing, protecting, and 

restoring water resources. 

Use of Applied Science and Ecosystem Monitoring 

As noted in the report, applying judicious and responsible management 

practices should be based on the best available science. Alaska has significant 

responsibilities for ocean and coastal resource management and is struggling 

to acquire basic data and funding needed to support sound resource 

management decisions. Given that unlimited funds will never be available to 

acquire the data and apply the science needed to predict outcomes with 

complete certainty, the State of Alaska has learned that management principles 

and science need to be targeted, cost-effective, and directed toward specific 

goals and objectives. Data needs should be derived from specific hypotheses to 

support resource management decisions. The monitoring needs and 

information requirements for one area are not necessarily the same as for 

others. 

The commission is correct in recognizing the value of ecosystem monitoring. 

Present monitoring for existing resource management programs is woefully 

underfunded. The State of Alaska participates in the Environmental Protection 

Agency Environmental Monitoring and Assessment program that has only 

recently funded work in Alaska to survey the condition of Alaska’s ocean and 

coastal habitat, water quality, sediment quality, benthic and fish resources. 

Stream flow information is also necessary to help place water quality 

information in context. As the report correctly notes, only four National Stream 

Quality Accounting Network sites are located in Alaska. In addition, a number 

of other special purpose environmental monitoring stations are managed by 

federal, state, and local governments, non-governmental organizations, and 

private sector industries. 

With over 365,000 miles of streams and rivers, 47,300 miles of shoreline, and 

the largest ocean area in the country, the federal government must take a riskbased approach in coordination with the state to prioritize the purpose and 

locations of Alaska’s monitoring stations. As a practical matter, the risk to 

oceans and watersheds from past, current, and future uses must be taken into 

account when allocating the limited management resources that can be 

dedicated to environmental monitoring, scientific investigation, and applied 

research. 

Data collection, monitoring, and scientific inquiry are tools for reducing the 

uncertainty in a risk-based decision-making process. They also provide the 

basis for mid-course correction if trends show unanticipated outcomes. The 

amount of science and monitoring must be proportional to the significance of 
Page 7 of 7 

the outcome of the resource management decision. Research, science, and 

monitoring are all key elements of responsible risk-based decision-making, 

which should be developed and continuously reviewed to meet specific regional 

needs. At this point and in the foreseeable future, science cannot predict 

outcomes with complete certainty. There will continue to be a level of 

uncertainty that is part of a risk-based decision-making process. The 

commission has proposed a “precautionary approach” that balances the level of 

scientific uncertainty and potential risk of harm in management decisions. The 

State of Alaska concurs with this approach. 

Conclusion 

Alaska’s oceans and coastal areas are unlike any other in the country in terms 

of their size, productivity, environmental quality, and management based on a 

constitutionally-required sustained yield principle. Alaska’s resource 

management successes have been achieved under a strong state Constitution, 

commitment to collaborate with federal and local management programs, nongovernmental interests and neighboring countries, applied science, and 

environmental monitoring. Alaska’s resource management is driven by sitespecific risk-based priorities using local knowledge and solutions to achieve 

national standards. 

The State of Alaska envisions a national oceans policy that acknowledges the 

jurisdictions of the states and is responsive to the varying characteristics and 

needs of the states. The state seeks a strong state-federal partnership, which 

recognizes the roles and responsibilities of all parties, as we pursue a 

comprehensive national oceans policy. Such a policy and approach would be 

consistent with the aims and interests expressed in the commission’s report. 

Alaska

Page 2 of 50 

regional ocean councils.” Even in this single recommendation, state 

sovereignty is given the same deference as “territorial, tribal, and local 

governments and nongovernmental participants.” 

It is not acceptable that states be relegated to a backseat in the national oceans 

plan through a system of regional councils whose jurisdiction, responsibility, 

role, authority, and mission are largely undefined. As a sovereign entity 

responsible for management of natural resources, states must play the lead 

role in any new regional scheme for ocean and coastal management. 

There is an important difference between the roles and responsibilities between 

governmental and non-governmental organizations that is blurred in the 

commission’s report and must be clarified. Unlike non-governmental 

organizations, governmental agencies have the responsibility to implement 

ocean and watershed resource management policies established in law by 

elected officials. Treating governmental interests on an equal par with nongovernmental interests is unacceptable. 

If actions called for in the report to improve the nation’s governance of oceans 

and watersheds are to succeed, it is critical that jurisdictional authority be 

appropriately matched with resource management authority. Agencies at all 

levels of government that are responsible for ocean and watershed management 

and decision-making must be correctly identified and given corresponding 

responsibility in any new resource governance structure. The state is 

particularly concerned that the jurisdiction of state governments be recognized 

and upheld in any federal government restructuring. 

The commission’s Preliminary Report includes important recommendations to 

reorganize the nation’s oceans and coastal watersheds governance structure. 

The creation of a National Oceans Council, Presidential Council of Advisors on 

Ocean Policy, and Regional Oceans Councils are major elements in the 

recommended governance structure and warrant special attention. Each of 

these cornerstones to a new oceans and watersheds governance framework will 

have to acknowledge and build on the existing jurisdiction of constituted 

governments. 

In a number of areas, the commission has recommended the creation of new 

federal organizations to administer newly-created programs to accomplish 

results which the State of Alaska believes could be more efficiently achieved by 

coordinating and funding existing federal agencies and programs. Alaska has 

successfully implemented existing federal, state, and local programs to manage 

fisheries, regulate coastal development and control pollution. The state’s 

implementation strategies operate consistent with existing federal law in 

collaboration with the same federal agencies that will be members of the 

National Ocean Council recommended by the commission. When properly 

funded and coordinated with federal agencies, the environmental objectives 

Alaska
Page 3 of 50 

and results sought by the commission can be achieved using existing state and 

federal organizations. More federal agencies, committees, offices, boards, task 

forces, centers, and teams are an unnecessary expense that would divert 

limited resources away from the nation’s core environmental protection and 

resource management programs. 

Recommendation 4–1. Congress should establish a National Ocean 

Council, and a nonfederal Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean 

Policy, within the Executive Office of the President to provide enhanced 

federal leadership and coordination for the ocean and coasts. While 

Congress works to establish these components in law, the President 

should begin immediately to implement an integrated national ocean 

policy by creating them through an Executive Order, and by appointing an 

Assistant to the President to chair the Council. 

This recommendation should be amended to provide a clear distinction 

between governmental organizations with the responsibility, authority, and 

accountability for natural resource management and pollution control, and 

nongovernmental organizations that have no jurisdiction for managing ocean 

and coastal-related resources. Relegating sovereign states that have 

jurisdiction over many ocean and coastal watershed-related decisions to the 

same advisory position as non-governmental and interest groups is 

inappropriate. The State of Alaska recommends that governors be offered 

periodic review of NOC policy and goals with the voluntary opportunity to 

submit comments on NOC activities. While such a dialogue must be limited as 

to not be burdensome or inefficient to any of the parties involved, it must take 

into account the role of states in the decision-making and policyimplementation processes. 

 

The State of Alaska supports the commission’s proposal to have a national level 

group of governmental and non-governmental ocean policy advisors to the 

President. The mission of these bodies should be restricted to national ocean 

policy and federal coordination issues and not be allowed to creep into specific 

regional, state, or local management decisions or implementation issues. 

Recommendation 4–2. The National Ocean Council (NOC) should provide 

high-level attention to ocean and coastal issues, develop and guide the 

implementation of appropriate national goals and policies, and coordinate 

the many federal departments and agencies with ocean and coastal 

responsibilities. The NOC should be chaired by an Assistant to the 

President and composed of cabinet secretaries of departments and 

directors of independent agencies with relevant ocean- and coastal-related 

responsibilities. 

This recommendation should be amended to delete any reference to 

implementation that might confuse the NOC role as a policy coordination body 
Page 4 of 50 

with no regulatory or resource allocation responsibilities. A cabinet-level body 

within the federal executive branch to advise the President is the appropriate 

level of authority for developing and coordinating the federal government’s 

oceans and watersheds policies. It is appropriate for this policy-making body 

to be comprised of federal representatives with jurisdiction over federal ocean 

and watershed management under existing core programs like the Clean Water 

Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

legislation that specifically addresses environmental protection and resource 

management for oceans and watersheds. 

The State of Alaska supports the recommendation for a Presidential assistant 

to chair the NOC. It is important that the NOC chair be agency-neutral with 

direct access to the President on national ocean policy. 

Recommendation 4–3. The National Ocean Council (NOC) should adopt 

the principle of ecosystem-based management and assist federal agencies 

in moving toward an ecosystem-based management approach. 

The State of Alaska cautiously supports this recommendation. The state 

appreciates the fact that activities in the area from the inland extent of coastal 

watersheds can affect oceans out to the offshore boundary of the nation’s 

exclusive economic zone. However, it is important to acknowledge that limited 

scientific data challenges our ability to fully implement “ecosystem 

management.” 

Political borders must not be a barrier to restoring and protecting ocean and 

watershed resources that function within environmental borders. At the same 

time, the different jurisdictional authorities within political units must be 

respected and consulted. It is particularly important that states and their 

political subdivisions have well-defined unambiguous roles in an ecosystembased approach to management since their land use designations and controls 

will frequently be key components of ocean-protection solutions. 

The science is still developing to define “ecosystem management.” However, 

continuing to move towards an ecosystem approach is an appropriate goal. 

The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council has developed a practical 

working definition for an ecosystem-based approach for fisheries management: 

“An ecosystem-based management strategy for marine fisheries would be to 

minimize potential impacts, while allowing for extraction of fish resources at 

levels sustainable for both the fish stock and the ecosystem.” It may not, 

however, be appropriate to manage living marine resources based upon 

theoretical assumptions about other potentially distant impacts (e.g. setting 

salmon harvest levels based on models of the impacts of urban run-off). 

Recommendation 4–4. A designated Assistant to the President should 

provide leadership and support for national ocean and coastal policy. The 

Alaska
Page 5 of 50 

Assistant to the President should chair the National Ocean Council (NOC), 

co-chair the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, and lead 

NOC efforts to coordinate federal agency actions and involve regional, 

state, and local stakeholders. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. Such an assistant would 

be very useful in coordinating formal communication between the NOC and the 

governors as advocated in the state’s comments on recommendation 4-1. An 

agency-neutral Assistant to the President could serve as a useful bridge 

between federal, state, and non-governmental interests in the nation’s ocean 

policies. To facilitate federal coordination on regional issues, the NOC should 

include a formal avenue for receiving advice from Regional Ocean Councils 

(ROCs) that is not provided for in the report or recommendations. The 

reference to “regional” stakeholder in recommendation 4-4 should be more 

clearly stated if the commission’s intent is to have the assistant to the 

President also serve as a bridge between the proposed ROCs and the NOC 

and/or the President. 

Recommendation 4–5. The Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean 

Policy, a formal structure for input from individuals and organizations 

outside the federal government, should advise the President on ocean and 

coastal policy matters. The President should appoint to the council a 

representative selection of nonfederal individuals who are knowledgeable 

about, and experienced in, ocean and coastal issues. 

This recommendation should be amended to remove state governments from 

the proposed list of members. Membership on the Presidential Council of 

Advisors should be limited to non-governmental individuals and organizations. 

A non-governmental advisory body is not an appropriate vehicle for conveying 

the views of state governments. As stated previously, the State of Alaska 

supports formal communication between the NOC and the governors that 

correctly reflects the role of the states in policy-making and implementation. 

Recommendation 4–6. Congress should establish an Office of Ocean 

Policy to support the Assistant to the President, the National Ocean 

Council (NOC), and the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy. 

To provide immediate staff support, the President should include an 

Office of Ocean Policy in the Executive Order that creates the Council. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. The commission’s 

recommendation to establish the NOC has great merit. How the council 

conducts its proceedings or decides to organize committees, task forces, offices, 

boards, or work groups should be left to the discretion of the NOC. 

Recommendation 4-7. Congress, working with the National Ocean 

Council (NOC), should amend the National Oceanographic Partnership Act 
Page 6 of 50 

to integrate ocean observing, operations, and education into its marine 

research mission. A strengthened and enhanced National Ocean Research 

Leadership Council (NORLC) should be redesignated as the Committee on 

Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations (COSETO), under 

the oversight of the NOC.

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. It is premature to 

recommend legislative amendments without further review and evaluation by 

the National Ocean Council, coastal states, and a non-governmental Advisory 

Council proposed in the previous recommendations (4-1; 4-5). There is 

insufficient information or analysis provided in the commission’s report to 

justify the recommended congressional action. 

Recommendation 4–8. The National Ocean Council (NOC) should establish 

a Committee on Ocean Resource Management to better integrate the 

resource management activities of ocean-related agencies. This 

committee should oversee and coordinate the work of existing ocean and 

coastal interagency efforts, recommend the creation of new topical task 

forces as needed, and coordinate with government-wide environmental 

and natural resource efforts that have important ocean components. The 

Committee on Ocean Resource Management should be chaired by the 

chair of the Council on Environmental Quality and should include 

undersecretaries and assistant secretaries of departments and agencies 

that are members of the NOC. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. The commission’s 

recommendation to establish the NOC has great merit. How the council 

conducts its proceedings or decides to organize committees, task forces, offices, 

boards, or work groups should be left to the discretion of the NOC. 

 

Recommendation 4–9. The National Ocean Council should review all 

existing ocean-related councils and commissions and make 

recommendations about their ongoing utility and reporting structure. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation provided this process 

includes review by coastal states and a non-governmental advisory council. 

The review of all existing ocean-related councils and commissions should also 

be expanded to include federal ocean, coastal, and atmospheric programs 

referred to in recommendation 7-3. 

Recommendation 4-10. The National Ocean Council should work with 

Congress, the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, and state, 

territorial, tribal, and local leaders, including representatives from the 

private sector, non-governmental organizations and academia, to develop 

a flexible and voluntary process for the creation of regional ocean 

councils. 

Alaska
Page 7 of 50 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. The state agrees that 

government decision-makers need to collaborate in a formal governance 

framework to resolve regional ocean and watershed issues that cross 

jurisdictional lines at the federal, state and local levels. The commission 

carefully distinguished between jurisdictional and advisory roles at the national 

policy level. Similarly, the regional governance structure must also not confuse 

the decision-making roles and responsibilities of state and local government 

jurisdictions with the advisory role of non-jurisdictional individuals and 

organizations. 

We strongly support and see great benefit in a flexible and voluntary process 

for the creation of regional ocean councils. However, our support is predicated 

on limiting Regional Ocean Council membership to governments with ocean 

and watershed jurisdiction. By including non-governmental entities with 

governments in the membership for ROCs, the commission’s recommendation 

diminishes state sovereignty and blurs the critical distinction between 

decision-makers and policy-advisors. Consistent with the governance 

structure recommended for enhancing ocean leadership and coordination at 

the national level, the State of Alaska is a strong advocate for advancing a 

regional governance structure that establishes ROCs composed of state 

governors with ocean- and watershed-related jurisdiction in the region. 

State governors should have the authority and discretion to establish ROCs 

including the membership, mission, and operating procedures. In addition, the 

states should have the discretion to establish Regional Policy Advisory Councils 

with members from non-governmental organizations. 

Recommendation 4–11. The President, through an Executive Order, 

should direct federal agencies with ocean- and coastal-related functions to 

immediately improve their regional coordination, as a precursor to federal 

reorganization around common regional boundaries and the eventual 

establishment of regional ocean councils. As part of this process, federal 

agencies should collaborate with regional, state, territorial, tribal, and 

local governments and non-governmental parties to identify major issues 

of concern in each region. 

This recommendation should be amended to acknowledge the difference 

between states and non-governmental organizations. Like federal agencies, 

states have the jurisdictional authority to develop and implement resource 

management decisions, whereas non-governmental parties do not. This 

recommendation should be revised to have federal agencies collaborate directly 

with states through a ROC governance structure. Non-governmental policy 

advice would be provided to federal agencies at the national level by the 

Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy and could be provided at the 

regional level by non-governmental regional advisory councils. 
Page 8 of 50 

The State of Alaska also supports the recommendation for federal agencies to 

better align their office jurisdictions with common regional boundaries. With 

the exception of the Environmental Protection Agency, virtually all federal 

ocean and coastal-related resource agencies recognize Alaska as a distinct 

region and have aligned their regional office boundaries consistent with the 

state’s. The Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, 

Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, Corps of 

Engineers, Geological Survey, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land 

Management, and the Minerals Management Service all have regional offices in 

Alaska. 

Recommendation 5–1. State, territorial, tribal, and local governments 

and non-governmental participants should use the broad, flexible process 

developed through the National Ocean Council to begin the establishment 

of regional ocean councils. 

 

This recommendation should be amended to recognize the jurisdiction of 

states over ocean and watershed issues and, consequently, the necessity of 

states to take the lead in establishing ROCs and non-governmental Regional 

Advisory Councils. As states have jurisdiction over many of the issues that 

would be brought before the ROCs, it is appropriate to make the states the lead 

agents in the establishment of the ROCs. State governors should bear the 

responsibility to establish ROCs. State leadership at the regional level is 

consistent with the commission’s recommendation at the national level, which 

gives the President and Congress the responsibility to establish an NOC 

separate from a non-governmental Advisory Council. 

Recommendation 5–2. Congress should establish regional ocean 

information programs throughout the nation to improve coordination and 

set regional priorities for research, data collection, science-based 

information products, and outreach activities in support of improved 

ocean and coastal management. The regional ocean information 

programs should be established immediately, independent of the 

voluntary, and potentially more complicated, process of establishing 

regional ocean councils. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. Regional information 

programs must serve and be a part of the ROC framework. Creating an 

independent regional information program that would set priorities for the 

research, data collection, and information products that are essential to state 

resource managers is counterproductive to the commission’s goals for improved 

governance coordination and efficiency. 

Recommendation 5–3. Each regional ocean information program, with 

guidance from the National Ocean Council, should coordinate the 

Alaska
Page 9 of 50 

development of a regional ecosystem assessment, to be updated 

periodically. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. Regional information 

programs and regional ecosystem assessments must be an integral part of the 

Regional Ocean Council framework, not an independent regional information 

and assessment program managed by an entirely separate bureaucracy. 

Recommendation 5–4. The Council on Environmental Quality should 

revise its National Environmental Policy Act guidelines to require that 

environmental impact statements for proposed ocean- and coastal-related 

activities take into account any available regional ecosystem assessments 

developed under the oversight of the regional ocean information 

programs. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. The National 

Environmental Policy Act currently requires the use of the best scientific 

information available. Recommending the Council on Environmental Quality to 

amend existing federal requirements to utilize undefined assessments prepared 

by yet-to-be-created federal programs is premature. 

Recommendation 5–5. Congress should establish regional boards to 

administer the regional ocean information programs. Each regional board 

should include a broad range of stakeholders, develop a regional plan to 

be submitted to the National Ocean Council, and oversee the regional 

ocean observing systems. Program priorities should be carried out 

primarily through a grants process. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. Regional information 

programs and regional ecosystem assessments must be an integral part of the 

ROC framework, not an independent program managed by an entirely separate 

bureaucracy. We do not need another layer of bureaucracy or proliferation of 

regional oceans programs and boards in addition to the Regional Ocean 

Councils. The Regional Ocean Councils should be established to address all 

ocean and coastal-related issues including environmental information and 

assessment needs. 

Recommendation 5-6. The National Ocean Council (NOC) should ensure 

that adequate support is provided for the operation of regional ocean 

information programs.

Alaska opposes this recommendation. The proposal to separate the regional 

information program from the ROC is unacceptable. Funding for ocean 

information programs should be considered by the NOC and ROCs in the 

context of all ocean issues. It is inappropriate for the commission to single out 

information programs over other important ocean management needs. 
Page 10 of 50 

Recommendation 6–1. Congress, working with the National Ocean 

Council (NOC), should ensure that each current and foreseeable use of 

federal waters is administered by a lead federal agency. The lead agency 

should coordinate with other federal agencies with applicable authorities 

and ensure full consideration of the public interest. Pending 

congressional action, the NOC should designate interim lead agencies to 

oversee new offshore activities. 

This recommendation should be amended to remove Congress from the duty 

to assign lead federal agencies to specific ocean and watershed topics. The 

State of Alaska strongly supports the NOC as an administrative vehicle within 

the executive branch to coordinate the many diverse federal jurisdictions for 

ocean and watershed management. Assigning a lead federal agency to 

coordinate the efforts of multiple federal agencies with overlapping authorities 

for a specific issue or area is an appropriate decision for the executive branch, 

not Congress. 

Recommendation 6–2. Congress, working with the National Ocean 

Council and regional ocean councils, should establish an ecosystem-based 

offshore management regime that sets forth guiding principles for the 

balanced coordination of all offshore uses. It should recognize the need, 

where appropriate, for comprehensive single-purpose ocean governance 

structures that are fully integrated with, and based on the principles of 

the new offshore management regime. The regime should include a 

process for incorporating new and emerging activities and a policy that a 

reasonable portion of the resource rent derived from such activities is 

returned to the public. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. It is premature to 

recommend that Congress establish an offshore management regime until the 

NOC and ROCs have been established and are operational. Any regime should 

be driven by the advice of these councils created for this purpose. 

Recommendation 6–3. The National Ocean Council should develop 

national goals and guidelines leading to a uniform process for the 

effective design and implementation of marine protected areas. Marine 

protected area designations should be based on the best available 

scientific information and these areas should be periodically assessed, 

monitored, and modified to ensure continuing ecological and 

socioeconomic effectiveness. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. The federal framework 

currently exists to establish policies for marine protected areas (MPAs) through 

the Marine Protected Area Federal Advisory Committee (MPAFAC). The 

MPAFAC is working to develop a uniform process for consideration of MPAs. 

Alaska
Page 11 of 50 

Any incursion into implementation dilutes and diminishes the authorities of 

the states and the Regional Fisheries Management Councils and is not 

acceptable. Further, upon periodic review, any MPAs found not to ensure 

ecological and socioeconomic effectiveness should sunset. 

Recommendation 6–4. Regional ocean councils, or other appropriate 

regional entities, should actively solicit stakeholder participation and 

lead the design and implementation of marine protected areas. The 

design and implementation should be conducted pursuant to the goals, 

guidelines, and uniform process developed by the National Ocean Council. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. ROCs should be 

established to address all ocean and coastal related issues. Absent ROCs, 

state governments or individual federal agencies with ocean and coastal related 

authorities are the appropriate regional entities. 

Recommendation 7–1. Congress should pass an organic act that codifies 

the establishment and missions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA). The act should ensure that NOAA’s structure is 

consistent with the principles of ecosystem-based management and with 

its three primary functions: assessment, prediction, and operations; 

resource management; and research and education. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. The history of NOAA in 

oceans research and management policy makes it particularly worthy to serve 

a leadership role on federal ocean-related policies. The State of Alaska has 

long shared expertise and resources with NOAA to reach common goals. We 

recommend that NOAA be relied on to coordinate the federal interaction with 

state governments, as the lead federal agency on ocean and watershed issues. 

During Alaska’s long association with NOAA, responsiveness to state concerns 

has become a problem at times. The complicated structure of the agency can 

lead to both internal and external communication difficulties. We recommend 

that reorganization of NOAA be conducted in a manner that streamlines 

internal communication within the agency while making external 

communication with states more accessible. An organic act should be written 

in a way so that it does not erode the management system in place under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, or give NOAA 

jurisdiction over responsibilities that have traditionally been held by states. 

Recommendation 7–2. The President should instruct the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to review the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration budget within OMB’s Natural Resources 

Programs, along with the budgets of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, 

Energy, and the Interior, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the 

National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Page 12 of 50 

Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Directorate of Civil 

Works. 

This recommendation should be amended to explain that the OMB budget 

review is conducted to understand the relationship of the federal financial 

investment in ocean and watershed management programs and the 

environmental results from that investment. Any OMB review of NOAA’s 

budget, along with the budgets of other relevant agencies, should take note of 

under-funded programs and unfunded mandates. The existence of 

underfunded programs hampers effective ocean policy today and would 

continue to do so in any restructured NOAA. 

Recommendation 7–3. The Assistant to the President, with advice from 

the National Ocean Council and the Presidential Council of Advisors on 

Ocean Policy, should review federal ocean, coastal, and atmospheric 

programs, and recommend opportunities for consolidation of similar 

functions. 

As noted in the State of Alaska’s earlier comments, this recommendation 

should be combined with recommendation 4-9. 

Recommendation 7–5. Following the establishment of the National Ocean 

Council and the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, 

strengthening of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

and consolidation of similar federal ocean and coastal programs, the 

President should propose to Congress a reorganization of the federal 

government that recognizes the links among all the resources of the sea, 

land, and air and establishes a structure for more unified, ecosystembased management of natural resources. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. Until the commission’s 

recommended new National Ocean Policy Framework is in place and results 

tested, it is premature to recommend that the President completely reorganize 

the federal government. 

Part VIII – The Global Ocean: U.S. Participation in International Policy

The State of Alaska agrees with the report’s conclusions that the United States 

should become more engaged in international agreements that are vital to the 

health of the world’s oceans and coasts. We have much to lose or gain in this 

arena with the huge fishing fleets of the Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. 

Alaska’s ports are world-famous for their seafood commerce. 

Large treaties such as the Law of the Sea and other United Nations conventions 

could have a significant impact on the global health of the oceans and its 

resources. We do not, however, want the United States to be in a 

Alaska
Page 13 of 50 

disadvantageous economic position by “enacting and enforcing exemplary 

policies at home” (page 357) while other countries are not bound by the same 

management policies. 

In a chapter on international aspects of ocean policy, we were disappointed in 

the lack of discussion of the bilateral and regional treaties that are so vital for 

proper resource management in U.S. waters. A number of bilateral treaties 

with Canada and multilateral agreements within the North Pacific region merit 

mention in this report if it is to be considered comprehensive. These 

agreements include: 

• Pacific Salmon Treaty 

• Yukon River Treaty 

• International Halibut Commission 

• U.S./Russia Intergovernmental Coordinating Committee 

• Central Bering Sea Pollock Convention 

• North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission 

• North Pacific Marine Science Organization 

• International Whaling Commission 

States can also offer an important perspective in international organizations 

that affect ocean policy. Alaska has been active in the Arctic Council. Through 

its participation with the Department of State, Alaska has strengthened the 

U.S. position on a number of ocean-related policies, including environmental 

issues like the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme. 

The report also fails to mention that state governments have been active with 

other local governments in addressing ocean issues. For example, Alaska is a 

member of the Northern Forum, an association of regional governments from 

around the arctic region that has investigated some ocean issues. 

Recommendation 29–1. The United States should accede to the United 

Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation and U.S. accession to the 

Law of the Sea. The convention provides a necessary and useful framework for 

management of resources outside the jurisdiction of national boundaries. 

Recommendation 29–2. The National Ocean Council should coordinate an 

expedited review and analysis of the ocean-related components of the 

United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and recommend to the 

U.S. Department of State whether, from an ocean perspective, ratification 

of this treaty would be beneficial to U.S. interests.
Page 14 of 50 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation only if the NOC has the 

composition and the authority as noted in our previous comments. 

Recommendation 29–3. The National Ocean Council (NOC) should 

establish and oversee an interagency committee to support the 

development and implementation of ocean-related international policy. 

This committee should be chaired by the U.S. Department of State, make 

recommendations to the Assistant to the President and the Secretary of 

State on international ocean policy, and provide technical assistance to 

the NOC on international ocean issues. 

This recommendation should be amended. Any committee that oversees 

implementation of ocean-related international policy should be committed to 

providing the adequate financial resources for maintaining international 

obligations. International agreements already affecting states such as Alaska 

are subject to cuts in federal budgets. Also, states such as Alaska have large 

stakes in international agreements and have already built up considerable 

expertise on many international topics. Any committee should include state 

representatives. 

Recommendation 29–4. The National Ocean Council’s international 

committee should assess emerging international ocean-related 

management challenges and make recommendations for either 

incorporating these activities under existing management regimes or 

developing appropriate new ones. The U.S. Department of State should 

work with the international community to implement these 

recommendations. 

This recommendation should be amended. As states also have a role to play 

in international agreements on the oceans, the State Department must 

coordinate activities in this arena with states affected by the agreements. 

Coordination between the State Department and the State of Alaska, as 

demonstrated by involvement in the Arctic Council, is an example of how state 

governments can be consulted and take an appropriate part in international 

discussions. 

Recommendation 29–6. The United States should continue to support 

and actively participate in major international ocean science 

organizations and programs. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. It is in our national 

interest that the information collected be accurate and complete because it will 

likely have a substantial impact on policy. We should continue to insist that 

the international programs and cooperative research be scientifically based 

with accurate data, and without political bias. 

Alaska
Page 15 of 50 

Recommendation 29–7. The U.S. Department of State should offer strong 

support for U.S. scientists conducting research programs around the 

world. Existing international partnerships should be strengthened and 

new partnerships promoted to facilitate the conduct of international 

research. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. Alaska has been involved 

in a number of research and policy initiatives transcending borders, including 

the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission. We are concerned that multiyear research efforts could be impacted or undermined by the funding of new 

research. We recommend that funding for needed existing efforts not be 

sacrificed for future projects. 

Recommendation 29-8. The United States should increase its efforts to 

enhance long-term ocean science and management capacity in other 

nations through funding, education and training, technical assistance, 

and sharing best practices, management techniques, and lessons learned. 

 

The State of Alaska cautiously supports this recommendation. There is 

frequently much to be gained from international research efforts. However, a 

tradeoff is often required for funding new projects, and the state recommends 

that funding for needed existing efforts not be sacrificed for expanded or new 

projects. 

Part VI – Ocean Value and Vitality: Enhancing the Use and 

Protection of Ocean Resources

The State of Alaska agrees that successful fisheries management depends upon 

strong, credible science and clear separation between resource assessment and 

allocation. The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) and their 

Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) exemplify the efficacy of this 

management model. The SSC meets prior to and during every NPFMC meeting 

in order to provide the Council with the best available scientific analyses and 

the expertise of SSC members. The SSC establishes the Acceptable Biological 

Catch (ABC) for all of the fisheries resources of the North Pacific; the Council 

allocates the resources at or below ABC limits. This distinct separation 

between assessment and allocation is the key to sustainable fisheries 

management of the North Pacific. 

The State of Alaska supports expanded utilization of Dedicated Access 

Privileges (DAPs). DAPs are an important tool for addressing many pressing 

fishery management issues: safety, economic efficiency, environmental 

responsiveness, quality, bycatch reduction, community protection, gear 

conflicts, and more. Through the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, 

Alaska has been combining economic development with environmental 
Page 16 of 50 

leadership through its adoption of several quota based management systems. 

With the Community Development Quota (CDQ) program, western Alaskans 

have access to valuable Bering Sea fisheries that lead to self-sustaining 

fisheries-related economies. Halibut and sablefish fisheries are managed 

under the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) regime that avoids derby-style 

fisheries, reduces harvesting capacity, and greatly increases the value of both 

due to improvements in quality and by making them available fresh nearly year 

around to the marketplace. Community Quota Entities (CQE) allows remote 

Gulf and Southeast rural communities to invest in shares of halibut and 

sablefish IFQ. The American Fisheries Act permitted the formation of 

harvesting cooperatives amongst Bering Sea factory trawlers, leading to 

significant improvements in efficiencies, bycatch reduction, and better fisheries 

data. Alaska believes there is merit to continue consideration of DAPs. 

The State of Alaska considers ecosystem management an appropriate and 

desirable goal for all U.S. fisheries resources. Ultimately, our resource science 

base will expand sufficiently to support ecosystem management. Until that 

time, the NPFMC already adopted an ecosystem-based approach for fisheries 

management, defined as follows: “An ecosystem-based management strategy 

for marine fisheries would be to minimize potential impacts, while allowing for 

extraction of fish resources at levels for both the fish stock and the ecosystem.” 

The NPFMC also incorporates its detailed analyses of the impacts of its actions 

on fishing communities and those dependent upon them into its decisionmaking processes, thereby providing for an ecosystem-based management 

approach embracing both the human and biological impacts. 

The State of Alaska remains cautious in its approach to marine aquaculture 

and recommends a five-year moratorium on all Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 

permitting, leasing, or development of ocean pen-reared shell and finfish. We 

support conducting scientific research until such time as the serious 

environmental concerns of marine aquaculture are addressed, as well as 

research into the related socio-economic impacts to fisheries-dependent 

communities. The State of Alaska recommends that any aquaculture 

permitting process ultimately implemented be expressly authorized only by the 

RFMCs. 

In 1988, the Alaska Legislature banned finfish farming in Alaska. The reasons 

for this state policy ranged from protectionism to concerns about 

contamination of our natural stocks. The Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game has a genetics policy that forbids the importation of live fish that might 

ruin our wild stocks. While the economic motivation is not strong enough to 

merit reconsideration of this ban at this time, the contamination potential 

remains of utmost concern. 

Looking only at salmon, Alaska has several user groups comprised of 

commercial, subsistence, and sport (commercial and recreational) fishermen. 

Alaska
Page 17 of 50 

Pen-rearing aquaculture benefits none of these existing groups and to the 

extent pen-rearing aquaculture threatens existing stocks, it is unlikely Alaska 

will lift its ban on finfish farming. 

Alaska currently has an active invasive species program at the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. Atlantic salmon, as the name suggests, are not 

native to our waters, yet have been found as far north as the Bering Sea. The 

ability of this engineered species to disrupt the natural cycle of our Pacific 

salmon species is a big threat to the State: we will actively fight any challenge. 

A section in the report is titled “Addressing Environmental Impacts of 

Aquaculture.” There should also be sections dealing with the economic and 

social implications of aquaculture. The report should address whether 

domestic and international aquaculture competes with or complements wild 

catch fish harvests and other economic activities. The prevalence of imported 

farmed salmon is causing significant negative impacts to the Alaska wild 

salmon fisheries and coastal communities. 

The Report notes that farmed Atlantic salmon differs genetically from wild 

Atlantic salmon, which has ramifications for escapement and the spread of 

disease. It should also be noted that there is an even larger genetic difference 

between farmed Atlantic salmon and wild Pacific salmon. Escapements on the 

West Coast endanger wild Pacific salmon stocks and have the potential to 

introduce new diseases to the population. 

Recommendation 19–1. Congress should amend the Magnuson–Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act and related statutes to require 

Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) and interstate fisheries 

commissions to rely on their Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs), 

incorporating SSC findings and advice into the decision-making process. 

In keeping with this stronger role, SSC members should meet more 

stringent scientific and conflict of interest requirements, and receive 

compensation. 

To ensure a strengthened SSC: 

• each RFMC should nominate candidates for service on its SSC. 

Nominees will typically be scientists with strong technical 

credentials and experience, selected from federal or state 

governments or academia. Private sector scientists who are 

technically qualified may also be nominated if they meet the 

conflict of interest requirements. 

• no individual should be allowed to serve on an SSC if he or she is 

formally or financially affiliated with any harvesting or processing 

sector. 

• the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

should evaluate the qualifications and potential conflicts of 
Page 18 of 50 

interest of SSC nominees through an independent review process 

designed by a credible, scientific organization. Ultimately, SSC 

appointments should be approved by the NOAA administrator. 

• SSC members should serve for fixed terms to allow for rotation and 

new members over time. 

• like RFMC members, participants in the SSC (or their home 

institutions) should be compensated for time spent on RFMC 

business. 

This recommendation should be amended to read: “Congress should amend 

the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and related 

statutes to require Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMC) and 

interstate fisheries commissions to rely on their Scientific and Statistical 

Committees (SSC), incorporating SSC findings and information into the 

decision-making process. In keeping with this stronger role, SSC members 

should meet more stringent scientific and conflict of interest requirements.” 

The NPFMC utilizes a strong, independent SSC and never sets the Total 

Allowable Catch (TAC) above the ABCs set by the SSC. The council accords the 

scientists a great deal of respect and specifically schedules the SSC to meet 

immediately prior to and during NPFMC meetings so that council members 

have access to the most recent scientific deliberations to advise their decisionmaking. 

Alaska supports bullets one and four as written. If conflict of interest is a 

concern, the second bullet can be modified and expanded so that no individual 

would be allowed to serve on the SSC if that individual is formally or financially 

affiliated with any stakeholder group (including NGOs) and not just the 

harvesting and processing sectors. However, in order to assure maximum 

accountability and functioning, SSC members should continue to be appointed 

by the RFMCs and not NOAA administrators (bullet three). Finally, Alaska 

does not support bullet five, but rather believes that compensation should be 

limited to travel and per diem costs only. 

Recommendation 19–2. Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs) 

should be required to supply Regional Fishery Management Councils with 

the scientific information necessary to make fishery management 

decisions. Such information could include reports on stock status and 

health, socioeconomic impacts of management measures, sustainability of 

fishing practices, and habitat status. In particular, the SSCs should 

determine allowable biological catch based on the best scientific 

information available to them. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. The NPFMC already 

functions this way; we attribute much of its success to utilization of this 

Alaska
Page 19 of 50 

process. We anticipate improvement in the SSCs’ abilities to more thoroughly 

advise the NPFMC on the socioeconomic impacts of management measures in 

the future. The NPFMC’s Crab Rationalization program—for example—requires 

mandatory submission of economic data by sectors as part of the program in 

order to advise the council in its allocation and distribution decision-making. 

Recommendation 19–3. Each Regional Fishery Management Council 

should be required to set harvest limits at or below the allowable 

biological catch determined by its Scientific and Statistical Committee. 

The councils should begin immediately to follow this practice, which need 

to be codified at the next opportunity in amendments to the Magnuson–

Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation if codification is specifically 

tied to the process that the NPFMC applies to ABC/TAC-setting process. The 

separation of assessment and allocation is very distinct and somewhat unique 

to the ABC/TAC-setting process. However, in numerous other issues, 

assessment and allocation issues are inextricably intertwined. In the issues 

where, for example, the RFMC may have to apportion the burden of 

conservation, the RFMCs must have the flexibility to consider the input of the 

Advisory Panel, stakeholder concerns, and the public in conjunction with that 

of the SSC. Therefore, Alaska supports the codification as long as it is limited 

to the ABC/TAC process. 

Recommendation 19–4. The National Marine Fisheries Service, working 

with the Regional Fishery Management Councils and the interstate 

fisheries commissions, should develop a process for independent review of 

the scientific information generated by the Scientific and Statistical 

Committees in all regions. This process should include three procedures: 

a standard review, an enhanced review, and an expedited review. 

The process should include three distinct procedures: 

• a standard review, undertaken annually by regional scientists, to 

ensure that the correct data and models are being used. 

• an enhanced review to evaluate the models and assessment 

procedures. To ensure that these reviews are independent, a 

significant proportion of the reviewers should come from outside 

the region and be selected by a group such as the Center for 

Independent Experts. These types of reviews would be conducted 

on a three- to five-year cycle, or as needed, to help ensure that the 

latest methods and approaches are being used. 

• an expedited review to be used when results are extremely 

controversial or when the normal review process would be too slow. 

In these cases, all reviewers should be selected by a group such as 

the Center for Independent Experts. 
Page 20 of 50 

This recommendation should be amended in order to be as successfully 

utilized by other RFMCs as it is in Alaska. The “standard review” (bullet one) 

seems to mandate an unnecessary additional layer of review. Currently, the 

SSC and the Plan Team already conduct internal reviews of the stock 

assessment models and data provided by the stock assessment authors in the 

course of establishing ABC/OFL (Overfishing Limit). 

The “enhanced review” (bullet two) is problematic and should not be 

institutionalized, but rather, utilized as needed for specific issues as needed (as 

cited below). 

In regards to the “expedited review,” the NPFMC has generated independent 

scientific peer review on numerous occasions, as needed (Steller sea lion, F40 

Current Harvest Strategy Review, rockfish, etc.). As a general comment, we 

have concerns about identifying and subsequently codifying specific 

institutions that may be funded by industry or environmental interests with a 

stake in the outcome. In order for process to be truly independent, the reviews 

should go out as RFPs, and an entity should not be specified. Further, such 

reviews should only apply to the fisheries over which the interstate fisheries 

managers have authority. 

Recommendation 19–5. Each Regional Fishery Management Council 

should set a deadline for its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to 

determine allowable biological catch. If the SSC does not meet that 

deadline, the National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Science Director 

should set the allowable biological catch for that fishery. 

This recommendation should be amended. The state agrees that a deadline is 

necessary for the SSC to determine the ABC. However, Alaska’s experience 

with a strong SSC in the NPFMC process leads us to believe that forcing 

mechanism to establish ABC would be unnecessary if recommendations 19-1 

through 19-4 are implemented. 

Recommendation 19–6. Once allowable biological catch is determined, 

whether by the Scientific and Statistical Committee or the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Regional Science Director, the Regional 

Fishery Management Council should propose a fishery management plan 

in time for adequate review and approval by NMFS. If the plan is not 

presented in a timely fashion, all fishing on that stock should be 

suspended until NMFS can review the adequacy of the management plan. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. This recommendation 

delays fishing on stocks until a fishery management plan (FMP) is proposed, 

reviewed, and approved by NMFS. Under current practice, harvest limits are 

set annually as part of the TAC-setting process under the existing FMP. This 

recommendation would require creating a new FMP each time harvest limits 

Alaska
Page 21 of 50 

are adjusted or set in response to scientific data. It often takes NMFS over a 

year to review and approve an FMP, and by that time the data most likely will 

be superseded by new survey data and the process starts all over again. This 

approach penalizes fishermen for the inaction of the regulators without any 

repercussions for the bureaucracy. Fishermen should not be punished for 

failings of the bureaucratic process. An alternate means of putting pressure on 

the Regional Fisheries Management Councils and NMFS to design and approve 

a fishery management plan in a timely fashion should be found. 

Recommendation 19–7. The Regional Fishery Management Councils and 

their Scientific and Statistical Committees should develop an annual, 

prioritized list of management information needs and provide it to the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS should incorporate these 

needs to the maximum extent possible in designing its research, analysis, 

and data collection programs. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. The NPFMC provides an 

example of successful implementation. The incorporation of RFMC 

management information needs into NMFS research, analysis, and data 

collection programs would be a positive step towards allowing regionallyidentified needs to drive national policy. 

Recommendation 19–8. The National Marine Fisheries Service, working 

with states and interstate fisheries commissions, should require all 

saltwater anglers to purchase licenses to improve in-season data 

collection on recreational fishing. Priority should be given to fisheries in 

which recreational fishing is responsible for a large part of the catch, or in 

which recreational fishermen regularly exceed their allocated quota. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. We agree that recreational 

data is important to fisheries management and that data-gathering systems 

should be implemented for those fisheries. Implicit in the state’s support is the 

recognition that the NMFS will not assert jurisdiction over harvesting activities 

in state waters. That must remain the responsibility of the state. 

Recommendation 19–9. Congress should increase support for an 

expanded, regionally-based cooperative research program in the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that coordinates and 

funds collaborative projects among scientists and commercial and 

recreational fishermen. NOAA should develop a process for external 

evaluation and ranking of all cooperative research proposals to ensure the 

most worthwhile projects are funded, the most capable performers are 

undertaking the research, and the information produced is both 

scientifically credible and useful to managers. 
Page 22 of 50 

This recommendation should be amended. Increased funding for marine 

research is important, but should be coordinated through existing regional 

marine research boards, where possible, rather than by establishment of 

another layer of federal bureaucracy. The involvement of fishermen in research 

and regionally-based cooperative research programs would strengthen fisheries 

management. As they are knowledgeable about regional fishing needs, we 

suggest that the RFMCs have a role in prioritizing these projects, not the NOAA 

bureaucracy or Congress. 

Recommendation 19–10. Congress should develop new statutory 

authority, similar to the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative 

Management Act, to support and empower the Gulf States and Pacific 

States Fisheries Management Commissions. All interstate management 

plans should adhere to the national standards in the Magnuson–Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the federal guidelines 

implementing these standards. States should participate in development 

of the guidelines to ensure they are relevant to interstate plans. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. The state believes that 

local management control is the best method for managing resources. Part of 

local control relates to research and information. Alaska supports having its 

own commission to manage its immense fisheries-related information, and 

having it located in Alaska. 

Recommendation 19–11. Where a fish stock crosses administrative 

boundaries, Congress should assign clear fishery management jurisdiction 

and authority. For each fishery management plan, a state, Regional 

Fishery Management Council, interstate fisheries commission, or the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should be established 

as the lead authority. That designation should be based primarily on the 

proportion of catch associated with each management authority. 

However, once designated, management authority should not shift based 

on annual changes in landings. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. There are several species 

that cross boundaries between Alaska, Canada, Washington, and Oregon. 

Some of these species are state-managed and Alaska does not want the federal 

government asserting jurisdiction over state fisheries. Most of the transregional issues in the North Pacific are already addressed through long-term, 

extensively-negotiated agreements such as the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the 

International Pacific Halibut Commission, the North Pacific Anadromous Fish 

Commission, etc. Nothing should alter these treaty arrangements, arrived at 

with extensive regional involvement and participation. This recommendation 

would disrupt the existing structure and balance of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, 

for example, if either the Pacific Fisheries Management Council or the NPFMC 

was designated as the lead agency over each other. 

Alaska
Page 23 of 50 

Recommendation 19–12. Congress should amend the Magnuson–Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act to require governors to submit 

a broad slate of candidates for each vacancy of an appointed Regional 

Fishery Management Council seat. The slate should include at least two 

representatives each from the commercial fishing industry, the 

recreational fishing sector, and the general public. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. User groups differ between 

regions. The current system, whereby a governor appoints representatives, 

assures the council of a broad representation of regionally-based stakeholders. 

The existing appointment process works extremely well in Alaska and has 

resulted in the successful fisheries management regime noted in this report. 

The requirement for a certain slate of candidates to fill council positions may 

not be appropriate in all cases. The state supports preserving the current 

system. 

Recommendation 19–13. Congress should give the Administrator of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration responsibility for 

appointing Regional Fishery Management Council members with the goal 

of creating councils that are knowledgeable, fair, and reflect a broad range 

of interests. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. Because of the national 

importance of fisheries management, it is critical that the best appointees 

possible be sought and appointed. This recommendation gives too much 

discretion to NOAA to choose council members. These positions deserve the 

credibility of Secretarial appointment and ought not be demoted. 

Recommendation 19–14. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

should require all newly appointed Regional Fishery Management Council 

(RFMC) members to complete a training course within six months of their 

appointment. NMFS should contract with an external organization to 

develop and implement this training course. Members who have not 

completed the training may participate in RFMC meetings, but may not 

vote. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation as training provides for 

more effective and efficient leadership. 

Recommendation 19–15. Congress should amend the Magnuson–Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act to affirm that fishery 

managers are authorized to institute dedicated access privileges. 

Congress should direct the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue 

national guidelines for dedicated access privileges that allow for regional 

flexibility in implementation. Every federal, interstate, and state fishery 
Page 24 of 50 

management entity should consider the potential benefits of adopting 

such programs. 

At a minimum, the national guidelines should require dedicated access 

programs to: 

• specify the biological, social, and economic goals of the plan; 

recipient groups designated for the initial quota shares; and data 

collection protocols. 

• provide for periodic reviews of the plan to determine progress in 

meeting goals. 

• assign quota shares for a limited period of time to reduce 

confusion concerning public ownership of living marine resources, 

allow managers flexibility to manage fisheries adaptively, and 

provide stability to fishermen for investment decisions. 

• mandate fees for exclusive access based on a percentage of quota 

shares held. These user fees should be used to support ecosystembased management. Fee waivers, reductions or phase-in schedules 

should be allowed until a fishery is declared recovered or 

fishermen’s profits increase. 

• include measures, such as community-based quota shares or quota 

share ownership caps, to lessen the potential harm to fishing 

communities during the transition to dedicated access privileges. 

• hold a referendum among all permitted commercial fishermen 

after adequate public discussion and close consultation with all 

affected stakeholders, to ensure acceptance of a dedicated access 

plan prior to final Regional Fishery Management Council approval.

This recommendation should be amended. Alaska supports the general 

recommendation affirming Dedicated Access Privileges (DAPs), but has 

concerns with the national guideline bullets as presented. Alaska has positive 

experiences with different types of DAPs. For instance, through the CDQ 

program, western Alaska gained significant access to the valuable Bering Sea 

groundfish resource, while working to create self-sufficient fisheries-related 

economies within their communities. We support reaffirmation that RFMCs 

are the only entities that can develop DAPs. Though there may be some broad 

common themes, each region needs to have the ability to develop DAPs 

appropriate for the circumstances in that particular region. These 

circumstances will vary widely by region. 

Further, we believe that all DAPs must consider the costs and benefits to 

harvesters, processors, and fishing communities, and that authority should be 

provided to ensure that all of these interests are addressed in any DAP. Alaska 

supports the fee program implemented under MSA (up to 3% of the additional 

costs) for the research on and management and enforcement of Alaska’s IFQ 

halibut and sablefish fisheries. However, such fees must avoid becoming 

onerous and counterproductive in developing fisheries. 

Alaska
Page 25 of 50 

Recommendation 19–16. Congress should repeal the Fisheries Finance 

Program (formerly the Fishing Vessel Obligation Guarantee Program), the 

Capital Construction Fund, and other programs that encourage 

overcapitalization in fisheries. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration should implement programs to permanently reduce 

fishing capacity to sustainable levels. 

This recommendation should be amended specifically to address concerns for 

capacity reduction. However, Alaska believes that it is still appropriate that 

CCF funds be utilized for quality, technological, survival and safety gear, and 

fuel efficiency-type upgrades. Decreasing harvest capacity as a goal should not 

limit our ability to improve existing commercial fishing vessels.

Recommendation 19–17. Congress should increase support for Joint 

Enforcement Agreements to implement cooperative fisheries enforcement 

programs between the National Marine Fisheries Service and state marine 

enforcement agencies. The U.S. Coast Guard should be included as an 

important participant in such agreements. 

The state supports this recommendation. 

Recommendation 19–18. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the 

U.S. Coast Guard should strengthen cooperative enforcement efforts at 

the national level by developing a unified strategic plan for fisheries 

enforcement that includes significantly increased joint training, and at 

the regional and local levels, by developing a stronger and more 

consistent process for sharing information and coordinating enforcement. 

The state supports this recommendation.

Recommendation 19–19. The National Marine Fisheries Service, working 

with the Regional Fishery Management Councils, the U.S. Coast Guard, 

and other appropriate entities, should maximize the use of the Vessel 

Monitoring System (VMS) for fishery-related activities by: requiring that 

VMS with two-way communication capability be phased in for all 

commercial fishing vessels receiving permits under federal fishery plans, 

including party and charter boats that carry recreational fishermen, 

incorporating VMS features that assist personnel in monitoring and 

responding to potential violations, and identifying state fisheries that 

could significantly benefit from VMS implementation. 

This recommendation should be amended. Deployment of VMS should not be 

required on all vessels, but used as necessary, practicable, and feasible. 

Congress should provide for a cost/benefit analysis to determine such 

feasibility, including a cumulative impacts examination as to existing, 
Page 26 of 50 

overlapping, and redundant requirements for commercial fishing vessels 

relative to maritime safety, monitoring, and enforcement, and a priority 

established. The federal government should provide required VMS units. It 

should be noted that some federal fisheries are conducted in our state waters, 

and hence, that state authority needs to be respected inside those waters. 

Additionally, the individual confidentiality of VMS data needs to be taken into 

consideration. 

Recommendation 19–20. The U.S. Coast Guard should be the lead 

organization in managing the integration of a fishery Vessel Monitoring 

System (VMS) database into the larger maritime operations database and 

should work with the National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure effective 

use of VMS data for monitoring and enforcement. 

This recommendation should be amended to clarify which agency will use the 

information and how the information will be used. Currently, our contact for 

VMS use is NMFS, for both enforcement and management, not the USCG. 

We’re uncertain what the justification is in the recommendation for the USCG 

to assume the lead. However, if the USCG becomes the lead agency, 

coordination with NMFS will be necessary. 

Recommendation 19–21. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

should change the designation of essential fish habitat from a species-byspecies to a multispecies approach and, ultimately, to an ecosystem based 

approach. The approach should draw upon existing efforts to identify 

important habitats and locate optimum-sized areas to protect vulnerable 

life-history stages of commercially important species. NMFS should work 

with other management entities to protect essential fish habitat when 

such areas fall outside their jurisdiction. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. Designating EFH based on 

ecosystems at the present time is not practicable due to the current lack of 

well-documented scientific analysis upon which to base it. A shift from 

individual to multi-species management should only occur when this 

consideration can be addressed in a structured and deliberative way that 

appropriately places individual species within the multi-species construct. 

Congress and the RFMCs will be required to give careful consideration to EFH 

and other management actions during MSA reauthorization; that is likely a 

more appropriate venue for this discussion. There is concern that the 

recommendation for a larger role for essential fish habitat would be a basis for 

expanded federal control. Large expansions of essential fish habitat or habitat 

areas of particular concern could nullify whole fisheries and have significant 

economic and social impacts. Well-managed fisheries would need to minimize 

the amount of essential fish habitat and disruption to fishing industry.

Alaska
Page 27 of 50 

Recommendation 19–22. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

and Regional Fishery Management Councils should develop regional 

bycatch reduction plans that address broad ecosystem impacts of 

bycatch. Implementation of these plans will require NMFS to expand 

current efforts to collect data on bycatch, not only of commercially 

important species, but on all species captured by commercial and 

recreational fishermen. The selective use of observers should remain an 

important component of these efforts. 

This recommendation should be amended. The recommendation should 

clarify what “broad ecosystem impacts” means and identify what scientific 

information is available to evaluate it. NMFS and the RFMCs are already 

developing bycatch plans, and should include species prioritization. Cost is 

likely to be a major factor in development of such plans. 

Recommendation 19–23. The U.S. Department of State, working with 

other appropriate entities, should encourage all countries to ratify the 

Fish Stocks Agreement and the United Nations Food and Agriculture 

Organization’s Compliance Agreement. In particular, the United States 

should condition other nations’ access to fishing resources within the 

U.S. exclusive economic zone on their ratification of these agreements. 

Other incentives should be developed by the United States and other 

signatory nations to encourage all nations to ratify and enforce these 

agreements. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. The agreement addressed 

an outstanding international fisheries management issue and did so in a way 

that strengthened regional fisheries entities, therefore appropriately supporting 

fisheries management at its most local level. However, ratification should not 

be used in the future to justify access to the U.S. EEZ by foreign fishing 

vessels. 

Recommendation 19–24. The U.S. Department of State, working with the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, should review and 

update regional and bilateral fishery agreements to which the United 

States is a party, to ensure full incorporation of the latest science and 

harmonize those agreements with the Fish Stocks Agreement. 

This recommendation should be amended. Obviously, full funding of existing 

U.S. commitments to international fisheries management must occur. The 

recommendation needs to be clarified, however, to assure that “harmonizing” 

does not disrupt existing international agreements such as the Pacific Salmon 

Treaty, the International Pacific Halibut Commission, the Central Bering Sea 

Pollock Convention, etc. 
Page 28 of 50 

Recommendation 19–25. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

U.S. Department of State, should design a National Plan of Action for the 

United States that implements, and is consistent with, the International 

Plans of Action adopted by the United Nations Food and Agriculture 

Organization and its 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. 

This National Plan should stress the importance of reducing bycatch of 

endangered species and marine mammals. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. National plans should 

reinforce the USCOP’s recommendations that plans be formulated with the 

appropriate RFMCs and subsequently reviewed and approved by Congress. 

Recommendation 19–26. The National Ocean Council’s (NOC’s) 

international committee, which is charged with supporting the 

development and implementation of ocean-related international policy, 

should initiate a process to determine the most effective methods of 

encouraging other nations to implement the United Nations Food and 

Agriculture Organization’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and 

other Plans of Action, and provide its findings to the U.S. Department of 

State and the NOC. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. 

Recommendation 20–1. Congress should amend the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act to require the Marine Mammal Commission, while 

remaining independent, to coordinate with all relevant federal agencies 

through the National Ocean Council (NOC). The NOC should consider 

whether there is a need for similar oversight bodies for other marine 

animals whose populations are at risk. 

This recommendation should be amended. The State of Alaska is unclear as 

to why the MMPA needs to be amended in order for this coordination to occur. 

The MMC should be independent and advisory only, and must coordinate with 

NMFS. 

Recommendation 20–2. Congress should amend the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act to place the protection of all marine mammals within the 

jurisdiction of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. It consolidates 

management of all marine mammals, including sea otters, polar bears, and 

walrus within a single agency, NMFS, where all other marine mammals are 

currently managed. 

Alaska
Page 29 of 50 

Recommendation 20–3. The National Ocean Council should improve 

coordination between the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service with respect to the implementation of the 

Endangered Species Act, particularly for anadromous species or when 

land-based activities have significant impacts on marine species. 

This recommendation should be amended to include all federal agencies with 

land management authorities of approval of water quality standards. There 

needs to be improved coordination between NMFS, USFWS, and other 

appropriate federal agencies like EPA, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Forest Service, Army Corps of Engineers, etc. Efforts also must be made to fix 

the Endangered Species Act and Essential Fish Habitat consultation process 

conducted by EPA for Clean Water Act activities. Please see comments on 

recommendation 4-1 on the appropriate composition and authority of the NOC. 

Recommendation 20–4. Congress should amend the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act to require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration to more clearly specify categories of activities that are 

allowed without a permit, those that require a permit, and those that are 

prohibited. 

This recommendation should be amended to clarify the permit process, as well 

as the rationale utilized in the process. For example, the methodology for 

determining categories for fisheries uses the Potential Biological Removals 

(PBR) formula. The inputs to the PBR formula need to be clarified and 

qualified, particularly when data is lacking and hypothetical proxies are used 

for minimum population estimates and productivity factors. 

Recommendation 20–5. Congress should amend the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act to revise the definition of harassment to cover only 

activities that meaningfully disrupt behaviors that are significant to the 

survival and reproduction of marine mammals. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. Research and other 

important activities have been curtailed as a result of the broader definition of 

harassment now in use. Clarity will be helpful. 

Recommendation 20–6. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should implement programmatic permitting 

for activities that affect marine mammals, wherever possible. More 

resource intensive case-by-case permitting should be reserved for unique 

activities or where circumstances indicate a greater likelihood of harm to 

marine mammals. The National Ocean Council should create an 

interagency team to recommend activities appropriate for programmatic 

permitting, those that are inappropriate, and those that are potentially 

appropriate pending additional scientific information. Enforcement 
Page 30 of 50 

efforts should also be strengthened and the adequacy of penalties 

reviewed. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. States need to be included 

in the development of programmatic permitting. Again, please refer to previous 

comments in recommendation 4-1 on the appropriate role and composition of 

the NOC. 

Recommendation 20–7. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration and the U.S. Department of the Interior should promote 

an expanded research, technology, and engineering program, coordinated 

through the National Ocean Council, to examine and mitigate the effects 

of human activities on marine mammals and endangered species. 

This recommendation should be amended. The State of Alaska supports 

expanded research and technology, but believes that mitigation measures 

should be developed on a regional basis with the RFMCs, states, and other 

appropriate entities. We question why the Department of Interior is tasked in 

the recommendation. 

Recommendation 20–8. Congress should increase support for research 

into ocean acoustics and the potential impacts of noise on marine 

mammals. This funding should be distributed across several agencies, 

including the National Science Foundation, U.S. Geological Survey, and 

Minerals Management Service, to decrease the reliance on U.S. Navy 

research in this area. The research programs should be well coordinated 

across the government and examine a range of issues relating to noise 

generated by scientific, commercial, and operational activities. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. Not all acoustics may be 

harmful and some may be helpful as deterrents in protecting whales from large 

vessel strikes or entanglement in fishing gear. 

Recommendation 21–1. Congress should pass a Coral Protection and 

Management Act that covers research, protection, and restoration of coral 

ecosystems. This legislation should provide support for mapping, 

monitoring, and research primarily through the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. 

This recommendation should be amended. The legislation as described to 

support mapping, monitoring, and research by NOAA and the U.S. Coral Reef 

Task Force should acknowledge that management measures for protection and 

restoration need to remain with the RFMCs or existing state authorities. 

Recommendation 21–2. Congress should codify and strengthen the U.S. 

Coral Reef Task Force, placing it under the National Ocean Council. The 

Alaska
Page 31 of 50 

task force should be strengthened by expanding its responsibilities to 

include both warm and cold water coral communities and by adding the 

U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as 

members. The task force should coordinate the development of regional 

ecosystem-based plans to address the impacts of nonpoint source 

pollution, fishing, and other activities on coral resources. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. The RFMCs should retain 

their policy and management authorities to address coral reef fishery 

interaction issues through fisheries management plans and EFH provisions. 

The task force should not be involved in fisheries management. 

Recommendation 21–3. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration should develop national standards—and promote 

international standards—to ensure that coral reef resources that are 

collected, imported, or marketed are harvested in a sustainable manner. 

The U.S. Department of State should implement incentive programs to 

encourage international compliance with these standards. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. 

Recommendation 21–4. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force should identify 

critical research and data needs related to coral reef ecosystems. These 

needs should guide agency research funding and be incorporated into the 

design and implementation of the Integrated Ocean Observing System. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. The U.S. Coral Reef Task 

Force was designed to address warm-water coral issues and tropical geographic 

regions. Though there are some similarities, the issues and geographic regions 

involving cold water corals are decidedly different than warm-water corals. Any 

task force that addresses northern deep-water corals should be a separate 

entity and must include the NPFMC, the North Pacific Research Board, and the 

State of Alaska in its representation. Research and data needs should be 

formulated at the regional level. 

Recommendation 22-1. Congress should amend the National Aquaculture 

Act to designate NOAA as the lead federal agency for implementing a 

national policy for environmentally and economically sustainable marine 

aquaculture and create an Office of Sustainable Marine Aquaculture in 

NOAA. 

This recommendation should be amended to make NOAA the lead agency, but 

delete creation of an Office of Sustainable Marine Aquaculture at this time. 

The creation of this office is premature, pending further studies and research. 

The RFMCs should be directed to evaluate whether or not environmentally and 
Page 32 of 50 

economically-sustainable marine aquaculture is possible and/or desirable in 

their respective regions prior to the creation of any such office. 

Recommendation 22-2. NOAA’s new Office of Sustainable Marine 

Aquaculture should be responsible for developing a comprehensive, 

environmentally sound permitting leasing, and regulatory program for 

marine aquaculture. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. We support a five-year 

moratorium on all EEZ permitting, leasing, or development of ocean pen-reared 

shell and finfish. We support scientific research being conducted to address 

the serious environmental concerns of marine pen-rearing aquaculture, as well 

as research into the related socio-economic impacts to fisheries-dependent 

communities. 

Recommendation 22-3. Congress should increase funding for expanded 

marine aquaculture research, development, training ,and technology 

transfer programs in NOAA. 

The State of Alaska supports the recommendation for increased funding for 

marine aquaculture research related to the environmental and economic 

impacts, risk mitigation, and technology transfer related to processing waste 

streams. However, we oppose expanded funding for development, training, 

and extension until the results of the other research are known and decisions 

are made by RFMCs to support lifting the proposed moratorium. 

Recommendation 22-4. The United States should work with the United 

Nations Food and Agriculture Organization to encourage and facilitate 

worldwide adherence to the aquaculture provisions of the Code of 

Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. We feel that efforts by the 

United States to encourage and facilitate worldwide adherence to the 

international Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries should emphasize the 

importance of environmental, health, and labor regulations in aquaculture. 

Laxity in these standards overseas, particularly in Chile, has led to unfair 

disadvantages to the Alaska wild salmon industry that respects labor and 

health regulations while preserving the pristine Alaska environment. 

Recommendation 23–3. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Science Foundation, National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences, and other appropriate entities should 

support the development and implementation of improved methods for 

monitoring and identifying pathogens and chemical toxins in ocean 

waters and organisms. 

Alaska
Page 33 of 50 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. Developing national 

sampling and analysis protocol standards is needed so data is comparable. 

Identification of sources, including global sources, should be the primary focus 

for chemical toxin monitoring. 

Recommendation 24–1. Congress, with input from the National Ocean 

Council, should ensure that a portion of the revenues that the federal 

government receives from the leasing and extraction of outer Continental 

Shelf (OCS) oil and gas is invested in the sustainable development and 

conservation of renewable ocean and coastal resources through grants to 

all coastal states. States off whose coasts OCS oil and gas is produced 

should receive a larger share of such portion to compensate them for the 

costs of addressing the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of 

energy activity in adjacent federal waters. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. The principal author of 

the Coastal Impact Assistance Program was Alaska Governor Frank H. 

Murkowski, then U.S. Senator. This concept has merit and we agree that 

states that produce OCS oil and gas should receive a proportionally greater 

amount of funding. 

Recommendation 24–2. The U.S. Department of the Interior should 

reverse recent budgetary trends and increase funding for the Minerals 

Management Service’s Environmental Studies Program. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. Specifically, we encourage 

the MMS to work with the state and local communities to develop studies on 

socio-economic impacts of OCS development on North Slope Borough 

communities. 

Recommendation 24–4. The National Ocean Council (NOC), working with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other appropriate entities, should 

review the status of methane hydrates research and development and 

seek to determine whether methane hydrates can contribute significantly 

to meeting the nation’s long-term energy needs. If such contribution 

looks promising, the NOC should determine how much the current 

investment in methane hydrates research and development efforts should 

be increased, and whether a comprehensive management regime for 

private industry access to methane hydrates deposits is needed. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. Specifically, we support 

the evaluation of methane hydrates. There is equal interest in investigating 

Arctic methane hydrates, so this ocean research will also benefit the arctic 

pursuits. 
Page 34 of 50 

Part IV- Living on the Edge: Economic Growth and 

Conservation Along the Coast 

The report states that “serious habitat degradation is evident in every region, 

state...” but, once again, no Alaska examples are given. We do not believe that 

the situation portrayed applies to Alaska, but we do support an effective 

program to ensure long-term protection of these resources. In general, Alaska 

supports funding for habitat conservation programs. We agree that there is a 

“lack of adequate knowledge about the structure and function of coastal 

habitats" and agree that there is a need for "better on-going monitoring.” 

The commission’s report makes a number of recommendations to improve 

policies for managing growth and land use in coastal areas and watersheds. 

The report’s analysis is broadly applicable to management of the nation’s 

coastal area and is generally applicable to Alaska’s issues. However, the report 

does not address Alaska’s existing management structure, regulations, and 

successful federal and local relationships that blend to create effective 

management of the oceans. 

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) enables a well-established, 

integrated review process to allow local, state, and federal entities to consider 

proposed resource development activities. Each level of government manages 

aspects within their area of expertise and jurisdiction. This shared 

implementation works well. States are extremely variable and need flexibility 

in implementing their coastal programs. 

The state supports amending the CZMA, the Clean Water Act, and other 

appropriate federal laws to provide better financial, technical, and institutional 

support for watershed initiatives, so long as the appropriate incentives and 

flexibility for local variability are included. Given the extreme difference in 

topography, climate, population locations, and local governmental maturity 

and control in Alaska, the need for incentives and flexibility for local variation 

cannot be understated. 

Alaska has numerous natural hazards. The examples given in the report (e.g., 

mostly hurricanes) don't relate to Alaska circumstances, and don’t 

acknowledge Alaska’s unique regional character. There is no mention of 

earthquake or tsunami hazards in the report. These hazards create significant 

risk to occupants and facilities along Alaska's coastline as well as other regions 

of the country. The state is wary of “universal hazards mitigation planning.” 

Natural hazards, and the mitigation and planning measures necessary to 

decrease their effect, differ dramatically in the various coastal regions of the 

United States. 

Alaska
Page 35 of 50 

It would be appropriate for the commission to explicitly recognize the role of 

global climate change and associated sea level rise, changes in ice and storm 

patterns, and similar shifts in environmental dynamics that are exacerbating 

the hazards to many northern coastal communities. These changes call for 

additional research, planning, and protection measures, particularly in Arctic 

regions where change has been, and will continue to be most severe. 

The commission’s report focuses exclusively on federal roles in sediment 

management. However, state responsibilities for advising the Corps of 

Engineers on sediment disposal options and ensuring the attainment of water 

quality standards are equally important. The report references the value of 

regional dredge teams to develop local solutions. A regional dredge team exists 

for Alaska, however, the state is expected to participate and develop sediment 

quality criteria without federal financial support. 

The Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas development program seeks to balance 

the many competing interests involved in offshore energy activity and requires 

state and local government input. The current process requires consultation 

with states and locals during the development of five-year lease programs, 

individual sales, as well as development-production plans. NEPA and the 

CZMA federal consistency provisions apply. The State of Alaska agrees with 

the report that “the current process is, on balance, coherent and reasonably 

predictable” and that “much of the responsibility for the management of the 

nation's ocean and coastal resources rests with coastal states and local 

governments.” 

Recommendation 9–1. Congress should reauthorize the Coastal Zone 

Management Act to strengthen the planning and coordination capabilities 

of coastal states and enable them to incorporate a coastal watershed focus 

and more effectively manage growth. Amendments should include 

requirements for resource assessments, the development of measurable 

goals and performance measures, improved program evaluations, 

incentives for good performance and disincentives for inaction, and 

expanded boundaries that include coastal watersheds. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. Specifically, the state 

supports reauthorization of the CZMA to strengthen the planning and 

coordination capabilities of coastal states, and amendments that would 

improve program evaluations, provide additional funding, and create (nonmatched) incentives/disincentives for actions. The state could also support 

amendments for resource assessment if sufficient funds are provided to 

develop the comprehensive baseline assessment of the state’s natural, cultural, 

and economic coastal resources. The state could support amendments for the 

development of measurable goals and performance measures if the state were 

to retain the ability and authority to develop the specific measurable goals and 

performance measures by which the Alaska Coastal Management Program 
Page 36 of 50 

would be judged. Further, any financial disincentive should be based on a 

state’s inaction to implement their approved program, not on national CZMA 

desires expressed by federal agencies outside of the program approval process 

that may be unacceptable or inappropriate in Alaska. 

Recommendation 9–2. Congress should consolidate area-based coastal 

management programs in a strengthened National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), capitalizing on the strengths of each 

program. At a minimum, this consolidation should include the Coastal 

Zone Management, National Estuarine Research Reserve System, and 

National Marine Sanctuary programs currently administered by NOAA and 

additional programs administered by other agencies, including the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System, the National Estuary Program, and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program. 

The State of Alaska cautiously supports this recommendation. Specifically, the 

state supports the consolidation of area-based coastal management programs 

in a strengthened NOAA. However, it is unclear how that consolidation would 

affect the existing programs, the individual program missions, and/or the 

funding sources and requirements that are offered by those programs. 

Recommendation 9–3. The National Ocean Council should recommend 

changes to federal funding and infrastructure programs to discourage 

inappropriate growth in fragile or hazard-prone coastal areas and ensure 

consistency with national, regional, and state goals aimed at achieving 

economically and environmentally sustainable development. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. The state has a 

comprehensive network of laws including the federally-approved Alaska Coastal 

Management Program that are designed to manage and guide development 

activities and associated impacts, in fragile and hazard-prone coastal areas. 

Though it is acceptable for a NOC to recommend changes to the federal funding 

and infrastructure of such listed programs, it would be unacceptable to subject 

a state such as Alaska to the same national goals of discouraging growth at the 

expense of achieving economically and environmentally sustainable 

development. As proven through existing federal programs such as those 

administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental 

Protection Agency, one size does not fit all, and some allowances and unique 

considerations should be afforded to Alaska given the population, coastal area, 

and issues of state concern. 

Recommendation 9–4. Congress should amend the Coastal Zone 

Management Act, the Clean Water Act, and other federal laws where 

appropriate, to provide better financial, technical, and institutional 

support for watershed initiatives. Amendments should include 

appropriate incentives and flexibility for local variability. The National 

Alaska
Page 37 of 50 

Ocean Council should develop guidance concerning the purposes, 

structures, stakeholder composition, and performance of watershed 

initiatives. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. Specifically, the state 

supports amending the CZMA, the Clean Water Act (CWA), and other 

appropriate federal laws to provide better financial, technical, and institutional 

support for watershed initiatives, so long as the appropriate incentives and 

flexibility for local variability are included. Given the extreme difference in 

topography, climate, population locations, and local governmental maturity 

and control in Alaska, the need for incentives and flexibility for local variation 

cannot be understated. We need to encourage results-based management at 

the state and local level. The NOC should defer to the states and ROCs on the 

appropriate stakeholder composition to address inland watershed issues. 

Recommendation 11–1. Congress should amend the Coastal Zone 

Management Act to authorize a dedicated coastal and estuarine land 

conservation program. To achieve this, each state coastal zone 

management program should identify priority coastal habitats and 

develop a plan for establishing partnerships among willing landowners for 

conservation purposes. 

This recommendation should be amended to provide flexibility. Specifically, 

we believe that each state should independently identify priority coastal 

habitats and develop plans for establishing partnerships among willing 

landowners for conservation purposes; states with common borders could work 

on this effort jointly via a regional approach. Alaska is already doing this type 

of work as part of several partnership programs that we have with federal and 

private entities. We also agree that more funding should be identified for this 

proactive approach to conservation, and support increased funding to states 

under the CZMA to fund these efforts.

Recommendation 11–2. The National Ocean Council should develop 

national goals for ocean and coastal habitat conservation and restoration 

efforts and should ensure coordination among all related federal 

activities. The regional ocean councils and regional ocean information 

programs should determine habitat conservation and restoration needs 

and set regional goals and priorities that are consistent with the national 

goals. 

This recommendation should be amended so this effort is driven from the 

bottom up, not the top down. The State of Alaska agrees that national goals 

should be identified for ocean and coastal habitat conservation and restoration 

efforts. However, significant regional differences exist and it is important for 

the states and ROCs take the lead to develop regional goals that recognize 

regional differences and needs, and that also provide some flexibility. From 
Page 38 of 50 

experience, we have learned that all too often national goals can be too 

inflexible to meet regional needs. 

Recommendation 11–3. Congress should amend relevant legislation to 

allow federal agencies greater discretion in using a portion of habitat 

conservation and restoration funds for related assessments, 

monitoring, research, and education. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. We strongly support this 

recommendation if it is implemented in conjunction with state input regarding 

priorities for necessary assessments, monitoring, research, and education, 

which are all needed components of habitat conservation and restoration 

efforts. In all facets of restoration science, federal discretion to fund this type 

of work has been a chronic problem. We need a systematic, pro-active 

approach under the leadership of states and ROCs for research, project 

evaluation, and subsequent future designs.

Recommendation 11–4. The National Ocean Council should coordinate 

development of a comprehensive wetlands protection program that is 

linked to coastal habitat and watershed management efforts, and should 

make specific recommendations for the integration of the Clean Water 

Act Section 404 wetlands permitting process into that broader 

management approach. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. The state has jurisdiction 

over all lands and waters in the state, regardless of Clean Water Act 

jurisdiction. In order for the state to establish appropriate wetlands 

management tools and to pursue wetlands management primacy, it is critical 

that Clean Water Act jurisdictional wetlands be clearly distinguished from 

those that are managed solely under state law. Which wetlands are and are 

not subject to the Clean Water Act must be absolutely clear to the Corps, EPA, 

the state and the public. In the spring of 2003, EPA and the Corps issued an 

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to begin the process of refining, and 

making clear, CWA jurisdiction over wetlands and other waters. In November 

2003, the agencies suspended this rule making. In a January 12, 2004, letter 

from Alaska Governor Frank H. Murkowski to EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt, 

the state requested that EPA complete this rulemaking effort clarifying when 

federal jurisdiction may or may not be claimed. The issue of federal 

jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act must be resolved on a statewide or 

regional basis, rather than the current, case-by-case basis. 

Part V – Clear Waters Ahead: Coastal and Ocean Water Quality

Federal efforts need to focus on improving implementation of the Clean Water 

Act’s provisions for establishing water quality standards, and managing point 

Alaska
Page 39 of 50 

source and nonpoint source pollution control. State implementation should be 

strengthened with federal funds and federal agency cooperation to focus 

resources on areas of greatest risk determined by state and regional priorities. 

One of Alaska’s greatest challenges is federal cooperation in managing the 

state’s freshwater and coastal resources. EPA grant formulas that arbitrarily 

cap funding available to the state for operating water quality programs, and 

preventing and controlling nonpoint source pollution are a major obstacle to 

achieving Alaska’s water quality protection goals. 

The Clean Water Act programs implemented by EPA must also be flexible and 

responsive to regional and state issues. Congressional initiatives and EPA 

must allow states to focus on areas that pose the greatest risk to local water 

resources. National programs and performance measures that apply a onesize-fits-all do not work across states that face different problems and potential 

solutions. For example, development of best management practices for 

nonpoint source pollution control is a greater priority in Alaska than 

implementing programs to protect swimmers from pathogens at beaches. The 

reverse may be true in states like Hawaii where exposure to pathogens at 

beaches could be a higher priority. 

Improved coordination between federal agencies and states is needed to achieve 

the nation’s fishable, swimable, and drinkable water quality goals. EPA and 

federal resource trustee agencies need to improve responsiveness to state 

efforts to develop rational water quality standards. The Endangered Species 

Act and Essential Fish Habitat consultation process for water quality standards 

approval actions in Alaska is broken. Alaska has a long history of federal delay 

in approving the state’s water quality standards due in large part to the poor 

coordination between the EPA, USFWS, and NOAA/NMFS. 

The commission’s report references nutrient pollution as the most pervasive 

and troubling problem facing the nation’s waters. Unlike the Missouri and 

Mississippi watersheds, Alaska has insignificant agricultural runoff from 

cultivation and animal husbandry. The “dead zones” described in the report 

are not found in Alaska. Nutrients in Alaska’s lakes and rivers are due 

primarily to the seasonal return, spawning, and death of anadromous fish. 

The lack of basic information on Alaska’s water quality and application of onesize-fits-all solutions to national water quality problems diverts attention away 

from legitimate priority areas in Alaska such as strategies for controlling storm 

water pollution. 

The state agrees with the report’s finding that invasive species are one of the 

greatest threats facing U.S. coastal environments and supports efforts to 

highlight this issue. The report provides a good outline of present knowledge 

and an orderly approach to future marine invasive species work. However, the 
Page 40 of 50 

state is troubled by the lack of discussion on pen-rearing aquaculture as a 

source of invasive species. It was equally troubling to see the commission’s 

recommendations to increase the amount of aquaculture activity in federal 

waters. Alaska has significant concerns regarding the introduction of nonnative Atlantic salmon to Alaska waters that have escaped from pen-rearing 

aquaculture farms in adjacent British Columbia. The state recommends the 

commission clearly identify pen-rearing aquaculture operations as a source of 

contamination and develop concrete recommendations to prevent these 

engineered species from contacting natural stocks. 

Recommendation 14–8. The National Ocean Council (NOC) should 

establish significant reduction of nonpoint source pollution in all 

impaired coastal watersheds as a national goal, and set specific, 

measurable objectives focused on meeting human health- and ecosystembased water quality standards. The NOC should ensure that all federal 

nonpoint source pollution programs are coordinated to meet those 

objectives. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. The Clean Water Act 

mandates that states establish nonpoint source pollution reduction objectives, 

and this law has worked well in Alaska. The state agrees that federal nonpoint 

source pollution programs should be coordinated to meet state objectives and 

supported with sufficient funding to achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act. 

Recommendation 14–9. To improve and strengthen federal efforts to 

address nonpoint source pollution, Congress should amend the Clean 

Water Act to move the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s enforceable nonpoint source pollution program, created 

under Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization 

Amendments, to become a part of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s incentive-based program, created under Section 319 of the Clean 

Water Act. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. Merging NOAA’s 6217 

program with the Clean Water Act Section 319 program will reduce the 

administrative burden on states for meeting multiple program objectives and 

will facilitate state efforts to address nonpoint source pollution problems. 

Adequate federal resources are necessary to enable states to implement best 

management practices. 

Recommendation 14–10. Congress should provide authority under the 

Clean Water Act and other applicable laws for federal agencies to impose 

financial disincentives and establish enforceable management measures 

to ensure action if a state does not make meaningful progress toward 

meeting water quality standards on its own. 

Alaska
Page 41 of 50 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. This is the wrong 

approach. There is currently not adequate funding for Alaska to measure and 

control nonpoint source pollution. In fact, EPA arbitrarily caps funding 

provided to Alaska. Alaska must not be placed at risk for losing federal 

assistance due to inadequate Clean Water Act funding at the national level. In 

Alaska, there have been far too many examples of failed federal implementation 

strategies that apply a one-size-fits-all approach to resource management. 

Results-based management to resolve regional issues at the state and local 

level should be encouraged. Direct federal implementation or financial 

disincentives should not be based on a state’s failure to implement national 

desires that are voiced by federal agencies outside the formal program approval 

process. 

Recommendation 14–11. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and 

other appropriate entities should increase outreach programs that provide 

local land use decision makers with the knowledge and tools needed to 

make sound land use decisions that protect coastal water quality. State 

and local governments should revise their codes and ordinances to require 

land use planning and decision-making to carefully consider the 

individual and cumulative impacts of development on water quality, 

including effects on storm water runoff. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. Outreach and technical 

assistance programs have value and are appropriate. Mandatory federal land 

use requirements to address local site-specific water quality problems are often 

misdirected and fail to achieve positive environmental results. 

Recommendation 14–14. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

states, and watershed groups should explore regional approaches for 

managing atmospheric deposition, particularly when it affects water 

bodies in states far from the source. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. The report should also 

acknowledge the role of international transport of pollutants. Long-range 

transport from Asia and Northern Europe may exceed any local and regional 

deposition. The majority of regional and local sources are re-entrainment from 

natural sources such as dust. To date, adequate federal funding has not been 

available to assess long-range transport in Alaska. 

Recommendation 15–1. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, working with other appropriate entities, should 

develop a national water quality monitoring network that coordinates 

existing and planned monitoring efforts, including monitoring of 

atmospheric deposition. The network should include a federally funded 
Page 42 of 50 

backbone of critical stations and measurements needed to assess longterm water quality trends and conditions. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation provided state governments 

are acknowledged as the primary “appropriate entities” the federal agencies 

should work with. The national water quality monitoring network must be 

developed in partnership with states which are primarily responsible for the 

assessment, reporting, protection, and restoration of the nation’s waters under 

the Clean Water Act. 

Recommendation 15–2. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration should ensure that the national water quality monitoring 

network includes adequate coverage in both coastal areas and the upland 

areas that affect them, and that the network is linked to the Integrated 

Ocean Observing System, to be incorporated eventually into a 

comprehensive Earth observing system. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. The national water quality 

monitoring network must be developed in partnership with the states, which 

are responsible for assessment, reporting, stewardship, and restoration. The 

Integrated Ocean Observing System and Comprehensive Earth Observing 

System is currently too poorly defined to justify linking it with more credible 

and established resource management based environmental monitor systems. 

It is inappropriate to jump to the conclusion that an extremely expensive ocean 

and possibly global observing systems are warranted when existing water 

quality monitoring programs remain underfunded. 

Recommendation 15–3. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, working with other appropriate entities, should ensure 

that the national water quality monitoring network includes the following 

elements: clearly defined goals that fulfill user needs and measure 

management success; a core set of variables to be measured, with regional 

flexibility to measure additional variables where needed; an overall 

system design that determines where, how, and when to monitor and 

includes a mix of time and space scales, probabilistic and fixed stations, 

and stress or and effects-oriented measurements; technical coordination 

that establishes standard procedures and techniques; and periodic review 

of the monitoring network, with modifications as necessary. 

This recommendation should be amended to explicitly recognize the need to 

coordinate with states. Once again, the commission’s recommendation fails to 

acknowledge state governments as the “appropriate entity” these federal 

agencies should work with to develop water quality monitoring goals and 

priorities. 

Alaska
Page 43 of 50 

Recommendation 15–4. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, working with other appropriate entities, should ensure 

that water quality monitoring data are translated into timely and useful 

information products that are easily accessible to the public and linked to 

output from the Integrated Ocean Observing System. 

This recommendation should be amended to explicitly recognize the need to 

coordinate with the states. The commission’s recommendation fails to 

acknowledge state governments as the “appropriate entity” these federal 

agencies should work with regarding water quality monitoring goals and 

priorities. Outputs must be regionally relevant and meet regional decisionmaking needs. They must also not duplicate or supplant any state information 

management systems. 

Recommendation 16–2. Congress should provide the U.S. Coast Guard 

with the resources necessary to sustain and strengthen the performancebased inspection program for marine safety and environmental 

protection. Coast Guard resource commitments in these areas should be 

coordinated with new demands for vessel security inspections and other 

security requirements. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. Congress should provide 

the Coast Guard with the resources to continue their marine safety and 

environmental protection missions in light of their new homeland security 

responsibilities. 

Recommendation 17–1. The U.S. Coast Guard’s national ballast water 

management program should: apply uniform, mandatory national 

standards; incorporate sound science in the development of a biologically 

meaningful and enforceable ballast water treatment standard; include a 

process for revising the standard to incorporate new technologies; ensure 

full consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, both 

during and after the program’s development; and include an interagency 

review, through the National Ocean Council, of the policy for ships that 

declare they have no ballast on board. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. Current USCG rulemaking 

is not uniformly applicable and we believe that it must be. Alaska believes 

ballast water from interstate shipments can and should be regulated to limit or 

prevent future invasive species. Other major issues not mentioned in this 

recommendation are the existing problem with ballast water report data and 

the inability to effectively enforce existing standards. Both need immediate 

attention. 
Page 44 of 50 

Recommendation 17–2. The National Ocean Council should commission 

an independent, scientific review of existing U.S. ballast water 

management research and demonstration programs and make 

recommendations for improvements. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation but is concerned that while 

the NOC review of ongoing U.S. ballast water management work will provide 

valuable insights, we believe that it may actually result in a delay in fixing an 

obvious problem on which much progress has actually already been made. 

States frustrated by the federal government’s lack of reasonable action 

currently regulate shipping entering their waters far more strictly than the 

federal government does. Continued inaction by the federal government will 

only lead more states to enact their own unique rules. For this reason, any 

review should be done as expeditiously as possible. 

Recommendation 17–3. The National Ocean Council, working with the 

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the National Invasive Species 

Council, should coordinate public education and outreach efforts on 

aquatic invasive species, with the aim of increasing public awareness 

about the importance of prevention. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation and acknowledges both the 

importance of outreach and the accomplishments to date by the organizations 

named. We recommend that pen-rearing aquaculture operations also be 

targeted for receiving information about invasive species as this industry has 

been an important past vector, and may become more so if proposed EEZ 

aquatic farms are allowed prior to adequate research on identification and 

quantification so that mitigation can be implemented. 

Recommendation 17–4. The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the 

National Invasive Species Council, working with other appropriate 

entities, should establish a national plan for early detection of invasive 

species and a system for prompt notification and rapid response. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation, but suggests that these 

organizations work closely with the National Ocean Service (NOS) of the 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. The NOS has 

already developed a model plan that is in place in Hawaii. 

Recommendation 17–5. The National Ocean Council should review, 

coordinate, and streamline the current proliferation of federal, regional, 

and state programs for managing marine invasive species. Coordinated 

plans should be implemented to develop risk assessment and management 

approaches for intentional and unintentional species introductions that 

minimize the potential of invasions at the lowest cost. 

Alaska
Page 45 of 50 

This recommendation should be amended to mandate both a review and 

coordination of federal, regional, and state invasive species efforts, as well as 

increased funding and awareness of the need for both monitoring and research. 

While funding and legislation are also needed, individual marine invasive 

species programs need coherent and strong leadership at the national level. 

Recommendation 17–6. The United States should take a leading role in 

the global effort to control the spread of non-native aquatic species by 

working internationally to develop treaties, agreements, and policies to 

minimize the introduction and establishment of such species. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. It is appropriate that the 

U.S. take a leading role in the worldwide effort to control invasive species 

efforts. Invasive species ignore all political borders: they are as costly—or more 

so—to other countries’ economies as they are to our own. The U.S. should take 

a particularly strong role in establishing agreements with our nearest 

neighbors. As Alaska has experienced with Atlantic salmon escapements from 

British Columbia, invasive species find it easy to cross our long borders. 

Recommendation 17–7. The National Ocean Council should coordinate 

the development and implementation of an interagency plan for research 

and monitoring to understand and prevent aquatic species invasions. 

Research and monitoring should focus on gathering baseline taxonomic 

information, identifying invasive pathogens and vectors of introduction, 

understanding the human dimensions behind species introductions, and 

developing new options for minimizing invasions. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. Because monitoring and 

research efforts are an integral part to any successful invasive species program, 

we recommend including them both in recommendation 17-5. Alaska supports 

additional funding for this work as it will surely pay for itself many times over 

in the end. 

Recommendation 18–1. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration should establish and support a marine debris management 

program. 

This recommendation should be amended to have the NOC examine whether 

marine debris efforts would benefit from consolidation within a single agency. 

Any large-scale debris management and collection program has the potential to 

impact state and local government solid waste programs—both through waste 

collection and added federal regulatory requirements. Any marine debris 

management program must work with state and local governments to ensure 

that local solid waste aspects of the marine debris management program are 

achievable and will not create other solid waste management problems. 
Page 46 of 50 

Recommendation 18–2. The National Ocean Council should re-establish 

an interagency marine debris committee, co-chaired by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. The committee should work to expand and better 

coordinate national and international marine debris efforts, including 

public outreach and education, monitoring and identification, research, 

and partnerships with local government, community groups, and industry. 

This recommendation should be amended. The State of Alaska agrees that 

interagency coordination on marine debris is an important aspect to 

implementation of ocean policy. However, rather than re-establishing the 

committee under a co-chair structure, we believe the NOC should determine 

which federal agency is best-suited to provide leadership to cover the broad, 

cross-cutting responsibilities and appoint one chair. 

Recommendation 18–5. The U.S. Department of State should increase 

efforts to ensure that all port reception facilities meet the criteria 

necessary to allow implementation of Special Areas protections under 

Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution 

from Ships. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. Application of the “special 

area” designation to all port reception facilities diminishes the purpose to the 

special designation. Not all areas should be classified as special. In addition, 

small ports within the state could have a difficult time if upgrades were 

necessary. That, coupled with the fact, that debris isn’t a large issue in Alaska 

would make this recommendation extremely burdensome, if adopted. 

Part VII: Science-based Decisions: Advancing our 

Understanding of the Ocean 

Alaska’s oceans and resources are healthy. They are healthy because Alaska is 

a leader in applying science and the principles of ecosystem-based 

management in managing its world-class ocean resources. Alaska also 

recognizes other equally important guiding principles that are critical to proper 

stewardship of our oceans and coasts. These include sustainable yield 

principles, multiple use management, resource development, relationships 

between oceans and watersheds, and consumption of ocean products. The 

North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, Alaska’s regional fisheries 

management council, is one of the most successful federal-state management 

processes yet created. 

The State of Alaska seriously questions the relative magnitude of suggested 

funding for science-based information systems, research and data collection. 

For example, both doubling the investment in ocean research and 

Alaska
Page 47 of 50 

implementing the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) are included as 

critical items, and each carries a $650+M/year price tag (Table 30.1, p374). 

However, most organization and management recommendations in the Report 

focus on use and protection of the nation’s oceans, and those should receive 

priority for funding. Funding IOOS appears grossly imbalanced. Further, it is 

unclear whether these amounts are part of, or in addition to, the doubling 

suggested in recommendation 25-1. We suggest that prioritization and 

allocation to different elements of the national strategy either be left to the NOC 

process at the national level with regional priorities established by the Regional 

Ocean Councils. 

The proposed Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) should not be funded 

and implemented in a manner which is not relevant or useful for environmental 

and resource management decision-making. There is a legitimate need for a 

sustained, integrated national ocean observing network to support the wide 

variety of activities from marine transportation, weather forecasting, and 

monitoring the status of our ocean resources. However, IOOS must not be 

implemented at the expense of existing core resource management informationgathering and applied research programs. 

Ecosystem-based management must be tempered with the realities and 

practicalities of what can be performed and what results can be produced. The 

concept of ecosystem-based management, while a worthy goal, engenders false 

expectations as the ultimate problem solver. The realities are that the concept 

remains largely undefined in scope, content and purpose. Ecosystems are 

dynamic and there likely is no constant baseline that can be fixed in time as 

the norm by which all change can be measured. 

 

The use of ecosystem-based management principles and science need to be 

targeted, cost effective, and directed toward specific goals and objectives. Data 

needs should be derived from specific hypotheses to support resource 

management decisions. The monitoring needs and information requirements 

for one area are not necessarily the same as others. For example, IOOS comes 

at an extraordinary cost and requires a complex governance structure. Yet, the 

demand and user needs for the data are speculative. 

As noted in the report, applying judicious and responsible management 

practices should be based on the best available science. To make practical 

resource management decisions, it is ill-advised to advocate that elaborate 

science and monitoring produce perfect information needed to implement 

ecosystem-based management. At this point and in the foreseeable future, 

science cannot predict outcomes with complete certainty. While science is 

extremely important, it must be recognized that a level of uncertainty is part of 

any risk based decision-making process. 
Page 48 of 50 

Data collection, monitoring, and scientific inquiry are tools for reducing the 

uncertainty in a decision-making process. The amount of science and 

monitoring must be proportional to the significance of the outcome of the 

resource management decision. In that regard it is premature to endorse 

specific research and environmental monitoring elements of the plan, such as 

IOOS implementation, until regional councils have formed and assessed the 

management priorities and information needs for their areas. Research, 

science, monitoring, and ecosystem based approaches, are all key elements of 

responsible risk based decision-making which should be developed to meet 

specific regional needs. 

Recommendation 25–2. The National Ocean Council should develop a 

national ocean research strategy that reflects a long-term vision, 

promotes advances in basic and applied ocean science and technology, 

and guides relevant agencies in developing ten-year science plans and 

budgets. 

This recommendation should be amended. The State of Alaska agrees that 

balance between applied research and curiosity-driven research is important to 

maintain our status as the world’s leader in ocean science. The council will 

need to involve states in any national ocean research strategy to avert 

duplication of efforts already underway with state fish and game agencies and 

universities. 

Recommendation 25–3. The National Ocean Council should create a 

national program for social science and economic research to examine the 

human dimensions and economic value of the nation’s oceans and coasts 

and encourage ocean research agencies to include socioeconomic research 

as part of their efforts. An operational socioeconomic research and 

assessment function should be designated within the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. As noted earlier, the 

commission’s recommendation to establish the NOC and ROCs has great merit. 

It is premature to identify what, if any, programs the NOC should create until 

the councils are established and operational. 

Recommendation 25–5. The National Ocean Council should coordinate 

federal resource assessment, mapping, and charting activities with the 

goal of creating standardized, easily accessible national maps that 

incorporate living and nonliving marine resource data along with 

bathymetry, topography, and other natural features. 

The State of Alaska supports this recommendation. Coordination of federal 

mapping and charting activities is a good idea. However, Alaska is far behind 

the Lower 48 in terms of existing data sets and deserves special consideration 

Alaska
Page 49 of 50 

when planning, mapping, and charting activities. Compared to mapping and 

charting datasets for the Lower 48’s shoreline, the resolution of existing 

datasets for Alaska’s shoreline are relatively coarse, if available at all. As a 

result, mapping and charting activities for Alaska will be challenging, especially 

considering that Alaska’s shoreline is about twice as long as the shoreline of all 

of the Lower 48 states combined.

Recommendation 26–1. The National Ocean Council should make 

development and implementation of a sustained, national Integrated 

Ocean Observing System a central focus of its leadership and coordination 

role. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. It is premature to conclude 

that IOOS should be the “central focus” of the NOC. The enormous costs for 

implementation of an integrated ocean observation system in comparison to the 

costs needed by coastal states to implement resource management decisions 

are disproportional to the responsibilities and role played by coastal states. In 

Alaska this is aggravated by the enormity of our coastline and ocean resources. 

An integrated, user-driven ocean observing system must be designed to meet 

the specific goals and objectives for regional resource management issues. 

The extent and amount of monitoring and observations must be proportional to 

the significance of specific regional resource management needs. It is 

premature to propose or endorse any high-cost global monitoring plans, such 

as the integrated ocean observation system, when it has not yet been 

determined at the regional level whether or not such a scheme is necessary for 

critical resource management decision-making. 

Recommendation 26–3. Congress should amend the National 

Oceanographic Partnership Act to formally establish Ocean.US, with a 

budget appropriate to carry out its mission. Ocean.US should report to the 

National Ocean Council’s (NOC’s) Committee on Ocean Science, 

Education, Technology, and Operations. Congress should make Ocean.US 

funding a line item within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s budget, to be spent subject to NOC approval. 

The State of Alaska opposes this recommendation. Ocean.US is proposed as a 

governance structure to establish policy and provide oversight for all 

components of an integrated ocean observation system and to ensure strong 

integration among the regional, national and global levels. It is a federallydirected top down proposed system which has not yet been formally reviewed 

or approved by coastal states. Its mission is expansive and its costs are 

expensive. It brings with it its own needs for regional input and governance. 

The need for establishing this structure has not been demonstrated. The 

organizational makeup of the various offices, committees and advisory bodies 

for the National Ocean Council should be made by the National Ocean Council 

after it comes into existence. Monitoring needs and monitoring parameters are 
Page 50 of 50 

best determined at the regional level through the coastal states. Endorsing or 

investing in an Ocean.US approach prior to identifying the key parameters and 

concerns of the regions will only exacerbate the current problem of inadequate 

resources that now exist at the regional and coastal states level. 

Alaska

California

California

California

California

California

California

California

Connecticut

Connecticut

Connecticut

Connecticut

Connecticut

Connecticut

Connecticut

Connecticut

Delaware

Delaware

Delaware

Delaware

Delaware

Delaware

Delaware

Delaware

Delaware

Delaware

Delaware

Delaware

Delaware

Delaware

Delaware

Delaware

Delaware

Florida

Florida

Florida

Florida

Florida

Florida

Florida

Florida

Florida

Florida

Florida

Florida

 June 4, 2004 

The Honorable James D. Watkins 

Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired) 

Chairman, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

1120 20th Street, NW 

Suite 200 North 

Washington, DC 20036 

Dear Admiral Watkins: 

The State of Georgia applauds the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy for your landmark Report 

on the state of our oceans. We commend the Commission's call to action to address the myriad of 

significant ocean policy challenges facing this nation. We endorse the overarching critical 

actions enumerated in the Report's Executive Summary, its broad findings, and many of the 

recommendations in the body of the Report. The guiding principles articulated in Chapter 3 are 

fundamental to meaningful implementation of the Commission's recommendations. Clearly, you 

have developed a much needed blueprint for an improved, coordinated, cross-cutting national 

ocean policy committed to protecting ecosystem, human, and economic health of our coasts and 

oceans, the foundation for which is sustainable use of ocean and estuarine resources. 

Georgia is one of this nation's fastest growing states, ranking fifth in growth in the recent census. 

Not surprisingly, our coastal region is experiencing exponential growth, and the pressures on our 

coastal resource base continue to intensify. Home to the highest density of endangered and 

protected species in the state, one third of the remaining salt marsh of the East Coast, and the fifth 

busiest container port in the nation, Georgia's coast is environmentally and economically 

strategic. As such, it must be managed in a sustainable way. Yet, coastal Georgia's extraordinary 

growth presents a sustainable development challenge. With rapid coastal development pressures, 

we are witnessing dissolution of fishing communities and cultures and heritage. The most desired 

land is the most ecologically fragile. Maintaining the integrity of our coast's natural communities 

is one of our State's greatest challenges. 

Georgia's coastal zone provides tremendous economic and societal benefits. Our ocean-based 

economy includes commercial fisheries impacts valued at $44 million, and saltwater sport fishing 

expenditures conservatively estimated at $300 million dollars. In fiscal year 2003, Georgia's 

deepwater ports accounted for $35.4 billion in sales (7% of Georgia's total sales); $17.1 billion in 

gross state product (6% of Georgia's total GSP); $10.8 billion in income (4% of Georgia's total 

personal income); 275,968 full- and part-time jobs (7% of Georgia's total employment); $3.2 

billion in federal taxes; and $1.4 billion in state and local taxes. Coastal Glynn County, site of 

next month's G-8 Summit, hosted an estimated 1.1 million visitors in 2002. Domestic travelers 

contributed $239.4 million in direct expenditures, and generated more than $17.6 million in tax 

Georgia
Admiral James D. Watkins 

Page 2 

June 4, 2004 

revenues for state and local treasuries. The ability to ensure these benefits for current and future 

generations will depend on bold steps now to support sustainable development while conserving 

coastal and ocean ecosystems long recognized as vital areas of our state. 

The USCOP Report's four guideposts for improved ocean policy-ecosystem-based management, 

science based decision-making; improved governance; and broad public education-support my 

goals for a New Georgia: a growing, educated, healthy, and safe Georgia. Just as my vision for a 

New Georgia is to be accomplished through redefining government, the Commission is proposing 

governance reform inclusive of federal agency reorganization, as well as programmatic reform. 

We applaud the call for an overarching National Ocean Council to provide much needed, top 

level policy coordination of coastal and ocean issues. The companion Regional Ocean Councils 

are a logical complement to bring together the collective resources and expertise to address 

significant state, local, and regional issues. We further endorse a substantially enhanced NOAA 

as lead to work with the other federal agencies and states in a broader conservation and 

management agenda. However, it is imperative that new governance structures encourage 

innovation at the regional and state level while avoiding additional bureaucracy. 

As the site of the land/water interface, States are uniquely positioned to deliver effective coastal 

management. By our decentralized nature, the States are in many cases better suited and 

equipped to take on various management challenges. Coordinated state action is, in many cases, 

the most efficient and effective way of achieving our common national policy objectives. States 

have the authority and responsibility to deal with population growth, infrastructure, marine 

commerce, zoning, fishing, and all the major determinants of the quality of our marine 

environment. As such, we should have a leading role in the development and execution of ocean 

policies and programs, and the state-federal partnership should be a common thread across the 

Report's recommendations. There should be an emphasis on facilitation and support for 

implementing plans, strategies, and initiatives developed at the local, state, and regional level that 

are consistent with national goals. 

The Report calls for strengthening coastal and ocean management and protection through a 

regional scale, ecosystem based management approach. Insomuch as water availability and its 

quality are among the most important environmental and economic development issues of the 

next decade in Georgia, there is a crucial need for integrating watershed management that reaches 

from the mountains to the sea and is capable of ecosystem scale solutions. Links between rivers, 

watersheds and estuaries is an increasing focus of research, education and outreach efforts in our 

state. A strong local-state-federal partnership is crucial to delineating these watershed-estuary 

relationships as well as to effective non-point source pollution controls, habitat conservation and 

restoration, natural hazards mitigation, communication and education, and expanded strategic 

scientific capacity. 

Knowledge is the currency of future decision-making. As so eloquently stated in the Executive 

Summary, education is the key to an informed citizenry. We enthusiastically support the 

Commission's recommendations for education and for increased funding to support these 

important efforts. A strong national ocean policy can only be sustained through the development 

of a high-quality ocean education program that supports learning at all age levels and by all 

Georgia
Admiral James D. Watkins 

Page 3 

June 4, 2004 

disciplines. The Report's recommendations complement the educational efforts currently directed 

at all age groups within Georgia. An example is the use of the oceans as a unifying thematic base 

in education to demystify science, view global issues, and to stimulate math and science 

achievement. 

As technology propels the workplace toward globalization in the 21st century, there is an 

increasing demand for students with creative and multi-disciplinary training that is both 

theoretical and practical, particularly in science and engineering. Yet, economic resources for 

educational innovation and academic research remain very limited. One successful approach is 

the development of partnerships across the historically separate worlds of academia, research, 

government, and industry. Savannah State University (SSU) and the Skidaway Institute of 

Oceanography (SkIO) prepare well-trained students (many from underserved populations) for 

careers or further education while stimulating a lifelong interest in marine and environmental 

science. 

Throughout the country, the challenge of balancing resource conservation with resource use 

demands new and different kinds of data, more accurate, comprehensive, and timely information, 

and creative problem solving. Georgia is proud of the academic and scientific efforts currently 

underway in our state to understand coastal and oceanic processes. The State works diligently to 

ensure the information provided from these investigations is translated and used by our policy and 

management officials. A recent example of improved scientific exchange between scientists and 

decision-makers is the Georgia Coastal Research Council's leadership in addressing the 

widespread salt marsh dieback occurring on Georgia's coast in recent years. Funded by Georgia 

Sea Grant and Georgia DNR, the Council is uniquely positioned to promote the incorporation of 

best-available scientific information into State and local resource management. The Georgia Sea 

Grant Program offers a cost effective and efficient mechanism for accomplishing many of the 

critical Actions recommended by the Commission in applied research, education, and outreach 

through the marine science and oceanographic expertise of its major partners, The University of 

Georgia, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Savannah 

State University, in concert with its government and private sector partners. 

The State of Georgia supports the Commission's call for the implementation of a national 

Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), linked to global efforts. Georgia and the 

Southeastern U.S. region have already initiated a regional OOS, the Southeast Atlantic Coastal 

Ocean Observing System. With a strengthened research effort and a linked, national and 

international observing effort, the U.S. will be able to meet today's ocean and coastal information 

challenges of critical importance to Georgia's citizens, such as improved hurricane track 

prediction, resource management and maritime shipping safety and efficiency. 

Funding needed to implement the Report is substantial, yet the long-term benefits clearly warrant 

the investment. Sustained and dedicated funding for this call to action is imperative and should 

be provided to address priority initiatives identified in the report for implementation at the 

regional, state, and local levels. The State wholeheartedly endorses new resources that augment, 

not supplant, the current fiscal support for ocean and coastal programs. 

Georgia
Admiral James D. Watkins 

Page 4 

June 4, 2004 

In closing, the State of Georgia commends the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy for this 

landmark Report, and we sincerely appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. Appended 

to this letter is a Technical Memorandum prepared by representatives from the University System 

of Georgia, Georgia Sea Grant, and Executive Branch agencies detailing more extensive 

comments regarding the Report's findings and recommendations. Please be assured Georgia's 

academic, government, and private sector partners stand poised to do our part to ensure the long 

term economic viability and ecological well-being of this nation's oceans and our State's coastal 

zone. 

Georgia
Attachment (Technical Memorandum included below) 

June 4, 2004 

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

TO: U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

FROM: Governor Sonny Perdue 

SUBJECT: Preliminary Report Comments 

The Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (hereinafter referred to as 

"Report") has been reviewed by an interagency team of Executive Branch and University System 

experts. The following agencies, institutions, and organizations contributed to the comments 

synthesized in this Technical Memorandum: 

Georgia State Government 

University System of Georgia 

Georgia Department of Agriculture 

Georgia Coastal Research Council 

Georgia Emergency Management Agency 

Georgia Sea Grant College Program 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Savannah State University Coastal Resources Division 

Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, Environmental Protection Division 

University of Georgia, Wildlife Resources Division 

School of Marine Programs 

Georgia Port Authority 

Marine Extension Service 

Georgia Department of Transportation 

Other 

Coastal Marine Educators Group 

Questions regarding the following comments should be directed to Heidi Green, Director of 

Intergovernmental Affairs, Office of the Governor, 404-656-1776, Hgreen@gov.state.ga.us 

<mailto:Hgreen@gov.state.ga.us> Or Susan Shipman, Director, Coastal Resources Division, 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 912-264-7218, susan_shipman@dnr.state.ga.us 

<mailto:susan_shipman@dnr.state.ga.us> 

Georgia
State of Georgia Comments on Preliminary Report 

We generally concur with the findings of the Report and the critical actions summarized in the 

Executive Summary Table on pp xvi-xvii. Government plays a pivotal role in protecting the 

public trust interests of navigation, commerce, fishing, recreation, environmental protection, and 

preservation of aesthetic values and cultural heritage, and we commend the Commission for the 

Report's breadth of focus. Part I, Chapters 1-3 and the Primer on Ocean Jurisdiction present 

invaluable background and provide an excellent foundation for the subsequent Action Agenda 

presented in Parts II through IX, Chapters 4 through 30. Please note we have no comments 

regarding Chapters 21 and 29. 

Part II 

Blueprint for Change: A New National Ocean Policy Framework 

Chapter 4: Enhancing Ocean Leadership and Coordination 

Making Improvements at the National Level 

P 48, Recommendation 4-1. The State of Georgia strongly supports 

establishment of a National Ocean Council. The Executive Order should 

direct the federal agencies to coordinate regionally to support state, local, and regional efforts. 

National Ocean Council 

PP 48-49, Recommendation 4-2. We support this recommendation and the macro-scale functions 

identified for the National Ocean Council. With regard to the ninth bullet regarding functions, we 

question the mechanics of a voluntary process for the creation of regional ocean councils. Will 

formation/participation be incentivized? We agree with the application of 

a precautionary approach as described in Chapter 3, to decision-making. 

P 49, Recommendation 4-3. We strongly support the principle of ecosystem-based management 

and the movement of federal agencies toward this strategy. This approach conforms to that 

underway by some of the regional fishery management councils (e.g., South Atlantic Council), 

the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy through the state wildlife grants, and Georgia 

DNR's strategic planning efforts. 

Assistant to the President 

P 50, Recommendation 4-4. We recommend a clarification of the seventh bullet under this 

recommendation that the Assistant to the President should have a degree of budget oversight for 

federal agency funding priorities so as to elevate the emphasis of oceans within the 

Administration budget. It is important that agencies with statutory mandates have the resources 

to successfully address their core missions. 

Committee on Ocean Resource Management; Ocean-related Advisory Councils or Commissions 

PP 52-53, Recommendations 4-8 and 4-9. We agree with these recommendations, but would note 

that the proposed structure in Figure 4.2 is still a complicated, potentially labyrinthine structure. 

There is a need for less, not more bureaucracy. 

Georgia
Making Improvements at the Regional Level 

PP 54-55, Recommendations 4-10 and 4-11. We strongly support the formation of Regional 

Ocean Councils inclusive of the broad base of state, local, and regional stakeholders. Issues of 

concern are most likely to have their genesis in the regions. In the absence of a statutory catalyst 

for their formation, we question whether voluntary regional ocean councils will materialize. The 

Regional Councils need the appropriate federal dedicated support infrastructure similar to that 

established for the regional fishery management councils. We agree that federal agencies with 

ocean and coastal related functions should enhance their regional coordination not only among 

themselves but also with state and local entities in the region. The states are the key drivers of 

issues, process, and solutions. 

Chapter 5: Advancing a Regional Approach 

General Comments: 

We strongly endorse the concept of cross-cutting, ecosystem based regional coordination, and the 

formation of Regional Ocean Councils and Regional Ocean Information Programs. We reiterate 

our reservations regarding a voluntary approach and advocate for adequate resources to support 

the regional councils and associated research and information. We recommend a clearer 

statement on the purposes of the Regional Councils. 

Research 

P 60. We would submit that future ecosystem management will depend on ecosystem models and 

adequate continuing monitoring programs and be organized regionally into Large Marine 

Ecosystems (LME). The academic and resource management community in our Southeast U. S. 

LME has made substantial progress in developing collaborative programs that will create the 

scientific basis for ecosystem management. MARMAP and SEA COOS are two excellent 

examples of the regional approach to ecosystem science. 

Outreach and Education for Decision Makers 

P 60. We agree with the Report's findings regarding Sea Grant's capabilities to perform outreach 

and education for decision makers. An example is the Georgia Coastal Research Council 

(GCRC). Modeled after the National Research Council and funded in part by Georgia Sea Grant, 

the GCRC provides mechanisms for practical, working relationships between coastal researchers 

and managers in the State of Georgia. The Council works towards this goal by holding regular 

meetings with state natural resource managers to discuss their scientific needs, maintaining a web 

page as a clearinghouse for information on research activities 

(http://www.marsci.uga.edu/coastalcouncil), synthesizing information in technical reports, and 

coordinating research efforts on emerging coastal resource issues. The GCRC has organized 

scientific workshops and public information meetings, written white papers, and established a 

scientific monitoring program to address the widespread dieback of salt marsh grass that 

occurring along the Georgia coast over the past several years. This type of function is invaluable 

for improving scientific exchange between coastal scientists and decision makers and promoting 

the incorporation of best-available scientific information into State and local resource 

management. 

Regional Ecosystem Assessments 

Georgia
P 61, Recommendation 5-3. The concept of having regional ocean information programs to 

coordinate the development of a regional ecosystem assessment necessitates federal involvement 

because the area of interest exceeds that of any other governmental body. To be effective, federal 

involvement needs to include management, with adequate funding, and predetermined goals and 

design. That said, the turn around of assessment information needs to be enhanced above where 

it is now (e.g., EPA's National Coastal Assessment). 

Administration of the Regional Ocean Information Programs 

P 62, Recommendation 5-5. We agree with the recommendation and the role of Sea Grant in the 

regional ocean information programs. The recommendation calls for Congress to establish 

regional boards to administer regional ocean information programs, with a grants process to carry 

out program priorities. To ensure success of this effort, there will need to be a mechanism to 

garner Congressional support for the regional boards and regional ocean information programs. 

The dollars available to conduct the ocean information programs need to be provided based on 

goals, objectives, and action items, and not on political considerations. 

Chapter 6: Coordinating Management in Federal Waters 

General Comments: 

The current fragmented nature of ocean use governance doesn't work, as is well-demonstrated 

with the offshore aquaculture example. The National Ocean Policy Framework offers an viable 

alternative to the current situation. 

Clarifying Offshore Responsibilities 

P 64, Recommendation 6-1. We support the recommendation but suggest it be amended to 

clarify state public trust and economic interests in the EEZ. We further recommend that NOAA 

be established as the lead agency to work with the other federal agencies and states in 

coordinating management, research, assessment, and monitoring of current and future uses of 

federal waters (Ref. Recommendation 7-1). New governance structures should avoid additional 

bureaucracy and encourage innovation at the regional and state level. Any offshore management 

regime derived should include consultation with the states, including federal consistency review. 

A Fair Return for the Use of Offshore Resources 

P 66, Recommendation 6-2. We support the concept of applying "resource rent" to the extractive 

use of fisheries resources. 

The Role of Marine Protected Areas 

On page 67 the last sentence of the second paragraph under Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), 

should be modified to say, "Monitoring, periodic assessment, and modification are also essential 

to ensure the continuing effectiveness of marine protected areas, and to demonstrate 

accountability to affected stakeholders". 

P 68, Recommendation 6-3. We recommend the addition of the word "evaluation" to strengthen 

6-3, to read "...uniform process for the effective design, implementation, and evaluation of marine 

protected areas". 

Georgia
Regional and Local Stakeholders 

P 69, Recommendation 6-4 should be revised, "... and lead the design, implementation, and 

evaluation of marine protected areas". These additions would help to alleviate the concerns of 

those who believe MPAs will be established and no one will do the necessary follow-up to see if 

they are meeting the goals. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) has 

heard this repeatedly in the context of the Oculina Bank. The success of MPA efforts depends on 

an engaged and active local constituency that supports MPAs (i.e., a bottom up effort) rather than 

efforts led by entities external to the region. 

Chapter 7: Strengthening the Federal Agency Structure 

General Comments: 

Overall, we agree with the findings of this Chapter and strongly support Recommendations 7-1 

through 7-5. We strongly support reorganization and consolidation. With regard to federal 

agency reform, the Homeland Security Agency experience indicates that political inertia can be 

overcome to consolidate federal agencies. Consolidation is needed to accomplish the crosscutting needed to achieve ecosystem management. We recommend as abbreviated a timeline as 

possible to achieve the three phases of federal ocean management reorganization described on 

page 73. It is unclear what is meant by long-term. The long-term phase makes the ultimately 

unified federal agency structure more costly and lessens the likelihood of success. 

Strengthening NOAA: Phase I 

P 75, Recommendation 7-2 should be revised. The President should instruct the OMB to review 

the total ocean and coastal budget, across all federal agencies to better enable identification of 

multi-agency commitments and cross-cutting programs. 

Managing All Natural Resources In An Ecosystem Based Management Approach: Phase III 

P 78. Ecosystem-based management is a laudable goal and is the direction that we should be 

moving toward. Increased coastal and ocean policy coordination centered around effective 

implementation of the ecosystem-based management goal will benefit from state-federal 

partnerships reflecting shared public trust and economic interests. Yet, while we should be 

moving to ecosystem-based management, our understanding of coastal and ocean processes and 

watershed inputs to the ocean is inadequate to provide the sound scientific basis for ecosystem 

management. We must develop a basic understanding of the living and non-living processes and 

their interactions; integrate those processes through ecosystem models; and invest in 

comprehensive long term modeling. Understanding these basic processes has been the focus of 

Georgia Sea Grant (http://www.gasg.org) research conducted by scientists of The University of 

Georgia School of Marine Programs and Marine Institute, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, 

and the Georgia Institute of Technology. Models allow a representation of the basic ecological 

processes in formats that create comprehendible visual presentations and are tools for predictive 

approximation of alternative management decisions. Georgia Sea Grant scientists are developing 

ecosystem models of several rivers and estuaries that incorporate physical and water quality 

models. The regional Southeast Atlantic Coastal Ocean Observation Systems (SEA COOS) also 

is developing oceanographic models that will encompass the South Atlantic Bight. Regarding 

long term monitoring, the Department of Natural Resources monitoring programs, including 

Multiscale Advanced Raster Map Analysis for Sustainable Environment and Development 

Georgia
(MARMAP), and the emerging SEA COOS regional observation network are essential data 

sources for creating effective ecosystem management. 

Part III 

Ocean Stewardship: The Importance of Education and Ocean Awareness 

Chapter 8: Promoting Lifelong Ocean Education 

General Comments: 

That oceans are important to us as a nation is a matter of fact. How important they are to us, 

individually as citizens, is fundamentally a question of how well educated that citizenry is. The 

report boldly proposes to prepare a new generation of ocean leaders who will improve decision 

makers' understanding of the ocean and cultivate a broad public stewardship ethic. While many 

of the types of programs described in the Report exist, clearly there is a need to both strengthen 

and coordinate those programs, and the State of Georgia enthusiastically supports the 

Commission's recommendations for education and for increased funding to support these 

important efforts. 

A strong national ocean policy can only be sustained through the development of a high-quality 

ocean education program that supports learning at all age levels and by all disciplines. Through 

such efforts we will be able to engage the entire nation in a science education process that uses 

the oceans to highlight the relevance and utility of science to everyday life, and the U.S. will be 

able to supply the diverse workforce that will be needed in coming decades, equipped and able to 

make informed decisions about the critical issues that we face. A greater understanding of the 

oceans and coastal ecosystems will instill in our populace a sense of stewardship for these 

important environments. Enhanced and improved instructional efforts should cut across all the 

traditional educational disciplines and should help to educate all citizens as to the value of the 

oceans and how the actions of individuals and communities affect marine environments. The 

recommendations contained within the Report will complement well the educational efforts to all 

age groups currently underway within the state of Georgia. 

The recommendation to develop a national ocean education office responsible for leading this 

effort is a sound one, and one that will enhance current efforts underway in Georgia and around 

the nation. Of particular importance will be the strengthening of both the COSEE efforts and 

efforts aimed at increasing the participation of underrepresented populations in ocean activities. 

As technology propels the workplace toward globalization in the 21st century, there is an 

increasing demand for students with creative and multi-disciplinary training that is both 

theoretical and practical, particularly in science and engineering. Yet, economic resources for 

educational innovation and academic research remain very limited. One successful approach has 

been the development of partnerships across the historically separate worlds of academia, 

research, government, and industry. 

The proposed structure for coordination of education programs and recommendations for action 

should help to better focus attention on coastal issues and bring needed resources for assessment, 

monitoring, and improvement of coastal environments, and improved understanding of the 

importance of these matters to the general citizenry. Georgia looks forward to providing 

leadership and participating as a partner in the development of a collaborative national ocean 

education network to achieve these goals. 

Georgia
A National Ocean Education Office 

 

P 87, Recommendation 8-1. We support the creation of a national ocean education office. We 

recommend that the Ocean.ED vision and strategies be developed with State and local input. 

The National Sea Grant College Program 

PP 90-91. The National Sea Grant College Program and its academic, government and private 

sector partners offer a cost effective and efficient mechanism for accomplishing many of the 

Critical Actions recommended by the Commission on Ocean Policy in research, education and 

outreach. Sea Grant can play an important role in six of the 12 critical actions recommended by 

the Commission (p. xvii): Double the nation's investment in ocean research; Implement the 

national Integrated Ocean Observing System; Increase attention to ocean education through 

coordinated and effective formal and informal programs; Strengthen the link between coastal and 

watershed management; and Create measurable water pollution reduction goals, particularly for 

nonpoint sources, and strengthen incentives, technical assistance and other management tools to 

reach those goals. Georgia Sea Grant can be the vehicle to implement the Commission 

recommendations, but it cannot be done without the marine science and oceanographic expertise 

of the major partners, The University of Georgia, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, the 

Georgia Institute of Technology and Savannah State University, and other participating 

institutions (Middle Georgia College and State University, Georgia Southern University and 

Clarke Atlanta University). In order to expand Sea Grant's role in research, education and 

outreach, expanded federal support and eventually state support will be needed. 

With regard to the discussion of linking COSEE and Sea Grant, the Southeast COSEE is an 

integral part of the region's Sea Grant Programs (GA, SC, & NC). The Center Director is located 

with SC Sea Grant in Charleston, but a regional educator position is funded by COSEE/Sea Grant 

and the UGA Marine Extension Service in Savannah. 

Using Ocean Based Examples to Meet Education Standards 

P 93, Recommendation 8-6. Clarification is needed as to how Ocean.ED will build state and 

local capacities for informal education and outreach. The federal agencies should fund and 

support state and community-based education efforts. To the degree possible, the national vision 

should encompass state standards and the implementation strategy should contain clear goals, 

priorities, and milestones. Also, the recommendation should include working with university 

extension service and Sea Grant programs. Of particular importance is the UGA Marine 

Extension Service, its personnel and facilities which serve as the primary K-12 education and 

outreach arms of Georgia Sea Grant. 

Engaging Underrepresented and Underserved Groups 

P 96, Recommendation 8-8. We support the recommendation and suggest the identification of 

the Sea Grant program as a partner in this initiative. Georgia, a coastal state whose coastal 

resources and impacts will play an increasingly important role for the rest of the state and nation, 

is positioning itself for major contributions in this regard in some unique ways. Georgia Sea 

Grant funds a marine educator position and three marine education internships with the UGA 

Marine Extension Service and ship time for the R/V SAVANNAH for undergraduate and 

graduate educational programs at the Skidaway Institute of Oceanography. Breadth of public 

involvement and stewardship in the future can only be achieved if it is integral in our education 

system and includes the fastest growing demographic groups (in Georgia, African Americans and 

Georgia
Hispanic Americans) who are currently among the least represented in ocean affairs. Doing so in 

schools that enroll a significant percent of students from underrepresented groups, will build 

strong cultural bridges that will capitalize upon these diverse strengths, ensuring the flow of 

intellectual talent and energy into ocean-related fields. 

Expanding Graduate Educational Opportunities 

P 99, Recommendation 8-10. There is a need to prepare students for a broad 

range of careers in academia, government and industry, which is worth emphasizing. More (and 

better) programs are needed that produce trained professionals able to work to promote sciencebased decision making (particularly in applied science). In addition, cross-training in science and 

policy would allow more effective dialogue between scientists and managers, and would serve to 

improve the qualifications of the "ocean workforce." 

Specific Federal Responsibilities 

P 101, Recommendation 8-12. We support this recommendation. Great ideas and our future 

workforce will come from these repositories of untapped intellectual energy only if, as the report 

says, there are efforts '...to provide diverse educational opportunities at the undergraduate, 

graduate, and postdoctoral levels in a range of marine-related fields.' Georgia has some successful 

models of what works from within our ocean science and education communities, involving 

partnerships across the historically separate worlds of academia, research, government, and 

industry. 

Part IV 

Living on the Edge: Economic Growth and Conservation Along the Coast 

Chapter 9: Managing Coasts and Their Watersheds 

Implications of Growth 

P 108, 2nd paragraph, last sentence. Add "beach and" to sentence, to read "....results in everincreasing beach and wetlands losses." 

P 108, 3rd paragraph, last sentence. "If current coastal growth trends continue, many healthy 

watersheds will cross the 10 percent threshold...." It is recommended that the word "healthy" be 

deleted because one should not assume that any watershed having less than 10 percent impervious 

surfaces is healthy. While usually the case, it would not be always the case. We suggest "If 

current coastal growth trends continue, many more watersheds will cross the 10 percent 

threshold....". 

Multi-layered Decision Making 

P 108, last paragraph. This paragraph is written with the assumption that all local governments 

have planning, zoning, and subdivision controls. That is not the case, and where there is none, 

the mechanisms for change are lacking or severely handicapped. 

Georgia
Coastal Zone Management Program 

P 110, 4th full paragraph, second sentence. "A large portion of federal funding should be linked 

to program performance ...". While it is agreed that a portion of the federal funding should be 

linked to performance, it should not be a large portion or even the majority. These programs 

work hard to meet Federal and their own objectives. However, the program and its authorities, 

and political climate that may exist, will not allow progress in all states at the same rate. A base 

level of funding needs to be maintained for States to work toward meeting programmatic goals. 

Removal of a "large" portion of the funding will further lessen the ability of a state to meet 

program goals. 

P 111, Recommendation 9-1. We strongly support the recommendation that Congress reauthorize 

the CZMA. The reauthorized CZMA needs to retain a strong emphasis on partnerships, the state 

role in working with communities, and the need to maintain states' flexibility to implement 

programs that meet federal goals in ways that best fit each state's ecological, geographical, and 

political landscape. With regard to the referenced resource assessments, states will only be able 

to deliver these assessments if adequate federal funding additional to the CZMA base funding 

(i.e., 

306/306A/309) is available. 

We have several comments regarding the proposed CZMA amendments: 

 Goals discussion. Because the CZM Program is a Federal- State partnership, add 

the mention of "state goals" to the discussion of measurable goals based on coastal resource 

assessments that are consistent with national and regional goals. 

 

 Evaluations discussion. Not only should a state's 

evaluation criteria be reviewed in a NOAA evaluation of a State's CZM Program, the State 

criteria should be used in that evaluation. 

 Incentives discussion. We do not favor this disincentive of cutting a substantial 

portion of the funding each state receives based on performance. As discussed above, a 

significant level of base funding must be assured to keep Programs engaged and dealing with 

issues. Additional funding bonuses should be awarded to states for performance above a base 

level. 

 Boundaries discussion. Define and limit the watershed. 

Many watersheds would encompass nearly all of a state, an area that would be politically 

inappropriate for a state to handle through CZM. Trying to encompass entire watersheds could 

spread CZM efforts too thin, so as to be ineffective. States have a legitimate concern about 

potentially stretching base funds over wider geographic regions. If the state boundary 

requirements are expanded, base program funds should be expanded to deal with the 

corresponding increase in size of program service area. 

Other Relevant Federal Programs 

P 113, Recommendation 9-3. To the end of the recommendation should be added ".... and to 

develop mitigation programs to address existing inappropriate 

growth". This addition serves to acknowledge and support the need to 

address problems already existing. 

Georgia
Linking Coastal and Watershed Management 

P 114. A spring 2004 survey of Georgia Sea Grant constituents further validates the Report's 

findings of a growing interest in watershed management. Top among the four highest priorities 

identified were the issues of describing how land-based activities (agricultural, industrial, 

residential, and recreational) affect the interaction of water, pollutants, and nutrients in the coastal 

watersheds; educating a changing and diverse populace about coastal resource issues (e.g. nonpoint-source pollution, impact of growth on coastal resources); providing long-range planning 

tools for coastal development (e.g. create Best Management Practices, explore waterfront zoning 

options); and investigating the link between water quality/quantity and fisheries health. 

 

P 115, CZMA Federal Consistency. The definition, in general terms given in paragraph 3, is 

misleading. Federal consistency is much more than a limited waiver of federal authority in the 

area of offshore waters seaward of state submerged lands. The explanation should be expanded. 

Chapter 10, Guarding People and Property Against Natural Hazards. 

General Comments 

As identified in the chapter, the increasing conflict between human and environmental interface 

provides the foundation for the levels of hazardousness, increasing levels of risk, and overall 

vulnerability. This interface creates the exposure of both people and property to natural hazards, 

and which will continue to cause very real problems for both emergency management and our 

coastal areas. As long as there are people, they will continue to want access to the ocean and the 

ability to have access to work, live and recreate in these fragile environments. 

This Chapter contains several good and well-reasoned positions. The focus is primarily on 

Federal laws and regulations that help to shape the human and environmental interface. Overall, 

the discussion is too brief, and lacks adequate details. 

Improving Federal Management of Hazards In Coastal Areas 

P 118. 2nd paragraph. The statement that "The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (COBRA) 

administered by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Chapter 9) also has significant influence on 

natural hazards management." would be better supported with expanded text in this chapter. 

COBRA has more influence on construction controls and development, than on natural hazards 

management. We recommend definitions at the outset of the chapter to clarify confusing text. 

For example, what is "natural hazards management"? If there are limits and controls on human 

growth and development on the coast or coastal floodplains, those measures limit the level of 

exposure to a hazard event, but do not serve to manage the hazard. 

Changing Inappropriate Federal Incentives; Improved Understanding; National Flood Insurance 

Program; Hazards Mitigation Planning 

PP 120-123, Recommendations 10-1 through 10-4. Although a couple of these recommendations 

issue a call to action for potential agencies in terms of roles and responsibilities, we recommend a 

stronger emphasis on real action and real responsibility, and more emphasis on definable 

milestones that concretely address some of the issues identified in this chapter. 

Georgia
National Flood Insurance Program 

PP 121-123. It is clear through the research literature, General Accounting Office reports, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency documentation and the positions stated in this chapter 

that there are some real problems with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). That being 

said, the recommendations for the NFIP changes are very general. The overhaul of the NFIP 

program under the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 is not discussed, nor the overall 

effectiveness of the changes over the past decade. We refer the Commission to five additional 

excellent sources on this topic: 

 * http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/

 * Natural Hazards and Disaster Series published by 

Joseph Henry Press, some of the titles include 

 * " Disasters by Design: A 

reassessment of natural hazards in the United States" Edited by Dennis Mileti, 

 * "American Hazardscapes: The 

regionalization of hazards and disasters" Edited by Susan Cutter, 

 * "Paying the Price: The status and 

role of Insurance against natural disasters in the United States" Edited by Howard Kunreuther and 

Richard Roth; and, 

 * "Cooperating with Nature: 

Confronting natural hazards with land-use planning for sustainable communities" Edited by 

Raymond Burby. 

Chapter 11: Conserving and Restoring Coastal Habitat 

Funding for Habitat Conservation 

P 127, Recommendation 11-1. The State of Georgia strongly supports this call for a dedicated 

program for coastal and estuarine land conservation. This would be best implemented through a 

permanent authorization, with initial funding at a minimum level of $60 million annually. While 

we support awarding a portion of the funds competitively according to approved priority plans, 

there should be a regional balance, and base funding should be established for all states with 

approved plans. Such a funding source would be a priority complement to the Georgia 

Governor's Land Conservation Partnership Program, a program that engages non-governmental 

and private sector partners in land conservation. The CZMA amendments should allow states the 

flexibility to work with non-profit conservation organizations and with less than fee simple 

ownership arrangements, such as conservation easements. 

Enhancing Information and Understanding 

P 131, Recommendation 11-3. We support this recommendation; however, 

supplemental funding will be needed to accomplish the desired monitoring, assessment, research 

and education. 

Chapter 12: Managing Sediments and Shorelines 

General Comments: 

An additional consideration is recommended for inclusion in Chapter 12. Consistent analytical 

standards should be developed for sediment test results associated with dredging projects. There 

Georgia
does not seem to be a fair, consistent standard for reviewing sediment test results. For example, in 

the Savannah Harbor, different resource agencies use different lists to determine the 

environmental acceptability of sediments. Even within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

Charleston Office uses different standards than the Brunswick Office. Research into the idea of 

taking ambient sediment samples and comparing the ratios of found elements (heavy metals) with 

the aluminum content of the sample and comparing those ratios with the subject samples should 

be explored for acceptability. 

Developing Regional Strategies for Sediment Management 

P 139. A companion recommendation is needed to review and amend existing legal authorities to 

enable the national strategy for managing sediments stated in Recommendation 12-1, to be 

implemented on a regional basis. While the US Army Corps of Engineers may wish to operate 

under this concept, they are, for the most part, unable to implement the concept because their 

authorities are too confining and restrictive, and limit coordination. 

Beach Nourishment: A Special Use of Sediments 

P 141. Even though today there is a difference of opinion over this issue, government at all levels 

will soon have to grapple with how to mitigate the high levels of risk created by the consumer 

choice and economic benefits of beachside living. Beachside development will not retreat, except 

under very infrequent circumstances, and is not a practical alternative. Seaward extension of the 

beach, in conjunction with a hold the line posture by governmental decision-making bodies, will 

be the only means to lessen the impact of hazards on beachside development. A factual, 

objective, cost-benefit analysis considerate of all environmental and economic elements will be 

needed, as is discussed in Recommendation 12-2. 

Techniques of Cost-Benefit Analysis 

P 141, Recommendation 2-2. The State of Georgia wholeheartedly supports 

this recommendation. It speaks to our long-standing call for the Corps to 

incorporate environmental benefits (e.g. the benefits of beach nourishment to sea turtle nesting) 

into their requisite cost-benefit analysis for proposed dredge spoil disposal options. 

National and Regional Dredging Teams 

P 141. In the last line on this page, the Report lists several ports that have developed long-term 

plans for managing dredged materials, but Savannah is not listed. The Savannah District, 

USACE, has a long range plan in place called the "Long Term Management Strategy" or LTMS. 

Chapter 13: Supporting Marine Commerce and Transportation 

General Comments: 

The State of Georgia finds that the Report fairly assesses the condition and management of the 

nation's marine transportation system (MTS), accurately accounts for and acknowledges the 

critical importance of the MTS, and develops sensible and constructive recommendations for 

improving the condition and management of the MTS. 

Georgia
Part V 

Clear Waters Ahead: Coastal and Ocean Water Quality 

Chapter 14: Addressing Coastal Water Pollution 

General Comments: 

Many of the major problems in the coastal zone are caused by things taking 

place well away from the coast. To correct them, more emphasis needs to be 

placed on managing all those factors that contribute to the quality (and 

quantity) of the water (and the dissolved or suspended material it 

transports) entering the coastal zone. Solutions exist absent new research efforts, and include 

enforcement of existing water quality and erosion and sedimentation regulations, elevating 

growth management in inland counties as a priority for the coastal states, and educating those 

who do not live on the coast that their actions affect the coastal zone. Despite the tremendous 

recent growth of the coastal zone population, the industries, agriculture, and urban sprawl and 

population centers located up watershed can have a profound effect on estuarine water quality. 

Wastewater Treatment Plants 

P 159, Recommendation 14-1. Pharmaceutical needs to be added to the list of pollutants in 

wastewater. The last line of recommendation should be revised to read "Additionally, EPA 

should support a vigorous effort to characterize the extent of the impact of pharmaceuticals, 

household, and industrial chemicals in wastewater." 

Septic Systems 

P 160. The discussion of Septic Systems is more appropriately placed in the nonpoint source 

section. Overall, the discussion of septic systems is deficient in failing to recognize the problem 

of ageing septic systems in coastal areas, many of which malfunction. A companion 

recommendation to 14-2 is needed to address the issue of failing septic systems. 

P 160, Recommendation 14-2. The USEPA and states should increase technical and financial 

assistance to help communities with those elements mentioned. Enforcement needs to be added to 

the list of elements. Also, this recommendation needs to specify that performance standards 

should be established. Performance standards will preclude poorly sited systems and encourage 

maintenance, two frequent problems with septic systems today. 

Animal Feeding Operations 

P 161, Recommendation 14-3. It is recommended that the following be added as the second 

sentence to this recommendation. "EPA should support a vigorous effort to characterize the 

extent of the impact of pharmaceutical and other wastes from Animal Feeding Operations 

wastewater. Additionally, ....." 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

P 164. We are in agreement that the modest level of federal funding through CZMA has been 

insufficient for states to prepare and implement their 6217 coastal nonpoint source management 

plans. However, another problem that looms just as large as lack of funding is the lack of 

organizational support and backing by all Federal sponsors and partners. Rather than being 

Georgia
engaged to see that the Federally mandated program is progressing in the states, the Federal 

agencies have been distant in terms of supporting, buying into, and evaluating the State's efforts. 

The lack of Federal support has significantly slowed the State's ability to progress. 

Improving the Control of Nonpoint Sources 

P167-170, Recommendations 14-8, 14-9, 14-11, and 14-12. We support these recommendations 

but emphasize that local decision-making is the key to address the cumulative impacts of 

development on water quality. 

Authorizing Federal Agencies to Impose Disincentives 

P 169. 2nd Paragraph. Not all states have fully approved coastal nonpoint source pollution 

control program pursuant to CZARA Section 6217. Because we only entered the CZM program 

in 1998, the State of Georgia is in the program development stage and continues to need support. 

This discussion seems to be based on the belief that all programs have been submitted for final 

approval and implementation. In light of an overall lack of Federal support (see comment above), 

support should not be taken away for program development. Were that to occur, obtaining full 

program approval would go from extremely difficult to the impossible. 

P 169, Recommendation 14-10. The recommendation should instead include the authority to 

provide incentives. Disincentives for nonpoint source programs are inappropriate because it is a 

relatively new management arena and there are yet too many questions. For instance, there is a 

lack of scientific credibility of a few key water quality standards. Disincentives will do little to 

improve water quality in the United States. 

Thinking About Land Use 

P 170, 1st full paragraph. This discussion of NEMO should include mention of the myriad of 

state and local governments and organizations who participate and have been instrumental in 

furthering the work and successes of NEMO. The University of Georgia through programs 

sponsored by Sea Grant, Space Grant and Land Grant Programs is conducting statewide programs 

that address this Critical Action. The Non-point-source Education for Municipal Officials 

(NEMO), also known in Georgia as NELO (Local Officials), and the EPA Smart Growth 

Program are providing the outreach programs for local decision makers who must address the 

daily planning decisions 

P 170, Recommendation 14-11. This discussion needs to reflect the fact that some states and 

local governments do not have codes and ordinances to require land use planning and decisionmaking. Therefore "State and local governments should enact and/or revise their codes and 

ordinances .... Thus codes and ordinances should consider the individual and cumulative impacts 

of development on water quality...." 

Collaboration at the Watershed Scale 

P 171, 2nd Paragraph. In addition to the limited financial resources, institutional stability, and 

lack of technical expertise that hampers traditional water pollution control strategies, another of 

significant importance is that watersheds cross political boundaries and there are not equivalent 

authorities and programs throughout the watershed. 

Georgia
Chapter 15: Creating a National Water Quality Monitoring Network 

Federal Programs 

P 176, last paragraph. In this discussion regarding EPA's EMAP, the Report states that the 

program design is not well suited for trend analysis. We would submit it is well suited to trend 

analysis to the extent that trends are characterized for geographic areas, not individual sites. 

Trend analysis of a fixed site applies only to that one point. 

Chapter 16: Limiting Vessel Pollution and Improving Vessel Safety 

Waste Pumpout Facilities 

P 190, Recommendation 16-8. This recommendation should be expanded to advocate that states 

and local governments should require pump outs as a marina permit condition. 

Chapter 17: Preventing the Spread of Invasive Species 

General Comments: 

Unintentional introductions can be limited considerably by taking precautions with, for example 

ballast water. Intentional or semi-intentional introductions can only be curtailed through 

education, and possibly strict enforcement. The current spread of the green mussel in Georgia is 

a good example of probably a careless discard by a shellfish wholesaler or a restaurant or fish 

store or a consumer throwing out old (but not yet dead) product into tidal waters. 

Chapter 18: Reducing Marine Debris 

Working with Communities 

P 215. Communities should undertake a campaign with the fast food industry to launch a litter 

abatement program. 

P 217, Recommendation 18-5. A review should be undertaken of US Special Areas designation 

to determine if designation of additional ocean/coastal areas is warranted. 

Part VI 

Ocean Value and Vitality: Enhancing the Use and protection of Ocean Resources 

Chapter 19: Achieving Sustainable Fisheries 

The Value of Science for Wise Management 

P 222, Recommendation 19-1. Reliance on SSC advice is practiced by the regional fishery 

management councils more than the recommendation suggests. Nonetheless, we support this 

Georgia
recommendation, with a suggestion that the requirement for managers to use scientific advice 

should be proportional to the status of a stock. The higher (healthier) the stock abundance, the 

more flexibility managers should have. 

We also support the compensation component of the recommendation. However, compensation 

won't alleviate the situation that many state natural resource agencies are facing with regard to 

losing staff scientific positions, who are the individuals likely to be tapped to serve as SSC 

members. We recommend modifying this recommendation to say, "...and receive compensation 

commensurate with the increased duties and expectations". Also, in the third bullet under this 

recommendation, the language should give an example of "a credible, scientific organization" 

(e.g., AFS, NSF ?). 

Separating Science and Management Decisions 

P 222, Recommendation 19-2. While agreeing with this recommendation, implementation will 

mean considerable more time and work commitment by SSC members than is currently expected. 

This may cause difficulties for the smaller state agencies who may have few staff with the 

analytical qualifications. State agency SSC members are already fully committed trying to cover 

duties and expectations associated with the priorities of their agency. 

Recommendation 19-3. We agree with this recommendation and note that this is already being 

practiced by the federal fishery management council. 

The Need for Independent Review 

P 223, Recommendation 19-4. While we agree with this recommendation, we note this is in the 

process of being done (e.g., the SEDAR process in place in the NMFS Southeast Region). 

Using Default Measures to Ensure Progress 

P 224, Recommendation 19-5. We agree with this recommendation; however, it is imperative 

that NMFS act in a timely manner pursuant to a suspense date if the default is enacted. 

P 225, Recommendation 19-6. We partially disagree with this recommendation. If the stock is 

declared overfished, all fishing should be suspended until a fishery management plan for that 

stock is completed. Fishing at a reduced level should be allowed on a non-overfished stock while 

the plan is being developed and reviewed. Suspending all fishing can cause tremendous market 

disruptions. 

RFMC Input on Research Priorities 

P 225, Recommendation 19-7. We support this recommendation, which is already being 

executed by some regional fishery management councils (e.g., SAFMC) through their annual 

work plans, which are developed, presented, and negotiated with the NMFS regional office. 

Unfortunately, limited resources enable only a fraction of the information needs to be addressed 

in any annual period. A substantial boost in fiscal support to the NMFS regions and science 

centers is needed to fulfill this recommendation. 

Georgia
Data Needs for Recreational Fisheries 

P 226, 2nd paragraph. We disagree with the suggestion of managing recreational fisheries by 

quota. This was tried unsuccessfully with king mackerel in the South Atlantic region in the 

1980's. Fiscal resources needed for such in-season tracking would be better expended elsewhere, 

and conservative bag limits imposed so as to prevent over-harvest by the recreational sector. 

P 226, Recommendation 19-8. We agree that more effort should be focused on collection of data 

from the marine recreational fishery; however, simply licensing saltwater anglers will not fix the 

data deficiencies. A coordinated evaluation of existing state saltwater licensing programs should 

be conducted to identify successful elements and to determine how best to license anglers so as 

to facilitate data collection and avoid creating a licensing system that is redundant, cumbersome 

at point of sale, administratively unwieldy, and politically unpalatable. We recommend inserting 

the following language into the recommendation after the first sentence, "Existing state saltwater 

angler licensing programs should be evaluated to determine which methods best facilitate the 

collection of data." 

The Value of Cooperative Research 

P 227, Recommendation 19-9. We enthusiastically support this recommendation. Failure to 

engage fishermen in cooperative research and surveys will perpetuate the current situation where 

managers lack timely and relevant information. We recommend modifying the second sentence, 

"NOAA should implement a process of external evaluation and ranking of all cooperative 

proposals by stakeholders to ensure..." so as to clearly communicate that all stakeholders would 

have a say in funding priorities. 

Clarifying Fishery Management Authority and Jurisdiction 

P 229-230, Recommendation 19-10. We generally agree with this recommendation. The Atlantic 

Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act has compelled more effective conservation and 

management of shared coastal fisheries stocks among the 15 East Coast States. We disagree with 

requiring the application of the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standards to the interstate 

fishery management process. The standards and procedures of the ASMFC's Interstate Fishery 

Management Program Charter are modeled after the Magnuson -Stevens Act standards. These 

standards recognize the political reality that the states have a sovereign interest and right to 

manage the marine areas adjacent to the their coasts. They provides the Commission the 

flexibility to accommodate regional needs while successfully accomplishing broader conservation 

and restoration goals. National standards are appropriate for the Exclusive Economic Zone, since 

individual state interests merge into a greater coast-wide and national interest in the offshore 

region. This recommendation should be modified to state that "All interstate fishery management 

plans should be guided by the national standards in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and management Act...." 

Clarifying Lead Authorities for Joint Planning Purposes 

P 230, Recommendation 19-11. This recommendation proposes a degree of 

fisheries micro-management that we do not believe is appropriate for Congress. Questions 

regarding management authority and responsibility for individual fish species are inherently 

Georgia
regional issues. These are best left to be resolved by the existing regional fishery management 

councils and the Commission where local interests can be considered, rather than by a national 

level body, i.e., the Congress. A more appropriate role for Congress would be to establish 

national guidelines to ensure the lead management entity for each stock is clearly identified. The 

guidelines should include standards for coordination between the lead entity and other affected 

agencies. 

We further question the use of proportion of catch as the primary determinant of the lead agency. 

Stock identity as defined by genetics, migration, historic vs. present range of occurrence and 

other population attributes should be factored into the decision. Provisions should be made for 

shift in "lead" agency/jurisdiction, if changing circumstances warrant. With regard to the second 

bullet under this recommendation, a RFMC should be designated "true" lead, as versus 

"administrative" lead. 

Broadening Council Membership 

P231, Recommendations 19-12 and 19-13. We support these recommendations. The MagnusonStevens Act should retain an eligibility requirement that RFMC nominees possess some marine or 

coastal knowledge. 

Dedicated Access Privileges 

P 235, Recommendation 19-15. We agree with this recommendation. The "dedicated access 

privilege" concept is fundamental to addressing overcaptilization, overfishing, and excessive 

litigation. Dedicated access privilege programs must be developed in concert with the states for 

transboundary fisheries, in order to be successful. 

Reducing Overcapitalization of Fishing Fleets 

General Comment: An increasing and acute problem that is not addressed in this discussion is the 

problem of the aging and largely un-insured southeast shrimp trawler fleet. Regulatory costs and 

depressed market prices due to imports have diminished the profitability of the fishery such that 

federally documented vessels are being abandoned on state water bottoms. There is little 

assistance to the States from the federal agencies to deal with this problem. 

P 236, Recommendation 19-16. Implementation of this recommendation is a requisite for the 

"dedicated access privilege" concept to succeed. 

Cooperative Enforcement Programs 

P 238, Recommendation 19-17. While we agree that the USCG should remain a player in federal 

fisheries enforcement, the USCG mission was irrevocably changed once incorporated into the 

Department of Homeland Security. The USCG will logically continue to bear the responsibility 

for high seas fisheries enforcement and will have some involvement in littoral zone depending on 

the region; however, the future of federal fisheries enforcement in the littoral zone is JEAs with 

state natural resource agencies. 

Consistent and adequate funding for equipment, operational costs, and training will be necessary 

to ensure that JEAs really work and aren't just "paper" agreements. 

Georgia
Fisheries reform requires strong enforcement in the face of pressure from both commercial and 

recreational fishermen. The focus of JEAs should shift from just high profile commercial cases to 

include recreational fishing cases. We will continue to see growth in marine recreational angling, 

and it is important to demonstrate that violations of recreational regulations will be treated just as 

seriously as commercial violations. 

Cooperative Federal Enforcement 

P 238, Recommendation 19-18. We suggest expanding this recommendation to include 

participation by state law enforcement officers to capitalize on their valuable local knowledge and 

expertise. Additionally, the Gulf and Atlantic interstate marine fisheries commissions have active 

law enforcement committees which are effective forums for this recommended coordination. 

These committees incorporate the federal agencies as members. 

Vessel Monitoring System; Integrating VMS into a Data Collection and Dissemination System 

P 240, Recommendations 19-19 and 19-20. We support these recommendations. Everyone 

fishing in a permitted fishery should be required to use VMS, largely for safety reasons. 

Linking Fisheries Management with Other Regional Concerns 

P 241. The second paragraph of this section should acknowledge the initial efforts being made 

toward ecosystem management. Specifically, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

fishery management plan for horseshoe crabs has an ecosystem focus. Moreover the interstate 

plan for menhaden recognizes the forage role as an important conservation objective. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

P 243. A missing component of the essential fish habitat action plan is outreach and coordination 

with the development community, local zoning and permitting authorities, and state and local 

elected officials, etc. to inform and educate about the impacts of development practices on 

essential fish habitat. 

P 243, Recommendation 19-21. We support this Recommendation but recommend revising the 

language to "...protect vulnerable life-history stages of commercially and recreationally important 

species". 

Reducing Bycatch 

P 244. 3rd paragraph. The comprehensive bycatch sampling module developed by East Coast 

state, federal and interstate partners as part of the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics 

Program, should be acknowledged. 

P 244, Recommendation 19-22. We support the recommendation, but it is worth noting that the 

NMFS and the RFMCs are already proceeding to develop regional bycatch reduction plans. 

Managing International Fisheries 

PP 246-7. We agree with Recommendations 19-23 through 19-26. 

Georgia
Chapter 20: Protecting Marine Mammals and Endangered Marine Species 

General Comments: 

This chapter addresses issues regarding marine mammals very well, while not sufficiently 

addressing issues involving the conservation of marine turtles, an important mutual federal and 

state effort in the southeast. 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act 

P 253, Recommendation 20-1. We support this proposal. 

Jurisdictional Confusion 

P 254, Recommendation 20-2. It would be more effective to shift oversight of all marine 

mammals under the jurisdiction of USFWS rather than NMFS. This would alleviate most of the 

inherent conflict that arises within NMFS with different branches of the agency currently 

responsible for regulation of commercial fisheries and protection of most marine mammals. 

Recommendation 20-3. This recommendation should be expanded to mandate improved 

coordination with the states. Federal agency jurisdiction of marine turtles can be confusing to 

state managers attempting to work within the federal authority framework, developing 

cooperative agreements, and pursuing funding under section VI of the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). Systematic program support of state conservation programs through Section VI as 

intended under the ESA is needed to ensure fulfillment of the implementation of recovery plans 

for turtles and all endangered marine species. The National Marine Fisheries Service's recent 

direction has been away from line-item support of on-the-ground management activities at the 

state level, and promoting more research based projects through competitive applications through 

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. This makes state management activity under section 

VI cooperative agreements more difficult to achieve, and goes against the spirit of the ESA for 

the recovery of threatened and endangered species. 

Unclear Permitting and Review Standards 

P 254, Recommendation 20-4. Clarification of terms of "take" and harassment are needed, but 

permitting standards for research and management efforts toward the recovery of a species under 

the ESA need to be taken into consideration when permitting decisions are made. 

The Meaning of Harassment 

P 255, Recommendation 20-5. Clarification is needed as to the effect of these recommendations 

on the ESA. Would the definitions consider the severity of population status and trends for 

individual species? Will permits be issued regardless of the stock levels solely based on the 

definition of the terms "harassment" and "take?" The term "meaningfully disrupt" needs to be 

more specifically worded. 

The Promise of Programmatic Permitting 

P 256, Recommendation 20-6. Programmatic permitting should be used very judiciously. 

Blanket permits without individual review can lead to regulatory challenges and abuses. Reliance 

Georgia
on federal and state law enforcement agencies to expend a greater enforcement effort without 

additional funding is not an option for success. 

It is not clear whether the Marine Mammal Commission is a member of the interagency team 

described in the second bullet under this recommendation. 

Expanding Research and Education 

P 257, Recommendation 20-7. We support the recommendation with the specification that the 

Marine Mammal Commission and species specific recovery teams should be directly involved 

with this program development. 

Effects of Noise on Marine Mammals 

P 257, Recommendation 20-8. We support this recommendation. It should be expanded to 

include acoustic and percussion effects of all protected marine animals, not just marine mammals. 

The term "operational activities" in the last line of the recommendation needs clarification. 

Domestic Action 

P 258. The characterization of the possible effect of ocean noise on marine mammals as a "highprofile, lower impact issue" in the second paragraph is contradictory to the preceding discussion 

on page 257 regarding the effects of noise on marine mammals. 

Chapter 22: Setting a Course for Sustainable Marine Aquaculture 

General Comments: 

The discussion on marine aquaculture correctly points out the need for better coordination of 

regulation and research at the federal level, and continued and enhanced collaboration with state, 

business, and academic stakeholders. Creation of a new Office of Sustainable Marine 

Aquaculture within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to be responsible for 

federal marine aquaculture is a positive step toward this goal. We support this action. 

The focus of this Chapter seems to be aquaculture for consumptive purposes. A deficiency is the 

lack of mention of the use of aquaculture for stock enhancement purposes, and the consideration 

of issues associated with that application of aquaculture. Caution should be exercised in any use 

of farm-raised fish to supplement wild stocks for purposes of stock assessments for Endangered 

Species Act determinations. 

There is also no mention of the economic disruptions caused by aquaculture imports on the US 

domestic markets, such as the blue crab fishery in the 1990's, or the southeast shrimp fishery in 

the past two years. 

Marine Aquaculture in Offshore Areas 

P 271, 2nd paragraph, last line: add "or other marine uses, e.g., traditional fishing grounds" after 

"navigation". 

Georgia
Developing a New Marine Aquaculture Management Framework 

Introductory paragraph on page 272 should be clarified to indicate that the federal and state 

agencies along with industry and academia should be involved in developing as well as 

implementing a new integrated, coordinated framework. 

Coordinated Action 

PP 272-3, Recommendation 22-1. We support this recommendation, as noted in our general 

comments. 

Implementation 

P 273, 3rd paragraph. It should be noted there is potential for coordination through the interstate 

marine fisheries commissions. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has undertaken 

aquaculture coordination initiatives relative to certain species. 

P 273, Recommendation 22-2. We support this recommendation. Recognizing that the states 

have jurisdiction for nearshore waters, we urge the close coordination by the new office within 

NOAA of all regulations, policies, and other programs with the states. 

Increasing the Knowledge Base 

P 274, Recommendation 22-3. The recommendation that the Office of Sustainable Marine 

Aquaculture should set priorities for the research and technology programs, in close collaboration 

with academic, business, and other stakeholders should specifically mention states as one of the 

stakeholders. 

Chapter 23: Connecting the Oceans and Human Health 

Managing Marine Bioproduct Discovery and Development 

P 280. We recommend elevating the narrative in the last paragraph under this section regarding 

permitting and licensing bioprospecting of public resources in the federal zone, to a 

recommendation. 

Marine Bacteria and Viruses 

P 282. 2nd paragraph. The impacts to the local beach related tourism is understated. There is an 

urgent need for more accurate bacterial indicator standards, and for better source identification 

techniques. Federal fiscal resources need to be directed to this issue through the EPA grants with 

the states pursuant to the BEACH amendment of the Clear Water Act. 

P 284. Recommendation 23-2. The Centers for Disease Control should be specifically listed in 

the targeted organizations to support expanded research efforts. 

Georgia
Chapter 24: Managing Offshore Energy and Other Mineral Resources 

Enhancing the Federal-State Ocean and Coastal Partnership 

P 294, Recommendation 24-1. We strongly concur with this recommendation, which is a 

companion to funding source recommendations in Chapter 30. 

Environmental Issues Related to Offshore Oil and Gas Production 

P 297, Recommendation 24-2. We recommend adequate support be directed to the Minerals 

Management Service's Environmental Studies Program. The first bulleted item should note 

monitoring inclusive of deepwater sites. 

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) 

P 300. A recommendation should accompany this narrative. NOAA should re-establish an 

updated, regulatory structure for commercial OTEC so as to be proactive. 

Part VII. 

Science- Based Decisions: Advancing Our Understanding of the Oceans 

Chapter 25. Creating a National Strategy for Increasing Scientific Knowledge 

General Comments: 

Georgia is proud of the academic and scientific efforts currently underway in our state to 

understand coastal and oceanic processes. The State of Georgia works diligently to ensure that 

the information provided from these efforts is translated and used by our policy and management 

officials. However, we share the Commission's concern with the declining overall health of our 

oceans and coasts, and with the decline in the federal research budget for oceans and related 

issues. Therefore, we strongly endorse the Preliminary Report's call for a significant increase in 

federal investments in ocean and coastal research, to levels at least double of current 

expenditures. These investments will lead to strengthened partnerships between scientists and 

managers. In addition, we strongly support the development of a Committee on Ocean Science, 

Education, Technology and Operations (COSETO), under the direction of the National Ocean 

Council (NOC), thus ensuring coordination and integration of federal and regional programs. 

Establishing a National Strategy 

P 306, 4th paragraph. Georgia is proud of the significant accomplishments of its Sea Grant 

Program, and supports the recommendation to enhance the national Sea Grant Program (pages 

90-91), which will be able to target regional needs within the framework of national ocean 

science efforts. In addition, the development of a new, national ocean research strategy to focus 

national efforts will greatly improve the effectiveness of these increased research efforts by 

ensuring strong independent review of all science applications, by taking into account the needs 

of local, state and regional managers, and by working to ensure partnership between different 

organizations and disciplines within the broad area of ocean science. 

Georgia
Reviving the Federal Investment 

P 307-308, Recommendation 25-1. We agree with the recommendation for a substantial increase 

in the coastal and ocean research budget in the near term, and the direction of a portion of those 

funds to enlarge Sea Grant. Sea Grant has over 30 years of experience in conducting open and 

competitive selection process and administering projects with multiple partners. Sea 

Grant also acts as a "pass through" for NOAA and other federal agencies. 

Coordination and Prioritization 

P 309, Recommendation 25-2. The recommendation states that the national 

strategy should, among other tenets, "reiterate the importance of balancing basic and applied 

research projects." Rather than further the divide between basic and applied science, the 

recommendation should underscore need for a translation function, such that the results of 

scientific research are made available in a way that allows them to be useful for decision-makers. 

P 312, Recommendation 25-3. We strongly support this recommendation and advocate a 

companion emphasis in Chapter 8 recommendations (8-12 and 8-13) to promote the professional 

expertise needed to accomplish this action item. 

Chapter 26. Achieving a Sustained, Integrated Ocean Observing System 

General Comments: 

Georgia strongly echoes the Commission's call for the implementation of a national Integrated 

Ocean Observing System (IOOS), linked to global efforts. We agree that the NOC should make 

development and implementation of a national IOOS a central focus of its efforts. Built to serve 

regional needs, the current IOOS models will greatly enhance our understanding of the coastal 

and global ocean. Georgia and the Southeastern U.S. region have already initiated a regional 

OOS, the Southeast Atlantic Coastal Ocean Observing System, and endorse the recommendations 

in the Preliminary Report. Georgia Sea Grant is a partner in the SEA COOS along with our Sea 

Grant counterparts in FL, SC and NC as the outreach and educational component of this regional 

COOS. With a strengthened research effort and a linked, national and international observing 

effort, the U.S. will be able to meet today's ocean and coastal information challenges of critical 

importance to Georgia's citizens, such as improved hurricane track prediction, resource 

management and maritime shipping safety and efficiency. 

National Planning 

P 322. Whereas it is crucial to implement the IOOS, it is equally important to continue the USGS 

stream gage monitoring network and revive the associated water quality monitoring program, 

with particular attention to the most downstream gage in each river. The USGS information is 

essential for quantifying land-derived run-off to the coastal zone, and is vital for interpreting 

almost all estuarine observations. The long-term record of streamflow is required for 

understanding past trends in freshwater inflow and for predicting how it might change in response 

to future management decisions or climate change. Coupled to that, the USGS water quality 

measurements allow an estimate of the loading of nutrients and pollutants to the coastal zone. 

This program has been allowed to lapse in many areas, and is believed by our State to be crucial 

for meeting many of the water protection goals laid out in the CZMA and CWA. 

Georgia
P 322, Recommendation 26-2. Ocean.US and NOAA, currently taking major roles in the 

preoperational IOOS work, are the logical entities to oversee and coordinate these activities. 

Critical Environmental Variables 

P 325, Table 26.2. Other protected marine species (e.g., threatened and 

endangered marine species other than mammals, should be specifically identified among the 

important biological variables to be measured by the national IOOS. 

Chapter 27. Enhancing Ocean Infrastructure and Technology Development 

General Comments: 

The Report demonstrates that funding for infrastructure for ocean research and education has 

fallen well behind that necessary to keep pace with the passage of time and changing technology. 

In order to strengthen our knowledge base, improve capabilities for earth and ocean observations, 

and improve the science literacy of U.S. citizens, the State of Georgia strongly supports efforts to 

enhance this necessary infrastructure. By doing so, the nation can enhance the vitality of our 

ocean and maritime commerce, and help our coastal and ocean managers resolve the issues that 

they face with coastal development in a manner that allows both economic growth and the 

continuation of healthy coastal ecosystems. 

We agree that the most effective way to maximize utility of such improvements is to encourage 

and fully support partnership efforts. For example, in Georgia, the Skidaway Institute of 

Oceanography campus houses a variety of academic, state and federal partners, who share 

common goals and collaborate to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of their workforce, 

technology, and infrastructure. 

A Federal Modernization Fund 

P 344, Recommendation 27-4. We agree with the high priority areas for funding under this 

recommendation. The third and fourth dedicated fishery research vessels referenced in the 

second bullet, are long overdue for replacing retired and or obsolete vessels. 

Chapter 28 - Modernizing Ocean Data and Information Systems 

General Comments: 

Progress is being made in this area (particularly through NSF requirements). It will be useful to 

have better access to monitoring information, but it is important to also think about quality 

control. 

Interagency Planning 

P 353, Recommendation 28-1. Regional, state, and local stakeholder users 

of the ocean and coastal data and information should be incorporated into the planning 

organization. A good model is the Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program comprised of 

23 state, federal and interstate agency partners. 

Georgia
Future ecosystem management will depend on ecosystem models and adequate continuing 

monitoring programs and be organized regionally into Large Marine Ecosystems (LME). The 

academic and resource management community in our Southeast U. S. LME has made substantial 

progress in developing collaborative programs that will create the scientific basis for ecosystem 

management. MARMAP and SEA COOS are two excellent examples of the regional approach to 

ecosystem science. 

Part IX 

Moving Ahead: Implementing A New National Ocean Policy 

Chapter 30-1: Funding Needs and Possible Sources 

General Comments: 

The State of Georgia strongly supports increasing the nation's investment in ocean research and 

education, as well as data collection, analysis and 

dissemination. The Administration and the Congress should at a minimum 

provide increased support in the FY 05 and FY 06 budgets currently or soon to be under 

consideration for key coastal and ocean management, research, monitoring, and science 

programs, to jump start this action agenda under current authorities. While the report 

recommends doubling the nation's investment in research and science and establishing an 

Integrated Ocean Observing System, it is essential that adequate support be provided for 

information and tools to assist communities their planning efforts, which will in turn collectively 

address broader ecosystem and regional objectives. 

New Revenues for the Federal Ocean Family and State Government Partners: The Ocean Policy 

Trust Fund 

P 377, Recommendation 30-1. We strongly support the establishment of the 

Ocean Policy Trust Fund. The fund should be dedicated, not subject to annual appropriation, and 

not supplant existing funding. The program should be developed to assure that any new uses 

comply with all federal requirements, including federal consistency. It would be important that 

such funds not be tied to burdensome requirements that could reduce efficiencies of current 

processes. We further support full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Trust Fund and 

the National Historic Preservation Act. Further, the trust Fund should support the full funding 

needs for current coastal and ocean management laws (e.g., CZMA, Magnuson-Stevens, NEP, 

etc.) Funding for these programs should be at least doubled consistent with recommendations for 

science. 

Acknowledging the Cost of Taking Action 

P 374, Table 30.1. There is a discrepancy in the start up cost identified for IOOS in this table as 

compared to the start up cost identified on page 330, Table 24.6. The information in the two 

tables needs to be reconciled. 

Georgia
Hawaii

1

Appendix A 

Summary of Comments of Governor Linda Lingle 

State of Hawaii 

Our comments are organized into two sections: (1) overall comments on the report, and (2) 

specific comments on each chapter. Our overall comments are bulleted below and expanded 

upon in the subsequent text. This is followed by our chapter-by-chapter review. 

Overall:

• The recommendations are too federally-oriented. We believe the overall ocean policy 

process should have more involvement at the state level. 

• The role of each state in the national system of ocean governance should be more 

pronounced. 

• The National Ocean Council (NOC) should be expanded to include at least one Governor 

from each of the proposed regional ocean councils to help coordinate federal, state, tribal, 

and local planning actions. 

• We are concerned that the proposed administrative structure appears top-heavy and 

unwieldy for coordination. 

• While the National Ocean Council coordinates funding across federal agencies and has 

the lead for facilitating state, local, and regional collaboration, ultimately, the federal and 

state agencies have the responsibility to implement programs. The implementing 

agencies should be provided the resources to successfully address the missions and 

statutory mandates of the NOC. 

• The proposed subcommittees the Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology 

and Operations (COSETO) and the Committee on Ocean Resources Management 

(CORM)) should have stronger state representation. There needs to be a mechanism 

established for the subcommittees and the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean 

Policy to interact with one another. 

• The Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy is too broad-based in its mandates 

and could easily become unwieldy and unproductive. It needs to have a clearly defined 

framework and structure to function as envisioned. 

• Staffing from the Office of Ocean Policy should be broadened to include regional liaisons 

to assist in the creation of regional councils and to ensure that regional issues of critical 

importance are expressed to the NOC. 

Hawaii
2

• We are opposed to the recommendation that a particular entity (e.g. a Sea Grant director) 

be included in the make up of the regional boards. There may be more appropriate 

region-specific entities. 

• While we fully support the need to coordinate offshore management among federal 

agencies, there is a critical need to ensure that what is occurring outside the jurisdictions 

of the states and territories is fully coordinated with activities and management decisions 

occurring inside the states’ jurisdictions or between islands within the Hawaiian 

Archipelago. 

• The report is too focused on research and technical development. There needs to be more 

emphasis on management. Linkages are needed to translate the output from research and 

development into management. Support is needed for results-based management. 

• As the report indicates, tourism and recreation constitute the fastest growing sectors of 

the ocean economy, yet there is no chapter in this report that discusses the management 

challenges associated with ever-growing tourism and recreation impacts on ocean 

resources. 

Generally, our concerns regarding this report are not based on the recommendations in the 

subject matter chapters, but are based on the insufficient role for the states. While the report 

outlines many opportunities for states in ocean and coastal management, there is very little 

linkage between the states and the proposed NOC. 

We understand that the objective of the NOC is to coordinate activities on the national and 

international level between federal agencies. In our experience, however, without the active 

involvement of the states, the most critical and by far the most productive zone of the ocean is 

overlooked. Without state involvement, it is unclear whether the states are going to able to meet 

the mandates developed by the NOC. Our recommendation is that the NOC be expanded to 

include at least one Governor from each of the proposed regional ocean councils to help 

coordinate federal, state, tribal, and local planning actions. 

We are concerned that the proposed administrative structure appears top-heavy and unwieldy for 

coordination. The report recommends a National Ocean Policy Council, regional councils and a 

variety of coordinating committees scattered among resource management agencies. 

Mechanisms for efficient implementation of these new policies should be more clearly defined. 

Federal agencies need to be willing to pursue reorganization. This will simplify policy 

implementation and discussions with the Executive Branch. Effective coordination and a clear 

explanation of the means by which implementation can be driven at the national level are critical 

to successfully changing outdated policies across all regions of the U.S. 

The proposed National Ocean Policy appears to mirror Hawaii’s efforts incorporating an 

“ahupua‘a” approach to resource management (e.g. a Hawaiian concept connecting the 

watersheds to the coast and offshore waters.) Many of the recommendations and proposed 

activities such as conserving and restoring coastal habitat, protecting wetlands and promoting 
3

watershed efforts directly comport with the current objectives and efforts in Hawai‘i, and thus 

are strongly supported. 

It should be noted that many of the recommendations appear to be unfunded (at least at the state 

level). Thus implementation of these measures will be severely limited without appropriate 

funding for agencies that may be charged with carrying out these program measures. 

We are concerned with the establishment of a NOC bureaucracy, particularly the uncertainty 

with the ability of the Council to affect change in existing agencies, programs and their budgets. 

It should be made clear that the NOC coordinates and facilitates state, local and regional 

implementation, and that the agencies have lead for implementing programs. While the NOC 

may be helpful in coordinating program funding across agencies to maximize efficiencies and 

impact, it is important that agencies with statutory mandates have resources to successfully 

address their missions. 

Without a clear mandate to link the NOC and its actions and policy decisions to those of the 

states and territories, what is being proposed is another layer of federal government that may 

coordinate programs better at the federal level but falls short of meeting the guiding principles 

articulated in this Report. 

The NOC and the proposed subcommittees Committee on Ocean Science, Education, 

Technology and Operations (COSETO) and the Committee on Ocean Resources Management 

(CORM)) should have strong state representation and participation. This can be justified 

because the purview of these councils/committees significantly overlaps state interests. Perhaps 

the focus could be on the subcommittees (COSETO and CORM, including expanded role for the 

Council on Environmental Quality) with NOC policy direction and oversight. 

Education, technical assistance, research, and science priorities should not be isolated in the 

science subcommittee, COSETO. The structure should be amended to provide a balanced 

portfolio and include education, technical assistance and a research, science needs, survey and 

priorities functions that are in CORM and/or overlap the management and science groups. There 

should be some mechanism established for all the subcommittees and the Presidential Council of 

Advisors on Ocean Policy to interact with one another. 

The Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy is too broad based in its mandates and 

could easily become very unwieldy and non-productive. There is not a specified number of 

members or a proposed framework with key issue areas identified that would assist this group in 

a focused approach to advising on ocean policy. This entire structure should be re-examined. 

Due to our long and well-established record of coordination and collaboration across the region, 

the All Islands Region is willing to be a pilot project for addressing implementation of the 

functions outlined in the Preliminary Report. As this will require additional staff time and travel 

to address a new set of issues, it is anticipated that additional funding will be made available 

through grants to the states and territories to act as a pilot site. 

Hawaii
4

Under recommendation 5-5, the composition of the regional board includes specifically naming 

that a Sea Grant director from at least one state in the region be included in the representation. In 

the pacific, there is only one Sea Grant director and this program does not necessarily represent 

the interests throughout the region. We are opposed to the recommendation that a particular 

entity (e.g. Sea Grant) be included in the make up of the regional boards, as there may be more 

appropriate regional entities to represent the interests across a region. 

In Chapter 6 on Coordinated Management in Federal Waters, there is no mention of the need to 

coordinate between federal waters and the territorial waters of each state. While we fully support 

the need to coordinate offshore management among federal agencies, there is a critical need to 

ensure that what is occurring outside the jurisdictions of the states and territories is fully 

coordinated with activities and management decisions occurring inside three miles or between 

islands within the Hawaiian Archipelago. 

As stated throughout the report, an important part of moving towards an ecosystem-based 

management approach is to consider the cumulative impacts across boundaries. The report needs 

to include coordination between activities such as offshore aquaculture, fisheries management, 

enforcement. There is a need to ensure that coordinated offshore management is done in a 

manner that considers the impacts of these decisions on nearshore and coastal resources and the 

communities living adjacent to the area. In addition, it must be made clear that the appropriate 

state agency is consulted. It should be stressed that Hawai‘i is interested in the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) and offshore activities that may occur therein, and endorses an offshore 

management regime in EEZ that is geographically linked. 

Throughout the report and in the organization of the NOC office and subcommittees, 

management is not given the needed focus when compared to research, education and integrated 

technical development. The report needs to focus resources on translating the output from these 

other sectors (research, education, and integrated technical development) into the management 

setting, and supporting results-based management and best management practices. Since two of 

the guiding principles in the report are an ecosystem approach and adaptive management, there is 

a need to make the linkages to ensure this happens. 

As the report indicates, tourism and recreation constitute by far the fastest growing sectors of the 

ocean economy and yet there is no chapter in this report that discusses the management 

challenges associated with ever-growing tourism and recreation impacts on ocean resources. In 

Hawai‘i, one out of every five visitors from the west participates in snorkeling or diving 

activities. About eighty-percent of all visitors participate in some form of ocean or coastal 

recreation ranging from sun bathing to swimming to jet skiing and diving. The intense use of 

some of our nearshore waters coupled with the crowding on our beaches, in our parks, and to our 

recreational facilities is a management challenge. We need to move beyond the traditional 

approaches to management to address this myriad of impacts. The report does very little to 

address this issue. 
5

Chapter-by-Chapter Comments:

The following portion of our comments are designed to provide detailed edits on the various 

chapters and the recommendation made within these chapters. In the case where there are no 

comments on a chapter or a proposed recommendation, please assume that we are in general 

support of the content. 

Chapter 1 – Recognizing Ocean Assets and Challenges 

The basic point of this chapter is that ocean and coastal economies contribute significantly to the 

U.S. economy. To get this information, a special multi-year project was undertaken because 

none of the federal agencies with ocean and coastal responsibilities invest significantly in 

understanding their economic impact as a whole (compared to $100 million spent annually by 

the Department of Agriculture). In this chapter, it is acknowledged that “[s]tandard government 

data are not designed to measure the complex ocean economy,” but unfortunately, the report 

does not stress the need for such standard measurements. It isn’t until Chapter 25: Creating a 

National Strategy for Increasing Scientific Knowledge, that recommendation 25-3 (p. 312) 

proposes a national program for social science and economic research that would create an 

interagency group to look at the ocean economy. 

Even this recommendation seems to fall short of suggesting that standard economic data 

collection tools for the ocean economy should be integrated into all U.S. economic data 

collection efforts. In order to develop an effective, cohesive lobby for ocean and coastal issues, 

their economic impact, over time, must be understood and appreciated. It is important that our 

coastal communities and the general public “appreciate the economic importance of our oceans 

and coasts.” A healthy environment is good business. Any citizen or group should be able to 

access this information as easily as finding out how much the agriculture industry, or a subset 

such as wheat, contributes to the U.S. economy each year. In this regard, we recommend that an 

emphasis on economic valuation of our ocean and coastal resources be pursued to demonstrate 

the importance of healthy ecosystems to a state’s economy. This recommendation should be 

stronger and the need for it included in Chapter 1 where the issue is first discussed. 

The need to quantify the economic data is particularly true of a visitor industry based economy 

such as Hawai‘i, which is reliant upon our unique environment and culture as its main attraction 

for first time and repeat visitors. In addition, the value of ‘a day at the beach’ also needs to be 

taken into account with respect to socio-economics. 

Marine transportation and ports are vital elements for a stable economy. It provides economic 

infrastructure to global markets, goods, and products as well as employment opportunities. In 

the case of Hawai‘i, shipping accounts for about ninety-eight percent of imported goods. 

Although economically important, this use of marine waters must be tempered by the 

consideration of impacts to ocean and coastal resources as a result of the need to expand landside maritime operations, dredging to increase harbor depths for larger vessels, and land-use 

implications due to increasing population demands and evolving maritime technologies. 

Hawaii
6

On page 7 the value of coral reefs in Hawai‘i is estimated at $800 million in gross revenues 

annually, the figure of $360 million is the ‘added value’ per year. For the reference please go to 

the Hawai‘i Coral Reef Initiative Research Program web site at www.hawaii.edu/ssri/hcri and 

download the “Economic Value of Hawaii’s Nearshore Reefs” brochure. 

On page 8 in the discussion on nonmarket values, please add in the cultural importance of coastal 

and ocean resources to the list discussed. For the islands and for all the indigenous cultures 

represented in the U.S., this is an important value to highlight. 

On page 9 in the discussion on exploration, inspiration and education, it is important to note here 

that historic and cultural events are more than just shipwrecks and other submerged sites, that in 

the pacific this was way of life, the early Polynesians and the other pacific island cultures 

explored the oceans on a scale and at a time that centuries before similar activities where 

occurring in Europe. As we strive to inspire and educate the public about our oceans, we need to 

celebrate the historic uses and the scale of exploration that ties us to our roots and links our 

future to our past. 

Education must not only be science-based it must be “place-based” and “multicultural-based” in 

the case of Hawai‘i and other island jurisdictions. In this way, education and outreach can be 

accomplished in a culturally sensitive and appropriate manner. The report also fails to address 

the possibilities for work force education through ocean related skills/studies at vocational or 

technical schools. 

The impacts of global climate change are clearly more pronounced in island settings given 

limited land area and eroding coastal landscapes. International coordination is essential to 

addressing this problem as it clearly impacts the health of our ocean and coasts. The U.S. should 

pursue collaborative efforts around the world and take an international leadership role in global 

issues such as marine debris, global warming, sea level rise, fisheries management, coral reef 

health, etc. 

On page 11, in the discussion on fisheries declines, there is no mention of the impacts to habitats 

from destructive fishing practices. Also on the same page, while we support the growing marine 

aquaculture industry. 

With regard to gaining more data and information regarding climate change, the U.S. should 

strongly support the efforts already underway for the integrated ocean observation systems 

(IOOS). International relations to insure compatible technology and data sharing should be 

pursued. 

Primer on Ocean JurisdictionIn the section on state seaward boundaries in the United States, we suggest language that 

recognizes that not all states are in agreement with the Territorial Sea being defined from zero to 

three miles. Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico are named as exceptions to this, but several other 

states do dispute the boundary. Hawai‘i claims archipelagic status around all waters in the main 
7

Hawaiian Islands and feels that it has the historical documentation to substantiate this claim. In 

addition, the State of Hawai‘i Constitution reflects a greater than three-mile claim. While the 

State of Hawai‘i acknowledges that rights of innocent passage and military activity, for the 

purposes of resource management, enforcement, regulation of vessel traffic, and numerous other 

activities, we have systematically based our management decisions on this archipelagic claim. 

Chapter 4: Enhancing Ocean Leadership and Coordination 

Page 49, paragraph 1 reads: “ocean policies should promote an ecosystem-based management 

approach.” This approach is essential to maintaining a clear cause and effect relationship 

between the land, sea, and air and should be a driving factor in coordination and collaboration of 

efforts at all levels. 

Page 49, paragraph 2 reads: “As part of the move toward an ecosystem-based management 

approach, a precautionary approach should be incorporated into decision-making processes and 

adopted by the NOC in developing national standards for ecosystem-based management.” A 

standards-based approach to management has much to recommend but should take into 

consideration the differences in each region. In terms of ecosystems, a mile of wetland buffer in 

Texas is not equal to a mile of wetland buffer in Hawai‘i. 

Recommendation 4-1 and 4-2: Regarding the establishment of the NOC 

A NOC composed only of executive branch appointed cabinet secretaries and directors raises 

issues of continuity between policies, mandates, and actions of council members due to outgoing 

and incoming administrations. Again, we must re-iterate the need to have the states at the table 

on the NOC, on the Advisory Council and the subcommittees. 

To balance the representation on the NOC and the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean 

Policy, we recommend that both the President and Congress should select the council members 

for the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy. This would help ensure the 

independence of the actions of this body as well as encourage the continuity of its policies. 

Recommendation 4-5: Regarding a Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy 

Presidential appointees for nongovernmental organizations should include the Director of the 

Coastal States Organization which would insure the voice of federally-approved coastal states 

and the All Island Affairs Committee. 

Recommendation 4-10: Regarding the establishment of Regional Ocean Councils 

Establishment of a Regional Ocean Council as described in this section within the pacific for the 

islands will be challenging since we are separated by ocean from each other as well as the 

continental U.S. The current structure of regional divisions will need to be reexamined for island 

application. 

Hawaii
8

Chapter 5: Advancing a Regional Approach 

Although it is commendable that the commission recommended that regional ocean councils 

should be developed with a broad flexible approach, in practice this might prove difficult and 

time consuming. Just agreeing on the regional boundaries could be problematical and greatly 

delay the formation of the regional councils. Some thought should be given to which 

configuration makes the most sense for the regional ocean council. Sub-regions should be 

considered for management issues that differ because of the large ocean areas separating the 

islands of the Pacific, as well as our cultural, biological and social differences that could 

influence ecosystem-based management decisions. 

Also, since existing bodies, such as the Regional Fishery Management Councils are to retain 

their scope and function, it will be more difficult to establish ecosystem-based management 

approaches. The three examples of existing regional management areas shown in Figure 4.3 are 

depicted to indicate the problems inherent in different regional boundaries. The recommendation 

is to improve communication. Perhaps a closer look should be given to consolidating existing 

regional efforts into the new ecosystem-based regional ocean councils. This would also facilitate 

the supporting efforts of the proposed regional ocean information programs. The vertical 

integration of these existing and proposed entities using common boundaries would greatly 

reduce the problems of duplication of effort and the potential for gaps in information. 

On page 57, the U.S. Island States and Territories collaborate on more than just strategies to 

protect coral reefs. The collaboration on coral reefs grew out of their work on coastal zone 

management issues and it was due to the strong relationship that had already been established 

with other initiatives that the coral reef efforts are so successful. 

Other comments on Chapter 5 are outlined in the overall comments section. 

Chapter 6 – Coordinating Management in Federal Waters 

The commission again neglects to recognize that there are actions in Hawai‘i that could provide 

insight or guidance for the nation. A case in point is the box on page 65 that describes the 

establishment of an offshore aquaculture facility. There is no mention that under the Hawai‘i 

Ocean Leasing Law, the State granted the first open ocean lease for offshore cage culture in the 

nation. 

Recommendation 6-1: Regarding ensuring that current and foreseeable use of federal waters is 

administered by a lead federal agency. 

We again must re-iterate that to ensure full consideration of the public interest, we recommend 

that coordination also include appropriate state agencies since increased uses and potential 

impacts in federal waters do not recognize boundary lines or jurisdiction. 

The remainder of our comments on this section are on marine protected areas (MPAs). Our first 

question is; why is this management tool discussed in this chapter? MPAs are not just a tool 

used by federal agencies. Hawai‘i has had MPAs designated since 1967, for over 35 years. Our 
9

first MPA was Hanauma Bay Marine Life Conservation District. We have learned a significant 

amount about the management and the designation process for MPAs since this first site. To 

date, there are over 45 types of MPAs in Hawai‘i, under varying levels of management and 

protection. We are currently in the process of re-evaluating our MPA program and developing a 

new framework and criteria in which to more effectively manage our current sites and to better 

define the selection process for future sites. 

Our process has always been community-driven, and most sites have been requested by 

community groups. By law we are required to hold public hearings prior to the establishment of 

any MPA-related regulations. Our process to designate MPAs and to ensure that they are 

acceptable to the communities that are affected takes anywhere from three years to over a 

decade. 

Hawai‘i has been involved in a federal/state partnership to manage MPAs for several years. The 

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary is a co-managed program, where 

eighty percent of the waters within the boundaries are State waters. Hawai‘i is in the process of 

designating State waters in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) as a State Marine 

Refuge. Some of these same waters are administratively claimed as part of the Hawaiian Islands 

National Wildlife Refuge. We are also involved in the process to create a National Marine 

Sanctuary in the NWHI, which may or may not include State waters, and are currently working 

with both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem 

Reserve for cooperative management in adjacent waters. This is the largest MPA in the nation. 

MPAs are effective tools for managing specific activities affecting coral reefs and other ocean 

habitats, with the understanding that it’s not benthic communities or other resident organisms 

that can be managed, but rather, it’s the human activities that are detrimentally affecting the 

ecosystem. Simply stated, “no take” does not mean “no impact”. While fishing pressure 

(actually over-harvesting, as there are more key species than fish involved) is one of the top 

activities impacting coral reef ecosystems worldwide, many reefs suffer far more from runoff, 

coastal pollution, sedimentation, eutrophication, and tourism-related damage (anchors, SCUBA 

divers, reef-walkers, collectors, jet skis, etc). Establishing an MPA without adequate 

management of adjacent land-use activities, upstream water quality, down stream substratum 

quality and non-fishing impacts, will do limited good in the long run. Most of the management 

measures for the adjacent land-use activities fall under the jurisdiction of the states. National 

policy needs to recognize not only flexibility in the type of MPA and the issue of time 

(rotational, seasonal, permanent), but also the activities adjacent to these areas. 

Page 66, reads: “These areas MPAs have also been recognized for their scientific, recreational, 

and educational values.” It should also be emphasized that MPAs should also be recognized for 

their historic and cultural value. 

Page 68, reads: “The design of MPAs should not unreasonably limit important national interests, 

such as international trade, national security, recreation, clean energy, economic development, 

and scientific research. For example, in most cases freedom of navigation through MPAs should 

not be restricted. However, where some infringement on such national interests is deemed 

essential to achieving the purposes of a [MPA], restrictions should be based on sound science, 

Hawaii
10

with a plan for ongoing monitoring and modifications over time. The overall ecological and 

socioeconomic impacts of MPAs should also be evaluated at the national level.” It is 

recommended that “sound science” referenced in the paragraph be replaced with “best available 

science,” to be consistent with other references in the report. 

Also, there is a danger of stalling precautionary measures until an administration’s definition of 

sound science is met. In addition, national interests such as freedom of navigation through 

MPAs should not be unrestricted given the report’s emphasis on ecosystem-based management. 

Instead of balancing economic and environmental interests, this paragraph gives importance to 

economic concerns. Economic growth is not a necessary precursor to environmental and public 

health protection. Finally, overall ecological and socioeconomic impacts of MPAs should also 

be evaluated based on state/local input. 

Recommendation 6-3: Regarding the NOC developing national goals and guidelines for a 

uniform process for the effective design and implementation of MPAs. 

We are opposed to this recommendation as it is currently written. It is our understanding that the 

MPA Center and the Federal Advisory Council that were created under Executive Order are 

doing more than an inventory of MPAs. We are interested in knowing how the work of the MPA 

Center and the Federal Advisory Council will be incorporated into the proposed goals and 

guidelines for effective design and implementation of MPAs that are being proposed in this 

recommendation. We are also concerned that this national process may conflict directly with the 

processes that have been ongoing for over 35 years and are currently being revised in Hawai‘i 

and other locations. MPAs are an excellent example of sites that need to be designed based on 

local and regional considerations, and we are very concerned about a federal approach that limits 

our abilities to consider the impacts to both the resources and the effected communities at the 

local level. 

In Hawai‘i, 25% of our marine life is found nowhere else in the world. We are considered by 

many to be our own region, when it comes to biodiversity and other factors. Our waters are very 

different than the waters of American Samoa, Guam, or California. A uniform process 

developed from the top-down by the NOC may not consider any of these factors or the fact that 

in each state or territory cited above, there is a difference in culture, values and language. In 

addition, what is proposed for a national set of goals and guidelines may be applicable for new 

sites, however, it will be difficult to apply to all of the existing sites. . 

Recommendation 6-4: Regarding regional councils, or other appropriate regional entities, should 

actively solicit stakeholder participation and lead the design and implementation of MPAs. The 

design should be conducted pursuant to the goals, guidelines, and uniform process developed by 

the NOC. 

We support the concept of actively soliciting stakeholder participation in the design and 

implementation of MPAs. However, we do not support the concept that this initiative should be 

lead by a regional entity, but rather by the state (and its locally based community groups), with 

support from a regional group as needed. We are, as stated above, opposed to the design being 

conducted based on a national set of guidelines. 
11

Chapter 7 – Strengthening the Federal Agency Structure 

Recommendation 7-2. Regarding the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) review the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ‘s (NOAA’s) budget within OMB’s Natural 

Resources Programs. 

The commission recommends that Congress pass an organic act to codify the establishment and 

mission of NOAA, as well as recommending that OMB review NOAA’s budget separate from 

that of the Department of Commerce, and along with other natural resource programs. Making 

NOAA a separate agency would assist in meeting the goals of recommendations 7-1 and 7-2, 

giving NOAA more flexibility, prominence, and authority to coordinate coastal and marine 

activities and research with other federal agencies. 

Recommendation 7-5: Regarding the consolidation of similar ocean and coastal programs. 

The move towards structural reorganization is important for efficiency purposes within and 

among federal departments and agencies. The consolidation of various agencies and coastalrelated functions within a single department would be appropriate. However, attention must be 

given to the potential inadvertent compromising of missions and related programs. There is a 

need to insure that these programs, which may provide necessary support and resources to enduser states and local governments, are not overlooked. 

We have no additional comments on this chapter. Our goal is the ensure that the proposed 

restructure leads to better coordination at the national and local level and to better ocean 

governance that is more inclusive and considers the input from the states. 

Chapter 8 – Promoting Lifelong Ocean Education 

The report does a good job in detailing the need for K-12 curriculum and incentives for oceanrelated degree work at the university levels, but fails to address the possibilities for work force 

education through ocean-related skills studies at vocational or technical schools. The addition of 

these venues could produce a work force that enters with a more than competent level of skill, 

and would serve to help provide the numbers of skilled workers that will be necessary as the 

resource recovery needs, the transportation needs, and the environmental management needs of 

the nation continue to grow. 

We recognize the importance of ocean education and recommend that the Ocean.Ed vision and 

strategy be developed with State input. To the extent possible, the national vision should 

encompass state standards incorporate model ongoing programs from the states. The overall 

implementation strategy should include goals and priorities from the states, and clearly outline 

how the strategy will be implemented, including funding and training components 

A critical component of gaining acceptance for the use of the ocean curriculum by teachers is to 

ensure that they are trained in the materials and have some comfort level with teaching the 

information. This is not recognized as a critical element of program success and implementation 

in this report. 

Hawaii
12

Emphasis is placed on ocean education and growth of an ocean literate workforce. However, 

there is no guidance or recommendations that address the need for job creation in order for a 

newly skilled and trained workforce to move into. 

The education office located under the NOC should become a repository/clearinghouse for ocean 

education and should function as a one-stop shop for teachers looking to incorporate ocean and 

coastal education into their curriculum. 

A critical component of gaining acceptance for the use of the ocean curriculum by teachers is to 

ensure that they are trained in the materials and have some comfort level with teaching the 

information. This is not recognized as a critical element of program success and implementation 

in this report. 

Crosscutting themes should also recognize the bridging of gaps between the research and 

resource managers and the decision and policymakers. Cross-cutting academic institutions 

should also include planning, resource management, and/or policy departments and programs for 

educational partnering. It is also important to emphasize the importance of culture and the role 

that Hawaii’s seafaring traditions have had on these islands. Ocean education is about more than 

just math, science, and engineering, and there is a critical need to bridge the gap between the 

discoveries that are made in science and how this effects our every day lives. To do this we need 

to train the researchers how to explain the importance of what they are doing in terms that can be 

understood by the every day public and the media. 

There is need to clarify the connection between Ocean.Ed and the regional science boards 

proposed in the report, particularly as it relates to technical assistance, training and professional 

development programs. Ocean.Ed needs to build on the state and local capacities for informal 

education and outreach. The federal agencies should be required to support state and 

community-based education efforts and not “recreate the wheel”. 

This chapter discusses the desirability and requirements for a deliberate enhancement of ocean 

education from “K-gray”, including outreach to the general public. The University of Hawai‘i 

(UH) already is working vigorously in this area, but resources are stretched as far as possible. 

New resources that might be made available through the implementation of the recommendations 

within this report could be put to good use immediately for the benefit of Hawai‘i. Some 

examples are discussed below. 

The School of Ocean Earth Science and Technology (SOEST) is a founding member of the 

Consortium for Ocean Research and Graduate Education (CORE), which has played a major role 

in advocating for ocean research and education at the national level. In addition to graduate 

degrees in oceanography, SOEST offers the Global Environmental Sciences undergraduate 

degree, with a heavy emphasis on basic science and mathematics education and applications to 

the ocean and other elements of the earth system. SOEST participates in the National Ocean 

Science Bowl organized by CORE, reaching out to high school students throughout Hawai‘i. 

SOEST conducts a biennial open house, where more than a thousand K-12 students and many 

families tour our facilities and learn about our research. SOEST also runs a Speakers Bureau for 

educational outreach. National Science Foundation (NSF)-funds the Kumu-Ola (Source of 
13

Knowledge) program, which seeks to attract minority students, particularly native Hawaiians, 

into careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics through the integration of 

cultural knowledge into curricula. SOEST has the potential to be a leading force in U.S. marine 

education and training needed to support the expansion of ocean professional employment, 

including observing system technology. Hawai‘i students should have the opportunity to fill 

some of these positions that will be based in Hawai‘i and elsewhere in the U.S. 

In addition to SOEST, the UH colleges of both natural and social sciences have numerous 

programs that are ocean-related. The UH system has campuses across the State and many of 

these campuses provide both basis courses in marine sciences, and technical training for nonscience majors. Similar programs exist at Hawai‘i Pacific University and Chaminade University, 

both private institutions of higher learning. It is our recommendation that one of the first steps 

that should to be undertaken by Ocean.Ed is an inventory of existing programs, as well as an 

assessment of the courses and curriculum available. There are many good examples of ocean 

education and it is unlikely that much will need to be created, but instead adapted from places 

like Hawai‘i and the other coastal states for use in areas where these programs do not exist. 

Recommendation 8-2: Regarding funding of Ocean.ED. 

Given the agency representation in the NOC, there are concerns about its ability to administer 

funding appropriately. Input from end-users at the state and local levels should be factored into 

the allocation of these funds. There is also a concern that by creating the OceanED, that what 

would be created is an unnecessary and inefficient level of bureaucracy that will be using its 

appropriated funding to support itself rather than on state and local education needs. A 

mechanism for the allocation of resources to the state and local level should be developed. The 

recommendation as currently written would provide a line item in NOAA’s budget for Ocean.Ed 

that is overseen by the NOC and develops a streamlined process to distribute funds to other 

federal and nonfederal agencies. The financial burden of education for student for K-12 is 

primarily borne by the states, distribution of funds to mainly federal agencies will do little to 

increase ocean education on the ground in the schools. 

Recommendations 8-4, 8-6 and 8-7: Regarding the effectiveness of ocean related education; 

working with state and local education authorities to meet education standards; and establishing 

stronger relationships between research and education communities. 

While we support each of these recommendations, as already noted, the scope of ocean education 

needs to go beyond math and science. In addition, there is very little if any consideration given 

to the teacher in the classroom and the need to work with them in the design of the education 

materials and to ensure that they are adequately trained in the use of the curriculum materials 

developed. 

Recommendation 8-5: Regarding the relocation and expansion of the Centers for Ocean 

Sciences. 

It is important to indicate where these expanded regional centers would be located. For the 

islands, real-time assistance and access to information/resources provided by the center would be 

a critical factor as to whether or not a center would be located within the pacific and, if so, on 

what island. 

Hawaii
14

Recommendation 8-9: NOAA, NSF and others should support colleges and universities in 

promoting introductory marine science courses to expose students, including non-science majors 

to these subjects. 

This recommendation is supported with the caution that opportunities for experiential learning 

often provide a stronger basis for learning than a traditional college course. The Marine Option 

Program is a UH system-wide undergraduate certificate program that encourages hands-on 

involvement in marine science. The Marine Option Program has directly contributed to the 

development of Hawaii’s next generation ocean-oriented workforce. The certificate program is 

intended to ensure that non-science majors that are interested in the oceans can be exposed to and 

learn about all facets of ocean careers. Again, this is the type of program that should be assessed 

for its applicability across the county 

Under “Public Outreach” there should be a coordinated effort to develop key messages to target 

groups beyond the traditional education institutions, zoos and aquariums. While the U.S. has 

more coral reefs than tropical rainforests, most people know more about the latter than the 

former. In tourist-based economies such as Hawai‘i, there is a need to train the tourism 

providers about our ocean resources, as they are often the best messengers about the resources to 

the visitor participating in some form of ocean recreation. 

An equally important target group is civil engineers, as they are taught to divert runoff from 

roads and the land into the coastal ocean as quickly as possible. This is okay for temperate and 

upwelling systems, but using coastal coral reefs as the dumping ground for often-contaminated 

runoff is the worst possible scenario. Engineering has to focus on retention, percolation and 

filtration. In most island cases, storage for potable uses is even better. 

The Waikiki Aquarium is an outstanding ocean education outreach program of UH Mānoa, 

touching many local residents and tourists alike. Likewise, a partnership with the Polynesian 

Voyaging Society, Honolulu Community College’s Marine Education and Training Center, and 

other state and federal partners is involving students in both Hawaiian seafaring traditions and in 

learning about and protecting the islands and reefs that will be visited during voyages of the 

sailing canoe Hokule‘a through the NWHI. The Polynesian Voyaging Society has worked with a 

long list of government, educational, scientific and cultural partners in developing its new 

educational mission, which includes a detailed teacher curriculum. This is the type of activity 

that would be expanded and built upon through the recommendations in this chapter of the 

report. Inspiring our island youth through their oceanic heritage is an important contribution to 

their education. 

Chapter 9 – Managing Coasts and their Watersheds 

Hawai‘i is a good example of caring for watersheds, where forested watersheds both provide 

nearly all of the State's fresh water while protecting the islands’ precious reefs from runoff and 

pollution. Landowners from federal, state, and county agencies and the private sector have 

formed island partnerships to cooperatively manage watersheds for the benefits their island’s 

residents. Each partnership has a coordinator and a watershed-specific management plan that is 

guided by an overarching State Watershed Protection Master Plan. 
15

The report finds that the sheer numbers of people being added to fixed coastal land areas, 

combined with the fragile nature of coastal resources, create disproportionate impacts. In many 

cases, these impacts are destroying the very qualities that draw people to the coast (page 108). 

Hawai’i, like many other coastal states, has experienced pressures on its coastal resources. 

Moreover, as indicated in the report, the Hawaiian Islands and many U.S. island territories are 

particularly dependent upon tourism for their economic health. Hawai‘i attracts some 7 million 

tourists each year (page 107). There is a critical need to support enhanced capacity of state and 

local governments to manage activities that affect our coastal areas. 

Planning at the watershed level is a high priority for Hawai‘i. Culturally-based watershed 

management approaches provide a new approach that engages communities to become better 

stewards. 

The Coastal States Organization submitted, on behalf of its coastal states membership, a new 

recommendation to reauthorize and amend the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to 

create a Coastal Communities Program, on October 25, 2002. We support this 

recommendation as this program would assist states to work directly with local governments to 

improve planning and management so that they balance growth and economic needs and protect 

critical resources. Funding for this program would begin at a minimum of $30 million per year. 

Recommendation 9-1: Regarding the reauthorization of the CZMA. 

We strongly support the report’s recommendations to reauthorize the CZMA as it has been an 

important tool in Hawai‘i to balance the conservation of the coastal environment with the 

responsible development of economic and cultural interests. Would also suggest mandating 

coastal zone management programs to (1) reconsider landside boundaries of jurisdiction; and (2) 

apply concepts of carrying capacity and smart growth concepts to planning and permitting. In 

addition, other elements of CZMA need to be strengthened including, habitat restoration, 

community planning, ocean management, watershed management and support for special area 

management planning. 

We recommend additional funding for the program particularly if additional mandates will be 

placed on the program. In addition, the strength of the program has been with federal/state 

partnerships and the fact that programs are based upon a federally approved state plan. The 

recommendation needs to incorporate greater consideration of state goals and state program 

needs. 

The report recognizes that funding for CZMA implementation remains a significant concern, 

having been capped at $2 million per coastal state since 1992. This hampers program 

implementation and should be considerably increased to effectively carry out important existing 

and planned program functions including the inclusion of coastal watersheds. Increased funding 

should be incorporated into Recommendation 9-1. 

While we agree with the need for goals, performance measures and improved program 

evaluations for greater accountability, we emphasize that a long-standing strength of the CZMA 

has been the fact that the program is based on state plans. State needs and priorities should be 

Hawaii
16

given utmost consideration in the development of state program goals and program performance 

measures. These goals need to be collaboratively developed to reflect Hawaii’s unique island 

issues and needs. Federal money should be linked to individual program performance based 

incentives, and the federal government should work cooperatively with the state programs by 

providing the resources and technical assistance necessary to help the states achieve shared 

state/federal goals. The CZM programs should also be more involved with implementing federal 

incentives to reduce inappropriate land use and development in high hazard areas. 

Recommendation 9-2: Relating to the consolidation of area-based coastal management 

programs.

We are very concerned that the solid foundations that each of these programs have built with 

their state partners could be easily eroded under this consolidation. Issues of maintaining 

resource levels and the integration of common, yet different missions, goals, and objectives need 

to be carefully examined. Also, how will resources be allocated at the state level since some 

states, such as Hawai‘i, do not have a National Estuarine Research Reserve program, while 

Oregon and South Carolina have no National Marine Sanctuary Programs? Would more 

resources then be allocated to those states that have more coastal initiatives? 

There is no indication if the consolidation is overseen by a specific agency, or whether all these 

programs are combined into one agency. More definition needs to be provided. The 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Smart Growth Initiative should be looked at for a 

consolidation model if this recommendation is to be implemented. This link would provide 

incentives for appropriate development in coastal areas as well as showcase successes and 

encourage participation. 

Recommendation 9-3: Regarding changes to federal funding and infrastructure programs to 

discourage growth in fragile and hazard prone coastal areas. 

We support the recommendation that the NOC should recommend changes to federal funding 

and infrastructure programs to discourage inappropriate growth in fragile or hazard-prone coastal 

areas and ensure consistency with national, regional, and state goals aimed at achieving 

economically and environmentally sustainable development. Enhancing relationships between 

federal agencies, state coastal resource managers and all decision-makers will help to ensure 

compatibility among the many activities that affect ocean and coastal environments. 

Recommendation 9-4: Regarding the reauthorization of the CZMA-Coastal Watersheds. 

The Hawai‘i Coastal Zone Management Program is taking a watershed or ahupua‘a approach to 

viewing coastal resource management. CZM Hawaii’s ongoing projects are very consistent with 

the report’s recommendations to emphasize watersheds. There is concurrence with the overall 

theme and direction to incorporate a watershed approach to manage coastal and ocean resources 

while providing for flexibility for local variability. We agree that better financial, technical and 

institutional support is needed for watershed initiatives. 

We generally support recommendation 9-4, which proposes to amend the CZMA and the Clean 

Water Act (CWA) to allow more opportunities for regional variability in management 

approaches. Hawaii’s watersheds or ahupua‘a are small; the longest stream is about 34 miles in 

length and streams drain directly to the coastal ocean in a matter of hours during heavy rainfall 
17

events. This requires Hawai‘i to consider watersheds as extending from stream headwaters to 

the coastal waters, not seaward from the upper reaches of tidal influence along coastlines, as 

provided for in NOAA's definition of a coastal watershed. 

Chapter 10 – Guarding People and Property against Natural Hazards 

Hawaii advocates that the Ocean Commission recommend the federal government adopt a 

consistent National Coastal Hazards and Shoreline Management Policy that (i) adopts a standard 

national definition of shorelines, (ii) establishes guidelines for making measurable improvements 

in protection of public health and safety from hazards, minimization of private damages; and 

preservation of natural shoreline features, and (iii) enhances recreational, economic and storm 

protective benefits of beaches and other natural features. 

We further recommend that the federal government redirect government subsidies away from 

harmful development, including: reform the Corps to align projects with environmental as well 

as economic benefits; direct the Corps to focus on environmental restoration in partnership with 

natural resource agencies; and examine tax structures incentives for harmful development, and 

disincentives. 

While the U.S. has had a system in place for several decades to respond to the needs of humans 

and their built community after a disaster, the one element that has been glaringly missing has 

been response to environmental impacts from natural disasters. The National Response Plan 

(NRP) which guided Federal Emergency Management Authority’s (FEMA) lead in disaster 

response following a Presidential declared disaster was comprised of a series of Emergency 

Support Functions (ESF) which provided specific and directed responses to various aspects of 

disaster needs, and the lack of an ESF for natural environment response sometimes has had the 

affect of impeding response and thereby lengthening the time for a community’s full recovery. 

FEMA’s role in natural hazard mitigation should be better defined now that the agency is within 

the Department of Homeland Security and coordinated with other federal agencies such as 

NOAA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), EPA, and others. In addition, mitigation 

should consider more environmentally appropriate measures such as beach and dune restoration, 

forestry, wetland and coral reef conservation and restoration, and beach nourishment. 

Thorough attention must be directed in addressing the issue of sea level rise, global warming, 

and climate change especially for island settings where the impacts of these issues are more 

pronounced. Increased monitoring, data collection, public awareness and education, funding, 

and international coordination are required. 

The U.S. Islands are prone to frequent and devastating natural disasters (hurricanes/typhoons, 

flooding, tsunami, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, drought, etc). Recognized the shortcoming 

of the NRP, the U.S. All Islands Coral Reef Coordinating Committee introduced a resolution 

which was subsequently adopted by the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (October 2003), calling for 

the Department of Homeland Security to add an ESF to the NRP (which is currently being 

Hawaii
18

rewritten). That process has not been completed, and the response to the call is not yet clear. 

We recommend that the following be included in the report. 

Recommendation 10-5: Department of Homeland Security should ensure that procedures 

guiding FEMA’s response to natural disasters include provisions (detailed ESF) that 

support regional, state and local efforts to respond to the impacts on natural environments 

as part of the immediate and overall recovery efforts. In coastal and marine areas, the lead 

federal agency for a natural resource recovery ESF should be NOAA. 

Recommendation 10-6: In order to ensure that responses to impacts to the natural 

environment following a natural disaster are conducted in the most efficient, effective, and 

cooperative manner, FEMA should work with state and territorial jurisdictions to develop 

local action plans for responding to environment impacts from natural disasters, which 

would assist in guiding FEMAs response capabilities. 

We strongly agree that firm land use controls that discourage development near known high 

hazard areas should be promoted at all levels to mitigate impacts to human life, property, and the 

environment. Erosion mapping is needed in order to accurately identify those areas that are 

prone to erosion and better reduce vulnerability of development to hazards. FEMA’s efforts in 

sustainable redevelopment should be coordinated with the CZM program and EPA’s Smart 

Growth Initiative. The report needs also to encourage nonstructural solutions to hazard 

mitigation (e.g. protection and restoration of beaches, sand dunes, wetlands, and native forests). 

On page 122, FEMA plays a strong role in coordinating the National Flood Insurance Program 

with the insurance industry. Economic market forces should be better evaluated in determining 

the decision to build in hazard areas. 

Recommendation 10-2: Regarding the establishment of a task force to improve the collection 

and usability of hazards-related data. 

FEMA should encourage and assist local governments in collecting and using demographic data 

in their hazard assessments along with actual hazard data. Information on the mobility of the 

population, for example, could help in developing hazard response plans while decreasing 

community risk. 

NOAA’s Coastal Services Center is already carrying out workshops on creating and coordinating 

tasks forces to improve the collection and usability of hazard-data. This should be supported by 

the NOC. 

Recommendation 10-3: Regarding the NOC recommending changes to the NFIP to reduce 

incentives to develop in high-hazard areas. 

The NOC should also develop incentives for alternative measure such as buyouts and land 

transfers to reduce incentive to redevelop in high hazard areas. The states need federal support 

to carry out buyout programs. 
19

Chapter 11 - Conserving and Restoring Coastal Habitat 

There is some danger in expounding on the benefits or possibilities of environmental restoration 

too loudly. First; it may subconsciously permit a moderated reaction to environmental damage 

among the general public, as one might believe that a damaged system could actually be restored 

to the same system it was previously. This is not the case. Replacing corals, for instance, in an 

area damaged by ship grounding, may result in three species being placed where fifteen species 

had previously co-existed. That is a change to the environment, not a restoration. The best 

response to damaged environments, in many cases, will be two fold. Remove the insult to the 

environment (sedimentation, ship, poor fishing practices, etc.), and then work to recreate the 

conditions for a healthy environment in order to support natural recovery. This approach should 

be noted as a preferred approach, as it allows nature to recover naturally, and assigns 

stakeholders the task of management through human induced or human caused impacts. 

Through the proposed NOC, the federal agencies need to take a serious look at what constitutes 

appropriate compensatory mitigation focusing specifically on the creation of new wetlands as 

compensation for loss elsewhere. The requirement of “no net loss” of wetland habitat should 

continue to be supported and strengthened. 

Recommendation 11-1: Regarding CZMA’s authorization and funding for Coastal Estuarine 

Land Conservation Program (CELP) 

We strongly support the authorization and providing sufficient funding for a dedicated CELP. 

Through the Coastal States Organization, the requested funding level is $60 million. 

Recommendation 11-2: Regarding the NOC to develop goals for conservation and restoration 

efforts and determine conservation and restoration needs to set regional goals and priorities that 

are consistent with national goals. 

On the surface this appears to be a very worthwhile recommendation, however, as stated 

previously, prevention and other mitigation options should be given the priority. In addition, this 

recommendation seeks to have regional goals be consistent with national goals and this is very 

often in direct conflict with maintaining the local ecosystem. The best example of this was the 

call to restore estuaries under the nonpoint source pollution program by minimizing the removal 

of mangroves. In Hawai‘i, mangroves are an alien species and have dramatically altered the 

nearshore coastline on some islands. Hawai‘i had to request an exemption to this guideline to 

meet our needs. Again, as has been stated throughout this document, all of these national and 

regional goals and priorities should be set based on input from the local jurisdictions. 

In developing national goals for ocean and coastal habitat conservation and restoration efforts, 

the NOC should build on available guidelines (Estuarine Habitat Restoration Act of 1998) to 

ensure coordination among all related federal activities. Existing state habitat conservation 

priority plans should be incorporated, where applicable, into regional plans. Likewise, the 

development of a National Habitat Restoration Strategy should be based on regional goals in a 

bottom up, rather than top-down approach. 

Hawaii
20

Chapter 12 – Managing Sediments and Shorelines

The Federal government faces serious bureaucratic challenges in this arena with respect to 

dredging, beach fill and other types of projects. States are only a part of that process to the 

extent we need federal approvals for certain projects or we are sponsoring federal projects in 

state waters. The report states that some of these projects take 20 years to get going (page 140). 

This prohibitive time frame has lead some projects to get derailed, or lead others to be 

independently financed (e.g., Kuhio Beach in Waikiki, Hawai‘i). 

The focus should be to eliminate projects that are ill defined at the on set and streamline projects 

that you know are critical to the jurisdiction. This requires a streamlined process. This is 

mentioned on page 140 as a something the USACE and EPA are working on. This is essential 

for local projects that are bogged down on regulatory permitting and eventually may not get 

completed. 

Current EPA and CWA standards appear prohibitive to beach nourishment activities in Hawai‘i 

and reflect concerns on the placement of sediment for erosion control purposes. Better national 

coordination of standards need to be addressed with respect to beach nourishment activities. 

A part of a national strategy for managing sediment land-based sediment sources for beach 

nourishment should be addressed. Many sediment-starved states like Hawai‘i utilize inland 

sediment sources exclusively because of the lack of equipment to efficiently dredge sand from 

offshore sources. In some states, sediment management might need to include the commercial 

needs of the construction industry and how this need often supersedes environmental concerns. 

Recommendation 12-1: Regarding developing a national strategy for managing sediment. 

Managing sediment on a “regional basis” would not be allowable in the case of islands. Each 

U.S. island or island chain should have its own regional council, or access to a single regional 

council, as these islands are widely separated by open ocean waters. However, addressing 

strategic issues on a regional basis would be appropriate. In addition, defining regions among 

varying users must also consider the region’s geography. In Hawaii’s case, there are varying 

discussions regarding the definition of a littoral cell in order to better evaluate sand transport let 

alone trying to define a region. Hawai‘i is also unique given our shoreline fishponds, varying 

wave patterns and variable benthic topography. 

Please add "urban development" to the list of adverse impacts on marine environments in the 

second sentence of recommendation 12-1, and, to be clear that new policies are needed in coastal 

watersheds as well as directly along coasts, add "watershed planners" after "coastal planners" in 

the middle of the second sentence 

Ecosystem–based management principles should address the definition of a “littoral cell” for 

regulatory and management purposes. The extraction of sediment offshore to a separate and 

distinct littoral system is very controversial and can create severe problems. 
21

Recommendation 12-2: The USACE should ensure that its selection of the least-cost disposal 

option for dredging project reflects a full range of economic and environmental costs and 

benefits. 

We recommend that the commission strengthens this recommendation by requiring the USACE 

to consider the non-consumptive benefits of recreation, public access, and habitat as an equal use 

when evaluating the least-cost disposal option. 

Recommendation 12-3: Regarding the National Dredging Team implementing more ecosystem 

approaches, streamlining permitting, and establish sediment management programs. 

Hawai‘i has recognized the need to streamline the regulatory process for small-scale beach 

nourishment and has initiated a streamlined regulatory program that unifies the EPA, USACE, 

CZM and state regulatory requirements through a blanket coordination agreement. This process 

has illustrated the often conflicting priorities of each agency and exemplifies the need for a 

federal coordinating council that could help unify the goals and missions of each agency to be 

less conflicting. 

Recommendations 12-4 and 12-5 seem to be redundant. 

Recommendation 12-5: Regarding EPA developing a coordinated strategy for assessment, 

monitoring and research. 

The EPA is currently regulating the dredging and placement of sediment within it’s jurisdiction, 

but needs better scientific and technical resources to evaluate and develop alternative treatments, 

prevention and transfer of contaminated sediment. 

Chapter 13 – Supporting Marine Commerce and Transportation 

This chapter focuses on shipping and port issues and we generally support most of the 

recommendations. However, one issue that is particularly important to Hawaii’s economy is the 

Jones Act, p. 148. Designed to protect the domestic fleet from foreign competition, the burden 

of higher shipping costs is not equitably shared by all U.S. taxpayers, but is unfairly placed on a 

small population dependent on interstate shipping via the ocean. We support exemptious to the 

Jones Act for Island States or island regions 

Chapter 14 – Addressing Coastal Water Pollution 

The one aspect of environmental monitoring that receives perhaps more attention from the press 

and public than any other is water quality monitoring. From ground and surface drinking water, 

to near shore and, to a lesser extent, open ocean water quality is reported to the public on a 

regular basis. Polluted water supplies and beach closures are front-page stories that the public 

seems to understand. But the normal process is less than satisfying for ensuring healthy 

ecosystems. 

One problem is that the most frequently used measure for determining whether a water body or 

water source is impaired is based on maximum levels of pollutants allowed for human health 

Hawaii
22

reasons. That is certainly a major concern that should be tested for and publicized, but it does 

not present an accurate picture of the quality of the water being tested. Establishing standards 

for and conducting regular testing of the maximum levels of pollutants allowed for the most 

fragile element of the ecosystem is essential. In the case of coral reefs, that element would be the 

corals themselves. 

If weekly public reports on water quality were issued to communities for both human-related 

levels of quality and for ecosystem-related levels of quality, communities may tend to become 

less complacent about reports that rate water quality good for human needs but poor for 

environmental health. It is more difficult to convince decision-makers or the general public that 

there is a crisis or problem in water quality when the only reporting that reaches them is based on 

the higher tolerances acceptable to immediate human health concerns. 

A second aspect of water quality that needs to be addressed in the testing procedures is the 

practice of basing results on water samples taken from an undisturbed water column, when many 

pollutants are attached to the sediments and are either taken up through the food chain from the 

floor, or are released in times of more severe weather or sea conditions that disturb the 

sediments, when sampling is less likely to occur anyway. Non-point source pollution control 

efforts are based on Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of pollutants allowable, which would 

be difficult enough to test for in point source flows, and are much more difficult to even identify 

in non-point source receiving areas. (See page 11, Sediment Contamination and 163, The TMDL 

Program). 

These issues are both addressed in a general way in the report, but not clearly in the 

recommendations. The effort for testing for environmental health that is within the purview of 

various federal agencies has been reduced according to the report, and was too limited even in 

the best of times. The statement on page 180, “The national monitoring network should set 

clear, limited goals and objectives that reflect national, state, regional, territorial, tribal and local 

needs” must also be adhered to, as too often the federal approach has been to use model

approaches to be used across the board. Too often one system (often an east coast, cold water 

system such as Chesapeake Bay) is used to develop the federal approach or federal perspective 

for all systems. We recommend the following be added to the report. 

Recommendation 14-8: EPA should develop water quality testing procedures to identify 

maximum pollutant levels allowable to ensure ecosystem health based on the most fragile 

elements of the ecosystem, and promulgate rules ensuring regular testing of both fresh and 

near shore waters in both the water column and sediments, and reporting the results of 

such tests to the public. 

Recommendation 14-9: Federal programs for water quality testing, and the standards 

established for maximum levels of pollutants or sedimentation, should be based on limits 

for the environmental health of the specific ecosystem, and not on national average 

standards. 

On page 155, “Management that is ecosystem-based and that considers entire watersheds will 

help guide this daunting task." This statement is strongly supported. 
23

On page 159, the entire section under "Wastewater Treatment Plants" to Recommendation 14-1 

would be clearer if the terms "existing treatment processes" and "conventional treatment plants" 

were clearly defined. 

On page 160, under "Septic Systems," "and Hawai‘i" should be inserted after "The threat can be 

severe in places like Florida". Hawai‘i is estimated to have 180,000 on-site disposal systems 

(septic systems plus cesspools). In Hawai‘i the ground is highly permeable or has lava tubes and 

is close to the coast 

On page 161, the entire section and recommendation under "Animal Feeding Operations" should 

incorporate information regarding USDA's 2009 deadline for the development of Comprehensive 

Nutrient Management Plans. 

On page 163, under "The TMDL Program" does not make clear that the TMDL program applies 

only to "Water Quality Limited Segments" defined as those water bodies which do not meet state 

water quality standards even when all point sources are removed. The second paragraph 

includes a slightly different worded definition; the lack of information in the first paragraph 

could be remedied by moving the second paragraph to the beginning of the first paragraph. 

Again, on page 163, under the TMDL section should include the point that there is funding only 

for the TMDL studies from EPA, and no funding for follow-up pollutants reduction programs. 

On page 165, the last line on the page ignores the fact that the 2002 Farm Bill did not provide 

funds to United States Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service for 

additional staff. 

On page 168, with respect to “Creating Incentives to Reduce Agricultural Runoff”, several forms 

of incentives are suggested to encourage farmers and ranchers to follow practices that would 

reduce nonpoint source pollution. These practices should be made into formal recommendations. 

Recommendation 14-3: Regarding states issuing regulatory controls on concentrated animal 

feeding operations. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture research 

regarding the removal of nutrients from animal wastes and development of improved best 

management practices that retain nutrients and pathogens on agricultural lands must come before

the states’ issuance of regulatory controls on CAFOs in addition to those required by the federal 

government 

Recommendation 14-4: Regarding the development of a comprehensive plan for long-term 

funding of the nation’s current aging and inadequate wastewater and drinking water 

infrastructure. 

This recommendation should include both the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the 

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, which can be used for public water system infrastructure. 

Hawaii
24

Recommendation 14-5: Regarding EPA and the states using tradable credits for nutrients and 

sediments as a water pollution management tool. 

We are concerned about this recommendation as trading programs may be found to be counterproductive, if in the case where it is less expensive to buy credit than to improve the quality of 

the discharge. 

Recommendation 14-6: Regarding the EPA and states should modernize the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System. 

This Recommendation should include the phrase "Congress should fund and"; otherwise it is an 

unfunded mandate. 

The preceding description of Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) fails to 

note that CZARA has been incorporated in the federal CZMA as USC 1455(b). 

Recommendation 14-8: Regarding the NOC establishing significant reduction in nonpoint 

source pollution as a national goal. 

Coordination of federal non-point pollution programs is important; however, coordination would 

more likely occur if made mandatory. Additional federal technical and funding assistance to 

state and county governments is a priority. 

Recommendation 14-9: Relating to merging Section 6217 into EPA’s Section 319 program. 

The thrust of the recommendation appears to be to provide for enforceable controls on all 

nonpoint source pollution. We agree that this would add an important tool to the CWA for 

reducing nonpoint source pollution. However, we feel this recommendation needs further 

clarification with regard to its intent regarding the extent of modification of the existing section 

319, CWA, from a voluntary to a mandatory program. It also needs clarification regarding how 

the program would be managed. The CWA program can be delegated under the control of EPA. 

Is the intent that the existing NOAA Coastal Nonpoint Program is to become an EPA program 

that can be delegated? Perhaps the intent could be achieved by cross-referencing the programs in 

both the CWA and in the federal CZMA. 

The CWA 319 program has always promoted voluntary pollution control, and the CZARA legal 

requirements appear to be stricter than those in CWA 319(h). The text for the recommendation 

says that both programs have positive attributes that, if combined, could more effectively address 

nonpoint sources of pollution. The text also states that incentives and enforcement techniques 

will be needed to insure progress. We would appreciate a clarification what the Commission has 

in mind. What are the positive attributes, and how might incentives be provided? We are still 

reviewing this particular recommendation and have not yet taken a position on this proposal. 

Hawai‘i remains concerned about unfunded mandates. 

Recommendation 14-10: Regarding providing authority under CWA and other applicable laws 

for federal agencies to impose financial disincentives and establish enforceable management 

measures. 

This recommendation appears to be proposing that disincentives in the form of reduced federal 

funding to states is an appropriate compliance mechanism and ignores the fact that states often 

do not have control over private activities. An assessment of the economic impact of 
25

encouraging farmers to reduce crop yields by reducing fertilizer applications must be carried out 

in addition to assessing environmental impacts. 

The recommendation implies that all private activities that have the potential to produce 

nonpoint source pollution should be under state control. While it is doubtful that this is what was 

intended, we suggest that the following language be added to the recommendation: “This 

recommendation is not intended to imply that states are expected to control all private sources of 

nonpoint source pollution but rather that state laws and state programs, to the extent of available 

funding, are expected to take all possible measures to meet their water quality standards.” 

The recommendation suggests authorizing federal agencies to impose disincentives as an 

appropriate course of action if states do not make meaningful progress in water quality standards 

attainment. While this is logical in the context of the report, Hawai‘i is concerned about any 

financial penalty and how it might be applied. Nonpoint sources have complained to us about 

having new duties without any new resources. We ask for more detail. 

Recommendations 14-11, 14-12, and 14-13 are strongly supported. All three recommendations 

would greatly improve the possibilities of truly reducing nonpoint source pollution. Increasing 

federal technical assistance and information needed for state and county governments to make 

sound land use decisions to protect coastal water quality is important. Federal funding should 

also be made available. 

Recommendation 14-14: Regarding the EPA, states and watershed groups explore approaches 

for managing atmospheric deposition, particularly when it affects water bodies far from the 

source. 

This recommendation should be worded more assertively by specifically naming mercury as a 

major air pollutant of concern. The accompanying paragraph does mention that mercury 

deposition leads to fish tissue contamination, requiring urgent international action. We suggest 

rewording (new text is bolded) as follows: "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, states, 

and watershed groups should explore air pollution controls and regional approaches for 

managing toxic outcomes of atmospheric deposition, such as airborne mercury contamination 

of fish tissues, particularly when it affects water bodies in states far from the sources.” 

Chapter 15 – Creating a National Water Quality Monitoring Network 

We agree that a standardized, national water quality monitoring network would be very useful 

for understanding trends in water quality across regions in the continental U.S., but must point 

out again that geographically isolated islands, such as the Hawaiian Islands, must be explicitly 

accommodated in a national network by a statement that stresses differences in scale, climate, 

temperature regimes, and limited fresh water resources, compared to many mainland areas. 

Hawaii
26

Chapter 16 – Limiting Vessel Pollution and Improving Vessel Safety 

Recommendation 16-11 suggests that research and development of engines that are less polluting 

would be of great benefit to Hawai‘i. For example, on the west coast of the island of Hawai‘i we 

recently issued enforcement warnings against a cruise ship for unlawful engine emissions from 

its passenger shuttle boats. 

We strongly support Recommendation 16-8, which promotes increased federal funding to 

finance pump-out facilities. 

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 should be amended to allow for flexible responses to remove 

abandoned/grounded vessels from coral reefs and to include among mitigation measures, off-site 

mitigation. The same for presently permitted activities of the USACE. If the reason a reef was 

damaged was due to a vessel running aground, putting up navigational aids makes more sense 

than trying to take fragments from a healthy area to place back into a damaged area. Many 

transplantation efforts to date have failed, and have resulted in damage to 2 sites instead of one. 

Coral cultivation (from larvae) provides an opportunity to have seed material of local genetic 

types without harming livestock. 

Chapter 17 – Preventing the Spread of Invasive Species 

The report did a good job in relaying the difficulty in dealing with invasive species. Stopping the 

transfer of invasive and alien species may be the easiest component in the process, while early 

detection of an alien species and its eradication or control will be much more difficult. 

Hawaii has taken an ambitious step forward in dealing directly with local invasive species issues. 

The 2003 State of Hawaii Legislature authorized the creation of the Hawaii Invasive Species 

Council (HISC) and stated “the silent invasion of Hawaii by alien invasive species is the single 

greatest threat to Hawaii's economy, natural environment, and the health and lifestyle of Hawaii's 

people and visitors.” The continued support for implementation by myself as Governor provided 

the institutional framework for leadership and coordination in acting on a statewide invasive 

species prevention and control program. The HISC has active participation and support by 

several State cabinet level positions. In 2004, the State of Hawaii Legislature provided $4 

million in funding for administrative request to implement the Council’s programs. 

The HISC has adopted a working document as a strategic plan, which incorporates four 

approaches to invasive species. These approaches are prevention, response and control, research 

and applied technology, and public outreach. Through these approaches, established workgroups 

actively provide direction for Hawaii's invasive species issues. 

This funding is a significant increase to invasive species funding within the state, although it will 

not be adequate to handle the continuing invasive species issues. Due to this fact, the HISC has 

requested that the $4 million in state funds be matched 1:1 with federal and community funding. 

Hawai‘i has taken boldly stepped forward in dealing with invasive species both through the 

creation and funding of the HISC and the recent national approval of its Aquatic Invasive 
27

Species Management Plan. The State will need continued assistance and support from the 

federal government to implement its plans. 

The report discusses the six regional panels that were created by the Aquatic Nuisance Species 

(ANS) Task Force (ANSTF) to "limit the introduction, spread and impacts of aquatic nuisance 

species in their waters". There is a little picture of Hawai‘i in the box with Alaska, in Figure 17-

2, but Hawai‘i is not listed as being in the western region. 

The regions seem to overlap and are confusing to distinguish. There should be a Pacific region 

that includes Hawai‘i and all the U.S. affiliated Pacific Islands. This is important to the way 

aquatic invasive species are dealt with in a coral reef environment. 

Hawai‘i is also an emerging as a leader in ANS. This past year, Hawaii’s comprehensive 

management plan was approved by the ANSTF. Hawai‘i is establishing a program and facility at 

the UH Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology to focus on research on marine invasive species. 

Funding to develop the infrastructure for this facility has been allocated. 

Even though a pathway may have a slightly lower risk, it only requires one organism to make its 

way to someplace before causing trouble. There should be more discussion on each pathway: 

navigational buoys, drilling platforms, marine debris, and other ship related activities. 

The pathway of global trade in marine organisms should be discussed in greater detail. Although 

this is a major pathway, the components of this pathway are very different. For example, dealing 

with the trade in marine or freshwater animals for aquarium is a much different pathway than the 

mass culture of organisms in the costal environment. In addition, the sell of animals for food or 

bait are also different. This area is diverse enough, that these components should be broken 

down. 

The report lists several pathways (shellfish importing, aquaculture, aquarium, horticulture, pet 

industry), but these are skipped right over and the focus becomes education in the development 

of recommendations. Education/outreach are very important, but there should also be some 

focus on these various pathways, and perhaps a discussion on how such pathways can be 

regulated. In the paragraph before recommendation 17-3, it says that "some industry 

representatives have expressed concern that efforts to ban unwanted species and otherwise 

prevent introductions of non-native species may interfere with the flow of free trade and the need 

to protect public health and ecosystems will have to be balanced against these individual 

interests". 

Congress should recognize the contributions made by state participants and reauthorize the 

ANSTF. Both NOAA and USDA should be included in the ANSTF, and ANSTF efforts 

coordinated with the proposed NOC to address marine species rather than creating a duplicative 

role for the NOC in the regulation of ballast water and in the control of invasive species. This 

coordination should be noted throughout the recommendations. 

The International Partnerships section, talks of ".key commercial sectors to develop voluntary 

codes of conduct and other self regulatory mechanisms". In our experiences, these types of 

Hawaii
28

voluntary efforts don't seem to work, and if there is a serious concern regarding invasive species, 

these should be mandatory, not voluntary. 

It appears that no one or even small number of answers will suffice in dealing with the spread 

and control of invasive species, but instead the problem will require a plethora of approaches 

simultaneously. One possible approach, at least for macro species, may be the enlistment of help 

that already exists within the user groups. Divers and fishermen are generally aware of their 

environment and are the first to recognize species that may not belong. Programs should be 

established which provides for educating these groups, to train them to look for the unusual, and 

a forum for reporting their findings. Hawai‘i has already initiated with approach to deal with the 

spread of alien algae on the reefs. This one step could help to provide that early warning in 

some cases that will allow control actions to proceed. 

Recommendation 17-4: Regarding establishing a national plan for early detection and rapid 

response. 

We should strongly support this section and its recommendation. We are currently working on 

this type of system and increased funding is very important. We recommend that bullet 5 be 

amended to read: Develop partnerships among government, industry and user groups to 

fund and implement response actions, to include; education and educational material 

development for groups which can provide consistent “eyes” for species or ecosystem 

change, and a reporting system that will allow that information to be gathered and 

compiled and analyzed science and resource managers familiar with that specific 

ecosystem.

Recommendation 17-5: Regarding streamlining the proliferation of federal and regional 

programs and developing coordinated plans for controlling introductions. 

We also strongly support this section and its recommendation. Hawai‘i has had a long history of 

intentional and unintentional releases that have resulted in established species and not established 

species. Hawai‘i could serve as a good site to investigate the effects of intentional introductions 

on a coral reef environment. 

Recommendation 17-7: The NOC should develop an interagency plan for research and Congress 

should increase funding. 

We also strongly support the recommendation for increased funding for research into invasive 

species and how its can apply to monitoring and prevention. One of the priority research goals 

should be related to recommendation 17-4 (detection and response). This includes the first bullet 

(gathering baseline taxonomic information and strengthening taxonomic skills.) as well as 

developing a system of early detection and notification of all appropriate agencies. 

Chapter 18 – Reducing Marine Debris 

Most international maritime laws are regulated by the International Marine Organization (IMO), 

of which the United States is a member organization (joined 1950). However, in the pacific, 

much of the derelict fishing gear can be attributed to non-member countries. This would suggest 

the pressing need for the federal government and marine debris responsible agencies to closely 
29

partner with the Coast Guard to contact the IMO about these non-affiliated countries and to get 

them to join. 

We strongly recommend that land generated litter be addressed separate from derelict fishing 

gear since they both are very distinct issues with specific causes and remedies. 

Public education campaigns are mentioned under education and outreach, however targeted 

campaigns at the local level would be more effective. We suggest studies be conducted to 

determine who is the most likely to litter in order to direct resources and outreach campaigns to 

those groups while emphasizing penalties and enforcement of litter laws. 

Recommendation 18-2: Regarding the re-establishment of an interagency marine debris 

committee. 

Instead of establishing an interagency marine debris committee nationally, there needs to be 

some thought given to establishing bi-coastal regional committees (one already exists in Hawai‘i 

for the multi-agency marine debris cleanup for the NWHI. In Hawai‘i, EPA and the Navy do not 

participate in the multi-agency cleanup. However, NOAA and the Coast Guard are active 

participants. 

As noted in the section on “Working with Communities” on page “people have not made the 

connection between actions taken far from the coast.” It harkens back to the theme of the 

opening chapters of this report, which spells out the lack of public awareness of the benefits of 

the oceans to the lives of all Americans, and reflects the larger problem of a lack of awareness of 

our connection to our environment, or our impacts on it. We recommend a bullet follow 18-2 as 

follows: Public education efforts should clearly demonstrate the correlation between 

actions far inland with impacts on the coast and in marine waters. 

Recommendation 18-3: Relating to the development of a detailed plan of action to address 

derelict fishing gear. 

Hawai‘i already has a coordinated, multi-agency effort to remove derelict fishing gear in the 

NWHI, which may be a potential model for elsewhere. This recommendation should emphasize 

the need to provide more resources to existing derelict fishing gear removal and marine debris 

clean-up efforts. 

In terms of the problems of derelict fishing gear, one possible solution is not spelled out, and that 

is in a program to mandate net identification. Both at the national and international levels, 

requirements by law or treaty that require all nets bear ownership identifications that cannot be 

removed would help to identify parties that should be responsible for funding recovery, and may 

help to ensure that owners of nets are more prudent in net retrieval. In this regard, we suggest a 

bullet under Recommendation 18-3, as follows: This should include development of a net 

identification system in order to identify the culpable party in funding derelict net retrieval 

and, in some cases, environmental restoration costs. We also recommend working with 

IMO to require tracking devices on fishing gear and have ships call in coordinates of 

abandoned gear. 

Hawaii
30

A recommendation to amend MARPOL Annex V which specifically refers to the prevention of 

pollution of garbage from ships to specifically include discarded fishing gear should be 

advocated. Discarding of fishing gear is a safety issue for ships at sea. In this regard, ships at a 

minimum should be required to report the coordinates of the location where nets are cut loose so 

that insurance companies and flag-countries involved in a coordinated effort can recover the nets 

before they become a hazard. 

Recommendation 18-4: Regarding NOAA promoting a public-private partnership program and 

incentives to removal and disposal of derelict fishing gear. 

Derelict fishing gear is comprised of both whole nets and large sections of net that are cut away 

when torn and discarded overboard when the net is patched. In addition, there is significant 

amount of line, plastic used in traps and attached to nets, etc. Incentives are needed to minimize 

the practice of throwing unwanted nets or net pieces overboard. This should include 

considerations of a deposit on the nets when the nets are purchased. 

Chapter 19 – Achieving Sustainable Fisheries 

We are surprised that the guiding principles that are so much a part of the rest of this document 

are generally overlooked or not considered in this chapter. There is no discussion of how the 

regional fisheries councils are to interact with or become a part of the regional ocean councils 

proposed in the beginning of this document, or how these bodies interact with locally driven 

community-based groups. The linkages between fisheries impacts and management plans and 

impacts from other sources are not made. Using an ecosystem-based approach to interconnect 

between fisheries management and other management initiatives is not discussed. Lastly, using 

recognized ecosystem-based approaches to managing resources, such as MPAs, is completely 

ignored. 

Subsistence fisheries are also not mentioned at all in this chapter. NOAA has had difficulty in 

adequately defining or addressing the needs of subsistence fisheries, and in the Pacific, these are 

important sectors. There should be inclusion of discussion of how to manage subsistence 

fisheries in the Sustainable Fisheries chapter. 

Recommendation 19-1: Regarding strengthening the scientific role of the Scientific and 

Statistical Committees (SSC). 

This recommendation conflicts with the way that the Western Pacific Fisheries Management 

Council (WPRFMC) runs their plan teams. In the WPRFMC case, the plan teams are composed 

mainly (or entirely) of scientists or agency staff who prepare the status of stocks and fisheries 

reports for their covered fisheries. The SSC is composed of both non-agency scientists and 

agency representatives. The non-agency scientists do not have access to the raw fishery 

dependent data that would be necessary to perform the stock analyses and if they were required 

to do so, most non-agency SSC members would be hard pressed to do this because it is not part 

of their job. There are also issues of data confidentiality. 

The non-agency SSC members are the "rocket scientists", the ones who are among the top 

fishery modelers in the Pacific region. If they were tasked with doing the stock assessments, 
31

which are not a part of their current responsibilities, they would need to funded to do so. Instead, 

the Report would be better off specifying the roles and composition of the plan teams and make 

the plan teams responsible for scientific analyses and stock assessments, and have the SSC 

provide strict review and oversight of the process. The plan team members are usually the 

biologists from their federal/state/local agencies who collect and analyze the data within their 

region and their fisheries. If only the SSC were tasked with the assessment, who would review 

their work? 

Compensating all SSC members could be problematic. In Hawai‘i, many are NOAA scientists, 

and already are being compensated during their time spent at council meetings as part of their 

job. There is simply not the population base in the Pacific to have enough independent nonagency scientists to completely staff an SSC. 

Specifying that the NOAA Administrator review the SSC member candidates would make this a 

very lengthy, cumbersome and potentially political process. The NOAA Administrator and/or 

the Secretary of Commerce already select Council members. 

Recommendation 19-2: SSCs should be required to supply the councils with information 

necessary to make management decisions. 

It would be burdensome and inefficient to expect that a single body (SSC) perform the stock 

assessments and provide harvest limits for all the fisheries under each council. The specialists 

for each fishery (as embodied on the plan teams) should be doing this work, while the SSC can 

review and monitor the science that goes into the assessments. What is lacking is accountability. 

Charging the SSC with making “allowable biological catch based on the best available science”, 

is a good goal, but may give this group an excuse because the best available science isn’t always 

sufficient to set harvest limits. 

Recommendations from the SSC are incorporated into the decision-making process of the 

council, while the SSC recommendations are heard; they are simply given less weight in the 

entire decision-making process than other considerations (i.e. economics). This recommendation 

should consider making changes to the Fishery Management Plan development process, which 

requires the councils to explain why science-based recommendations were not considered as the 

primary rational for allocation. 

Recommendation 19-3: Councils should be required to set harvest limits at or below the 

allowable biological catch as determined by the SSC. 

We would word this recommendation to read "no higher than the allowable biological catch as 

determined by the plan teams and reviewed by the SSC." 

Recommendation 19-4: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and councils should develop 

a process for independent review of data generated by SSC. 

We support the concept of independent review of the plan teams/SSC work, but how would this 

be implemented in a timely fashion so management decisions are not fraught with delays? The 

council usually meets within a couple of weeks after the SSC meeting, and if the council 

members are to receive an independent review of the SSC's work, how are they going to get it in 

time? 

Hawaii
32

This recommendation is somewhat reversed in its logic; it is not the SSC that generates scientific 

information, but rather the SSC receives it and then evaluates the data based on scientific merit. 

An independent peer-review process is a good idea. However in order for it to work, it needs to 

be truly independent it needs to be performed concurrent to the SSC process, or ideally 

beforehand so that the SSC receives the benefit of the information from the peer review process, 

and finally, the peer reviewers will need to be compensated independent of the council process. 

Recommendation 19-5: Council should set a deadline for its SSC to determine allowable catch. 

Setting appropriate deadlines is fine, but to accomplish this task NOOA needs to ensure that the 

groups that are tasked with meeting the deadlines have adequate support, resources, and 

expertise to meet those deadlines. Usually allowable catch recommendations come from the plan 

team. The SSC then validates (or invalidates) based on data and the arguments presented to 

them. They either support or refute the plan team recommendation. As such, all phases of the 

decision process should have a timeline. However, work to create the federal regulation often 

takes the most time, and is of no fault of either the plan team, or the SSC, or the council. 

Recommendation 19-6: Once allowable catch is determined, the council should propose a 

management plan in time for adequate review and approval by NMFS. 

The level of federal support for the councils has not provided adequate resources to meet set 

deadlines. In the case of the western Pacific, it is usually NOAA that has caused delays in 

implementation of fishery management plan amendments. This recommendation would penalize 

commercial fishers for lack of timely government action. Although this might provide incentives 

for commercial representatives on Regional Fishery Management Councils to push for timely 

action, the penalty should not be placed on all commercial fishers if the council does not 

respond. 

If timely action is the goal, another method should be used, such as legal deadlines for 

production of management plans, with penalties placed on the managers, not the public. This 

recommendation is not realistic. As stated above, sometimes it is the government that delays 

review and implementation. To stop fishing while they perform an evaluation of a management 

plan would put most fisheries out of business. 

Recommendation 19-7: Councils and their SSCs should develop annual prioritized list of 

management information needs 

NMFS has not usually been able to meet all data needs that the council has requested. How is 

this annual list to be funded? It is easy to come up with the list but without adequate support, it 

becomes a just another exercise in list making. 

Recommendation 19-8: Regarding the establishment of a saltwater recreational fishing license. 

We oppose this recommendation; saltwater recreational fishing licensing would likely be very 

unpopular in Hawai‘i. We are glad to see that the report is taking recreational fishery data 

collection more seriously. However, the licensing of saltwater fishers and the collection of data 

should not necessarily be tied together as suggested in recommendation 19-8. There are ways to 

get the recreational data that do not require licensing. If this is instead a tax to pay for 

management programs, then that should be clearly stated. 
33

The State of Hawai‘i has, in the past, tried to implement a recreational saltwater license with no 

success. Our evaluation of the costs associated with the implementation of a recreational fishing 

license, would mean that each license would need to be purchased for about $20.00. There has 

been insufficient support from the community for this. 

We agree that the marine recreational fisheries statistical survey protocol is good for long-term 

trends, however, it is not as suitable for real-time, detailed catch and effort data collection. For 

that, you need mandatory data collection, logbooks, or an army of port and shoreline 

surveyors/monitors. 

Recommendation 19-9: Congress should increase support for an expanded research program that 

is regionally based. 

We strongly support this recommendation. 

Recommendation 19-12: Regarding the Governor selecting two council candidates each from 

the commercial, recreational and general public sectors. 

We are uncertain about the advantage of requiring the Governor to appoint two council 

candidates each from the commercial, recreational, and general public sectors for each vacant 

council seat. No doubt noncommercial candidate-types lose opportunities to be selected, or are 

not as willing to give of their time as the stakes are not as high for them. Overall composition of 

the council should also be viewed in terms of proper weighting (by candidate-types), and 

candidate should be selected as the state’s representative from the category that would achieve 

that balance. 

Recommendation 19-13: Congress should give the NOAA Administrator responsibility for 

appointing council members. 

On what just criteria is the Administrator supposed to rate the nominees? We are not clear if this 

is to be done with input from the state. The states need to be a part of the decision making 

process. 

Recommendation 19-14: Regarding training for new council members. 

We agree that council members should get some training. However, that training should be done 

with the convenience and logistics of the members in mind. Don't make the council members 

from Hawaii, Guam and CNMI fly all the way over to DC to get this training, again set the 

training up based on a regional approach. 

Recommendation 19-15: Regarding Congress amending Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act to institute dedicated access privileges. 

We do not believe that amendment of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act to authorize dedicated access systems is needed. Such authority already exists. 

Implementation of such rules should be limited to unusual circumstances related to isolated 

stocks with severe over-capitalization of fleets. An amendment could encourage inappropriate 

and unfair application of this approach with no benefit to the resource. Good science based 

management should provide greater opportunities for fair allocation of resources to the fishing 

public, not privatization by individuals for public resources that in the long-run could be self 

defeating. 

Hawaii
34

Recommendation 19-18: NMFS and U.S. Coast Guard should strengthen cooperative 

enforcement efforts at the unified fisheries enforcement plan. 

This recommendation should include the states and territories as well. Management and 

enforcement concerns of the states do not end at an arbitrary three-mile limit unrecognized by 

fish or other mobile species. In many cases, it is the states that collect the fisheries data and do 

the majority of the dockside enforcement in cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard and the 

NMFS. 

Recommendation 19-19: Increase enforcement by requiring the use of vessel monitoring 

systems (VMS). 

While we do not disagree that increasing the use of VMS will likely increase enforcement 

capacity, there is still a need to staff and train people to monitor the system. There is also the 

need to provide the resources to the state fishery enforcement agencies to purchase and monitor 

the system. Currently all monitoring is done by the USCG. If the government requires the use 

of VMS, resources should be made available to the industry to buy these units. 

Recommendation 19-22: NMFS and the councils should develop bycatch reduction plans based 

on an ecosystem approach. 

NOAA should clarify the definition of bycatch so that live released fish are not considered 

bycatch and hence, subject to reduction. Instead, they should be encouraging live release, 

whether tagged or not, in both commercial and recreational fisheries. 

Generally, we support the international recommendations. 

Chapter 20 – Protecting Marine Mammals and Endangered Marine Species 

Humpback whales, spinner dolphins, Hawaiian monk seals and other marine mammals are 

treasured by Hawaii’s residents and visitors alike. In terms of economic value, Hawaii’s whalewatching industry alone generates more than $30 million per year in local revenues. From a 

cultural perspective, marine wildlife, such as spinner dolphins, are revered as `aumākua

(ancestral deities) by Native Hawaiians. 

The State of Hawai‘i has a history of productive collaboration on marine mammal conservation 

with NOAA and other federal agencies. Probably the best example of such collaboration to date 

is the federal-state partnership that co-manages the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National 

Marine Sanctuary. Through the sanctuary’s issue-driven research projects and community-based 

education and outreach activities, Hawaii’s ocean-users are learning to productively coexist with 

a growing population of humpback whales in Hawaii’s nearshore waters. 

We find the discussion and recommendations presented in Chapter 20 to be generally salient and 

useful, and we briefly review our comments on each recommendation below. Before 

proceeding, however, we would like to ask the commission to consider two additional 

recommendations. One recommendation is directed toward improved ocean conservation 

through public education. The second suggested recommendation is meant to clarify state 

authority to protect marine mammals. 
35

Regarding improved public participation in marine mammal conservation, there appears to be no 

specific recommendation in Chapter 20 regarding education and outreach. We would like to 

point out that most instances of marine mammal harassment or injury are unintentional, and that 

collaborative efforts, such as those undertaken by the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale 

National Marine Sanctuary, show that most harassment can be avoided through enhanced public 

understanding of marine mammal vulnerabilities and improved knowledge of safe vessel 

operation in marine mammal habitat. We would therefore suggest that an additional 

recommendation be added to Chapter 20 stating that NOAA should further enhance and 

expand its education and outreach efforts regarding marine mammal (and sea turtle) 

conservation. The recommendation should specifically urge improved collaboration on 

education and outreach between the NMFS, the National Marine Sanctuaries Program, and state 

wildlife management agencies, all of which share jurisdiction and/or public trust interests in 

marine protected species conservation. 

Regarding state authority, we believe that it is very important that the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) be amended to clarify the 

authority of states to protect marine mammals. We request that a new recommendation be 

added to Chapter 20 to reflect this. 

Our understanding at present is that the NMFS interprets section 109 (a) of the MMPA such that 

no state may enforce any regulation “relating to the taking,” of a marine mammal, even if the 

regulation is intended to protect, e.g., restrict take, of a marine mammal. For instance, the 

NMFS has advised us that, under the current MMPA interpretation, the State of Hawai‘i has no 

authority to restrict “swim-with” dolphin tour activities for the purposes of protecting spinner 

dolphins. We have been told that any local authority to protect these animals is pre-empted by 

federal law, i.e., the MMPA. 

While we understand that the MMPA was meant to prohibit state governments from authorizing 

marine mammal take, we do not believe it was the original intent of Congress to limit state 

authority to protect marine mammals, i.e., to prohibit take, via the MMPA. We would therefore 

like to see the Act amended to give Hawai‘i and other states the option to pass state laws and 

regulations aimed at reducing take and otherwise protecting locally important marine mammals. 

Additionally, we recommend that Section 17 of the ESA be amended to clearly state that a more 

restrictive provision regarding marine mammals, i.e., more protective or limiting on take, of 

either the ESA or the MMPA takes precedence over any less restrictive provision of either 

statute. Currently, Section 17 of the ESA states that any more restrictive provision of the MMPA 

takes precedence over any less restrictive provision of the ESA. We believe that this section 

should be revised to make clear that the reverse is also the case, i.e., any more restrictive 

provision in the ESA takes precedence over any less restrictive provision in the MMPA. (In 

Section 6 (f) (2) of the ESA, states are given authority to enact laws that are more protective of 

listed species than federal law, but in light of Section 17 of the ESA, there appears to be the 

possibility of more than one interpretation of state authority to enact stricter measures for ESAlisted species when these species also happen to be marine mammals.) 

Hawaii
36

Recommendation 20-1: Regarding making Marine Mammal Commission work through the 

NOC 

Hawai‘i has a history of productive collaboration with the Marine Mammal Commission. For 

example, in October 2002, the commission took the lead in holding a workshop on management 

of Hawaiian monk seals in the Main Hawaiian Islands. The workshop was very helpful in bring 

various agencies and community groups together to discuss the opportunities and challenges of 

managing the growing monk seal population in the main islands. The recommendations that 

resulted from the workshop continue to guide our efforts to foster a peaceful coexistence 

between this endangered seal and Hawaii’s ocean-oriented residents and visitor industry. If 

recommendation 20-1 is carried out, we hope that there would be no adverse impact on the 

productive, direct collaboration that has developed between our state and the commission. 

Recommendation 20-2: Regarding taking away USFWS authority over marine mammals 

This recommendation would probably have little effect in Hawai‘i, since all marine mammals 

here are under the authority of NMFS. If recommendation 20-2 is enacted, we would only hope 

that the NMFS budget is increased accordingly to cover the added responsibilities. 

Recommendation 20-3: Regarding how the NOC should improve coordination between NMFS 

and U.S. FWS on endangered species conservation, especially with anadromous fish and landbased activities. 

Our state has worked effectively on sea turtle conservation with both NMFS and the USFWS. In 

the NWHI for example, where the USFWS manages the NWHI National Wildlife Refuge and 

the Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources manages the Kure Island State Wildlife 

Sanctuary, we have worked together effectively on sea turtle conservation across jurisdictional 

and geographic boundaries. In the main islands, on the other hand, our state agencies work 

extensively with NMFS in responding to injured and entangled turtles. Nevertheless, 

implementing recommendation 20-3 to further enhance inter-agency coordination via the council 

could be helpful, provided that the agencies would be compensated for any associated increases 

in human resource commitments or budgetary requirements. 

Recommendation 20-4: Regarding requiring NMFS to more clearly specify MMPA permitting 

requirements. 

We support this recommendation. 

Recommendation 20-5: Regarding requiring NMFS to revise the meaning of harassment to 

cover only activities that “meaningfully” disrupt behaviors that are significant to survival. 

We generally support both of these recommendations. While we wonder whether or not the 

necessary scientific information currently exists to determine what behaviors are “significant” to 

survival and reproduction, we support the general intent of these recommendations. 

Recommendation 20-6: Regarding how NMFS and USFWS should implement programmatic 

permits for certain activities to save time and resources for case-by-case permit review of other 

activities that have more serious possible impacts. 

Hawai‘i generally supports this recommendation. We have a long history of productive 

collaboration with the permitting divisions of NMFS and USFWS, but if their resources could be 

used more effectively via implementation of programmatic permits, we would support this 
37

change, especially if this resulted in enhanced communications during the early phases of the 

permitting process. 

Recommendation 20-7: Regarding how NMFS and Department of the Interior should expand 

research, technology and engineering to mitigate adverse human impacts. 

We support this recommendation. Open ocean aquaculture and high speed ferry operations are 

examples of two new activities expected to increase in Hawaii’s waters, for which possible 

adverse impacts on marine mammals and sea turtles do not appear to be adequately understood. 

Federal assistance in better evaluating and mitigating these and other potential impacts would be 

quite helpful. 

Recommendation 20-8: Regarding increased funding for ocean acoustics research. 

We also generally support this recommendation. The role of humpback whale song, for instance, 

is not yet clearly understood. We believe it is important to better characterize Hawaii’s marine 

acoustic environment in order to evaluate possible impacts on humpbacks and other marine 

mammal species. 

Recommendations concerning ocean acoustics and marine mammals (especially 20-8 and 20-5) 

could conflict and may affect ocean research in Hawai‘i. For example, a group of academic and 

government laboratory investigators has developed a proposal for an acoustic ocean observatory 

along the west coast of the island of Hawai‘i, for the purpose of studying marine mammals and 

large pelagic fish. This research is crucial to better understanding of these species, and 

constrains by regulation of ocean acoustics should be carefully weighed to ensure that impacts to 

the species are minimized and yet data that may be important to the understanding of the animals 

can be obtained. 

Chapter 21 – Preserving Coral Reefs and Other Coral Communities 

There is no federal law that explicitly states it is illegal to kill corals or damage coral reefs, 

except within federally protected areas. Activities that affect coral reefs can be regulated, but 

inefficiently. For example, the specific reading of the EPA regulations would allow a variety of 

individual water quality standards to be met, but the “soup” would still kill corals or prevent 

recovery. A unified federal policy that would respect the legal authority of the states and 

territories would be a big help: “It is unlawful to undertake activities that result in the death of 

corals and coral reefs except as permitted under local authority.” This would actually backstop 

local regulatory agencies. 

Under Federal Roles and Responsibilities page 263, the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act 

(RHA) of 1899 Section 10 is not listed as a federal law used to manage and protect coral 

resources. Under this Act the USACE must authorize any excavation or fill of navigable waters. 

RHA Section 10 is broadly used to authorize removal of corals that obstruct navigation for 

purposes of expanding and deepening channels, turning basins, and harbors. At minimum, the 

RHA should be changed to require avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts to corals, 

parallel to CWA Section 404, which regulates fill in waters of the U.S. 

Hawaii
38

The U.S. bans collection of corals from reefs under federal jurisdiction for the aquarium trade, 

however, is the number one importer of corals from Indonesia and the Philippines. The 

technology presently exists for the cultivation of corals from eggs and sperm released during 

spawning events. The U.S. can take the lead in promoting coral cultivation for the aquarium 

trade and phasing out the importation that is damaging others’ reefs. This is further discussed 

under Recommendation 12-3. 

Recommendation 21-1: Regarding Congress passing, and providing sustained funding for a 

Coral Reef Protect and Management Act that covers research, protection, management and 

restoration of coral reef ecosystems. 

Our first recommendation is to change recommendation 21-1 to read with the suggested edits 

that are bolded in the text above. The emphasis of a Coral Protection and Management Act 

(CRPA) as described is primarily on research and mapping, which does little to protect coral 

reefs from imminent threats. A CRPA must explicitly emphasize actual management, protection 

and restoration. It should provide sustained funding for local jurisdictions to manage and protect 

their reefs and encourage local protection initiatives. It should also assure funding for coral reef 

protection where the authority lies outside of NOAA (for example, authority for pollution control 

lies with EPA and Department of Agriculture; authority for dredging and fill lies with the 

USACE). CRPA should mandate protection of coral reefs and require improved compensatory 

mitigation where impacts are unavoidable. 

Recommendation 21-1 calls for a coral reef protection and management act, but then does not 

follow up with any provisions for management and established funding for management. The 

purpose of the current U.S. Coral Reef Task Force is centered around science-based 

management, with management being the operative word. The current funding is subject to and 

annual (deliberate) inclusion in NOAAs budget, rather than from an established and permanent 

funding source. We recommend the following bullet be added to recommendation 21-1:

Congress should provide funding and technical support for locally driven management of 

coral reef ecosystems in the U.S. coral reef States and Territories. 

We recommend that the some of the other bullets in recommendation 21-1 be changed as 

follows: 

• support for new research and assessment activities to fill critical information gaps, to 

be carried out in partnership with the academic research community and with the 

resource trustee agencies in the states and territories

• support for outreach activities to educate the public about coral reef conservation, 

ecosystem function, and reducing human impacts. 

• support for U.S involvement, particularly through the sharing of scientific and 

management expertise, in bilateral, regional, and international coral reef 

management and education programs. 

Recommendation 21-2: Regarding Congress codifying and strengthening the U.S. Coral Reef 

Task Force and place it under the oversight of the NOC. 

In regard to the recommendation that the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force be codified, we do have 

concerns that the Task Force’s role within the framework of the NOC may weaken the Task 

Force by allowing Task Force membership to be relegated to lower echelon persons within the 
39

federal agencies. We support language, which would keep the federal agency representation to 

the Task Force at the Assistant Secretary level, and the co-chairs at the Secretarial level. 

Codification should include mention of the membership by the Governor’s on the Task Force. 

We also have serious concerns about the inclusion of deep-water corals within the framework of 

the Coral Reef Task Force. As its name implies, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force focus was 

intended to be on reef-building corals, and while some deep-water corals may be associated 

indirectly with reef building corals in tropical areas, the broad inclusion would work to weaken 

the primary focus and goals of the Task Force. These benthic communities, the management 

challenges and the impacts are so diverse that the analogy would be the inclusion of a grassland 

ecosystem to a Task Force focused on tropical rainforests just because they are both examples of 

plant-based ecosystems. 

We believe that deep-water corals are a concern and should be addressed, but great care must be 

taken in selecting the proper venue for their attention. Management of deep-water corals are first 

and foremost, a fisheries issue. Deep-water corals require different management regimes, 

different science, and are generally associated with completely different ecosystems than coral 

reef system (the possible exceptions being deep water corals in proximity with tropical reef 

systems). The following wording, as is being offered as an amendment to the bullets in 

recommendation 21-2. Delete bullet 1 and replace with: The Task Force shall create a subgroup to address the issues of deep-water corals to determine the proper, existing venue for 

management attention. 

Hawai‘i has had a long history of managing deep-water corals (or precious corals). Destructive 

harvesting techniques are not allowed, and the fishery is tightly controlled. The deepwater (Red, 

Pink, and Gold Coral) fishery is dormant; however, if this fishery is initiated again, it will be 

managed by both federal and state agencies. Currently, there is an active fishery for Black Coral 

in the State of Hawai‘i. Black Coral lives on the deep coral reef also known as the coral reef 

twilight zone. This fishery has been successful for 40 years and is now undergoing some changes 

due to fishing pressure and an invasive species. 

Hawai‘i is extremely unique in that it allows the harvesting of these corals. The management of 

these fisheries is monitored closely and tightly regulated. Any national movement to protect 

deepwater corals should consider Hawaii’s unique situation. These fisheries have been managed 

successful and the protection of these corals in Hawai‘i was recognized many years ago. 

We support the general protection of deep-water corals and their communities. We need to stress 

the information gap that exists on the benthic community that lies in between the environments 

of reef building corals and deep-water corals. The deep coral reef (or coral reef twilight zone) 

may play a critically important role on the health of the coral reefs around Hawai‘i, in particular 

the Main Hawaiian Islands. We know very little from this environment even though it is only a 

few hundred feet deep (200 to 500 feet). This zone is the transition zone between warm water 

coral reefs and abyssal, cold waters. 

Regarding the bullet that recommends the Task Force develop regional-ecosystem based plans; 

we would recommend that the states and territories be included in this bullet. The 

Hawaii
40

development of regional plans should include both researchers and resource managers from the 

region. Each plan should encompass the range of coral reef ecosystems predominant within the 

region and should include standardized ecological components (i.e. trophic structures, symbiosis, 

nutrient and chemical cycles, keystone species, levels of endemism, phase shifts, etc.) where this 

data is available and applicable to the plans. 

The bullet that states “NOAA, in consultation with Regional Fishery Management Councils, 

should implement any Task Force recommendations for reducing the effects of fishing on coral 

reef ecosystems,” must be changed to add in the role of the states and territories. The vast 

majority of coral reefs are in State waters and the majority of the fishing impacts to the reefs are 

from nearshore fishing activities. 

Recommendation 12-3: Regarding NOAA developing national standards and promote 

international standards to ensure that coral reef resources are collected, imported and harvested 

in an ecologically sustainable manner.

The standards should include concerns regarding the transport, possession, culturing, sale or 

release of non-native species from one region to another where such species could cause an 

invasive species risk to the local reefs, and or where invasive species are already present and the 

goal is to stop the further spread between reef areas. 

Recommendation 21-3 is of particular interest because it provides the opportunity for U.S. 

leadership in slowing unnecessary coral reef destruction in emerging countries, for developing 

new products and industries for the U.S., and for establishing fair and equitable trade rules for 

elements of an ecosystem without impacting the natural ecosystems. 

The U.S. has been a world leader in developing techniques for coral cultivation that are simple, 

cheap and productive. In some areas many species of hard corals can be cultivated through 

fragmentation, which significantly reduces the number of live, wild corals needed for 

reproduction (and could result in no wild species required in a relatively short period of time). 

There has also been great success in developing cultivation techniques for sperm/egg 

reproduction which would require no harvesting of corals from natural reefs. This process, 

which has been successfully documented for more than a dozen species has several advantages, 

not the least of which is the fact that corals with identical genetic properties can be cultivated, 

which is of significance for laboratory work where comparisons of effects between two (or more) 

identical corals would produce more valid results. 

These techniques are not only practical, the technology is immediately transferable to individuals 

or to communities to establish as businesses to replace their more destructive practices of wild 

coral harvest for the U.S. aquarium trade, the U.S. ornamental trade, or even for the international 

medicinal/pharmaceutical trade. 

But simply providing the opportunity for cultivation over wild harvest will not be enough. It will 

also require new laws and treaties regarding the world trade in live and dead corals, live rock and 

other coral reef species. Through direction from the Coral Reef Task Force, the U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID) completed a study in March 2000, a report on the 

international trade in corals and coral reef species. That report details suggestions for improving 
41

the international statutes to reduce destructive practices associated with coral reef trading. We 

suggest adding the following language to recommendation 21-3. Based on the findings of the 

March 2000 USAID report on international trade in corals and coral reef species, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric......The U.S. Department of State should implement incentive 

programs based on the findings of the report to encourage.... 

Recommendation 21-4: Regarding the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force identifying critical research 

and data needs related to coral reef ecosystems. 

As written, this recommendation is redundant with Recommendation 21-1. It makes sense to 

combine the two, as long as the emphasis on management and protection is expanded in 21-1. 

Chapter 22 – Setting a Course for Sustaining Marine Aquaculture 

Page. 271, paragraph 3 – The following sentence is not correct, “The nations first commercial 

open ocean aquaculture operation began in 2001, when ownership of a public project in Hawai‘i 

waters was transferred to a private firm.” It should be added that, “The origin of the first U.S. 

commercial open ocean aquaculture project in Hawai‘i began in 2001 with the lease of 28 

acres of state marine waters to a private company, following a 1999 legislative amendment 

to state statutes to allow commercial offshore aquaculture leasing.” 

Page 273, From our experience, and we recommend adding “sea surface” for a more complete 

statement: “the ocean leasing system should include the sea surface, water column and ocean 

bottom.” 

Recommendations 22-1: Regarding designation of NOAA as the lead federal agency for marine 

aquaculture and creating an Office of Sustainable Marine Aquaculture. 

If Congress is going to designate NOAA as lead federal agency for implementing a national 

policy for environmentally and economically sustainable marine aquaculture and create an 

Office of Sustainable Marine Aquaculture in NOAA, then we suggest the recommendation 

should be expanded to: 1) clarify the Department of Agriculture’s aquaculture authorities and 

responsibilities, in consideration of the lead agency authorities and responsibilities being 

assigned to NOAA, and 2) the Executive Director (Manager) of the Office of Sustainable Marine 

Aquaculture should be appointed a member of the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture. 

Recommendation 22-2: Regarding the development of a permitting, leasing, and regulatory 

program 

Under bullet 5, the statement should include opportunity for “other federal agencies including the 

Department of Defense” to comment. U.S. Navy comments will be very important in siting a 

facility near any of their activities. 

Best management practices and careful siting in an exposed open ocean site will take care of 

most environmental problems in terms of dilution. However, the issue of use of exotics and the 

potential for introduction as invasive species remains. Even if native species are used, the lesser 

problem of genetic drift is one to watch for and should be addressed in this report. Congress 

should also direct enhanced coordination amongst the federal and state programs to control 

Hawaii
42

aquatic animal diseases and attempt to develop unified standards for commerce in marine and 

coastal aquaculture-raised products between states and through foreign trade. We would like to 

see a new recommendation written to address these issues, or that they be added to the 

bullets under Recommendation 22-2. 

We suggest a new recommendation in which the NOC focuses on the needs to target native 

species for domestication and development as marine aquaculture species, and recognizes 

that funding needs to be allocated to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and/or the 

National Sea Grant Program to accomplish this task. 

Chapter 23 – Connecting the Oceans and Human Health 

The report discusses the new and potentially beneficial discoveries that have been and are likely 

to continue to be made by the biotechnology for compounds and products derived from ocean 

organisms. Hawai‘i as a gateway to the pacific has both the expertise and facilities to be a leader 

in this field and is already recognized as such through the creation of several research institutions 

and their ties to the pharmaceutical industry. 

Recommendation 23-1: Regarding NOAA, NSF and others to encourage multidisciplinary 

studies of marine species to discover bioproducts, develop compounds, and the like through 

competitive grants and support of federally funded centers. 

There have already been several incidents in Hawai‘i and the other Pacific Islands where 

research teams from more than one federally funded center descend on an Island all at once with 

no notice to the local resource management agencies, and with no coordination between groups. 

While studies of new bioproducts derived from the marine environment has numerous likely 

benefits, there needs to be coordination at the national level between the granting agencies and 

among the centers so as not to overwhelm or concentrate efforts in any one state. Likewise, 

similar coordination needs to occur between those collecting samples and the local resource 

management agencies 

We especially support recommendation 23-3, requesting support for the development and 

implementation of efficient and cost-effective methods for identifying pathogens and toxins in 

coastal waters. At present, we are required by EPA to use enterococcus or E. coli bacteria as 

indicators of fecal pathogens in environmental waters. These bacterial groups have numerous 

non-human sources, and are not clear indicators of wastewater treatment and disposal system 

failures, absent an identified sewage spill. Other waterborne diseases of nonfecal origin, such a 

Leptospirosis in coastal watersheds, lack rapid monitoring methodologies. A nationallysupported search for better indicators of water quality from a public health point of view would 

be very useful to Hawai‘i. 

Chapter 24 – Managing Offshore Energy and Other Mineral Resources 

Most of this chapter address oil and gas issues not relevant to Hawai‘i. On pages 292 and 293, 

there is discussion of revenue sharing with coastal states that specifically excludes Hawai‘i, 
43

probably because of our lack of oil and gas resources. What is not clear is what revenue sharing 

laws would pertain to Hawai‘i for other offshore energy or mineral resources. Later discussions 

of wind and wave energy, OTEC and marine minerals are not clear on this issue. There also is 

no mention of the growing use of deep cold water, from the ocean here in Hawai‘i and from the 

Great Lakes to provide low-cost air conditioning. 

Chapter 25 – Creating a National Strategy for Increasing Scientific Knowledge 

We are encouraged to see that this section focuses on not just traditional biological, 

oceanographic and engineering sciences but broadens the definition to include the need for more 

data and information on the social sciences. 

As has been re-iterated throughout our comments, we request that the federal agencies work in 

consultation with regional, State and local governments to develop and address priority research 

and that their needs to be a mechanism built into this system that ensures an emphasis on 

dissemination of results to the managers and end users. 

A concern is raised here in regard to the balance of research efforts in “coastal” waters versus the 

deep “blue” ocean; Hawai‘i, unlike most other coastal states, has a narrow coastal zone that is 

strongly affected by the surrounding deep ocean environment. Thus, Hawai‘i has a large stake in 

ensuring that a balance is struck between nearshore research and management needs and research 

in larger basin-scale environment in which the Hawaiian Archipelago is embedded. The report 

touches on this, but it needs emphasis from the Hawai‘i and/or island perspective. 

This chapter calls for doubling of the investment in basic and applied ocean research over five 

years (Recommendation 25-1). The University of Hawai‘i could reasonably be expected to be a 

major player in competing for enhanced funding by building upon its nationally respected oceanrelated expertise, but only if its capacity for conducting the additional research is clearly visible 

to federal research managers and to peer reviewers of grant proposals. 

Recommendation 25-2: Regarding the NOC developing a national ocean research strategy. 

The national ocean research strategy should be derived from a bottom-up process where the 

priorities and strategies are developed by the regional science information boards. The NOC 

should coordinate the federal agencies’ funding and technical assistance to support regionally set 

priorities and strategies. If the commission retains this recommendation as currently written, we 

recommend that the NOC be required to consult and include in the national strategy the science 

needs and priorities identified by local, state, regional, and national managers working through 

the regional ocean information programs. 

Recommendation 25–5. Regarding the NOC coordinating federal resource assessment, mapping, 

and charting activities with the goal of creating standardized, easily accessible national maps that 

incorporate living and nonliving marine resource data along with bathymetry, topography, and 

other natural features. 

Mapping and charting of near-shore areas is a fundamental need of coastal managers. A 

commitment to mapping and charting near-shore areas should be articulated in this 

Hawaii
44

recommendation. When consolidating mapping and charting activities of the different federal 

agencies, the NOC should conduct outreach to user groups to determine which maps and 

charting tools are useful and should be maintained, and ensure that each state has the technical 

capacity to use these tools once developed. 

Recommendation 25-4: Regarding Congress appropriating significant funding for an expanded 

national ocean exploration program. NOAA and NSF are designated as the lead agencies with 

involvement from USGS and the Navy’s Office of Naval Research. 

The report calls for NOAA to be the lead agency in many aspects of implementing the 

recommendations, and the NOAA Sea Grant College Program is highlighted in regards to 

research in a previous recommendation. We support the need for funding but again need to point 

out that there are numerous programs both within the UH system and elsewhere that should be 

consulted and considered in the allocation on management of these grant funds. Examples of 

institutions that receive NOAA funding include: the Sea Grant Program of the UH, the Joint 

Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research (JIMAR), and the Hawai‘i Undersea Research 

Laboratory (HURL, which all provide well-defined interfaces for UH researchers to tap into 

NOAA extramural funding. HURL is uniquely situated to benefit from investments in ocean 

exploration called for in the report. 

UH Manoa already has substantial funding for ocean research from the NSF and the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in addition to NOAA funding. The Hawai‘i 

Ocean Time-series (HOT), now in its 16th year and funded by NSF and the State of Hawai‘i. 

HOT is seen as a prototype of a new national network of ocean observatories under a major 

National Science Foundation initiative. The UH faculty have recently proposed three major 

Hawai‘i-based ocean-related research centers. One was recently funded jointly by NSF and the 

National Institute of Environmental Health (Center for Ocean and Human Health); and two are 

pending. NASA and NOAA provide substantial funding to the International Pacific Research 

Center, in partnership with Japan, supporting Asia-Pacific ocean, atmospheric and climate 

research. Some of this funding is being used to develop a Hawai’i region ocean model to 

ultimately support such applications as search and rescue and pollution dispersal. 

The ecosystem-based research and management philosophy espoused in the report meshes very 

well with efforts such as HURL in support of coral reef ecosystems in Hawai‘i and other U.S. 

pacific waters. Numerous UH scientists are working with NOAA to conduct research needed to 

manage the NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve. The Hawai‘i Coral Reef Initiative Research 

Program, jointly managed by the UH and the Department of Land and Natural Resources, 

supports monitoring and research activities aimed at building capacity to manage Hawaii’s coral 

reef ecosystems. Watershed research is an important contribution to the integrated research and 

management philosophy recommended throughout the report. 

Chapter 26 – Achieving a Sustained, Integrated Ocean Observing System 

This chapter calls for a substantial national investment in building and sustaining an operational 

ocean observing system to provide the data needed to produce information for ocean 

policymakers, managers, and for other stakeholders. Faculty of the UH have played a strong 
45

leadership role over the past decades in developing several prototype components of such an 

integrated operational observing system, such as the pacific tide gauge network and the 

equatorial pacific TAO array of buoys. Another example is the shoreline monitoring and 

vulnerability analyses. The State of Hawai‘i, through the UH, is willing to play the leading role 

in the development of the Hawai‘i-Pacific ocean observing system. The web site at 

http://kela.soest.Hawai`i.edu/HI-POIS/ provides an inventory of the various Hawai‘i-Pacific 

coastal ocean observing efforts and plans. 

Recommendation 26–2. Regarding Ocean US, with NOC oversight, being responsible for 

planning the national IOOS with NOAA as the lead federal agency. 

The commission should clarify the mechanisms which will be utilized to ensure coordination 

between Ocean.US, NOAA, and the regional science boards in managing the IOOS. In planning 

for the national IOOS, Ocean.US should facilitate substantive and significant representation of 

the user community and place an emphasis on transferring the IOOS information to coastal 

decision-makers in a useable and accessible form. Further, Ocean.US and NOAA should seek to 

build state and local user capacity by supporting necessary tools such as training courses, 

technology transfer, as well as software and hardware. 

Chapter 27 – Enhancing Ocean Infrastructure and Technology Development 

In the section on “Maximizing Resources through Collaboration”, the UH has several examples 

of regional collaboration and Hawai‘i stands poise on several fronts to be a center for 

collaboration. While we do not attempt to name all these programs, and recognize the examples 

given in this section are not exhaustive, it is important that a statement be made about the need to 

inventory existing collaborative efforts to ensue that all sites that have the infrastructure and 

technical expertise are considered equally in the allocation of funds and project focus. 

The section on “Undersea Vehicles” in this chapter, the HURL and its assets was completely left 

out of the discussion. We have edited the paragraphs in bold to insert appropriate text to reflect 

these assets and their operating ranges. 

“For missions of long duration, the United States relies on the Navy’s NR-1 nuclear research 

submarine, which can stay submerged for thirty days but has a maximum depth of only 3,000 

feet. The NR-1 was constructed in 1969, and its service life will end in 2012” Other federally 

funded intermediate-depth diving occupied submersibles include the Pisces IV and V 

capable of diving to 6,500 and 6280 feet, respectively. 

All submersibles in the federal fleet, including Alvin and Jason II, are currently housed at the 

National Deep Submergence Facility at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The facility 

is funded through a partnership among NSF, Office of Naval Research, and NOAA. This is not 

an accurate statement and as there are other assets at five other facilities including Hawai‘i: The 

National Undersea Research Program within NOAA consists of six national centers, one of 

which, the NOAA Undersea Research Center for Hawai‘i and the Western Pacific 

established in 1980 at the UH Manoa (more commonly referred to as HURL) operates the 

HOV’s Pisces IV and Pisces V, the ROV RCV-150 with a maximum depth of 3000 feet, and 

Hawaii
46

R/V Ka‘imikai-o-Kanaloa, a 220-foot dedicated support vessel with laboratory facilities 

and a multibeam bathymetric seafloor mapping sonar system to service the Hawai‘i and 

Western Pacific Region. 

The report supports a mix of vehicles to support current and future research needs. 

Recommendations include: (1) setting aside funds at the National Deep Submergence Facility to 

gain access to vehicles outside the federal fleet for specific missions; (2) acquiring a second 

ROV to join Jason II by 2005, at a cost of approximately $5 million, and strongly consider 

basing this new ROV system at a second location that would minimize the transit time for 

periodic overhaul and refit of both ROV systems [Please note that this was added verbatim 

from the NRC report cited in this section]; and (3) initiating an engineering study to evaluate 

various options for replacing Alvin, with a goal of providing submergence capability up to 

21,000 feet, at a cost of approximately $20 million. The report noted that in time and with a 

higher level of funding, additional platforms with greater capabilities could be profitably added 

to the fleet. 

Please add the following paragraph to this section: The diving assets of NOAA’s Undersea 

Research Center for Hawai‘i and the Western Pacific (HURL) should be made available to 

the scientific community that requires intermediate-depth submergence based operations 

in the Pacific region. The average maximum depth for all Alvin dives is presently 2079 

meters, which is just slightly beyond the range of HURL’s Pisces submersibles. In 

addition, of nearly 500 Alvin dives carried out from 2000 to mid-2004, 70% took place in 

the Pacific with the remainder in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic where Alvin is based. 

Therefore, HURL should be considered as the host and operator for the new ROV from its 

strategic location in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in order to more efficiently satisfy the 

overwhelming trend for scientific missions in the Pacific region. 

Recommendation 27–4. Regarding Congress establishing a modernization fund for critical 

ocean infrastructure and technology needs. Spending priorities should be based on the NOC’s 

ocean and coastal infrastructure and technology strategy. 

We support this recommendation and recommend and the following to the third bullet: 

• The acquisition of vessels and infrastructure needed for an expanded national ocean exploration 

program that are geographically distributed to match the current and projected scientific 

needs 

Chapter 28 – Modernizing Ocean Data and Information Systems 

Recommendation 28–1: Regarding Congress amending the National Oceanographic Partnership 

Act to establish and fund Ocean.IT as the lead federal interagency planning organization for 

ocean and coastal data and information management. 

We support this recommendation and note the importance that this is an interagency process. 

We recommend that Ocean.IT be required to establish an advisory board or other process for 

soliciting the input and involvement of state and local governments, marine labs, and university 

researchers. 
47

Recommendation 28–2: Regarding NOAA and the U.S. Navy establishing a joint ocean and 

coastal information management and communications program to generate information products 

relevant to national, regional, state, and local needs. 

Hawai‘i supports a joint information and communications program by NOAA and the U.S. Navy 

and other pertinent federal agencies. We recommend that the commission recognize the 

importance of state and locally derived data and add a requirement to this recommendation 

calling on NOAA and the U.S. Navy to develop an advisory board or other consultative process 

for soliciting state, local, and other end user input. NOAA and the U.S. Navy and other pertinent 

federal agencies should also fund research on the state and local scale. 

Recommendation 28–6: Regarding the President convening an interagency task force to plan for 

modernizing the national environmental data archiving, assimilation, modeling, and distribution 

system with the goal of designing an integrated earth environmental data and information 

system. 

Hawai‘i supports a joint information and communications program by NOAA and the U.S. Navy 

and other pertinent federal agencies. We recommend that the commission recognize the 

importance of state and locally derived data and add a requirement to this recommendation 

calling on NOAA and the U.S. Navy to develop an advisory board or other consultative process 

for soliciting state, local, and other end user input. NOAA and the U.S. Navy and other pertinent 

federal agencies should also fund research on the state and local scale. 

Chapter 30 – Funding Needs and Possible Sources 

Our concern with this chapter is that it fails to propose any mechanism to rank or select priorities 

among the myriad of recommendations proposed in this Report. There is a critical need to 

prioritize and assess these recommendations to determine which are able to be instituted within a 

relatively short time frame, which are crucial to the health and welfare of the citizens and our 

coastal and ocean resources, and which are essential to overall program implementation and 

coordination. Regardless of the mechanism proposed to initiate this prioritization process, the 

states need to have full and equal participation in this selection process and all ensuing 

discussions about implementation. 

There are two critical points in this chapter: 

1) The commission recognizes that the states must have a prominent role in developing a 

comprehensive national ocean policy; and 

2) That the additional roles and responsibilities should not take the form of unfunded 

mandates. 

While we support the reallocation of the Outer Continental Shelf revenues, this third point 

presents some concerns. The commission proposes to create the Ocean Policy Trust Fund to pay 

for the recommendations in this report. The funding would come from the approximately $4 

billion generated annually by the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas revenues that are not 

already dedicated to existing programs. There is no discussion of how these “excess” funds are 

Hawaii
48

currently distributed or how difficult it might be to get them reallocated to the Ocean Policy 

Trust Fund. It must be assumed that some group or groups of constituents are currently utilizing 

the funds through other federal programs. 

In the chapters we reviewed, there was no mention about the need to organize the various ocean 

constituencies into a cohesive voice that could lobby for this allocation of funds. Finally, there 

was no discussion of alternative sources of funding. 
Illinois

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Iowa

Louisiana

Louisiana

Louisiana

Louisiana

Maine

Maine

Maine

Maine

Maine

Maine

Maine

Maine

Maine

Maine

Maine

Maine

Maine

Maine

Maryland

Maryland
Page 1 of 20 

Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

Comments of the State of Maryland June 3, 2004 

ENHANCING OCEAN LEADERSHIP AND COORDINATION 

The State of Maryland agrees with the Commission’s finding of a need for coordinated 

goals and objectives and a national leadership structure for coastal and ocean 

management in order to develop and implement a strategic vision to see those goals and 

objectives realized. Maryland has taken a similar approach with the Governor’s 

Chesapeake Bay Cabinet, which has been effective in bringing a coherence and focus to 

Maryland’s policies and their implementation for many years. We believe that a 

successful national policy must be built on strong ties with state managers. 

The lack of consistency, coordination, and efficient delivery of programs and services 

among the federal agencies is a serious problem for the states and significant 

improvements are required. The Preliminary Report is focused on adjusting the federal 

management regime and large-scale assessment and management approaches. The fact 

that states have the primary responsibility for coastal and nearshore resources is not 

sufficiently recognized throughout the Preliminary Report. 

As with other recommendations proposed throughout the Preliminary Report, the 

Commission needs to carefully consider how new organizational entities being proposed 

would be an improvement over the way things are done now as measured by on-theground improvements. Clarification is needed on how the proposed National Ocean 

Council relates to the existing coordination role of the Council on Environmental Quality. 

The Commission is cautioned about putting too much responsibility in the National 

Ocean Council at the risk of national policy becoming top heavy and the Council 

becoming a bottleneck. Attempting to bring all of management under one structure may 

exacerbate existing inefficiencies and create new ones. Consideration should be given to 

the possibility that a more efficient governance structure might argue for less 

consolidation across the board than envisioned by the National Ocean Council model, 

and more consolidation in specific areas, including habitat, erosion management, energy, 

marine commerce, and transportation. 

ADVANCING REGIONAL APPROACHES

While the State of Maryland supports improved inter-governmental coordination, the 

establishment and role of Regional Ocean Councils as called for by the Commission 

(Recommendation 5-1) is too unspecific to comment on. The regional councils 

envisioned by the Commission should not add another layer of bureaucracy that places 

more demands on the states or replaces existing effective regional agreements and 

compacts. Maryland has 20 years of experience with regional management through the 

Chesapeake Bay Program. The Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Bays Programs currently 
Page 2 of 20 

coordinate and set priorities for the Bays, and these should be looked to as models for the 

regional ocean councils. 

The Commission also needs to consider scale efficiencies as the geographic focus and 

management structure enlarges. If Regional Ocean Councils are to be established, their 

interests and focus should be narrow and appropriate in scale to the size of the region and 

the dominant issues in those regions. 

A regional watershed framework needs to be inclusive enough to be meaningful in a 

functional ecological sense but restrictive enough to represent reality at the local 

government level where most programs are implemented. While it is necessary to assess 

watershed functions, conditions, trends, and impacts to determine management strategies, 

this approach reaches a point of inefficiency when program management, studies and 

monitoring consume the majority of staff and funding resources such that acting on these 

trends and implementation becomes secondary. 

COORDINATING MANAGEMENT IN FEDERAL WATERS

Though the State of Maryland is in favor of improved coordination among federal 

agencies through the establishment of a leadership structure, division of responsibilities 

and coordination mechanisms, the Commission’s proposed restructuring of 

responsibilities is for the most part beyond the purview of the State. The Report should 

address how those changes will result in on-the-ground improvements in management 

and improve our ability to manage the challenges we will face over the next 50 years. 

The Commission should also take into account that more layers of bureaucracy or 

program offices are likely to add to and create inefficiencies.

Maryland supports area-focused approaches to improved coordination and management. 

The Preliminary Report discusses the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs). 

These should be promoted as one among several means of improving coastal and ocean 

management. The need and focus of such area designations will vary. Where 

designated, MPAs should be coordinated and consistent with state management efforts. 

It should also be noted that in discussing improved governmental coordination, the 

Preliminary Report leaves unaddressed the many federal agencies that take an active role 

in funding, or undertaking, or obligating underwater archaeological research or surveys in 

compliance with various federal statutes and programs. 

PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN EDUCATION 

Given that states play a fundamental role in education, the Commission’s 

recommendations should have a more explicit focus on strengthening existing and 

effective local-state-federal partnerships. Maryland is committed to promoting life-long 

learning about the environment in a way that promotes personal stewardship and is now 
Page 3 of 20 

in the process of developing a statewide curriculum. The pieces are in place for 

Maryland's full participation in a new and vigorous national coastal and ocean education 

effort. The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) has incorporated 

opportunities for oceanographic studies through the new Pre-K – 12 curriculum 

objectives and partnerships with the Maryland Sea Grant, and the Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Center for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence, (COSEE, a consortium consisting of 

the University of Maryland ’s Horn Point Laboratory Center for Environmental Science, 

Rutgers University, the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences (VIMS), Hampton 

University, Stevens Institute and the New York Aquarium). These organizations post 

lessons, resources, and references on the Internet and offer teacher training workshops 

and summer internships. Maryland supports the Commission’s call (Recommendation 8-

5) for expansion of the national COSEE program. 

The Commission's Report should provide a greater voice of support for existing marine 

science education programs. Although there are references to the successful role of the 

Sea Grant Colleges and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) in 

bridging the gap among research and education communities; there is no mention of Sea 

Grant or NERRS in any of the recommendations. Maryland Sea Grant, for example, 

already links research directly with the delivery of defined education tools, such as school 

curricula, secondary school teacher training and classroom educational materials, as well 

as outreach to the public through communication and extension services. 

An important dimension of education that receives little mention is the education of 

decision-makers at all levels of government who are ultimately responsible for 

ecosystem-based management. Again, existing programs like Sea Grant and NERRS that 

connect scientists, local communities, state agencies and non-governmental organizations 

should be supported for that purpose. In a similar vein, the Commission’s 

recommendations concerning the nation’s ocean-related workforce (Recommendations 8-

10 through 14) should specifically address the need for training of the technical experts 

needed to achieve truly ecosystem-based management of ocean resources. There is little 

or no federal support for such training at present. 

MANAGING COASTS AND THEIR WATERSHEDS 

Maryland supports the proposed reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act

(CZMA) to better enable the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program to fulfill the 

broad objectives of the Act. In order for the State to meet its expanding programmatic 

responsibilities under the CZMA, such as the implementation of the coastal nonpoint 

source control program, development and tracking of performance measures, and the 

development and continual updating of the State’s Coastal and Estuarine Land 

Conservation Plan, increased federal resources are needed for the State. For the past 10 

years, Maryland’s share of the amounts appropriated by Congress for state coastal 

management grants has been capped while grants for states with much less shoreline and 

population have increased several fold. 

Maryland
Page 4 of 20 

The State of Maryland agrees with the Commission's recommendation for the 

establishment of performance measures for coastal zone management programs. 

(Recommendation 9-1). Such measures are already under development within NOAA. 

That effort needs to be expanded to the development of the full complement of necessary 

features for a performance measurement system such as the establishment of baselines, 

trends, measurable goals and objectives, tracking mechanisms, and means to evaluate 

why particular objectives were met or unmet. The great diversity among states and 

ecosystems requires that performance measures be based on state based objectives and 

ecosystem needs. The Commission should urge NOAA to work more closely with states 

in developing performance measurement systems which further adaptive management 

and reflect state priorities. 

The Commission recommends a watershed focus in pursuing ecosystem management. 

(Recommendation 9-4). Maryland supports this approach and has taken a leading role in 

watershed management through the combination of its Tributary Strategies, Watershed 

Restoration Action Strategies and Total Daily Maximum Load Programs. 

The Preliminary Report does not adequately make the case for Recommendation 9-2 to 

consolidate the various area-based coastal management programs. These programs could 

be better coordinated to enhance effectiveness. 

One editorial comment must be made. At page 109, the text box reads, "The Maryland 

experience, which has since been scaled back under new budgetary pressures, provides 

one model of growth management for consideration by other state and local 

governments." This is incorrect. Although State funds used to fund development related 

projects inside designated growth areas are less compared to funding levels in previous 

years due to budget shortfalls, Maryland has not scaled back efforts to implement Smart 

Growth.

GUARDING PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AGAINST NATURAL HAZARDS

Given Maryland’s recent experience with the unprecedented damages seen with Tropical 

Storm Isabel, it is clear that there is a need to better inform the public about the risks and 

vulnerabilities associated with coastal hazards. Prior to the storm surge seen with 

Tropical Storm Isabel, many property owners far from the ocean coast had no idea that 

they could be at risk from flooding. As in other states, the floodplain maps developed by 

the National Flood Insurance Program are long overdue to be updated. A consequence of 

these inaccurate maps is that new development that does not meet code requirements for 

flood protection continues to be located in flood prone areas. Map modernization should 

concentrate on improved mapping and data collection rather than digitizing outdated 

existing maps. 

The recommendations of the Commission to improve coastal hazards data management 

need to be expanded. (Recommendation 10-2) The issues associated with updating maps 

go far beyond collecting new data and transferring it onto maps. New technologies for 
Page 5 of 20 

hazards planning have greatly expanded the potential to anticipate risks and mitigate 

vulnerabilities. However, the realization of that potential is dependent upon building 

state and local capacity to use this data at the appropriate planning level. The need is not 

just for acquiring data, but utilizing it at the appropriate scale and providing local 

governments the capabilities to manage, house, analyze and visualize the data. 

Absent from the Preliminary Report is any discussion of the need for increased planning 

assistance to identify areas at risk from sea level rise and options to address the problem. 

In the Chesapeake Bay, the sea level has risen over one foot in the past 100 years — 

twice the global average due to land subsidence. The impacts of sea level rise are already 

being seen in the areas of low relief on Maryland’s eastern shore with an acceleration in 

erosion rates, increase in flooding and the failure of wells and septic systems.

The Preliminary Report calls for mitigation planning (Recommendation 10-4). Much of 

what is recommended is already being done. Pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 

2000, every county in the State has developed or is developing a hazards mitigation plan. 

What is needed is assistance in the implementation of those plans. 

Another lesson learned from the Tropical Storm Isabel experience is that the National 

Flood Insurance Program’s estimates for repairs are based on either outdated information 

or estimated costs not specific to the locale in which the damages occurred. Many 

homeowners were unable to make repairs to major damage to their homes when their 

flood insurance policies, which they are legally required to maintain, were inadequate to 

cover their costs. This appears to be in part a result of averaging repair cost estimates 

nationally. Regional differences in costs need to be taken into account in these estimates. 

A more aggressive approach is needed to reduce flood damages. Although the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has greatly expanded its mitigation efforts in 

recent years, much more assistance is needed for understaffed agencies and communities 

to retrofit structures, remove structures from hazardous areas, and discourage 

development in the floodplain. Mitigation alone is not enough to substantially reduce 

flood damages to existing structures in flood prone areas. So long as federal flood 

insurance is provided at subsidized rates, the status quo will be perpetuated. 

The Commission should also take note of illusory budgetary savings achieved by 

agencies through cost transfers. An example recently occurred in Maryland when FEMA 

rejected a proposed mitigation project to buy-out six homes that were repetitively 

flooded. FEMA rejected the proposed buy-out because it did not satisfy FEMA’s 

benefit/cost analysis. Ironically, in all likelihood a much more expensive and less 

desirable engineered flood control project to protect these six homes would be approved 

by the Corps of Engineers under its benefit/cost analysis. 

The Commission’s overall recommendations for reform of the Corps of Engineers (COE) 

Civil Works Program would foster greater consideration of coastal environmental issues 

and concerns into the COE process in a more consistent manner from region to region. 

Maryland
Page 6 of 20 

(Recommendation 10-1) Any changes should avoid too cumbersome a process that 

excessively increases the time or cost of conducting a review. 

CONSERVING AND RESTORING COASTAL HABITAT 

Rapidly escalating land prices in the coastal zone along with diminishing opportunities to 

acquire large tracts make land conservation and preservation a priority in Maryland. The 

State issued a new plan for land conservation in December 2003. That plan prioritizes 

those areas that are most important to the health of the Chesapeake Bay, particularly the 

“green infrastructure” bordering on tributaries in the watersheds. Maryland supports the 

Commission’s recommendation to amend the Coastal Zone Management Act to establish 

a Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program to assist states in identifying priority 

coastal areas for conservation. (Recommendation 11-1). Caution is urged in regards to 

the Commission recommendation to amend current legislation to use existing 

conservation and restoration funds for assessments, monitoring, research and education. 

(Recommendation 11-3). As the Preliminary Report recognizes, funding for acquisition 

is already far below what is needed. Funds for assessment, monitoring, research and 

education should be generated through other programs. 

The Commission should note that despite the emphasis it has placed on ecosystem-based 

management, there is little discussion or recommendations in the Preliminary Report on 

conserving and restoring coastal habitat. This reflects an overall imbalance in the 

Preliminary Report that the Commission should attempt to address. 

MANAGING SEDIMENT AND SHORELINES

Many of the issues that arise from the efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay relate in 

some way to sediments. Much of Maryland’s shoreline is eroding causing excess 

nutrients, impediments to navigation, loss of shallow water habitats, increases in the 

frequency of disturbance, and the smothering of submerged aquatic vegetation and oyster 

beds. In certain areas, inputs of toxics from tributaries to the Bay cause sediment 

contamination. At the same time, the process of erosion and sedimentation is an 

important natural component of the Bay and essential to its health. 

Maryland supports the Commission recommendation to manage sediment on a regional 

basis (Recommendation 12-1) and emphasizes that such an approach will be most 

effective if formulated with respect to the physical processes that affect sedimentation. 

The regional approach to managing sediments is especially applicable to Maryland due to 

its two distinct regions: the Chesapeake Bay region and the Atlantic Coastal Bays and 

Ocean Coastline region. These two very different regions require different management 

approaches. Multiple-objective management within these regions will require the 

consideration of multiple physical scales — site level, river level, watershed level and 

physio-graphic level. 
Page 7 of 20 

The current project-by-project approach to managing sediment is inefficient and often 

ignores the broader context of sediment management where multiple objectives and 

physical processes are at issue and potentially conflicting. Regional sediment 

management needs to incorporate both the aquatic transport systems offshore and 

watersheds of contributing tributaries. Control of sediment at the source should be the 

first option in management. 

The need for the dredging of navigational channels, especially maintenance dredging, can 

often be related to the mismanagement of sediments on land. Increasing sedimentation 

and the contamination of sediments reaching the Bay increase the need for and cost of 

dredging to maintain the channels, and limit the options for dredge material disposal. 

Lack of sufficient funding for channel maintenance is already causing the delay of 

needed projects with impacts on state and regional economies. 

Going beyond the recommendation for regional sediment management, the Commission 

should present a vision for the optimum management of sediments and a framework for 

improving the management of sediment and shorelines. That vision should be tempered 

with a recognition that some sediment problems are controllable and others not. 

 

Maryland supports increased beneficial use of dredged materials (Recommendation 12-

2). The Commission’s support is needed particularly on continuing federal support for 

beach renourishment. Maryland’s beaches are part of the State's environmental and 

economic infrastructure. Their maintenance has benefits that go beyond the State’s 

borders. The Commission should urge the reversal of the Office of Management and 

Budget policy to discontinue federal assistance for beach renourishment projects. The 

Commission should also support the preservation of offshore sources of clean sand in 

federal waters where necessary to meet future needs for beach replenishment. 

Many of the sediment recommendations contained in the 1994 report The Dredging 

Process in the United States: An Action Plan for Improvement have been implemented 

on a state level by the State of Maryland, and have been adopted by the local office of the 

Corps of Engineers. This process has proved effective in reducing conflicts associated 

with dredging projects. Implementation of these procedures on the federal level would 

serve to further improve the process. 

Recommendation 12-4 suggests involvement of the Corps in monitoring and cumulative 

impact analysis. While the Corps may be the appropriate lead for the implementation of 

sediment management projects (i.e., engineering), the state resource agencies (including 

geological surveys) and/or U.S. Geological Survey may be a better lead agency for the 

necessary scientific studies for regional sediment management. 

Maryland
Page 8 of 20 

SUPPORTING MARINE COMMERCE AND TRANSPORTATION

While the Commission has worthy recommendations for anticipating growth for marine 

transportation and the intermodal network for the delivery and distribution of goods, the 

Commission may have misperceived the federal government’s role with its 

Recommendation 13-5A to periodically prioritize future federal investments among ports. 

The Final Report should recognize that not all decisions are for government to make. 

The federal government is not simply a central planning agency. It has a responsibility to 

balance interests in ways that are fair and equitable even if not always most efficient. 

Prioritizing funding for ports under a strategic plan for a national marine transportation 

"system" may be more problematic than it is for the other modes. Since most commercial 

port traffic is between domestic and foreign destinations, ports compete with each other 

directly without the interdependence that is evident in the aviation system, or even the 

highway system. Prioritizing the needs of one port over another could be construed as 

government intervention into the balance of commerce, and in any event, would have 

serious repercussions on the economies of the cities, states and regions that depend on 

their ports as economic engines. 

The Preliminary Report mentions the needs for increased port security. The Final Report 

should make clear the critical need for increased federal assistance to meet Homeland 

Security requirements. 

ADDRESSING COASTAL WATER POLLUTION

With the enactment of the Bay Restoration Fund, Maryland has taken a big step towards 

improving wastewater treatment throughout the State in furtherance of the Commission’s 

Recommendation 14-4 to increase funding for wastewater and drinking water 

infrastructure systems. The bill establishes a $2.50 fee per household per month both for 

sewer customers and septic owners, as well as a flow-based fee for industry. The funds 

will be directed toward the upgrade of major sewer plants, upgrading septic systems and 

installing cover crops. In Congress there is a push to increase funding for the State 

Revolving Fund Program that would further assist large and small communities in 

upgrading sewage treatment plants. Maryland strongly supports this effort. 

Alternatives to revolving loan funds should also be developed, as loans must be reported 

as debt by local governments. This adversely affects bond ratings and results in higher 

interest payments for all capital improvement projects. 

Regional strategies are needed to revitalize urban areas where the basic infrastructure is 

already in place to meet population needs. Increased spending to rehabilitate older 

infrastructure is more cost efficient than continuing to expand service areas. This is a key 

objective of Maryland's Priority Places Program. 

Maryland supports recommendation 14-2 to increase technical and financial assistance to 

communities for septic system management. Assistance is needed to better establish the 
Page 9 of 20 

contribution of septic systems as sources of nutrient pollution and to develop defensible 

and cost-effective management programs where warranted. Congress should also 

consider establishing a revolving loan fund and other funding alternatives to assist states 

and localities in providing funds for replacing and upgrading septic systems. 

The Commission’s Recommendation 14-3 calls on states to issue regulatory controls on 

concentrated animal feeding operations. Maryland is developing Concentrated Animal 

Feeding Operations (CAFO) regulations. Maryland would benefit from expanded federal 

funding/cost-share for implementation in this area. 

The State of Maryland is working with private industry to explore alternative uses of 

chicken litter, from which the run-off adversely affects the health of the Chesapeake Bay. 

In addition to existing alternative uses, the potential to convert litter to energy could help 

mitigate environmental hazards, reduce demand on current energy sources, and stimulate 

economic development on our State’s Eastern Shore. The State supports increased 

federal research funding that could help advance these efforts. 

Maryland supports Recommendation 14-7 for a comprehensive and coordinated approach 

to address the complexities of nonpoint source impacts to coastal resources. Additional 

resources and requirements should address performance-based criteria in recognition of 

the wide variety of state and local program strengths and weaknesses. 

Maryland supports the Commission’s recommendation of the establishment of a 

significant national goal to reduce nonpoint source pollution in impaired coastal 

watersheds. (Recommendation 14-8) There are already efforts underway that seek to 

establish goals for the national nonpoint source program. These program goals address 

nutrient reduction and improving water quality through the de-listing of impaired 

waterways. In addition to national program goals, there are state and regional efforts 

such as the Chesapeake Bay Agreement 2000 that have established goals that will 

complement this particular effort. The federal government needs to more effectively 

work with the states in establishing national goals. 

The State of Maryland supports expanded regional approaches to reducing atmospheric 

deposition. It has been estimated that a substantial portion of the excess nutrients in the 

Chesapeake Bay are a result of atmospheric deposition and that much of the air-borne 

pollutants come from out of the State. 

Maryland supports the Commission’s recommendation to increase local government 

capacity and that of watershed groups to better manage polluted stormwater runoff. 

(Recommendations 14-11, 14-12 and 14-13). Maryland's current stormwater regulatory 

programs and other measures are fairly effective in controlling and treating runoff, 

although greater emphasis is needed for reducing the creation of impervious surfaces. 

While it is important to strengthen the capacity of local governments to manage urban 

nonpoint source pollution, funding is the greatest need — not strategies or technical 

assistance or greater institutional support. Urban nonpoint source control programs 

Maryland
Page 10 of 20 

deserve the same level of importance and funding as wastewater treatment and 

agricultural best management practices. 

The Commission’s proposal to merge the EPA and NOAA nonpoint source management 

programs leaves too many questions unanswered to respond to the recommendation 

(Recommendation 14-9). A merger for the sake of consolidation alone will not result in 

improvements to water quality. In Maryland, the division of responsibilities among the 

two federal agencies has not resulted in a problem. Both programs are administered by 

the Coastal Zone Management Division of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 

The focus of these programs should not be on structural reorganization but on the need 

for broad scale implementation of best management practices. 

The State of Maryland urges the Commission to reconsider Recommendation 14-10, 

which calls for penalties on states for failure to meet water quality objectives. The threat 

of penalties is not effective if program objectives are not realistic and adaptable, nor do 

penalties advance the formation of partnerships between the federal and state agencies. 

While the threat of penalties can have some effect in providing some leverage to 

accomplish change, penalties should not be mechanically applied. Discretion is needed 

to consider the uncertainties that all programs face in achieving their objectives, e.g., 

weather, funding support, and the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs) in 

the many different contexts in which they are applied. Penalties need to be proportional 

to the federal support for the program, and targeted to those programs and entities that 

have the ability to change the behaviors that are resulting in objectives not being 

achieved. Penalizing one agency for the lack of action by another is not effective. 

Federal agencies and states need to define what constitutes ‘meaningful progress towards 

meeting water quality standards.’ This requires that EPA, NOAA and the states establish 

benchmarks toward improving water quality and meeting water quality standards. These 

benchmarks need to include timelines to meet environmental goals and objectives. 

Environmental benchmarks need to take into account the wide gap between program 

funding and water quality objectives. 

 

In developing its Final Report, the Commission should give further thought to the 

outcome of the imposition of financial sanctions. Unless a strict pass/fail standard is 

applied for the imposition of sanctions, how could one state’s effort be compared to 

another given the vastly different circumstances that occur even among neighboring 

states? Would the federal government fine those states that have pushed through a major 

effort on environmental restoration and protection, yet still failed to fully meet water 

quality goals/standards? Would the federal government try to take over state water 

programs and if so be prepared to replace existing state resources for these programs?
Page 11 of 20 

CREATING A NATIONAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING NETWORK 

Maryland endorses the Commission’s recommendations for a national water quality 

monitoring network that provides adequate coverage of both coastal and upland areas, is 

linked with the Integrated Ocean Observing System, and meets the requirements spelled 

out in Recommendation 15-3. In particular, regional flexibility is a key requirement if 

the monitoring results are to be useful at the primary scale of ecosystem-based 

management, which is subregional. Previous federal monitoring programs that have 

employed uniform strategies for the sake of inter-regional comparability (for example 

EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program) have proven of limited use 

at this scale of management. The national network proposed should build on, support and 

extend the results of existing management-oriented monitoring programs, such as that in 

place for the Chesapeake Bay, rather than duplicate them. For example, monitoring is an 

important part of Maryland’s efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. The Department of 

Natural Resources Eyes on the Bay Program provides resource managers and the public 

with near real time information on water quality for waterbodies throughout the Bay. It is 

essential that states are included in the development and implementation of a national 

water quality monitoring network. As states have the primary responsibility for 

managing water quality, the scale of a national water quality monitoring network needs to 

be appropriate to states’ management framework. 

 

LIMITING VESSEL POLLUTION AND IMPROVING VESSEL SAFETY

Maryland’s Clean Marinas program has been cited as a national model to achieve 

voluntary adoption of best management practices to reduce pollution from recreational 

boating. The federal Clean Vessel Act has been instrumental in achieving the objectives 

of the program by providing assistance to install sewage pump-out devices at marinas. 

The effectiveness of the Clean Vessel Act could be improved by increasing and 

expanding the uses of the grants to states. In Maryland, about 74 percent of recreational 

boats do not have toilets on-board. Recreational boaters need to have toilets at boating 

destinations. Also, new boat engine technologies have greatly reduced the pollution from 

small boat engines. Incentives are needed to phase out these older engines. 

Recommendation 16-8 proposes to move the Clean Vessel Act (CVA) assistance 

program for sewage pump-outs from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The CVA currently works well and is easy for 

states to administer. Since the CVA is funded under the Aquatic Resources/Sports Fish 

Restoration Fund, which also funds other USFWS boating-related programs, it makes 

sense to keep those programs at USFWS. The Commission should also take note that 

moving the program to EPA could create the perception of a linkage between the CVA 

and EPA's No Discharge Zone program which is controversial in some states and among 

some constituencies, resulting in less support and participation rather than more. 

Maryland
Page 12 of 20 

PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF INVASIVE SPECIES

Maryland’s recent experiences with the northern snakehead and the efforts needed to 

eliminate the fish highlight the need for broader and stricter federal regulation of the 

importation, interstate transport, sale and introduction of non-native species. 

The Preliminary Report appropriately stresses the importance of coordination and 

cooperation in the United States and internationally to prevent the introduction of nonnative species. A primary pathway for unintentional introductions is ballast water. 

Recognizing that the International Maritime Organization has recently adopted a 

convention that addresses ballast water management, the Ocean Commission should 

encourage Congress and the U.S. Coast Guard to adopt a U.S. ballast water standard that 

is scientifically sound, biologically meaningful and enforceable. Furthermore, the Final 

Report should note that the IMO standard does not meet those requirements and will do 

little to prevent the introduction of invasive species via ballast water into the United 

States. The implementation of consistent ballast water management requirements for 

U.S. ports is required to avoid unfair differences in infrastructure and procedure 

requirements among ports. 

Maryland is one of the few states that regulates ballast water management, and, with the 

exception of the Great Lakes states, it is one of the few states to have committed 

substantial research dollars to this problem. The Maryland Port Administration has 

invested significant funds to support ballast water treatment demonstration projects in 

the Chesapeake Bay. University of Maryland researchers are leading experts on ballast 

water treatment strategies with active testing programs based in the Chesapeake Bay. 

ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES

The Commission’s Preliminary Report contains much good advice with respect to the 

management of fisheries in U.S. waters in recommending that an ecosystem-based 

approach be developed and gradually implemented. Scientists and managers in the 

Chesapeake Bay region already have taken a leading role in developing ecosystem-based 

approaches for fisheries and many of the Oceans Commission’s recommendations are 

being considered with respect to fisheries and fisheries ecosystem plans. Furthermore, 

these efforts are on geographic scales appropriate to the resources, involving coordination 

of multi-state and federal-state jurisdictions. The Commission’s Report could be 

strengthened if it more fully considers the roles and responsibilities of the states for 

fishery resources that migrate across federal-state jurisdictional boundaries in the context 

of ecosystem-based management. Furthermore, ecosystem-based management requires 

that the state and federal agencies beyond those with primary responsibility for fisheries 

management (e.g., those responsible for water quality, and transportation) to become 

more meaningfully involved in the management process. 
Page 13 of 20 

To advance ecosystem-based management approaches, more scientific information, 

modeling and monitoring, as well as economic information, will be needed to support 

fisheries management. 

We support concepts being implemented by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act. The 

Chesapeake Bay is in many ways a microcosm of the U.S. coastal ocean, in the sense that 

virtually all of the problems addressed in the Commission Report are represented here. 

Scientists in the University of Maryland and in our Department of Natural Resources 

have spearheaded the development of a prototype Fisheries Ecosystem Plan, placing 

Maryland at the forefront of developing ecosystem-based requirements for sustainable 

fisheries management. It is important to note that the recommended approaches can be 

adopted and implemented incrementally rather than waiting until a complete picture is 

obtained, a point that the Commission’s Report should make more strongly. 

Maryland does not support the mandatory setting of the biological catch at or below the 

allowable biological catch assigned by the scientific and statistical committees (SSCs). 

Stock assessment data are often inadequate to be scientifically competent for setting 

catches. The SSC should not be in a position to order the Regional Fisheries 

Management Council (RFMC) or should the RFMC be put in a position to merely rubberstamp the SSC findings. This is not consistent with a holistic ecosystem approach to 

management that must consider the consequences to management decisions, for example, 

the reduction or redirection of fishery efforts. 

Maryland does not support the setting of deadlines for reports by the SSC with a default 

allowable catch decision by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS is the 

funding agency for the SSC’s and would be in a position to effect the default ruling when 

NMFS did not adequately provide a budget to the SSC’s for an adequate assessment and 

assignment of catch allowances. And again, suspension of all fishing should not be 

imposed when a fishery management plan (FMP) is not presented on schedule when 

NMFS funds the council staff that is charged with development of the FMP. 

The Commission appears to have made an assumption that the National Marine Fisheries 

Service has the capacity to better manage fisheries. This assumption has little basis in 

experience. Delegating more responsibilities to NMFS is likely to result in bottlenecks 

that further bog down the whole system for managing fisheries. 

The ‘dedicated access privileges’ recommended by the Commission can be beneficial to 

commercial fisheries, however careful consideration of the socio-economic consequences 

on a fishery-by-fishery basis are required rather than a blanket policy. Fees collected for 

such privileges should be dedicated to the management of the resource. 

The increased use of Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) in fisheries management as 

recommended by the Commission has clear enforcement value and provides information 

on how catches are distributed, but is more appropriate to some fisheries (e.g. where area 

closures or other spatial management approaches are emphasized) than others. VMSs are 

Maryland
Page 14 of 20 

simply one of the several management measures to be considered for each fishery or 

group of fisheries. 

PROTECTING MARINE MAMMALS AND ENDANGERED MARINE SPECIES 

Maryland has been cited as a national model for responding to marine strandings but that 

is not the full extent of the State's concern for endangered marine species. Although 

there is much discussion related to marine mammals, there is no mention of the need to 

advance conservation for other species particularly sea turtles. Turtles deserve the same 

attention in this report as marine mammals, particularly when it comes to securing stable 

funding for sea turtle research in each state. 

We believe that there are circumstances where there is justification for re-evaluating the 

federal preemption of state management in regards to local endangered species and 

marine mammal issues. 

SETTING A COURSE FOR SUSTAINABLE MARINE AQUACULTURE 

The State of Maryland agrees with the Ocean Commission’s conclusions that marine 

aquaculture must be pursued in a sustainable manner with regard to its impacts on the 

environment and other marine resources. We have some concerns, however, regarding 

the recommendation to designate NOAA as the lead agency for marine aquaculture 

(Recommendation 22-1). While this may be appropriate for offshore aquaculture, 

aquaculture of coastal and estuarine species is often regulated by state agricultural 

agencies in conjunction with natural resources and environmental agencies. Defining or 

establishing a specific delineation of authority among federal and state agencies is 

advisable to prevent conflict or overlap of regulations. 

Creating an Office of Sustainable Marine Aquaculture operating under the suggested 

guidelines and in coordination with USDA is an obvious initial step in fostering 

aquaculture development and could be effective in streamlining regulations if 

delineations of authority are clearly defined. The development of best management 

practices is a sound approach, but these must be adaptive to allow for innovative 

approaches to solving environmental issues. The establishment of federal guidelines for 

marine aquaculture in offshore environments could be useful to states in developing their 

own specific policies. The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries contains a 

comprehensive set of sound guidelines for aquaculture. U.S. marine aquaculturalists 

should adopt these as a minimum base of operating principles. 

Funding for marine aquaculture research and development is currently very limited and 

should be expanded. It should also be recognized that marine aquaculture will play an 

important role in ecosystem restoration and biotechnological products as well as food 

production. To ensure innovation and support for research and outreach efforts with the 

greatest economic potential, research priorities should be established by an official 
Page 15 of 20 

advisory committee with state and industry representation and the inclusion of restoration 

and biotechnology experts. 

Responsibly managing and conducting aquaculture requires more than technical expertise 

in raising fish and shellfish. Federal assistance for new aquaculture ventures should 

require these high risk ventures to have in place sound business practices such as business 

plans, access to insurance, and adequate long-term capital needs to ensure that the 

substantial work required on the part of state agencies to review and approve these types 

of ventures is not wasted due to poor business planning. 

CONNECTING THE OCEANS AND HUMAN HEALTH

The State of Maryland supports the recommendations of the Ocean Commission 

regarding the oceans and human health, in particular the expansion of competitively 

awarded research and development grants for research that lays the groundwork in the 

new fields of marine bio-products, bio-toxins, marine microbiology and virology. 

Improved methods and networks for monitoring natural waters will be particularly 

advantageous if they improve our ability to predict unhealthy conditions. Better 

predictive tools are needed and should be highlighted as an important research target 

under Recommendation 23-4. In addition to the need for improved methods for 

identifying and monitoring pathogens, chemical toxins and organisms in ocean waters as 

advocated in Recommendation 23-3, pollution from pharmaceuticals raises several 

threats: the extension of anti-microbial resistance in natural microbial populations, and 

the possibility of immunologic effects, endocrine disruption, and other toxicity in 

receptor species, including humans. Methods and programs to adequately monitor the 

presence of pharmaceuticals in commercial seafood should be recommended.

MANAGING OFFSHORE ENERGY AND OTHER MINERAL RESOURCES 

Maryland strongly supports dedicating outer continental shelf royalties for needed 

investments by states in meeting coastal management needs. Despite the increases in 

investments in coastal restoration and protection particularly with Maryland’s new fees to 

upgrade sewage treatment plants, the estimated funding needs to meet our Bay restoration 

objectives far surpass available funds. 

Maryland has just enacted the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard and Credit Trading 

Act that requires that a certain percentage of energy sold in Maryland be derived from 

renewable sources. This legislation includes ocean-based energy sources – tidal, current, 

and thermal – in defining eligible renewable sources. The legislation also includes windbased energy generation, which, as the Report indicates, could be sited at offshore 

locations. Streamlining the renewable permitting process could help Maryland more 

quickly realize the renewable standards set forth in the legislation, and do so at a lower 

cost to consumers. 

Maryland
Page 16 of 20 

The streamlining of permit processing for offshore renewable energy sources needs to 

give full consideration to other uses of offshore resources particularly the need to 

preserve sand resources where needed for future beach renourishment projects. In 

addition, full consideration of environmental impacts is needed such as those that may 

occur in avian flyways. The visual impacts of wind turbines on nearby communities also 

needs consideration such as when facilities are located within sight of tourist destinations 

such as Ocean City. 

A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR INCREASED SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE 

The State of Maryland endorses the development of a national strategy for increasing 

scientific knowledge that is directly applicable to improving coastal and ocean 

management. Given the seriousness of the problems of the coastal ocean environment 

around this nation and throughout the world, the magnitude of the challenge for 

sustainable management of ocean resources, and the lagging nature of federal 

investments in comparison with other fields of science, the proposed doubling of the 

federal ocean and coastal research budget over five years (Recommendation 25-1) is a 

reasonable goal. While these investments would support expanded basic research, ocean 

exploration, social science, and the Integrated Ocean Observing System, Maryland 

believes that new funding should be directed to the science and technology required to 

achieve science-based measures to use, safeguard, manage, and restore ocean and coastal 

resources. The State recommends that the Final Report include a focus on the science 

needed to support ecosystem-based management as an explicit criterion in its 

recommendation for a national ocean research strategy and a means to prioritize the 

allocation of resources (Recommendation 25-2). 

The State of Maryland also suggests that the critical and sustained investments in ocean 

research made by the states be made a more explicit part of the national research strategy. 

Maryland and other coastal states invest heavily in the marine science programs of their 

public universities. This has resulted in internationally prominent centers of excellence 

that contribute significantly to environmental and resource management. Where such 

significant expertise and physical research capacity already exists, the federal 

government should strengthen partnerships between federal agencies and state 

universities rather than attempting to duplicate the expertise within federal laboratories. 

In addition to biological and physical research, the Commission recognizes the 

importance of economic studies and social sciences to improving coastal and ocean 

management (Recommendation 25-3). The establishment of a national program for 

social science and economic research would have much value. The focus of the 

Commission appears to be on statistical analysis. In-depth policy analysis is also needed 

of the social and market drivers that affect coastal communities and resources. Effective 

policy analysis needs to incorporate multiple perspectives such as those of recreational 

fishers and boaters, the tourism industry, residential and commercial developers, lending 

institutions and tax advisers. 
Page 17 of 20 

ACHIEVING A SUSTAINED, INTEGRATED OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM

The Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy lays out a bold vision 

for stewardship of our ocean resources and for protecting human lives and property, by 

significantly improving forecasts of marine and terrestrial conditions over time scales 

ranging from short-term warnings to long-term effects of global climate change. Of 

particular interest to the State of Maryland is the strong call for implementation of the 

Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS; Chapter 26). As projected, this sustained, 

continuous system would provide a wealth of real-time forecasts and information 

products tailored to serve Maryland’s needs. These products would help guide shipping 

to Baltimore Harbor, aid port security, enable effective response to hazardous material 

spills, improve marine weather forecasts, support ecosystem-based management of 

fisheries, facilitate emergency management of storm surges, and track and guide the 

restoration of Chesapeake Bay’s water quality. 

Over a decade ago, the University of Maryland launched the Chesapeake Bay Observing 

System (CBOS). Soon after a program of monthly aircraft remote sensing flights 

commenced. NOAA’s Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS) was also 

initiated to help guide shipping to the ports of Baltimore, Hampton, and Norfolk and the 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources Eyes on the Bay program began to 

instrument docks and piers in Bay tributaries to track water quality. CBOS could not 

have been done without commitments to make substantial investments in infrastructure 

and operations, and without an integrated, cooperative effort from governmental (federal, 

state, and local), academic, and private-sector partners. This experience has also shown, 

through the success of coastal forecasting demonstration projects (under the auspices of 

the National Ocean Partnership Program), that such a coalition can produce forecast and 

analysis products which greatly enhance the ability to provide timely warnings and to 

adaptively manage marine resources. 

The time has arrived when observing systems can produce real-time information on the 

coastal ocean that is valued by a variety of constituencies. With the advent of IOOS, new 

regional associations can not only accelerate the development of these systems, but also 

accelerate the production and delivery of relevant information to the end users. For the 

State of Maryland, this means fully participating in the Mid-Atlantic regional association. 

Through this process, present State activities in the observing system arena will be 

enhanced by leveraging the combined activities in the larger domain of the entire Bay and 

adjacent continental shelf. 

As much as possible all dimensions of ecosystems need to be monitored. It should be 

noted that investments in observing systems should be a supplement not a substitute for 

continued investment in other monitoring approaches. The complexities of the 

environment cannot be simplified using broad scale monitoring systems without losing 

predictive capabilities. 

Maryland
Page 18 of 20 

It should also be noted that investment in monitoring needs to be balanced with the 

foremost priority of actually addressing problems. Though we have much to still learn 

about coastal and ocean ecosystems, there is much that can be done to address many of 

the problems that have been identified. Media accounts of Congress’s reaction to the 

Preliminary Report mention the high priority of some members to invest $1 billion in 

observing systems but no mention is made of the critical and immediate need to make onthe-ground improvements in the nation’s marine ecosystems and our ability to 

sustainably manage them. The Commission’s Final Report needs to urge Congress to 

strike an appropriate balance between investments in environmental assessment, 

planning, protection and restoration programs. 

OCEAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

The State of Maryland supports the recommendations of the Ocean Commission for 

enhancing ocean infrastructure and technology development. In particular, targeted 

support is required for the development of environmental sensors and advanced 

telecommunications needed for the full development of the Integrated Ocean Observing 

System. Maryland is well-placed to participate in advancing technology development as 

it is the home to the headquarters for the Alliance of Coastal Technologies, a 

collaboration among NOAA and eight research institutions, to advance the development, 

application and testing of new sensor technologies. 

As the Commission points out, greater federal investments are required for the 

modernization of critical assets. States, including Maryland, have invested heavily in the 

permanent infrastructure (research laboratory buildings) needed to support ocean 

research, but find it increasingly difficult to support the capital costs of rapidly evolving 

instrumentation. Federal investment is needed to support institutions in keeping up with 

instrumentation advancements. 

MODERNIZING OCEAN DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

The State of Maryland agrees with the recommendations of the Ocean Commission for 

modernizing the storage, management, distribution and analysis of overwhelming 

amounts of ocean and coastal data and information. Synthesis and interpretation of 

information for use in ecosystem-based management should be a central design 

requirement for the new systems and data centers that will be required. 

Throughout Chapters 25 & 28, the recommendations identify various federal agencies 

that need to be involved in the increased coordination and communication roles. 

Recommendation 28-2 would direct NOAA and the Navy to "establish a joint ocean and 

coastal information management and communications program to generate products 

relevant to national, state, and local needs." Yet there is no direct inclusion of those user 

communities in developing those programs or protocols. None of the recommendations 

address involving local partners — regional, state, county, municipal and tribal 
Page 19 of 20 

governments — who often are the ones making decisions using these data and analyses. 

Due to the fact that the agencies or sections collecting data are often not the ones using 

the data, Maryland has found that the issues and substantial expenses accompanying data 

processing and analysis are often given inadequate attention and that data is left unused 

or is much more expensive to develop due to the lack of consideration of the full range of 

users needs. Embarking on this new and much needed initiative without the direct 

involvement of all interested parties will not yield the success it might otherwise achieve. 

Regional, state, local, municipal and tribal governments should have the opportunity to 

be engaged in these efforts at the outset. 

Sound science and computer system development principles and practices dictate that any 

new project begin with an assessment of user needs. The best means of accomplishing 

this is to have all the users involved at the outset. Including all interested parties in the 

beginning of any effort has several real and tangible benefits: 

1. The resultant product — be it a system design or operation protocol — has the 

benefit of input from all the potential users of the system at the beginning of 

development. Modifications at later dates, often costly in time and money, can be 

avoided or minimized; 

2. With user buy-in, the system or protocol has a better chance of success with 

success being defined as utilization. In the terms of state and local governments, 

this means improved decision making based on access to needed data; and 

3. Federal agencies can demonstrate to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) that there has been local participation in their efforts at the outset rather 

than scrambling to find local support of programs designed without local input. 

FUNDING NEEDS AND POSSIBLE SOURCES 

It is encouraging to see the strong statement in the Preliminary Report that states cannot 

take on more unfunded federal mandates. For the many visionary activities and projects 

set forth herein, the Report provides a realistic funding mechanism in the Ocean Policy 

Trust Fund. From the OCS oil and gas leasing and development income, the funds 

identified will pay for the estimated costs of the report’s recommendations. This is a 

most unusual situation for a proposed federal activity, provided the funds are not tied to 

burdensome requirements that do not advance more efficient governance and enhanced 

local decision-making. It is also encouraging that the Commission has recommended 

distributing a portion of the OCS receipts to coastal states that do not have mineral 

activities off their shores. 

Previous revenue sharing proposals have proposed a two-tiered approach with producing 

states receiving a separate and larger portion of revenues under the first tier and all 

coastal states receiving a portion according to the allocation formula developed for state 

grants under the Coastal Zone Management Act. A third tier should be added to provide 

Maryland
Page 20 of 20 

additional funds to those states such as Maryland which serve as receiving and 

distribution points for energy facilities. 
Massachusetts

Massachusetts

Massachusetts

Massachusetts

Massachusetts

Michigan

Michigan

Michigan

Michigan

Michigan

Michigan

Minnesota

1

Minnesota’s Comments on the 

Preliminary Report of the 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

2004 

Minnesota applauds the work of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy in its Preliminary Report of April 

2004. The report draws attention to significant challenges we face and is a call to action. The report is very 

thorough and detailed while remaining well written and concise. We appreciate the work done by the 

Commission to pull together the diverse pieces that make up the federal ocean and Great Lakes policy 

picture. The vision for the Oceans and Great Lakes identified in Chapter 3: Setting the Nation’s Sights, as 

well as the guiding principles to reach that desired future are well articulated and on the mark. We agree with 

the vision and guiding principles and support actions to achieve that vision. 

As documented in the report, coastal, Great Lakes and ocean resources are national assets. The report clearly 

and correctly identifies the importance of managing complex natural resources such as the oceans and Great 

Lakes with an ecosystem focus. We support an increasing utilization of ecosystem-wide approaches to 

managing resources at the federal level. Minnesota has adopted such an approach through integrated resource 

management. This approach recognizes that partnerships and interdisciplinary cooperation are critical to 

achieving results, and acknowledges the interconnectedness of resource management targets. The economic 

and social benefits generated by the Duluth-Superior Harbor, the shipping and mining, recreational and 

commercial fishing industries, tourism along the North Shore of Lake Superior and in the City of Duluth, and 

our ability to ensure these benefits for future generations will depend on better understanding the impacts 

and interactions of our actions and taking actions now to support sustainable development and conservation 

of coastal, Great Lakes, and ocean resources. The true measure of our success will be how we improve the 

quality of life in coastal communities, ensure the nation’s long term economic and ecological well-being, and 

affect positive outcomes “on the ground” at the state and local level. Minnesota is committed to the 

following priorities: 

• Standardize and enhance the methods by which information is collected, recorded and shared within 

the Great Lakes region. 

• Stop the introduction and spread of non-native aquatic invasive species. 

• Enhance fish and wildlife by restoring and protecting habitats and coastal wetlands. 

• Control pollution from diffuse sources into water, land and air. 

• Promote programs to protect human health against adverse effects of pollution in the Great Lakes 

ecosystem. 

• Ensure the sustainable use of our water resources while confirming that the States retain authority over 

water use and diversions of Great Lakes waters. 

• Restore to environmental health the St. Louis River Area of Concern (AOC) as identified by the 

International Joint Commission as needing remediation. 

• Adopt sustainable use practices that can protect environmental resources and that may enhance the 

commercial and recreational value of our Great Lakes. (Council on Great Lakes Governors letter to 

Congress April 2004). 

 

We support the Commission’s recommendations that work is needed to better understand the relationship 

between coastal economies, communities and coastal resource protection. Efforts are needed to maintain 

and support an ongoing Coastal and Ocean Socioeconomic Assessment System, including a standardized 

national reporting system among states and across regions that enables us to measure the value of these 

resources to the nation including recreational, social and natural resources values, and the values of people 

Minnesota
2

and communities who rely on those resources. This will provide the information needed to make the most 

effective and efficient management and investments decisions. (Recommendation 25-3.) 

We support the call to dedicate funding for ‘on-the-ground’ action. There is a need to provide sustained and 

dedicated funding and establish incentives to address priority management issues identified at the state and 

regional level. Funding should include a fair return to states and territories of OCS revenues and other 

revenues generated from use of coastal and ocean resources to the states for conservation of coastal, Great 

Lakes, and ocean, fish and wildlife, historic and land and water resources, as well as for reduction of impacts 

from OCS development and other activities. (Recommendations 24-1 and 30-1.) In addition, in order to 

proactively and aggressively fulfill the state-related activities in the report, there should be a strong effort to 

minimize the state/local funding match requirement and to recognize the investment by states and local 

governments for existing programs that should qualify to meet match requirements. 

Minnesota strongly supports the need to maintain support for current programs and assess future needs. For 

example: 

(i) Dedicated funds should be in addition to the current level of support for coastal and ocean 

programs including, but not limited to, state fisheries, coastal zone and watershed management, water quality 

protection, and habitat and wildlife conservation and should seek to build on the successes of current state 

efforts. Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program (CZM), the Lake Superior Beaches Program, and a 

variety of other monitoring, research, and educational programs could benefit from this type of increased 

focus at the watershed level. However, while we support such an expansion, there should be a corresponding 

increase in the amount of funding made available to reflect this increase (sometimes substantial) in 

scope/size. 

(ii) The Administration should, as soon as possible, undertake a needs analysis of resources necessary 

to support state, regional and national coastal and ocean management goals, and coordinate Federal budget 

and program efforts to focus on achieving those goals most efficiently. (Recommendations 4.2, 7.2, and 

30.1.) 

(iii) While awaiting the needs assessment and Congressional action, the Administration and Congress 

should take action to assess the FY05 and FY06 budgets to provide increased support for key coastal, Great 

Lakes, and ocean management, research, monitoring and science programs to the extent possible given 

current budget constraints so that we can begin taking action under current authorities. 

Minnesota recommends that the report explicitly include the Great Lakes. We would like to see more explicit 

mention of the Great Lakes and the coastal and aquatic resources associated with the Great Lakes throughout 

the report. The Great Lakes are mentioned in a few places and it is implied that they are included in most of 

the findings and recommendations. However, it is likely that the Great Lakes will get overlooked as parts of 

the report get brought forward for legislative action unless the language more directly addresses the Great 

Lakes as a vital resource on par with other ocean and coastal resources. Adding the words “and Great Lakes” 

throughout the report where the terms “ocean” or “marine” are used would appropriately and explicitly place 

the Great Lakes along side the other aquatic resources addressed in the report. The Great Lakes should also 

be mentioned explicitly in the Executive Summary. Because of the importance of the Executive Summary, it 

is very important to emphasize here that the Great Lakes are a vital part of the coastal and aquatic systems 

that are addressed by the report. 

An example of this issue can be seen from the map inside the report’s front cover. The U.S. waters of the 

Great Lakes should be shown in dark blue, similar to the waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 

Otherwise, the reader gets the impression right from the beginning of the report that the report excludes the 

Great Lakes. It is gratifying to see the text regarding the Great Lakes as the “Fourth Seacoast.” The message 

it conveys should be integrated more fully into the text of the report rather than isolated in a text box on its 

own and separate from the body of the report in its own box. 
3

As noted throughout the Report, “the federal government is only one actor - and often not the important 

actor – at regional, state, and local levels.” While Minnesota supports increased integration at the federal 

level, the report should be amended to clarify throughout that a primary objective of these efforts is 

facilitation and support for implementation of coastal, Great Lakes, and ocean management plans and 

strategies developed at the local, state and regional level consistent with national goals. Improved 

government efficiency and responsiveness to state and public concerns can benefit from the integration of 

the myriad of federal coastal, Great Lakes, and ocean program efforts to improve support for ecosystem 

management and sustainable development “on-the-ground.” 

To this end, Minnesota supports the following key recommendations in the report: 

1. Increase federal agency coordination around the goal of ecosystem-based management: By Executive 

Order, direct all federal agencies to begin implementation of an integrated National Coastal and 

Ocean Policy that (i) incorporates ecosystem-based management approach to the extent possible 

under current law; (ii) promotes partnership with the states reflecting shared public trust and 

economic interests; (iii) improves regional coordination; (iv) supports ecologically sustainable use, 

incorporating a precautionary approach, and; (v) coordinates research, mapping, assessment and 

monitoring of coastal, Great Lakes, and ocean resources to support adaptive management and 

increased public understanding. (Recommendations 4-1 to 4-3, 4-11, 5-2, 5-3, 15-2; and 28-2.) 

2. Establish a lead agency and clear lines of responsibility for coordination with states: Pending 

Congressional action, the Administration should designate the National Oceanic Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) as the lead agency to work with the Minerals Management Service, the US 

Army Corps of Engineers, other federal agencies and the states to coordinate review of current and 

foreseeable uses of federal waters. The review should ensure full consideration of the public interest 

and ecosystem-based management principles, as well as the coordination of research, assessment and 

monitoring of offshore activities. Any new offshore management regime for the EEZ should be 

consolidated within the lead agency, geographical linked to ecosystems and avoid single purpose 

governance structures that would create new stovepipes. It is important that the offshore 

management regime includes mechanisms for consultation with the states and seeks their review and 

consent for proposed actions or activities, including consistency under the Coastal Zone 

Management Act. (Recommendations 6-1 and 6-2.) 

3. Avoid new bureaucracy and encourage innovation at the regional and state level: 

i. Recommendations for the establishment of National and Regional Ocean Councils (NOC and 

ROC) should be amended to include a requirement that Governors be included as principals 

on the Councils, not simply as members of advisory committees. (Recommendations 4-1 to 4-

3, 4-10, and 6-2.) In establishing a NOC, it should be clear that it is not another level of 

bureaucracy. The NOC should focus on its core responsibilities to “provide high level 

attention to ocean, Great Lakes, and coastal issues, develop and guide implementation of 

appropriate policies, and coordinate...” federal agencies. The recommendations should be 

amended throughout to clarify that appropriate lead agency or agencies with statutory 

responsibility is vested with necessary authority (and resources) to implement their programs, 

in consultation with other agencies and coordination with NOC. (Recommendation 11-2, 11-4. 

6-3, 24-5, and. 25-5.) 

ii. Clarify that proposed ROCs be flexible, build upon current efforts, and do not conflict with 

Fisheries Management Councils and State Commissions or other existing regional efforts such 

as the Great Lakes Commission and the Council of Great Lakes Governors. The principle 

role of the ROCs is to bring the collective resources and expertise of the federal agencies 

together with states and stakeholders to address significant issues that are identified at the 

state, local and regional level (Recommendations 4-11, 5-1 and 6-4,) not only issues identified 

by federal agencies at the national level. (Recommendation 4-2.) Links to the regional 

information programs should be clarified and strengthened. (See discussion below.) 

Minnesota
4

4. Minnesota sees a need for additional support for major regional initiatives. The report should be 

amended to recognize that there are numerous regional restoration and conservation initiatives at a 

variety of scales such as Great Lakes Restoration that will require significantly more resources than 

identified in this report. The NOC and ROC’s should be given the responsibility of working with 

the states to assess these additional needs and work with federal agencies, states, private sector and 

non-governmental organizations to identify funding sources and innovative financing for these 

regional and placed-based management initiatives. 

We support the implementation of Adaptive, Ecosystem-Based Management. The report stresses throughout 

that there is a need for integration of watershed, coastal, Great Lakes, and ocean management that reaches 

from the hilltops to the seas and is capable of addressing problems at the ecosystem scale, and supports 

increased support for coastal zone management, watershed protection programs, land conservation and 

restoration. It also recognizes that in order to do this successfully we need a much better understanding of 

the coastal and ocean resources and the consequences of our actions on those resources. The report also 

recommends doubling the nation’s investment in research and science and establishing an Integrated Ocean 

Observing System. As noted in the Report however, many development and land use decisions that can have 

the greatest impact on coastal, Great Lakes, and marine ecosystems are made at the local level; therefore, it is 

essential that support be provided for information and tools for states to use to assist in community planning 

efforts that will assist them in addressing broader ecosystem and regional objectives. In addition, current 

federal infrastructure programs, funding, and development incentives are often inconsistent with state coastal 

and growth management plans. As a result, the impacts of these projects in many cases can overwhelm local 

coastal and watershed planning efforts. 

Within the report there are several key recommendations relating to ecosystem-based management that we 

support, including the following: 

1. Increase support for integrated coastal, watershed and shoreline management. As recommended in 

Parts IV and V of the Report, we agree that it is important that coastal management and watershed 

management programs should be strengthened and better integrated with enhanced EPA point and 

nonpoint pollution control programs, particularly efforts to reduce nutrient loading in coastal waters. 

(i) Minnesota strongly supports the recommendation for reauthorization of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA), particularly the call for coastal resources assessments and 

increased incentives for state and community support for land conservation grants, as well as 

grants to be provided for coastal restoration, modeled on the Great Lakes restoration grants 

program, and increased funding for states to address community assistance on a watershed 

basis focused on hazards, land use, and growth management (Recommendations 9-1, 9-4, 

10-3, 11-1, 11-2, 14-2.) 

(ii) Pending reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, it is important that funding continue to be 

provided for grants to states to implement coastal nonpoint pollution control programs, and 

that NOAA, EPA and the states continue to work cooperatively to increase effectiveness 

and increase focus on efforts to reduce coastal nonpoint pollution to assure prevention of 

degradation, as well as restoration of impaired watersheds (Recommendations 14-8 and 14-

10.) We support the existing structure of keeping the Section 6217 Coastal Nonpoint 

Program within NOAA and encourage additional funding and support for the program’s 

coordinating efforts with the state’s Section 319 program. We do not support merging of 

the Section 6217 program into the Section 319 program. 

(iii) Specific programs to protect coastal resources from emerging threats such as aquatic 

invasive species, air deposition, and vessel pollution should also be reauthorized and 

strengthened and deserve more support. (Recommendations in chapters 14, 16, and 17.) 

The Administration and Congress should work with states to include appropriate 

recommendations in reauthorization of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act and other 
5

relevant pending legislation to support state and regional plans and support implementation 

of local action strategies. 

(iv) Minnesota supports the development of an integrated National Coastal Hazards and 

Shoreline Management Strategy among the Corps, FEMA, NOAA, NRCS and other 

appropriate agencies that would be designed to improve management of sediments, dredged 

material and erosion, and to reduce risk from coastal hazards. Among the issues it should 

provide for a uniform definition of shoreline and a commitment to mapping of the 

nearshore and coastal floodplains; regional sediment and dredged material management on a 

systemwide basis; enhancement of the storm protection and recreational benefits of beaches 

and wetlands as well as other natural features; and reduction of incentives for development 

in high hazard areas and increased assistance for hazard mitigation plans and relocation of 

at-risk property (Recommendations 10-1 to 10-4, and 12-1 to 12-5.) 

2. Increase federal commitment to make data and information readily available to managers at the 

proper scale, and to support technical assistance and stronger links between the management and 

science communities. The state strongly supports the call for regional information programs to 

conduct regional ecosystem assessments based on state coastal assessments (see above), research and 

outreach plans, and links with integrated observing systems. We particularly support the 

recommendation that regional programs include state representatives, an enhanced role for Sea 

Grant, as well as inclusion of other marine and Great Lakes labs, academic and nongovernmental and 

private sector institutions, and “ensure that product development, dissemination, and user feedback” 

be integral components...” of the program. (Recommendations 5-3 to 5-5.) A specific mechanism 

should be provided to assure regular feedback from and surveys of state managers and other user 

group’s needs. (Recommendations 23-1 to 23-3.) These requirement should be included as an 

essential element of all the science and research recommendations of the report and the regional 

programs should be integrated with other science and research strategies, including the coastal water 

quality monitoring network (Recommendations 15-2 to 15-4), assessment mapping and charting 

activities, including an explicit commitment to map the near shore and coastal zone 

(Recommendation 25-5), and Integrated Ocean Observing Systems (Recommendations 28-1 to 28-

2.) 

3. There is a need to assure consistency of federal infrastructure investment with ecosystem-based and 

state growth management plans. As previously noted, the new efforts to increase focus on 

ecosystem-based management will not be successful unless existing federal infrastructure and 

incentive programs are held accountable to ecosystem plans and are consistent with enhanced state 

coastal, watershed ocean and growth management plans. We support the recommendations in the 

report in this regard, including the following: 

(i) Recommendation 14-7, which directs USDA to better align its conservation programs to 

reduce nonpoint source programs, Minnesota supports this recommendation and its intent 

to assure that those funds are used efficiently to provide important incentive to the 

agricultural community; 

(ii) Recommendation 10-3 that proposes reducing incentives for building in high hazards zones; 

(iii) Recommendation 9-3 which recommends development of guidance to discourage federal 

funding and infrastructure programs in fragile or hazard prone areas and ensure consistency 

with state, regional and national sustainable development goals; and 

(iv) Recommendation 5-4 that calls for amendments to NEPA guidelines to require that 

environmental impact statements take into account regional ecosystem assessments to both 

provide an incentive for development of plans and provide increased project accountability 

to ecosystem concerns. 

In addition, we have the following detailed comments: 

1. The Commission recommends the development and use of regional structures and approaches for 

integrating and implementing management of Ocean and Great Lakes resources. We agree that regional 

Minnesota
6

approaches will be critically important for implementing the recommendations in this report. It is 

essential, however, that these regional approaches and organizations are developed in close coordination 

with and with extensive input from state resource management agencies, and build on work that has 

already been done to address resource management challenges within and across political jurisdictions. 

For example, 

a. National and regional goals for habitat conservation and restoration should be developed based on 

the goals already identified in the states’ Coastal Programs and, for the Great Lakes, in the Lakewide 

Management Plans developed for each of the Great Lakes with state, federal, tribal and Canadian 

partners. 

b. Likewise, coastal states are in the process of developing Coastal and Estuary Land Conservation 

Plans (CELCP) based, in part, on these on-going efforts. Funding made available to support 

acquisition from the CELCP program should be targeted to support the state priorities identified 

through the development of these plans. 

c. Coastal resource inventories and assessments, identified in Chapter 11, should also build upon the 

work being done at the state level. In Minnesota, the Minnesota County Biological Survey is nearing 

completion of a comprehensive, systematic survey of natural plant communities on the coast of Lake 

Superior. Coordinated federal efforts and funds should be directed at supplementing these and 

similar efforts as well as integrating them into federal decision-making processes. 

d. Regional structures and organizations need to be crafted carefully to ensure that within region 

differences are accounted for and addressed. For example, on page 156, Figure 14.1 illustrates a 

report card for regional coastal conditions. Overall Great Lakes water quality is described as “poor” 

despite the fact that water quality in Lake Superior, the largest of the Great Lakes has water quality 

conditions that are significantly better than other parts of the region. 

2. Recommendation 11-4 calls for a major overhaul in federal wetlands law and oversight. Given the lack 

of detail presented in the report regarding specific changes that need to be made, a more appropriate 

recommendation would be to call for a national assessment of existing wetland regulations and an 

evaluation of those programs to develop an action plan designed to develop specific recommendations to 

protect and restore wetland habitats by federal agencies. 

3. The Great Lakes states and several federal agencies have initiated a wide-ranging and aggressive approach 

to managing aquatic nuisance species. We are concerned that an overhaul of the existing program might 

cause delays and divert resources away from implementation of necessary actions to prevent the 

introduction and spread of exotic species. Any new structures implemented in this arena should be 

carefully crafted to improve coordination and reduce the fragmentation of management rather than 

increasing them. In this as well as other issues, improvements in coordination at the federal level should 

result in recognizing effective, on-going programs and assisting them through providing additional 

resources and facilitation and should avoid causing disruption to these on-going efforts. 

4. Fisheries management councils, established through Congress exist elsewhere, but not in the Great Lakes. 

There needs to be a discussion of how the recommendations related to these councils will apply and be 

implemented in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission has a history of integrating 

resource management issues across political jurisdictions. It is not equivalent to a Fishery Management 

Council in a legal sense. The report should address, in greater detail, the differences between these 

structures and how those differences might affect implementation. (Chapter 19) 

5. Sport fishing was not thoroughly addressed in the report. It is a major issue for resource management 

and economic sustainability. We feel that it should be addressed in the report. 

6. We support Recommendation 24-1 and the use of OCS revenue for conservation of coastal resources. 

The discussion on funding activities through Outer Continental Shelf revenue needs to more strongly 

ensure that coastal states that do not generate OCS revenue, including the Great Lakes, are not left out of 

the picture simply because they do not generate OCS revenue. The distribution of money generated 

from OCS activities should be evaluated to ensure that it is based on resource management priorities and 

needs rather than on factors based solely on its source. There is a need to ensure that the generation of 

OCS based revenue does not become an incentive to over-develop those resources in a way that is 

counterproductive to the protection of coastal resources. 
7

7. The report suggests establishing NOAA as the overarching, coordinating agency for policy in the Great 

Lakes. This should be approached with caution. NOAA does not have the same degree of history, 

regulatory oversight, and management authority here as perhaps it does in other areas. There is a long 

history of high-level involvement from other agencies with more direct regulatory and management roles 

in the Great Lakes. Because of this, we think that it is particularly important that NOAA create a 

regional, Great Lakes presence through the development of offices in the western and eastern ends of the 

Great Lakes Basin. 

8. There should be a process identified for a 3 – 5 year review of progress and implementation of the 

recommendations in the report. 

9. The Great Lakes typically does not get an equitable share of federal research money from sources such as 

NSF. Research and monitoring efforts should seek to resolve this inequity. 

10. The report proposes to expand the number of Centers for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence 

(COSEE) – recommendation 8-5. There are currently no COSEE’s located in the Great Lakes region. 

Minnesota recommends that this expansion include a Western Great Lakes Regional COSEE. This 

would be appropriate given the relationship between the Great Lakes watershed and the water that drains 

to the Atlantic Ocean. This would provide an opportunity to strengthen understanding of the 

relationship of watersheds and their impact on ocean and marine coast conditions. Additionally, with the 

headwaters of the Mississippi River in Minnesota, there would be an opportunity to provide linkages with 

the watersheds of the middle of the continent to the Gulf of Mexico. 

11. The State of Minnesota appreciates the awareness and supports the position that no new mandates 

should be placed on states, and that in many cases, the role of the federal government can best be 

enhanced by supporting state efforts through additional funding and coordination of programs. 

12. An important feature of any program to bring ocean education to the classroom should be the expansion 

of “remote-access technologies.” Federally supported programs should provide these opportunities to 

Minnesota students. 

13. Great Lakes management needs to recognize the importance of working cooperatively with Canada and 

our vision, principles, structures and policies should be developed cooperatively with them in a way that 

helps accomplish shared goals. 

14. Minnesota appreciates and supports the report’s reaffirmation of the need for greater communication 

between the federal and state levels of government especially regarding OCS revenue and coastal states 

management needs. 

15. Appendix C – Living Near...and Making a Living From...the Nation’s Coasts and Oceans – Points out 

the need for more research on the socio-economic factors influencing coastal and ocean use. We agree 

that despite the importance of coastal communities to the nation’s economy, funding for economic 

research is significantly less than that spent on the agricultural industry as an example. The report 

includes Great Lakes census data in its conclusions and makes several direct observations about the 

region, such as the relative slight increase in population but the large increase in housing in Great Lakes 

coastal areas. The report also makes mention of the increase in the importance of tourism and services in 

coastal economies, something especially true along Minnesota’s North Shore. We support the need for 

more research related to this vital sector of our economy. 

16. Recommendation 9-1 shifts the focus of the coastal programs to one of record keeping. Conducting 

meaningful work is replaced by additional bureaucratic requirements. The recommendation also removes 

the flexibility built into the Coastal Zone Management Act for states to determine their own coastal 

boundary by the requirement to use a watershed approach. We do support the watershed concept. 

However, adopting a watershed boundary would increase the area within the coastal program from 

741,916 to 3,936,294 acres (1159 to 6148 square miles), a 530% increase in area. This would necessitate a 

substantial increase in the funding for the program even assuming that no other increased program 

requirements were adopted. Without increased funding, the effect of adopting a watershed boundary 

would be to substantially dilute the ability of the program to achieve its resource management goals. We 

would support a watershed approach if adequate funding is provided, and the approach gives the states 

flexibility, within a watershed concept, to determine their boundaries as resources are available. 

Minnesota
8

a. This recommendation places additional burdens on the state coastal program in the form of 

additional reviews, audits, and reports – implementation of a recommendation that includes the 

entire great lakes watershed must be accompanied by a substantial increase in funding to both the 

state program and NOAA to administer these additional burdens. 

b. Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program distributes the majority of its federal grant (~75%) to 

local organizations in the form of grants. This money goes to fund selected projects dedicated to the 

mission of the CZMA – preserve, protect and enhance. Recommendation 9-1 will reduce the amount 

of funds available for these projects by requiring greater amounts to be spent on proving compliance 

with government standards. 

c. The use of disincentives creates a spiral of inaction. Funding is already tight. Removing funding for 

poor performance that may be attributed to under-funding is a recipe for failure. 

d. We do support the development of measurable outcomes and performance measures but need to be 

assured that the flexibility of the program is maintained and that there is not an increase in the 

burden of record keeping. 

17. The report underscores the obstacles we face in operating our coastal program. We concur with the list 

of issues identified in the section on multi-layered decision-making on page 109. In particular, the lack of 

shared values consistent with program objectives, or the lack of political will to implement actions 

designed to reach those goals, particularly in small coastal communities, may limit the ability of the 

coastal program to achieve its goals. 

18. We support Recommendation 9-2 to consolidate the other area-based coastal management programs 

with those of NOAA. 

19. Recommendation 14-9 suggests the merger of the Coastal Non-point program with section 319 of the 

Clean Water Act. This merger is not supported by Minnesota for a variety of reasons. This action may 

result in a duplication of administrative functions and may undermine the availability of statewide Section 

319 funds for addressing specific coastal issues. If the programs were merged the funds would be subject 

to the stringent standards that currently make it difficult to meet program goals. The restrictions on funds 

available for monitoring, administration and a burdensome match requirement results in a challenge to 

implementing the existing 319 program. 

20. Minnesota appreciates the Commission’s recognition that the meaningful changes proposed in the report 

will require meaningful investment. In order for states to be full participants and fulfill the broad 

comprehensive changes proposed in the report, there must be a substantial financial investment in each 

of the coastal states. The report works to portray that fact. Funding issues that are critical to Minnesota, 

include: 

a. We would like more explicit mention of the principle that funding should be considered an 

augmentation of existing baseline program funding and should not be used to replace or supplant 

current federal funding of state programs. This principle is mentioned in a couple areas of the 

report, but only implied in others. 

b. In order to proactively and aggressively fulfill the state-related activities in the report, there should be 

an effort to minimize, to the extent practical, the state/local funding match requirement. State and 

local governments have seen significant funding reductions over the past several years. Therefore, 

where a sizable match is required, it can significantly impede the ability of many states to use their 

allocation of funds. This is especially true in many coastal states, including Minnesota, where the 

coastal area represents a small fraction of the geographic area of the state and there is a broad range 

of competing statewide demands for diminishing and limited funds for new state initiatives. 

c. Funds should be provided directly to the states via a baseline grant program that provides flexibility 

for state variability based on on-going identified needs. At times, states are in more need of funding 

for staff in order to develop, design, administer, and manage necessary programs and projects 

(especially during program start-up or enhancement) and, at other times, we are in more need of 

funds to pay for the contractors or services required to complete projects or program activities. 

However, federal grants oftentimes are made available to states for project implementation costs only 

and not for the staff necessary to develop, design, administer, and manage the projects. In these 

cases, we don’t have the staff necessary to even apply for or utilize the funding that is being made 
9

available to us. Therefore, both the required staff and project implementation resources should be 

defined as eligible costs under the grant program. The actual amount and uses of the funds can be 

negotiated and defined in a work plan from grant-period-to-grant-period based on a current needs 

assessment for each state. In return for more flexibility, the states could provide mid- and end-ofgrant reports summarizing their activities based upon the agreed upon work plan and the use of grant 

resources. 

21. Watershed and Ecosystem Based Programs. Minnesota supports the increased utilization of watershed 

and ecosystem based management approaches in current federal programs and activities. Many of the 

current coastal-related programs do not cover the entire watersheds that drain into and affect the 

resource, but rather a much smaller boundary closer to the coast. Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal 

Program, the Lake Superior Beaches Program, and a variety of other monitoring, research, and 

educational programs could benefit from this type of increased focus at the watershed level. However, 

while we support such an expansion, there should be a corresponding increase in the amount of funding 

made available to reflect this increase (sometimes substantial) in scope/size. 

These comments were prepared with the help of staff from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Sea Grant. Questions and requests for clarification 

should be directed to the following persons: 

Kent Lokkesmoe, Director 

Division of Waters 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

500 Lafayette Rd 

St. Paul, MN 55155 

(651) 296-4810 

kent.lokkesmoe@dnr.state.mn.us

Lisa Thorvig, Assistant Director 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

520 Lafayette Rd 

St. Paul, MN 55155 

(651) 296-7305 

lisa.thorvig@state.mn.us 

Pat Carey 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

525 Lake Ave. S., Suite 400 

Duluth, MN 55802 

(218) 723-4660 

pat.carey@state.mn.us

Tricia Ryan 

Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

1568 Hwy 2 

Two Harbors, MN 55616 

(218) 834-6625 

tricia.ryan@dnr.state.mn.us

Minnesota

Mississippi

Mississippi

Nevada

New Jersey

New Jersey

New York

New York

New York

New York

New York

New York

New York

New York

New York

New York

New York

New York

New York

New York

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

20301 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 

RALEIGH, NC 27699-0301

MICHAEL F. EASLEY 

GOVERNOR 

June 4, 2004 

Admiral James D. Watkins USN (Ret.), Chairman 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

1120 20th Street, NW 

Suite 200 North 

Washington, DC 20036 

Dear Admiral Watkins: 

I am pleased to submit the following comments on behalf of the state of North Carolina 

in response to the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Our state has 

long been a leader in comprehensive coastal and fisheries policy. We are committed to 

protecting our coastal and ocean resources as an integral part of North Carolina’s economy and 

culture. The preliminary report underscores the seriousness of the problems facing our oceans, 

and we are supportive of many of the recommendations calling for swift and focused efforts to 

address these problems. We applaud the commission’s finding that major changes in U.S. ocean 

and coastal policies are needed and that reform needs to start now. It is within this context that 

North Carolina offers the following comments. 

Reauthorization of CZMA 

As a state that has participated in the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 

program since 1974, we are particularly interested in the reauthorization of the CZMA 

(Recommendation 9-1). North Carolina’s coastal counties have seen unprecedented growth over 

the past 20 years. While we have increased the scope of our CZMA programs within the state, 

federal funding has remained stagnant for 10 years. After factoring in inflation, we have actually 

experienced a reduction in federal dollars for our program. This makes it increasingly difficult 

for our state to expand on the goals of the national program, implement new initiatives and 

effectively manage the coastal area as envisioned by the CZMA. 

The CZMA should be reauthorized without delay and with adequate funding to achieve 

the goals of the Act. North Carolina strongly opposes any amendments to CZMA that weaken 

the federal consistency provisions or the federal-state partnership. We recognize that revisions to 

the CZMA may be necessary to provide a more efficient and predictable consistency process, but 

these revisions must not undermine the ability of states to manage and protect coastal resources. 

The reauthorization amendments should also maintain a focus on federal-state partnerships, 

while retaining the states’ flexibility to implement programs in a manner that recognizes unique 

ecological, geographical and political circumstances. 

North Carolina
Admiral Watkins 

Page 2 

June 4, 2004 

North Carolina supports the development of measurable goals and improved program 

evaluations and agrees with the language calling for a more performance-based management 

approach (Recommendation 9-1). However, this recommendation should acknowledge the 

increased costs associated with performance-based management. Consequently, adequate 

funding and incentives for good performance should be closely linked with this recommendation. 

Regional Efforts

North Carolina supports the establishment of a National Ocean Council and Regional 

Ocean Councils (Recommendations 4-1 and 4-10). A National Ocean Council could best serve 

as an administrative body ensuring integration of national ocean policies by federal agencies and 

the regional councils. The National Ocean Council should not serve as policy-making body nor 

as a body charged with setting priorities for the regional councils. Rather, these priorities should 

be set at the regional level in coordination with the states. 

Coastal Water Pollution 

North Carolina is strongly supportive of those recommendations addressing coastal water 

pollution. Polluted runoff, including stormwater, is the leading cause of North Carolina’s water 

quality problems and is responsible for a significant portion of coastal water quality problems. 

Our state is focused on reducing runoff pollution through a comprehensive approach to 

stormwater management as outlined in Recommendation 14-12. 

Recommendation 14-11 suggests that local governments require land use planning to 

consider the cumulative impacts of development on water quality. Our state’s Coastal Area 

Management Act (CAMA) Land Use Planning Program currently requires local governments to 

make connections between land use and water quality problems. Additional funding would 

assist local governments with implementation of land use planning policies to address those 

connections and problems. This recommendation should include additional financial support for 

the land use planning component of the CZMA. 

North Carolina supports watershed collaboration (Recommendation 14-13) as a way to 

address problems associated with nonpoint source pollution. For example, North Carolina has 

seen a significant positive impact from the collaboration made possible through the AlbemarlePamlico National Estuary Program (APNEP). Stakeholders in this watershed work together to 

identify problems in the region, develop specific actions to address those problems, and create 

and implement a formal management plan to restore and protect the estuary. We strongly 

encourage the expansion of such collaborative efforts with sufficient federal funding. As the 

report indicates, the lack of federal funding and assistance has become a constraint on the 

effectiveness of the National Estuary Program. 

Fisheries 

North Carolina strongly supports the report’s guiding principle of implementing an 

ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, and those recommendations that further this 
Admiral Watkins 

Page 3 

June 4, 2004 

approach. North Carolina also supports the emphasis placed on Marine Protected Areas (MPA) 

as a tool for ecosystem-based management. MPAs have proven effective at maintaining 

biodiversity, protecting habitat and advancing sustainable fishery management. Specifically, we 

support the identification of the Regional Ocean Councils as the lead in designing and 

implementing MPAs in federal waters (Recommendation 6-4). MPAs should be located in areas 

where they can be enforced and monitored and the expected benefits of MPAs should be 

measurable before locations are selected. 

North Carolina endorses the commission’s support for federal initiatives that partner with 

states in a number of areas, such as improving data collection, identifying critical data needs and 

enforcement. 

Stewardship and Conservation 

North Carolina supports sufficient funding for the Coastal and Estuarine Land 

Conservation Program (CELCP) as called for in Recommendation 11-1. Our state is in the 

process of developing plans for its 20 coastal counties through One North Carolina Naturally and 

the development of a statewide conservation plan. Additionally, the North Carolina Coastal 

Habitat Protection Plans call for the conservation of lands and habitats critical to the maintenance 

of fisheries. Increased funding for CELCP will advance these efforts that are currently under 

way at the state level. 

A dedicated fund is also needed to support research and conservation efforts for states to 

assess the environmental impacts of proposed or ongoing development of ocean resources, 

particularly oil and gas. Consequently, North Carolina supports Recommendation 24-1. We do 

suggest that coastal states should have more input and control in the federal Outer Continental 

Shelf leasing program. In addition, funds should be made available for regional studies on the 

effects of oil and gas exploration activities, including environmental and socioeconomic impact 

studies on coastal areas. 

Science and Education 

North Carolina strongly supports the commission’s call for strengthened ocean science 

funding and enhanced ocean education. Lack of adequate federal funding is impeding efforts by 

researchers, educators and resource managers to understand the complex interrelationships of our 

coastal and marine resources and to develop better management strategies. Improved policy and 

information systems are valuable only if the public and elected leaders are able to understand and 

utilize them. 

North Carolina has a long tradition of excellence in the marine sciences, with several of 

our universities leading the way in the development and management of state and local level 

programs. Graduate training is critical to preparing teachers and leaders to understand ocean 

issues and to providing manpower to support broader educational activities, but sustained 

graduate student support is increasingly difficult to maintain as available research funding 

North Carolina
Admiral Watkins 

Page 4 

June 4, 2004 

decreases. Recommendations 8-13 and 8-14 propose positive steps for addressing existing 

funding shortfalls. 

 

North Carolina also supports the commission’s efforts to tie educational activities to 

many of the existing and planned operational programs in an effort to integrate marine sciences 

into the main stream of K-12, undergraduate and graduate science studies. North Carolina 

strongly endorses the recommendations in the report focused on science education funding and 

program support and agrees with those recommendations calling on Congress to significantly 

expand its investment in research in this area. 

In conclusion, we commend the commission’s work. North Carolina appreciates the 

opportunity to provide comments on the report, and we look forward to working to implement 

many of the policy actions detailed in the report. 

 With best regards, I remain 

 Very truly yours, 

Michael F. Easley 

MFE: sw 
Ohio

Ohio

Ohio

Ohio

Ohio

Oregon

Oregon

Oregon

Oregon

Oregon

Oregon

Oregon

Oregon

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Rhode Island
Governor Donald L. Carcieri June 4, 2004 

State of Rhode Island Comments on 

U. S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report 

 1

New Policy Directions and Governance Frameworks 

Overview

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy report takes note of the slow pace of progress on coastal 

and ocean protection, restoration, information systems and research which it sees as a result, to 

some extent, of disconnected and/or overlapping agency and program purviews and a lack of 

communication and coordination among similar coastal and ocean programs and initiatives. It 

recommends actions that amend current legislation or agency practice and also proposes that a 

new ocean and coastal decision-making framework be put into place. Rhode Island comments 

point to existing federal policies in pollution control and living resources management that 

hinder the states’ ability to manage effectively. The Commissioners’ comments support 

recommendations that target priority issues identified through the R.I. Governor’s Bay & 

Watershed Planning Commission process such as nutrient reductions, managing nonpoint source 

pollution, fisheries management, impacts of growth/development and the need for coordinated, 

collaborative action at both the federal and state level. The need to adapt an ecosystem-based 

management paradigm and to support and sustain watershed-based initiatives at both the federal 

and state level is a common theme in Rhode Island comments. There is also expressed in the 

comments a concern about how and why new management frameworks would be developed and 

that, along with consideration of building new frameworks, the U.S. Commission on Ocean 

Policy, the federal government and the states examine ways in which the current framework can 

be improved and made more effective, making it possible to retain processes and programs that 

work well in their current forms and institutional settings. 

Specific Recommendations

Reauthorize or revise federal legislation such as the Coastal Zone Management Act and the 

Clean Water Act 

 Incorporate a watershed-based focus into federal programs and legislation; 

 Provide financial, technical, and institutional support for watershed initiatives; 

 Address the cumulative impacts of growth and development on coastal and ocean 

systems. 

Improve the operations and planning of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, other federal 

agencies, and states 

 Ensure that the selection of least-cost disposal options reflect a more accurate accounting 

of environment and economic costs and benefits with special consideration of beneficial 

reuse of dredged material, and; 

 Develop disposal options using a better system of rating and prioritizing projects based 

on net economic and environmental return that is more comprehensive and accurate than 

current cost-benefit analysis practices. 
Governor Donald L. Carcieri June 4, 2004 

State of Rhode Island Comments on 

U. S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report 

 2

Strengthen water quality improvement strategies 

 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states should require advanced 

nutrient removal for wastewater treatment plant discharges into nutrient-impaired waters 

after Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) or other appropriate analyses to determine 

acceptable nutrient limits are completed; 

 Development of a prioritized plan for replacing or repairing aging wastewater and 

drinking water infrastructure. 

 Establish more effective mechanisms to address mercury deposition and its public health 

impacts including from fish consumption. 

Revise federal and state policies that support water quality 

 Increased enforcement of existing policies, laws and ordinances to protect ocean and 

coastal resources; 

 Modernized permitting information and tracking systems; 

 Development of regional mechanisms to address atmospheric deposition. 

Increase effectiveness in addressing nonpoint source pollution through: 

 Establishment of national nonpoint source pollution goals and objectives that will result 

in significant pollution reduction in impaired watersheds, focused on meeting human 

health-related and ecosystem-based water quality standards; 

 Ensuring that stormwater management programs are based on comprehensive, ecosystem 

approaches that include accurate assessments, best management practices, monitoring, 

public education, sufficient resources (financial and technical assistance) and an adaptive 

management approach. 

Increase federal and state support for and effectiveness of watershed-based initiatives 

 Building the capacity of watershed efforts to address pollution, habitat and growth issues 

by providing technical, financial and institutional assistance; 

Limit vessel pollution and improve boating safety 

 The U.S. Coast Guard developing a comprehensive policy guidance and contingency 

plans for places of refuge for vessels in the United States; 

 While requiring improved marine sanitation device technologies, ensure that No 

Discharge Zone designation is the priority method for reducing pathogen and other waste 

inputs resulting from boating. 

Address the threat of introduced marine aquatic species 

 Employing a more vigorous federal response that includes ensuring that federal ballast 

management law includes uniform, mandatory national standards based on sound science 

and includes a process for revision as new technologies emerge. The policy on ships with 

no declared ballast should be subject to an interagency review. 

Rhode Island
Governor Donald L. Carcieri June 4, 2004 

State of Rhode Island Comments on 

U. S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report 

 3

Make progress on the goal of sustainable fisheries 

 Improving the federal fisheries management process through elimination of redundant 

and unnecessary requirements which prolong the development of fishery management 

plans; 

 To reinforce a commitment to using ecosystem-based management, renaming the 

Regional Fisheries Management Councils as the Regional Fisheries Ecosystem 

Management Councils; 

 Allowing Regional Fisheries Management Councils to set allowable catch limits for each 

fish stock in order to give the RFMCs some flexibility in considering the social, 

economic and environmental consequences of fisheries decisions; 

 Contrary to the recommendation that saltwater fishing licenses should be federally 

required, the issuance of recreational licenses should be the exclusive purview of each 

state, not a federal mandate; 

 Opposing any federal requirements that state and interstate fishery management plans 

mirror the structure and requirements of the Magnuson Act due to the inefficiencies of 

the federal fishery management process; 

 Opposing recommendations that call for Rhode Island to relinquish significant planning 

responsibility and authority to a regional fisheries council that covers the Atlantic 

seaboard from Cape Cod to Hatteras. 

 Supporting increased funding for multi-jurisdiction Joint Enforcement Agreements. 

Reform Ocean and Coastal Governance and/or Create New Governance Frameworks 

 Where effectiveness and coordination can be significantly improved, creating new wellplanned governance frameworks that defragment both federal and state coastal programs 

and authorities; 

 Recommending that the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy develop options not only for 

new institutional frameworks but also for reform of existing systems to improve 

coordination, communication, joint action and use of resources; an analysis of existing 

mechanisms for effectiveness should be conducted through a multi-interest effort. 

 Contrary to the recommendation that all coastal programs be consolidated under NOAA, 

the National Estuary Program should remain linked to the Environmental Protection 

Agency in order to maintain the unique watershed-coast-ocean perspective of the NEP 

and its history of bringing EPA and other federal resources to address coastal and ocean 

issues as well as its ability to work in watershed areas beyond the extent of public trust 

resources; 

 Developing alternative funding mechanisms in addition to the proposed Ocean Policy 

Trust Fund. Reliance mainly on one source and on purely extractive industry revenues 

may have unintended consequences, potentially leading to a dependency on activities that 

may cause ecological problems or conflict with stated ecosystem goals. 
Governor Donald L. Carcieri June 4, 2004 

State of Rhode Island Comments on 

U. S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report 

 4

Strengthen Science and Research 

Overview

Impartial, reliable and timely scientific information is the foundation of effective policy. Such 

information requires investment; there is no shortcut. Return on investment in basic research is 

commonly greater than 20%. Resources are necessary to develop the necessary infrastructure to 

collect and manage data and to explain scientific results in practical terms to decision makers, 

educators, and the general public. Despite the declining health of our oceans and coasts, federal 

investment in ocean research has decreased over the past 25 years from 7 percent of the total federal 

research budget to 3.5 percent. As a result, our knowledge about the oceans and our coasts has not 

keep pace with our impacts on these regions, and the U.S. has slipped as the world leader in ocean 

research, exploration, and technology development. The present level of funding is below the level 

needed to take advantage of our academic capacity and to provide information essential to policy 

makers. 

Over the next five years, the annual federal investment in ocean and coastal research should 

double from today’s $650 million, and additional investments should be made in technology 

development and ocean exploration. 

To meet growing information needs, the U.S. should also implement a national Integrated Ocean 

Observing System (IOOS) based on an interconnected U.S. regional ocean observing systems and 

linked to the international Global Ocean Observing System. The IOOS will significantly improve 

our ability to observe, monitor, and forecast ocean conditions and Earth observing capabilities. The 

information will have valuable economic, societal, and environmental benefits. Such a system 

requires investment ($138 million in start-up costs, and $650 million annually to maintain and 

operate the system), but as a nation, we will realize an annual savings of $1 billion through enhanced 

weather forecasts, resource management, and safer and more efficient marine transportation. 

Specific Recommendations

Beaches 

 Entities should develop a coordinated strategy to research, assess, and monitor beach 

nourishment. 

Contaminated Sediments 

 Entities should develop a coordinated strategy to conduct research on contaminated 

sediments, such as how they are created, transported, dredged and treated. 

Aquaculture 

 Congress should increase support for sustainable marine aquaculture research, 

development, training, extension, and technology transfer programs. Emphasize onshore, finfish systems. 

Rhode Island
Governor Donald L. Carcieri June 4, 2004 

State of Rhode Island Comments on 

U. S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report 

 5

Human Health 

 NOAA, NSF, and other entities should develop and implement improved methods to 

monitor and identify pathogens and chemical toxins in ocean waters and organisms. 

Basic Research 

 The U.S. should double its annual funding on ocean science and a portion should be used 

to support research directed by the regional information collection programs and to 

enlarge the National Sea Grant College Program. 

Research Infrastructure and Vessels 

 The academic fleet is the most crucial resource used by researchers. Without a 

dependable seagoing capability, we cannot explore new regions and respond to exciting 

and scientifically important opportunities. The fleet must be maintained to address most 

acute needs of the marine science enterprise and to deploy and maintain an IOOS. Unless 

funds are appropriated to construct the next generation of research vessels equipped with 

cutting-edge technology and instrumentation (to which RI can contribute significantly) 

our ability to systematically probe the ocean interior will suffer or be surrendered to other 

nations. 

Data Management 

 The U.S. should implement an ocean data management system. 

Observing and Monitoring 

 Congress should fund the IOOS through NOAA, subject to National Ocean Council 

direction and approval. IOOS funds should be appropriated without fiscal year limitation. 

NOAA should develop a streamlined process for distributing IOOS funds to other 

partners. Emphasis should be placed on ocean ecosystem health with attention to coastal 

watershed and near coastal waters. 
Governor Donald L. Carcieri June 4, 2004 

State of Rhode Island Comments on 

U. S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report 

 6

Ecosystem-Based Management 

Overview

Urgent and immediate action is necessary to arrest and reverse the decline in ocean ecosystem 

health. Conservation of estuary and coastal resources must be an essential part of any sound 

strategy to conserve and restore ocean health. A more comprehensive focus on ecosystem-based 

management will need to involve constituencies from government, universities, the public and 

the private sector, in order to strengthen the U.S. collaborative ocean research enterprise. 

 Watershed management should be integrated into coastal resource conservation. 

However, there should be recognition that a significantly greater investment in watershed 

management will be needed to make it optimally effective. 

 Habitat restoration needs to be more fully developed as a top-level strategy to conserve 

the coastal marine environment. 

 Support the recommendation regarding the need for states and the EPA to require 

advanced nutrient removal for wastewater treatment facilities discharging into nutrient 

impaired waters. This is the most significant report recommendation for Narragansett 

Bay. 

Specific Recommendations 

Regional Management 

 Support recommendations for a regional scale, ecosystem approach to coastal and ocean 

management in which priorities and recommended actions are regionally driven and 

implemented. This recommendation is in keeping with the approach taken by the 

Governor’s Narragansett Bay and Watershed Planning Commission and in support of the 

efforts of Rhode Island to work with the Governors of Connecticut and Massachusetts on 

a ecosystem-based approach to coastal and ocean management. 

Watershed Funding 

 Support the Report recommendations to better fund watershed approaches, especially 

additional funding to states for watershed-based planning and action, based upon clearly 

identified performance agreements. 

Federal Support for Habitats 

 The federal government should commit to stemming the loss of coastal habitat. Habitat 

goals should be more than just acres and have clear connection to larger objectives such 

as restoring fisheries, improving water quality, etc. Increase support for state and 

regional habitat coordination mechanisms: States and regions have used a variety of 

planning and implementation mechanisms that could be enhanced by federal support. The 

Rhode Island Habitat Restoration Team is an existing coordination model; with 

Rhode Island
Governor Donald L. Carcieri June 4, 2004 

State of Rhode Island Comments on 

U. S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report 

 7

additional support on a performance agreement basis, it could demonstrate planning, 

goal-setting, and progress at the state level. 

Land Conservation 

 Amend the Coastal Zone Management Act to authorize and provide sufficient funding for 

a dedicated coastal and estuarine land conservation program. Amend the Ocean 

Commission recommendation as follows “Existing federal conservation funding 

programs should emphasize the importance of riparian habitat protection, restoration 

and/or enhancement, with respect to primary tributaries to coastal habitats.”

Wetlands Protection

 A more comprehensive wetlands protection program should be developed that is linked to 

coastal habitat and watershed management efforts and the integration of the Section 404 

permitting process. Specifically, the consideration of cumulative impacts from issuing 

multiple individual permits must be addressed at both the federal and state level. Suggest 

strengthening the language here to change the sentence from “the NOC should coordinate 

development,” to “the NOC will coordinate development.” 

Water Quality Monitoring 

 Federal agencies should develop a national water quality monitoring network that 

coordinates existing and planned monitoring efforts, including monitoring of atmospheric 

deposition with secure federal funding support. This network should be designed to be 

consistent with states’ monitoring needs and would not reduce the need to fund and 

enhance existing state monitoring programs. The monitoring network should include 

dedicated support for both research and management needs identified through inclusive 

processes and should include near shore, coastal, tributary and estuarine areas in order to 

fully represent the human/land/ocean interaction. 
Governor Donald L. Carcieri June 4, 2004 

State of Rhode Island Comments on 

U. S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report 

 8

Enhance Education, Outreach and Information Dissemination 

Overview

Education, outreach and dissemination of information to decisionmakers and the general public 

is at the core of a successful oceans and coastal policy framework. Fact-based decisionmaking 

built on the best available science—and constantly increasing knowledge—is a must for making 

the proper choices in future planning and management. It is also important to share that science 

with the public in layman’s terms to further build the knowledge base. The cross-societal 

impacts of any oceans and coastal initiatives must demonstrate how they do not just affect the 

ecosystem, but involve the economy, society, culture and every facet of day-to-day quality of 

life, in order to build a constituency for policy decisions and create stewardship among all groups 

from government to the grassroots. A long-term focus on the education side should include 

integrating information on ocean and ecosystem issues into informal and formal education 

programs, including school curriculum. This is designed to extend the reach of the initiative 

among a new generation to increase its ongoing future impact. 

Specific Recommendations

Ocean and Coastal Science Education 

 Support for strengthening ocean and coastal science education, especially experiential 

education connected to applied research, and public education closely integrated with 

extension and outreach. Rhode Island recommends that the mandate of the NSF COSEEs 

be expanded to include undergraduate and graduate education in the portfolio of K-12 

programs, and that additional funding be made available for greater interactions between 

universities, NSF, NOAA and ONR to accomplish this mandate. 

Regional Ocean Information Program 

 Support for the creation of a Regional Ocean Information Program where Congress 

would establish regional boards to administer regional ocean information programs 

throughout the nation. 

Collaborative Community Strategies 

 Community knowledge of the marine environment and problems affecting it needs to be 

increased. Strategies to address this should include drawing on the expertise of 

nongovernmental entities, and encouraging and linking informal and informal education 

initiatives. Education efforts should foster a marine conservation ethic while respecting a 

diversity of viewpoint on the best ways to achieve conservation and restoration goals. 

Accessibility of Data 

 Share and make easily accessible all monitoring and research data, and assessment and 

evaluation results, publicly and widely to increase the knowledge of decisionmakers and 

the citizenry to guide public policy decisions and ensure public accountability for actions. 

Rhode Island
Governor Donald L. Carcieri June 4, 2004 

State of Rhode Island Comments on 

U. S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report 

 9

Sciences Technology and Industrial Development of Marine Life 

Overview

The Preliminary Report of the U.S. Ocean Policy Commission addresses the potential economic 

benefits of pursuing technology and industrial development from marine life sciences. However, 

Rhode Island’s own investigation into marine life sciences as a potential economic development 

opportunity identified an important national constraint for the future development of this 

technological platform: appropriate infrastructure for the inhibitors to company formation (and 

subsequent economic development) is the lack of facilities, research parks or incubators that can 

manage pilot-scale or proof-of-concept type testing. The risk is substantial for products 

requiring a marine environment during the analytic or primary processing stage. Secondly, in 

some cases, it is our understanding that fermentation of marine microbes that have 

pharmaceutical or industrial uses can require the use of seawater based processes. These require 

specialized water treatment and wastewater systems that typically do not exist in most 

commercial real estate venues. 

Additionally, to fully maximize the economic potential of marine organisms requires that 

attention be paid to both the cultivation techniques and forms of aquaculture in order to protect 

wild species from overexploitation. Examples of concern in this connection are certain marine 

plants, sponges and other organisms which have rare chemical compounds difficult to synthesize 

and recreate. Cultivation and aquaculture techniques for these types of organisms still need to be 

developed and, in many cases, may require facilities or technologies that are presently not 

available. 

Specific Recommendations

Federal Support 

 The Federal Government should develop programs and assist states in providing the type 

of physical infrastructure required to support commercialization of marine life science 

technologies. 

 Basic research infrastructure alone will not be sufficient to drive the development of 

these technologies and subsequent commercialization which will create substantial new 

economic development in the future. 
South Carolina

South Carolina

South Carolina

South Carolina

South Carolina

South Carolina

Texas

Texas

Texas

Texas

Texas

Texas

Texas

Texas

Texas

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Virginia

Virginia

STATE OF WASHINGTON

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

P.O. Box 40002  Olympia, Washington 98504-0002  (360) 753-6780 TTY/TDD (360) 753-6466 

June 4, 2004 

Admiral James D. Watkins, Chair 

United States Commission on Ocean Policy 

1120 – 20th Street NW 

Suite 200 North 

Washington, DC 20036 

Dear Admiral Watkins: 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission 

on Ocean Policy (Commission). This long overdue review of national ocean policy provides key 

recommendations for the future of our oceans. Mr. Chairman, you and the members of the 

Commission are to be commended for your efforts and for your service to our country. 

While the Commission has devoted several years to the production of this report, the hard work 

still lies ahead in implementing its recommendations. The people of Washington appreciate this 

study, but also share a sense of exasperation and concern that we are stuck in a cycle of “report 

and no action.” If we are to improve the condition of our oceans and the marine life within it, we 

must have clear goals, measured outcomes, and the political commitment to achieve success. 

I consider the following points to be fundamental to the success of this endeavor: 

1. Any organizational structure for ocean policy governance must promote decisions based 

on sound science, include regional participation in decision-making, and ensure adequate 

funding. We must also acknowledge the valuable role that tribes have in the governance, 

science and management of our ocean resources and include the tribes on a governmentto-government basis. 

2. It is not adequate for changes in fisheries management policies to merely stop the decline 

in marine species. These policies must contribute to reversing the trend of this decline. 

They must also enhance the overall sustainability of marine resources and evaluate the 

health of our oceans on an ecosystem scale. 

3. Our nation must regain its position of global leadership on ocean issues. Here in the 

Pacific Northwest we know the value of working with our international neighbors. We 

share issues of mutual concern with Canada, and have successfully negotiated a U.S.-

Canada salmon agreement. And because maritime trade is a major economic activity in 

Washington, we must be mindful of the international competition that exists within this 

industry. 

GARY LOCKE 

Governor 

Washington
Admiral James D. Watkins 

June 4, 2004 

Page 2 

Five primary areas of interest have emerged from the high volume of comments I have received 

from state agencies, tribes, and stakeholders. I expand upon each of these areas in the enclosed 

document, but briefly these include: 

Governance Structure – Establish national goals and standards, with benchmarks that measure 

success; begin with a National Ocean Council for immediate action, and pass a National Ocean 

Policy Act; I support establishing regional ocean councils, and improving the relationship 

between watershed planning and ecosystem-based management approaches. 

Science in Decisions – Scientific understanding must form the foundation for ecosystem-based 

management and sustainable fisheries, and we must fully fund our scientific needs. 

Build Sustainable Fisheries – Allow for regional flexibility on fisheries management, consistent 

with national goals for sustainable fisheries; fully fund regional science initiatives for ecosystembased assessments; I also support the use of Marine Protected Areas. 

Protect Marine Ecosystems – The federal Clean Water Act must be updated and more funding 

for local implementation of the act is needed; the report does not address solutions for the 

problem of contaminated sediments; and the Coastal Zone Management Act must be 

reauthorized. 

Education – I support the Commission’s recommendations with respect to strengthening our 

promotion of ocean research, collaboration among various institutions, and the goal of lifelong 

ocean education. 

I also am providing you with a representative sampling of the wide range of feedback I have 

gotten to date. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity to respond. I look forward to the Commission’s final 

report and to the full implementation of its recommendations. 

Sincerely, 

Gary Locke 

Governor 

Enclosures 
Page 1 of 6 

Specific Comments of Governor Gary Locke 

To the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

____________________________________________________ 

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

The overall governance structure should establish national goals and standards, 

with benchmarks that measure success – or failure. Only through such clear standards 

and the responsibility for meeting measurable targets can we set the path for success. 

Once the national standards have been established, regions should be allowed to craft the 

pathways for achieving the targets. The national goals and standards should be the floor 

upon which regional flexibility and variation can build. 

The legal structure for this approach should begin with a National Ocean Policy Act 

to set clear goals and policies for our nation’s actions on ocean issues. Included in 

such an Act should be provisions clarifying and strengthening the mission of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). However, the Congressional process 

can take time to complete, and existing agencies have the authority necessary to 

implement many of the recommendations of the Preliminary Report. So as Congress 

considers the Commission’s recommendations, I support more immediate action to 

create a National Ocean Council by Executive Order. Such a Council could begin 

immediately to identify recommendations that could be acted upon sooner, rather than 

later. The Council should also coordinate existing agency actions on ocean policy 

matters, and identify areas for improvement. Should a Council be created, it should 

include two coastal state governors representing the east and west coasts. 

I support the recommendations of the Report relating to regional ocean councils 

(ROC). In the Pacific Northwest we have found that, although there are international and 

national standards and protocols for a variety of marine issues, there are certain issues 

that benefit from a regional response. Examples include vessel ballast water 

management, invasive species management, oil spill prevention, and vessel wastewater 

discharge. Due to the economic considerations of marine trade and transportation, it is 

critical that international and national systems are the first place to address these issues. 

However, in those instances where there are gaps in standards or protections, or where 

unique regional variations require a response, there should be a regional structure that 

provides the forum for addressing regional needs. For this reason, I support the 

recommendations of the Report relating to regional ocean councils (ROCs). Such 

councils should avoid overlaps of authority with federal agencies and should identify 

opportunities to coordinate multi-federal and state agency activities. ROCs would be 

particularly advantageous for states such as Washington and Oregon, with a border along 

a mutual water body. Also, the federal government must assist states bordering Canada 

and Mexico by working with their governments to involve them in ROCs. 

Washington
Page 2 of 6 

Regional councils should also recognize, and not interfere with, successful initiatives 

such as the National Estuary Program and, here in Washington, the Northwest 

Straits Marine Conservation Initiative. Regional councils should include a diverse 

representation of federal, state, and local governments, Tribes, and key stakeholders. The 

ROCs should consider regional ecosystem functions, and should take specific and 

effective actions to achieve national as well as regional goals. Regional Councils should 

also acknowledge the value of the marine environment for local communities, and 

decisions and strategies should consider the needs of these communities, their businesses, 

and the diversity of economic activities and infrastructure needs at small and large ports. 

I support the Commission’s emphasis on watershed and ecosystem approaches. Too 

often we have made management decisions in isolation: land use decisions are made 

along artificial political boundaries; fisheries allocations are on a species-by-species 

basis; pollution prevention strategies may differ between bordering states or nations even 

though pollution knows no boundary. Lasting and effective change will only come when 

we address these and other issues on a watershed and ecosystem scale. Our fundamental 

goal must be the sustainable health of the ecosystem as a whole, rather than a limited 

focus on individual species or narrow political boundaries. 

SCIENCE IN DECISIONS

Scientific understanding must form the foundation for ecosystem-based 

management and sustainable fisheries. For this reason, I support the recommendation 

that we should have a national strategy for ocean and coastal research, exploration, and 

marine life sciences. Such a strategy should coordinate federal ocean research activities 

as well as coordinating data collection, monitoring, and ecosystem assessments. And 

through ROCs, a national strategy should incorporate state, local and Tribal government 

science, as well as science from non-profit organizations and the private sector. Science 

used in decision making should be transparent as to the source of the science and the 

scientists performing the research to avoid any conflict of interest. 

We must show our commitment to sound science by funding our scientific needs. 

This funding would provide an increased capacity in: 

• Acquiring new information, knowledge and understanding. 

• Directing monitoring programs to evaluate impacts and guide research. 

• Integrating and synthesizing existing and new information. 

• Sharing information and knowledge with decision makers and the public. 

As a part of enhancing our science infrastructure, I support the Commission’s 

recommendations relating to the development and implementation of the Integrated 

Ocean Observing System (IOOS).

A national strategy on ocean science must include an adaptive management process, 

and should, where possible, utilize the precautionary approach for scientific 
Page 3 of 6 

recommendations. Once the science is developed, it must be used to inform decision 

makers. We must also monitor and evaluate our actions to determine whether we are 

achieving our goals. This process should then provide feedback to the 

scientific/management processes to ensure that our strategies for ocean management 

adapt to the best available scientific information. 

BUILD SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES

The Commission accurately notes in the Report that the overexploitation of the ocean’s 

fish populations has led to degradation of habitats, and damaged ecosystems and coastal 

communities. Our nation must provide the global leadership to reverse this trend and 

build sustainable fisheries that provide for diverse and healthy ecosystems, as well as 

providing long-term jobs for coastal communities. Fortunately, in the North Pacific 

regional, the fisheries councils have relied upon the Scientific and Statistical Committee’s 

(SSC) recommendations, as well as close cooperation from stakeholders and the fishing 

community to effectively manage the fishery in the region. However, improvements 

could be made. 

We support many of the recommendations found in Chapter 19 of the Report – 

“Achieving Sustainable Fisheries”. There are a few recommendations in which we do 

not concur. I would direct your attention to the comments submitted by the Director of 

the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for specific comment on the 

recommendations. 

We need to provide state, tribal, and federal agencies the resources to improve the 

science base relative to ocean bottom habitats and marine fish resources and their 

productivity. Currently the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) which sets 

harvest allocations has strictly followed the recommendations provided by the Scientific 

and Statistical Committee (SSC). Unfortunately, the SSC has been forced to base its 

recommendations on stock assessments that rely on incomplete data and information and 

that are not robust in terms of quantifying changes due to dynamic ocean conditions. 

This creates a situation in which harvest decisions are made looking back in time, rather 

than projecting the future. 

We support, and recommend the Commission support, the creation of a Marine 

Fisheries Oversight Commission, or periodic reviews by the National Academy of 

Sciences, as a mechanism for independent scientific oversight. This would be 

compementary to an approach that has national goals and benchmarks, but allows for 

local implementation. This is also consistent with the Commission’s recommendations 

regarding the need for independent review of scientific information. 

We oppose the proposed National Standard Guidelines (recommendation 19-10) as 

these would unnecessarily restrain the flexibility of states to manage their fisheries. 

Instead, we should continue to rely on interstate management plans as the mechanism to 

manage stocks on a regional basis. NOAA Fisheries currently reviews these plans and 

Washington
Page 4 of 6 

regions should be measured by the sustainability of the fishery rather than by a national 

standard that does not account for regional species and stock variations.

We strongly support Commission’s recommendations relating to ecosystem-based 

management. Regional councils should be directed to develop ecosystem management 

plans that assess the health of the ecosystem and provide information into the harvest 

allocation process so that decisions are made in an ecosystem context rather than a 

species specific context. With this, we also support the Commission’s call for changing 

existing Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) designations from specific species, to a multispecies approach, and ultimately an ecosystem approach. An extensive research and 

development program should be developed as a means to identify habitats critical to 

sustainability and biodiversity goals. 

We support the recommendations relating to Marine Protected Areas. However, 

any national strategy for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) needs clear goals and 

guidelines. The process and authority for MPAs should remain with NOAA, and there 

must be enough flexibility to incorporate regional differences. When MPAs are used to 

address fisheries, designation decisions should consider the recommendations of regional 

fisheries councils. MPAs can be an effective tool for restoring fish populations and 

protecting sensitive habitats. Designation of these areas should be based on best 

available science and have local support. We should build on the ecosystem-based 

management principles by applying networks of MPAs that reflect true marine habitat 

characteristics. 

PROTECT MARINE ECOSYSTEMS

The Commission accurately states the problem when in the Report it states: “Coastal 

waters...are being bombarded with pollution from all directions”. Since the late 1960’s 

and early 1970’s there have been a number of federal and state laws enacted to address 

this issue. However, greater coordination is now needed among these various legal 

authorities to ensure that the problem is being addressed. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should engage in an evaluation of 

the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Such an evaluation should assess the weaknesses 

of the CWA and recommend updates for Congressional action to address nutrient 

removal, household and industrial chemicals, on-site septic systems, and non-point 

sources of pollution. Regardless of any changes to the CWA, Congress must provide 

more funding for states and local governments to implement the current obligations of the 

CWA. Limited resources and technical ability prevent state and local governments from 

fully implementing the requirements of the CWA. In some cases, this lack of resources 

fosters local political opposition to improvements that would address pollution issues. 

Funding would help us work with local governments to build the necessary infrastructure. 
Page 5 of 6 

I would support, and call for, the development of a financing strategy for the longterm funding of improvements to the nation’s current aging and inadequate 

wastewater, drinking water and on-site treatment infrastructure.

The report fails to address solutions for contaminated sediments. Although the 

Report does identify the concerns relating to contaminated sediments, it stops short of 

recommendations for solving the problem. The Commission should support the renewed 

funding of the federal Superfund program for cleanup of contaminated sediment sites. 

We support the Commission’s recommendation that the Coastal Zone Management 

Act (CZMA) be reauthorized to strengthen the planning and coordination 

capabilities of coastal states. Congress should also provide more funding for coastal 

communities to implement the CZMA. As noted in the Report, funding has been capped 

at $2 million per year per state since 1992. This amount is insufficient for a state such as 

Washington to meet the needs identified in the Report – needs with which we concur. 

The recommendation to establish a National Ocean Policy Trust Fund, must not 

create incentives for inappropriate offshore development, and must not take funds 

from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Report proposes to fund many of 

the recommendations by establishing a National Ocean Policy Trust Fund. We are 

concerned that this approach may put undue pressure on states such as Washington where 

we have a moratorium on coastal oil development. This funding mechanism may also 

short-change states without coastal resource development, but also could jeopardize 

programs currently funded from this source such as the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund. Caution should also be exercised with the proposal to utilize “resource rents” as a 

funding source. The Report points to the current system of rents and leases charged on 

public lands for grazing, oil and mineral extraction, and other natural resource extractive 

activities. However, these examples also have problems that should be examined before 

being duplicated in the marine context. 

EDUCATION

The early years of the space program and a national commitment to science education 

instilled in a generation of Americans a lifelong interest in space exploration and science. 

Its time that we spark that same interest and excitement in our oceans. 

I strongly support the recommendations of the Commission relating to promoting 

lifelong ocean education, strengthening the nation’s ocean awareness, building a 

collaborative ocean education network, and incorporating oceans into K-12 

education.

Washington
Page 6 of 6 

Letters included as attachments: 

Washington Department of Natural Resources 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development 

Lummi Nation and the National Indian Center for Marine Environmental Research and 

Education 

People for Puget Sound 

At Sea Processors

Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers 

Port of Ilwaco 

Columbia River Crab Fishermen’s Association 
JIM DOYLE

GOVERNOR

STATE OF WISCONSIN

P.O. BOX 7863, MADISON, WISCONSIN 53707-7863  (608) 266-1212  FAX: (608) 267-8983 

WWW.WISGOV.STATE.WI.US

July 12, 2004

Dr. Thomas R. Kitsos, Executive Director

US Commission on Ocean Policy

1120 20th Street NW

Suite 200 North

Washington, DC 20036

Dear Dr. Kitsos:

I thank the United States Commission on Ocean Policy for its diligence in addressing the challenges of

sustaining our coastal and ocean resources through a comprehensive set of recommendations, the first in 30

years.

Wisconsin supports some aspects of the draft Ocean Report. The vision of working together to uniformly

promote the sustainability of coastal and ocean resources, regional and federal agency cooperation, additional

funding for coastal and ocean resources management and reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management

Act is vital for America.

However, the report falls short in addressing the special needs of the Great Lakes as well as the critical role

that the Council of Great Lakes Governors will play in the restoration efforts. The Great Lakes basin is

home to more than 34 million people in the US and Canada. The Lakes provide drinking water, freshwater

habitat, economic opportunity and recreation. More than 2.5 billion gallons of water from the Great Lakes

are used for public benefit each day, with 700 million gallons used for drinking water.

The Great Lakes region accounts for 20 percent of US manufacturing. The Lakes carry more than 190

million tons of cargo, providing $3.4 billion in business and more than 150,000 jobs. Commercial and

recreational fishing generate more than $3 billion annually and recreational boaters spend more than $2.6

billion each year. Due to these factors, it is vital that protection and restoration of the Great Lakes be a

priority. The entire Great Lakes basin faces a number of tremendous challenges, in particular protecting the

Great Lakes from aquatic invasive species that make there way into our ecosystem through the ballast

discharges from ocean going vessels and other sources. Additionally, any restoration progress must address

how to minimize contaminated sediment from being deposited into the Great Lakes.

As Governor of Wisconsin and incoming Chair of the Council of Great Lakes Governors, I invite you to

include the following priorities in the final report:

• Support federal funding for Great Lakes Restoration through the Great Lakes Environmental

Restoration Act (S. 1398) or the Great Lakes Financing Act of 2003 (H.R. 2720).

• Support efforts to stop the introduction and spread of non-native aquatic invasive species.

• Support reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Wisconsin
Letter to Dr. Thomas R. Kitsos

July 12, 2004

Page Two

P.O. BOX 7863, MADISON, WISCONSIN 53707-7863  (608) 266-1212  FAX: (608) 267-8983 

WWW.WISGOV.STATE.WI.US

• Promote programs to protect human health against adverse effects of pollution in the Great Lakes

ecosystem.

• Control pollution from diffuse sources into water, land and air.

• Continue to reduce the introduction of persistent bioaccumulative toxics into the Great Lakes

ecosystem.

• Enhance fish and wildlife by restoring and protecting coastal wetlands, fish and wildlife habitats.

• Restore to environmental health the Areas of Concern identified by the International Joint

Commission.

• Standardize and enhance the methods by which information is collected, recorded and shared within

the region.

• Adopt sustainable use practices that protect environmental resources and enhance the recreational

and commercial value of our Great Lakes.

The United States Commission on Ocean Policy has an opportunity to develop a truly comprehensive set of

recommendations by addressing the special needs of the world's largest freshwater ecosystem. I respectfully

ask that the Commission give greater attention to the Great Lakes basin in its final report.

Sincerely,

Jim Doyle

Governor
American Samoa

Comments on the Preliminary Report of the 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

Submitted by 

Togiola T.A. Tulafono, Governor, American Samoa 

American Samoa is a small piece of the United States, but I would argue, an important one. For 

over 100 years, the people in the eastern archipelago of Samoa have been proud to call 

themselves Americans—80 of our local reservists are currently serving in Iraq along with other 

sons and daughters of Samoa in other arms of our military. Our harbor provides the only US 

port in the southern hemisphere. Our coral reefs are the most diverse of any US reefs, with 

hundreds of coral species and over a thousand fish species. Our reefs have provided our 

people sustenance for 3,000 years, and can continue to do so with wise management. Our EEZ 

supports thriving offshore fisheries, and we are home to the two largest tuna canneries in the 

US. 

Samoans have always looked to the sea. We sailed here on ships across thousands of ocean 

miles—Polynesians are known as the navigators of the Pacific. We retained our ties to the sea, 

and our legends and beliefs flow from our respect and love of the ocean. For thousands of 

years, Samoans lived in harmony with the sea; they had to in order to survive. They 

understood the ocean’s moods, the cycles of its resources and managed those resources 

effectively. Much of that traditional knowledge is being lost, and we rely more and more on 

western management practices. Our price for that loss has been declines in our coral reef 

fisheries, loss of our wetlands and alterations of our coastlines. Many of those were our choice, 

but they have not proven to be “wise”. So as many others are doing, we struggle to retain our 

cultural values and practices, and to find ways to integrate them back into our management 

regimes. It is from this context that I will be addressing my comments. 

American Samoa appreciates the opportunity to comment on the report, and hope that the 

final document will forge a new direction in our country’s governance of the ocean and 

management of its precious resources. As governor, I fully support the broader 

recommendations for increased research and a focus on ecosystem based science informing 

management, support for ocean education and outreach, improved ocean governance and 

American Samoa
American Samoa Comments on the draft Ocean Commission Report Page 2 

better organization of coastal and ocean programs both nationally and locally. There are some 

concerns about a few of the comments, and they will now be discussed. 

Comments 

General Comments: organization of document 

This comprehensive plan presents a real challenge to thoughtful analysis. I would strongly 

recommend that a matrix be developed that allows the reader to find cross-cutting themes in 

the recommendations such as: education and outreach, science and monitoring, enforcement, 

funding, etc. 

Part I 

General comments 

There is little or no mention of the cultural contexts and uses of the ocean and its resources so 

important to indigenous people and people who have spent generations living on the coastal 

bounty. This omission is not trivial. We hope that the final draft contain these references to 

cultural contexts and to people’s who rely on the ocean for subsistence living. 

Part II 

General Comments 

The four chapters in this section of the report develop a national framework for ocean 

governance. There is an overbalanced attention on federal leadership, and states and territories 

do not figure strongly in the recommendations. Since this report is aimed at the federal 

government, this makes some sense, but it overlooks opportunities to enlarge the local 

communities’ participation in ocean governance. Although there is some attention to outside 

stakeholders, they seem to be added on as an afterthought, and are not integrated into the 

decision-making process. 

The central recommendation for a National Ocean Council (NOC), and its supporting Office of 

Ocean Policy, is seen as an answer to ocean governance. In fact, it does not go far enough. It 

keeps the national policy decision-making at the national level, with unclear mandate for 

authoritative collaboration with the states, territories or tribes. This is a theme throughout the 

report—investing more authority and decision-making at the federal or regional levels, with 

only consultation with the states, territories and tribes at best. 

The Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy which would advise the President on 

ocean issues and develop policy, comprises a group appointed by the President that would 

include coastal state/territorial governors, as well as a broad private sector representation. 
American Samoa Comments on the draft Ocean Commission Report Page 3 

However, Council is co-chaired by the NOC Chair, which makes it somewhat incestuous, and 

does not add needed diversity nor suggest independent review in the internal administrative 

structure.

Most of the positions, and all of the top positions, in the Councils are appointed by the 

President, which threatens a needed balance of independent and less politically motivated and 

directed leaders, particularly in the area of conservation. Accountability needs to be built in to 

both the NOC and the Council. 

The administration should as soon as possible, undertake a needs analysis of resources and 

funds needed to support state, regional, and national activities provided in the report as 

estimates of costs in order to coordinate Federal budget and program efforts to focus on 

achieving those goals efficiently.

Recommendation 4-1 

Establishing strong, high-level leadership at the federal level through the creation of a 

National Ocean Council (NOC) should result in improved coastal and ocean governance since 

one of the primary duties of the NOC is to increase the effectiveness of coordination with 

federal agencies with ocean management responsibilities. In addition, having a NOC sends a 

strong signal to local-state-federal and international partners of the significance of ocean policy 

at the federal level. In establishing an NOC, the focus should be clear that this body has the 

core responsibility to provide high level attention to ocean and coastal issues, develop and 

guide implementation of appropriate policies, and coordinate federal agencies. In the 

establishment of National and Regional Ocean Councils we recommend that Governors be 

included on the Councils not simply as members of advisory committees. 

 

Recommendation 5-1 

There is a concern that for efficiency the entire Pacific Island region would be subsumed into 

one region. Although the regions have not been defined, it is probable that the Pacific Island 

region would mirror the current Fisheries Council region. Planning for ocean programs, then, 

would be through the council, which would likely sit in Honolulu. This has always been a 

challenge for those of us living thousands of miles from Hawaii, yet expected to be full 

participants in the regional process. It may be necessary to allow the remote islands such as 

Guam, CNMI and American Samoa to constitute their own “regions” for better representation 

and governance. 

The principle role of the Regional Ocean Councils is to bring the collective resources and 

expertise of the federal agencies together with states, territories and stakeholders to address 

significant issues that are identified at the state, territory, local and regional level and not 

issues identified only by federal agencies at the national level. 

American Samoa
American Samoa Comments on the draft Ocean Commission Report Page 4 

Since American Samoa already has a draft Ocean Resources Management Plan, we will begin 

to move forward with the formal adoption of that plan, and its implementation. The proposed 

councils and agency could assist in directing funding for the full implementation of the plan. 

It’s likely that the proposed NOC would also be expanding the scope of ocean management, 

particularly in research and education, and we can begin to think about strengthening our own 

Ocean Resources Management Plan. This may also assist in our plans to establish a marine 

laboratory, since research and data collection are seen as key areas 

Recommendation 5-2 

Links to the regional information programs should be clarified and strengthened. 

Regional Ocean Information Programs, which will be one of the technical arms of the regional 

councils, have been identified by region, and the Pacific insular area is identified as one. 

However, the node for that region is not: 

American Samoa would like to be considered for the 

 Pacific Islands node for Pacific Island Information Programs. 

Recommendation 6-3 

This recommendation for a uniform process for the design and implementation of MPAs is too 

simplistic. There is no “one size fits all” in marine protected/managed areas, and there are 

many approaches that can lead from many levels that would serve to develop MPAs. For 

example, the design of a community-based managed area, such as the village fisheries 

management schemes we have developed in American Samoa, is a very different process than 

the design for a national marine sanctuary. 

Recommendation 6-4 

I do not see this as the best approach, especially in light of cultural considerations here, and 

elsewhere. This approach will take decision making out of the hands of local managers and 

communities, something we are striving to reestablish. Any regional body should exist to 

support and coordinate MPA efforts, not to do the work of folks on the ground. 

Chapter 7 

The report recommends eliminating redundancies and duplication between different 

governmental agencies and also gives the President the authority to reorganize federal 

departments and agencies. This should result in better operation by our federal government 

and reduce turf wars between departments and agencies that in the past had overlapping 

jurisdictions. We support a reorganization of coastal and ocean programs at the federal level 

and will begin our own review of local programs in that light. 
American Samoa Comments on the draft Ocean Commission Report Page 5 

Part III 

Chapter 8 

Recommendation 8-15 

I cannot express enough my support of any initiative that will enhance education for our 

underserved Territory. The American Samoa Community College (ASCC) would take 

advantage of this, strengthening the marine science program, and there would be additional 

support for local students pursuing graduate ocean studies. 

Part IV 

Chapter 9 

Recommendation 9-1 

American Samoa strongly recommends that the CZMA be strengthened and reauthorized. The 

CZMA is an important vehicle for implementation of a wide range of OC recommendations 

because it takes an integrated approach and is an established federal-state-local partnership 

that acknowledges the central role of states and territories, and can effect vertical and 

horizontal integration of ecosystem management. 

While American Samoa supports the focus of recommendation 9-1 on development of 

periodic, comprehensive resource assessments, states will only be able to conduct these 

assessments if adequate federal funding, above CZMA base federal funding (306/306A/309), 

is provided to states. 

American Samoa supports the movement towards development of measurable goals and 

improved program evaluations. At the same time, we encourage the Commission to 

acknowledge increased costs associated with performance-based management. A real cost 

estimate should be conducted for implementation of the recommendations provided by the 

OC with a phased approach to final implementation. 

Additionally, American Samoa recommends that the National Ocean Council develop 

guidance for federal agencies to ensure that federal funding decisions are fully coordinated 

with state programs for land use planning and growth management, urban revitalization, and 

rural conservation planning and that the federal consistency provisions of the CZMA are applied 

to these funding decisions. In order to assist the National Ocean Council in developing these 

requirements, the National Academy of Sciences should review and make recommendations 

regarding: 

American Samoa
American Samoa Comments on the draft Ocean Commission Report Page 6 

• The extent to which federal grants, loans and subsidies and policies relating to 

public infrastructure influence or encourage inappropriate and unsustainable 

coastal land development patterns; 

• The extent of negative effects on long-term ecosystem health from land use 

practices supported by federal funding decisions; and 

• The extent that federal funding policies etc. conflict with current state, local and 

regional planning efforts to protect coastal resources 

Recommendation 9-3 

American Samoa would also recommend to include other agencies such as; Department of 

Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Department of Transportation (Federal 

Highway Administration) in the listed agencies on Page 113. 

Chapter 11 

Recommendation 11-1 

The regional ocean councils should be charged with setting the priorities for habitat 

conservation and restoration. The regional councils would be making decisions that would 

impact the local management, demanding that we ensure close ties between the council and 

the local programs. 

Part V 

Chapter 14 

Recommendation 14-8 

This is already occurring within EPA jurisdictions. State/Territorial EPAs have established 

watershed protection plans in place. The American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency 

has many watershed protection plans that are being implemented with an established 

monitoring program. 

Recommendation 14-9 

This recommendation in theory could be very beneficial to the non-point source pollution 

programs. However, the process in the actual merge needs to be carefully outlined and 

applied. The EPA should not inherit staff from the NOAA-program. All staff that would fill 

the positions for the expanded EPA incentive based program should be selected directly by 

EPA based on their needs, standards and requirements 
American Samoa Comments on the draft Ocean Commission Report Page 7 

Recommendation 14-11 

American Samoa recommends that state and local governments require land use planning and 

decision-making to balance development required to meet population growth and economic 

needs with protection of critical coastal resources, including revitalizing waterfront areas, and 

minimizing individual and cumulative impacts of development on coastal water quality from 

stormwater runoff. Federal agencies and other appropriate entities should increase outreach 

programs that provide local land use decision makers and citizens with the information and 

skills needed to make sound land use decisions. We further recommend that the NOC require 

the federal agencies to provide technical assistance and training to the state and local 

governments. 

Part VI 

Chapter 19 

Recommendation 19-1 

The requirement to weigh decision-making based on the SSC recommendations will help the 

councils move away from having all decisions made largely by the fishing industry. However, 

the requirements for the candidates for the SSC may strain our ability to provide 

representation for American Samoa on this important committee. The recommendation states 

that the candidates must pass a strict review based on their scientific merit, and that each 

candidate would have a fixed term, necessitating a cadre of scientists locally who would be 

able to meet the requirements. This will be a difficult hurdle for small Pacific island, 

particularly ours that does not have a four year institution or graduate school to draw 

expertise. 

Recommendation 19-2 and 19-3 

The recommendation calls for more support for fisheries research that will be needed for the 

SSC to make their recommendations to the Councils, and develop fisheries plans. This 

reinforces our continued pursuit of a marine laboratory based here. 

Chapter 21 

This chapter focuses one of our key ocean resources, our coral reefs. As the report dutifully 

notes, coral reefs are in dramatic decline worldwide. So far, our own reefs remain healthy, but 

the impacts of repeated and more frequent bleaching events, and the potential of increasing 

frequency of hurricanes–both results of global climate change–put all reefs, including 

American Samoa’s, at risk. We strongly support any efforts to strengthen coral reef protection 

and management efforts. We encourage finding alternatives–such as aquaculture, stronger 

American Samoa
American Samoa Comments on the draft Ocean Commission Report Page 8 

trade prohibitions, and regulation of harmful land practices–to extraction and loss of coral reef 

resources. 

We also recommend that the new focus on deep sea corals, though important, not deflect from 

the most important objective of conserving our coral reefs. This can be accomplished by giving 

separate attention to deep sea coral communities, and not “mixing” their management with 

coral reef issues. 

Recommendation 21-1 

The Coral Conservation Act has served its initial purpose and it is time to strengthen and 

expand it. Currently it lacks strong protection and enforcement mechanisms. Since its funding 

authorization cycle concluded this year, the reauthorization should shore up the gaps in the 

Act, and it should be a stand alone piece of legislation, not a piece of the Fur Seal Act. Funding 

should be increased significantly to support the recommendations of this report. In addition, 

technical and funding support should be identified for management at the local level in the 

states and territories. 

Recommendation 21-2 

I would like to add my strong support to the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. The structure of the 

Task Force, with the cabinet level co-chairs and high level participation on the part of the 

Executive Branch, had proven to be a powerful and effective means of coordinating coral reef 

efforts at the federal and state/territorial levels. I do have concern that placing the Task Force 

under the NOC might decrease the visibility and would be structured so that the top level 

attention that the Task Force by having cabinet level chairs might be compromised. I would 

not support any changes that would have the Task Force led by lower level bureaucrats. 

Recommendation 21-3 

American Samoa fully supports this recommendation and further recommends stricter 

regulation, and in some cases prohibition, of the importation of living marine resources into 

the US. As the number one importer in the industry, the US should take more of a proactive 

stance with regard to the practices of the collectors, whether the items were aqua cultured or 

live caught, etc. 

In addition, we would support any efforts to encourage aquaculture of imported corals in 

order to reduce the world-wide coral trade. 
1

Guam
2
3

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report

Comments from the Honorable Felix P. Camacho

I Maga’Låhen Guåhan

Governor of Guam

General Comments

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report offers a broad overview of

the numerous challenges facing our oceans, as well as the opportunities associated with

thoughtful development of our marine resources. We strongly support three of the

report’s main themes: the shift to ecosystem-based management, the call for increased

cooperation at all levels, and the need for education and awareness programs to foster a

sense of stewardship in the population.

Guam and other islands already have begun to shift to ecosystem-based management, a

need emphasized by the coral reefs that are so vital to our way of life. It is refreshing to

see a national policy setting the same tone, as this approach will be vital to effectively

manage our ocean resources. The problems of management approaches centered on

individual species or isolated systems are apparent in the history of failed attempts to

conserve and protect resources, and the move to an ecosystem-based strategy should

yield positive results.

The call for increased cooperation also should help us better manage the complex ocean

resources upon which we rely. The report correctly identifies the need for increased

cooperation at all levels – within local, state and federal government agencies, regionally,

and internationally. For Guam, a U.S. territory far removed from the contiguous states,

such cooperation is especially important, as “regional” necessarily means “international.”

Our ability to share information and resources with our neighbors is critical in any effort

to manage ocean and coastal resources, and Guam needs the support of its federal

partners to participate in efforts to accomplish any goals for conservation and protection

of these resources. The need for better international cooperation in the area of resource

management cannot be overemphasized.

The third theme of the report, the need for additional programs to educate and inform our

people about ocean and coastal issues, is equally vital if we are to effectively manage and

preserve ocean resources. If the public does not understand ocean issues, and more

importantly, does not care about these issues, then we will never be able to secure the

broad-based support we need to change our habits and protect the oceans for ourselves

and the future.

Several other general comments bear mentioning in this section. First, the 30-day

comment timeline, recently extended by two weeks, is grossly inadequate to review a

514-page document that took more than three years to complete. The dozens of

Guam
4

recommendations contained in the report can have major impacts, especially on an island

like Guam where our entire landmass is coastal in nature, and such a short timeline does

not provide enough time to thoroughly assess the report and its broad implications.

Second, the report unfortunately follows a typical pattern: it neglects to consider the

Pacific island jurisdictions of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

While the report consistently identifies Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands in text and

graphics, the Pacific insular areas are consistently omitted. For a report on national ocean

policy, this omission is indefensible, as these islands are part of an ocean region that is

similar in size to the contiguous states. The majority of the federal EEZ is located within

the Pacific Ocean surrounding Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands,

American Samoa and the Pacific Remote Island areas. Yet the report clearly does not

recognize the importance of ocean issues to these areas, or the potential implications of

broad federal decisions that do not take into account the unique conditions of these

regions. Without adequate input in the process of creating new programs, regulations and

federal requirements, the islands may again be subjected to mandates that are both

difficult to enforce and completely inappropriate for the islands.

In addition to a lack of consideration for Pacific Insular area conditions in the formulation

of policies, the report does not seriously contemplate for the future implementation of

such policies. Without explicit federal recognition of the tremendous resources needed to

effectively manage these vast areas, Guam and the other Pacific territories face the

prospect of ever increasing mandates and regulation requirements without the support to

enforce these new provisions. Without adequate federal support, the islands will not be

able to enforce the nation’s interests in these waters, to the detriment of both the nation as

a whole and the islands themselves.

Lastly, the funding for the recommendations in the report should be addressed at the

earliest possible date. While many valuable recommendations are contained in the report,

the funding requirements for these programs are not provided in any detail. The large

estimates include no clear cost breakdowns, and it is unrealistic to think that these huge

funding requirements will be met immediately. Without specific breakdowns, it will be

difficult to prioritize actions and direct funding appropriately.

The link between development of ocean resources and funding for the programs also is

problematic. The report would seem to be encouraging exploitation of ocean resources to

fund research, education, and conservation programs, despite the fact that development of

the resources could be at odds with the need to protect and conserve these resources.

Specific comments regarding each of the sections are provided below.
5

Part II Blueprint for Change: A New National Ocean Policy

Framework

Chapter 4: Enhancing Ocean Leadership and Coordination

Recommendation 4-5. It is necessary to provide clear guidelines on the composition

of a newly created Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy. This is the

highest level at which states, territories, tribal, and local government representatives

can provide input to the proposed National Ocean Council. As such, critical

components of the structure of this body, such as how individuals will be nominated,

how many individuals will be selected, and how long they will serve, must be clearly

identified in order to ensure an equitable representation. Given the vastness of the

federal EEZ surrounding Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American

Samoa, and the Pacific Remote Islands, and the disproportionately lower population

base in these areas, the region should be guaranteed permanent representation on the

body.

Recommendation 4-10. The creation of regional ocean councils has the potential for

great improvements in management of coastal and ocean resource concerns.

However, the process should be mandatory, rather than voluntary, with guidelines

developed by both the states and federal agencies for a clear role for these councils.

Without statutory authority and a clear definition of the councils’ roles and

responsibilities, they will not be able to have the impact they need if they are to

meaningfully change the way we manage our resources. We support the need for such

councils but they must have clear roles and authorities, especially in regard to existing

regional structures such as the fishery management councils and state level bodies

tasked with specific coastal and ocean related management duties. Without the

integration of these councils with existing regional structures, they risk becoming just

another cumbersome layer of bureaucracy.

Chapter 5: Advancing a Regional Approach

Setting the Pacific insular areas as one region for the Regional Ocean Information

Programs follows the existing well established regional fisheries management council

pattern and seems most practical to meet the goals of this section. We also encourage

federal support for regional councils that include international partners, to ensure that

regional efforts truly include regional partners in areas like the Pacific where

international neighbors are an integral part of the region.

Recommendation 5-1. While this recommendation defines some of the roles of

regional ocean councils, it fails to suggest a formal mechanism for the creation of

such councils, or the need for statutory authority for the councils. Many of the council

duties listed under this recommendation would be extremely difficult to fulfill if the

councils are not formal organizations.

Recommendation 5-4. We strongly support the inclusion of local and state level

assessments in environmental impact statements and the need to include this

requirement in NEPA guidelines.

Guam
6

Recommendation 5-5. Bullet three under this recommendation calls for an open and

competitive grant process. To account for smaller jurisdictions like the islands, there

should be some baseline formula to ensure that smaller regions will have access to

this funding. In many cases, competitive grant programs leave small jurisdictions

unable to compete with the political clout and larger population bases of larger areas.

A baseline system to account for this tendency will also go far in meeting the goals of

Recommendation 5-6, to ensure that adequate support is given to regional programs.

In addition, there should be no match requirements for the islands and indirect costs

should be capped to ensure that the majority of the funding goes toward the program.

Chapter 6: Coordinating Management in Federal Waters

Increased coordination will do much to improve our ability to manage our resources.

However, as in other recommendations advanced by the Commission, care must be taken

to account for the differences between regions and their concerns regarding resource

management.

For Guam and other Pacific insular areas, a precedent was set in providing opportunities

for direct benefits to island governments from resources in surrounding federal waters,

when Guam and other island governments were allowed to participate in benefits from

foreign fishing boats in surrounding EEZs. We support similar island participation in

management and benefits derived from the mining of seabed minerals, ocean energy

projects and other activities, as such programs would have direct impacts on Guam

waters and environment but not on other U.S. waters.

Recommendation 6-2. We support the need for an offshore management regime for

balanced coordination of offshore uses and a process for dealing with new and

emerging activities. We ask that areas such as Guam and the other Pacific territories

be included in the formulation of such policies, to ensure that development of ocean

resources in the Pacific benefit the islands that will be most affected by these

activities.

Recommendation 6-3. Marine protected areas serve a valuable purpose in the

management of our resources, and we support the need for federal involvement in

such activities. However, given that Guam and many other states have already

established such protected areas, we stress the need to tailor federal regulations to

meet the needs of the existing programs. It would be vastly unfair to impose new

regulations on existing successful programs, especially if such regulations do not take

into account the traditional and cultural needs of a specific area. As public support of

marine protected areas is crucial for their success, any new guidelines must be

developed with regional needs and differences in mind.

Chapter 7: Strengthening the Federal Agency Structure

While we support the intent to reorganize federal agencies to more efficiently and clearly

regulate development, manage our resources, and interact with state and local

governments, this chapter also highlights the tremendous difficulties in reorganizing
7

federal entities. There is a danger that partial implementation of recommendations to

improve federal coordination and promote efficiency could actually lead to new levels of

bureaucracy and an even more convoluted structure. Further, incomplete reorganization

projects could lead to a reduction in funding and other resources at a time when we need

more help rather than less.

Part III Ocean Stewardship: The Importance of Education and

Public Awareness

Chapter 8: Promoting Lifelong Ocean Education

We strongly support the recommendations listed in this section, as more concerted

educational efforts will be essential to fostering understanding and a sense of stewardship

for our valuable ocean resources. However, Chapter 8 focuses almost exclusively on

formal, traditional education processes and may miss valuable opportunities to reach out

to the wider public. For these programs, and school curricula, it is also important to

reflect cultural influences to develop materials that are appropriate for each region and

jurisdiction.

The report does a good job in detailing the need for K-12 curricula and incentives for

ocean related degree work at the university level, but it fails to address the possibilities

for work force education through ocean related skills at vocation and technical schools.

The addition of these venues could produce a work force with more than competent skill

levels and would help to provide the numbers of skilled workers necessary to meet the

demands of continuing growth in sectors such as transportation, resource recovery, and

environmental management.

Any oceans education policy must also include programs for public outreach and

community based education campaigns to involve people who are no longer in school.

There is an immediate need for public commitment, and school-based programs will fail

to reach the great majority of the population who are not in any formal education setting.

Education is a dynamic and continuous process that should be encouraged after formal

education is completed. The islands have experienced some successes with community

programs and we strongly believe that these types of options must be included in

education policies.

Finally, the report briefly mentions the Minority Serving Institution Program of the NSF,

but does not address one of the most noticeable and easily corrected shortcomings of the

program. The current definition of minority for purposes of the program is narrow and

does not recognize the native populations of the U.S. islands as being minorities;

therefore, their institutions of higher learning are not recognized as MSI. This reduces

opportunities for minorities and reduces the chances for a larger minority force entering

the marine and ocean related sciences, despite the fact that the marine and ocean

Guam
8

environment are part of their lives from birth and they are more likely to remain in the

islands after degree work. A new recommendation is offered here:

Recommendation 8-17. The National Science Foundation should expand its

definition of "minority" to include natives of U.S. insular areas, and the

institutions of higher learning within the U.S. insular jurisdictions as Minority

Serving Institutions, to expand the opportunities for ocean-related higher

education in those areas most immediately affected by ocean and marine issues.

Part IV Living on the Edge: Economic Growth and Conservation

along the Coast

Consistent with the Commission's call for ecosystem-based management, this section

makes numerous references to the need for increased cooperation and new management

tools to better protect our coasts and our oceans. In the area of coastal development and

environmental management, the need for consideration of cumulative impacts of

development has traditionally been overlooked. This need is mentioned throughout the

section and we strongly support efforts to make this a factor in policies regarding coastal

development.

Chapter 9: Managing Coasts and their Watersheds

The recommendations presented in Chapter 9 are sound, especially the reauthorization of

the Coastal Zone Management Act to enable coastal programs to continue their mission

and strengthen their role in natural resource management. We agree with an amendment

that requires funding based on performance and incentives for exceptional work, but a

need for a “safety net” to provide minimum funding for continuity of programs should be

considered.

It is encouraging that the coastal programs will include watershed areas that have such a

direct impact on our coasts. As islanders, we recognize the need for management of

ocean resources “from the mountains to the sea,” as whatever occurs on our limited land

mass invariably affects the sea. We are quickly able to see the effects of poor land use

practices on our beaches and near shore waters.

Recommendation 9-3. We strongly support this recommendation. Guam is prone to

severe typhoons and earthquakes, and ensuring that projects funded by the Federal

Emergency Management Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers are consistent

with island goals and best management practices will help us effectively manage our

coasts. Many older projects on the shoreline do not take into consideration

alternatives to ensure environmentally sustainable development. We suggest the

addition of the Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway program as another

program that would benefit from review for coastal impacts and consistency.
9

Chapter 10: Guarding People and Property against Natural Hazards

As noted above, Guam experiences major storms and powerful earthquakes with

alarming frequency. The island's experience with these types of natural disasters could be

used to model plans for dealing with certain hazardous conditions and ensuring

prevention of major losses due to these events. With respect to hazard mitigation and

storm repair, we offer the following suggestions.

Recommendation 10-1. We support the call for valid, peer-reviewed cost-benefit

analyses of coastal projects, but the process should include a new cost-benefit matrix

to take into account long-term costs, environmental factors, and other considerations.

The traditional cost-benefit analyses should be changed to include long-term

considerations and other factors, such as those mentioned in Recommendation 12-2

regarding analysis of disposal options for dredge material. For example, a certain

stretch of coastal highway in Guam has several concrete power poles that have fallen

in several storms. A traditional cost-benefit analysis calls for hardening and

replacement of these poles, but does not take into account the number of times the

infrastructure has been replaced - and the fact that Guam will almost certainly have

another storm powerful enough to damage these poles again. Had a long-term

scenario been built into the analyses, the lines could have been placed underground

and saved millions of dollars.

Recommendation 10-2. We agree with this recommendation, but ask that Guam and

other islands be included in efforts to collect and use information regarding hazards.

Guam and other territories have been neglected in the National Flood Insurance

Program map modernization initiative, and our maps continue to reflect inaccurate,

outdated data. Updating these maps and other hazard data should be a high priority,

especially as older models used temperate climate assumptions that are not

appropriate for Guam's unique circumstances.

Recommendation 10-3. The Commission should include some consideration for

small jurisdictions like Guam that have limited land area available for development.

Guam's relationship with the National Flood Insurance Program has been rocky

because of outdated maps and the program's inflexibility in dealing with certain

historically and culturally sensitive areas. The program cannot adopt a cookie cutter

approach that will unfairly target islands like Guam, which has an area of only about

200 square miles.

Finally, there is an urgent need to address environmental impacts of disasters, natural or

otherwise. The National Response Plan that guides FEMA's response efforts for

Presidentially declared disasters includes a series of Emergency Support Functions, ESFs,

that provide specific and directed responses to various disaster needs. The lack of an ESF

for natural environment response has sometimes had the effect of impeding a response

and lengthening the time for a full recovery. We offer the follow suggestions to include in

the final report:

Guam
10

Recommendation 10-5. The Department of Homeland Security should ensure

that procedures guiding FEMA's response to disasters include provisions, such

as a detailed ESF, that support regional, state and local efforts to respond to

impacts on natural environments as part of the immediate and overall recovery

efforts. In coastal and marine areas, the lead federal agency for a disaster

recovery ESF should be NOAA.

Recommendation 10-6. In order to ensure that responses to impacts on natural

environments following a disaster are conducted in the most efficient, effective,

and cooperative manner, FEMA should work with state and territorial

jurisdictions to develop local action plans for responding to natural environment

impacts from disasters, which would assist in guiding FEMA's response

capabilities.

Chapter 11: Conserving and Restoring Coastal Habitat

We strongly agree with the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act to

provide additional funding for coastal and estuarine land conservation. Such a program

would be a great benefit to Guam, since our local government no longer has land

available for land exchange.

Chapter 12: Managing Sediments and Shorelines

Recommendation 12-4. We strongly agree with this suggestion calling for federal

agencies to work more closely with each jurisdiction to ensure impacts to coastal

areas, wetlands, watersheds and ecosystems are managed and reduced.

Chapter 13: Supporting Marine Commerce and Transportation

The Port Authority of Guam (PAG) is the entry point for 95% (over 150,000 twenty-foot

equivalent containers annually) of all cargo into Guam, and is the transshipment center

for Micronesia with over 20 cargo ships outbound monthly. PAG is a federally regulated

“hazardous materials” and “certain dangerous cargos” port. Additionally, PAG receives 5

million barrels of fuel, up to 100 fuel tankers, 27,000 cruise passengers, and 2,000 port

calls by foreign fishing vessels annually.

Since September 11, 2001, PAG estimates that, in terms of manpower hours and

equipment/facilities upgrades, the annual cost for implementing federally mandated port

security requirements is $1 million annually. To date, PAG has received roughly

$500,000 in federal funds for port security projects. This amount relates to just 17 percent

of PAG’s total cost.

In comparison to billions of dollars that are made available to airports for security

enhancements, the nation’s 326 ports must compete for inadequate federal funding levels

to implement security measures. In FY04, $179 million was made available for port

security grants. Over 1,000 applications were submitted, with less than half of the

applications approved for grant funding.
11

In light of the above, PAG is proposing additional language (italicized) to the following

recommendation, as it applies to port security:

Recommendation 13-6. In developing a national freight transportation strategy,

the U.S. Department of Transportation should work closely with the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management

Agency to incorporate port security and other emergency preparedness

requirements. The strategy should focus on preventing threats to national

security and port operations and on response and recovery practices that limit

impacts of such events, including an assessment of the availability of alternate

port capacity, and sufficient funding levels to implement prevention, response and

recovery strategies for the nation’s ports.

Part V Clear Waters Ahead: Coastal and Ocean Water Quality

The Commission makes numerous valuable recommendations for improving our ability

to monitor and improve water quality, and we strongly support the need to revisit water

quality programs. However, some recommendations within the chapter are too broad and

may not be appropriate for all jurisdictions.

Chapter 14 also highlights a persistent challenge in balancing the needs of the community

and the resource. While the report strongly advocates a shift to ecosystem-based

management practices, Chapter 14 focuses on human health standards with regard to

water quality standards. Human health is clearly of the highest priority, but standards that

are sufficient to protect human health may not be sufficient to prevent adverse effects in

the ecosystem. This discrepancy is perhaps most evident in delicate ecosystems such as

the coral reefs, where the most fragile organisms may show extreme responses to minute

levels of certain contaminants.

The maximum level of pollutants allowed for human health reasons does not necessarily

present an accurate picture of the water quality of a given area. Establishing standards

and conducting regular testing for the maximum level of pollutants for the most fragile

element of the ecosystem would better reflect ecosystem health. Given the cost involved

in testing procedures and the inherent level of uncertainty in determining the most

harmful types and levels of contaminants, a good compromise might be to publish results

indicating the levels of all contaminants, with a comparison showing the effects on

certain indicators within the ecosystem as well as the traditional public health effects.

Generally, the relationship between all elements of the coastal environment also must be

considered. Water quality recommendations and regulations have traditionally relied on

water column testing that may not present the full picture of water quality. The quantity

of contaminated sediment, which may contain bacterial and chemical pollutants, is of

concern, as noted in Chapter 12. Yet water quality standards consistently leave out the

Guam
12

integral relationship between these elements, especially in recreational areas where such

sediment is regularly stirred up by both natural processes and human activities.

Finally, the need for standards that reflect different conditions is essential. Existing

programs rely on many protocols developed in temperate systems that simply do not

reflect the conditions of areas like Guam. A concerted effort to develop testing and

monitoring programs suited for each area must be a part of any effort to revisit standards

with the goal of improving our water quality.

Specific recommendations for each chapter are presented below.

Chapter 14: Addressing Coastal Water Pollution

Recommendation 14-1. This calls for states to require advanced nutrient removal

from wastewater treatment plant discharges into "nutrient impaired waters." Also,

EPA is to characterize the extent of the impact of household and industrial chemicals

in wastewater. Guam sewage treatment plants are designed to discharge into waters

that are not nutrient impaired. Therefore this extra and costly treatment should not be

part of Guam requirements. However, Guam would benefit from the recommended

study, which would improve knowledge of chemical impacts on Guam’s unique reef

ecosystems.

Recommendation 14-2. We strongly support this recommendation, especially in the

areas of system maintenance education and innovative designs to improve treatment

effectiveness.

Recommendation 14-4. We strongly support this recommendation, which recognizes

the need to plan for and implement wastewater and drinking water infrastructure

needs. This may bring the highest benefit to Guam and the island territories, if it does

lead to an increase in federal funding for needed infrastructure and infrastructure

plans. However, additional regulations and suggestions within the Commission

preliminary report also call for additional requirements and costly changes to water

and wastewater systems, raising the question of a never-ending cycle of changes that

will require more and more funding.

Recommendation 14-6. This calls for strengthening the NPDES permit system’s

monitoring and enforcement. Improvement and strengthening this system is very

important to Guam, though this effort would have to be initiated by U.S. EPA as

Guam is one of just a few remaining states and territories that have not obtained

NPDES permit authority. Additional federal funding should support this.

Recommendation 14-8. We support this recommendation, with the following

clarifications. EPA should develop rules to ensure regular testing of both fresh and

near shore waters in both water column and sediments, and federal programs for

water quality testing and maximum levels of pollutants should be based on the

specific ecosystem, rather than national average standards. Certain levels of pollutants
13

that may be considered “acceptable” in other areas would do major damage to more

sensitive systems such as coral reefs.

Recommendation 14-9. While this suggestion correctly identifies a need to reduce

bureaucracy by merging the complementary U.S. EPA Section 319 and NOAA

Section 6217 programs on nonpoint source pollution, care should be taken not to lose

funding or functions and simply eliminate one program without moving its resources.

Congress should also eliminate sanctions of the 6217 program and authorize and

appropriate the necessary funds for its implementation. If the Guam Coastal

Management Program (GCMP) were to take on seashore protection and development

permit enforcement responsibilities, then, it would be appropriate to retain the 6217

Program under GCMP as opposed to moving it under the jurisdiction of the Guam

Environmental Protection Agency.

Recommendation 14-11. Guam will benefit from this call to strengthen the ability of

local land use decision makers to protect water quality and may improve our land use

planning through results of this recommendation.

Recommendation 14-12. We strongly support this recommendation calling for a

comprehensive approach to storm water management and funding, but there must be

a commitment to follow-through when these types of federal initiatives are made.

One way to ensure follow-through is to enlist the cooperation of the Department of

Transportation, tying the continued apportionments of highway funding to

compliance with local regulations for managing storm water runoff. Additionally, as

with other standards, federal entities must be careful not to adopt a “one-size fits all”

approach, as conditions in the various coastal systems vary widely between

jurisdictions.

Recommendation 14-13. We strongly support this recommendation, although it is

fairly non-specific as presented. For Guam, “regional” cooperation necessarily

involves international partners, and this reality should be reflected in the report. The

Commission promotes involvement with international programs, as exist in the

Caribbean, and similar attention and support should be given to international

programs for ocean water quality in the Pacific. Continuing relationships with the

South Pacific Regional Environmental Program (SPREP) should be promoted, via the

Pacific Islands Office of EPA Region 9 and the American territories that are SPREP

members. Additionally, in order to promote regional international cooperation and

participation NOAA should consider expanding and diversifying program capacity

through Pacific insular areas and Hawaii.

Chapter 15: Creating a National Water Quality Monitoring Network

The Commission addresses the need to strengthen and improve water quality monitoring,

which we strongly support. However, this chapter fails to address the well documented

problems of national standards for recreational water quality monitoring, which are not

appropriate in Guam, Hawaii, CNMI, American Samoa and probably the tropical

Caribbean areas and southern Florida. Dr. Roger Fujioka of the University of Hawaii

Guam
14

Water Resources Research Center and colleagues have shown that the current U.S. EPA

recommended fecal pollution indicators (E. coli and Enterococcus sp.) are not suitable for

assessing human health risks in the tropics. They survive in tropical conditions outside of

warm-blooded hosts and can be detected in coastal tropical waters where there are no

warm-blooded animal or human sources of contamination. They can multiply and persist

in soil, sediments and water in Guam and other tropical environments. Alternative

indicators are needed for monitoring recreational water quality in the tropical islands.

Chapter 16: Limiting Vessel Pollution and Improving Vessel Safety

We support the recommendations in Chapter 16, noting that many need substantial

increases in available resources if they are to become a reality. For Guam and the other

island jurisdictions, additional programs will need substantial support, as the island

already experiences difficulty enforcing many regulations because of a paucity of both

federal and state enforcement personnel to handle a vast expanse of the Pacific.

Recommendation 16-1. We support this recommendation, though other mechanisms

to address foreign vessels should also be put in place.

Recommendation 16-2. This item calls for support for increased performance-based

inspection of vessels by the Coast Guard and coordination with increasing security

requirements. Support for increasing Coast Guard resources is necessary and

important to Guam. In addition, in terms of strengthening environmental protection,

the Coast Guard’s ability to assist in and respond to environmental threats from

vessels should be expanded under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to include situations

such as vessel groundings when there is no imminent threat of releasing oil into the

marine environment.

Recommendation 16-4. We support the call for the Coast Guard to harmonize port

state control programs through the IMO and support an international vessel

information database.

Recommendation 16-5. We support the request for Congress to amend the Clean

Water Act to address large passenger vessel discharges, a practice already in place in

Alaskan waters. This is an especially important recommendation because it offers the

rare chance to prevent problems, rather than trying to address them at an advanced

stage. For Guam, this provision is especially timely, as cruise ship calls are projected

to increase substantially in coming years. U.S. EPA and Coast Guard enforcement

personnel highlighted the growing problems with this type of pollution in similar

jurisdictions like Hawaii and Guam would strongly support measures taken to prevent

similar concerns before the industry grows in our region.

Recommendation 16-8 would increase funding for pumpout facilities and transfer

responsibility of this program from the Fish and Wildlife Service to the EPA. This

program needs improvement in its application to Guam, which might be helped by

this recommendation.
15

Recommendation 16-14 calls on national agencies to conduct research on all kinds

of vessel pollution to allow better management and regulation to control impacts.

This broad approach and new information generated will benefit all.

Recommendation 16-15. This promotes increased awareness of maritime activities

especially for the authorities dealing with safety, security and pollution. This will

require additional resources for the Coast Guard and their provision should likewise

be recommended.

Chapter 17: Preventing the Spread of Invasive Species

Impacts of invasive species are well recognized on Guam, due to the unfortunate

introduction of the brown tree snake and resulting loss of native species. Under the

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA), states

are encouraged to develop plans for managing invasive aquatic species. Federal funding

to support the development of these plans has been inadequate, and the implementation of

such plans will require significant resources if we are to make any impact.

Guam is currently preparing a comprehensive approach to planning for controlling

existing invasive species problems and preventing invasions by other unwanted species,

both aquatic and terrestrial. The recommendations in Chapter 17 will assist the island and

other jurisdictions dealing with this growing problem.

Recommendation 17-1. We support the call for the U.S. Coast Guard to continue its

work in improving regulation of ships’ ballast water, with the addition of EPA

consultation, and to address ships declaring no ballast. However, there should be

recognition of the need for more specialized resources for the Coast Guard to carry

out this mandate.

Recommendation 17-2. We support the recommendation for the National Ocean

Council to commission an independent scientific review on improvement of ballast

water management research and demonstrations.

Recommendation 17-3. We support this call for public education and outreach about

the numerous pathways of aquatic species’ invasions. Finding and interrupting the

transfer of invasive species may be our best hope of avoiding an expensive and

protracted campaign to control or eradicate pests, as we are currently experiencing

with the brown tree snake.

Recommendation 17-4. We strongly support the call for a coordinated multi-agency

national plan for early detection of invasive species. A system for prompt notification

and rapid response that would assess current problems, identify pathways of invasion

and provide for means to prevent invasions and support detection and rapid response.

Congress is asked to fund and implement this national plan. As part of the

recommendation, support needs to be continued to individual states and territories

that have not done so, to develop their plans for managing invasive aquatic species, in

partnership with the national plan development.

Guam
16

Guam also recommends an amendment to bullet five under this recommendation, to

recognize the value of groups that can aid in the detection of and early response to

invasive species:

Develop partnerships among government, industry and user groups to

fund and implement response actions, to include education and educational

material development for groups that can provide consistent “eyes” for

species or ecosystem change, and a reporting system that will allow

information to be gathered and compiled and analyzed by scientists and

resource managers familiar with the specific ecosystem.

Recommendation 17-5. This calls for the National Ocean Council to streamline

federal and regional programs on invasive species and coordinate federal, regional

and state efforts, developing risk assessments and management approaches that will

minimize potential invasions at the lowest cost. The place or appropriateness of U.S.

island territories in regional programs needs to be considered. Their unique situations

may make the national efforts ineffective in the islands, where special consideration

may be required.

Recommendation 17-6. Besides a proposed North American effort, the U.S. should

consider other regional approaches, for example, through the South Pacific Regional

Environmental Program for the nations and territories of the Pacific Islands.

Recommendation 17-7. This recommendation calling for increased funding for the

NOC to coordinate the development and implementation of a plan for research and

monitoring of aquatic species invasions is commendable, as long as island territories

are included in the plan.

Chapter 18: Reducing Marine Debris

Both the impact and volume of marine debris have been greatly increasing and pose

threats to total ocean ecosystems as well as to inshore reefs and coastal waters. We

support the recommendations in this chapter and strongly support increased federal

attention to this serious problem. This is especially significant for Guam, as the problems

of derelict fishing gear and other marine debris are related to non-U.S. flagged vessels as

well as local and other U.S. ships.

Recommendation 18-2. This recommendation to have the NOC establish a

committee to address marine debris can help support local efforts to protect Guam

waters from litter and other significant debris sources. The recommendation could

benefit by a more specific call for community action, particularly with regard to the

relationship between inland actions and their effects on the coasts.

Recommendation 18-3. This provision calls for a multi-national approach to address

derelict fishing gear. We support this recommendation, especially because most
17

impacts of such gear in Guam arise from non-US vessels. A system to identify nets

could help enforcement efforts, by making it possible to identify culpable parties and

secure funding for net retrieval or environmental restoration costs.

Part VI Ocean Value and Vitality: Enhancing the Use and

Protection of Ocean Resources

Chapter 19: Achieving Sustainable Fisheries

Recommendation 19-8. We strongly oppose a one-size-fits-all approach regarding

recreational licensing, as it is clearly not needed for Guam. In addition, for most

island jurisdictions this is a local issue, occurring within three miles of shore. The

Commission bases the need for the recommendation that NMFS should require all

saltwater anglers to purchase licenses on the fact that data on recreational fishing are

inadequate and generated primarily by the NMFS Marine Recreational Fisheries

Statistics Survey. However, on Guam, the USFWS Federal Aid in Sport Fish

Restoration, through a grant to the Guam Division of Aquatic & Wildlife Resources,

has been funding both inshore and offshore creel surveys for more than 20 years. A

total of 384 surveys per year capture data from recreational and subsistence

fishermen. Guam’s database is far superior to any data that could be generated by a

mandatory license program that comes with an increased need for enforcement.

Requiring mandatory licenses for all saltwater anglers places a large burden on

already overburdened enforcement efforts, without any identification of the need for

additional funding.

Recommendation 19-14. All members of the Regional Fishery Management

Councils, not just newly appointed ones, should take a mandatory training course.

Recommendation 19-15. Regarding the 4th guideline, there should be no fee waivers.

The public should be appropriately compensated for granting dedicated access

privileges to a public resource.

Recommendation 19-17. We strongly support the recommendation for increased

funding for Joint Enforcement Agreements between NMFS and state and territory

marine enforcement agencies. This is especially critical to the islands in the Western

Pacific, where currently one NMFS special agent is responsible for federal marine

enforcement in an ocean area similar in size to the contiguous 48 states. In addition,

multiple JEAs are needed in jurisdictions with unique circumstances, such as Guam,

where a JEA is already in place with the Department of Customs and Quarantine and

one is needed with the Division of Aquatic & Wildlife Resources. However, a match

waiver should be available for the Territories, where local tax bases are much smaller

and local marine enforcement agencies are already severely under-funded.

Recommendation 19-18. We strongly support the recommendation for strengthened

cooperation between NMFS and USCG for the same reason identified above, as one

Guam
18

NMFS special agent currently has jurisdiction over all the islands in the Western

Pacific.

Recommendation 19-20. A Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) should also be a part

of international forums, for example as part of negotiations on treaties for managing

highly migratory species.

Recommendation 19-21. The recommendation calls for NMFS to work with other

management entities to protect essential fish habitat when such areas fall outside their

jurisdiction. In addition to the items listed, this effort should also include a clear

definition of “protection.”

Recommendation 19-22. This recommendation calls for NMFS to expand current

efforts to collect data on all types of bycatch, not just commercially important

species. The term “bycatch” should be expanded to include sessile species that may

not be determined to be essential fish habitat, such as the deep-water corals at risk

from destruction by trawls.

Chapter 21: Preserving Coral Reefs and Other Coral Communities

Recommendation 21-1. This recommendation calls for the passing of a Coral

Protection and Management Act, but does not follow up with any provisions for

management and established funding for management. The purpose of the Task Force

is centered on science-based management. The current funding is subject to an annual

(deliberate) inclusion in NOAA’s budget, rather than from an established and

permanent funding source. We recommend the addition of a bullet for support, in

both technical and financial form, for locally driven management of coral reef

ecosystems in the U.S. coral reef states and territories. In addition, the U.S. flag

islands often share a closer relationship to other small island states than to the

mainland U.S., geographically, culturally and economically. Because of these special

relationships, we suggest amending the 5th bullet to allow for direct involvement by

state and territorial members of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force in bilateral, regional,

and international coral reef management programs. In terms of protection, the

permitting of activities directly involving coral reefs and other sensitive marine

ecosystems should be removed from the purview of the Army Corps of Engineers and

placed under NOAA. In addition, the legislation should not allow activities conducted

by the Department of Defense to be exempted unless a clearly defined, immediate,

and direct threat to national security exists.

Recommendation 21-2. In regard to the suggestions that the U.S. Coral Reef Task

Force be codified, we have concerns that the Task Force’s recommended role within

the framework of the National Ocean Council may weaken the Task Force by

allowing Task Force membership to be relegated to lower echelon persons within the

federal membership. We would support language that would keep the federal agency

representation to the Task Force at the Assistant Secretary level, and the co-chairs at

the Secretarial level.
19

We also have serious concerns about the inclusion of deep-water corals within the

framework of the Coral Reef Task Force. As its name implies, the Task Force focus

was intended to be on reef-building corals, and while some deep-water corals may be

associated indirectly with reef-building corals in tropical areas, the broad inclusion

would work to weaken the primary focus and goal of the Task Force. We believe that

deep-water corals are a concern and should be addressed, but great care must be taken

in selecting the proper venue for their attention. Deep-water corals require different

management regimes, different science, and are generally associated with completely

different ecosystems (the possible exceptions being deep water corals in proximity to

tropical reef systems).

Impacts to deep-water corals are primarily a fisheries issue. We therefore recommend

that instead of expanding the Task Force’s responsibilities to include deep-water

corals, a sub-group of the Task Force should be created, with new participation by

entities involved with deep-water corals, to determine the proper, existing venue for

management attention, such as the Regional Fishery Management Councils.

Recommendation 21-3. The report correctly states that due to its status as the

world’s largest importer of ornamental coral reef resources, the U.S. has a great

responsibility to ensure the sustainability of these resources. However, the

recommendation to develop national standards and promote international standards to

ensure coral reef resources are collected in a sustainable way, with the

implementation of incentive programs to encourage compliance does not go far

enough. To truly ensure sustainability, there must be a shift away from harvest of

wild stock toward cultivation.

To this end, bullets should be added to the recommendation tasking NOAA with:

publishing procedures for coral cultivation through fragmentation or sperm/egg

reproduction, and making the information available to the governments of those

countries where wild harvest for export now occurs; developing workshops on coral

cultivation and presenting them to communities where reef harvest currently exists;

working with research institutions and businesses associated with home aquarium

trade to develop a procedure for identifying cultivated corals in commerce; and

working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop and implement a phased

system to ultimately prohibit the importation of wild stock corals into the U.S.

Recommendation 21-4. In line with our comments for Recommendation 21-2 above,

regional, ecosystem-based research plans should not be developed for deepwater

coral communities by the Task Force.

Chapter 22: Setting a Course for Sustainable Marine Aquaculture

Recommendation 22-1. This recommendation calls for NOAA to be the lead agency

for implementing a national policy for environmentally and economically sustainable

marine aquaculture, but, by attempting to balance the responsibility for both

environmental concerns and economic development of an industry in the same

agency, the same risks for conflict of interest exist as given in the example for the

Stellar sea lion on page 259. In addition, funding must be identified for a new Office

of Sustainable Marine Aquaculture.

Guam
20

Chapter 23: Connecting the Oceans and Human Health

The commission should provide a formal recommendation to establish a procedure to

enter into benefit sharing agreements (both federally and for states and territories), based

on the success of the National Park Service in this area.

Chapter 24: Managing Offshore Energy and Other Mineral Resources

Recommendation 24-1. We strongly support the use of a portion of the revenues that

are generated from current leasing and extraction of OCS oil and gas for grants to

coastal states for conservation and sustainable development of renewable ocean and

coastal resources. However, as stated in the general comments above, new funding

for many of the recommendations put forth in this document should not be solely

dependent on revenues generated from new development of ocean resources.

Recommendation 24-2. We strongly support the need for increased funding for the

Mineral Managements Service’s (MMS) Environmental Studies Program. This

funding should come from the revenues that are generated from current leasing and

extraction of OCS oil and gas.

Recommendation 24-3. This recommendation calls for establishing a partnership

between NOAA, MMS, and the offshore oil and gas industry allowing for the use of

industry resources for IOOS. The use of industry resources could also be added as a

condition of current leases if the industry is reluctant to enter into a partnership.

Part VII Science-based Decisions: Advancing Our Understanding of

the Oceans

Chapter 25: Creating a National Strategy for Increasing Scientific Knowledge

Recommendation 25-1. We strongly support enlarging the National Sea Grant

College Program by expanding it to include formation of a Sea Grant Institute

(consortium) in the Western Pacific.

Recommendation 25-2. We strongly support the recommendation to develop a

national ocean research strategy, especially the suggestion that agencies be required

to provide multi-year (greater than 5 year) funding. For small islands such as Guam, it

is extremely difficult to address capacity issues when funding is only guaranteed on a

yearly basis. Time spent on receiving funds, establishing accounts, recruiting for

positions and selecting qualified individuals takes a minimum of 6 months, leaving

only 6 months on an annual grant to complete all work identified in a project. This

situation is untenable and often results in the loss of unobligated funds. In addition,

we firmly support a shift toward management-driven research.

Recommendation 25-3. This recommendation calls for the inclusion of
21

socioeconomic research as part of greater ocean research efforts. This is especially

important in small island communities, where the ocean plays a tangible, direct role

in everyone’s life and economies are often based on one or two industries vulnerable

to economic fluctuations. Natural resources and their cultural importance are often

overlooked or undervalued during times of economic recession.

Chapter 26: Achieving a Sustained, Integrated Ocean Observing System

We support the creation of a sustained, Integrated Ocean Observing System, especially

the involvement of state, local, territorial, and tribal management agencies, industry,

academia, NGOs, and the public in developing IOOS. We also support the need for

enhancing ocean infrastructure and technology development. However, many of the

components outlined in Chapters 26 and 27 are extremely expensive, so care must be

taken to balance the funding needs of these efforts with the funding needs of local, onthe-ground, management efforts by the states, territories, and other local entities. We

strongly support more integrated and user-friendly data and information systems,

especially the recommendations calling for more timely submission of data. Local

managers need to be able to access data in real time in order to make effective

management decisions.

Part VIII The Global Ocean: U.S. Participation in International

Policy

Chapter 29: Advancing International Ocean Science and Policy

The United States has traditionally been a leader in international ocean policy and has

participated in the development of many international agreements that govern the world's

oceans. That leadership must be maintained and supported, as the Commission expresses

through Chapter 29.

Recommendation 29-1. We strongly support the Commission's recommendation for

the U.S. to ratify the 1982 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea. Until

that step is taken, the U.S. will not be able to fully participate in the bodies

established by the convention to make decisions on ocean issues. This inability to

participate directly has major effects for the nation as a whole, and particularly for

island territories like Guam that are tied so closely to the ocean that surrounds us.

Recommendation 29-2. We further support the Commission's call to have the

National Ocean Council coordinate an expedited review and analysis of the oceanrelated components of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Recommendation 29-6: In addition to the FAS, the insular U.S. areas enjoy many

opportunities, and on a regular basis have meaningful interactions with other islands

in the international community. Whether it is the two U.S. flag islands of the

Caribbean, or the Pacific flag islands, the relationships with regional, independent

nation islands is natural because of shared resources and issues, and close cultural ties

Guam
22

that extend back many centuries in some cases. In several cases, the islands share past

political connections as well. The federal government should encourage these existing

relationships, as they provide natural connections between the international island

community and the United States, and can provide the basis for regional efforts in

connection with the International Coral Reef Initiative and the Pacific Islands

Regional Ocean Policy. The U.S. should therefore expand the current opportunities

for the commonwealths and territories to join and participate in regional and

international forums, such as the Pacific Islands Forum.

In 2000, after a six-year effort involving the United States and 33 Asian and Pacific

nations, the U.S. signed the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly

Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. This convention, which

recognizes the economic importance of the fisheries to the people of the Pacific Islands,

includes strong provisions for minimizing the negative impacts of fishing and for

protecting biodiversity. We recommend the Commission include this convention in its list

of international ocean agreements and support an active U.S. role in funding and

implementing this important convention. This is an important step in the protection and

management of highly migratory species, and plays a role in a larger scheme including

the implementation of the U.N. Agreement relating to the Conservation and Management

of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks as well as the International

Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna

Convention.
June 4, 2004 

James D. Watkins 

Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired), Chairman 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

1120 20th Street, NW Suite 200 North 

Washington, DC 20036 

Dear Chairman Watkins: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s Preliminary 

Report. This is a historic opportunity for our nation to take stock of ocean management and set a 

course for the future. As an island community, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands (CNMI) is especially aware of how important the oceans are, not just to the nation, but to 

our own quality of life and to our economic and ecologic well-being. I would like to offer the 

following comments in the spirit of collaborative partnership and in the interests of improving 

federal programs and fostering improved federal-state/territorial relationships. 

The report recognizes that the Great Lakes have often been overlooked in coastal management 

thinking and considers them the “Fourth Coast.” In the same sense, the CNMI, Guam, and 

American Samoa have often been overlooked as remote Pacific outposts. Perhaps we and the 

other island states and territories should be called the “Fifth Coast.” Just as the Great Lakes are 

unique with their freshwater resources, we are unique with our very diverse, complex tropical 

coral reefs and extensive open-ocean resources. All these resources are fundamental to our 

traditional cultures and they are national environmental and economic treasures. However, our 

distance from the mainland sets us apart. Many of the maps in your report don’t include all the 

island territories. This distance also severely hinders many elements of our coastal and ocean 

resource management programs including research, education, and recruitment of local staff, 

recruitment and retention of off-island experts, as well as support from Congress. I would like to 

strongly recommend that the Final Report specifically recognize the obstacles we face and make 

some provision for bridging these gaps. 

The issues addressed in the Preliminary Report are clearly critical to the social, economic, and 

environmental welfare of the nation, as well as the CNMI. These include national re-organization 

and leadership, ecosystem management, fisheries, water quality, coral reefs, marine trade, 

aquatic nuisance species, science, and education. The enclosure contains specific comments on 

recommendations in the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s Preliminary Report. In addition, I 

Northern Mariana Islands
Admiral James D. Watkins 

June 4, 2004 

Page 2 

would like to support the comments of the U.S. All Islands Coral Reef Initiative Coordinating 

Committee, and the Coastal States Organization. The following are some of the key 

recommendations of concern to the CNMI: 

• CHAPTERS 4–7. The CNMI supports the recommendations for improved coordination, 

leadership, regionalization, and streamlining of federal agencies. We hope these changes 

can be jumpstarted through an Executive Order, legislation, or other direction to 

agencies. 

• RECOMMENDATIONS 4-7, and 4-8. The proposed National Ocean Council and the 

proposed COSETO and CORM committees should have strong state/territorial 

representation, because the scope of these committees significantly overlaps with 

state/territorial interests. 

• RECOMMENDATION 5-3 AND OTHERS. The CNMI endorses the recommendations 

throughout the report that call for bringing ecosystem thinking into coast and ocean 

management. However, we caution against an across-the-board application without 

reasonable time for implementation in such ecologically complex and taxonomically 

diverse areas as the CNMI. 

• RECOMMENDATION 5-5. The proposed regional board in the insular Pacific region 

should be expanded to include representatives from each state and territory, the director 

of MAREPAC, and the U.S. All Islands Coral Reef Initiative Committee. 

• RECOMMENDATION 6-2. The CNMI has a strong economic and ecological interest in the 

EEZ and offshore activities. There should be a direct role for states and territories in 

offshore management, in addition to reviewing federal projects for consistency with the 

federally approved state coastal management programs. Along with their management 

role, the CNMI and other insular areas should derive a beneficial interest from the 

extraction of offshore resources. This is important because for insular areas, where 

upland resources are limited, offshore resources can be the key to economic selfsufficiency. 

• CHAPTER 8, PAGE 102. I would like to request that a recommendation be added that calls 

for the National Science Foundation to expand their definition of “minority” to include 

natives of U.S. insular areas and the institutions of high learning within the U.S. insular 

jurisdictions as Minority Serving Institutions. This will expand the opportunities for 

ocean-related higher education in those areas most immediately impacted by ocean and 

marine issues on a daily basis. 
Admiral James D. Watkins 

June 4, 2004 

Page 3 

• RECOMMENDATION 9-1. Congress should reauthorize and amend the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA), as a critical, high priority action for improved coastal and 

ocean management. Although the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s recommendation 

addresses core issues, this recommendation also needs to recognize and strengthen other 

elements of the CZMA, including habitat restoration, community planning and smart 

growth, ocean management, watershed management, and support for special-area 

management planning. 

• RECOMMENDATION 14-4. The CNMI strongly endorses this call for a prioritized, 

comprehensive plan for long-term funding of the nation’s current aging and inadequate 

wastewater and drinking water infrastructure and for increased funding of the State 

Revolving Fund. 

• CHAPTER 21. The CNMI endorses these recommendations related to protection, 

management, and sustained use of our coral reefs. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force 

should be codified and strengthened. I urge the acceptance of the specific changes 

requested by the U.S. All Islands Coral Reef Initiative Coordinating Committee. 

• RECOMMENDATION 24-1 The CNMI strongly supports sharing of OCS revenues to 

support sustainable development of renewable ocean and coastal resources. 

• RECOMMENDATION 30-1. The CNMI also strongly supports the recommended Ocean 

Policy Trust Fund and the principle of reinvestment in renewable resources and 

conservation and to assist states and territories with impacts. 

Thank you again for undertaking this critically important project and for including the Governors 

in your review process. 

Sincerely, 

s/Diego T. Benavente 

Acting Governor 

Enclosure: Detailed Comments 

Northern Mariana Islands
Detailed Comments by the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) on the 

Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

June 4, 2004 

Note: Text from the Preliminary Report is shown in 10 point bold type. CNMI comments are in 

normal 12 point type. 

CHAPTER 4: ENHANCING OCEAN LEADERSHIP AND COORDINATION

4-1. Congress should establish a National Ocean Council and a nonfederal Presidential Council of Advisors 

on Ocean Policy within the Executive Office of the President to provide enhanced federal leadership and 

coordination for the ocean and coasts. 

The creation of a National Ocean Council (NOC) for enhanced federal leadership and 

coordination could be a significant benefit to the management and research of the Nations’ ocean 

resources. 

4-3. The National Ocean Council (NOC) should adopt the principle of ecosystem based management and 

assist federal agencies in moving toward an ecosystem-based management approach. 

The CNMI endorses this recommendation in principle. However, strict adherence to an 

ecosystem-based management approach, coupled with the application of a precautionary 

approach, could result in the complete closure of fisheries in the CNMI that have been 

successfully sustainable for hundreds of years. The biological data available for these 

exceedingly diverse tropical ecosystems is very limited, the area encompassed is very large, and 

the professional capacity of our communities is very small. 

The CNMI urges that the NOC and the proposed COSETO and CORM committees have strong 

state and territorial representation. This is because the ‘purview’ of these councils/committees 

significantly overlaps state/territorial interests. 

4-4. An Assistant to the President should be assigned to provide leadership and support for national ocean 

and coastal policy. 

The person who fills this critical position must be chosen with extreme care. It would be wise to 

stipulate minimum qualifications for this position. 

4-7. Congress, working with the National Ocean Council (NOC), should amend the National 

Oceanographic Partnership Act to integrate ocean observing, operations, and education into its 

marine research mission. A strengthened and enhanced National Ocean Research Leadership 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

2 

Council (NORLC) should be redesignated as the Committee on Ocean Science, Education, 

Technology, and Operations (COSETO), under the oversight of the NOC.

The proposed COSETO committee should have strong state/territorial representation, because 

the scope of this committee significantly overlaps state/territorial interests. 

4-8. The National Ocean Council (NOC) should establish a Committee on Ocean Resource Management to 

better integrate the resource management activities of ocean-related agencies. This committee should oversee 

and coordinate the work of existing ocean and coastal interagency groups and less formal efforts, recommend 

the creation of new topical task forces as needed, and coordinate with government-wide environmental and 

natural resource efforts that have important ocean components.

The proposed CORM committees should have strong state/territorial representation, because the 

scope of this committee significantly overlaps state/territorial interests. 

4-10. The National Ocean Council should work with Congress, the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean 

Policy, and state, territorial, tribal, and local leaders, including representatives from the private sector, 

nongovernmental organizations and academia, to develop a flexible and voluntary process for the creation of 

regional ocean councils. 

There should be a clearer statement on the purposes of the regional ocean councils. The states 

and territories should be key drivers of the issues, process, and solutions at this level. 

CHAPTER 5: ADVANCING A REGIONAL APPROACH

5-2. Congress should establish regional ocean programs to improve coordination and set regional priorities 

for research, data collection, science-based information products, and outreach activities in support of 

improved ocean and coastal management. Program priorities should be carried out primarily through a 

grants process. 

CNMI supports the establishment of regional ocean science and research programs. 

The CNMI supports the establishment of regional ocean science and research programs. 

Moreover, the CNMI supports the enhanced role for Sea Grant extension services as an 

important mechanism for delivering and interpreting science information products, but notes that 

there is no formal Sea Grant program serving the CNMI. 

5-3. Each regional ocean information program, with guidance from the National Ocean Council, should 

coordinate the development of a regional ecosystem assessment, to be updated periodically. 

The CNMI supports the development of regional ecosystem assessments, but notes that these 

will require a major work effort. 

Chapter 5 should note that the regional ecosystem assessments will be coordinated and build 

upon the state resource assessments referenced in Chapter 9 (p. 111). 

5-5. Congress should establish regional boards to administer regional ocean information programs 

throughout the nation. Program priorities should be carried out primarily through a grants process. Each 

regional board should: be comprised of federal agency representatives, representatives from each state in the 

region, and a Sea Grant Director from at least one state in the region. Each board should also have 

territorial, tribal, local, and other stakeholder representation....

CNMI supports this recommendation and the regional breakouts as proposed by the Commission 

on pages 61-62. 

Northern Mariana Islands
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

3 

The CNMI would like to suggest that the first bullet be revised to read, “be comprised of federal 

agency representatives, representatives from each state and territory in the region and a Sea 

Grant director from at least one state in the region and/or director of MAREPAC (in the insular 

Pacific region). Each board should also have tribal, local, and other stakeholder representatives, 

including the U.S. All Islands Coral Reef Initiative Committee in the insular Pacific and 

Southeast regions.”

CHAPTER 6: COORDINATING MANAGEMENT IN FEDERAL WATERS

6–1. Congress, working with the National Ocean Council (NOC), should ensure that each current and 

foreseeable use of federal waters is administered by a lead federal agency. The lead agency should coordinate 

with other federal agencies with applicable authorities and ensure full consideration of the public interest. 

Pending congressional action, the National Ocean Council should designate interim lead agencies to 

coordinate research, assessment, and monitoring of new offshore activities. 

The establishment of a lead agency is essential to avoiding agency jurisdictional conflicts. 

6-2. Congress, working with the National Ocean Council and regional ocean councils, should establish a 

coordinated, ecosystem-based offshore management regime that sets forth guiding principles for the balanced 

coordination of all offshore uses. It should recognize the need, where appropriate, for single-purpose ocean 

governance structures that are comprehensive and fully integrated with and based on the principles of the 

new offshore management regime. The regime should also include a process for planning for new and 

emerging activities and a policy that a reasonable portion of the resource rent derived from such activities is 

returned to the public. 

The CNMI has a strong economic and ecological interest in the EEZ and offshore activities. 

There should be a direct role for states and territories in offshore management, in addition to 

reviewing federal projects for consistency with the federally approved state coastal management 

programs. 

Along with their management role, the CNMI and other insular areas should derive a beneficial 

interest from the extraction of offshore resources. This is important because for insular areas, 

where upland resources are limited, offshore resources can be the key to economic selfsufficiency. 

How the resource rent is derived and where it is returned are critical issues and need to be clearly 

defined. The impact of this recommendation on subsistence fishermen should be considered. 

6–3. The National Ocean Council should develop national goals and guidelines leading to a uniform process 

for the effective design and implementation of marine protected areas. 

Marine Protected Areas (MPA) are currently used as a fisheries management tool in the CNMI, 

and have been actively managed since the program inception in 1998, without federal oversight. 

Nationwide, many MPAs have been designated by states, territories, and commonwealths for a 

variety of local reasons, many of which are specific to the locality. Such MPAs should be 

managed by state/territory/ commonwealth natural resource agencies and should not be required 

to meet national standards. 

In federal waters, at least in the western Pacific region, the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries 

Management Council (WPRFMC) has motivated the designation of future MPAs under its 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

4 

jurisdiction. A Washington D.C.-based political body should not have authority over an RFMC, 

with respect to the use of MPAs as a fisheries management tool. 

6–4. Regional ocean councils, or other appropriate regional entities, should actively solicit stakeholder 

participation and lead the design and implementation of marine protected areas. The design and 

implementation should be conducted pursuant to the goals, guidelines, and uniform process developed by the 

National Ocean Council. 

Stakeholder participation is essential, but again, there is no need for federal oversight. The 

CNMI has done exceptionally well in managing its marine resources, and has been quite active 

in designating MPAs with stakeholder input. 

CHAPTER 7: STRENGTHENING THE FEDERAL AGENCY STRUCTURE

7–5. Following the establishment of the National Ocean Council and the Presidential Council of Advisors on 

Ocean Policy, the strengthening of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and consolidation 

of similar federal ocean and coastal programs, the President should propose to Congress a reorganization of 

the federal government that recognizes the links among all the resources of the sea, land, and air and 

establishes a structure for more unified, ecosystem-based management of natural resources. 

It is important that a key “lead agency” be designated to focus on ecosystem management in the 

federal waters and with coordination with states and territories. The recommendations should be 

amended to clarify state/territorial public trust and economic interest in the EEZ. 

Consideration should be given to linking or including a lead agency role for NOAA in the 

Organic Act that focuses on coordination with states/territories/commonwealths on ocean 

planning (state waters and EEZ), as well as results-based management at state and local scales. 

The CNMI has a strong economic and ecologic interest in the EEZ and offshore activities. There 

should be a direct role for states and territories in offshore management, in addition to reviewing 

federal projects for consistency with the federally approved state coastal management programs. 

CHAPTER 8: PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN EDUCATION

The CNMI notes the importance of ocean education and recommends that the Ocean.ED vision 

and strategy be developed with state and local government input. To the extent possible, the 

national vision should encompass state/territorial standards and the implementation strategy 

should include goals, priorities, and clearly outline how the strategy will be implemented. 

The CNMI requests that the Commission clarify how Ocean.ED will build state, territorial, and 

local capacities for informal education and outreach. The federal agencies should be required to 

fund and support state/territorial and community-based education efforts. 

8-xx. (Proposed by the All Islands Coral Reef Initiative Coordinating Committee) The National Science 

Foundation should expand their definition of “minority” to include natives of U.S. insular areas, and the 

institutions of high learning within the U.S. insular jurisdictions as Minority Serving Institutions, to expand 

the opportunities for ocean-related higher education in those areas most immediately impacted by ocean and 

marine issues on a daily basis. 

The CNMI strongly endorses this recommendation. 

Northern Mariana Islands
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

5 

CHAPTER 9: MANAGING COASTS AND THEIR WATERSHEDS

9-1. Congress should reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to strengthen the planning and 

coordination capabilities of coastal states and enable them to incorporate a coastal watershed focus and more 

effectively manage growth. Amendments should include requirements for resource assessments, the 

development of measurable goals and performance measures, improved program evaluations, additional 

funding to adequately achieve the goals of the Act, incentives for good performance and disincentives for 

inaction, and expanded boundaries that include coastal watersheds. 

Congress should reauthorize and amend the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), as a 

critical, high priority action for improved coastal and ocean management. Although the 

Commission’s recommendation 9-1 addresses core issues, this recommendation also needs to 

recognize and strengthen other elements of the CZMA, including habitat restoration, community 

planning and smart growth, ocean management, watershed management, and support for specialarea management planning. 

The CZMA is an important vehicle for implementing a wide range of Ocean Commission 

recommendations because it takes an integrated approach and is a federal-state-local partnership 

that acknowledges the important role of states and municipalities and can address vertical and 

horizontal integration of ecosystem management. 

A reauthorized CZMA needs to retain its focus on partnerships, state/territorial roles in working 

with communities, and maximize the opportunities for input. The CZMA also needs to maintain 

the states’/territories’ abilities to implement programs that meet federal goals in ways that best fit 

each location’s ecological, geographical and political needs. 

Although the CNMI supports the focus of recommendation 9-1 on development of periodic, 

comprehensive resource assessments, states and territories will only be able to conduct these 

assessments if adequate federal funding, above CZMA base federal funding (306/306A/309), is 

provided to us. 

Likewise, the CNMI supports the movement toward the development of measurable goals and 

improved program evaluation, but encourages the Commission to acknowledge the increased 

costs associated with performance-based management. The CNMI and nine coastal states are 

already participating in a pilot performance indicator project. By the end of 2004, we will have 

realistic estimates of the costs for states to develop indicator systems and the funds needed to 

undertake additional monitoring and assessment work. 

The CNMI supports an incentive-based approach to expanding partnerships under the CZMA 

and increasing focus on watershed issues. The CNMI strongly disagrees with the use of 

disincentives and counterproductive penalties that take away program funding for states. A 

severe disincentive already exists for non-performing programs through Section 312 of the 

CZMA whereby federal approval of the program can be retracted. Rather, the CNMI strongly 

recommends that the federal government work cooperatively with states/territories that are 

experiencing problems to provide the resources and technical assistance necessary to help the 

state or territory to achieve the shared goals. 

The CNMI proposes that the Commission recommend that the CZMA be amended to create a

Coastal Communities Program to assist states/territories in planning and managing land uses to 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

6 

support sustainable coastal development, protect and restore coastal habitats and other resources, 

reduce exposure to coastal hazards, and revitalize urban waterfronts. The Coastal Communities 

Program should include technical and financial support for: resource and community 

assessments and plans; planning-oriented research and technical assistance; model and pilot 

projects that promote ecosystem-sensitive development or restoration; local land-use plans and 

implementing ordinances that meet the goals of the CZMA; and be appropriated at least $30 

million. 

9-4. Congress should amend the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Water Act, and other federal laws 

where appropriate, to provide better financial, technical, and institutional support for watershed initiatives. 

Amendments should include appropriate incentives and flexibility for local variability. The National Ocean 

Council should develop guidance concerning the purposes, structures, stakeholder composition, and 

performance of such initiatives. 

The CNMI recommends that the coastal pollution and watershed initiatives be derived from 

regional, state, and local input. The National Ocean Council should support and ensure funding 

for the priorities and needs identified by the regional, states/territorial, and local initiatives. To 

the extent possible, the NOC and regions should rely on existing regional management councils, 

commissions, and organizations. 

CHAPTER 10: GUARDING PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AGAINST NATURAL HAZARDS

10-4. The National Ocean Council (NOC) should encourage Congress to increase financial and technical 

assistance to state and local entities for developing hazards mitigation plans consistent with requirements of 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The NOC should also identify opportunities for 

conditioning federal hazards-related financial and infrastructure support on completion of FEMA-approved 

state and local hazards mitigation plans. 

The CNMI supports this recommendation and recommends that the CZMA be bolstered as a tool 

for proactive planning to avoid the impacts of coastal hazards. 

10-xx. (Proposed by the All Islands Coral Reef Initiative Coordinating Committee) The Department of 

Homeland Security should ensure that the procedures guiding FEMA’s response to natural disasters include 

provisions (such as a detailed ESF) that support regional, state and local efforts to respond to the impacts on 

natural environments as part of the immediate and overall recovery efforts. In coastal and marine areas, the 

lead federal agency for a natural resource recovery ESF should be NOAA. 

The CNMI endorses this recommendation. 

10-xx. (Proposed by the All Islands Coral Reef Initiative Coordinating Committee) To ensure that responses 

to impacts on natural environments following a natural disaster are conducted in the most efficient, effective, 

and cooperative manner, FEMA should work with state and territorial jurisdictions to develop local action 

plans for responding to natural environment impacts from natural disasters, which would assist in guiding 

FEMA's response capabilities. 

The CNMI endorses this recommendation. 

CHAPTER 11: CONSERVING AND RESTORING COASTAL HABITAT

Chapter 11, pages 125 and 126 

The background discussion should include information about Pacific island areas. Within the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), only 36% of Saipan’s original wetland 

area remains. This is equal to a loss of nearly 1 mi2

 (over 600 acres) on an island that is only 46 

Northern Mariana Islands
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

7 

mi2

 (29,440 acres) in total area. (Coastal Resources Management Office, Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands. 1991. Final Saipan Comprehensive Wetlands Management Plan. 

Saipan, CNMI.) 

The background discussion should also include the gaps in wetland protection created by the 

U.S. Supreme Court’s SWANCC decision that has resulted in various isolated wetlands falling 

outside of the US Army Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction. 

11-1 Congress should amend the Coastal Zone Management Act to authorize and provide sufficient funding 

for a dedicated coastal and estuarine land conservation program. In order to achieve this: each state coastal 

management program should identify priority coastal habitats and develop a plan for establishing 

partnerships among willing landowners for conservation purposes, with participation from local government, 

nongovernmental, and private-sector partners. 

The CNMI supports the Commission’s recommendation to Congress to amend the CZMA to 

create a Coastal Estuarine Land Conservation Program. Additionally, the CNMI recommends 

that dedicated funding for CELCP be at a minimum level of $60 million, although this is far 

short of current needs. 

The CNMI is currently developing a local CELCP. The CNMI supports awarding some funds 

competitively to states/territories with approved CELCP priority plans. However, as in the forest 

legacy program, there should be a regional balance and there should be base funding for 

states/territories with plans as provided in the LWCF. 

Finally, NOAA, rather than Congress, should make project-specific funding decisions. 

11-4 The National Ocean Council should coordinate development of a comprehensive wetlands protection 

program that is linked to coastal habitat and watershed management efforts and should make specific 

recommendations for the integration of the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetlands permitting process into 

that broader management approach. 

The CNMI strongly supports this recommendation. Although the Clean Water Act 404 wetland 

permitting process should consider a broader management approach, this is not enough to lessen 

wetland loss. CNMI agency permit reviews of developments also need to better assess 

cumulative effects of coastal development and incorporate a broader management approach. 

Federal agencies and states/territories should coordinate their permit reviews and, in the interest 

of a “no net-loss” policy, make determinations that err on the side of caution. 

CHAPTER 12: Managing SEDIMENT AND SHORELINES

The CNMI suggests revising the last sentence in the second paragraph of the background to read, 

“Undesirable sediment can cloud water and degrade wildlife habitat, form barriers to navigation, 

contaminate or pollute the food chain, and can result in the bioaccumulation of harmful toxins in 

marine plants, animals and humans.” 

CHAPTER 14: ADDRESSING COASTAL WATER POLLUTION

14-2. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states should increase technical and financial 

assistance to help communities improve the permitting, design, installation, operation, and maintenance of 

septic systems and other on-site treatment facilities. State and local governments, with assistance from EPA, 

should adopt more effective building codes and zoning ordinances for septic systems and should improve 

public education about the benefits of regular maintenance. 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

8 

These recommendations should be clarified to ensure that septic systems and NPDES permits are 

consistent with federally approved CZM programs. In some cases, the state/territorial standards 

are more stringent than the federal standards. 

14-4. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with state and local governments, should develop a 

prioritized, comprehensive plan for long-term funding of the nation’s current aging and inadequate 

wastewater and drinking water infrastructure, anticipating demands for increased capacity and more 

stringent treatment in the coming decades. To implement this plan, Congress should fund the State Revolving 

Fund Program at or above historic levels. 

The CNMI strongly supports this recommendation. The CNMI does not have adequate funding 

to maintain and expand its drinking water systems. Nor does the CNMI have adequate funding to 

maintain and expand its wastewater systems. This results directly in poor water quality. 

14-7. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) should align its conservation programs and funding with 

other programs aimed at reducing nonpoint source pollution, such as those of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

The CNMI endorses this recommendation. 

14-11. State and local governments should revise their codes and ordinances to require land use planning and 

decision-making to carefully consider the individual and cumulative impacts of development on water 

quality, including effects on stormwater runoff. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other 

appropriate entities should increase outreach programs that provide local land use decision makers with the 

knowledge and tools needed to make sound land use decisions that protect coastal water quality. 

The CNMI recommends that state/territorial and local governments should require land-use 

planning and decision-making to balance the development required to meet population growth 

and economic needs with the protection of critical coastal resources, including revitalizing 

waterfront areas and minimizing individual and cumulative impacts of development on coastal 

water quality from stormwater runoff. Federal agencies should provide technical assistance and 

training to the state/territorial and local governments. 

14-xx: (Proposed by the All Islands Coral Reef Initiative Coordinating Committee) The EPA should develop 

water-quality testing procedures to identify allowable maximum pollutant levels to ensure ecosystem health 

based on the most fragile elements of the ecosystem, and promulgate rules ensuring regular testing of both 

fresh and nearshore waters, and reporting the results of such tests to the public. 

The CNMI endorses this recommendation. The most frequently used measure for determining 

whether a water body or water source is impaired is based on maximum levels of pollutants 

allowed for human health reasons. Although this is certainly a major concern that should be 

tested for and publicized, it does not present an accurate picture of the quality of the water being 

tested. The CNMI recommends establishing standards and conducting regular testing for the 

maximum levels of pollutants allowed for the most fragile element of the ecosystem. In the case 

of coral reefs, that element would likely be the corals themselves. 

14-xx: (Proposed by the All Islands Coral Reef Initiative Coordinating Committee) The EPA should ensure 

that water quality testing procedures encompass testing of sediments as well as water columns, in order to 

develop a more accurate picture of the overall water quality of an ecosystem. 

The CNMI endorses adding this recommendation to address the practice of basing results on 

water samples taken from an undisturbed water column. Many pollutants are attached to the 

Northern Mariana Islands
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

9 

sediments and are either taken up through the food chain from the sediment, or are released in 

times of more severe weather or sea conditions that disturb the sediments.

CHAPTER 16: LIMITING VESSEL POLLUTION AND IMPROVING VESSEL SAFETY

The CNMI supports the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s recommendations with respect to 

limiting vessel pollution and improving vessel safety. 

CHAPTER 17: PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF INVASIVE SPECIES

The CNMI is very aware of the need to control invasive species, having witnessed their effect 

both in the Northern Marianas and in neighboring islands and having made considerable 

investment to reduce that effect and to prevent further spread of invasive species. 

All Pacific insular areas, including the CNMI, should be included in the appropriate regional 

panel. 

17-1. The U.S. Coast Guard’s national ballast water management program should: apply uniform, 

mandatory national standards; incorporate sound science in the development of a biologically meaningful 

and enforceable ballast water treatment standard; include a process for revising the standard to incorporate 

new technologies; ensure full consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, both during and 

after the program’s development; and include an interagency review, through the National Ocean Council, of 

the policy for ships that declare they have no ballast on board. 

The CNMI acknowledges that for much of the continental United States, the discharge of ballast 

water is considered a primary pathway for introduction of non-native aquatic species. However, 

recent studies in Guam have shown that this may not the major pathway for our tiny oceanic 

island communities. (Pauley et al., 2002. Anthropogenic biotic interchange in a coral reef 

ecosystem: a case study from Guam. Pacific Science 56(4):403-422.) This study showed that 

organisms riding on ships hulls are likely the most important source of invaders. 

The CNMI therefore requests that the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy add standards, 

measures, and processes to reduce the import of non-native aquatic species on ships’ hulls to this 

recommendation. For example, measures might include requirements that barges and ships have 

their hulls cleaned of fouling organisms once a year and that anti-fouling paint be applied once 

every five years. 

17-4. The National Invasive Species Council and the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, working with 

other appropriate entities, should establish a national plan for early detection of invasive species and a system 

for prompt notification and rapid response. Congress should provide adequate funding to support the 

development and implementation of this national plan.

This plan is both critical and badly needed. However, care must be taken to ensure the inclusion 

of insular areas, such as the CNMI. 

17-5. The National Ocean Council (NOC) should review and streamline the current proliferation of federal 

and regional programs for managing marine invasive species, and coordinate federal, regional and state 

efforts. Coordinated plans should be implemented to develop risk assessment and management approaches 

for intentional and unintentional species introductions that minimize the potential of invasions at the lowest 

cost.

The CNMI urges the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy to include territorial/commonwealth and 

local efforts into the coordination efforts that are a critical part of this recommendation. 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

10 

CHAPTER 18: REDUCING MARINE DEBRIS

The CNMI strongly urges the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy to include insular areas such as 

the CNMI, Guam, and American Samoa in their programs and planning. Note that the National 

Marine Debris Monitoring Program not only excludes these areas, but the website maps don’t 

include these areas at all. (The International Coastal Cleanup websites do at least incorporate the 

island of Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia.) 

18-3. U.S. Department of State and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, working with the 

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and other appropriate entities, should develop a detailed 

plan of action to address derelict fishing gear, to be implemented on a regional, multi-national basis. 

The CNMI urges the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy to consider imposing similar fees on 

nets imported into all parts of the United States. 

18-5. The U.S. Department of State should increase efforts to ensure that all port reception facilities meet the 

criteria necessary to allow implementation of Special Areas protections under Annex V of the International 

Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. 

The CNMI urges the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy to consider developing a Micronesian 

and Hawaiian series of port reception facilities. 

CHAPTER 19: ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES

The role of the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) of a Regional Fisheries Management 

Council (RFMC) is to review scientific information as it pertains to the management of the 

fisheries under the RFMC jurisdiction, then to provide the RFMC Council guidance with respect 

to the science reviewed and how it would influence the management of the particular fisheries in 

question. The SSC does not set harvest guidelines, because it is an advisory body. The RFMC 

SSC is a scientific body that makes recommendations to the RFMC Council based upon the best 

available science, but ultimately the RFMC sets harvest limits. 

19-1. Congress should amend the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and related 

statutes to require Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) and interstate fisheries commissions to 

rely on their Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs), incorporating SSC findings and advice into the 

decision-making process. In keeping with this stronger role, SSC members should meet more stringent 

scientific and conflict of interest requirements, and receive compensation. 

With respect to the Western Pacific RFMC (WPRFMC), the SSC has been comprised of a mix of 

prominent fisheries stock assessment scientists, experts in the fields of fishery economics, 

sociology-anthropology, and protected species, as well as regional scientific expertise from 

western and southern Pacific island groups. Forcing an SSC to significantly increase its already 

high standards does not seem necessary for the WPRFMC, and it may result in outer island areas 

being marginalized, where technical scientific expertise may not rival that of larger states (even 

though we are rich in local scientific expertise and local knowledge). 

The prospect of excluding from the SSC anyone who is “formally or financially affiliated with 

any harvesting or processing sector” might in fact keep highly qualified experts off an SSC. The 

very nature of the SSC is to thoroughly discuss the scientific merits of the science under review. 

Having differing scientific opinions with regard to science supports the objective goal of science. 

Northern Mariana Islands
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

11 

Rotating membership would tend to serve other RFMCs better than the WPRFMC, where local 

expertise with regard to fisheries science is very limited. This option could be supported through 

flexibility in the length of appointments for each RFMC. 

19-2. Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs) should be required to supply Regional Fishery 

Management Councils (RFMCs) with the scientific information necessary to make fishery management 

decisions. Such information could include reports on stock status and health, socioeconomic impacts of 

management measures, sustainability of fishing practices, and habitat status. In particular, the SSCs should 

determine allowable biological catch based on the best scientific information available to them. 

19-3. Each Regional Fishery Management Council should be required to set harvest limits at or below the 

allowable biological catch determined by its Scientific and Statistical Committee. The councils should begin 

immediately to follow this practice, which need to be codified at the next opportunity in amendments to the 

Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 

19–4. The National Marine Fisheries Service, working with the Regional Fishery Management Councils and 

the interstate fisheries commissions, should develop a process for independent review of the scientific 

information generated by the Scientific and Statistical Committees in all regions. 

19–5. Each Regional Fishery Management Council should set a deadline for its Scientific and Statistical 

Committee (SSC) to determine allowable biological catch. If the SSC does not meet that deadline, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Science Director should set the allowable biological catch for that 

fishery. 

The Regional Fisheries Science Centers (RFSC) are responsible for providing the RFMC with 

scientific information related to allowable biological catches (ABC). The SSC is a scientific 

advisory body to the Council that reviews such scientific information and provides 

recommendations to the Council. The SSC should not replace the RFSC, unless they are to be 

hired or paid in some capacity by the RFMC during the time of their tenure to conduct stock 

assessment analysis, which is often complex and therefore time consuming. To expect SSC 

members to conduct such assessments in addition to their existing employment requirements is 

untenable. 

The RFSC are responsible for stock assessment, and the RFMC, based on the advice of the SSC, 

sets the ABC. 

19-6. Once allowable biological catch is determined, whether by the Scientific and Statistical Committee or 

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Regional Science Director, the Regional Fishery Management 

Council should propose a fishery management plan in time for adequate review and approval by NMFS. If 

the plan is not presented in a timely fashion, all fishing on that stock should be suspended until NMFS can 

review the adequacy of the management plan. 

Management Plans can take several years to draft and implement, especially if NEPA 

requirements need to be met. It is not clear if these management plans need to be speciesspecific, or can cover a family or genera, or are ecosystem based. If they are required to be 

species-specific then several of the CNMI’s fisheries would be closed down for an undetermined 

length of time, while a management plan is being formulated. This is not necessary, nor is it in 

the best interests of the resource or the fishers. 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

12 

19-7. The Regional Fishery Management Councils and their Scientific and Statistical Committees should 

develop an annual, prioritized list of management information needs and provide it to the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS should incorporate these needs to the maximum extent possible in 

designing its research, analysis, and data collection programs. 

By its very nature the Council process produces management information and subsequent 

decisions needs on ‘as-needed’ basis. Providing such information on an annual basis only, would 

impose unnecessary limitations on the RFMC’s ability to provide sound management guidelines 

in a timely manner and could therefore lead to unnecessary restrictions in harvest and/or 

overfishing. 

19-8. The National Marine Fisheries Service, working with states and interstate fisheries commissions, should 

require all saltwater anglers to purchase licenses to improve in-season data collection on recreational fishing. 

Priority should be given to fisheries in which recreational fishing is responsible for a large part of the catch, 

or in which recreational fishermen regularly exceed their allocated quota. 

The CNMI is currently working on legislation that would address this issue. 

19-9. Congress should increase support for an expanded, regionally-based cooperative research program in 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that coordinates and funds collaborative 

projects among scientists and commercial and recreational fishermen. NOAA should develop a process for 

external evaluation and ranking of all cooperative research proposals to ensure the most worthwhile projects 

are funded, the most capable performers are undertaking the research, and the information produced is both 

scientifically credible and useful to managers. 

This would be extremely beneficial in the management of the CNMI’s fishery resources. 

19-10. Congress should develop new statutory authority, similar to the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative 

Management Act, to support and empower the Gulf States and Pacific States Fisheries Management 

Commissions. All interstate management plans should adhere to the national standards in the Magnuson–

Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the federal guidelines implementing these standards. 

States should participate in guideline development to ensure they are relevant to interstate plans. 

The CNMI is part of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. The 

constituents of the WPRFMC are small island groups with fisheries that are very distinct from 

mainland fisheries. The WPRFMC should not be part of any Commission. 

19-11. When a fish stock crosses administrative boundaries, Congress should clearly assign fishery 

management jurisdiction and authority. For each fishery management plan, a state, Regional Fishery 

Management Council (RFMC), interstate fisheries commission, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) should be established as the lead authority. That designation should be based 

primarily on the proportion of catch associated with each management authority. However, once designated, 

management authority should not shift based on annual changes in landings. 

The CNMI requests that the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy consider establishing the lead 

management authority on more than the jurisdiction that lands the highest proportion of the 

catch. Other criteria might include proportion of the stock, or protection of the stock in each 

jurisdiction. For example, the stocks of many species of reef fishes likely bridge the jurisdictions 

of the CNMI and Guam. Guam’s total harvest of these species is generally much higher than the 

CNMI’s. However, the greatest proportion of the stock lies much closer to the shores of the 

CNMI than Guam. Moreover, the CNMI’s populations of most near-shore reef fishes are higher 

than Guam’s. It might be argued that the CNMI’s good stewardship of these resources and its 

Northern Mariana Islands
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

13 

location with respect to the bulk of the stock could be good reasons for suggesting that the CNMI 

be awarded lead management authority. 

19-12. Congress should amend the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to require 

governors to submit a broad slate of candidates for each vacancy of an appointed Regional Fishery 

Management Council seat. The slate should include at least two representatives each from the commercial 

fishing industry, the recreational fishing sector, and the general public. 

This is in the best interests of the Council, because it would ensure a broad list of candidates 

from which to choose. It needs to be clarified whether or not the subsistence-fishing sector is 

being overlooked. 

19-14. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) should require all newly appointed Regional Fishery 

Management Council (RFMC) members to complete a training course within six months of their 

appointment. NMFS should contract with an external organization to develop and implement this training 

course and Congress should provide adequate funding. Members who have not completed the training may 

participate in RFMC meetings, but may not vote. 

Training is an excellent idea. The NMFS and the RFMC should work together to develop the 

training program. 

19-15. Congress should amend the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to affirm 

that fishery managers are authorized to institute dedicated access privileges. Congress should direct the 

National Marine Fisheries Service to issue national guidelines for dedicated access privileges that allow for 

regional flexibility in implementation. Every federal, interstate, and state fishery management entity should 

consider the potential benefits of adopting such programs. 

The CNMI’s fish resources are in very good condition, especially relative to virtually any other 

U.S. jurisdiction. The need for ‘dedicated access privileges’ is not really pertinent to the CNMI, 

because the CNMI does not have an overcapitalized industry or an over-harvested resource. The 

potential for the use of such privileges should be an option, but how it would differ from other 

limited-entry programs is unclear. 

19-16. Congress should repeal the Fisheries Finance Program (formerly the Fishing Vessel Obligation 

Guarantee Program), the Capital Construction Fund, and other programs that encourage overcapitalization 

in fisheries. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should implement programs to 

permanently reduce fishing capacity to sustainable levels. 

The CNMI fishing industry is not overcapitalized and could in fact benefit from such loans in the 

future as fisheries develop. Eliminating such potential economic opportunities is not in the best 

interests of the CNMI. 

19-17. Congress should increase funding for Joint Enforcement Agreements to implement cooperative 

fisheries enforcement programs between the National Marine Fisheries Service and state marine enforcement 

agencies. The U.S. Coast Guard should be included as an important participant in such agreements. 

This is fully supported by the CNMI, because it would result in better enforcement and 

protection of the CNMI’s natural resources. 

19-18. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Coast Guard should strengthen cooperative 

enforcement efforts at the national level by developing a unified strategic plan for fisheries enforcement that 

includes significantly increased joint training, and at the regional and local levels, by developing a stronger 

and more consistent process for sharing information and coordinating enforcement. 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

14 

The CNMI fully supports this recommendation. 

19-19. The National Marine Fisheries Service, working with the Regional Fishery Management Councils, the 

U.S. Coast Guard, and other appropriate entities, should maximize the use of the Vessel Monitoring System 

(VMS) for fishery-related activities by requiring that VMS with two-way communication capability be 

phased in for all commercial fishing vessels receiving permits under federal fishery plans, including party and 

charter boats that carry recreational fishermen, incorporating VMS features that assist personnel in 

monitoring and responding to potential violations, and identifying state fisheries that could significantly 

benefit from VMS implementation. 

The use of VMS could provide the location of fishing vessel effort, which is typically not 

accurately and/or precisely known because fishermen are not prone to disclosing their favorite 

fishing locales. Such information is, however, absolutely essential in the prudent management of 

fisheries resources. This should be supported, with a note that funding will be an issue and 

potentially a hardship for some fishermen, and that VMS should be restricted to commercial 

fishermen. 

19-20. The U.S. Coast Guard should be the lead organization in managing the integration of a fishery Vessel 

Monitoring System (VMS) database into the larger maritime operations database and should work with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure effective use of VMS data for monitoring and enforcement. 

Fishing location data are sensitive data that should not be readily available except for fisheries 

stock assessment, enforcement, and management. 

19-21. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) should change the designation of essential fish habitat 

from a species-by-species to a multispecies approach and, ultimately, to an ecosystem-based approach. The 

approach should draw upon existing efforts to identify important habitats and locate optimum-sized areas to 

protect vulnerable life-history stages of commercially important species. NMFS should work with other 

management entities to protect essential fish habitat when such areas fall outside their jurisdiction. 

This should be a long-term goal, but to achieve it a significant amount of data need to collected, 

compiled, and analyzed. In the interim, essential fish habitat designation should only be altered 

as new information becomes available, so as to not impede progress already made, as well as that 

being made. 

19-22. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Regional Fishery Management Councils should 

develop regional bycatch reduction plans that address broad ecosystem impacts of bycatch. Implementation 

of these plans will require NMFS to expand current efforts to collect data on bycatch, not only of 

commercially important species, but on all species captured by commercial and recreational fishermen. The 

selective use of observers should remain an important component of these efforts. 

This is an important long-term goal that should be fully supported. 

19-23. The U.S. Department of State, working with other appropriate entities, should encourage all countries 

to ratify the Fish Stocks Agreement and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s Compliance 

Agreement. In particular, the United States should condition other nations’ access to fishing resources within 

the U.S. exclusive economic zone on their ratification of these agreements. Other incentives should be 

developed by the United States and other signatory nations to encourage all nations to ratify and enforce 

these agreements. 

The CNMI fully supports this recommendation. 

19-24. Congress should fully fund existing U.S. commitments to international fisheries management. The U.S. 

Department of State, working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, should review and 

Northern Mariana Islands
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

15 

update regional and bilateral fishery agreements to which the United States is a party, to ensure full 

incorporation of the latest science and harmonize those agreements with the Fish Stocks Agreement. 

The CNMI fully supports this recommendation. 

19-25. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the U.S. Department of State, should design a National Plan of Action for the United States that 

implements, and is consistent with, the International Plans of Action adopted by the United Nations Food and 

Agriculture Organization and its 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. This National Plan should 

stress the importance of reducing bycatch of endangered species and marine mammals. 

The vast majority of fishery bycatch of endangered species is a NMFS responsibility. The 

USFWS does not have jurisdiction in the EEZ, and providing them such would probably increase 

jurisdictional disputes to the detriment of the fishing industry. 

19-26. The international committee of the National Ocean Council (discussed in Chapter 29), should initiate a 

discussion to determine the most effective methods of encouraging other nations to implement the United 

Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and other Plans of 

Action and provide its findings to the U.S. Department of State and the National Ocean Council. 

Nearly everything captured by fishermen in the CNMI is consumed or utilized in some manner. 

The amount of actual bycatch is essentially non-existent by comparison to mainland fisheries. 

CHAPTER 20: PROTECTING MARINE MAMMALS AND ENDANGERED MARINE SPECIES

20-1. Congress should amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to require the Marine Mammal 

Commission to coordinate with all the relevant federal agencies through the National Ocean Council (NOC) 

while remaining independent. The NOC should consider whether there is a need for similar oversight bodies 

for other marine animals whose populations are at risk.

Given the high level of success that the U.S. has experienced in protecting its marine mammal 

species it would seem that National Ocean Commission (NOC) oversight would not be 

necessary, because it would cloak management measures with more red tape. 

20-2. Congress should amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to place the protection of all marine 

mammals within the jurisdiction of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

The CNMI fully supports this recommendation. Historically, NMFS has been the lead agency for 

most marine mammal protection, and is best qualified to assume total authority. 

20-3. The National Ocean Council should improve coordination between the National Marine Fisheries 

Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, 

particularly for anadromous species or when landbased activities have significant impacts on marine species. 

It is not clear whether the National Ocean Council is required for such coordination, and it would 

add an additional level of bureaucracy. 

20-4. Congress should amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to require the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration to more clearly specify categories of activities that are allowed without a permit, 

those that require a permit, and those that are prohibited. 

20-5. Congress should amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to revise the definition of harassment to 

cover only activities that meaningfully disrupt behaviors that are significant to the survival and reproduction 

of marine mammals. 

The CNMI fully supports these recommendations. 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

16 

20-6. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should implement 

programmatic permitting for activities that affect marine mammals, wherever possible. More resource 

intensive case-by-case permitting should be reserved for unique activities or where circumstances indicate a 

greater likelihood of harm to marine mammals. The National Ocean Council should create an interagency 

team to recommend activities appropriate for programmatic permitting, those that are inappropriate, and 

those that are potentially appropriate pending additional scientific information. Enforcement efforts should 

also be strengthened and the adequacy of penalties reviewed. 

It is not clear whether the National Ocean Council is required for such coordination, and it would 

add an additional level of bureaucracy and centralized decision making from DC. 

20-7. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Department of the Interior should 

promote an expanded research, technology, and engineering program, coordinated through the National 

Ocean Council, to examine and mitigate the effects of human activities on marine mammals and endangered 

species. 

The CNMI fully supports this recommendation. 

20-8. Congress should expand federal funding for research into ocean acoustics and the potential impacts of 

noise on marine mammals. This funding should be distributed across several agencies, including the National 

Science Foundation, U.S. Geological Survey, and Minerals Management Service, to decrease the reliance on 

U.S. Navy research in this area. The research programs should be well coordinated across the government 

and examine a range of issues relating to noise generated by scientific, commercial, and operational activities.

The CNMI fully supports this recommendation. The stocks of marine mammals in the Marianas 

are not well known or understood. The U.S. Navy conducts training exercises in Tinian and 

Farallon de Medinilla, the latter being a bombing target, with unknown impacts on resident 

stocks of spinner dolphins as well as migratory whales. Because the Navy has permission 

through lease agreements to conduct military activities in the Marianas, this type of research 

would only be of benefit to the CNMI, especially if the Navy expands or supplements its training 

activities with acoustic research. 

Closing Remarks 

The concept of employing ecosystem-based management is critical to the full understanding of 

endangered marine species, and the ability to recover them. The lack of such an approach 

historically has led to the demise of many marine animals and the destabilization of many marine 

ecosystems by the loss or significant decline of apex predators. A better understanding of the 

complexities of marine ecosystems is essential to provide continued marine resource harvest, 

while ensuring the recovery of higher trophic level predators. 

CHAPTER 21: PRESERVING CORAL REEFS AND OTHER CORAL COMMUNITIES

21-1. Congress should pass, and provide sustained funding for, a Coral Protection and Management Act that 

covers research, protection, and restoration of coral ecosystems. This legislation should include the following 

elements: 

• support for mapping, monitoring, and research programs primarily through the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. 

• support for new research and assessment activities to fill critical information gaps, to be carried out in 

partnership with the academic research community 

• liability provisions for damages to coral reefs similar to those in the Marine Protection, Research, and 

Sanctuaries Act, but with greater flexibility to use funds in a manner that provides maximum short- and 

long-term benefits to the reef. 

Northern Mariana Islands
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

17 

• support for outreach activities to educate the public about coral conservation and reduce human impacts. 

• support for U.S. involvement, particularly through the sharing of scientific and management expertise, in 

bilateral, regional, and international coral reef management programs. 

The CNMI fully supports this recommendation. A significant amount of progress has been made 

toward understanding coral reef ecosystems, with the National Coral Reef Task Force providing 

guidance. The CNMI supports the comments of the All Islands Coral Reef Initiative Committee 

(AICRIC) and recommends support in both technical and financial form, for locally driven 

management of coral reef ecosystems in the U.S. coral reef states and territories. 

In addition, and in support of the discussion on U.S. flag island/international relationships 

discussed above, CNMI suggests amending bullet 5 of 21-1 as follows: “support for U.S. 

involvement, including direct involvement by state and territorial members of the U.S. Coral 

Reef Task Force, particularly through the sharing....” 

The CNMI suggests the following be added to the list of elements to be supported: (1) funding to 

address major infrastructure needs that would dramatically reduce land-based sources of 

pollution from impacting coral reefs; (2) continued and increased funding for local government 

coral-reef management efforts; and (3) funding to purchase lands and submerged lands for coral 

reef conservation measures; (4) funding for local marine and management effectiveness 

monitoring; and (5) staff support to the U.S. island territories to assist and build capacity in coral 

reef protection and management.. 

21-2. Congress should codify and strengthen the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force and place it under the oversight 

of the National Ocean Council. The task force should be strengthened in the following ways: 

• Task force responsibilities should be expanded to include both warm-water and deep-water coral 

communities. 

• the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be added as members of 

the task force. 

• the task force should coordinate the development of regional ecosystem-based plans to address the 

impacts of nonpoint source pollution, fishing, and other activities on coral reef resources. 

• the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture should work together 

to implement any pollution reduction goals developed by the task force. 

• the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in consultation with Regional Fishery 

Management Councils, should implement any task force recommendations for reducing the effects of 

fishing on corals. 

CNMI strongly supports the recommendation to codify and strengthen the USCRTF. 

CNMI supports language that would keep the federal agency representation to the Task Force at 

the Assistant Secretary level, and the co-chairs at the Secretarial level. 

CNMI has some concern about the inclusion of deep water corals within the framework of the 

Coral Reef Task Force. The Task Force’s focus was intended to be on reef-building corals. 

While some deep water corals may be associated indirectly with reef building corals in tropical 

areas, the broad inclusion could weaken the primary focus and goal of the Task Force. We 

understand that deep-water corals are very important to the ecosystem and strongly encourage 

that provision be made to manage and protect those resources without sacrificing funding or 

energy from reef-building corals.. 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

18 

The CNMI recommends adding to bullet 2, to include the Freely Associated States as members. 

With respect to bullet 3, the CNMI recommends that the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force build on the 

Fishery Management Plans (FMP) already developed by the Regional Fisheries Management 

Councils (RFMC) and approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Moreover, 

the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force should note that the Western Pacific RFMC was the first RFMC 

to have their Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishery Management Plan approved by the NMFS. 

With respect to bullet 4, the CNMI recommends that the Department of Transportation and DOI 

(because of CIP funds) join EPA and USDA in an effort to reduce pollution, because they 

support road building. Sedimentation from secondary roads is a major threat to coral reefs in 

almost all states and territories. 

21-3. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should develop national standards—and 

promote international standards—to ensure that coral reef resources that are collected, imported, or 

marketed are harvested in a sustainable manner. 

The Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council has already achieved this by the 

creation of its Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Plan, which will manage the extraction of all 

coral reef resources in the central and western Pacific. This recommendation would duplicate 

existing management measures, and could result not only in confusion in management authority, 

but also impact existing and proposed fisheries in the western Pacific. 

21-4. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force should identify critical research and data needs related to coral reef 

ecosystems. These needs should guide agency research funding and be incorporated into the design and 

implementation of the Integrated Ocean Observing System. 

The CNMI fully supports protection of deep-water coral communities. 

The Coral Reef Task Force has identified research needs for shallow-water coral-reef 

communities (as has the NMFS). The Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council 

has in place a Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Plan that directs management of shallowwater (0-100 meters) coral reef resources in the central and western Pacific, and illuminates 

research needs. Perhaps what is needed here is a coalescing of research plans and activities, with 

integration into the Integrated Ocean Observing System, and not a duplication of existing efforts. 

CHAPTER 22: SETTING A COURSE FOR SUSTAINABLE MARINE AQUACULTURE

22-2. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s new Office of Sustainable Marine 

Aquaculture should be responsible for developing a comprehensive, environmentally-sound permitting, 

leasing, and regulatory program for marine aquaculture.

The CNMI supports the development of a permitting and leasing system and implementation of 

regulations for marine aquaculture, but requests that coordination include U.S. territories, such as 

the CNMI. In addition, provisions for how resource rent might be derived and to whom it may be 

returned need to be established fairly and clearly at the outset. 

22-4. The United States should work with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization to 

encourage and facilitate worldwide adherence to the aquaculture provisions of the Code of Conduct for 

Responsible Fisheries.

Northern Mariana Islands
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

19 

The CNMI supports this recommendation in principle, but recognizes that given the growth of 

aquaculture in developing countries, this recommendation may require international aid before 

these countries can begin to comply with the aquaculture provisions of the Code of Conduct for 

Responsible Fisheries. That is, these developing areas may want to comply, but cannot afford to 

do so. 

CHAPTER 23: CONNECTING THE OCEANS AND HUMAN HEALTH

23–1. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, National 

Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and other appropriate entities should support expanded research 

and development efforts to encourage multidisciplinary studies of the evolution, ecology, chemistry, and 

molecular biology of marine species, discover potential marine bioproducts, and develop practical 

compounds, through both competitively awarded grants and support of federally designated centers. 

This recommendation should include the development of regulations to prohibit exploitation of 

marine species to the point that they are at risk in terms of overuse or endangerment, once 

research has disclosed their human health benefits. 

CHAPTER 24: MANAGING OFFSHORE ENERGY AND OTHER MINERAL RESOURCES

24–1. Congress, with input from the National Ocean Council, should ensure that a portion of the revenues 

that the federal government receives from the leasing and extraction of outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and 

gas is invested in the conservation and sustainable development of renewable ocean and coastal resources 

through grants to all coastal states. States off whose coasts OCS oil and gas is produced should receive a 

larger share of such portion to compensate them for the costs of addressing the environmental and 

socioeconomic impacts of energy activity in adjacent federal waters. 

The CNMI strongly supports the sharing of OCS revenues to support the sustainable 

development of renewable ocean and coastal resources. 

24–5. Congress, with input from the National Ocean Council, should enact legislation providing for the 

comprehensive management of offshore renewable energy development as part of a coordinated offshore 

management regime. 

The CNMI supports this recommendation. 

24-6. The Minerals Management Service should systematically identify the nation’s offshore non-energy 

mineral resources and conduct the necessary cost-benefit, long-term security, and environmental studies to 

create a national program that ensures the best uses of those resources. 

The CNMI supports this recommendation. 

CHAPTER 25: CREATING A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR INCREASING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

25-1. Congress should double the federal ocean and coastal research budget over the next five years, from the 

2004 level of approximately $650 million to $1.3 billion per year. 

The CNMI supports the proposed increase in the ocean and coastal research budget. The 

Commission should provide additional details on the research funding needed and ensure that 

$650 million to $1.3 billion per year is sufficient to support federal, state/territorial, and local 

information and technology needs. 

The CNMI appreciates the recognition of the National Sea Grant College Program as a valuable 

resource of research, outreach, education, and technology-transfer services. The CNMI 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

20 

recommends that the Commission also recognize and increase funding for other state-based 

science and education programs. 

25-2. The National Ocean Council should develop a national ocean research strategy that reflects a long-term 

vision, promotes advances in basic and applied ocean science and technology, and guides relevant agencies in 

developing ten-year science plans and budgets. 

The CNMI would welcome the opportunity to plan larger, more comprehensive and long-term 

projects with its federal partners. This would address a significant need in the CNMI. However, 

long-term planning could be affected by a change in presidential administration because the 

NOC will be influenced by the Assistant to the President. The “relevant agencies” also need to 

be defined. These are critical concerns that need to be addressed to clarify the scope of this 

recommendation. 

25–3. The National Ocean Council should create a national program for social science and economic research 

to examine the human dimensions and economic value of the nation’s oceans and coasts. All ocean research 

agencies should include socioeconomic research as part of their efforts. 

The CNMI fully supports this recommendation. Incorporating social and economic research into 

a natural resource management plan is essential to the success of the plan. The CNMI suggests 

revising this recommendation to include economic values (including market and non-market) in 

periodic reports.

25-4. Congress should appropriate significant funding for an expanded national ocean exploration program. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation should be 

designated as the lead agencies, with additional involvement from the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. 

Navy’s Office of Naval Research. Public outreach and education should be integral components of the 

program. 

The CNMI fully supports this recommendation. 

25-5. The National Ocean Council (NOC) should coordinate federal resource assessment, mapping, and 

charting activities with the goal of creating standardized, easily accessible national maps that incorporate 

living and nonliving marine resource data along with bathymetry, topography, and other natural features. 

The need for such information is critical for long-term resource management. NOAA has begun 

undertaking an extensive mapping project for U.S. Coral Reefs with the aid of many 

state/territorial/commonwealth agencies, some of which have conducted small-scale bathymetric 

mapping projects. There exists a significant need to extend mapping activities to include the 

entire EEZ. 

CHAPTER 26: ACHIEVING A SUSTAINED, INTEGRATED OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM

The CNMI supports the development and use of such a system, but is concerned that there 

appear to be no built-in safeguards with respect to possible misuses by commercial competitors, 

governmental agencies, or other countries. 

26-11. The National Ocean Council (NOC) should promote international coordination and capacity building 

in the field of global ocean observations. 

The CNMI supports such a recommendation, but notes that capacity building could apply equally 

well to some of the more remote U.S. territories and commonwealths such as the CNMI and 

American Samoa. This includes issues mentioned in the report such as, “...providing access to 

Northern Mariana Islands
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Detailed Comments on Preliminary Report 

June 4, 2004 

21 

U.S. scientific and technological expertise on a continuing basis; establishing education and 

training programs; securing funding for travel grants to allow scientists from less developed 

countries to participate in symposia, conferences, and research cruises; and funding international 

student fellowships.” 

CHAPTER 27: ENHANCING OCEAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

The CNMI recommends that the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s Report also address the 

urgent needs of the islands to build human capacity through training of current staff and through 

development of additional post-secondary educational opportunities in the region. 

CHAPTER 30: FUNDING NEEDS AND POSSIBLE SOURCES

30.1 Congress, with input from the National Ocean Council (NOC), should establish an Ocean Policy Trust 

Fund in the U.S. Treasury. The Fund should be composed of unallocated federal revenues from outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing and development, and resource rents assessed on new activities in 

federal waters. Trust Fund monies should be dispersed to coastal states and federal agencies to support 

improved ocean and coastal management commensurate with the nation’s new coordinated and 

comprehensive national ocean policy. 

The CNMI strongly supports the establishment of an Ocean Policy Trust Fund and the principle 

of reinvestment in renewable resources and conservation and to assist states/territories with 

impacts. The Fund should be dedicated and not subject to annual appropriation. The program 

should be developed in a way that does not create incentives for additional OCS development, 

and ensure that any new uses comply with all environment requirements, including those of 

state/territory/commonwealths. 

The CNMI also recommends the establishment of a dedicated Coastal and Estuarine 

Conservation Trust Fund at $900 million, funded from OCS revenues customs receipts or other 

fees generated from the use of coastal and ocean resources. 
Puerto Rico

U.S. Virgin Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands

Chickasaw Nation

1

Comments to Governors Edition 

of 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Report 

The Lummi People have lived by the sea and from the sea for thousands of 

years. The value of the water as a source of food, transportation and even our 

existence is constantly on our minds. Totally reliant on the water around us, the 

Lummi Nation has continued to place the highest value on traditions that involve 

the oceans. The identity of the Lummi People as a distinct group has depended on 

our relationship to the sea. In reality all Northwest Natives are tied to the oceans 

with inseparable bonds and permanent relationships. 

In 1855 our Treaties were written around natural resources that guaranteed to 

us we would have a continued use and responsibility to those waters. 

 Specifically, the Treaties granted to the Lummi People 50 percent of natural resources 

and those rights were later affirmed by Judicial decisions, the Lummi People felt secure. 

In those early days of the Treaty, Lummi People totally relied on the waters that 

surrounded them. Today that reliance has been reduced by changes in the waters, views 

of management, pressures of population and what appears to be climate changes. 

However our values continue to be directed at the sea and maintenance of our rights. 

They all point to the reality that we must all be better stewards of the sea and its 

resources. 

The Lummi People have had minimal input into the development of the Ocean Policy 

Lummi Nation 

 2616 Kwina Road 

Bellingham, Washington, 

98226 

Darrell Hillaire, Chairman 

360-384-1489 

www.lummi-nsn.org 

Lummi Nation
2

Document now presented and represented by the more than 1000 pages of actions, 

recommendations, testimonials and background. In reality the Lummi Nation and 

other coastal Tribes have a very large presence in these issues. The Lummi Nation 

reacts daily to issues that impact the environment, their jobs, Puget Sound and the 

connecting Pacific Ocean and their existence. We continue to place emphasis on aspects 

of our water-oriented background, including our diminishing fishing fleet, shellfish 

harvests, cultural needs, and successful aquaculture program. The Aquaculture Project 

beginning in 1969, was a vision of continued reliance on the water and tidelands. Today 

after 35 years, the fish and shellfish aspects of that project continue to supply valuable 

jobs and income to the Tribe and a gateway to aquaculture potential through Northwest 

Indian College programs. 

The roots of the Tribally owned community college at Lummi, the Northwest Indian 

College (NWIC), actually started in 1969 as an Aquaculture Training Program, a 

collaborative effort by the Federal government, the State government and the Lummi 

Nation. The College continues today as Northwest Indian College, with a native 

enrollment of more than 1600 students from throughout the United States. In 1999 the 

College was designated as the location for the National Indian Center for Marine 

Environmental Research and Education (NICMERE). The College was chosen for 

this center as it is the only Native college located on marine waters and the only college 

with a marine program that works collaboratively with the Lummi Aquaculture program 

in research, technical training and educational opportunity. The thirty-five member 

American Indian Higher Education Consortium of Colleges and Universities recognized 

the unique position of the Northwest Indian College and designed NWIC and NICMERE 

as the Center for marine studies for that group. Presidential Executive Orders for 

American Indians and Alaska Natives Education opportunities also direct collaborative 

efforts to be developed and enhance the capacity of Tribal Governments to provide 

education opportunities. NWIC and NICMERE also provide a resource for Puget Sound 

Tribes and West Coast Tribes for educational opportunities at a Native institution. 
3

NICMERE’s strategic plan was developed to provide a larger presence of Native 

scientists in the management of natural resources, including all the marine sciences. 

Through the use of grants, NICMERE is providing research efforts that are contributing 

to the marine community. As a 1994 Land Grant College, Northwest Indian College can 

participate in Sea Grant programs and provide additional input to the marine environment 

through Native-oriented research efforts. NICMERE has a Memorandum of 

Understanding with the Department of Commerce (NOAA, NMFS, Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center) to collaborate and provide the college with cutting edge technology from 

their staffs and facilities for students and faculty in the ocean sciences. Native American 

Tribes benefit from such an endeavor by pooling their efforts in science projects. 

Lummi Nation has a vision of incorporation of ocean studies in their K-12 programs that 

includes a new high school. Early high school development of an ocean program will 

insure the higher education aspects of the water oriented community will be provided 

with people that can relate to the water through Indian eyes. 

Our request at this point is to insure that Native interests are recognized by any plan or 

policy proposed by the Federal, State and local governments for marine waters on a 

government to government basis. Lummi has been developing facilities that can make 

such a plan successful by including us in the groundwork of this plan. NICMERE is a 

perfect vehicle to disseminate and collect information regarding the inclusion of the 

Native groups and Tribes that will be directly impacted by the National Ocean Policy 

Report. 

Funding of facilities for The Northwest Indian College and NICMERE will insure the 

aspects of this program are available to all Natives and provide an education basis and 

proven science that will enable Natives to participate in research and education and will 

guarantee protection of our resources and full use of our waters for all people. 

Examples of funding to enhance Native input in the marine sciences, aquaculture and 

fisheries management include: 

Lummi Nation
4

• Marine Science Research and Education Center (NICMERE) at 

Northwest Indian College 

• Permanent staff for research and education (NICMERE) 

• Education and research equipment needed for full participation in the 

ocean efforts of management and conservation 

• Enhancement of Aquaculture facilities 

• K-12 ocean science program 

• Fishermen assistance in catch/value added products 

• Transfer of aquaculture techniques to fishermen (mussels, clams, 

oysters, fish rearing techniques) 

• Innovative habitat restoration projects involving the community 

• Community education programs on individual and collective efforts 

for pollution control 

• Tribal tourism, land management, forestry 

• Salmon issues, ESA policies, including ocean survival 

• Shellfish disease and propagation 

• Hatchery reform and use to insure fish enhancement meets the needs 

of Tribal fishermen 

• Mass marking techniques 

Lummi Nation and Northwest Indian College appreciates the opportunity to provide input 

into the U. S. Commission for Ocean Policy. Development of a policy that includes grass 

roots participation in every area of the oceans use, conservation and development will 

help insure success. 

______________________________ _____________________________ 

Darrell Hillaire, Chairman Cheryl Crazy Bull, President 

Lummi Nation Northwest Indian College 

 2522 Kwina Road 

 Bellingham, Washington 

 360-676-2772 

 www.nwic.edu 
509 1st Street 

P.O. Box 1388 

Cordova, Alaska 99574-1388 

Ph (907) 424-7738 * Fax (907) 424-7739 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

1120 20th Street, NW 

Suite 200 North 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Please accept our comments regarding the Critical Recommended Actions outlined in the U.S. 

Commissions Executive Summary Report on U.S. Ocean Policy. 

The Native Village of Eyak is the largest federally recognized Native tribe in our region with a tribal 

membership of approximately 500 individuals. Our traditional Tribal Territory extends throughout 

PrinceWilliam Sound, the Copper River and the Gulf of Alaska. 

 In 1997 the Native Village of Eyak, or NVE, began a formal environmental program within our region. 

We have focused our attention mainly on Marine issues and resources, and indeed our highest 

environmental priority as a tribe is water quality. We have considered ourselves stewards of the sea in 

our area since time immemorial, and continue to be involved. 

 Our tribe utilizes marine resources as a primary source of subsistence foods, travel within the region, 

commercial fishing livelihoods, recreational, and spiritual values. Therefore, it is in our tribe’s best 

interest to be involved to the highest extent possible with any policy changes to the Oceans which gave us 

life and continue to sustain us economically, nutritionally and spiritually. 

A New National Ocean Policy Framework: Our comment regarding this component of the report have 

to do mainly with the increased involvement of tribal organizations as it relates to decision making at the 

state and federal levels. Our tribe is increasingly involved with marine policy and fisheries management 

concepts, and we have government to government relationships with various entities that control marine 

resources. These relationships are documented in the form of MOU’s and MOA’s with the State of 

Alaska, EPA, Forest Service, BIA, and the City of Cordova, among others. We conduct our own Tribal 

fisheries research, and have been called upon to provide our expertise cleaning up oil spills. Due to the 

fact that many of our Tribal members are commercial fishermen, subsistence users, and rely heavily upon 

Marine resources, we request that we be involved as a stakeholder in this process, and request a seat on 

the Presidential Advisory Committee that is formed due to this policy. We agree that improving federal 

leadership and coordination is essential as the World’s oceans become more impacted by human use, and 

we would like to provide our centuries of Ocean stewardship experience, and take an active role in 

reforming the way that various management agencies and management tools are utilized in our area. We 

have already come a long way in developing regional goals and priorities, improving response to critical 

issues, and building capacity to protect our resources from degradation. Building a new framework for 

policy -making fits very well with our continued effort to become increasingly involved with Marine 

issues. 

10,000 years in our Traditional Homeland, Prince William Sound, the Copper River Delta, & the Gulf of Alaska

Native Village of Eyak
Strengthen Science and Meet Information Needs: As previously mentioned we are involved with 

many aspects of marine science. Our tribe conducts studies related to the commercial and subsistence use 

of salmon; life history, abundance estimates, early season indexing using state of the art sonar, tagging 

and tracking, and water quality issues as they relate to the health of salmon habitat. We have one of the 

most viable and sustainable commercial fisheries in North America, and indeed the Copper River salmon 

are sought after worldwide. Any science that is conducted regarding the status of our marine environment 

is of interest to us, and we are in a strong position to facilitate and encourage an increase in high quality 

information that will help us and other managers of these resources when making decisions at a regional 

level. We would like to see money allocated to tribes and other local governments who already study 

these precious resources, and an opportunity to work directly with the federal government in crafting new 

research protocols for studying the marine environment in our area. An increase in funding to study the 

impacts to fish, shellfish, and other marine resources from other development, is necessary as the World’s 

oceans become increasingly utilized. 

We agree with the commitment to spend 138 million initially on an Integrated Ocean Observing System, 

and would like to support the U.S. Ocean Commission in its request to Congress to allocate funds to 

observe, monitor, and forecast ocean conditions. We believe that this action in itself will be a positive 

step in the right direction towards a more ecosystem-based approach to Ocean management. 

Enhance Ocean Education: Traditional knowledge of resource use and life histories of marine species 

is often overlooked when creating curriculum for education regarding ocean ecosystem science and 

management. Native Village of Eyak requests that Native knowledge be included in this component of 

the Commissions new Policy, and we will offer what information we can in order to facilitate this process. 

One of the goals we have developed regionally is to provide better scientific understanding of our 

resources to the various decision makers and managers, and this has been successful with our salmon 

science projects. We would be very interested in being involved at a higher level in regards to increasing 

collaboration between our tribe and the federal government when it is appropriate. Our tribal youth need 

resources available to them to become educated on regional and international ocean issues, and funding to 

facilitate that process in the form of increased scholarships and financial aid to Native youth interested in 

marine science is a long-term goal of ours. In order to cultivate a broad public ethic of stewardship on the 

oceans, we need to start with youth in each region, and provide them with what they need to become and 

stay involved with issues in their own ecosystems. 

In conclusion, the Native Village of Eyak respectfully requests that we be involved as a partner in this 

worthwhile endeavor, and we would like a seat at the table when the Presidential Committee is formed. 

We are key participants in the management and protection of our local resources, and believe that our 

experience would be a valuable addition to this effort. We hope that Congress realizes the importance of 

this process, and we would like to commend the Ocean Commission on their foresight and initiative. 

Thank you for allowing us the chance to participate as a tribal government in your visionary mission to 

monitor, protect and restore the Earth’s oceans. 

Sincerely, 

Bruce Cain 

Executive Director 

Native Village of Eyak 
Sitka Tribe of Alaska

Sitka Tribe of Alaska

Sitka Tribe of Alaska

Sitka Tribe of Alaska

Tulalip Tribes

Tulalip Tribes

Tulalip Tribes

Council of Great Lakes Governors

Council of Great Lakes Governors