U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–362PS 2004

U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY

PRELIMINARY REPORT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 5, 2004

Serial No. 108–57

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

KEN CALVERT, California

NICK SMITH, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,

Washington

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

ROB BISHOP, Utah

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

VACANCY

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

ZOE LOFGREN, California

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

VACANCY

VACANCY

VACANCY

(III)

C O N T E N T S

May 5, 2004

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman, Committee

on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................ 16

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17

Prepared Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee

on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives .............. 19

Prepared Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on

Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................. 20

Prepared Statement by Representative Gil Gutknecht, Member, Committee

on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................ 101

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Committee

on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................ 21

Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................ 21

Statement by Representative Lynn C. Woolsey, Member, Committee on

Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................. 18

Witnesses

Admiral James D. Watkins, U.S. Navy (Retired); Chairman, U.S. Commission

on Ocean Policy

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27

Biography .......................................................................................................... 66

Dr. Andrew R. Solow, Director, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 66

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 68

Biography .......................................................................................................... 69

Dr. Shirley A. Pomponi, Acting Managing Director, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 70

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 72

Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Professor and Director, Office of External Affairs,

College of Physical & Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 79

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 81

Biography .......................................................................................................... 87

Mr. Michael H. Freilich, Associate Dean, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric

Sciences, Oregon State University

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 89

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 91

Biography .......................................................................................................... 92

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 94

Page

IV

Discussion

Top Priorities for Ocean Research and Development ....................................... 95

Ecosystem-Based Management Approach .......................................................... 97

Public Awareness of Ocean Issues ...................................................................... 99

Specific Follow-up Questions ............................................................................... 100

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Admiral James D. Watkins, U.S. Navy (Retired); Chairman, U.S. Commission

on Ocean Policy .................................................................................................... 104

Dr. Andrew R. Solow, Director, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution ............................................................................................... 108

Dr. Shirley A. Pomponi, Acting Managing Director, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution ............................................................................................... 109

Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Professor and Director, Office of External Affairs,

College of Physical & Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University ......................................................................................................................... 113

Mr. Michael H. Freilich, Associate Dean, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric

Sciences, Oregon State University ...................................................................... 116

(1)

U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY

PRELIMINARY REPORT

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L.

Boehlert (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

Preliminary Report

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose

On May 5, 2004 at 10:00 a.m., the House Science Committee will hold a hearing

on the key findings and recommendations of the Preliminary Report of the U.S.

Commission on Ocean Policy. In response to pressures on ocean and coastal ecosystems from increased coastal development, over-fishing, pollution, and a confusing

patchwork of federal and State legal authorities for ocean and coastal activities,

Congress passed the Oceans Act of 2000. It required the President to establish a

nonpartisan, diverse commission of experts in ocean policy and charged that commission to establish findings and develop recommendations for a new comprehensive

ocean policy, including in research and development (R&D). The Report is the first

comprehensive review of national ocean policy in more than 30 years.

The Committee plans to explore the following overarching questions:

1. What are the current problems in our nation’s ocean and coastal ecosystems

and why has federal policy been unable to effectively deal with them?

2. What are the recommendations from the Report and should they be implemented?

Witnesses:

Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.), Chairman, U.S. Commission on Ocean

Policy. Admiral Watkins is President Emeritus of the Consortium for Oceanographic

Research and Education, was formerly Chief of Naval Operations for the United

States Navy, and was Secretary of Energy under President George H.W. Bush.

Dr. Andrew Solow, Director, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Dr. Solow was a member of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Science

Advisory Panel Governance Working Group. He will discuss the Report’s recommendations to establish a National Ocean Council to coordinate federal efforts

with respect to oceans.

Dr. Shirley A. Pomponi, Acting Managing Director, Harbor Branch Oceanographic

Institution. Dr. Pomponi was a member of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

Science Advisory Panel Research, Education and Marine Operations Working

Group. She will discuss the implications of the Report’s recommendation for increased funding for ocean research.

Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Director of External Affairs, College of Physical and

Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University. Dr. Pietrafesa is chair of

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Science Advisory

Board. He will discuss the Report’s recommendations to strengthen NOAA.

Dr. Michael H. Freilich, Associate Dean, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric

Sciences, Oregon State University. Dr. Freilich is a member of the National Research Council’s Space Studies Board and chair of that Board’s Committee on Earth

Studies. He will discuss the Report’s recommendations to transfer some programs

from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to NOAA.

Background:

The last comprehensive review of U.S. ocean policy took place more than 30 years

ago when a governmental panel, the Stratton Commission (named for its chair, Julius Stratton), issued its report Our Nation and the Sea. This report led to the creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) by executive

order in 1970.

4

Since that time, more than 37 million people, 19 million homes, and countless

businesses have been added to coastal areas. The country is more dependent on marine transportation of goods, and coastal recreation and tourism have become more

significant elements of the national economy. These increased and sometimes competing uses of the ocean and coasts have caused dramatic declines in fish populations and increased pollution. In addition, a confusing patchwork of federal and

State legal authorities for ocean and coastal activities has evolved to attempt to deal

with these problems.

Four years ago, Congress passed the Oceans Act of 2000, establishing the U.S.

Commission on Ocean Policy. The Commission, consisting of 16 members from diverse scientific and political backgrounds, was charged to establish findings and develop recommendations for a new comprehensive national ocean policy. (A list of the

members of the Commission is provided in Appendix A.) The Preliminary Report of

the Commission (referred to as the Report for purposes of this document) was delivered to the Governors of the all states and U.S. territories on April 20, 2004. The

Governors and the general public can provide comments on the Report through May

21, 2004 and in the summer of 2004 the Commission will release its final report.

The law requires the President to submit a formal response to the Commission’s recommendations 90 days after the final report is released. The Administration has remained silent on the preliminary report, pending the President’s formal response.

Key Recommendations of the Report:

The Executive Summary of the Report is provided in Appendix B. The complete

report is available at www.oceancommission.gov.

Ocean and Coastal Research Funding

Problem: Scientific understanding of the oceans is still fairly limited. While it is

difficult to determine the precise amount of money the Federal Government has invested in ocean research, because it spans so many fields and agencies, spending

on ocean research appears to have been virtually flat (even without adjusting for

inflation) for the past two decades or so. The Report notes that in the 1960s and

1970s ocean research represented seven percent of the federal research and development budget; today it represents only 3.5 percent because other fields have increased at a faster rate.

Report Recommendation: The Report recommends gradually doubling the level of

federal funding for ocean and coastal research so that it would increase from the

FY 2004 level of $650 million to $1.3 billion in FY 2009. (The Report estimates that

if all of its recommendations were implemented (not just those related to R&D), federal spending on oceans would increase by $1.3 billion in the first year, and by $3.2

billion by the third year, and then by inflation after that.) The Report recommends

the research spending increases be used for such purposes as expanding NOAA’s

Sea Grant program and expanding ocean exploration efforts. The Report recommends that funding for ocean exploration increase from the current level of $13

million to $110 million. The Report recommends financing all of the increases by

tapping the royalties the Federal Government receives from off-shore oil and gas

drilling. The Report calls for those funds to be placed in a ‘‘Trust Fund’’ for ocean

programs, but the Report is unclear about whether spending from the Trust Fund

would be mandatory or subject to annual appropriations.

Issues: A major question is whether Congress should allocate as much money as

the Report recommends and whether Congress should establish a Trust Fund for

these activities. A related question is whether a Trust Fund would be subject to appropriations (such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund) or should guarantee

a mandatory spending level (such as the Highway Trust Fund). Also, the Report

does not provide any guidance as to which areas of research should be priorities,

leaving that question to the National Ocean Council that it recommends creating

(see below).

Earth Observing Systems

Problem: Both NOAA and NASA operate civilian, space-based Earth environmental observing programs. NOAA’s program focuses on sustained operational observations for weather and climate purposes, while NASA’s program is meant to advance research and sensor development. NASA’s missions are generally short-lived

and NASA often plans its research missions without considering whether its satellites could also contribute data to meet the longer-term climate and weather interests of NOAA. When NASA does develop a sensor of interest to NOAA, it often

takes a long time to transfer the technology to NOAA.

Report Recommendations: The Report recommends that operation of all civilian,

space-based Earth environmental observing systems be managed by NOAA to provide smoother transition of research to operations. NASA would retain the research,

5

engineering, and development roles for the research programs, but NOAA would be

responsible for operations. The next generation of polar-weather satellites at NOAA,

known as NPOESS, is cited as a model attempt for this idea.

Issues: The Report is somewhat unclear in its delineation of new roles for NASA

and NOAA. Regardless of the details, it is unclear whether transferring money and

staff between agencies is the most efficient way to increase coordination for Earth

observation systems, especially since the Report assumes that some satellite responsibilities would continue to be divided between the two agencies. Transferring people

between agencies is complicated, and often Congress does not agree to move all

funding along with a program. An additional complicating factor is the President’s

proposed new vision for NASA which uses cuts in NASA’s Earth Science programs

to fund the mission to land an American on the Moon.

Ecosystem-based Management

Problem: Currently, each ocean and coastal problem tends to be addressed in isolation, for example increasing populations of a single fish species, or improving

water quality for a particular purpose, such as swimming. This single-issue focus

sometimes results in unintended consequences. For example, when government

agencies began restoring the rockfish population in the Chesapeake Bay, the number of rockfish became so high that the number of juvenile crabs—which rockfish

eat—began to decrease, causing problems for the crab industry.

Report Recommendation: The Report recommends that U.S. ocean and coastal resources should be managed using ‘‘ecosystem-based management.’’ The goal of ecosystem-based management would be to manage an ecosystem as a whole, rather

than dividing a problem along the lines of political or agency jurisdictions. To obtain

the data needed to inform an ecosystem-based approach to management, the Report

recommends (among other suggestions) creating the Integrated Ocean Observing

System, which would use satellites, planes, buoys, ships and other means to collect

data. Federal agencies have already put together a plan for such a system, which

would draw, in part, on existing capabilities. The Report recommends making implementation of the system a priority, and estimates it would cost $290 million in the

first year, rising to $650 million annually by the fifth year. The Report recommends

that NOAA operate the System, which would be split among a variety of agencies

under current plans.

Issues: The Report does not lay out how to implement ecosystem-based management in any detail. However, any approach is likely to require much better understanding of the oceans (and their interactions with land and the atmosphere, and

of ecology) and much more data about them than is currently available. As a result,

the success of such an approach will depend in large measure on how much money

is invested in ocean science and observation.

Government Organization: National Ocean Council

Problem: According to the Report, more than 60 Congressional committees and

subcommittees oversee 20 federal agencies and permanent commissions that are

charged with implementing at least 140 federal ocean-related statutes. There is no

clearly articulated national system of ocean and coastal governance.

Report Recommendation: The Report recommends that Congress establish a National Ocean Council in the Executive Office of the President, composed of all the

cabinet secretaries and independent agency directors with ocean-related responsibilities and chaired by a Special Assistant to the President. The Report also recommends that Congress establish a Presidential Council of Advisors and that the

Special Assistant would also run a new an Office on Ocean Policy to provide staff

support to these entities. The Report describes this reorganization as an initial step

in a long-term process that should culminate in the creation of a single Department

that would bring together NOAA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior

Department and other related natural resource agencies and programs.

Issues: White House entities have a mixed record of being able to foster interagency cooperation. Moreover, existing White House offices already try to coordinate

some ocean issues across agencies. For example, the Council on Environmental

Quality deals with ocean issues from an environmental perspective, and the Office

of Science and Technology Policy deals with ocean science across agencies. In addition, in 1997, Congress created the National Oceanic Partnership Program (NOPP),

headed by a National Ocean Research Leadership Council, to coordinate national

ocean research and education policy. The Council is made up of the heads of 14 federal agencies with ocean research responsibilities. The Report argues that NOPP

has not been successful because it lacks a mechanism to require agency participation.

6

Government Organization: NOAA

Problem: NOAA was established by Executive Order in 1970. Since that time new

responsibilities have been added to the agency on an issue-by-issue basis, resulting

in a complex organization where communication across office lines is difficult. Also,

many other agencies perform work related to ocean and coastal issues, and there

is not always a clear lead for civilian ocean issues.

Report Recommendation: The Report recommends ‘‘strengthening NOAA’’ by clearly making it the lead agency for ocean issues; by giving it additional responsibilities,

such as managing the Integrated Ocean Observing System; and by ‘‘restructuring’’

the agency ‘‘consistent with the principles of ecosystem-based management.’’ The

Report recommends gradually moving all federal civilian ocean and coastal activities

into NOAA. The Report also recommends that Congress pass an organic act for

NOAA to give the agency clear authority and organizational lines.

Issues: Congress needs to decide what should be in a NOAA organic act and to

what extent it should make statutory decisions about NOAA’s organizational structure. Over the long-term, moving all ocean and coastal programs into NOAA would

be a massive undertaking that could cause dislocations in many agencies without

necessarily improving coordination or oversight.

Education

Problem: Currently each ocean-related agency performs its own education and

outreach activities on a program-by-program basis. There is no coordinated, comprehensive ocean education and outreach program or plan.

Report Recommendation: The Report recommends that the new National Ocean

Council establish a national ocean education office to strengthen ocean education

and coordinate federal efforts. Education programs should be addressed to students

from kindergarten through graduate school and to the general public.

Issues: The recommendation assumes that the Council will be created and that

money will be available to augment existing programs. (The Report does not consider using any existing White House office with science education responsibilities

for this purpose.) The Report recommends that the Council create the program, but

that it be funded through NOAA, which would then distribute funds to other agencies. Other agencies might object to receiving funding through NOAA.

Questions for Witnesses:

Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.), Chairman, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

1. Please outline the key findings and recommendations in the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

Dr. Andrew Solow, Director Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

1. What are the major deficiencies in the way ocean and coastal policy is currently organized at the federal level?

2. Do you agree with the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommendation to

create a National Ocean Council to address theses deficiencies? If not, why

not?

3. Are there alternative changes to the federal structure with respect to ocean

policy that you would recommend?

Dr. Shirley A. Pomponi, Acting Managing Director, Harbor Branch Oceanographic

Institution

1. What are the major problems and issues with respect to national efforts in

ocean and coastal research? Did the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report adequately address the problems and issues?

2. Please provide examples of how ecosystem-based management, as recommended by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, would change ocean and

coastal management from current methods. What research is needed to make

ecosystem-based management feasible?

3 If there is limited new money available from the Federal and State governments, what are the top three recommendations regarding ocean and coastal

science and research you believe should be implemented without delay?

7

Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Director of External Affairs, College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University

1. What are the current strengths and weaknesses of ocean and coastal programs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?

2. Do you agree with the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommendations

with respect to NOAA? If not, why not?

3. Are there limitations to NOAA’s ability to carry out the new responsibilities

the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommends? If so, please explain

those limitations.

4. Would it be helpful for NOAA to have an organic act? Why? What would be

most important to include in such legislation?

5. If there is limited new money available from the Federal Government, what

are the top three recommendations regarding NOAA you believe should be

implemented without delay?

Dr. Michael H. Freilich, Associate Dean, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric

Sciences, Oregon State University

1. Do you agree with the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s recommendation

to transfer some of NASA’s Earth observing programs to NOAA? Why or why

not?

2. Are there other ways to strengthen the interaction between NASA’s and

NOAA’s Earth observing programs?

3. Is NOAA currently doing a good job providing researchers data from Earth

observing systems? Are data management needs being adequately considered

in the planning for new observing systems?

4. If there is limited new money available from the Federal and State governments, what are the top three recommendations regarding observing systems

you believe should be implemented without delay?

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Chairman BOEHLERT. The hearing will come to order.

I want to welcome everyone here today, but I want to give a special welcome to Admiral Watkins and his team. Our nation has

turned repeatedly to Admiral Watkins for creativity and leadership

on a wide range of issues, and once again, he has risen to the occasion with energy, open-mindedness, thoughtfulness, and the most

comprehensive approach possible. Admiral, we are in your debt.

Admiral WATKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Ocean Commission had before it a

Herculean task, or perhaps our reference should be to Poseidon.

The oceans not only cover most of the Earth’s surface, they serve

us as playground and food source, and sadly, sometimes as dumping ground. They help determine our climate and our security. We

are land dwelling creatures, but we are utterly dependent on the

oceans, and more and more of our nation’s citizens live near a

coastline.

Yet while the oceans lap daily at our shores, they only intermittently lap at our consciousness. We still take the oceans for granted, even as they are increasingly troubled by over-development,

over-fishing, climate change, and other human insults. Worse still,

perhaps, we don’t even know all that much about the oceans, certainly not as much as we would like to properly identify, diagnose,

and remedy problems.

The Ocean Commission report should bring focused attention to

this predicament for the first time in decades. I don’t think anyone

can disagree with the basic thrust of this report that more needs

to be done to understand, manage, and take advantage of the

world’s oceans, and doing so will take new thinking and new

money.

I have to say that message is especially timely as the Congress,

and this committee in particular, review proposals to embark on a

new space exploration mission. I support that effort, but as I have

said before, I think it is more important to know more about our

own planet than it is to know about Mars. Happily, I don’t think

we have to make an either/or choice, but we do have to set priorities, and I think that it is more important to study the water that

is still visible and that we rely on.

Setting and implementing those priorities is going to take some

work, and there is only so much the Commission can do in that regard. I am reminded of a famous exchange in Shakespeare’s

‘‘Henry IV’’ in which Glendower brags, ‘‘I can call spirits from the

vasty deep.’’ Hotspur replies, ‘‘So can any man. But do they come

when you do call them?’’ The Commission can call for changes, but

it can’t bring them into being. That task belongs, in the first instance, to the Congress.

That is why we are having today’s hearing and why we wanted

to hear from a variety of experts. We have plenty of issues to raise

with our panel, because while the Commission’s general thrust is

unarguable, the specific recommendations raise a lot of questions.

Let me just list a few of them that I hope we can discuss today.

The first, and most obvious, concerns money. Can the Nation afford the increases in ocean R&D being suggested, given other demands, even within science? Regardless of how much money is

available, how should we set priorities for spending? That is a key

17

question and one in which the report offers little guidance. And

does it make sense to set up a ‘‘trust fund’’ from oil royalties, giving

the relatively unhappy experience with the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the unlikelihood of any new mandatory spending?

We also have questions related to government organization. Do

we need a new structure for oceans in the White House? How

would such an entity interact with organizations, like the Office of

Science and Technology Policy and the Council on Environmental

Quality, which must deal with oceans as part of their own crosscutting responsibilities?

Another set of questions. Should responsibilities that now reside

with other agencies be transferred into NOAA? I have to say that

I am always skeptical of such moves, which need to have a big payoff to make up for the disruption that they cause.

And finally, I am fully behind the Commission’s suggestion that

Congress write an organic act for NOAA, and, indeed, the staff has

been working on such a bill for months with Chairman Ehlers. I

would like some guidance today on precisely what such a bill

should and should not contain. I would hope that we could have

hearings on an organic act in early summer.

So we have our work cut out for us, and that is nothing new,

thanks to the hard work the Commission has already put in. I look

forward to having a conversation with all of our witnesses today,

so that we can get some specific guidance on how to turn the Commission’s exhortations into responsible public policy.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boehlert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT

I want to welcome everyone here today, but I want to give a special welcome to

Admiral Watkins and his team. Our nation has turned repeatedly to Admiral Watkins for creativity and leadership on a wide range of issues, and once again, he has

risen to the occasion with energy, open-mindedness, thoughtfulness and the most

comprehensive approach possible. Admiral, we are in your debt.

The Ocean Commission had before it a Herculean task—or perhaps our reference

should be to Poseidon. The oceans not only cover most of the Earth’s surface, they

serve us as playground and food source and, sadly, sometimes as dumping ground;

they help determine our climate and our security. We are land-dwelling creatures,

but we are utterly dependent on the oceans, and more and more of our nation’s citizens live near a coastline.

Yet while the oceans lap daily at our shores, they only intermittently lap at our

consciousness. We still take the oceans for granted, even as they are increasingly

troubled by over-development, over-fishing, climate change, and other human insults. Worse still, perhaps, we don’t even know all that much about the oceans—

certainly not as much as we’d like to properly identify, diagnose and remedy problems.

The Ocean Commission report should bring focused attention to this predicament

for the first time in decades. I don’t think anyone can disagree with the basic thrust

of this report that more needs to be done to understand, manage and take advantage of the world’s oceans, and doing so will take new thinking and new money.

I have to say that message is especially timely as the Congress, and this Committee in particular, reviews proposals to embark on a new space exploration mission. I support that effort, but as I’ve said before, I think it’s more important to

know more about our own planet than it is to know about Mars. Happily, I don’t

think we have to make an either/or choice, but we do have to set priorities, and I

think that it’s more important to study the water that’s still visible and that we

rely on.

Setting and implementing those priorities is going to take some work. And there’s

only so much the Commission can do in that regard. I’m reminded of a famous exchange in Shakespeare’s Henry IV in which Glendower brags. ‘‘I can call spirits from

18

the vastly deep.’’ Hotspur replies, ‘‘So can any man. But do they come when you do

call them?’’ The Commission can call for changes, but it can’t bring them into being.

That task belongs, in the first instance, to the Congress.

That’s why we’re having today’s hearing, and why we wanted to hear from a variety of experts. We have plenty of issues to raise with our panel because, while the

Commission’s general thrust is inarguable, the specific recommendations raise a lot

of questions.

Let me just list a few of them that I hope we can discuss today.

The first and most obvious concerns money. Can the Nation afford the increases

in ocean R&D being suggested, given other demands, even within science. Regardless of how much money is available, how should we set priorities for spending.

That’s a key question and one on which the report offers little guidance. And does

it make sense to set up a ‘‘trust fund’’ from oil royalties given the relatively unhappy

experience with the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the unlikelihood of any

new mandatory spending?

We also have questions related to government organization. Do we need a new

structure for oceans in the White House? How would such an entity interact with

organizations like the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Council on

Environmental Quality, which must deal with oceans as part of their own cross-cutting responsibilities?

Another set of questions. Should responsibilities that now reside with other agencies be transferred into NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)? I have to say that I am always skeptical of such moves, which need to have

a big payoff to make up for the disruption they cause.

And, finally, I am fully behind the Commission suggestion that Congress write an

organic act for NOAA, and, indeed, the staff has been working on such a bill for

months with Chairman Ehlers. I’d like some guidance today on precisely what such

a bill should and should not contain. I would hope that we could have hearings on

an Organic Act in June or July.

So we have our work cut out for us, thanks to the hard work the Commission has

already put in. I look forward to having a conversation with all our witnesses today

so that we can get some specific guidance on how to turn the Commission’s exhortations into policy.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Ms. Woolsey.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming here today to share

your expertise with us. Thank you very much. And as usual, Mr.

Chairman, I expect this will be one of your open, honest, good

science hearings, the kind that we just so covet around here, so

thank you for having it.

As you know, I represent the 6th Congressional District of California, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge, Marin and Sonoma

Counties, and my District encompasses the entire coastline of

Marin and Sonoma Counties, most of the north shore of the San

Francisco Bay. Historically, fishing has always been an important

part of our economy, but in recent decades, it has dwindled to near

disappearance.

San Francisco Bay once supported a heron rookery and was

famed for its wild oysters, and both are completely gone. No longer

is the bay-front city of Sausalito home to a fishing fleet and the

commercial fishing fleet of Bodega Bay is just actually a remnant

of past days. Once, the Russian River, which empties into the Pacific Ocean, supported a world-class Steelhead run and a large population of Coho and Chinook salmon. Now all three species are listed as endangered.

These tragic depletions and disappearance of our fisheries are

symptomatic of many things: over-fishing, inland habitat destruction, climatic changes, coastal development, all of which are addressed by the Ocean Commission’s report, and all of which we

must deal with seriously.

19

On a more positive note, however, I would like to mention that

there are many efforts going on in my District to both understand

the marine issues to protect our fisheries and to restore them. The

Bodega Marine Lab is at the forefront of many areas of marine research, including the effects of currents on sea life. The San Francisco Estuarine Reserve is developing best practices for restoration

of our baylands. The Marine Mammal Center is researching diseases and places that affect marine mammals. The Fairlong’s National Marine Sanctuary and the Cordell Bank National Marine

Sanctuary are setting aquatic populations on the continental shelf.

And the Russian River Watershed Council and the Gualala River

Watershed Council are preparing science-based watershed management plans. All of these efforts are so important, and all of them

need and deserve federal support, not just in my area, but as a

model for the Nation.

Finally, it is important that we do no more harm to our marine

resources, including our sparkling beaches. The Oil Exploration

Moratorium off our California coast needs to be extended forever.

The oceans report should be the wake-up call that we need to do

things differently. Instead of drilling every last drop from the most

fragile places on this planet, we need to make energy conservation

a national priority. And we could do that by raising CAFE ́ standards first and then husbanding our amazing technological knowledge to begin the necessary transition to clean, renewable energy.

Our waters can be blue and productive, Mr. Chairman, our technology green and job creating. I look forward to hearing from all

of you as today’s witnesses, because you will be able to tell us the

best ways to ensure that we leave our oceans in good shape for

generations to come.

Thank you very much.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Ms. Woolsey.

Without objection, all Members shall have the opportunity to insert any opening statements they wish to have in the record at this

juncture.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE NICK SMITH

I would like to thank Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon for holding this important hearing to examine the key findings and recommendations of the

Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. I would also like to

thank the distinguished witnesses for joining us here today.

While I myself do not represent a district that borders an ocean, the Great Lakes

are a very important symbol and resource for my home State of Michigan. Also, as

the Chairman of the Research Subcommittee, my Subcommittee maintains oversight

over the National Science Foundation (NSF) which, significantly funds the Directorate of Geosciences for its subdivision, the Division of Ocean Sciences (OCE). The

OCE supports basic research and education to further understanding of all aspects

of the global oceans and their interactions with the Earth and the atmosphere. OCE

also supports the operation, acquisition, construction, and conversion of major

shared-use oceanographic facilities needed to carry out oceanographic-related research programs.

Coincidentally, we’re having a hearing in the International Relations committee

on water shortages throughout the world. Lack of clean water is perhaps the world’s

largest humanitarian problem. Three billion people a year suffer from a lack of

clean water and over 6,000 of them die every day.

Conditions in much of the world are expected to worsen in the years to come. The

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports that nearly half of the world’s population

will live in water-stressed countries by 2015. This has led the United Nations GenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:42 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 093362 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\050504\93362 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
20

eral Assembly and the World Summit on Sustainable Development to call for increasing international cooperation to address these problems.

A widely used rule of thumb is that a population is considered to be in a state

of ‘‘water stress’’ if the average annual per capita availability of water is below 1,000

cubic meters. Israel, which has the most advanced water infrastructure and water

management capabilities in the region, has an average annual availability of only

some 250–300 cubic meters per capita. Jordan, at some 170–200 cubic meters per

capita, and the Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza, at some 70–90 cubic meters

per capita, are under even greater water stress. By comparison, average annual

water availability in the United States is on the order of 7,000 cubic meters per capita.

The hope is that desperation for scarce water will lead to greater cooperation and

agreement among Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians, as well as in other countries

facing water problems. Michigan is blessed with having one-sixth of the entire

world’s supply of fresh water. But we see water supply problems and even rationing

in the western United States, especially for food production. We need to determine

and implement ways to increase the supply of water and to improve the distribution, utilization, and management of current and future water supplies.

While it is agreed upon that our oceans and our coasts are in serious trouble,

there remains an ability to reverse the distress on our oceans that have taken place

for so long. On the other hand, I must express my concern with a more troubling

problem—that is the $500 billion debt we are facing and the unfortunate fact that

we are now adding more new debt to our books every year. We need to re-impose

discretionary spending caps which expired after 2002. We must cut out waste and

abuse. And we need to make hard decisions to prioritize programs, reduce spending

on some and eliminate others. So I think the question must be: what produces the

best and most cost effective scientific research?

Again, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for holding this

hearing that allowed Congress to examine and question the Preliminary Report of

the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

I am pleased that we are here today to discuss the U.S. Commission on Ocean

Policy’s Preliminary Report. As Chairman of the Environment, Technology and

Standards Subcommittee of the Science Committee, I oversee much of the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (known as NOAA). I, along with many

others, have been anxiously awaiting release of the Commission’s recommendations

so Congress can help update and improve our nation’s ocean policy.

I must commend Admiral Watkins and the other commissioners for all their hard

work, effort, and tenacity. Their charge was vast and difficult, and they performed

it admirably. They have given Congress and the Administration the foundation by

which we may improve the health and management of our coasts, oceans and the

Great Lakes.

For example, the Commission recommends that Congress pass an organic act for

NOAA. I strongly agree. I believe it is critical for NOAA’s mission to be clearly defined and its internal structure strengthened so it can better fulfill its role in observing, managing, and protecting our nation’s coastal and ocean resources. My subcommittee staff and I spent many hours working on this bill last year, and I look

forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to pass this bill into

law this year. This will not be an easy task, but it is so important to our environment, our economy, and our children’s and grandchildren’s future, that we must succeed.

I thank the Commission for advocating increased funding for ocean research and

focusing on science as the foundation for ocean management decisions. However, I

am concerned that the Commission did not clearly specify which scientific issues

and programs should be our highest priorities. I hope we can discuss this recommendation in more detail at today’s hearing, because in the current budget climate I think it will be extremely difficult to find the $4 billion in new money for

the oceans recommended by the Commission. I hope we can engage in a healthy discussion about which research areas require the most immediate attention.

I am enthusiastic and optimistic that we can all work together to develop a strong

national ocean policy that protects this resource and our environment for generations to come. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning and engaging in a thoughtful discussion about the recommendations from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

21

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good morning. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before our committee

to discuss the key findings and recommendations of the Preliminary Report of the

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Under the Oceans Act of 2000, Congress initiated

a major review of ocean policies in this nation and took action to improve our understanding of ocean systems and the ocean environment as a whole. As the ranking

member of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, I realize the importance of protecting our ocean, waterways, and coasts and the tremendous benefits they offer all Americans. Our oceans provide us with jobs, food, recreational as

well as educational opportunities, medicine, and transportation.

We need to ensure that we have a coordinated policy to deal with the pressures

our oceans and coastal areas face. Our last effort to update our national policies on

oceans was in 1969 under the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources—known as the Stratton Commission. While many of the Commission’s recommendations have been implemented, it has been far too long since we last updated our ocean policies.

State and local jurisdictions have enacted numerous laws and policies to deal with

the environmental problems that have occurred in our ocean and coastal communities. This has resulted in overlapping and conflicting rules between the federal

and State levels. The recommendations put forth by this Commission will help to

alleviate many of these problems by bringing ocean policy into the 21st Century by

creating new coordinated and comprehensive policies.

The report strongly encourages ecosystem-based management, rather than species-by-species or problem-by-problem management. I am interested to know if our

students in the ocean sciences are being trained in ecosystem management. Further,

federal research devoted to oceans has dropped from seven percent to 3.5 percent

as noted in the report. However, many of the national security issues that drove

oceanographic research have disappeared with the ending of the Cold War. I am interested to learn more about the Commission’s reasoning for doubling ocean research now in such tight budgetary times.

I welcome our panel of witnesses and look forward to their testimony.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend Chairman Boehlert for calling this very important hearing on the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report.

On June 15, 2001, President George W. Bush announced his intent to appoint the

16 members of the new Commission on Ocean Policy, based on a process that included nominations by the Congress and appointment by the President.

Oceans play a very significant part in all our planet’s survival. Many are unaware

that the oceans control the weather. Few would believe that significantly more oxygen is generated to Earth’s precious atmosphere by oceanic photosynthesis than by

all the Earth’s terrestrial plants

combined. Yet, today, the oceans are in serious danger from improper development, overuse, and pollution. Most of the world’s 17 major ocean fisheries are in

serious decline. Fragile coastal habitats are disappearing at an alarming rate, and

coral ecosystems are experiencing unprecedented deterioration. These facts are a

sad testimonial to the very low importance the oceans have among the people of the

world.

Our challenge today is to achieve an increased public perception and awareness

of the tremendous importance and value that the oceans and aquatic resources represent for all people.

I look forward to the testimony of our distinguished witnesses today and I yield

back my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. And now our panel, a panel of very distinguished Americans. And let me, first of all, thank you all for serving as resources to this committee. This is a dialogue with some interesting people, and we are going to learn from what we hear.

Our first witness is Admiral James D. Watkins, the Chairman of

the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Admiral Watkins is also

22

President Emeritus of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research

and Education. He was formerly Chief of Naval Operations for the

United States Navy, and was Secretary of Energy under President

George Herbert Walker Bush. Admiral Watkins. Dr. Andrew Solow

is the Director of the Marine Policy Center at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. That is absolutely beautiful up there. What a

deal you have. Dr. Solow is a member of the U.S. Commission on

Ocean Policy Science Advisory Panel Governance Working Group.

Dr. Shirley A. Pomponi is the Acting Managing Director of the

Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution. Dr. Pomponi was a

member of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Science Advisory

Panel Research, Education, and Marine Operations Working

Group.

For the purpose of an introduction, the Chair now recognizes our

distinguished colleague, Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to introduce Dr. Leonard Pietrafesa. Dr. Pietrafesa is a distinguished

American, but even more importantly, is a distinguished citizen of

North Carolina, of Wade County, of the North Hills neighborhood,

of Raleigh Creek 617, which votes at the fire station on Six Forks

Road. I have represented Dr. Pietrafesa in Congress since January

of last year. Before that, I represented him in the State Senate,

and before that, in the State House. I am not sure exactly which

house on Pitt Street Dr. Pietrafesa lives in, but I am sure I was

in his front yard while banging one of my campaign signs into the

ground.

Mr. Chairman, I think all of that alone is sufficient for this committee to treat Dr. Pietrafesa’s views, opinions with great defers

and respect on ocean policy, or on any other topic.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, thank you very much.

Mr. MILLER. But there is actually more.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, the sign gets bigger every time,

doesn’t it?

Mr. MILLER. But Dr. Pietrafesa is, in fact, a very distinguished

expert on this topic as well. He is a—he has a Bachelor’s degree

from Fairfield University in physics and math, a Masters from Chicago in fluid physics, a Ph.D. from the University of Washington

in fluid physics. He is now the Director of the Office of External

Affairs in the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and

a professor at North Carolina State University. He has been the

author and co-author of 155 peer-reviewed publications on the topics of oceanography and meteorology and estuary and climate dynamic impacts. He also serves as Chair of the Board on Oceans and

Atmosphere of the National Association of State Universities and

Land Grant Colleges. He is the Chair of the Council on Ocean Affairs and is a member of the Board of Trustees of the University—

Corporation for Atmospheric Research. He also serves as Chair of

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Science Advisory Board. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to introduce Dr.

Pietrafesa.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Miller.

And my colleague’s pride is obvious. He wanted to introduce you,

one, because he is proud of you, and secondly, I think he was afraid

I might garble the name. But I just want Dr. Pietrafesa to know

23

that I have an aunt who was Pietrapaula, and this suit was made

by a Pietrafesa operation, and I am sure you are aware of that

firm.

So we are glad to welcome you here. And our final witness is Dr.

Michael H. Freilich. He is the Associate Dean of the College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University. Dr.

Freilich is a member of the National Research Council’s Space

Studies Board and Chair of the Board’s Committee on Earth Studies.

Now if I went on and gave a longer introduction, you would probably let me put a sign in your lawn, too. Thank you so very much.

Thank you all. And here is how we are going to proceed. We are

going to give the Chairman, Admiral Watkins, 10 minutes for an

opening statement and the others, we are going to give you five

minutes. And the reason we are going to try to limit the opening

statements is because we really want to have a good exchange. We

are here to learn from you and hopefully we will learn.

So let us start with Admiral Watkins.

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL JAMES D. WATKINS, USN, (RET.);

CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY

Admiral WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee,

the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s Preliminary Report offers

a practical blueprint for ocean policy in the 21st century by laying

the groundwork for a coordinated, comprehensive national strategy

with a logical sequence of steps that can start immediately. The report includes almost 200 action-oriented recommendations that

present workable solutions for some of the most pressing problems

facing our oceans and coasts. Implementation of these recommendations will result in bountiful, sustainable oceans that benefit and inspire Americans for decades to come.

Because of the time limitation today, my remarks will focus primarily on our recommendation in the areas of science, technology,

and education. My written testimony submitted for the record covers our report in greater depth.

What is the vision here? There are few key messages highlighted

throughout our report. Our oceans and coasts are national assets

that are in trouble. To reverse these negative trends, we must act

now. And finally, our existing fragmented system for managing

oceans and coasts combined with the historic under-investment in

these areas leaves us unprepared to meet the challenge. Our vision

for the future of ocean and coastal management acknowledges the

complexities of ecosystems and human needs, and to move toward

an ecosystem-based management is the hallmark of our report, and

it requires fundamental changes in governance and greatly improved science and education.

Let me focus on governance. After 2c years of study and deliberation, the Commission concluded that a national ocean policy framework will be necessary to reap the benefits of a comprehensive and

coordinated ocean policy. The framework should include a number

of components, all of which are explained in the report. Three elements of particular interest to this committee are the following.

First, the National Ocean Council should be established in the

Executive Office of the President to coordinate federal ocean activiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:42 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 093362 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\050504\93362 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
24

ties and set national policy. The Council would include the leaders

of all ocean-related agencies and should be chaired by an assistant

to the President who can serve as a strong voice for ocean policy

within the White House.

Second, a Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy is also

needed to provide input and advice from non-federal perspectives.

This was probably the most highlighted of all of the issues we

heard in the 15 site visits and hearings across the country: ‘‘Please

bring us to the table in the planning process up front. We are key

players in the game, and we are not being heard today.’’ That is

a very important non-federal aspect to our framework.

Third, the federal agency structure must be strengthened and

streamlined to increase its effectiveness and minimize

redundancies. Our report suggests the logical sequence of steps to

achieve this. The first step is the passage of the organic act to

strengthen NOAA followed by additional action that will ultimately

move the Nation toward a structure that merges the management

of land, air, water, and all natural resources. It touches on some

of the issues raised by the Chairman in his opening statement.

Let me talk about science-based decision-making. One major

theme in our report is the need for enhanced science and technology. Improved understanding of our oceans and coasts will allow

us to manage marine environments and resources wisely, conserving precious species and habitats while exploring new uses and

protecting national security.

You are probably aware that the federal budget for ocean research has suffered in recent decades, despite growing needs. As a

proportion of all federal research spending, ocean science funding

has dropped from seven percent in the 1990’s to less than 3c percent today. As a result, the Federal Government is reluctantly

turning away about one half of the highly rated grant proposals

they receive. For the U.S. to remain an international leader in

ocean research and for managers to obtain the information they

need, the federal ocean research budget should be restored to historic levels by doubling it to $1.3 billion over the next five years.

Ultimately, any increased funding should be allocated based on

a research strategy developed by the National Ocean Council in

conjunction with Congress and the ocean science community. But

several specific programs discussed in our report could be funded

immediately, including an enlarged National Sea Grant College

Program, two, an expanded Oceans and Human Health Initiative,

led jointly by NOAA, NSF, NIEHS with additional funding of $14

million over the current appropriations, and a social science and economics program in NOAA at a cost of approximately $10 million

a year.

Other research needs are discussed throughout our report in connection with specific issue areas, for example: understanding the

links between upstream activities and coastal water quality; identifying and eradicating invasive species; elucidating the role of

oceans and climate; conducting cooperative fisheries research; clarifying the breeding grounds, migration patterns, and feeding locations to protect a species; and finally, understanding the role of biological diversity and overall ecosystem health.

25

As a complement to traditional research activities, we must also

venture forth to explore the ocean depths for new ocean species and

habitats. NSF and NOAA should undertake a joint program in

ocean exploration that draws on their respective strengths in basic

and applied science. Funding for ocean exploration should grow to

a level of $110 million per year over the next five years.

Integrated Ocean Observing System, let me focus on that for a

minute. To achieve adequate observational and forecasting capabilities for the oceans and coasts, the Commission strongly recommends implementation of the National Integrated Ocean Observing System, with NOAA as the lead operational agency. The

IOOS, as we call it, should combine a network of regional coastal

observations with an array of open ocean observations. As IOOS

matures, NOAA, EPA, NASA, Department of Interior, and others

must ensure its integration with national water quality monitoring

networks and other national and global environmental observing

systems, leading, eventually, to a unified Earth observing system.

One particularly important recommendation calls for a smooth

transition of Earth-observing satellites from their design and

launch at NASA to continued operations at NOAA. This is one of

the controversial issues I think that the Chairman may have eluded to, and I know that Congressman Vernon Ehlers has brought

that up in hearings in the Senate before the Commerce Committee

there. Implementing the IOOS will require extensive interagency

and stakeholder cooperation, as well as a long-term financial commitment by both the Administration and the Congress. The estimated five-year start-up costs for implementation of the National

IOOS is close to $2 billion, with ongoing costs of approximately

$750 million per year thereafter.

Infrastructure and data management. The conduct of ocean and

coastal research depends on the availability of modern ships, aircraft, laboratories, undersea vehicles, satellites and future scientific

advances will require continual technological improvements to

these tools. Long-term priorities for the purchase, maintenance, operations, and upgrading of ocean research facilities should be based

on a coherent interagency ocean science infrastructure plan. However, several urgent infrastructure needs can be addressed immediately, and these include recapitalization of the UNOL fleet, that

is the University National Ocean Laboratories fleet, requiring $445

million to build 10 ships over the next 20 years. Second, construction of two specialized fishery research vessels planned by NOAA

at $52 million each. And third, for vision of appropriate support for

ocean exploration, including a dedicated ship and submersible, at

a cost of approximately $70.

Enhanced ocean research exploration and observing efforts will

produce massive amounts of new data. To ensure that these data

result in useful information that benefits scientists, resource managers, educators, businesses, the general public, our report recommends improvements in our method of processing large information streams, coordinating federal data management, and creating

environmental models and information products from those data.

Input from national, regional, and local users should guide this

process.

26

To coordinate federal activities in ocean research, education, and

operations, we recommend expansion of the existing National

Ocean Research Leadership Council, which was created by the

Congress in their National Oceanographic Partnership Program in

1997. This new body should be placed under the oversight of the

National Ocean Council and renamed the Committee on Ocean

Science, Education, Technology, and Operations.

Let us talk about education now. Another major theme in our report is the promotion of lifelong education. In the long run, sensible

stewardship of our oceans and coasts will require strong public

support. Our report includes detailed discussions about the value

of boosting ocean knowledge with recommendations that focus on

two important avenues. First, we outline methods for improving

formal education in schools by integrating ocean themes into the

curriculum to promote achievements in math and science, including

the social sciences. In addition, we recommend federal partnerships

with aquariums, science centers, museums, and private laboratories to promote broader public awareness of ocean issues, and instill a national sense of stewardship for the oceans.

These goals could be accomplished by strengthening the existing

education component of the National Sea Grant College Program

and expanding upon the NSF-sponsored Centers for Ocean Sciences

Education Excellence, known as the COSEE centers. COSEE is recognized as a model for enhancing education and bringing accessible

ocean-related information to the public. To build on its success,

other agencies should become involved, and the number of COSEE

regional centers should be tripled from seven to 21, with each center receiving at least $1.5 million a year for an initial five-year period.

How do we implement all of this? Implementation of the recommendations I have discussed today, along with the many others

found in our report, will result in measurable improvements for our

oceans and coasts. But meaningful change requires meaningful investments. The new cost of initiatives outlined in our report, including direct support to states for the critical role they play, is estimated to range from $1.2 billion in the first year to approximately

$3.2 billion a year after full implementation. We believe this is a

modest investment when you consider the economic, aesthetic, and

ecosystem values of our oceans and coasts.

To cover these costs, the Commission recommends that an Ocean

Policy Trust Fund be established in the Treasury, which would receive revenues generated from offshore oil and gas and future activities in federal waters now yet not foreseen by all of us. These

funds would supplement, not replace, existing appropriations, and

would support the new or expanded responsibilities recommended

in our report. Establishment of such a fund would signal the Nation’s recognition of our commitment to help ensure a healthy future for our oceans, a priceless national resource.

Call to action, in closing. As a special call to action for the U.S.

House of Representatives, we believe it is critical for the following

actions to occur as soon as possible. Authorize establishment of a

National Ocean Council and a Presidential Council of Advisors on

Ocean Policy in the Executive Office of the President. Two, enact

an organic act for NOAA. Three, establish an Ocean Policy Trust

27

Fund in the United States Treasury. And for this committee, in

particular, Mr. Chairman, we urge, first, authorization of a doubling of ocean research funding, two, support for a new era of ocean

exploration, three, implementation of the Integrated Ocean Observing System, and finally, provision of the infrastructure needed to

realize these goals.

I thank you for holding this hearing and for the continuing support of the Members of this committee. It is through your continued

leadership that the Nation will be in a position to realize the full

potential of the oceans. We look forward to working with you and

your colleagues in the Senate on implementing our report.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Admiral Watkins follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL JAMES D. WATKINS

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you

to discuss the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, which

was released to the public on Tuesday, April 20. We believe this report offers a blueprint for a coordinated, comprehensive national ocean policy for the 21st century.

It includes nearly 200 action-oriented recommendations that present workable solutions for a broad range of ocean- and coastal-related issues.

As you know, the last comprehensive review of U.S. ocean policy took place more

than 35 years ago when the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources—known as the Stratton Commission—issued its report, Our Nation and the

Sea. Since then, considerable progress has been made, but many challenges remain

and new issues have emerged. The value of the oceans to our nation has only grown

in 35 years, and the time to act is now.

The simple fact is that the oceans affect and sustain all life on Earth. They drive

and moderate weather and climate, provide us with food, oxygen, transportation corridors, recreational opportunities, energy resources and other natural products, and

serve as a national security buffer. In our travels around the country, we heard and

saw first-hand how communities care about the ocean and coasts, and how they

worry about their future.

THE VALUE OF THE OCEANS AND COASTS

America’s oceans and coasts provide ecological and aesthetic benefits with tremendous value to our national economy. In 2000, the ocean economy contributed more

than $117 billion to American prosperity and supported well over two million jobs.

More than $1 trillion, or one-tenth of the Nation’s annual GDP, is generated within

the relatively narrow strip of land immediately adjacent to the coast. Considering

the economies of all coastal watershed counties, that contribution swells to over $4.5

trillion, fully half of the Nation’s GDP. The contribution to employment is equally

impressive, with 16 million jobs in the near-shore zone and 60 million in coastal watershed counties.

The country also remains highly dependent on marine transportation. More than

thirteen million jobs are connected to the trade transported through the Nation’s

network of ports and inland waterways. Annually, the Nation’s ports handle more

than $700 billion in goods. The cruise industry and its passengers account for another $11 billion in spending.

Offshore oil and gas operations have expanded into deeper waters with new and

improved technologies. The offshore oil and gas industry’s annual production is valued at $25–$40 billion, and its yearly bonus bid and royalty payments contribute

approximately $5 billion to the U.S. Treasury.

The commercial fishing industry’s total annual value exceeds $28 billion, with the

recreational saltwater fishing industry valued at around $20 billion, and the annual

U.S. retail trade in ornamental fish worth another $3 billion. Nationwide, retail expenditures on recreational boating exceeded $30 billion in 2002.

In the last three decades, more than 37 million people and 19 million homes have

been added to coastal areas. Every year, hundreds of millions of Americans and

international visitors flock to the coasts to enjoy the oceans, spending billions of dollars and directly supporting more than a million and a half jobs. In fact, tourism

and recreation is one of the fastest-growing business sectors—enriching economies

and supporting jobs in communities virtually everywhere along the coasts of the

28

continental United States, southeast Alaska, Hawaii, and our island territories and

commonwealths.

These concrete, quantifiable contributions to the national economy are just one

measure of the oceans’ value. We also love the oceans for their beauty and majesty,

and for their intrinsic power to relax, rejuvenate, and inspire. Unfortunately, we are

starting to love our oceans to death.

TROUBLE IN PARADISE

Development comes with costs, and we are only now discovering the full extent

of those costs. Pollution, depletion of fish and other living marine resources, habitat

destruction and degradation, and the introduction of invasive non-native species are

just some of the ways people harm the oceans, with serious consequences for the

entire planet.

In 2001, 23 percent of the Nation’s estuarine areas were not suitable for swimming, fishing, or supporting marine species. In 2002, about 12,000 beach closings

and swimming advisories were issued across the Nation, most due to the presence

of bacteria associated with fecal contamination. Marine toxins afflict more than

90,000 people annually across the globe and are responsible for an estimated 62 percent of all seafood-related illnesses. Such events are on the rise, costing millions of

dollars a year in decreased tourism revenues and increased health care costs.

Experts estimate that 25 to 30 percent of the world’s major fish stocks are overexploited, and many U.S. fisheries are experiencing similar difficulties. Since the

Pilgrims first arrived at Plymouth Rock, over half of our fresh and saltwater wetlands—more than 110 million acres—have been lost.

Our failure to properly manage the human activities that affect oceans and coasts

is compromising their ecological integrity and diminishing our ability to fully realize

their potential. Congress recognized this situation when it passed the Oceans Act

of 2000 calling for a Commission on Ocean Policy to establish findings and develop

recommendations for a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy. Pursuant to that Act, the President appointed 16 Commission members, including individuals nominated by the leadership in the United States Senate and the House of

Representatives. These individuals were drawn from diverse backgrounds with

knowledge in ocean and coastal activities.

Because of the vast scope of topics the Commission was required to address, it

sought input from individuals across the country. The Commission members traveled around the United States obtaining valuable information from diverse marinerelated interests. They heard testimony on ocean and coastal issues during nine regional meetings and experienced regional concerns first-hand during seventeen site

visits. The regional meetings also highlighted relevant success stories and regional

models with potential national applicability.

Four additional public meetings were held in Washington, D.C., after completion

of the regional meetings, to publicly present and discuss many of the policy options

under consideration for the Commission’s recommendations. In all, the Commission

heard from some 445 witnesses, including over 275 invited presentations and an additional 170 comments from the public, resulting in nearly 1,900 pages of testimony

(included as Appendices to the report).

The message we heard was clear: the oceans and coasts are in trouble and major

changes are urgently needed. While new scientific understanding shows that natural systems are complex and interconnected, our decision-making and management

approaches have not been updated to reflect that complexity and interconnectedness. Responsibilities remain dispersed among a confusing array of agencies at the

federal, State, and local levels. Better approaches and tools are also needed to gather data to understand the complex marine environment. Perhaps most important,

people must understand the role the oceans have on their lives and livelihoods and

the impacts they themselves have on the oceans.

As the result of significant thought and deliberation and the consideration of a

wide range of potential solutions, the Commission prepared its preliminary report

containing bold and broad-reaching recommendations for reform—reform that needs

to start now, while it is still possible to reverse distressing declines, seize exciting

opportunities, and sustain the oceans and their valuable assets for future generations.

VISION AND STRATEGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Any strategy for change must begin with a clear picture of the desired endpoint.

In the desirable future we wish to create, the oceans and coasts would be clean,

safe, and sustainably managed. They would contribute significantly to the economy,

supporting multiple beneficial uses such as food production, development of energy

and mineral resources, recreation, transportation of goods and people, and the disVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:42 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 093362 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\050504\93362 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
29

covery of novel medicines and other products, while preserving a high level of biodiversity and a full range of natural habitats. The coasts would be attractive places

to live, work and play, with clean water and beaches, easy public access, sustainable

economies, safe bustling harbors and ports, adequate roads and services, and special

protection for sensitive habitats. Beach closings, toxic algal blooms, proliferation of

invasive species, and vanishing native species would be rare. Better land use planning and improved predictions of severe weather and other natural hazards would

save lives and money.

The management of our oceans and coasts would also look different: it would follow ecosystem boundaries, considering interactions among all elements of the system, rather than addressing isolated areas or problems. In the face of scientific uncertainty, managers would balance competing considerations and proceed with caution. Ocean governance would be effective, participatory, and well coordinated

among government agencies, the private sector, and the public.

Managers and politicians would recognize the critical importance of good data and

science, providing strong support for physical, biological, social, and economic research. The Nation would invest in the tools and technologies needed to conduct this

research: ample, well-equipped surface and underwater research vessels; reliable,

sustained satellites; state-of-the-art computing facilities; and innovative sensors that

withstand harsh ocean conditions. A widespread network of observing and monitoring stations would provide data for research, planning, marine operations, timely

forecasts, and periodic assessments. Scientific findings and observations would be

translated into practical information, maps, and products used by decision-makers

and the public.

Better education would be a cornerstone of ocean policy, with the United States

once again joining the top ranks in math, science, and technology achievement. An

ample, well-trained, and motivated workforce would be available to study the

oceans, set wise policies, apply technological advances, engineer new solutions, and

teach the public about the value and beauty of the oceans and coasts throughout

their lives. As a result of this lifelong education, people would understand the links

among the land, sea, air, and human activities and would be better stewards of the

Nation’s resources.

Finally, the United States would be a leader and full partner globally, sharing its

science, engineering, technology, and policy expertise, particularly with developing

countries, to facilitate the achievement of sustainable ocean management on a global level.

The Commission believes this vision is practical and attainable. To achieve it, national ocean policy should be guided by a set of overarching principles including the

following:

Sustainability: Ocean policy should be designed to meet the needs of the present

generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their

needs.

Stewardship: The principle of stewardship applies both to the government and to

every citizen. The U.S. government holds ocean and coastal resources in the public

trust—a special responsibility that necessitates balancing different uses of those resources for the continued benefit of all Americans. Just as important, every member

of the public should recognize the value of the oceans and coasts, supporting appropriate policies and acting responsibly while minimizing negative environmental impacts.

Ocean–Land–Atmosphere Connections: Ocean policies should be based on the

recognition that the oceans, land, and atmosphere are inextricably intertwined and

that actions that affect one Earth system component are likely to affect another.

Ecosystem-based Management: U.S. ocean and coastal resources should be managed to reflect the relationships among all ecosystem components, including humans

and nonhuman species and the environments in which they live. Applying this principle will require defining relevant geographic management areas based on ecosystem, rather than political, boundaries.

Multiple Use Management: The many potentially beneficial uses of ocean and

coastal resources should be acknowledged and managed in a way that balances competing uses while preserving and protecting the overall integrity of the ocean and

coastal environments.

Preservation of Marine Biodiversity: Downward trends in marine biodiversity

should be reversed where they exist, with a desired end of maintaining or recovering

natural levels of biological diversity and ecosystem services.

30

Best Available Science and Information: Ocean policy decisions should be based

on the best available understanding of the natural, social, and economic processes

that affect ocean and coastal environments. Decision-makers should be able to obtain and understand quality science and information in a way that facilitates successful management of ocean and coastal resources.

Adaptive Management: Ocean management programs should be designed to meet

clear goals and provide new information to continually improve the scientific basis

for future management. Periodic re-evaluation of the goals and effectiveness of management measures, and incorporation of new information in implementing future

management, are essential.

Understandable Laws and Clear Decisions: Laws governing uses of ocean and

coastal resources should be clear, coordinated, and accessible to the Nation’s citizens

to facilitate compliance. Policy decisions and the reasoning behind them should also

be clear and available to all interested parties.

Participatory Governance: Governance of ocean uses should ensure widespread

participation by all citizens on issues that affect them.

Timeliness: Ocean governance systems should operate with as much efficiency and

predictability as possible.

Accountability: Decision-makers and members of the public should be accountable

for the actions they take that affect ocean and coastal resources.

International Responsibility: The United States should act cooperatively with

other nations in developing and implementing international ocean policy, reflecting

the deep connections between U.S. interests and the global ocean.

Ecosystem-based Management

Ecosystem-based management emerged as an overarching theme of the Commission’s work. To move toward more ecosystem-based approaches, managers must consider the relationships among all ecosystem components, including human and

nonhuman species and the environments in which they live. Management areas

should be defined based on ecosystem, rather than political, boundaries. A balanced

precautionary approach should be adopted that weighs the level of scientific uncertainty and the potential risk of damage before proceeding.

In moving toward an ecosystem-based approach, the U.S. Commission on Ocean

Policy considers the following actions absolutely critical. First, a new national ocean

policy framework must be established to improve federal leadership and coordination and enhance opportunities for State, territorial, tribal, and local entities to improve responses at the regional level. Second, decisions about ocean and coastal resources need to be based on the most current, credible, unbiased scientific data. And

third, improved education about the oceans is needed to give the general public a

sense of stewardship and prepare a new generation of leaders to address ocean

issues.

IMPROVING GOVERNANCE

Many different entities at the federal, regional, State, territorial, tribal and local

levels participate in the management of the Nation’s oceans and coasts. At the federal level, eleven of the fifteen existing cabinet-level departments and four independent agencies play important roles in the development of ocean and coastal policy. All of these federal agencies also interact in various ways with State, territorial,

tribal, and local entities.

A lack of communication and coordination among the various agency programs at

the national level, and among federal, State and local stakeholders at the regional

level, continues to inhibit effective action. A new National Ocean Policy Framework

is needed to provide high-level attention and coordinated implementation of an integrated national ocean policy.

National Coordination and Leadership

A first step in enhancing management, and a central part of the new National

Ocean Policy Framework, is improved coordination among the many federal programs. A number of attempts have been made to coordinate on particular topics,

such as coral reefs or marine transportation, or within a broad category, such as

ocean science and technology. Within the Executive Office of the President, three

entities have specific responsibilities relevant to oceans: the Office of Science and

Technology Policy that addresses government-wide science and technology issues

and includes an ocean subcommittee; the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

that oversees broad federal environmental efforts and implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act; and the National Security Council’s Policy CoordiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:42 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 093362 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\050504\93362 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
31

nating Committee that addresses international issues and also includes a subcommittee on international ocean issues.

While all these coordinating bodies are helpful in their designated areas of interest, they do not constitute a high-level interagency mechanism able to deal with all

of the interconnected ocean and coastal challenges facing the Nation, including not

only science and technology, the environment, and international matters, but the

many other economic, social, and technical issues that affect the ocean.

The value of the ocean to American society also cries out for greater visibility and

leaderships. Only the Executive Office of the President can transcend traditional

conflicts among departments and agencies, make recommendations for broad federal

agency reorganization, and provide guidance on funding priorities, making it the appropriate venue for coordinating an integrated national ocean policy.

National Ocean Council

Congress should establish a National Ocean Council within the Executive Office

of the President to provide high-level level attention to ocean and coastal issues, develop and guide the implementation of appropriate national policies, and coordinate

the many federal departments and agencies with ocean and coastal responsibilities.

The National Ocean Council, or NOC, should be composed of cabinet secretaries of

departments and directors of independent agencies with relevant ocean- and coastalrelated responsibilities and should carry out a variety of functions including the following:

• developing broad principles and national goals for ocean and coastal governance;

• making recommendations to the President on national ocean policy;

• coordinating and integrating activities of ocean-related federal agencies;

• identifying statutory and regulatory redundancies or omissions and developing strategies to resolve conflicts, fill gaps, and address new and emerging

ocean issues;

• developing and supporting partnerships between government agencies and

nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, academia, and the public.

Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy

A Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, co-chaired by the chair of the

National Ocean Council and a non-federal member, should advise the President on

ocean and coastal policy matters and serve as a formal structure for input from nonfederal individuals and organizations. It should be composed of a representative selection of individuals appointed by the President, including governors of coastal

states, other appropriate State, territorial, tribal and local government representatives, and individuals from the private sector, research and education communities,

nongovernmental organizations, watershed organizations and other non-federal bodies with ocean interests. The members should be knowledgeable about and experienced in ocean and coastal issues.

Need for Presidential Action—the Assistant to the President

Although Congress should establish the National Ocean Council and the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy in law to ensure their long-term future,

the Commission is cognizant of the complex and often lengthy nature of the legislative process. While awaiting congressional action, the President should immediately

establish these entities through Executive Order, and should appoint an Assistant

to the President to chair the Council. As chair of the NOC and co-chair of the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, the Assistant to the President should

lead the coordination of federal agency actions related to oceans and coasts, make

recommendations for federal agency reorganization as needed to improve ocean and

coastal management, resolve interagency policy disputes, and promote regional approaches. The Assistant to the President should also advise OMB and the agencies

on appropriate funding levels for important ocean- and coastal-related activities, and

prepare a biennial report as mandated by section 5 of the Oceans Act of 2000.

Office of Ocean Policy

Because the National Ocean Council will be responsible for planning and coordination rather than operational duties, the support of a small staff and committees

will be required to carry out its functions. An Office of Ocean Policy should support

the Assistant to the President, the National Ocean Council, and the Presidential

Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy. The Office of Ocean Policy should be composed

of a small staff that reports to the Assistant to the President, managed by an executive director responsible for day-to-day activities. Strong links should be maintained

32

among the National Ocean Council, its committees and staff, other parts of the Executive Office of the President, and ocean-related advisory councils and commissions.

Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations

A committee under the National Ocean Council will be needed to assume the

functions of the current National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC), a

congressionally-established government coordination and leadership organization for

oceanographic research programs on the national level. By placing the NORLC

under the NOC and broadening its responsibilities to include operational programs

and educational activities in addition to research, it will become more visible and

more effective. In recognition of its broader mandate, the NORLC should be redesignated as the Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations

(COSETO). Strong connections between the Office of Science and Technology Policy

and the NOC (through COSETO) will be essential. To eliminate overlapping functions, the National Science and Technology Council’s Joint Subcommittee on Oceans,

should be subsumed into COSETO.

Committee on Ocean Resource Management

The National Ocean Council will need a second committee, to coordinate federal

resource management policy, including the many existing, single-issue coordination

efforts such as the Coral Reef Task Force, the Interagency Committee on the Marine

Transportation System, the National Dredging Team, Coastal America, and many

others. The NOC Committee on Ocean Resource Management (CORM) would perform high-level, cross-cutting oversight of these issue-specific efforts to ensure consideration of cumulative impacts, minimize conflicting mandates, and implement an

ecosystem-based management approach. Because of the Council on Environmental

Quality’s role in environmental issues, this office should also maintain strong connections with the National Ocean Council and its CORM.

A Regional Approach

In addition to improved coordination at the national level, an important component of the new National Ocean Policy Framework is the promotion of regional approaches that allow decision-makers to address issues across jurisdictional lines.

The Nation’s ocean and coastal resources are affected by human activities that span

cities, counties, States, and sometimes nations. Federal, State, territorial, tribal, and

local governments need the ability to respond to ocean and coastal issues in a coordinated fashion within regions defined by the boundaries of ecosystems rather

than somewhat arbitrary government jurisdictions. The voluntary establishment of

regional ocean councils, improved coordination of federal agency efforts at the regional level, and dissemination of regionally significant research and information

would enhance regional coordination and improve responses to regional issues.

Creating Regional Ocean Councils

There are many examples where concern for the health of a particular ecosystem

(such as the Chesapeake Bay, Pacific Northwest, Gulf of Mexico, or Mississippi

River Basin) has motivated a wide range of participants to create new structures

for addressing regional concerns. There is a growing awareness that existing regional approaches can be strengthened and similar approaches can benefit the

health and productivity of all the Nation’s ocean and coastal regions.

Regional ocean councils can serve as mechanisms for a wide range of participants

to join forces to address issues of regional concern, realize regional opportunities,

identify regional goals, and promote a sense of stewardship for a specific area

among all levels of government, private interests, and the public. It will be up to

the participants—including representatives from all levels of government, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and academia—to determine how the

council will operate in each region. Possible council functions might include:

• designating ad hoc subcommittees to examine specific issues of regional concern;

• mediating and resolving disputes among different interests in the region;

• monitoring and evaluating the state of the region and the effectiveness of

management efforts;

• building public awareness about regional ocean and coastal issues;

• facilitating government approvals or permitting processes that involve several

Federal, State, and local government agencies within the region; and

• helping to link activities located in upstream, coastal, and offshore areas

within an ecosystem-based management context.

33

Regional ocean councils should be created by interested parties at the State and

local level, rather than mandated by the Federal Government. However, to stimulate the process, the National Ocean Council should develop flexible guidelines for

the voluntary creation of regional ocean councils. Initial efforts should be encouraged in regions where readiness and support for a regional approach is already

strong. The first councils can then serve as pilot projects, allowing those involved

to learn what works in the region, building support to implement a regional ocean

council, and paving the way for councils in other regions. Once established, regional

ocean councils will most likely evolve, as participants identify the structure and

functions that best suit their needs. Whether a council has decision-making authority will be up to the regional participants. National involvement may be necessary

to implement more formal decision-making mechanisms such as legislation, interagency agreements, and interstate compacts.

Regional ocean councils should encompass an area from the inland extent of coastal watersheds to the offshore boundary of the Nation’s EEZ. The boundaries of the

Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) may be considered as a starting

point, although these regions may not always be suitable. For example, more than

one regional ocean council will probably be necessary within California where there

is only one RFMC. A regional ocean council for the Great Lakes region is also desirable.

Improving Regional Coordination of Federal Agencies

While the process of planning, establishing, and testing regional ocean councils is

underway, federal agencies should be directed to immediately improve their own regional coordination and provide stronger institutional, technical, and financial support for regional issues. Currently, the actions of federal agencies often overlap, conflict, or are inconsistent with one another at the regional and State levels. Although

several federal agencies already divide their operations into regions, the boundaries

of these regions differ from one agency to the next, the functions of regional offices

vary widely, and it is common for the regional office of one agency to operate in isolation from the regional offices of other agencies. Improved regional coordination

should be a first step, followed in time by federal reorganization around common

regional boundaries.

Enhancing Regional Research and Information

Decision-makers at all levels need the best available science, information, tools,

and technology on which to base ocean and coastal management decisions. However,

research and data collection targeted at regional concerns is severely limited. Furthermore, the data that do exist are rarely translated into products that are useful

to managers. Regional ocean information programs should be established to set priorities for research, data collection, information products, and outreach activities in

support of improved regional management. Where and when they are established,

regional ocean councils will be the logical bodies to administer these programs.

Improved Governance of Offshore Waters

Converging economic, technological, legal, and demographic factors make federal

waters an increasingly attractive place for enterprises seeking to tap the ocean’s resources. The challenge for policy-makers will be to realize the ocean’s potential

while minimizing conflicts among users, safeguarding human and marine health,

and fulfilling the Federal Government’s obligation to manage public resources for

the maximum long-term benefit of the entire nation. While institutional frameworks

exist for managing some ocean uses, increasingly unacceptable gaps remain.

The array of agencies involved, and their frequent lack of coordination, can create

roadblocks to public participation, discourage private investment, cause harmful

delays, and generate unnecessary costs. This is particularly true for new ocean uses

that are subject to scattered or ill defined federal agency authorities and an uncertain decision-making process. Without an understandable, streamlined, and broadly

accepted method for reviewing proposed activities, ad hoc management approaches

will continue, perpetuating uncertainty and raising questions about the comprehensiveness and legitimacy of decisions.

To start, each existing or foreseeable activity in federal waters should be overseen

by one lead federal agency, designated by Congress to coordinate among all the

agencies with applicable authorities while ensuring full consideration of the public

interest. Pending such designations, the NOC should assign agencies to coordinate

research, assessment, and monitoring of new offshore activities.

But better management of individual activities is only a first step. To move toward an ecosystem-based management approach, the Federal Government should

develop a broad understanding of offshore areas and their resources, prioritize all

potential uses, and ensure that activities within a given area are compatible. As the

34

pressure for offshore uses grows, and before serious conflicts arise, coordination

should be improved among the management programs for different offshore activities. The National Ocean Council should review each single-purpose program that

regulates some offshore activity with the goal of determining how all such programs

may be better coordinated.

Ultimately, the Nation needs a coordinated offshore management regime that encompasses traditional and emerging uses, and is flexible enough to incorporate uses

not yet foreseen. The new regime will need to make decisions and resolve disputes

through an open process accepted by all parties. Congress, working with the NOC

and regional ocean councils, should establish such an offshore management regime

and establish principles for offshore use, including the need to:

• integrate single-purpose programs within the broader offshore regime;

• create a planning process for new and emerging activities; and

• ensure a reasonable return to the public in exchange for allowing private interests to profit from public resources.

Establishing a coordinated offshore management regime will take time, and it will

not be easy. No regime for governing ocean activities will eliminate all conflicts,

given the complexity of the problems and the diverse perspectives of competing interests. However, the National Ocean Council, Presidential Council of Advisors on

Ocean Policy, regional ocean councils, and other components of the National Ocean

Policy Framework provide a promising basis for more coordinated, participatory

management of ocean activities.

Marine Protected Areas

In contemplating the coordinated, ecosystem-based management of both nearshore and offshore areas, marine protected areas can be a valuable tool. Marine protected areas can be created for many different reasons, including conserving living

marine resources and habitat, protecting endangered or threatened species, maintaining biological diversity, and preserving historically or culturally important submerged archaeological resources. These areas have also been recognized for their

scientific, recreational, and educational values.

The creation of new MPAs can be a controversial process: supported by those who

see their benefits, while vigorously opposed by others who dislike the limitations

MPAs impose on ocean uses. Thus, it is important to engage local and regional

stakeholders in the design and implementation of marine protected areas to build

support and ensure compliance with any restrictions. Because marine protected

areas also have national implications, such as possible impacts on freedom of navigation, federal involvement and oversight will still be needed.

With its multiple use, ecosystem-based perspective, the National Ocean Council

should oversee the development of a flexible process—which is adaptive and based

on best available science—to design and implement marine protected areas. Regional ocean councils, or other appropriate entities, can provide a forum for applying

the process developed by the NOC, with broad stakeholder participation.

Strengthening and Streamlining the Federal Agency Structure

Although improved coordination is a vital aspect of the new National Ocean Policy

Framework, changes to the federal agency structure itself will also be needed. The

proliferation of federal agencies with some element of responsibility for ocean and

coastal activities immediately suggests that some consolidation is possible. Combining similar ocean and coastal functions and programs could improve government

performance, reduce unnecessary overlaps, facilitate local, State, and regional interactions with the Federal Government, and begin to move the Nation toward a more

ecosystem-based management approach.

However, the complex Legislative and Executive Branch process for making such

changes compels a cautious, methodical, multi-phased approach for improving the

federal structure.

Strengthening NOAA—Phase I

NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment

and to conserve and manage ocean and coastal resources to meet the Nation’s economic, social, and environmental needs. Since its creation, NOAA has made significant strides in many areas, despite programmatic and functional overlaps and frequent disagreements and disconnects among its five line offices. Although the organization has evolved over time, including the recent creation of a sixth line office

to improve integration on specific issues, these changes take time and results can

be hard to quantify.

35

There is widespread agreement that NOAA needs to manage its current activities

more effectively. Moreover, if the recommendations in the Commission’s preliminary

report are implemented, NOAA will be required to handle a number of new responsibilities. A stronger, more effective, science-based and service-oriented ocean agency—one that contributes to better management of oceans and coasts through an ecosystem-based approach—is needed.

NOAA’s three primary functions can be summarized as follows:

1) Assessment, prediction, and operations for ocean, coastal, and atmospheric

environments, including mapping and charting, satellite-based and in situ

data collection, implementation of the Integrated Ocean Observing System,

data information systems, and weather services and products.

2) Marine resource and area management, including fisheries, ocean and coastal

areas, vulnerable species and habitats, and protection from pollution and

invasive species.

3) Scientific research and education, including a focus on applied research, the

availability of scientifically valid data, and promotion of educational activities.

One of the critical objectives for a strengthened NOAA is improved performance

within these categories and smoother interactions among them. For example, resource management decisions should be based on the best available science, research itself should be planned to support the agency’s management missions, and

research in different areas—sea, land, and air—should be connected and coordinated. Changes of this nature will likely require adjustments to the internal operation of the agency, including possible additional changes to the current line office

structure.

These changes can be promoted by codifying the establishment and functions of

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration through passage of an organic act for the agency. The act should ensure that NOAA’s structure is consistent

with the principles of ecosystem-based management and with its primary functions:

assessment, prediction, and operations; management; and research and education.

NOAA will require budget support commensurate with its important, varied, and

growing responsibilities.

Reviewing NOAA’s Budget

NOAA’s placement within the Department of Commerce has an unusual history

and continues to be questioned by many observers. If nothing else, this affiliation

has distinct budgetary implications. As part of DOC, NOAA’s budget is reviewed

within the Office of Management and Budget’s General Government Programs,

along with other DOC programs with fundamentally different characteristics and

missions. NOAA’s OMB review also fails to consider its ocean and atmospheric programs in context with other federal resource management and science programs. To

support the move toward a more ecosystem-based management approach, NOAA’s

budget should be reviewed within OMB’s Natural Resources Programs, along with

the budgets of more similar departments and agencies.

Consolidating Ocean and Coastal Programs—Phase II

As I have said, many agencies across the Federal Government—in addition to

NOAA—administer ocean- and coastal-related programs. Although I have focused on

NOAA as the primary ocean agency, the other agencies should also be strengthened

in similar ways.

However, even solid performance within each agency will not eliminate the many

similar or overlapping activities. In some cases, programmatic overlap can provide

useful checks and balances as agencies bring different perspectives and experiences

to the table. In other cases, the number of separate agencies addressing a similar

issue is not helpful. Such fragmentation diffuses responsibility, introduces unnecessary overlap, raises administrative costs, inhibits communication, and interferes

with the development of a comprehensive management regime that addresses issues

within an ecosystem-based context.

The Commission’s preliminary report presents specific recommendations on program consolidation in areas such as nonpoint source pollution, area-based ocean and

coastal resource management, vessel pollution, invasive species, marine mammals,

aquaculture, and satellite-based Earth observing. Using these recommendations as

a starting point, the Assistant to the President, with advice from the National

Ocean Council and the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, should review federal ocean, coastal and atmospheric programs, and recommend further opportunities for consolidation.

36

Programs not suitable for consolidation—such as security-related programs that

cannot be transferred without harm to the overall enterprise—should continue to be

coordinated through the National Ocean Council and the regional ocean councils.

However, in most cases, judicious consolidation of ocean- and coastal-related functions will improve policy integration and program effectiveness.

Presidential Reorganization Authority

The recommended program consolidation will not be easy within the current legislative process. The creation and reorganization of agencies is often contentious,

lengthy, and uncertain, involving multiple committees in both houses of Congress.

Recognizing this shortcoming, Congress has several times in the past chosen to give

the President limited reorganization authority. Renewing this authority by allowing

the President to propose agency reorganization, with an expedited and limited congressional review and approval process, would provide an excellent mechanism to

achieve reorganization of federal ocean- and coastal-related agencies in a timely

fashion.

Managing all Natural Resources in an Ecosystem-based Management Context—

Phase III

Strengthening the performance of ocean, coastal, and atmospheric programs

through coordination and consolidation are important steps in moving toward an

ecosystem-based management approach. By immediately establishing the National

Ocean Council and strengthening NOAA, followed by the consolidation of suitable

ocean and coastal programs and functions, the Nation will be poised to take a further step in strengthening the Federal Government structure.

Based on a growing understanding of ecosystems, including recognition of the inextricable links among the sea, land, air, and all living things, a more fundamental

reorganization of federal resource agencies will eventually be needed. Consolidation

of all natural resource functions, including those involving oceans and coasts, would

enable the Federal Government to move toward true ecosystem-based management.

This could be implemented through the establishment of a Department of Natural

Resources or some other structural unification that brings together all of the Nation’s natural resource programs.

SCIENCE–BASED DECISIONS: ADVANCING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF

THE OCEANS

Ecosystem-based management provides many potential benefits, but also imposes

new responsibilities on managers. The need to collect good information and to improve understanding is perhaps foremost among these new responsibilities. Despite

considerable progress over the last century, the oceans remain one of the least explored and most poorly understood environments on the planet.

Greater knowledge can enable policy-makers and managers to make wise, sciencebased decisions at the national, regional, State, and local levels. However, existing

research and monitoring programs, which tend to be agency-specific and single issue

oriented, will need to be reorganized to support ecosystem-based management. The

current mismatch between the size and complexity of marine ecosystems and the

fragmented research and monitoring programs for coastal and ocean ecosystems

must be resolved.

The Nation also lacks effective mechanisms for incorporating scientific information into decision-making in a timely manner. As knowledge improves, it must be

translated into useful terms and actively incorporated into policy through an adaptive process. To make the translation effective, local, State, regional, and national

managers need avenues to communicate their information needs and priorities to

the research community.

In addition to these practical needs, ocean science and technology will continue

to be an integral part of the overall U.S. basic research enterprise and future discoveries will undoubtedly contribute greatly to society. Fundamental knowledge about

the oceans is essential to understanding the Earth’s environment and how it

changes over time, assessing and predicting the status of marine resources, finding

beneficial new uses of ocean resources, and protecting national security.

Federal Leadership in Ocean Science and Technology

Our Commission defines ocean science and technology broadly to include: exploration of new ocean environments; basic and applied research to increase understanding of the biology, chemistry, physics, and geology of the oceans and coasts,

their interactions with terrestrial, hydrologic, and atmospheric systems, and the

interactions between ocean and coastal regions and humans; and the development

of new methodologies and instruments.

37

Today, 15 federal agencies support or conduct diverse activities in ocean science,

technology, assessment, and management. The heads of these agencies direct the

National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP), which coordinates national

oceanographic research and education. NOPP has provided a useful venue for agencies to support a small number of ocean science and technology projects, but it has

not realized its full potential as an overarching mechanism for coordination among

federal agencies and State, local, academic, and private entities.

Under the proposed National Ocean Policy Framework, the National Ocean Council’s Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations

(COSETO) will assume leadership of NOPP to implement a broad national strategy

for ocean research, education, observation, exploration, and marine operations.

NOPP’s existing offices and committees will be incorporated within this structure.

Ocean.US, the lead office for planning the Integrated Ocean Observing System

(IOOS), and the Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee which provides advice

on oceanographic facilities, will both report to COSETO.

Creating a National Strategy for Ocean Science and Technology

The United States needs a national strategy for ocean and coastal research, exploration, and marine operations that can help meet the ocean resource management

challenges of the 21st century and ensure that useful products result from federal

investments in ocean research. Much more needs to be known about how marine

ecosystems function on varying spatial scales, how human activities affect marine

ecosystems and how, in turn, these changes affect human health. Coordinated and

enhanced research activities and marine operations are needed to:

• understand biological, physical, and chemical processes and interactions

• maintain overall ecosystem health and biological diversity

• observe, monitor, assess, and predict environmental events and long-term

trends

• explore the ocean depths for new resources

• map ocean and coastal areas for safe navigation and resource management

Furthermore, the ocean and coastal environment is rife with conflicts among competing users and between groups of people applying different sets of values to the

same issues. To resolve these conflicts, information is needed not only about the natural environment but also about relevant social, cultural, and economic factors.

Better coordination and increased support of ocean science and technology activities nationwide will help the United States to address numerous management challenges, and will position the Nation to quickly tackle new issues as they emerge.

Advancing Ocean and Coastal Research

The United States has a wealth of ocean research expertise spread across a network of government and industry laboratories and world-class universities, colleges,

and marine centers. With strong federal support, these institutions made the United

States the world leader in oceanography during the 20th century. However, a leader

cannot stand still. Ocean and coastal management issues continue to grow in number and complexity, new fields of study have emerged, new interdisciplinary approaches are being tried, and there is a growing need to understand the ocean on

a global and regional scale. All this has created a corresponding demand for highquality scientific information. And while the need for increased information continues to grow, the federal investment in ocean research has stagnated in recent

decades.

The current annual federal investment in marine science is well below the level

necessary to address adequately the Nation’s needs for coastal and ocean information. Unless funding increases sharply, the gap between requirements and resources

will continue to grow and the United States will lose its position as the world’s leader in ocean research.

Congress should double the federal ocean and coastal research budget over the

next five years, from the 2004 level of approximately $650 million to $1.3 billion per

year. As part of this increase, the National Ocean Council or Congress should:

• fund the research component of the regional ocean information programs to

provide practical, management-oriented information at regional, State, and

local levels;

• create a national program for social science and economic research to examine

the human dimensions and economic value of the Nation’s oceans and coasts,

with funding of at least $8–$10 million a year;

38

• establish a joint Oceans and Human Health Initiative funded at $28 million

a year;

• significantly increase the budget of the National Sea Grant College Program.

To ensure that increased investments are used wisely and that important research activities continue, federal agencies will need to create long-term strategic

plans. A mechanism is required to coordinate federally-funded ocean research, support long-term projects, and create partnerships throughout all agencies and sectors.

Transparent and comprehensive research plans would achieve these goals and ensure that research results can be translated into operational products in a timely

manner. The National Ocean Council should develop a national ocean research

strategy that reflects a long-term vision, promotes advances in basic and applied

ocean science and technology, and guides relevant agencies in developing ten-year

science plans and budgets.

Ocean Exploration

About 95 percent of the ocean floor remains unexplored, much of it located in

harsh environments such as the polar latitudes and the Southern Ocean. Experience

teaches us, however, that these vast and remote regions teem with undiscovered

species and resources. On virtually every expedition, oceanographers discover fascinating new creatures. Advances in deep-sea technologies have also made it easier

to locate shipwrecks and historical artifacts lost in the ocean depths, such as the

stunning discovery of the RMS Titanic in 1985. The continued exploration of marine

archaeological sites will help us to better understand human history and our global

cultural heritage.

Very little is known about the ocean depths due primarily to the lack of a longterm, large-scale national commitment to ocean exploration. In 2000, recommendations from the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration led to the establishment of

the Office of Exploration within NOAA, at a modest funding level of $4 million in

fiscal year 2001, and $14 million in each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003. This program is helping NOAA to fulfill its applied science, environmental assessment, and

technology development responsibilities; although the program’s small budget and

agency-specific focus limit its effectiveness.

NOAA and NSF, by virtue of their missions and mandates, are well positioned

to lead a global U.S. ocean exploration effort. NOAA currently runs the Office of

Ocean Exploration, but NSF’s focus on basic research provides an excellent complement to NOAA’s more applied mission. Working together, the two agencies have

the capacity to systematically explore and conduct research in previously

unexamined ocean environments. To succeed, coordination, joint funding, and interactions with academia and industry will be essential. Congress should appropriate

significant funding for an expanded national ocean exploration program and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation should be designated as the lead agencies. An expanded national ocean exploration program will require a budget of approximately $110 million annually, plus

additional funds for required infrastructure.

Mapping, Charting, and Assessments

The need for routine mapping, monitoring, and assessment of U.S. waters has

grown significantly in the past two decades. Accurate, up-to-date maps and charts

of harbors, coastlines, and the open ocean are necessary for many activities, including shipping, military operations, and scientific research. In addition, expanded regulatory regimes rely heavily on routine assessments of living and nonliving marine

resources and water quality. Modern sensor technologies, which can detect new variables in greater detail in the water column and sea floor, have improved our ability

to follow changing ocean and terrestrial dynamics. But as these new technologies

are implemented, they need to be calibrated against previous methods, as well as

with each other, to provide useful environmental characterizations and ensure the

consistency of long-term statistical data sets.

At least ten federal agencies, almost all coastal states, and many local agencies,

academic institutions, and private companies are involved in mapping, charting, and

assessing living and nonliving resources in U.S. waters. However, different organizations use varying methods for collecting and presenting these data, leading to disparate products that contain gaps in the information they present. Ideally, a variety

of information (e.g., bathymetry, topography, bottom type, habitat, salinity, vulnerability) should be integrated into maps using Global Positioning System coordinates

and a common geodetic reference frame. In addition, these maps should include living marine resources, energy resources, and environmental data when available, to

create complete environmental characterizations necessary for developing and implementing science-based ecosystem-based management approaches.

39

Coordination of the many existing federal mapping activities will increase efficiency and help ensure that all necessary surveys are conducted. Drawing upon the

mapping and charting abilities found in the private sector and academia will also

be necessary to achieve the best results at the lowest cost.

The National Ocean Council should coordinate federal ocean and coastal resource

assessment, mapping, and charting activities with the goal of creating standardized,

easily accessible national maps that incorporate living and nonliving marine resource data along with bathymetry, topography, and other natural features.

Achieving a Sustained, Integrated Ocean Observing System

About 150 years ago, this nation set out to create a comprehensive weather forecasting and warning network and today most people cannot imagine living without

constantly updated weather reports. Recognizing the enormous national benefits

that have accrued from the weather observing network, it is time to invest in a similar observational and forecasting capability for the oceans. This system would gather information on physical, geological, chemical, and biological parameters for the

oceans and coasts, conditions that affect—and are affected by—humans and their

activities. The United States currently has the scientific and technological capacity

to develop a sustained, national Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) that

will support and enhance the Nation’s efforts for:

• improving the health of our coasts and oceans;

• protecting human lives and livelihoods from marine hazards;

• supporting national defense and homeland security efforts;

• measuring, explaining, and predicting environmental changes;

• providing for the sustainable use, protection, and enjoyment of ocean resources.

The National Ocean Council should make the development and implementation

of a sustained, national Integrated Ocean Observing System a central focus of its

leadership and coordination role. The United States simply cannot provide the economic, environmental, and security benefits listed above, achieve new levels of understanding and predictive capability, or generate the information needed by a wide

range of users, without implementing the IOOS.

The IOOS is based on two components: 1) open ocean observations conducted in

cooperation with the international Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) and 2)

a national network of coastal observations conducted at the regional level. The

coastal component will include the U.S. exclusive economic zone, the Great Lakes,

and coastal and estuarine areas.

A strong national governance structure is required to establish policy and provide

oversight for all components of the IOOS and to ensure strong integration among

the regional, national, and global levels. Interagency coordination and consensus

through the National Ocean Council and Ocean.US will be essential. While regional

systems will retain a level of autonomy, achievement of the IOOS with nationwide

benefits will require the regional systems to follow some national guidelines and

standards. In addition, developers of the IOOS must ensure that the global component is not minimized and that the connectivity with the GOOS, including U.S.

funding and leadership, remains strong and viable.

Formalizing Ocean.US

Ocean.US has made significant progress as the lead organization for the design

and implementation of the national IOOS. However, a fundamental problem current

exists in that Ocean.US has a number of responsibilities without any real authority

or control over budgets. Its ephemeral existence under the Memorandum of Agreement which created it, its dependence on personnel detailed from the member agencies, and its lack of a dedicated budget severely detract from its stature within the

ocean community and its ability to carry out its responsibilities. Congress should

formally establish Ocean.US under the National Ocean Council structure so that it

may effectively advise the NOC and achieve its coordination and planning mandates. The office requires consistent funding and dedicated full-time staff with the

expertise and skills needed to ensure professional credibility. In addition, outside experts on rotational appointments could help Ocean.US better meet its responsibilities.

Coordinating Regional Observing Systems

Ocean.US envisions the creation of a nationwide network of regional ocean observing systems that will form the backbone of coastal observations for the IOOS. Although Ocean.US has proposed the creation of Regional Associations, coordinated

through a national federation, as the governing bodies of the regional systems, this

40

concept is unnecessarily narrow. To fully address the needs of coastal managers,

ocean observations need to be integrated into other information gathering activities

such as regionally-focused research, outreach and education, and regional ecosystem

assessments. Thus, the proposed regional ocean information programs provide a

more comprehensive mechanism for developing and implementing regional ocean observing systems, in coordination with their broader responsibilities. Regular meetings among all the regional ocean information programs and Ocean.US will be important for providing regional and local input into developing requirements of the

national IOOS.

Reaching Out to the User Community

The IOOS must meet the needs of a broad suite of users, including the general

public. To get the most out of the IOOS, resource managers at federal, State, regional, territorial, tribal, and local levels will need to supply input about their information needs and operational requirements and provide guidance on what output

would be most useful. Other users, including educators, ocean and coastal industries, fishermen, and coastal citizens, must also have a visible avenue for providing

input. Ocean.US and the regional ocean information programs will need to devote

significant time and thought to proactively approaching users and promoting public

awareness of the enormous potential of the IOOS.

Planning Space-based Observations

An integral part of the national IOOS are the space-borne sensors that provide

comprehensive, real-time, widespread coverage of ocean conditions and features.

However, implementing sustained observations from space requires intense planning with long lead times. Given the cost, the time frame for constructing and

launching satellites, and the inability to modify satellites once in orbit, five- to tenyear plans are required to ensure that satellite observations will be available on a

continuous basis and employ the most useful and modern sensors. Ocean.US and

NOAA must work with NASA to ensure that ongoing satellite operations are fully

integrated into the national IOOS.

Both NOAA and NASA currently operate civilian, space-based, Earth observing

programs that measure terrestrial, atmospheric, and oceanic variables. NOAA’s primary mission in this area is to provide sustained, operational observations for monitoring and predicting environmental conditions and long-term changes, with a focus

on weather and climate. In contrast, NASA’s mission is to advance research efforts

and sensor development. A NASA project can last from a few days to a few years,

and NASA has repeatedly asserted that it is not in the business of providing data

continuity. In many instances, the lifetime of a NASA satellite, and its continued

ability to collect and transmit data, outlasts its funding, resulting in premature termination at odds with the pressing demands for data in the operational context.

Thus NASA’s efforts have not, and will not, result in the sustained capabilities

needed for the national IOOS.

Congress should transfer the operation of NASA’s Earth environmental observing

satellites, along with associated resources, to NOAA to achieve continuous data collection. NOAA and NASA should work together to plan future missions and then

ensure the smooth transition of each Earth environmental observing satellite after

its launch. By consolidating Earth, and particularly ocean, observing satellite missions in NOAA, more seamless, long-term planning will be possible, resulting in a

smooth concept-to-operations data collection process.

Information Product Development

To justify large federal investments in the IOOS, the system must result in tangible benefits for a broad and diverse user community, including the general public,

scientists, resource managers, emergency responders, policy-makers, private industry, educators, and officials responsible for homeland security. National Weather

Service and commercial meteorological products have applications ranging from scientific research to human safety, transportation, agriculture, and simple daily forecasts. Similarly, IOOS products should be wide-ranging and based on the needs of

regional and local organizations and communities, as well as national needs. The

regional ocean information programs should help produce information products of

benefit to regional, State, and local managers and organizations. These regional programs will also provide important feedback to national forecasters and modelers

about ways to make national IOOS products more useful.

Funding the IOOS

To fulfill its potential, the IOOS will require stable funding over the long haul.

The lack of long-term funding for existing regional ocean observing systems has contributed to their isolation and piecemeal implementation. But consistent funding

41

will help ensure that the American public receives the greatest return for its investment in the form of useful information, reliable forecasts, and timely warnings. The

estimated start-up costs for the implementation of the national IOOS over the first

five years is close to $2 billion.

Continuous improvements to IOOS observation and prediction capabilities will

also require sustained investments in technology development. Considering the costs

of sensor development, telecommunications, computer systems, and improvements in

modeling and prediction capabilities, annual costs for operating, maintaining, and

upgrading the national IOOS are estimated to be $650–$750 million a year.

Whole Earth Observations

The IOOS cannot exist as a stand-alone system, developed without considering associated observations. Rather, it should be integrated with other environmental observing systems to link weather, climate, terrestrial, biological, watershed, and

ocean observations into a unified Earth Observing System. The National Ocean

Council should oversee coordination of the IOOS with other existing and planned

terrestrial, watershed, atmospheric, and biological observation and information collection systems, with the ultimate goal of developing a national Earth Observing

System. Such a system would improve understanding of environmental changes,

processes, and interactions, making ecosystem-based management possible.

Enhancing Ocean Infrastructure and Technology Development

A robust infrastructure with cutting-edge technology forms the backbone of modern ocean science. It supports scientific discovery and facilitates application of those

discoveries to the management of ocean resources. The nation has long relied on

technological innovation, including satellites, early-warning systems, broadband

telecommunications, and pollution control devices to advance economic prosperity,

protect life and property, and conserve natural resources. Ocean research, exploration, mapping, and assessment activities will continue to rely on modern facilities

and new technologies to acquire data in the open ocean, along the coasts, in polar

regions, on the sea floor, and even from space.

The three major components of the Nation’s scientific infrastructure for oceans

and coasts are:

• Facilities—land-based laboratories and ocean platforms, including ships, airplanes, satellites, and submersibles, where research and observations are conducted;

• Hardware—research equipment, instrumentation, sensors, and information

technology systems used in the facilities; and

• Technical Support—the expert human resources needed to operate and maintain the facilities and hardware as well as participating in data collection, assimilation, analysis, modeling, and dissemination.

The number and types of assets included in the national ocean science infrastructure are extensive and cover a wide range of federal, State, academic, institutional,

and private-sector entities.

Together, they represent a substantial public and private investment that has

made possible great strides in modern oceanography over the last 50 years. But a

recent assessment of these assets revealed that significant components of the U.S.

ocean infrastructure are aged or obsolete and that, in some cases, current capacity

is insufficient to meet the needs of the ocean science and operational community.

The National Ocean Council’s Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology,

and Operations should develop a national ocean and coastal infrastructure and technology strategy to achieve and maintain an appropriate mix of federally-supported,

modern ocean facilities that meet the Nation’s needs for quality resource management, science, and assessment.

Funding Needed Assets

There are currently several critically needed components of the ocean science and

technology infrastructure, including:

• Surface vessels, such as new University National Oceanographic Laboratory

System vessels and fishery research ships

• Undersea vehicles, including an array of manned, remotely operated, and autonomous submersibles

• Aircraft, both manned and unmanned

• Modern laboratories and instrumentation

• Dedicated ocean exploration platforms

42

• Telecommunications technology

• Environmental and biological sensors

Congress should establish a modernization fund to support these critical ocean infrastructure and technology needs. Such a fund would be used to build or upgrade

facilities and acquire related instrumentation and equipment. It would also provide

a mechanism to coordinate similar equipment purchases across agencies, where feasible, creating significant economies of scale. Current and future spending priorities

for the fund should be based on the National Ocean Council’s ocean and coastal infrastructure and technology strategy.

Transferring Technology

The development of needed ocean technologies—whether identified by the national

strategy or through interagency communication—requires directed funding and coordination. Federal agency programs will benefit by having a centralized office responsible for accelerating the transition of technological advances made by federal

and academic laboratories into routine operations.

NOAA should create, and Congress should fund, an Office of Technology to expedite the transition of experimental technologies into operational applications. This

office should work closely with academic institutions, the regional ocean information

programs, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Navy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and other relevant agencies to achieve this mission.

Modernizing Ocean Data and Information Products

Ocean and coastal data are essential for understanding marine processes and resources. They are the foundation for the science-based information on which resource managers depend. But storing and processing large amounts of data, and

converting them into information products useful to a broad community of end

users, remains a huge challenge.

There are two major challenges facing data managers today: the exponentially

growing volume of data, which continually strains data ingestion, storage, and assimilation capabilities; and the need for timely access to these data by the user community in a variety of useful formats. Meeting these challenges will require a concerted effort to integrate and modernize the current data management system. The

ultimate goal of improved ocean data management should be to effectively store, access, integrate, and utilize a wide and disparate range of data needed to better understand the environment and to translate and deliver scientific results and information products in a timely way.

Interagency Coordination

An interagency group, dedicated to ocean data and information planning, is needed to enhance coordination, effectively use existing resources for joint projects,

schedule future software and hardware acquisitions and upgrades, and oversee strategic funding.

Congress should amend the National Oceanographic Partnership Act to create

and fund Ocean.IT as the lead federal interagency planning organization for ocean

and coastal data and information management. Ocean.IT should consist of representatives from all federal agencies involved in ocean data and information management, be supported by a small office, and report to the National Ocean Council’s

Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations.

Ocean.IT should coordinate the development of a viable, long-term data management strategy which includes:

• The implementation of an interagency plan to improve access to data at the

national data centers, Distributed Active Archive Centers, and other discipline-based centers. This plan will need to be appropriately integrated with

other national and international data management plans, including those for

the Integrated Ocean Observing System and Global Ocean Observing System.

• Opportunities to partner with the private sector to enhance environmental

data and information management capabilities.

This organization should not have an operational role, but instead should be responsible solely for interagency planning and coordination, similar to the role of

Ocean.US for the IOOS.

Informational Product Development

Compared to a few decades ago, an impressive array of data and information

products for forecasting ocean and coastal conditions is now available from a wide

range of sources. A mechanism is now needed to bring these data together, includVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:42 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 093362 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\050504\93362 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
43

ing the enormous amounts of information that will be generated by the national

IOOS, and use these data to generate and disseminate products beneficial to large

and diverse audiences.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Navy should

establish a joint ocean and coastal information management and communications

program to generate information products relevant to national, regional, State, and

local needs on an operational basis. This program should build on the Navy’s model

for operational oceanography and take advantage of the strengths of both agencies

to reduce duplication and more effectively meet the Nation’s information needs. This

partnership will also allow for the prompt incorporation of classified military data

into informational products without publicly releasing the raw data. A NOAA–Navy

joint program would rapidly advance U.S. coastal and ocean analyses and forecasting capabilities using all available physical, biological, chemical, and socioeconomic data.

Interactions between private companies and the NOAA–Navy national ocean and

coastal information management and communications program could lead to the

production of a wide range of general and tailored forecast and warning products.

An interface between national forecasters at the NOAA–Navy program and the regional ocean information programs would also help identify ocean and coastal informational products of particular value at the regional and local levels.

PROMOTING LIFELONG OCEAN EDUCATION

Education has provided the skilled and knowledgeable workforce that made America a world leader in technology, productivity, prosperity, and security. However, the

emergence of rampant illiteracy about science, mathematics, and the environment

now threaten the future of America, its people, and the oceans on which we rely.

Testing results suggest that, after getting off to a good start in elementary school,

by the time U.S. students graduate from high school their achievement in math and

science falls well below the international average. Ocean-related topics offer an effective tool to keep students interested in science, increase their awareness of the

natural world, and boost their academic achievement in many areas. In addition,

the links between the marine environment and human experience make the oceans

a powerful vehicle for teaching history, culture, economics, and other social sciences.

Yet teachers receive little guidance on how they might use exciting ocean subjects

to engage students, while adhering to the national and State science and other education standards that prescribe their curricula.

In addition, a 1999 study indicated that just 32 percent of the Nation’s adults

grasp simple environmental concepts, and even fewer understand more complex

issues, such as ecosystem decline, loss of biodiversity, or watershed degradation. It

is not generally understood that nonpoint source pollution threatens the health of

our coastal waters, or that mercury in fish comes from human activities via the atmosphere. Few people understand the tangible value of the ocean to the Nation or

that their own actions can have an impact on that resource. From excess applications of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides on lawns, to the trash washed off city

streets into rivers and coastal waters, ordinary activities contribute significantly to

the degradation of the marine environment. Without an acknowledgement of the impacts associated with ordinary behavior and a willingness to take the necessary action—which may incur additional costs—achieving a collective commitment to more

responsible lifestyles and new policies will be difficult.

Excellent lifelong education in marine affairs and sciences is essential to raising

public awareness of the close connection between the oceans and humans, including

our history and culture. This awareness will result in better public understanding

of the connections among the ocean, land, and atmosphere, the potential benefits

and costs inherent in resource use, and the roles of government and citizens as

ocean stewards.

Ocean Stewardship

To successfully address complex ocean- and coastal-related issues, balance the use

and conservation of marine resources, and realize future benefits from the ocean,

an interested, engaged public will be needed. The public should be armed not only

with the knowledge and skills needed to make informed choices, but also with a

sense of excitement about the marine environment. Individuals should understand

the importance of the ocean to their lives and should realize how individual actions

affect the marine environment. Public understanding of human impacts on the marine environment should be balanced with recognition of the benefits to be derived

from well-managed ocean resources. Because of the connection among the ocean, the

atmosphere, and the land, inland communities need to be just as informed as seaside communities.

44

Science Literacy

Ocean-related education has the potential to stem the tide of science illiteracy

threatening to undermine the Nation’s health, safety, and security. Children have

a natural curiosity about the world around them and this allure could be parlayed

into higher achievement in other subjects as well. The influence of the ocean on

nearly every aspect of daily life, and the central role it plays in the development

of the Nation, make ocean-based studies ideal for enhancing student performance

in areas such as geography, history, economics, policy, and law. Strengthening

science literacy, therefore, encompasses not only natural sciences, but a full suite

of social sciences.

Future Ocean Leaders

The nation needs a diverse, knowledgeable, and adequately prepared workforce to

enhance understanding of the marine environment and make decisions regarding

complex ocean- and coastal-related issues. The education of the 21st century oceanrelated workforce will require not only a strong understanding of oceanography and

other disciplines, but an ability to integrate science concepts, engineering methods,

and socio-political considerations. Resolving complex ocean issues related to economic stability, environmental health, and national security will require a workforce

with diverse skills and backgrounds. Developing and maintaining such a workforce

will rely, in turn, on programs of higher education that prepare future ocean professionals at a variety of levels and in a variety of marine-related fields.

Coordinating Ocean Education

Although not all ocean-related federal agencies have a specific education mission,

most have made efforts to reach out to students, teachers, and the public to inform

them about ocean issues, sometimes by adding ocean-related components to larger

science and environmental education efforts. And while it is valuable for ocean-related information to be included as part of broader environmental and science education efforts, it is also important to support educational efforts that focus specifically on oceans, coasts, and the human relationship with them.

Federal programs can provide many opportunities for ocean-related education, but

ultimately education is a State responsibility, and control is exerted primarily at the

local level. Therefore, the interaction between education administrators at the State,

district, and individual school levels and federal agencies will be fundamental to the

success of any effort to use ocean-based examples to enhance student achievement.

Aquariums, zoos, and other informal education centers also provide the public with

opportunities to learn about the marine environment and should be integral components of a national effort to increase ocean-related education.

Despite the existence of many positive efforts, ocean education remains a patchwork of independently conceived and implemented programs and activities. These

efforts cannot provide the nationwide momentum and visibility needed to promote

sustained ocean education for students, teachers, and the general public. Within the

Federal Government, there is little discussion of ocean education, even among those

agencies with the greatest responsibility for ocean issues. Different programs and

funding mechanisms are not coordinated and resources are seldom leveraged. Even

within individual agencies, offices that have education components often do not collaborate or communicate.

To strengthen ocean education and coordinate federal education efforts, the National Ocean Council should establish a national ocean education office (Ocean.ED)

under its Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations. This

office should coordinate and integrate federal agency programs and leverage resources; serve as a central, visible point of contact for K–12, university-level, and

informal education partners; and work with all parties to develop coherent, comprehensive planning for ocean education efforts.

To fulfill its coordination activities, Congress should provide dedicated funding for

Ocean.ED operations and program implementation. However, this national effort is

not meant to replace other successful programs and activities, but rather provide

a mechanism for communication, coordination, and joining of forces.

Developing Ocean Curricula

The value of ocean-based learning must be recognized within local school districts

to create a demand for ocean-related education products. Federal, regional, State,

and local education professionals need to advocate for the inclusion of ocean-based

examples in State and local education requirements and testing. Collaborative efforts will be needed to develop research-based, ocean-related curricular materials

that are aligned with State and national educational standards and meet the needs

of teachers. Ocean.ED, working with State and local education authorities and the

45

research community, should coordinate the development and adoption of ocean-related materials and examples that meet existing education standards.

Teaching the Teachers

Higher expectations for our youth mean higher expectations for teachers as well.

Students cannot achieve without instruction by capable teachers who are knowledgeable in the topics being presented. Thus, improving the quality of science and

math education must begin with improving preparation of undergraduates studying

to be teachers (referred to as pre-service teachers) and professional development for

certified teachers in the classroom (referred to as in-service teachers).

The ocean research community is brimming with potential for engaging K–12 educators in the excitement and satisfaction of the scientific enterprise, and the Nation’s research infrastructure provides significant opportunities for formal preparation, hands-on involvement, and teacher certification. Although several public and

private sector programs can provide teachers with research experience in ocean-related topics, access to these programs is quite limited, very few have long-term, stable funding, and the different efforts are poorly coordinated. Ocean.ED, working

with academic institutions and local school districts, should help establish stronger

and more effective relationships between the research and education communities

to expand professional development opportunities for teachers and teacher educators.

Bringing Oceans Education to All Students

Through field and laboratory experiments, oceans offer a natural avenue for students to gain first-hand exposure to science while developing an awareness of the

importance of the ocean. Not all students are near, or able to travel to, the shore,

but new ocean research technologies represent a tremendous and virtually untapped

avenue to overcome this limitation, allowing students anywhere to be involved in

real oceanographic investigations. The same remote-access technologies that make

advanced ocean research possible can also help students and teachers participate in

collecting, analyzing, and distributing ocean data. Enabling students to interact

with practicing scientists, even if they are thousands of miles away, can help create

a lifelong affinity for learning.

Social, economic, and cultural factors can also play an influential role in inhibiting

a student’s access to education opportunities, especially science-based opportunities.

These factors are unusually strong among minority students and other groups that

have been traditionally under-represented and under-served in scientific fields, including marine sciences. Repairing this broken link will depend on exposing minority students to ocean-related studies early in their education, continuing that exposure throughout their school years, and demonstrating the possibilities and rewards

of a career in ocean-related fields.

Federal agencies and academic institutions should find ways to provide all students with opportunities to participate in ocean research and exploration, virtually

or in person, including summer programs, field trips, remote participation in ocean

expeditions, and, most important, after-school activities. Mentoring, especially nearpeer guidance, is critical and should be a component of any student-oriented program. Ocean.ED should promote partnerships among school districts, institutions of

higher learning, aquariums, science centers, museums, and private laboratories to

develop more opportunities for students to explore the marine environment, both

through virtual means and hands-on field, laboratory, and at-sea experiences.

Ocean.ED should also ensure that ocean-based educational programs and materials

acknowledge cultural differences and other aspects of human diversity, resulting in

programs that expose students and teachers from all cultures and backgrounds to

ocean issues.

Drawing Students into the Field of Ocean Science and Management

The ocean community must compete with countless other professions in attracting

the talent it needs. Success lies, in part, in promoting marine-related career opportunities among undergraduate students from a broad range of disciplines. Firsthand experiences in marine fields can be influential in demonstrating the possibilities and rewards of an ocean-related career.

Intellectually stimulating and financially attractive options for pursuing graduate

studies in an ocean-related field must follow, so a student’s developing interest in

ocean studies is not overshadowed by other professions that actively pursue, encourage, and support their future leaders. Ocean sciences have another potentially important role to play at the undergraduate level. Marine science courses can be attractive options for non-science majors who need to fulfill science requirements for

graduation, presenting an excellent opportunity to raise general ocean awareness.

46

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, and Office of Naval Research should support colleges and universities in promoting introductory marine science courses to expose students, including nonscience majors, to these subjects.

Training Ocean Professionals

Because ocean science is fundamentally interdisciplinary, well-trained ocean professionals can find excellent careers in many areas including engineering, economics, education, law, management, policy, science, and technology. Individuals considering or pursuing graduate studies in a marine field should be aware of these options, and exploration of nontraditional marine areas should be encouraged. Equally

important, professionals educated and trained in other fields should be made aware

of the exciting opportunities available to them in marine-related fields.

Ocean.ED should guide and promote the development of the Nation’s ocean-related workforce by:

• promoting student support, diversified educational opportunities, and investment in innovative approaches to graduate education that prepare students

for a broad range of careers in academia, government, and industry;

• encouraging graduate departments of ocean sciences and engineering to experiment with new or redesigned programs that emphasize cross-disciplinary

courses of study.

Complementing the need to create an adequate workforce is the need to sustain

and enhance that workforce through professional development and continuing education opportunities. Learning does not stop once the formal education process is

complete; ocean professionals in all fields must be provided the means and liberty

to continually build upon their knowledge and skills throughout their careers.

Informing the Public

Public information needs are as varied as our population is diverse. Some individuals will benefit from detailed information on how specific issues directly affect their

jobs or business. Others may need information presented in a language and media

tailored to their culture and community. Still others seek advice on how to alter

their own activities to support responsible ocean stewardship. This information is

as critical for those who live in the heartland as for those who live near the shore.

Informal education requires outreach programs, in partnership with local communities, to make contact with individuals where they live and work, regarding issues

that affect how they live and work, in a style that speaks to them. Information supplied to the public should be timely and accurate. It should also be supported by

a system that allows for follow-up and the acquisition of additional information or

guidance. Ocean.ED, working with other appropriate entities, should enhance existing and establish new mechanisms for developing and delivering relevant, accessible

information and outreach programs to enhance community education.

Regional Outreach—Connecting the Research and Education Communities

Collaboration between the research and education communities must be improved

if ocean-based information, including ocean data and new discoveries, is to be transformed into exciting and accessible materials to stimulate student achievement and

enhance public awareness. Some efforts do exist to make these connections, most

notably through the Centers for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence (COSEE) and

National Sea Grant College Program.

COSEE

The COSEE network, supported primarily through NSF, includes regional centers

and a central coordinating office that work to integrate oceanographic data and information into high-quality curricular materials, to provide ocean scientists with opportunities to learn more about educational needs and requirements, to provide K–

12 teachers with the knowledge and skills they need to effectively incorporate oceanrelated information into their lessons, and to deliver ocean-related information to

the public. Though recognized as a model for enhancing education and bringing accessible ocean-related information to the public, COSEE currently has only seven regional centers, each serving a limited number of schools in its area. The program

does not have the level of committed, long-term support required to fully realize it’s

potential.

While COSEE is currently a National Science Foundation program, placing it

within the National Ocean Council (NOC) structure would capitalize on the tremendous potential to enhance and expand the program. The NOC and the NSF should

relocate COSEE within the larger NOC structure as a program to be organized,

overseen, and funded through Ocean.ED. In addition, the number of COSEE reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:42 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 093362 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\050504\93362 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
47

gional offices should be tripled to 21 with each center receiving at least $1.5 million

a year for an initial five-year period.

National Sea Grant College Program

The National Sea Grant College Program was created by Congress in 1966 as a

partnership between the Nation’s universities and NOAA. Sea Grant programs

sponsor research, education, outreach, and technology transfer through a network

of Sea Grant Colleges and research institutions.

Sea Grant has forged connections between the research and education communities since its inception. Its programs provide K–12 teacher preparation and professional development programs consistent with State education standards, offer

hands-on educational experiences for students, and develop research-based curricular and communications materials for students and the public. The Sea Grant

network relies on longstanding local partnerships, with many connections to populations that have been traditionally under-represented and under-served by the

ocean community.

Despite its successes, however, Sea Grant is currently an under-utilized resource.

The existing Sea Grant network requires increased funding to expand its roles and

responsibilities, particularly in education and outreach. In particular, Sea Grant extension and communications programs, familiar to many resource managers and

others in coastal communities, should become the primary mechanisms for delivering and interpreting information products developed through the regional ocean

information programs

Specific Federal Responsibilities

Each federal agency with ocean-related responsibilities—most notably NOAA,

NSF, and Office of Naval Research—has a responsibility to help ensure a vibrant

ocean-related workforce. These agencies need to develop interrelated and crosscutting educational opportunities at the undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral

levels.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOAA should be particularly concerned with creating a pipeline of students in

areas it identifies to be of critical importance to the agency. Opportunities should

include both research experiences, especially exposure to mission-oriented research,

and experiences beyond the research arena. Student exposure can begin as early as

the junior or senior level in high school, continuing through postdoctoral education.

A range of programs will help identify and recruit the best and brightest to careers

in marine-related fields and ensure a continuing source of essential human capital.

At the graduate and postdoctoral levels, NOAA should support fellowships and

traineeships that emphasize interdisciplinary approaches and real-world experiences

beyond the university setting.

NOAA should establish a national ocean education and training program, patterned after the National Institutes of Health model, within its Office of Education

and Sustainable Development to provide diverse, innovative ocean-related education

opportunities at the undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral levels.

In addition, NOAA should establish competitive ‘‘Distinguished Professorships in

Marine Studies’’ within Sea Grant Colleges or other leading institutions of higher

education with a demonstrated commitment to marine programs. Disciplines of interest to NOAA for such professorships could include fisheries science, climate research, atmospheric studies, and marine resource economics, policy, aquaculture,

genomics, education, and ecosystem studies. The intent would be to create a cadre

of distinguished NOAA endowed chairs at universities around the Nation.

National Science Foundation

At the undergraduate level, NSF’s Research Experience for Undergraduates program could be expanded to include more marine-related experiences. At the graduate and postdoctoral levels, opportunities could include fellowships that encourage

cross-disciplinary research, interdisciplinary traineeships, and master’s degree fellowships. Programs such as NSF’s Integrative Graduate Education and Research

Training program, Centers for Learning and Teaching, and Graduate Teaching Fellows in K–12 Education should be supported and enhanced both within NSF and

adopted by other federal ocean agencies. The National Science Foundation’s Directorates of Geosciences, Biological Sciences, and Education and Human Resources

should develop cooperative programs to provide diverse educational opportunities at

the undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral levels in a range of ocean-related

fields.

48

Office of Naval Research

The success of the Navy depends on a well-developed understanding of the environment in which it operates. Understanding the ocean environment—including the

atmosphere above it, the sea floor beneath it, and the coastlines that encircle it—

will always be a core naval requirement. Thus the Navy should play a central role

in ensuring support for the education of future generations of ocean professionals.

The Office of Naval Research should reinvigorate its support of graduate education

in ocean sciences and engineering. This could be partly accomplished by increasing

the number of ocean-related awards made under ONR’s National Defense Science

and Engineering Graduate Fellowship Program.

SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

Although the areas I discussed—improved governance through a new National

Ocean Policy Framework, the incorporation of scientific information in decisionmaking, and broad public education—represent the overarching areas that this nation must address using the guiding principles I mentioned earlier, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy did not stop there in its deliberations and recommendations. The Commission also addressed a wide range of specific ocean management

challenges—challenges that will continue to be addressed individually, but which

now must also become part of more ecosystem based management approach, applying the guiding principles throughout the management process. These individual

ocean and coastal management challenges include: Linking the management of

coasts and watersheds; Protecting life and property from natural hazards; Restoring

and conserving habitat; Better managing sediments and shorelines; Supporting marine commerce and transportation; Reducing water pollution from all sources, including from vessels and through the introduction of marine debris; Preventing the

introduction of invasive species; Sustainably managing our fisheries; Protecting marine mammals and other marine species; Conserving corals and corals reefs; Enabling the environmentally-sound development of marine aquaculture; Understanding and safeguarding Oceans and Human Health; and, developing offshore energy resources and marine minerals.

IMPROVING MANAGEMENT OF COASTS AND WATERSHEDS

Let me begin by addressing some of the issues in our coastal areas. While coastal

counties (located entirely or partially within coastal watersheds) comprise only 17

percent of the land area in the contiguous United States, they are home to more

than 53 percent of the total U.S. population. Coastal population trends indicate average increases of 3,600 people a day moving to coastal counties, reaching a total

population of 165 million by 2015. These figures do not include the 180 million people who visit the coast every year.

Population growth and tourism bring many benefits to coastal communities, including new jobs and businesses and enhanced educational opportunities. The popularity of ocean and coastal areas increases pressures on these environments, creating a number of challenges for managers and decision-makers. Increased development puts more people and property at risk from coastal hazards, reduces and fragments fish and wildlife habitat, alters sedimentation rates and flows, and contributes to coastal water pollution.

The pattern of coastal growth—often in scattered and unplanned clusters of

homes and businesses—is also significant. Urban sprawl increases the need for infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and sewers, degrading the coastal environment

while making fragile or hazard-prone areas ever more accessible to development.

Because of the connections between coastal and upland areas, development and

sprawl that occur deep within the Nation’s watersheds also affect coastal resources.

To reap economic benefits and mitigate pressures associated with growing coastal

development, State and local governments needs more federal support to enhance

their capacity to plan for and guide growth, and to employ watershed management

approaches.

A complex combination of individuals and institutions at all levels of government

make decisions that cumulatively affect the Nation’s ocean and coastal areas. These

institutional processes determine where to build infrastructure, encourage commerce, extract natural resources, dispose of wastes, and protect or restore environmental attributes.

Although most coastal management activities take place at State and local levels,

coastal decision-making is also influenced by federal actions, including funding decisions and standard setting. Of the many federal programs that provide guidance

and support for State and local decision-making, some address the management of

activities and resources within designated geographic areas, while others address

the management of specific resources, such as fisheries or marine mammals.

49

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) is the Federal Government’s principal

tool for fostering comprehensive coastal management. The CZMA created the Coastal Zone Management Program CZM Program, a unique partnership between the

Federal and coastal State governments, whose goal is to balance the conservation

of the coastal environment with the responsible development of economic and cultural interests. The tools, assistance, and resources provided by the CZMA have enabled States and territories to increase their management capacity and improve decision-making to enhance the condition of their coastal areas.

However, the CZM Program can be strengthened in a number of ways, including

by developing strong, specific, measurable goals and performance standards that reflect a growing understanding of the ocean and coastal environments and the need

to manage growth in regions under pressure from coastal development. A large portion of federal funding should be linked to program performance with additional incentives offered to States that perform exceptionally well. In addition, a fall-back

mechanism is needed to ensure that national goals are realized when a State does

not adequately participate or perform. Finally, the land-side boundaries of State

coastal management programs should also be reconsidered. At a minimum, each

State should set the inland extent of its coastal zone based on the boundaries of

coastal watersheds.

In addition to the CZM Program, other federal area-based coastal programs include NOAA’s National Estuarine Research Reserve System and National Marine

Sanctuaries Program; EPA’s National Estuary Program; and Fish and Wildlife Service’s Coastal Program and Coastal Barrier Resources System. These programs have

made significant progress in managing coastal resources in particular locations,

working with communities and decision-makers in those areas, and fostering improved coordination between different levels of government. However, because these

programs generally operate in isolation from one another, they cannot ensure effective management of all ocean and coastal resources or achievement of broad national goals. As NOAA is strengthened through the multi-phased approach described

earlier, consolidation of area-based coastal resource management programs will result in more effective, unified strategies for managing these areas, an improved understanding of the ocean and coastal environment, and a basis for moving toward

an ecosystem-based management approach.

Federal programs related to transportation, flood insurance, disaster relief, wetlands permitting, dredging, beach nourishment, shoreline protection, and taxation

also exert a profound influence on the coast. While these laws and policies address

specific issues, and have each provided societal benefits, in many cases federal activities under their purview have inadvertently led to degradation of coastal environments. For this reason, policies should be re-evaluated to ensure consistency

with national, regional, and State goals aimed at achieving economically and environmentally sustainable development.

Linking Coastal and Watershed Management

For well over a decade there has been a growing interest in watershed management. This approach addresses water quality and quantity issues by acknowledging

the hydrologic connections between upstream and downstream areas and considering the cumulative impacts of all activities that take place throughout a watershed. Watersheds are optimal organizing units for dealing with the management of

water and closely related resources. The benefits of a watershed focus have also

been recognized at the State, regional, national, and international levels through

successful efforts such as the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Delaware River Basin

Commission, and the bi-national Great Lakes Commission. At the federal level, EPA

has supported efforts to address a variety of problems at the watershed level.

Many watershed groups are formed at the local level by community members concerned about water quality or the health of fish and wildlife populations. Often,

these groups work to improve watershed health through partnerships among citizens, industry, interest groups, and government. However, the environmental and

political characteristics of the Nation’s watersheds vary tremendously, and watershed management initiatives can differ widely in size and scope. As interest in watershed management continues to grow, so does the need for a framework to guide

such initiatives and evaluate their effectiveness.

The Federal Government can play an important role by helping to develop this

framework and by providing assistance to States and communities for watershed

initiatives. Congress should amend the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean

Water Act, and other federal laws where appropriate, to provide better financial,

technical, and institutional support for watershed initiatives and better integration

of these initiatives into coastal management.

50

Assessing the Growing Cost of Natural Hazards

The nation has experienced enormous and growing losses from natural hazards.

Conservative estimates, including only direct costs such as those for structural replacement and repair, put the nationwide losses from all natural hazards at more

than $50 billion a year, though some experts believe this figure represents only half

or less of the true costs. More accurate figures for national losses due to natural

hazards are unavailable because the United States does not consistently collect and

compile such data, let alone focus on specific losses in coastal areas. Additionally,

there are no estimates of the costs associated with destruction of natural environments.

Many federal agencies have explicit operational responsibilities related to hazards

management, while numerous others provide technical information or deliver disaster assistance. The nation’s lead agencies for disaster response, recovery, mitigation, and planning are the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). These agencies implement programs that

specifically target the reduction of risks from natural hazards. NOAA and USFWS

also have a significant influence on natural hazards management.

Opportunities for improving federal natural hazards management, include:

Amending federal infrastructure policies that encourage inappropriate development;

Augmenting hazards information collection and dissemination; Improving the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); and Undertaking effective and universal

hazards mitigation planning.

Conserving and Restoring Coastal Habitat

The diverse habitats that comprise the ocean and coastal environment provide

tangible benefits such as buffering coastal communities against the effects of storms,

filtering pollutants from runoff, and providing a basis for booming recreation and

tourism industries. These habitats also provide spawning grounds, nurseries, shelter, and food for marine life, including a disproportionate number of rare and endangered species.

As more people come to the coast to live, work, and visit, coastal habitats face

increasing pressures. Most human activities in coastal areas provide distinct societal

benefits, such as dredging rivers and harbors to facilitate navigation, converting forests and wetlands for agriculture and development, and building dams for flood control and hydropower. But these activities can also degrade coastal habitats and compromise their ability to adapt to environmental changes.

Conserving valuable ocean and coastal areas protects significant habitat and other

natural resources. Millions of coastal acres have been designated for conservation

by various levels of government, and the tools for implementing conservation programs are found in a multitude of statutes. A number of federal programs aim to

preserve the natural attributes of specific areas while providing varying levels of access to the public for educational, recreational, and commercial purposes. In addition, nonregulatory conservation techniques—including fee simple land acquisition,

the purchase or donation of easements, tax incentives and disincentives, and

tradable development rights—play a special role in enabling willing landowners to

limit future development on their land for conservation purposes. Land acquisition

and easements are often implemented through partnerships among governments,

nongovernmental organizations such as land trusts, and the private sector. Funding

and support for continued conservation of coastal and estuarine lands is important

to ensure the ability to maintain critical habitats and the benefits they provide.

Conservation is cost-effective, avoiding the much larger expense and scientific uncertainties associated with attempting to restore habitats that have been degraded

or lost. Even so, once critical habitat has been lost, or the functioning of those areas

diminished, restoration is often needed. Habitat restoration efforts are proliferating

in response to heightened public awareness of and concern for the health of the Nation’s oceans and coasts.

Restoration efforts, particularly large-scale projects, are challenging in a number

of ways. First, the success of these efforts requires an understanding about how to

recreate natural systems and restore historical ecosystem functions, a field still in

its infancy. Second, these efforts cross political boundaries and affect a broad range

of human activities, requiring support and intense coordination among a wide range

of governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders. While some restoration projects

have been successful, continued progress will depend on sustained funding, government leadership and coordination, scientific research, and stakeholder support.

In addition to the large-scale, regional restoration efforts, there are numerous

small-scale efforts that collectively make significant contributions. These activities

often demonstrate the power of public—private partnerships, bringing together community members, government agencies, and businesses to solve common problems.

51

However, as long as each project continues to be planned and implemented in isolation, its overall impact will be constrained.

Currently the many entities that administer conservation and restoration activities operate largely independently of one another, with no framework for assessing

overall benefits in an ecosystem-based context. The multitude of disjointed programs

prohibits a comprehensive assessment of the progress of conservation and restoration efforts and makes it difficult to ensure the most effective use of limited resources. An overarching national strategy that sets goals and priorities can also enhance the effectiveness of individual efforts and provide a basis for coordinating

measures and evaluating progress of both habitat conservation and restoration activities.

Managing Sediment and Shorelines

Sediment in Great Lakes, coastal, and ocean waters is composed of inorganic and

organic particles created through erosion, decomposition of plants and animals, and

human activities. Sediment may be carried by wind or water from upland areas

down to coastal areas, or may originate in the marine environment. Once sediment

arrives at the ocean, it is transported by wind, waves, and currents in dynamic processes that constantly build up and wear away cliffs, beaches, sandbars, inlets, and

other natural features.

From a human perspective, sediment has a dual nature—desirable in some locations and unwanted in others. Sediment can be used to create or restore beaches

and to renew wetlands and other coastal habitats. Such activities are referred to as

beneficial uses. Undesirable sediment can cloud water and degrade wildlife habitat,

form barriers to navigation, and contaminate the food chain for marine plants, animals and humans.

The dual nature of sediment as both a threat and a resource to humans and the

environment makes its management particularly challenging. To complicate matters

further, the natural processes that create, move, and deposit sediment operate on

regional scales, while management tends to focus on discrete locations—a single

beach, wetland, or port. In addition, the policies that affect sediment location, transport, and quality fall under the jurisdiction of diverse programs within multiple

agencies at all levels of government. This complex governance approach makes it

difficult to manage sediment at the appropriate scale and in consonance, rather

than in conflict, with natural processes.

Coastal stakeholders have increasingly recognized the need to develop more

proactive and preventive strategies. However, their absence from broad watershed

planning efforts—where decisions about land use and water management could reduce excess and contaminated sediments at their source—makes such change difficult to realize. The nation needs both a better understanding of the interactions

between human activities and sediment flows, and a better mechanism for involving

all potentially affected parties.

Moving toward an ecosystem-based management approach is a critical step. Participation by federal, State, and local entities in watershed management efforts,

along with key stakeholders such as coastal planners and port managers, is one way

to diminish upland sources of excess and contaminated sediment that harm the marine environment. Ecosystem considerations should be included in the process for

permitting any activity that alters sediment flows.

Dredged materials have long been used to create new land for commercial, residential, and infrastructure developments, as well as to bolster beaches and barrier

islands to protect against storm and erosion hazards and enhance tourism and

recreation. Since the 1970s, these beneficial uses of dredged materials have also included environmental enhancement, such as restoration of wetlands, creation of

wildlife habitat, and improvement of fish habitat. Surprisingly, navigation-related

dredged materials do not find their way into beneficial use projects as often as perhaps they should. This is due in part to sediment contamination, but also to USACE

policies that favor disposal in open waters or in upland dump sites. These policies

may be unnecessarily foregoing opportunities to support economic growth or environmental protection and may have serious unintentional consequences for aquatic

ecosystems. A more accurate system for selecting and ranking projects would be

based on a comparative net economic and environmental return for the United

States rather than a narrow cost-benefit analysis for a specific project.

Finally, the characterization, containment, removal, and treatment of contaminated sediment continue to be technically difficult and prohibitively expensive, and

point to the importance of adopting an adaptive management approach to the problem. Scientifically sound methods for identifying contaminated sediment and developing innovative technologies to improve dredging and treatment of this material

are critical steps toward improving the economic and ecological health of coastal

52

areas. To be successful, these efforts will require new resources and effective regional planning.

Supporting Marine Commerce and Transportation

As the world’s largest trading nation, the United States imports and exports more

merchandise than any other country and has one of the most extensive marine

transportation systems in the world. U.S. marine import-export trade is an essential

and growing component of the national economy, accounting for nearly seven percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product. Domestically, coastal and inland marine

trade amounts to roughly one billion tons of cargo, worth more than $220 billion

a year. The marine transportation system itself is a highly complex public-private

sector partnership consisting of an interconnected mix of waterways, ports and terminals, water-based and land-based intermodal connections, vessels, vehicles, equipment, personnel, support service industries, and users.

For the Nation’s marine transportation system to meet current and future demands, ongoing maintenance, improvement, and expansion will be required. A key

prerequisite for a robust system is better coordination, planning, decision-making

and allocation of resources at the federal level. In particular it will be essential to

enhance the connections between this system and other modes of transportation,

such as highways, railways, and airports. At the same time, in moving toward an

ecosystem-based management approach, planning for the movement of cargo and

passengers should be coordinated with the management of many other ocean and

coastal uses and activities, and with efforts to protect the marine environment.

Within the Federal Government, responsibilities for marine commerce and transportation are spread among numerous agencies, primarily the U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT), U.S. Coast Guard, USACE, NOAA, U.S. Customs Service,

and EPA. These agencies have many roles, including vessel traffic management, national security, marine safety, waterway maintenance, environmental protection,

and customs. These responsibilities are poorly coordinated and do not mesh well

with the structure and function of such system. Statutory, regulatory, and policy differences among federal agencies with roles in marine transportation lead to fragmentation, competition, and in some cases, an inability to work collaboratively due

to conflicting mandates. National leadership and support will be needed to achieve

better integration within the Federal Government, better links with the rest of the

Nation’s transportation infrastructure, and coordination between marine transportation and other important ocean and coastal uses and activities. The logical agency

to assume this responsibility, as it does for the highway, aviation, and railway systems, is DOT.

Even with one clearly mandated lead federal agency, coordination will be needed

among the federal and non-federal participants in the marine transportation system. Given the significance of domestic and international trade to the Nation and

the complexity of the components that make up the system the Interagency Committee for the Marine Transportation System (ICMTS) should be strengthened, codified and placed under the oversight of the National Ocean Council. And because marine transportation involves many actors outside the Federal Government, the Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council should be maintained to coordinate among non-federal participants in the marine transportation system and

a venue for providing input to the Federal Government on important national

issues.

An important step in allowing the U.S. marine transportation system to grow,

while minimizing increased congestion, delays, and costs to U.S. businesses and consumers, is to improve the movement of cargo into and out of ports. Existing intermodal connections are inadequate to meet the expected increase in foreign and domestic trade. The nation’s transportation infrastructure is largely an agglomeration

of competing transportation modes, each focusing on its own priorities. While this

approach has produced an extensive infrastructure, a national strategy is needed to

enhance the connections among these modes, including the Nation’s ports, and ensure greater overall effectiveness.

DOT, working with the ICMTS, should draft a new national freight transportation

strategy to support continued growth of the Nation’s economy and international and

domestic trade. Based on the new strategy, investments should be directed toward

planning and implementation of intermodal projects of national significance. In developing the national freight transportation strategy, DOT should emphasize strategic planning with States, regions, and the public sector as is already being carried

out for the U.S. highway system.

Planning for the future of the U.S. marine transportation system requires accurate and timely information, including estimates of the volume of current and future

cargo transportation, their origins and destinations, and the capacity of the various

53

transportation modes. Such information is essential to understand the strengths

and weaknesses of the current system and the challenges and opportunities for improving its effectiveness. DOT, working with other appropriate entities, should establish a national data collection, research, and analysis program to provide a comprehensive picture of freight flows in the United States and to enhance the performance of the Nation’s intermodal transportation system. DOT should periodically assess and prioritize the Nation’s future needs for ports and intermodal transportation

capacity to meet expected growth in marine commerce.

Finally, natural disasters, labor disputes, terrorist attacks, ship collisions, spills

of hazardous materials, and many other human and naturally caused events can

disrupt the flow of marine cargo and passenger services, causing severe economic

and social ramifications nationally and internationally. Diminished port capacity

could also affect vital military operations. In developing a national freight transportation strategy, DOT should work closely with the U.S. Department of Homeland

Security and the FEMA to incorporate port security and other emergency preparedness requirements. The strategy should focus on preventing threats to national security and port operations and on response and recovery practices that limit the impacts of such events, including an assessment of the availability of alternative port

capacity.

COASTAL AND OCEAN WATER QUALITY

Coastal and ocean water quality is threatened by multiple sources of pollution,

including point and nonpoint source pollution, atmospheric deposition of pollutants,

vessel pollution, invasive species, and trash being washed into the ocean and onto

beaches. Addressing these multiple pollutants will require development of an ecosystem-based and watershed management approach that includes a variety of management tools, coordination, and ongoing monitoring.

Addressing Coastal Water Pollution

Coastal waters are one of the Nation’s greatest assets, yet they are being

bombarded with pollution from all directions. The heavy concentration of activity in

coastal areas, combined with pollutants flowing from streams far inland and others

carried through the air great distances from their source, are the primary causes

of nutrient enrichment, hypoxia, toxic contamination, sedimentation, and other

problems that plague coastal waters.

Any solution must be founded on an ecosystem-based and watershed management

approach involving a broad range of agencies, programs, and individuals. The complex array of laws, agencies, and programs that address water pollution, and the

number of parties involved, will require greatly enhanced coordination among federal agencies, primarily EPA, NOAA, USDA, and USACE. Greater coordination is

also needed between the Federal Government and managers at the State, territorial,

tribal, and local levels, watershed groups, nongovernmental organizations, private

stakeholders, and the academic and research communities. Solutions will also require a substantial financial investment and will take time.

Reducing Point Sources of Pollution

Over the last few decades, great strides have been made in controlling water pollution from point sources, although further improvements could be realized through

increased funding, strengthened enforcement, and promotion of innovative approaches such as market-based incentives. The Commission also addresses several

specific point sources of pollution, including wastewater treatment plants, sewer

system overflows, septic systems, industrial facilities, and animal feeding operations.

Increasing the Focus on Nonpoint Sources of Pollution

While considerable progress has been made in reducing point sources of pollution,

further progress toward improving coastal water quality will require significant reductions in nonpoint sources as well. This pollution occurs when rainfall and

snowmelt carry pollutants over land, into streams and groundwater, and down to

coastal waters. Ninety percent of impaired water bodies do not meet water quality

standards at least in part because of nonpoint source pollution. The majority of the

nonpoint source pollution entering rivers, estuaries, coastal waters, and ultimately

the oceans is from agricultural and storm water runoff.

To address nonpoint source pollution, the NOC should establish significant reduction of nonpoint source pollution in all impaired coastal watersheds as a national

goal, and set measurable objectives to meet water quality standards. The nation has

a number of opportunities to reduce the impacts of nonpoint sources of pollution on

coastal waters. Because agricultural runoff contributes substantially to nonpoint

source pollution, USDA should align its conservation programs and funding with

54

other programs aimed at reducing nonpoint source pollution, such as those of EPA

and NOAA. Other opportunities for the Nation to reduce nonpoint source pollution

include coordination of federal nonpoint programs so they are mutually supportive,

more targeted and aggressive use of State revolving loan funds, broader implementation of incentives and disincentives, and improved monitoring to assess compliance and overall progress. State and local governments also have important roles

to play in land use planning and storm water management decisions.

Watersheds are often the appropriate geographic unit for addressing water-related

problems and collaborative watershed groups have had significant successes in addressing nonpoint source pollution. Therefore, the NOC and regional ocean councils

should strengthen the ability of collaborative watershed groups to address problems

associated with nonpoint source pollution by developing and implementing strategies to provide them with adequate technical, institutional, and financial support.

Addressing Atmospheric Sources of Pollution

Atmospheric deposition of pollutants can also harm water quality, aquatic resources, and human health. To address atmospheric deposition, EPA, States, and

watershed groups should explore regional approaches for managing atmospheric

deposition, particularly when it affects water bodies in states far from the source.

Creating a National Water Quality Monitoring Network

Pollution of the Nation’s coastal waters has led to beach closures, oxygen depletion, health impacts from toxic contamination, and many other problems. Despite

these threats to coastal waters, there is no national network in place to monitor

water quality changes and their causes, facilitate estimates of their economic impact, and measure the success of management efforts. Increased monitoring is needed not only along the Nation’s coasts, but also inland where pollutants make their

way downstream, ultimately impacting coastal waters. A national water quality

monitoring network is essential to support the move toward an ecosystem-based

management approach that considers human activities, their benefits, and their potential impacts within the context of the broader biological and physical environment. An essential step toward controlling pollution will be to strengthen and coordinate monitoring efforts to provide decision makers with necessary information.

A number of monitoring efforts are currently conducted by federal agencies, State

governments, research institutions and academia, nongovernmental organizations,

and individual volunteers. Existing monitoring programs vary in many respects, including sampling design and intensity, parameters tested, analytical methodology,

data management protocols, and funding. Even when the same properties are measured, different data management protocols may make the integration of that information difficult. Consequently, while a number of monitoring programs exist, they

are not designed to support a comprehensive and coordinated national monitoring

network.

Ensuring Comprehensive, Coordinated Coverage

The nation’s coastal margin is the most densely populated and developed region

of the Nation, and its waters have been significantly degraded by pollution. Yet in

recent years, due largely to lack of funding, monitoring has been extremely sparse

along the coasts. Much remains unknown about the status of coastal waters, and

increased monitoring will be required to make informed management decisions

about this economically and ecologically valuable region. Yet the close connections

between coastal and upstream waters dictate that any water quality monitoring network must be national in scope. NOAA, EPA, and USGS should lead the effort to

develop a national water quality monitoring network that coordinates existing and

planned monitoring efforts, including federal, State, local, and private efforts. The

network should include a federally-funded backbone of critical stations and measurements needed to assess long-term water quality trends and conditions.

Because of the inherent overlap between inland, coastal, and open-ocean monitoring and observing, the national water quality monitoring network should be

closely linked with the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) and ultimately

with a broad Earth observing system. NOAA should ensure that the water quality

monitoring network includes adequate coverage in both coastal areas and the upland areas that affect them, and that the network is linked to the IOOS, to be incorporated eventually into a comprehensive Earth observing system.

Creating an Effective Monitoring Network and Making Data Accessible and Useful

In addition to coordinating existing monitoring efforts, an effective national water

quality monitoring network should have specific goals and objectives, reflect user

needs, and be helpful in assessing the effectiveness of management approaches. The

overall system design should determine what and where to monitor, including defiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:42 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 093362 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\050504\93362 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
55

nition of a set of core variables. Technical expertise will be needed to standardize

procedures and establish quality control and data management protocols. The network should be periodically assessed and modified as necessary. Most important, the

data collected through the National monitoring network should be useful to managers and stakeholders in evaluating management measures, determining best management practices, and making continual improvements in reaching ecosystem

goals. This data should also be translated into timely and useful information products that are readily accessible to decision makers and the public. The design and

implementation of the national monitoring network will require not only federal coordination, but also significant input from the States.

Limiting Vessel Pollution and Improving Vessel Safety

The benefits from vessel activities are significant—ships carry more than 95 percent of the Nation’s overseas cargo—but these operations also present safety, security and environmental risks that must be effectively addressed.

Success in addressing these concerns will depend on a broad domestic and international framework comprised of three key components. The first component is a

strong voluntary commitment on the part of vessel owners and operators to build

a workplace ethic that incorporates safety, security, and environmental protection

as important and valued aspects of everyday vessel operations. Reliable means of

measuring the success of these efforts, as reflected in crew and company performance, are essential and should include extensive use of third-party audits. The U.S.

Coast Guard, through incentives and partnership programs, should encourage industry partners to develop stronger voluntary measures, particularly those that reward crew member contributions, as part of a continuing long-term effort that focuses on building a culture of safety, security, and environmental compliance.

The second key component is effective oversight and control by the primary vessel

regulator, the vessel’s flag state. Foreign flag vessels, subject primarily to the jurisdiction and control of other governments, carry more than 90 percent of international commercial freight entering and departing the United States and account

for 95 percent of passenger ships and 75 percent of cargo ships operating in U.S.

waters. Although many flag states take their responsibilities seriously, oversight

and enforcement vary dramatically. Over the past decade, the International Maritime Organization has developed guidelines to improve flag state oversight and enforcement. However, implementation of these measures has met with mixed results.

Mounting international security concerns have made effective flag state oversight

and control more urgent today than ever before. The United States should work

with other nations to accelerate efforts at the International Maritime Organization

to enhance flag state oversight and enforcement. Initiatives should include expeditious promulgation of a code outlining flag state responsibilities, and development

of a mandatory external audit regime to evaluate performance and identify areas

where additional technical assistance can be used to best advantage.

The third key framework component is effective control over vessels visiting U.S.

ports. The Coast Guard currently carries out a port State control program that allocates limited inspection resources to the highest-risk vessels, based on an assessment of the vessel owner, flag state, classification society, performance history, and

vessel type. Performance-based vessel inspections, while the most effective means of

verifying compliance, are resource intensive. These inspections have played a critical

role in identifying and correcting potential problems, and in assessing the effectiveness of overall efforts to improve safety and environmental compliance. Concerns

have been expressed in Congress and elsewhere about the adequacy of Coast Guard

resources to meet new security demands while fulfilling other important responsibilities. Congress should provide the U.S. Coast Guard with the resources necessary

to sustain and strengthen the performance-based inspection program for marine

safety and environmental protection while also meeting new vessel security inspection and other maritime security requirements. In addition, the Coast Guard should

work at the regional and international levels to increase effective coordination and

vessel information sharing among concerned port states.

In addition to outlining a framework to address vessel safety, security and environmental concerns, our report also recommends more comprehensive approaches to

address waste stream, oil and air pollution from commercial and recreational vessels. Recommendations include: establishing a uniform national regime to deal with

cruise ship waste streams; ratifying and working to strengthen MARPOL Annex V1

air emission standards; developing comprehensive policy guidance and contingency

plans for vessels seeking places of refuge in the United States; developing a longterm plan that identifies and addresses the greatest risks associated with marine

oil transportation systems; and updating and accelerating efforts to reduce recreational vessel pollution. We also place particular emphasis on the use of marketVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:42 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 093362 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\050504\93362 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
56

based mechanisms and incentives to reduce pollution and encourage appropriate

voluntary actions.

Preventing the Spread of Invasive Species

The introduction of non-native marine organisms into ports, coastal areas, and

watersheds has damaged marine ecosystems around the world, costing millions of

dollars in remediation, monitoring, and ecosystem damage. Invasive species policies

are not keeping pace with the problem primarily because of inadequate funding, a

lack of coordination among federal agencies, redundant programs, and outdated

technologies.

Making Prevention the First Line of Defense

The discharge of ballast water is considered a primary pathway for introduction

of non-native aquatic species. Exchanging ballast water in the middle of the ocean

to reduce the risk of transferring organisms from one ecosystem to another is the

primary management tool currently available for ships to control the introduction

of invasive species.

To better control the introduction of invasive species, the U.S. Coast Guard’s national ballast water management program should: apply uniform, mandatory national standards; incorporate sound science in the development of a biologically

meaningful and enforceable ballast water treatment standard; include a process for

revising the standard to incorporate new technologies; ensure full consultation with

EPA; and include an interagency review, through the NOC, of the policy for ships

that declare they have no ballast on board.

While ballast water is considered a primary pathway, there are also other important ship-related sources of non-native aquatic species, including ships’ hulls, anchors, navigational buoys, drilling platforms, and floating marine debris. Other

pathways include intentional and unintentional human introductions of fish and

shellfish, and illegally released organisms from the aquaculture, aquarium, horticulture, and pet industries. There is increasing concern that an expanding trade

through the Internet and dealers of exotic pets is exacerbating the invasive species

problem.

To address these pathways of introduction, the NOC, working with the Aquatic

Nuisance Species Task Force and the National Invasive Species Council, should coordinate public education and outreach efforts on aquatic invasive species, with the

aim of increasing public awareness about the importance of prevention.

Accelerating Detection and Response

Only the most draconian prevention strategy could hope to eliminate all introductions of non-native species and thus prevent the possibility of an invasion. Yet no

effective mechanism is in place for rapidly responding to newly discovered aquatic

invasions when they do occur. Therefore, the National Invasive Species Council and

the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, working with other appropriate entities,

should establish a national plan for early detection of invasive species and a system

for prompt notification and rapid response.

Improving the Control of Invasive Species

As biological invasions continue, there is a pressing need to improve the control

of invasive species by reducing the overlaps and redundancies caused by the involvement of so many agencies with insufficient interagency coordination. The NOC

should review and streamline the current proliferation of federal and regional programs for managing marine invasive species, and coordinate federal, regional and

State efforts.

The study of marine biological invasions is a relatively new research area and little is understood about how or why certain species become invasive, what pathways

of introduction are most important, and whether certain factors make an ecosystem

more susceptible to invasions. To better understand marine biological invasions, the

NOC should coordinate the development and implementation of an interagency plan

for research and monitoring to understand and prevent aquatic species invasions.

Reducing Marine Debris

The trash and other waste that drifts around the global ocean and washes up on

the Nation’s shores poses a serious threat to fishery resources, wildlife, and habitat,

as well as human health and safety. Approximately 80 percent of debris is washed

off the land, blown by winds, or intentionally dumped from shore, while 20 percent

comes from vessels and offshore platforms.

NOAA currently addresses marine debris as a part of several other efforts, but

there is a need to coordinate, strengthen, and increase the visibility of the marine

debris efforts within NOAA by creating a centralized marine debris program within

57

the agency. This program should be coordinated with EPA’s marine debris activities,

as well as with the significant efforts conducted by private citizens, State, local, and

nongovernmental organizations.

Interagency Coordination

Although strengthening NOAA’s work on marine debris through establishment of

an office within the agency is an important step, an interagency committee under

the NOC is needed to unite all appropriate federal agencies around the issue. Such

a committee could support existing marine debris efforts by agencies and nongovernmental organizations, and should expand and better coordinate national and international marine debris efforts, including: public outreach and education; partnerships with State and local governments, community groups, nongovernmental organizations, and industry; and monitoring, identification and research.

Eliminating Derelict Fishing Gear

Whether intentionally discarded or unintentionally lost during storms or fishing

operations, derelict fishing gear poses serious threats, entrapping marine life, destroying coral reefs and other habitat, and even posing danger to humans. Although

derelict fishing gear is a worldwide problem, currently no international treaties or

plans of action address it. A strong need exists for the U.S. Department of State

and NOAA, working with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization,

to develop a plan of action to address derelict fishing gear, to be implemented on

a regional, multi-national basis. In addition, within the United States, a public–private partnership program is needed to prevent, remove, and dispose of derelict fishing gear.

Ensuring Appropriate Port Reception Facilities

Under requirements for port reception facilities in Annex V of MARPOL, member

nations must provide waste disposal facilities in their ports to receive waste from

ships. Despite this requirement, many ports do not have adequate facilities. In addition, Annex V calls for the designation of Special Areas that receive a higher level

of protection than is required in other ocean areas. Special Areas have been designated for many parts of the world, however, for a Special Area to receive extra

protection, there must first be a demonstration of adequate port reception facilities.

Some important Special Areas, such as the Wider Caribbean, are not yet eligible to

receive extra protection because of inadequate port reception facilities. Therefore,

the U.S. Department of State should increase efforts to ensure that all port reception facilities meet the criteria necessary to allow implementation of Special Areas

protections.

ENHANCING THE USE AND PROTECTION OF OCEAN RESOURCES

The ocean’s biological and mineral resources are of enormous value to the Nation,

not only for their direct economic output, but also for their incalculable aesthetic

importance.

The commercial fishing industry’s total value exceeds $28 billion annually, with

the recreational saltwater fishing industry valued at around $20 billion. NOAA estimates that U.S. coral reefs cover approximately 7,600 square miles. In 2001, coral

reefs in the Florida Keys alone supported $105 million in income and more than

8,000 jobs. Further, approximately one half of all federally managed commercial fish

species depend on coral reefs for at least part of their life cycle. Currently, energy

development in federal waters accounts for more than 30 percent of domestic oil production and 25 percent of natural gas, with a total annual value of between $25–

$40 billion, and a contribution of about $5 billion in royalties to the U.S. Treasury.

In order to provide for sustainable use, management needs to be strengthened in

a broader context that looks at impacts of management decisions on the ecosystem

as a whole.

Fisheries Management

The last 30 years has seen the evolution of an industry from being largely unregulated but with seemingly boundless potential, to one that is highly regulated and

struggling to regain its potential as we move toward a sustainable, ecosystem-based

fisheries management regime.

In 1976, based in part on the recommendations of the Stratton Commission, Congress approved the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

to manage and assert U.S. control over fishery resources within 200 nautical miles

of the coast. Eight Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) were created

to develop management plans for fisheries in federal waters. The Act required regional plans to be consistent with broad national guidelines, but otherwise granted

considerable flexibility to the RFMCs. The regional flexibility that had been seen as

58

a great strength of the new law now showed its downside as some RFMCs set

unsustainable harvest levels, leading to the collapse or near-collapse of several important fisheries.

In the over 30 years since the Stratton report, some fishery management bodies

have revealed fundamental weaknesses in the system that led to over-exploited

stocks and ecosystem degradation in some regions. However, the management practices in some regions, particularly the North Pacific, protected fisheries from overexploitation and served as a model for many of the Commission’s fisheries recommendations. The Commission fishery recommendations can be grouped into six

areas: strengthening the link between science and management, clarifying jurisdiction representation, expanding the use of dedicated access privileges, improving enforcement, and strengthening international management.

The link between fishery management decisions and peer-reviewed scientific info

must be strengthened, including developing an expanded research program that is

more responsive to managers’ needs. To accomplish this, a number of management

improvements are needed. RFMCs should be required to rely on the advice of their

Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs), especially when setting harvest levels.

RFMCs should not be allowed to approve measures less conservative than recommended by the SSC. SSC members should be nominated by the RFMCs and appointed by the NOAA Administrator. To ensure that SSC members are of the highest quality, their credentials and potential conflicts of interest should be reviewed

by an external organization. To ensure sufficient external review of the scientific advice of the SSCs, NOAA should develop a standardized, independent peer-review

process for implementation by all RFMCs. To ensure that needed conservation

measures are implemented in a timely manner, default measures should be developed that would go into effect with a lack of action on the part of the RFMCs. Finally, to ensure that manager’s have the information they require, NOAA’s process

for developing research plans should incorporate manager’s priorities to the extent

practicable. An expanded cooperative research program and increased emphasis on

in-season recreational fishery data collection should be an important component of

this effort.

Responsibilities and jurisdiction of the various federal and interstate fishery management entities need to be clarified, and the representation on the federal regional

fishery management councils need to be broadened. To ensure that jurisdictional

confusion does not lead to delaying conservation measures, Congress should assign

a lead management authority among the various federal and interstate management authorities, based primarily on proportion of catch occurring within each entities jurisdiction. To ensure that the RFMCs have appropriate representation, particularly as we move toward ecosystem-based management, the governors should be

required to submit a broader slate of candidates to be appointed by the NOAA Administrator. To ensure that RFMCs members have the necessary knowledge to properly manage fisheries, members should be required to take a training course. Finally, to ensure that all interstate fishery commissions have the necessary means

to manage the fisheries under their jurisdiction, Congress should grant authority

similar to the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act to the Gulf

and Pacific States Commissions.

To reverse existing incentives that create an unsustainable ‘‘race for the fish,’’

fishery managers should explore widespread adoption of dedicated access privileges

to promote conservation and help reduce over-capitalization. Congress should amend

the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to affirm that

fishery managers are authorized to institute dedicated access privileges, subject to

meeting national guidelines; and every federal, interstate, and State fishery management entity should consider the potential benefits of adopting dedicated access

programs. In addition, Congress should directly address over-capitalization by revising federal programs that subsidize over-capitalization, as well as work with NOAA

to develop programs that permanently address over-capitalization in fisheries.

Fishery enforcement must be improved through adoption of better technology,

such as Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) and better cooperation among federal

agencies and States. Funding should be increased for Joint Enforcement Agreements between NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service and coastal states as the

best method of restoring the enforcement presence of the Coast Guard diminished

because of the increased need for maritime security following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The expanded use of VMS is another cost effective way of increasing enforcement capabilities.

Fishery management needs to continue the move toward ecosystem-based management in order to improve management, reduce conflicts between socio-economic

impacts and biological sustainability, and provide a proper forum to address difficult

management issues. In particular, issues such as habitat damage and bycatch

59

should be approached from an ecosystem basis and management plans should be designed to reduce impacts from these factors.

Because many of the stocks targeted by U.S. fishermen traverse international waters, it will be impossible to conserve some stocks without the aid of other countries.

In addition, many endangered species such as sea turtles and whales travel the high

seas. To promote international cooperation to conserve living marine resources, the

Commission makes the following recommendations. The U.S. should work to encourage other countries to adopt and enforce existing international agreements to promote worldwide adoption of sustainable fisheries practices, in particular the Fish

Stocks Agreement and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s

Compliance Agreement. The National Ocean Council should recommend effective

methods to promote adoption of other important international conservation agreements, such as the Code of Conduct for responsible fisheries. In addition, the United

States should continue to press for the inclusion of environmental objectives—particularly those specified in international environmental agreements—as legitimate

elements of trade policy.

Marine Mammals and Endangered Species

Because of their intelligence, visibility and frequent interactions with humans,

marine mammals hold a special place in the minds of most people and are afforded

a higher level of protection than fish or other marine organisms. The American public has also consistently been supportive of efforts to prevent species from becoming

endangered or extinct from human-caused activities. Because of the concern that the

American public has shown for marine mammals and endangered species, specific

legislation was enacted to provide them greater protection. The Marine Mammal

Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act are landmark laws that have protected marine mammals and populations in danger of extinction since their passage.

However, both Acts need to move toward a more ecosystem-based regime to improve

protections for these populations.

The biggest threat to marine mammals worldwide today is their accidental capture or entanglement in fishing gear (known as ‘‘bycatch’’), killing hundreds of thousands of animals a year. Commercial harvesting contributed to major declines in the

populations of marine mammals but only a few nations still allow hunting for purposes other than subsistence. Hunters from those nations continue to kill hundreds

of thousands of seals, whales, dolphins, and other marine mammals each year while

legal subsistence hunting accounts for thousands more. Other potential causes of

death and injury to marine mammals, such as ships strikes, pollution and toxic substances, and noise from ships and sonar, cause many fewer deaths than bycatch and

hunting.

The threats to endangered marine species such as sea turtles and sea birds are

myriad and not easily categorized. One factor that is common to declines in many

species is the destruction or degradation of their natural habitat. Thus the successful recovery of a species depends to a large degree on protection or restoration of

this habitat.

One of the critical components to improving protections for protected species is expanding the knowledge base. We know very little about the basic biology for these

species, particularly marine mammals. The lack of basic scientific information has

perhaps contributed to the frequent mismatch between causes of impacts to marine

mammal populations and the amount of management attention paid to them. For

example, the top two impacts to marine mammals by orders of magnitude are bycatch and hunting, yet most recent attention is being paid to other causes. Under

ecosystem-based management, the most critical impacts should be addressed first.

However, our overwhelming lack of knowledge of marine mammal and endangered

species makes it difficult to properly rank and address impacts to these species. As

the foundation to improving management, the Commission recommends an expanded research, technology, and engineering program, coordinated through the National Ocean Council, to examine and mitigate the effects of human activities on

marine mammals and endangered species. In particular, Congress should expand

federal funding for research into ocean acoustics and the potential impacts of noise

on marine mammals. The U.S. should increase efforts to extend the benefits of the

expanded research program to other countries.

Another important component to improving protections for protected species will

be to clarify and coordinate federal agency actions. The Commission recommends

that jurisdiction for marine mammals be consolidated within NOAA, and that the

NOC improve coordination between NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service with

respect to the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, particularly for anadromous species or when land-based activities have significant impacts on marine

species.

60

The MMPA, with limited exceptions, prohibits the hunting, killing, or harassment

of marine mammals. One of the exceptions authorizes the issuance of permits for

the unintentional and incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals provided it has only a negligible impact on the species. This provision has been problematic because terms such as small numbers and negligible impact are not defined

in the Act, resulting in a lack of clarity about when a permit is necessary and under

what circumstances it should be granted. Congress should amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to require the NOAA to more clearly specify categories of activities that are allowed without a permit, those that require a permit, and those that

are prohibited. Specifically, Congress should amend the Marine Mammal Protection

Act to revise the definition of harassment to cover only activities that meaningfully

disrupt behaviors that are significant to the survival and reproduction of marine

mammals.

As an adjunct to clarifying allowed and permitted activities, the permitting process itself should be streamlined. Specifically, programmatic permitting should be

used where possible to simplify agency permitting.

Coral Communities

Tropical and deep water coral communities are among the oldest and most diverse

ecosystems, rivaling tropical rain forests in biodiversity and economic value. But,

tropical coral reef health is rapidly declining, with pristine reefs being rare or nonexistent and possibly one-third of the world’s reefs severely damaged. The existing

management structure is inadequate and agencies and laws overseeing coral reef

management have made little progress in actually protecting corals. Immediate action is needed to avoid irreversible harm.

In the short-term, the Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF) should be strengthened by

placing it under the NOC, and adding the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers. The strengthened CRTF should begin immediate development of actions to reverse impacts of coastal pollution and fishing on coral communities. The EPA and USDA, at the minimum, should be charged with implementing

the coastal pollution reduction plan and NOAA should be charged with implementing the plan for reversing impacts from fishing. In addition, the CRTF’s area

of responsibility should be expanded to include deep water coral communities as

well.

In the long-term, the Congress should enact a ‘‘Coral Protection and Management

Act’’ that provides direct authority to protect and manage corals, and provides a

framework for research and cooperation with international protections efforts. This

legislation should include the following elements: support for mapping, monitoring,

and research programs; support for new research and assessment activities to fill

critical information gaps; liability provisions for damages to coral reefs similar to

those in the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act; support for outreach

activities to educate the public about coral conservation and reduce human impacts;

and, support for U.S. involvement, particularly through the sharing of scientific and

management expertise, in bilateral, regional, and international coral reef management programs.

As the world’s largest importer of ornamental coral reef resources, the United

States has a particular responsibility to help eliminate destructive harvesting practices and ensure the sustainable use of these resources. Many of these resources are

harvested by methods that destroy reefs and over-exploit ornamental species. A balance is needed between sustaining the legitimate trade in ornamental resources and

sustaining the health and survival of the world’s coral reef resources. The U.S.

should develop domestic standards for the importation of coral species, to ensure

that U.S. citizens do not indirectly promote unsustainable practices in coral harvesting countries.

Aquaculture

Marine aquaculture has the potential to supply part of the ever increasing domestic and worldwide demand for seafood. However, there are two major concerns that

need to be addressed: environmental problems with existing aquaculture operations,

particularly net-pen facilities, and a confusing, inconsistent array of State and federal regulations that hinder private sector investment.

To oversee a comprehensive and environmentally sound management regime,

Congress should amend the National Aquaculture Act to designate NOAA as the

lead federal agency for implementing a national policy for environmentally and economically sustainable marine aquaculture and create an Office of Sustainable Marine Aquaculture in NOAA.

This new NOAA office should develop a single, multi-agency federal permit for the

aquaculture industry and ensure aquaculture facilities meet State and national enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:42 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 093362 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\050504\93362 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
61

vironmental standards to lessen impacts from escapement and disease and protect

the sustainability and diversity of wild stocks.

Furthermore, the permitting and leasing system and implementing regulations

should: reflect a balance between economic and environmental objectives consistent

with national and regional goals; be coordinated with guidelines and regulations developed at the State level; include a system for the assessment and collection of a

reasonable portion of the resource rent generated from marine aquaculture projects

that use ocean resources held in public trust; require applicants to post a bond to

ensure that any later performance problems will be remedied and that abandoned

facilities will be safely removed at no additional cost to the taxpayers; and, require

the development, dissemination, and adoption by industry of best management practices that are adaptable to new research and technology advances.

Enhanced investments in research, demonstration projects, and technical assistance can help the industry address environmental issues, conduct risk assessments,

develop technology, select species, and improve best management practices. It is also

vital for developing fair and reasonable policies, regulations, and management

measures. Most of the federal research to support marine aquaculture has been carried out under the auspices of NOAA’s National Sea Grant College Program, which

funds primarily university-based research. Congress should increase funding for expanded marine aquaculture research, development, training, extension, and technology transfer programs in NOAA. The Office of Sustainable Marine Aquaculture

should set priorities for the research and technology programs, in close collaboration

with academic, business, and other stakeholders.

Because the U.S. market for seafood is one of the largest in the world, we can

use our market power as a positive force for promoting sustainable, environmentally

sound aquaculture practices not only in the U.S., but the world as well. The U.S.

should work to ensure that all countries adhere to aquaculture standards such as

are in the UN FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

Oceans and Human Health

Beneficial and harmful links between human health and ocean health exist. While

several important medical treatments are based on chemicals discovered in marine

animals, increasingly common phenomena such as harmful algal blooms have demonstrated ability to negatively impact human health. The health of marine ecosystems is affected by human activities such as pollution, global warming, and fishing. But in addition, human health depends on thriving ocean ecosystems. A better

understanding about the many ways marine organisms affect human health, both

for good by providing drugs and bioproducts, and for bad by causing human ailments, is needed.

Congress should establish an oceans and human health initiative to create a competitive grant program and coordinate federal activities. Existing programs at

NOAA, NSF and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences should

be coalesced in this initiative. This initiative should be expanded to include other

pertinent agencies such as the EPA and FDA.

New knowledge and technologies are needed to detect and mitigate microbial

pathogens. These methods must be quick and accurate so that information can be

communicated to resource managers and the coastal community in a timely manner.

As they are developed, technologies need to be integrated into biological and biochemical sensors that can continuously monitor high-risk sites. It is important that

site-specific sensor data and satellite sensor data be incorporated into the IOOS. To

accomplish this task, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,

and other appropriate entities should support the development and implementation

of improved methods for monitoring and identifying pathogens and chemical toxins

in ocean waters and organisms.

Offshore Energy and Mineral Resources

Oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) provides over a

quarter of our domestic oil and gas reserves, and contributes thousands of jobs and

billions of dollars to our economy. In addition to its responsibilities for living marine

resources, the Federal Government also exercises jurisdiction over nonliving resources, energy and other minerals located in the waters and sea bed of the more

than 1.7 billion acres of OCS. Offshore oil and gas development has the most mature and broadest management structure of all such resources. Although controversial in many areas, the process for oil and gas leasing and production is well institutionalized, reasonably comprehensive, and could be a model for new ocean-based renewable energy projects as part of a coordinated offshore management regime.

62

MMS’s Environmental Studies Program (ESP) is a major source of information

about the impacts of OCS oil and gas activities on the human, marine, and coastal

environments. Since 1986, annual funding for the program has decreased, in real

dollars, from a high of $56 million to approximately $18 million in 2003. The erosion

in ESP funding has occurred at a time when more and better information, not less,

is needed. There continues to be a need to better understand the cumulative and

long-term impacts of OCS oil and gas development, especially in the area of low levels of persistent organic and inorganic chemicals, and their cumulative or synergistic effects.

The U.S. Department of the Interior should reverse recent budgetary trends and

increase funding for the Minerals Management Service’s Environmental Studies

Program. The development of technologies and exploratory activities moving into

very deep waters requires an increase in the MMS environmental studies program

to keep track of new and emerging environmental issues. In addition to this program, the development of the IOOS could provide better information that can improve management of offshore resources. Industry and federal agency partnerships

should allow use of industry facilities to be incorporated into the IOOS.

To make certain that the federal-State partnership is strengthened and that critical marine ecosystems are protected, more investment of the resource rents generated from OCS energy leasing and production into the sustainability of ocean and

coastal resources is necessary. Specifically, some portion of the revenues received by

the Federal Government annually for the leasing and extraction of nonrenewable

offshore resources need to be allocated to all coastal states for programs and efforts

to enhance the conservation and sustainable development of renewable ocean and

coastal resources. Congress should ensure that revenues received from leasing and

extraction of oil and gas and other new offshore uses are used to promote sustainable development of renewable ocean and coastal resources through creation of a

grant program to all coastal states, with a larger share going to OCS producing

States.

Conventional oil and gas are not the only fossil-based fuel sources located beneath

ocean floors. Methane hydrates are solid, ice-like structures composed of water and

natural gas. They occur naturally in areas of the world where methane and water

can combine at appropriate conditions of temperature and pressure, such as in thick

sediments of deep ocean basins, at water depths greater than 500 meters. The estimated amount of natural gas in the gas hydrate accumulations of the world greatly

exceeds the volume of all known conventional gas resources. Conservative estimates

reveal the quantity is enough to supply all of the Nation’s energy needs for more

than 2,000 years at current rates of use. However, there is still no known practical

and safe way to develop the gas and it is clear that much more information is needed to determine if methane hydrates can become a commercially viable and environmentally acceptable source of energy. The National Ocean Council (NOC), working

with the U.S. Department of Energy and other appropriate entities, should determine whether methane hydrates can contribute significantly to meeting the Nation’s

long-term energy needs. If such contribution looks promising, the NOC should determine how much the current investment in research and development efforts should

be increased.

There is continued interest in offshore renewable technologies as a means of reducing U.S. reliance on potentially unstable supplies of foreign oil, diversifying the

Nation’s energy mix, and providing more environmentally benign sources of energy.

As long as federal agencies are forced to bootstrap their authorities to address these

activities, the Nation runs the risk of unresolved conflicts, unnecessary delays, and

uncertain procedures. What is urgently needed is a comprehensive offshore management regime, developed by the National Ocean Council, which is designed to review

all offshore uses in a greater planning context. A coherent and predictable federal

management process for offshore renewable resources that is able to weigh the benefits to the Nation’s energy future against the potential adverse effects on other

ocean users, marine life, and the ocean’s natural processes, should be fully integrated into the broader management regime. Congress, with input from the National Ocean Council, should enact legislation providing for the comprehensive management of offshore renewable energy development as part of a coordinated offshore

management regime. Specifically, this legislation should: streamline the process for

licensing, leasing, and permitting renewable energy facilities in U.S. waters; subsume existing statutes, such as the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act, and

should be based on the premise that the oceans are a public resource; and, ensure

that the public receives a fair return from the use of that resource and development

rights are allocated through an open, transparent process that takes into account

State, local, and public concerns.

63

ADVANCING INTERNATIONAL OCEAN SCIENCE AND POLICY

The United States has traditionally been a leader in international ocean policymaking and has participated in the development of many international agreements

that govern the world’s ocean areas and resources. That leadership must be maintained and reinvigorated. The international ocean challenges of the 21st century will

require improved collaboration among domestic and international policy-makers to

establish ambitious objectives and take the actions necessary to achieve them.

The United States can best advance its own ocean interests and positively contribute to the health of the world’s oceans by first ensuring that U.S. domestic policies and actions embody exemplary standards of wise, sustainable ocean management. The new national ocean policy framework will be instrumental in setting this

positive tone for the international ocean community. The Commission also recommends several specific actions to maintain and reinvigorate the leadership of U.S.

in global ocean issues:

U.S. Accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

The United States should accede to the United Nations Convention on the Law

of the Sea—the preeminent legal framework for addressing international ocean

issues. Until that step is taken, the Nation will not be able to fully participate in

bodies established under the Convention that make decisions on issues of importance to all coastal and seafaring nations, or to assume its important leadership role

and protect United States interests as the law of the sea evolves.

Enhanced Coordination Among U.S. Ocean-Related Federal Agencies

Within the U.S. Government, the U.S. Department of State is the lead agency for

most ocean-related international negotiations. However, the role of more specialized

agencies is extremely important due to the science and resource focus of many multilateral ocean issues. Consistent involvement of a wide range of experts is essential

both to establish international standards that reflect U.S. interests, and to ensure

that subsequent actions by the United States and others are in accordance with

those standards.

A new mechanism is needed to provide the optimum degree of coordination among

U.S. agencies sharing responsibility and knowledge of international ocean issues. An

interagency committee should be established under the auspices of the National

Ocean Council to enhance coordination and collaboration among U.S. Government

agencies, strengthening U.S. performance at international negotiations and improving implementation of international ocean policy.

Successful national and international ocean policy depends on sound scientific information. It is essential, therefore, to ensure that U.S. policy-makers benefit from

timely advice and guidance from the U.S. marine scientific community. This, in

turn, requires procedures that both give scientists the opportunity to provide input

and policy-makers the chance to carefully consider their recommendations. The

State Department should increase its internal training and scientific support to ensure better integration of ocean-related scientific expertise in policy and program development and implementation. In addition, the Department should develop more

effective mechanisms to facilitate input from other government agencies and the

broader scientific community.

Building International Capacity in Ocean Science and Management

Implementation of international ocean policy and improved management of ocean

and coastal resources worldwide are affected by the adequacy of the science and

management capacity of every coastal nation. To maintain progress on a global

scale, the United States and other capable nations must assist coastal nations of

more limited means. To be most effective, assistance should be science-based and

developed within the context of an ecosystem-based approach. The U.S. Department

of State should offer strong support for U.S. scientists conducting research programs

around the world. Existing international partnerships should be strengthened and

new partnerships promoted to facilitate the conduct of international research.

Capacity-building efforts should be concentrated on issues that have been identified as particularly critical for the health of an ecosystem or marine species, and

have the greatest potential for positive impacts. In most instances, effective capacity-building will require long-term efforts to change detrimental practices and build

support for new, sustainable management approaches. These efforts will require a

funding commitment sufficient to make the changes needed to preserve or rebuild

healthy ecosystems. As part of its international leadership role, the United States

should increase its efforts to enhance long-term ocean science and management capacity in other nations through funding, education and training, technical assistance, and sharing best practices, management techniques, and lessons learned.

64

IMPLEMENTING A NEW NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY

To implement the blueprint for a new national ocean policy outlined in our report,

several key elements are required: the will to move forward, the actors to carry out

the changes, and the resources to support sustainable management of our oceans

and coasts. Congress and the President have already demonstrated political will by

enacting the Oceans Act of 2000 and appointing the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Our preliminary report specifies who should carry out each recommendation and

discusses what the costs will be and how they can be covered.

Who Should Take Action

In our report, we make 198 specific recommendations to implement a more coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy. One of our goals was to ensure that

every recommendation was aimed at a clear responsible party who could take action

and be held accountable over time. As you read the report, you will see the recommendations grouped according to subject area. However, to highlight the assignment of responsibility, we also present a summary of all 198 recommendations, organized by the primary actors, in Chapter 31.

In brief:

• We include 54 recommendations for Congress, 69 for Executive Branch leaders, and 125 for Federal Government agencies.

• Of the 69 recommendations for Executive Branch leaders, eight recommendations are for the President, 45 for the new National Ocean Council, 13 for the

offices under the NOC’s Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology,

and Operations, two for the Assistant to the President, and one for the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy.

• Of the 125 recommendations aimed at Federal Government agencies, 44 are

for NOAA, 20 for EPA, 10 for the U.S. Coast Guard, nine for NSF, nine for

the Department of the Interior, eight for the U.S. Navy, eight for the Department of State, six for the Department of Transportation, five for NASA, three

for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, two for the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, two for the Department of Agriculture, and one for

the Department of Labor.

(Note that some recommendations include more than one actor. As a result, the

breakdown by organization adds up to more than 198.)

Although we have avoided targeting States (and local, territorial, and tribal governments) as the primary actors in our recommendations, they have a critically important role to play in the new National Ocean Policy Framework—through establishment of regional ocean councils, and in areas such as coastal development, water

quality, education, natural hazards planning, fishery management, habitat conservation, and much more. States should also participate in the design and implementation of regional ocean observing systems and their integration into the national IOOS, as well as other research and monitoring activities.

How Can the Needed Changes Be Achieved: Costs and Revenues

The recommendations I’ve just alluded to outline a series of ambitious proposals

for improving the use and protection of the Nation’s oceans and coasts. But meaningful change requires meaningful investments. In the case of the ocean, such investments are easy to justify.

As I explained earlier and as we discuss in more detail in the preliminary report,

more than one trillion dollars, or one-tenth of the Nation’s annual gross domestic

product, is generated each year within communities immediately adjacent to the

coast. By including the economic contribution from all coastal watershed counties,

that number jumps to around five trillion dollars, or fully one half of our nation’s

economy. Those contributions are threatened by continued degradation of ocean and

coastal environments and resources.

Modest levels of new funding will reap substantial dividends by supporting new

management strategies to sustain our ocean and coastal resources and maximize

their long-term value.

Costs

From the start, this Commission pledged to be clear about the costs of its recommendations. In keeping with that goal, the final report will include a complete

accounting of the startup, short-term, and continuing costs associated with each

issue area, including an analysis of federal, State, and local budget implications to

the extent possible.

At this stage, I am able to provide a rough estimate of overall new federal spending associated with the Commission’s preliminary recommendations. The CommisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:42 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 093362 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\050504\93362 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
65

sion continues to refine its calculations and the information on which they are

based, and will have more detailed costs and revenue estimates in the final report

to the Congress and the President.

The total estimated additional cost for initiatives outlined in our report will be

approximately:

• $1.2 billion in the first year

• $2.4 billion in the second year

• $3.2 billion per year in ongoing costs thereafter.

A few special investments are worth highlighting:

• Creation of the National Ocean Council and related elements, with first-year

costs of $1 million and ongoing annual costs of $2 million.

• Expansion of ocean education programs, with first-year costs of $7 million,

second year costs of $251 million, and ongoing annual costs of $246 million.

• Establishment of an integrated ocean observing system, with first-year costs

of $290 million, second-year costs of $312 million, and ongoing annual costs

of $652 million.

• Increased ocean science and exploration, with first-year costs of $230 million,

second-year costs of $395 million, and ongoing annual costs of $760 million.

• Dedicated federal support for needed State actions, with first-year costs of

$500 million, second-year costs of $750 million, and ongoing annual costs of

$1 billion.

In view of the value generated by the ocean and coastal economy, we believe these

are very reasonable investments.

Revenue: Creation of an Ocean Policy Trust Fund

Mindful of intense budgetary pressures at both federal and State levels—and sensitive to the hardship associated with unfunded federal mandates—the Commission

set out to identify appropriate sources of revenue to cover the cost of its recommendations. A logical, responsible funding strategy is outlined in the preliminary

report and will be developed further in the final report.

The Commission proposes creation of an Ocean Policy Trust Fund composed of

rents generated from permitted uses in federal waters. The Fund would include

Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas revenues that are not currently committed. It

would support the additional responsibilities we suggest for federal agencies and

prevent the creation of unfunded mandates to states.

The critical nature of the Nation’s oceans assets and the challenges faced in managing them make it clear that the time has come to establish an Ocean Policy Trust

Fund in the U.S. Treasury to assist federal agencies and State governments in carrying out the comprehensive ocean policy recommended by this Commission.

The Fund would include federal revenues from Outer Continental Shelf oil and

gas development that are not currently committed to other funds. The Land and

Water Conservation Fund, the National Historic Preservation Fund, and the OCS

oil and gas revenues given to coastal states from the three mile area seaward of

their submerged lands would not be affected. After those programs were funded, in

accordance with law, the remaining OCS monies would be deposited into the Ocean

Policy Trust Fund.

Additional funds may also become available based on new offshore activities. In

several sections of the preliminary report we discuss revenues that may be generated from permitted uses of federal waters. In general, when a resource is publicly-owned, its use by private profit-making entities should be contingent on a reasonable return to taxpayers. Creating a link between permitted activities in federal

waters and the cost of associated regulatory and management responsibilities is logical and well justified by precedents in federal land management.

Approximately $5 billion is generated annually from OCS oil and gas revenues.

Protecting the three programs noted above would remove about $1 billion. Thus,

some $4 billion would remain available for the Ocean Policy Trust Fund each year

under current projections. At this time it is not possible to specify the amount of

revenue that might be produced by emerging uses in federal waters, nor predict

when they may begin to flow.

The report recommends that a portion of the revenues received from the use of

offshore resources be granted to States for the conservation and sustainable development of renewable ocean and coastal resources. OCS oil and gas producing States

should receive a larger portion of such revenues to address the impacts on their

States from extraction activities in adjacent federal offshore waters.

66

In the Commission’s view, Trust Fund monies should be used exclusively to support improved ocean and coastal management consistent with the Nation’s new coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy. Such funds would be used to

supplement—not replace—existing appropriations for ocean and coastal programs,

and to fund new or expanded duties.

CLOSING STATEMENT

What I have presented to you today is a broad overview of the Commission’s preliminary report—the culmination of two and a half years of work by 16 dedicated

commissioners, 26 world-class science advisors, and a tireless staff of experts. To

create this report, the Commission heard testimony and collected other information

that shaped our understanding of the most pressing issues facing our nation’s

oceans and coasts.

The Commission balanced environmental, technical, economic, and scientific factors in making its recommendations. These bold recommendations for reform call for

immediate implementation, while it is still possible to reverse distressing declines,

seize exciting opportunities, and sustain the oceans and their valuable assets for future generations. Clearly, the Commission’s recommendations will require some new

investments. However, without major change, the tremendous potential of our

oceans and coasts to American prosperity will continue to deteriorate.

It has taken more than 35 years for the Nation to refocus its attention on these

vital resources. Our report provides a blueprint for the 21st century to achieve a

future where our oceans and coasts are clean, safe, and sustainably managed and

continue to contribute significantly to the well being of all the Nation’s citizens. The

time to act is now and everyone who cares about the oceans and coasts must play

a part. Leadership from this committee and others in Congress, and from the White

House, will be essential and we look forward to working closely with all of you in

the months and years to come.

BIOGRAPHY FOR ADMIRAL JAMES D. WATKINS

Admiral James D. Watkins, U.S. Navy (retired), is currently serving as chairman

of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The Commission, authorized by Congress

in the Oceans Act of 2000, includes 16 members appointed by the President. The

Commission’s task is to recommend a new, comprehensive national ocean policy to

the Congress and the President in 2003.

Prior to his appointment to the Ocean Commission, Admiral Watkins served as

president of the Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI), in Washington, D.C., from

September 1993 until October 2000. In September 1994, Admiral Watkins led the

historic effort to establish an expanded partnership among the more than 60 U.S.

marine institutions. The effort resulted in a public-private corporation known as the

Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, or CORE. In September

1996, as a result of CORE’s efforts, Congress authorized and funded the National

Oceanographic Partnership Act which implemented a new, broad ocean science and

technology agenda for the Nation. Admiral Watkins served seven years as founding

President of CORE, stepping down in March 2001.

For his work with JOI and CORE, Admiral Watkins was awarded honorary doctor

of science degrees from the College of William and Mary and Oregon State University in 1999. In March 2001, he was given the title of President Emeritus of CORE,

and was awarded the Navy’s Distinguished Public Service Award by the Secretary

of the Navy for his contributions to the Nation in ocean science and technology matters.

Prior to his oceanographic work, Admiral Watkins served as the sixth Secretary

of Energy under President George H.W. Bush, from March 1989 through January

1993. He also served as the 22nd Chief of Naval Operations under President Ronald

Reagan. Admiral Watkins is a native of California and a 1949 graduate of the U.S.

Naval Academy.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Admiral.

Dr. Solow.

STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREW R. SOLOW, DIRECTOR OF MARINE POLICY CENTER, WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION

Dr. SOLOW. Thank you very much. It is an honor to testify before

this committee.

67

Before I begin, I would like to say that, in my opinion, Admiral

Watkins, Tom Kitsos, and the rest of the Commission staff have

performed a true service to the Nation and a near-miracle by producing this report.

I have been asked to address three questions about the recommendations of the report. The first question is: ‘‘What are the

major deficiencies in the way ocean and coastal policy is organized

at the federal level?’’ In broad terms the main deficiency in the way

federal policy in this area is organized is fragmentation. At least

six departments, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior,

and Transportation, have significant responsibilities in ocean and

coastal policy, as does the Environmental Protection Agency. Other

departments and independent agencies have more limited involvement. This fragmentation tends to impede policy coordination. Policy coordination is especially important in this area, because the

various biological and environmental components of the marine

and coastal system are linked and therefore can not be managed

effectively in isolation.

Having said that, in my opinion, there is a tendency to overstate

the connection between policy outcome and policy structure. Although federal policy structure in this area is fragmented, this

fragmentation is not, by itself, responsible for the problems on the

ground and in the water. Federal entities can, and do, communicate and coordinate, both formally and informally. This process

is uneven and imperfect, but it is part of the picture. By the same

token, rationalizing the federal policy structure is no guarantee

that the problems will be solved. This is by no means an argument

against improving the structure. I only wish to be realistic about

what an improved structure, by itself, can deliver.

The second question that I have been asked to address is: ‘‘Do

you agree with the Commission’s recommendation to create a National Ocean Council?’’ This Council would consist of secretaries

and directors of departments and agencies with responsibilities in

this area. If the Commission’s only recommendation in the area of

federal structure had been to create this Council, then I would not

have been terribly enthusiastic about it. As the old adage goes, you

can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. However,

the Commission also recommends the appointment of an assistant

to the President to chair this Council, the formation of a group of

non-federal advisors to work with the Council, and the formation

of a small White House Office of Ocean Policy, headed by the assistant to the President, that would support the Council and oversee the implementations of its recommendations and decisions.

This raises the prospect that the horses will drink, and I am enthusiastic about the complete package of recommendations for three

reasons.

First, although I do not believe that the problems on the ground

and in the water would be solved by better coordination alone, better coordination could certainly contribute to the formulation and

execution of better policies. Second, this is a time when new uses

of the ocean, for example ocean aquaculture and wind power, and

new methods of management, for example market-based approaches and multiple-use management, are being contemplated.

At such a time, it would be good to have a federal structure that

68

is light on its feet, and an enhanced degree of coordination would

help in this regard. Third, enacting this package of recommendations would elevate the visibility of ocean issues and underline the

Nation’s determination to address them. To the extent that this

will galvanize the people and the government, this, too, could help.

The third question that I have been asked to address is: ‘‘Are

there alternative changes to the federal structure that you would

recommend?’’ Federal structure in this area has essentially evolved

by itself over the past 30 years. In my opinion, it is a good time

to take a comprehensive look at the product of this evolutionary

process and make improvements where possible. The Ocean Commission has made an excellent start at this, and provided the political will is there, the structural changes that it recommends are a

good way to see that the job is finished, at least for this generation.

The only additional change that I would recommend would be to

ensure that all federal activities relating to the ocean undergo common policy and budgetary review within the Office of Management

and Budget. The Commission’s recommendation to review the

NOAA budget within the Natural Resources Program at OMB

would be a big step in the right direction.

I would again like to thank the Committee for giving me this opportunity to testify.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Solow follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDREW R. SOLOW

Thank you very much. It is an honor to testify before this committee.

Before I begin, I would like to say that, in my opinion, Admiral Watkins, Tom

Kitsos, and the rest of the Commission staff have performed a true service to the

Nation and a near-miracle by producing this report.

I have been asked to address three questions about the findings and recommendations of the report. The first question is: What are the major deficiencies in the way

ocean and coastal policy is organized at the federal level? In broad terms, the main

deficiency in the way that federal policy is organized in this area is fragmentation.

At least six Departments—Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior, and

Transportation—have significant responsibilities in ocean and coastal policy, as does

the Environmental Protection Agency. Other Departments and independent Agencies have more limited involvement. This fragmentation tends to impede policy coordination. Policy coordination is especially important in this area because the various biological and environmental components of the marine and coastal system are

linked and, therefore, cannot be managed effectively in isolation.

Having said that, in my opinion, there is a tendency to overstate the connection

between policy outcome and policy structure. Although federal policy structure in

this area is fragmented, this fragmentation is not by itself responsible for the problems on the ground and in the water. Federal entities can and do communicate and

coordinate both formally and informally. This process is uneven and imperfect, but

it is part of the picture. By the same token, rationalizing the federal policy structure

is no guarantee that the problems will be solved. This is by no means an argument

against improving the structure. I only wish to be realistic about what an improved

structure, by itself, can deliver.

The second question that I have been asked to address is: Do you agree with the

Commission’s recommendation to create a National Ocean Council to address these

deficiencies? This Council would consist of Secretaries and Directors of Departments

and Agencies with responsibilities in this area. If the Commission’s only recommendation in the area of federal structure had been to create this Council, then

I would not be terribly enthusiastic about it. As the old adage goes, you can lead

a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. However, the Commission also recommends the appointment of an Assistant to the President to chair this Council,

the formation of a group of non-federal advisors to work with the Council, and the

formation of a small White House Office of Ocean Policy, headed by the Assistant

to the President, that would support the Council and oversee the implementation

69

of its decisions. This raises the prospect that the horses will drink and I am enthusiastic about the complete package of recommendations for three reasons.

First, although I do not believe that the problems on the ground and in the water

would be solved by better coordination alone, better coordination could certainly contribute to the formulation and execution of better policies. Second, this is a time

when new uses of the ocean—for example, ocean aquaculture and wind power—and

new methods of management—for example, market-based approaches and multipleuse management—are being contemplated. At such a time, it would be good to have

a federal structure that is light on its feet and an enhanced degree of coordination

would help in this regard. Third, enacting this package of recommendations would

elevate the visibility of ocean issues and underline the Nation’s determination to address them. To the extent that this will galvanize the people and the government,

this, too, could help.

The third question that I have been asked to address is: Are there alternative

changes to the federal structure that you would recommend? Federal structure in

this area has essentially evolved by itself over the past 30 years. In my opinion, it

is a good time to take a comprehensive look at the product of this evolutionary process and make improvements where possible. The Ocean Commission has made an

excellent start at this and, provided the political will is there, the structural changes

that it recommends are a good way to see that the job is finished—at least for this

generation. The only additional change that I would recommend would be to ensure

that all federal activities relating to the ocean undergo common policy and budgetary review within the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission’s recommendation to review the NOAA budget within the Natural Resources Program

at OMB would be a big step in the right direction.

I would again like to thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to testify.

BIOGRAPHY FOR ANDREW R. SOLOW

Professional Experience

1994–present—Director, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

1987–present—Scientific Staff, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

1985–1987—Post-doctoral Research Fellow, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Education

1986—Ph.D., Statistics, Stanford University

1977—BA, Economics, Harvard University

Selected memberships

Editorial Board, Environmental and Ecological Statistics

Editorial Board, Ecology

Member, National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Geosciences, Environment,

and Resources

Member, Scientific Working Group, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Member, U.S. Ocean Commission Science Panel

Selected publications

Solow, A.R. 1989. A randomization test for independence of animal locations. Ecology, 70(5): 1546–1549.

Solow, A.R. 1990. A note on the statistical properties of animal locations. Journal

of Mathematical Biology, 29: 189–193.

Solow, A.R. and Helser, T. 1994. Detecting extinction in sighting data. In: Quantitative Methods in Conservation, Springer-Verlag.

Solow, A.R. and Roberts, D. 2002. A nonparametric test for extinction based on a

sighting record. Ecology, in press.

Solow, A.R. 2002. Estimation of stratigraphic ranges when fossil finds are not randomly distributed. Paleobiology, in press.

Solow, A. and Polasky, S. 1999. A quick estimator for taxonomic surveys. Ecology,

80: 2799–2803.

70

Smith, W., Solow, A.R., and Chu, C. 2000. An index of the contribution of spatial

heterogeneity to the species accumulation curve. Ecology, 81: 3233–3236.

Solow, A.R., Bollens, S.M., and Beet, A. 2000. Comparing two vertical plankton distributions. Limnology and Oceanography, 45: 506–509.

Solow, A.R. and Costello, C.J. 2001. A test for declining diversity. Ecology, 82: 2370–

2372.

Costello, C. and Solow, A.R. 2003. Discovery patterns or introduced species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100: 3321–3323.

Recent collaborators

Stephen Bollens, San Francisco State University; Christopher Costello, University

of California, Santa Barbara; Laura Moore, Oberlin College; Stephen Polasky,

University of Minnesota; David Roberts, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Woollcott

Smith, Temple University; Lewi Stone, Tel Aviv University

Graduate and Postdoctoral Advisors

Andre Journel (Ph.D. Advisor), Stanford University

James Broadus (Postdoctoral Advisor), deceased

Ph.D. Committee Service MIT–Woods Hole Joint Program

Carla Curran; Michelle Durand; Masami Fujiwara; Rebecca Green; Gorka Sancho;

Laela Sayigh

Other Ph.D. Committee Service

Anand Patwardhan (Carnegie Mellon); Oren Barnca (Tel Aviv University); Ercan

Yesilinnak (University of Izmir)

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Solow, particularly because you were very precise in addressing each of the questions.

Now I would like you to be precise in the answer to this. Would

you care to issue an invitation to this committee to join you in

Woods Hole this summer?

Dr. SOLOW. Mr. Chairman, I have already written on the pad

that I—that we would like to invite you all to visit.

Chairman BOEHLERT. It is one of the great places in the world

for my colleagues who have not been there. And thank you for that

kind invitation.

Dr. Pomponi.

STATEMENT OF DR. SHIRLEY A. POMPONI, ACTING MANAGING

DIRECTOR OF THE HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION

Dr. POMPONI. Well, I would like to invite you to come to Fort

Pierce, Florida, but not in the summertime. You will want to come

there in January.

Chairman BOEHLERT. No, we have 12 months a year, and——

Dr. POMPONI. Right.

Chairman BOEHLERT [continuing]. And we will know when we

will deal with——

Dr. POMPONI. Thank you, Chairman Boehlert and Members of

the Science Committee, for the opportunity to appear before you

this morning. While my testimony represents my own views, I am

also testifying today as an elected member of the executive committee of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, or CORE. I have been asked to address the major problems

and issues with respect to national efforts in ocean and coastal reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:42 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 093362 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\050504\93362 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
71

search to identify the top recommendations that should be implemented immediately, given a limited budget, and to provide an example of how ecosystem-based management would change ocean

and coastal management from current methods.

In the interest of time, I am providing just brief comments on

each of these areas. My written testimony provides more detail for

your consideration.

I believe four of the 12 critical actions identified by the Commission in its executive summary are essential to ocean and coastal

science. First, improve the federal agency structure and strengthen

NOAA. Coordination of ocean and coastal science programs remains a top priority for strengthening ocean science and does not

require enormous financial resources, but rather a commitment by

a dozen or so federal ocean agencies to coordinate their efforts and

implement improved mechanisms that will allow them to work together efficiently. Enactment of a NOAA Organic Act that clearly

lays out an integrated agency structure and mission is essential if

NOAA is to address the Commission recommendations.

Second, double the U.S. investment in ocean research. Research

areas where increased investment could lead to substantial benefits

include bio-diversity and ecosystem research, development of ocean

information systems, climate and ocean modeling, and discovery

and development of new marine products. One of the most incredible scientific discoveries of the 20th century, in my opinion, animals that depend not on photosynthesis but on chemosynthesis was

realized through exploration of deep-sea vents. Since that discovery

more than 25 years ago, we have only explored less than 50 of the

estimated 5,000 deep-sea vents and seeps. We have explored 200

of the estimated 30,000 sea mounds that could each provide new

opportunities for fishery resources. A robust ocean exploration program will dramatically alter not only our understanding of life on

Earth, and maybe even other planets, but also lead to new technologies and improved scientific understanding with benefits comparable, and likely even superior, to those we have realized as a

result of space exploration.

While the overall levels of funding should be doubled, increases

for individual agencies and programs should be based on a careful

and comprehensive assessment of priorities related to national

ocean policy goals and on the role of each federal ocean agency in

carrying out that policy. For example, doubling of the NSF ocean

science’s budget is consistent with efforts to double the agency’s

budget overall. By contrast, at NOAA, the report recommends new

responsibilities in several areas, such as ocean observing systems

and oceans and human health, that would require substantial new,

competitive research initiatives. For the Office of Naval Research,

its vibrant support for basic research must be restored.

Third, implement the National Integrated Ocean Observing System. The ocean science community supports the Commission’s high

priority on development and implementation of an Integrated

Ocean Observing System as well as on enhancing ocean infrastructure and technology development. Ensuring the future of the academic research fleet is one of the most acute needs of the marine

science enterprise. Funding for an Integrated Ocean Observing System may be more of a challenge since NOAA is the logical home

72

for much of the program. By providing leadership and coordination,

regional pilot programs that are already in progress could be fully

integrated into a larger scale effort and initiate the implementation

process.

Fourth, increase attention to ocean education. The Commission

offers a number of recommendations to strengthen the role of

science education as a specific part of each federal ocean agencies’

mission. Currently, NSF and NASA are the only agencies that include education in their missions. Other agencies must support

education to ensure continued agency capabilities.

The concept of ecosystems-based management enjoys broad-based

support, because it makes sense both intuitively and scientifically.

In my home State of Florida, a Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is being implemented. Florida Bay is included in the restoration plan because of its linkages with the Everglades. One potential scenario is that nitrogen and phosphorus in the freshwater

runoff from the Everglades could increase phytoplankton blooms in

the Bay, and these blooms could be carried out to the Florida Reef

Tract. The fact that we lack a circulation model that would enable

us to link changes in Everglades hydrology with Florida Bay and

reef tract ecology is hampering resource managers and restoration

planners.

In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the achievement represented by the Commission’s report. The commissioners have

given us a wide-ranging assessment of the current status of our

oceans and coasts. They offer us a vision and a starting point for

addressing America’s relationship to the sea. With a clear path to

follow, the support of stakeholders around the country, and your

commitment to make the necessary changes, we have a unique opportunity to develop and implement a strong ocean policy.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Pomponi follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY A. POMPONI

Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon and Members of the Science Committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning

and for the Committee’s leadership in considering the recommendations of the U.S.

Commission on Ocean Policy (Commission). I am Shirley Pomponi, Acting Managing

Director of Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution. In addition, I serve on the

Commission’s Science Advisory Panel.

While my testimony represents my own views, I also am testifying today as an

elected member of the executive committee of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education (CORE). The 76 member institutions of CORE represent the

mainstream of American oceanographic research and education. Through CORE, an

incredibly diverse, dynamic and independent ocean sciences community works together to develop and promote a common vision and goals.

I would like to begin by acknowledging the enormous achievement represented by

the Commission’s preliminary report. This bipartisan panel of 16 experts from government, academia, and industry has released the most monumental review in three

decades of how our country manages its vast ocean resources. Authorized by Congress and appointed by the President, the Commission has spent the past two years

considering testimony from hundreds of citizens, scientists, and policy-makers. Over

and over again, they heard that the oceans are in danger and that the responsible

federal agencies and State and local governments are not working together effectively. Ultimately, they distilled an avalanche of material to produce a clear, stepwise plan for turning the situation around and developing a coherent national ocean

policy.

This is not to say that there is agreement within the ocean community, or even

within the Commission membership, on each of the Commission’s recommendations.

73

Nor does it suggest that the preliminary report comprehensively addresses each of

the many ocean policy challenges that this nation faces. What the Commission has

given us is a wide-ranging and honest assessment of the current status of our

oceans and coasts. Its members examined everything from stewardship of marine

resources and pollution prevention to enhancing and supporting marine science,

commerce and transportation, and their recommendations are just as far reaching.

The preliminary report offers us a vision and starting point for addressing America’s

relationship to the sea. Now it is our responsibility to ensure that vision is implemented.

Ocean And Coastal Research Problems And Issues

While most Americans recognize that Earth is the only known living planet, few

understand that its life is derived in large measure from its oceans. Oceanographic

research to date has revealed that the seas play a critical role in regulating Earth’s

weather and climate, replenishing and maintaining the viability of our atmosphere,

housing extraordinarily diverse forms of life, and significantly influencing the creation and ever-changing appearance of our coastlines.

Nor does the public fully understand the essential role of the oceans in our economy and to our quality of life. As the Commission points out, our nation’s ocean

economy contributed more than $117 billion and supported well over two million

jobs in 2000. More than $1 trillion, or about a tenth of the U.S. annual gross domestic product is generated in a relatively narrow strip of land along our coasts, and

almost half ($4.5 trillion) is generated in coastal watershed counties. One out of

every six jobs in the United States is marine related, and over half of our population

lives and works next to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and

the Great Lakes. Overseas trade via U.S. ports is expected to double by 2024, and

the growth in passenger transportation is likely to continue. Offshore areas provide

30 percent of the oil, and 25 percent of the natural gas powering our economy and

our homes.

My home State of Florida is among the most reliant on healthy oceans. With an

economy and lifestyle that is intimately tied to coastal proximity, Floridians can feel

the effects of ocean health decline in the form of beach closings, decreases in tourism, and even poor fishing. Such consequences threaten not only a way of life, but

also the continued favor of the 50 million tourists that visit each year, and the economy they support.

It is a powerful reality that knowledge of the oceans, their resources and their

relationship to human activities is vital to our existence. It is a fundamental challenge for the ocean science community to convey that reality both to decision-makers

and to the American public. Our ability to address problems and issues in ocean and

coastal research will rely in large part on our success.

Coordinating ocean and coastal research and education programs.

One of the most significant conclusions of the new report is that the patchwork

of agencies and processes that have evolved over the past three decades to oversee

the Nation’s ocean interests is simply not up to the challenge of fixing the problems

identified. To remedy the situation, the report recommends substantial restructuring at the federal level, including mechanisms for making ocean policy decisions

through a high-level interagency governance structure.

Focusing specifically on ocean and coastal science, more than a dozen federal

agencies currently fund research or education activities. Consequently, interagency

coordination is essential to avoid duplication and strengthen the scientific basis for

ocean management. The Commission proposes to build on the model created under

the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) in 1997. NOPP promotes

national goals of assuring national security, advancing economic development, protecting quality of life, and strengthening science education and communication

through improved knowledge of the ocean. It creates a higher level of coordinated

effort and synergy across the broad oceanographic community by establishing partnerships on two fronts. First, NOPP relies on collaboration among fifteen federal

agencies, calling on the top official of each participating agency to serve on an interagency council that provides program oversight. Second, NOPP increases the visibility for ocean issues on the national agenda by facilitating projects among federal

agencies, academia, industry, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations. While investment in the program to date has been relatively modest, it

has proven to be an effective mechanism for building and coordinating federal ocean

science partnerships. Consequently, the oceanographic community generally supports the Commission’s recommendations to use NOPP as a model for coordinating

expanded interagency ocean science investments.

74

Enhancing the ocean observation and operational infrastructure.

The Commission report places high priority on development and implementation

of a sustained and integrated ocean observing system and on enhancing ocean infrastructure and technology development. There is broad-based agreement within the

oceanographic community on the need to maintain and enhance our national infrastructure for ocean observation and to support scientific operations.

The academic research fleet is the most crucial shared resource currently used by

ocean and coastal researchers. Without a dependable seagoing capability, the flexibility and mobility needed to explore new areas and respond to exciting and scientifically interesting phenomena will be eliminated. One of the most acute needs of the

marine science enterprise and for deploying and maintaining an integrated ocean

observing system is ensuring the future of the oceanographic fleet.

Over the coming decade, nearly all mid-sized vessels classified as Regional or

Ocean Class will reach the end of their design life and require replacement. In 2002,

a federal interagency committee on oceanographic facilities completed a report outlining the state of the fleet and suggesting a timeline for replacement. While the

Navy and the National Science Foundation have indicated that they may provide

future funding for fleet renewal, neither agency has made available the funds necessary to construct new ships in the Oceans class. The Commission report recommends establishment of a modernization fund to meet such critical infrastructure

and technology needs. However, it provides little detail on how such a fund would

be capitalized or administered.

The Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) has been another important scientific platform

that allows researchers to examine the past in order to understand the history of

the ocean and climatic environment by retrieving and examining core samples from

the ocean floor. Features like the North Atlantic Deep Water Formation, a driver

of today’s ocean-climate engine and the chief mechanism for the distribution of heat

throughout the world’s oceans, have fluctuated at well-defined intervals during the

last fifteen million years. Understanding such abrupt changes is absolutely essential

for comprehending the many forces affecting our world’s climate. As ODP moves

into a new, international phase, the principal drilling vessel, the JOIDES Resolution, will be retired, and a replacement must be secured to ensure continued U.S.

participation in the program. The fiscal year 2005 budget for the National Science

Foundation proposes $45 million to initiate that process as part of its Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account.

While ships provide an on-site, mobile, and flexible instrument platform for research and observation, long-term, in situ observations are critical to understanding

ocean processes. Results from activities such as the tropical atmosphere-ocean buoy

array that monitors the El Nin ̃ o Southern Oscillation in the Pacific, the Pirata

Array in the tropical Atlantic, and free-drifting ARGO profiling floats are proving

the value of long time series observations, and developing the scientific foundation

needed to better understand the global climate. Moreover, these systems demonstrate that changes in distant oceans can affect the coastal oceans of our nation.

It is critical that we expand the reach of our ocean observing systems throughout

the marine environment, including our nation’s coastal areas. In addition, we must

develop and deploy a robust data integration and management system and enhance

our modeling capability to ensure full benefit and use of observational products from

this system. Such an end-to-end approach from observations to analysis to modeling

is critical if we are to improve both our understanding of the ocean as well as to

develop decision support capabilities regarding ocean policy and management.

In order to progress and enhance our nation’s ocean observing abilities, supporting a strong and vigorous program of research and development is essential.

The National Science Foundation is proposing an Ocean Observatories Initiative to

explore new scientific questions that require a sustained, multi-year, real-time observation capability. This is an important step in maintaining our ocean science

leadership. Other technological needs that should be examined include the scientific

demand for deep-diving vehicles, dedicated platforms to support ocean exploration,

and remote sensing capabilities.

Advancing ocean education.

The Commission has made promotion of lifelong ocean education a centerpiece of

its preliminary report. The report stresses the central role of both formal and informal education efforts for Americans of all ages from kindergarten through retirement, stating:

‘‘To successfully address complex ocean- and coastal-related issues, balance the

use and conservation of marine resources, and realize future benefits from the

ocean, an interested, engaged public will be needed.’’

75

The Commission proposes to accomplish this by: (1) building a collaborative ocean

education network that links research and education communities; (2) integrating

the oceans into elementary and high school education programs; (3) investing in

higher education and the ocean workforce; and (4) strengthening informal education

programs.

I think the vast majority of my colleagues join me in supporting the Commission’s

focus on education. Moreover, I completely agree that a knowledgeable public is the

real key to sustainable ocean policies. Ocean scientists need to improve our communication with the American public about the value of the science we do. It has been

said that the U.S. space exploration program enjoys the support that it has because

everyone can look up into the sky. On the other hand, not everyone lives on the

coast and can see the ocean. Not everyone understands the value of ocean exploration to the discovery of new fisheries, new drugs, and new energy sources; to predicting phenomena such as El Nin ̃ o and harmful algal blooms (and their impact on

our health and economy); and to protecting our coastlines from both natural and

man-made threats to our health and security.

Not surprisingly, CORE has been particularly active and interested in the Commission’s recommendations on investing in higher education and the ocean workforce. Graduate education in the United States is based upon a strong national research infrastructure at centers of higher education and research. The future quality of ocean sciences in the United States and our nation’s capability to understand

and manage marine issues related to environmental quality, economic well-being,

and national security depend upon maintaining graduate educational programs of

high caliber. This area of education cannot be the concern of a single agency. All

ocean agencies depend upon a well-educated and well-trained workforce and need

to assume responsibility for this endeavor.

The Commission offers a number of recommendations to strengthen the role of

science education as a specific part of each federal ocean agency’s mission. Currently

NSF and NASA are the only agencies that include education in their missions.

Other ‘‘mission-oriented’’ agencies such as the Navy, NOAA, the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) all support science

education to varying degrees—most commonly through graduate student research

assistantships. At the same time, such support is vulnerable to budget cuts if education is not perceived by the executive branch to be a part of the agencies’ core

missions. Given each agency’s workforce needs, it is essential that they provide significant financial assistance for supporting graduate students in order to ensure

continued agency capabilities as well as the future health of the profession.

The financial aid system for graduate students in the ocean sciences depends primarily upon research assistantships and currently falls below other sciences. Over

50 percent of all graduate students in residence during fall 2001 were supported

through research assistantships. In comparison, NSF and the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration (NASA) offered an average of 15 graduate fellowships per

year between 1995 and 2000. NSF also funded an average of six traineeships per

year between 1995 and 2000. By contrast, the Federal Government supported almost 17,000 graduate traineeships and fellowships for all science and engineering

fields during 2000.

While research assistantships are appropriate for supporting field-based graduate

student research, traineeships allow the best students to support themselves in nontraditional educational programs that are often interdisciplinary and can produce a

masters or doctorate with the knowledge of science, management and communications that is so desperately needed in our ocean-related workforce. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), which funds more than 50 percent of all federally-funded

traineeships, provides a good potential model. Furthermore, the creation of largescale integrated ocean research and observation programs offers new opportunities

to support more fellowships and traineeships that allow the development of multior interdisciplinary educational experiences. Recognizing that this is an imbalance

that must be corrected, the Commission recommends establishment of a NOAA

traineeship program; initiation of this effort may occur under NOAA’s Ocean and

Health Initiative. Although the ocean science community supports the need for such

a NOAA program, we also recommend that other mission agencies examine how

each could create such programs to support a significant number of graduate students in a range of marine fields to ensure we have well-educated professionals for

the coming decades.

Finally, a strong national research infrastructure at centers of higher education

and research is predicated on the availability of talented individuals who are welleducated and well-trained in science, mathematics and technology. Efforts to create

a pool of such individuals must begin during elementary and secondary school and

continue through graduate education and on-going professional development. Efforts

76

underway, such as the Centers for Ocean Science Education Excellence and National Ocean Sciences Bowl, have begun to address needs along the educational continuum. As the Commission has recommended, more must be done to expand learning experiences and professional development for future marine scientists, technicians, educators and resource managers.

Increasing the investment in ocean science research.

Much of the great progress made in marine science over the past several decades

has been a result of federal investments made during the 1960s and 1970s, under

the cloud of the Cold War. Under the model adopted by Vannevar Bush following

World War II, the academic researcher, with public support, has been the leader in

much of this scientific advancement. This model has led to great discoveries that

have changed our lives, such as increased environmental predictive capabilities, a

better understanding of the marine ecosystem and marine resource mapping, the

ability to remotely sense ocean features from satellites in orbit, and national superiority in undersea surveillance and antisubmarine warfare.

Today, great advances in information and communication technology, molecular

biology and other disciplines promise astounding returns from investments in ocean

research by offering fundamentally new means of analyzing and understanding the

biology, chemistry, geology and physics of ocean dynamics and processes. There is

great potential to more fully predict ocean processes, discover marine organisms

with unique capabilities, understand the linkages between human and ocean health,

and provide the scientific basis to better utilize and manage ocean resources.

Unfortunately, U.S. funding for basic research in ocean sciences has remained

stagnant for nearly two decades, effectively halving its buying power. At the same

time, the total federal support of basic research has nearly doubled. While we are

faced today with growing problems and opportunities, requiring an increased understanding of the Earth’s oceans, resources to address them are insufficient. Society’s

increasing demands on the sea and the growing awareness of the human impact on

the environment require ocean sciences to be at the forefront of scientific and social

research. This requires a renewed commitment to marine scientific research.

Remarkable fundamental discoveries about the natural world have opened the

way for an even more exciting and productive future. But this future will be unrealized without the wherewithal to support a robust and vigorous research enterprise.

For this reason, personally and on behalf of CORE, I enthusiastically endorse the

Commission’s recommendation to double the federal ocean and coastal research

budget over the next five years. The report proposes to increase the budget from

the fiscal year 2004 level of about $650 million to $1.3 billion each year. While the

overall levels should be doubled, increases for individual agencies and programs

should be based on a careful and comprehensive assessment of priorities related to

national ocean policy goals and needs and on the role of each federal ocean agency

in carrying out that policy. For example, doubling of the NSF ocean sciences budget

would be entirely consistent with efforts to double the agency’s budget overall. By

contrast, at NOAA, the Commission recommends new responsibilities in several

areas such as ocean observing systems and oceans and human health that would

require substantial new competitive research initiatives. Completion of the research

strategy recommended by the Commission would address this concern and provide

a solid blueprint for agency research investment. Similar strategic planning completed for the U.S. Climate and Global Change Program was instrumental to that

program’s success in the mid 1980s.

Strengthening the NOAA research enterprise.

The summary of recommendations in the Commission’s preliminary report devotes

almost five pages to recommendations for NOAA and its line office, the National

Marine Fisheries Service. As the Nation’s lead civilian oceanographic agency, NOAA

clearly has a central role in implementing a national ocean policy and it is almost

inconceivable that such a policy could be effective unless NOAA is successful in carrying out it ocean missions.

NOAA was established in 1970 under a recommendation from the report of the

first Stratton Commission, bringing together the ocean and coastal-related programs

and activities of several federal departments and agencies. Each of those initial elements brought along its own bureaucratic culture and approaches and over the

years, NOAA has often struggled to create a fully integrated agency. In addition,

it has faced enormous growth in its mission and statutory responsibilities, often not

accompanied by adequate fiscal resources.

From a scientific perspective, a recent CORE survey indicated that NOAA currently is the third largest funder of academic marine research in the Federal Government. As such, it provides support for scientists at almost all oceanographic inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:42 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 093362 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\050504\93362 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
77

stitutions and participates in a number of national research programs. As national

attention to climate, coastal and ocean management issues grows, NOAA support

for mission-related research at academic institutions must increase. Although

NOAA is poised to play a central role in the ocean sciences, its current programmatic, organizational and administrative structure offers real impediments to

effective partnerships with the academic community.

In October 2003, NOAA requested that its Science Advisory Board establish a Research Review Team to evaluate NOAA science programs. In a preliminary report

published in February, the team recommended development of an agency-wide research strategy and plan, and establishment of a senior-level research structure to

provide more coherent research management and guidance for transitioning research into operations. A second phase of the effort is ongoing and will address the

NOAA-wide research infrastructure including such issues as laboratory consolidation. The final report is scheduled for completion by the end of this month.

Enactment of a NOAA organic act that clearly lays out an integrated agency

structure and mission, including its role in ocean and coastal research and education, is essential if NOAA is to address the Commission recommendations and the

findings of the Research Review Team.

Ecosystem-based Management

The concept of ecosystems-based management is a key theme for the Commission

report. It is a concept that enjoys broad-based support among managers, scientists,

fishers, conservationists and other stakeholders because it makes sense both intuitively and scientifically. As the report states:

‘‘Ecosystem-based management looks at all the links among living and non-living resources, rather than considering single issues in isolation. This system of

management considers human activities, their benefits, and their potential impacts within the context of the broader biological and physical environment.’’

The Commission also points out that the success of ecosystem-based management

will rely on a balanced precautionary approach that weighs the level of scientific uncertainty and the potential risk of ecosystem damage as part of every management

decision. At the present time, we simply do not have adequate information to reduce

that scientific uncertainty.

In a 2000 report on marine fisheries data, the National Research Council recommended that fishery managers must improve their ‘‘understanding of the functioning of the marine ecosystems affected by fishing activities by studying important

non-target species to determine their feeding habits, their distribution, and their

prey and predators.’’ In addition, we must shift from our current focus primarily on

maritime activities to looking more broadly at the interrelationships among landbased activities, climatic and oceanic process, and marine ecological factors. It

means, for example, recognizing that pollution from Central and South Florida can

harm fish and coral as far away as the Keys and beyond.

The implications of ecosystem-based management for ocean science are enormous.

Federal and State resource managers typically have focused their support for research and monitoring on science that is very close to the decision at hand. Be it

counting fish or mapping bottom habitat, the avenue of investigation has been relatively narrow. While we now realize the limitations of such an approach, we have

just begun to define scientific needs and to develop strategies that will allow scientific inquiry to keep pace with the growing complexity of management needs.

For example, a Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) is being implemented in my home State. Florida Bay is included in the CERP because of its

intimate linkages with the Everglades. These include freshwater run-off, groundwater fluxes, and nutrient inputs. We currently do not know the biological and ecological effects of increased nutrient loading, particularly as it relates to the growth

of phytoplankton and macroalgae in Florida Bay. One potential scenario is that nitrogen and phosphorus in the freshwater runoff from the Shark River Slough could

increase phytoplankton blooms in the Bay, and that these blooms could be carried

out to the Florida Reef Tract. The fact that we lack a circulation model that would

enable us to link changes in Everglades hydrology with Florida Bay hydrology and

ecology is hampering resource manages and restoration planners. A recent NRC report recommends research in several areas to remedy this situation.

Implementation of an integrated and sustained ocean observing system could supply critically needed information for the transition to ecosystem-based management.

Pilot observing systems already maintain the capability to monitor key physical parameters such as temperature and currents that control or strongly influence the

impacts of human activities on the marine environment. The system would also proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:42 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 093362 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\050504\93362 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
78

vide longer time series needed to track climate and other sources of variability and

to develop ecosystem forecast models.

At present, the primary source of biological information remains stock assessment

surveys and other ship-based sampling programs. However, ecosystem-based management will require development of new technologies to explore, discover, and exploit these biological resources to their full potential. Scientists are already exploring a variety of techniques and platforms from in situ molecular analyses to satellite

remote sensing to sophisticated tagging programs and marine cable systems that

will allow marine animals themselves to serve as data collectors.

Without broader knowledge developed from a robust research and exploration effort, ecosystem-based management will be difficult, if not impossible. One important

research need identified by the Commission is the study of marine biodiversity, and

one effort to address that need is the Census of Marine Life. I currently serve on

the U.S. national committee for the Census, an international research program to

assess and explain the abundance, diversity, and distribution of marine organisms

throughout the world’s oceans. The Census is focusing on field studies that explore

little known habitats and re-examine familiar areas using innovative technologies.

The Census is also developing an integrated biogeographic information system with

the potential to bring marine biodiversity information into the ocean observing system data network. It is unique in its focus on diversity through the higher levels

of food webs, the discovery and classification of newly discovered species, and its examination of timelines extending back beyond the limits of modern ocean science.

Information collected will support modeling efforts to better understand the response of living marine systems to environmental change and harvesting.

The Census of Marine Life is just one example of cutting edge research conducted

by academic institutions and government agencies throughout the United States—

and in collaboration with international universities and government agencies—that

will contribute to ecosystem-based management. It again reinforces the importance

of working cooperatively to address complex management needs, an approach hindered, if not prevented, by current systems. Improved coordination will be absolutely critical if we are to begin managing the oceans in a way that takes into account the big picture instead of focusing narrowly on individual problems without

regard to their interconnections.

Recommendations for Immediate Implementation

The third question posed by the Committee in your invitation letter is probably

the most difficult. With the prospect of limited availability of new money, it requests

that I identify the ‘‘top three’’ recommendations regarding ocean and coastal science

that should be implemented immediately. As you know, the preliminary report includes almost 200 formal recommendations, in addition to hundreds of suggestions

for strengthening ocean science and generating high-quality accessible information

to inform decision-makers.

Interestingly though, many of the most significant recommendations have a relatively modest price tag. What they do require is a national level of commitment

to changing the way we do business in the oceans—if we do that, I am optimistic

that the financial investments will follow more easily. In its executive summary, the

Commission identified 12 actions that its members concluded were critical, of which

I believe four are essential to ocean and coastal science and correspond to problems

and issues identified earlier in my testimony:

• Strengthen NOAA and improve the federal agency structure

• Double the U.S. investment in ocean research

• Implement the national Integrated Ocean Observing System

• Increase attention to ocean education

The first of these is probably not a question of fiscal resources as much as structure and organization. Coordination of ocean and coastal science programs remains

a top priority for strengthening ocean science and does not require enormous financial resources, but rather a commitment by a dozen or so federal ocean agencies to

coordinate their efforts and implement improved mechanisms that will allow them

to work together efficiently. At the same time, new dollars clearly will be required

to double the ocean research investment, implement an integrated ocean observing

system, and improve ocean education.

With respect to research, for example, the Commission report calls for development of a national strategy for ocean and coastal research, exploration and marine

operations that can ‘‘integrate ongoing efforts, promote synergies among Federal,

State, and local governments, academia, and the private sector, translate scientific

and technological advances into operational applications, and establish national

79

goals and objectives for addressing high-priority issues.’’ Other sections of the report

identify research areas where increased investment could lead to substantial benefits including climate and ocean modeling, biodiversity and ecosystem research, development of ocean information systems, and development of marine products. We

have already begun this effort with proposed increases in ocean research programs

such as the new centers for oceans and human health and NSF’s international

ocean drilling program. Proposed increases should be spread out over several agencies—in coordinated programs—so no single agency would bear the full cost. Similarly, implementation of the education recommendations should build upon existing

programs and be coordinated across agencies.

Funding for the integrated ocean observing system may be more of a challenge

since NOAA is the logical home for much of the program. Still, NOAA currently is

making an initial investment through funding for a number of regional pilot programs. By providing needed leadership and coordination, those projects could be

fully integrated into a larger scale effort and initiate the implementation process.

Conclusion

Though identifying many problems, the Commissioners and those of us fortunate

enough to spend our lives studying the oceans recognize that they are still an aweinspiring place with more than enough blue frontier to keep us exploring, discovering, and benefiting from those discoveries for the foreseeable future.

Next month, through State of Florida funding for a program called the Center of

Excellence in Biomedical and Marine Biotechnology, a team from Harbor Branch

Oceanographic Institution and Florida Atlantic University will be searching waters

off Florida’s east coast and the Florida Keys for new organisms that produce chemicals with the potential to cure human diseases from cancer to Alzheimer’s. As startling as this may sound, even within a few miles of shore, our group will have no

trouble finding places that no one has ever seen. And if history serves as a guide,

we’ll have no trouble making promising new discoveries.

But such programs are just a drop in the world’s largest bucket, so another of

the report’s recommendations is that this nation begins a serious effort to study the

95 percent of the oceans that remain unexplored. There is still much to discover.

For example, we have studied only a couple hundred of the estimated 30,000

seamounts—and the potential new fisheries they support. One of the most incredible

scientific discoveries of the 20th century—animals that depend not on photosynthesis, but on chemosynthesis—was realized through exploration of deep-sea vents.

Since that discovery more than 25 years ago, we have explored less than 50 of the

estimated 5000 deep-sea vents and seeps. I have no doubt that a robust ocean exploration program, coupled with development of novel techniques for in situ analyses

of unique plants, animals, and microbes, will dramatically alter not only our understanding of life on Earth (and perhaps other planets), but also lead to new technologies and improved scientific understanding with benefits comparable, likely

even superior, to those we have realized as a result of space exploration. As evidence, consider that past ocean-based discoveries have already advanced everything

from biotechnology to telecommunications, and that several promising disease treatments from marine organisms are now in human clinical trials.

We clearly have a great deal of work to do. The Commission recommends a framework that will make that work possible, but only if we put it to use. So, for everyone

who enjoys fishing, diving, spending a day at a clean beach, and eating safe seafood,

I would urge you to act quickly and decisively to carry out the Commission’s recommendations. With a clear path to follow, the support of stakeholders around the

country, and your commitment to make necessary changes, we have a unique opportunity to develop and implement a strong ocean policy that can reverse the downward spiral of ocean health.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Pomponi.

Dr. Pietrafesa.

STATEMENT OF DR. LEONARD J. PIETRAFESA, DIRECTOR OF

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL AND MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

Dr. PIETRAFESA. Thank you very much, Chairman Boehlert.

The subject in my testimony is related to the 198 NOAA-centric

recommendations in the comprehensive and visionary report. Five

questions were posed to me, and I will address each in order.

80

Question number one was: ‘‘What are the current strengths and

weaknesses of ocean and coastal programs at NOAA?’’ In the interest of time, I will mention but a few of the strengths and the weaknesses. First, some of the strengths.

Number one, good, competent personnel at the agency. Two,

great satellite-based location information, achieving one-inch accuracy. Three, Sea Grant’s excellent job of moving the results of

science and technology into useable information for the public.

Four, the reliable suite of Earth-observing satellites necessary for

monitoring weather and climate globally. Next, the continuous data

being collected in the National Estuarine Research Reserve Program, which relates changes in coastal fish habitat water quality

to storm runoff. Six, the ability to forecast an El Nino event, allowing nations to brace for the impacts. Seven, the recognition of the

national and international importance of NOAA by way of the leadership roles its lead administrators are assuming, such as Undersecretary Lautenbacher being the lead for the U.S. in the Earth

Observing Summit.

Now some of the weaknesses. A serious under-sampling of basic

variables, such as temperature in the water and in the atmosphere

of our oceans and coastal regions. Two, the difficulty of squeezing

the funding called for into NOAA appropriations. Why? Commerce,

Justice, and State have many competing priorities. Next, the Navy

and NASA appear to be backing away from ocean observations.

NOAA simply can not go this alone. Next, a lack of the in-house

capabilities necessary to provide complete leadership and technical

skills called for in support of the Integrated Ocean Observing System. Next, under-funding of NOAA data centers needs to preserve

and provide immediate access to the data necessary for ensemble

forecasting of weather and climate. Next, the $130 million being

spent on coastal zone management; what tangible good is the investment producing versus the paltry $15 million per year investment in ocean exploration where realistically $100 million per year

is needed? Next, using the external community as a testbed to

quickly develop and transition science and technology to operations

and in dealing with a not-invented-here syndrome within the agency. These can lead to Congressional earmarks, some of which are

very, very ill conceived.

Question number two: ‘‘Do you agree with the recommendations

with respect to NOAA? If not, why not?’’ Overall, I agree with and

believe that the 198 NOAA-centric recommendations are generally

on target with several exceptions. For example, the assessment of

the outcomes of federal projects within coastal watersheds must be

done independently. You can call in the academic community here.

Another recommendation, a truly integrated IOOS must include

the collection of atmospheric data, such as temperature at all sites.

Next, the modeling of coastal ecosystems must include precipitation

and rivers if we are to relate such things as fish-kills and harmful

algal bloom outbreaks to storms or drought.

Question number three: ‘‘Are there limitations to NOAA’s ability

to carry out the responsibilities recommended? And if so, what are

they?’’ It comes down to money, money, and money. At a minimum,

there should be an immediate doubling of the federal ocean research budget, as is called for by the Commission. Why? Increased

81

funding will lead to more data, better information, and better models. Under the present and future conditions of greater storm impacts and climate variability and change, this will help for better

planning and mitigation.

Question number four: ‘‘Would it be helpful for NOAA to have an

organic act? If so, why?’’ Yes, so that NOAA can have clear and

specific responsibilities assigned to it with an unambiguous partitioning of these responsibilities. For example, NOAA should forecast the weather, the climate, and hydrologic impacts of the atmosphere and the oceans, not NASA. Alternatively, NASA should be

the testbed for new satellite sensor technology and the operational

transition of these systems, when successful and shown to be of

value to improving forecasts, should be assigned to NOAA.

Question number five: ‘‘What are the three top recommendations

regarding NOAA you believe should be implemented without

delay?’’ The first is full implementation of the end-to-end, optimal,

integrated Earth-observing system suite of measurements of oceanic, atmospheric, and hydrologic physical, chemical, biological

state variables all networked for data transmission, data receipt,

data assessment, data dissemination, data archiving and access all

in real time and on the fly. The data must be useable in real time.

Secondly, development of a crosscutting oceanic, coastal, atmospheric, hydrologic, physical, biological, chemical, and socio-economic

impacts integrated Earth system modeling and operational forecast

capability. We are capable of predicting it all. Finally, development

of a socio-economic capability that supports NOAA’s mission to

serve the citizenry for the Nation and builds mitigation and resilience capacity for the Nation. NOAA is a mission agency that

serves the needs of the public.

I thank you for this opportunity to meet with you, applaud you

for the hosting of this important hearing, applaud the extraordinary efforts of the Commission, and would be happy to provide

any additional information or personal opinions to you. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Pietrafesa follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEONARD J. PIETRAFESA

Introduction

Good Morning. My name is Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa and I am the Director of

the Office of External Affairs in the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences

and a Professor at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, NC. I have been author or co-author of 165 peer reviewed publications in the areas of oceanography

and meteorology and estuary and climate dynamics impacts. I have served as Chair

of the Board on Oceans and Atmosphere of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) and as Chair of the Council on Ocean

Affairs, the precursor to the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education

(CORE). Presently, I am on the Board on Trustees of the University Corporation for

Atmospheric Research, am the Chair of the Educational Advisory Committee of the

American Meteorological Society and am the Chair of the NOAA Science Advisory

Board, which falls under FACA.

The subject of my testimony is related to the Recommendations which have emanated from the bold, visionary and long awaited, U.S. Ocean Commission on Ocean

Policy Report (USCOP) and is detailed in five questions which I will address individually.

The considerable challenges to the agency are reflected in the 198 recommendations dealing directly with NOAA in the USCOP Report.

Now to the questions posed.

1. What are the current strengths and weaknesses of ocean and coastal

programs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?

82

First (20 amongst many) strengths:

a. Agency Personnel

b. Advancing the technology for and maintaining the real time National Water

Level Network focused on the Nation’s 150 major ports

c. Continued advances in Operational Forecasting and evaluation metrics

d. Developing a large suite (∼119 ) of coastal environmental models

e. Advancing the facilitation of the continuously operating incredibly precise

lateral and vertical spatial observing network, including more hydrographic

surveys to supplement the GPS satellite constellation and height modernization

f. Advancing the robust Shoreline Mapping Program

g. Conducting long-term estuary specific research programs

h. Sea Grant Extension’s terrific job of moving the results of R&D into information that coastal managers and other stakeholders can understand and utilize

i. The Tropical Atmospheric and Oceanic Observing Array

j. The visionary and reliable NOAA (and partner agencies) continual suite of

Earth observing satellites, such as:

k. The Argos drifter technology and drifter network strategy

l. The National Estuarine Research Reserve Program

m. Good coordination with Coastal Managers and Emergency Management responders

n. NOAA’s recent leadership of ocean observations which has recently grown to

annual expenditures of ∼$400M

o. NOAA’s recent national and international leadership roles: such as NOAA

Administrator VADM C.L. Lautenbacher Jr. being the lead for the U.S., and

one of four in the World, in the Earth Observing Summit; Assistant Administrator Dr. R. Spinrad’s roles as Co-Chair (with Dr. M. Leinen of NSF) on the

Joint Subcommittee on Oceans within OSTP, the U.S. representative to the

Inter-Governmental Ocean Commission and as Chair of Ocean.US, to name

but several.

83

Next (20 amongst many of) the weaknesses:

a. A serious under sampling of state variables in both the water and atmospheric oceanic, coastal, Great Lakes and estuary environments of the Nation.

These data are important for: systematically documenting the spatial and

temporal histories of the entire suite of phenomena which occur that affect

and effect the Nation’s and the Planet’s weather and climate interactively

coupled physical, biological, chemical and human socio-economic and health

systems; to ground truth NOAA’s and NASA’s satellite sensors; and to drive

to drive the development of interactively coupled diagnostic and predictive

models, to assimilate data into the models, and for model validation. In the

immediate future, these models could routinely and automatically forecast all

environmental conditions over multiple time and space scales.

b. USCOP has outlined a bold role for NOAA in establishing and supporting

the International Ocean Observing System (IOOS). There is much in house

strength within NOAA. However, there are several principal concerns with

this: NOAA does not have all the in-house capabilities to provide the necessary leadership and technical skills in these areas; herein, NOAA’s budget

process does not easily and readily permit planning for engagement with the

extramural community. It tends to be highly political-centric.

c. It may be difficult to ‘squeeze’ the resources needed to build and sustain for

IOOS into NOAA appropriations. Why? NOAA, within its parent Department

Commerce, along with the departments of Justice and State, two perennial

Hill favorites, exists in the smallest of the 13 appropriations bill.

d. There is growing evidence that both the Navy and NASA are backing away

from environmental observations in the oceans in general and the coastal environment in particular because of massive budget cuts to their agencies and

the reprogramming of the resources that remain. NOAA cannot and should

not go it alone. As such, NOAA’s past and present dependence on NASA compromises NOAA’s ability to meet its’ mission.

e. An end-to-end no-gaps new satellite system and succession system network

funding strategy must be conceived for NOAA. (The model of USGCRP’s

budget formulation and budget execution might provide some worthwhile lessons as this ball is pushed uphill.) NASA satellites that are absolutely critical to NOAA’s mission include, but are limited to: EOS Aqua and Terra;

QuikSat; SeaWifs; Acquarius; Ocean Carbon Observation; Global Precipitation Mission; ICES. The lost of any of these amongst others would be devastating.

f. Under-funding of NOAA Data Centers archive and retrieval capabilities. For example the operations budget for all NOAA Data Centers is $34M in total,

including the costs libraries. By contrast, the NASA DAAC budget is $70M.

NASA maintains a research archive but NOAA maintains operational archives to which there must be real time access and an ability to mine data

on the fly.

g. While the weather detection signal is usually strong, attention to the high

resolution, precision and accuracy of the existing and new observing system

instrumentation required to document climate signals is sometimes overlooked.

h. Assessment of performance of Coastal Zone Management activities. $130M

is being spent annually and what is there to show for it? Unbridled,

unabated coastal development, growing coastal water quality degradation,

further destruction of maritime forests, destruction of marine fish, bird and

mammal habitats, further destruction of wetlands, ill advised dredging of inlets and so on.

i. Ocean Exploration expenditures presently are at $15M annually but the realistic need is for ∼$100M annually.

j. Connections of ocean and coastal information to educational venues, from ‘‘K

to Gray.’’

k. A perceived lack of taking more extensive advantage of leveraging the intellectual and physical resources of the academic community. NOAA does leverage its in-house scientific talent with universities through various programs,

including the National Sea Grant College Program, Joint and Cooperative

Institutes, the Educational Partnership Program with minority serving institutions, Ocean and Coastal Remote Sensing Programs, the Coastal Ocean

Program, Ocean Exploration and the National Undersea Research Program.

Herein, NOAA expended nearly $257M on extramural research in FY03, alVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:42 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 093362 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\050504\93362 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
84

most 35 percent of the agency’s entire R&D budget. Nonetheless, the University community has had difficulty tracking the true pathway of the external

monies and is viewed as being abysmally low for the needs and responsibilities of the agency and compromises the agency’s ability to more fully meet

its responsibilities. This strategy also encourages earmarks.

l. The lack of a robust ‘‘test bed’’ enterprise in which new advances in technology by the external community that could be of benefit to NOAA could be

tested out for efficacy and application via more NOAA/University partnerships. These are potentially low cost, high return investments.

m. NOAA operates the largest fleet of research and survey vessels of any federal agency (18 ships by 2005; 14 aircraft; as well as global ocean observing

capability from research and operational satellites). Albeit, NOAA funded

grant researchers have had to pay for the use of ships out of their grants

which has a significant impact on the viability of those grants and presents

a huge disincentive to do field work on behalf of NOAA. For comparison purposes, the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research

both provide greater support to the academic community in ocean research

than does NOAA. And NSF’s and ONR’s ship use comes at no cost to the

grant. This is a ‘‘sustained infrastructure’’ issue.

n. There is a not invented here syndrome which is perceived to exist within

NOAA so appreciation and attribution for University advances of science and

technology of value to NOAA are typically ignored. Alternatively, the University community is perceived by NOAA to be unappreciative of the support

it does receive and does not always acknowledge the support that is provided

by NOAA. So, the partnership is perceived as being weak on both sides and

could improve with better communications and cross-credit sharing.

o. Poorly conceived and structured earmarks which do not comport with the

core NOAA mission and end up wasting valuable NOAA resources on parochial, process driven local science for which (and rightfully so) competitive

grants, peer reviewed support is generally denied by agencies.

2. Do you agree with the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommendations with respect to NOAA? If not, why not?

Generally ‘‘yes’’ on most of the 198 specific to NOAA, with several exceptions.

Overall, I believe that the recommendations are very bold. My exceptions are based

on my perceptions of some of the recommendations not going far enough.

Overall, I agree with and believe that the 198 NOAA centric recommendations are

on target and bold with several variances.

a. Rec. 8.9: The Chronicle of Higher Education has already made a compelling

case that colleges and universities consider the fulfillment of general education science requirements by introducing very relevant ‘‘meteorology and

oceanography’’ courses for Liberal Arts and other majors.

b. Rec. 12.4: Federal agency assessments of the outcomes of past federal

projects within coastal watersheds and ecosystems will not produce an independent and thus credible evaluation. The University could play an important role as an independent referee here.

c. Rec. 26.2: A truly integrated ocean observing system must include the collection of atmospheric state variables at all ocean state variable observing sites

as alluded to I an article in a recent Bulletin of the American Meteorological

Society written by a NOAA scientist.

85

d. 26.7 The limited connection that presently exists between ecosystem system

modeling and hydrologic systems in a truly interactively coupled suite of

models including atmosphere, ocean, coastal ocean, estuary, river, physical,

biological, chemical system and even human socio-economic impacts modeling must be highlighted and properly addressed. Herein, the immediate future holds for numerical models that routinely forecast all environmental

state variables over multiple space and time scales; down to minutes and a

few tens of yards in some cases.

3. Are there limitations to NOAA’s ability to carry out the new responsibilities the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommends? If so, please explain those limitations.

In the context of the recommendations the principal limitation is money.

At a minimum, there should be a doubling of the federal ocean research budget

from today’s $630M to $1.3B over the next five years not only to bring it back to

its seven percent parity level with the 1980s but more importantly because of what

it would do for the Nation. Congressional action would clearly be required in order

to double ocean research spending. Additionally, the move to five-year science plans

and three-year grant cycles would both be made significantly more feasible with

Congressional cooperation. Doubling the national investment in oceanic research

would have an immediate positive impact within NOAA and the academic community and thus improve forecasting and stewardship capabilities. An increase in research capacity in the form of scientific infrastructure and graduate student researchers could be achieved in very short order and build greatly enhanced capacity

for NOAA.

The most likely form of question by the public would be a question of why it is

so important to be doubling oceanographic research at this moment and in the

present fiscal environment. The answers should be framed in the context of the extreme societal demands that are being placed on coastal and ocean resources:

• More than half of the Nation’s population lives in the coastal zone, including

the continental U.S. coastlines, Alaska, Hawaii and the Great Lakes; in fact,

86

in some coastal regions population growth over the past century has been exponential.

• While only 15 percent of the Nation’s coastal areas are presently developed,

that figure is projected to rise to 25 percent within the next two decades; in

fact, in some coastal areas the value of housing (adjusted to the Nation’s Consumer Piece Index) has grown exponentially over the past half-century.

• Between 70–75 percent of all weather related losses over the past two decades

have occurred in the coastal zones.

• Projected sea level rise may greatly exacerbate future weather related impacts in the coastal ocean regions.

• Projected shifts in climate will greatly impact the economies of coastal communities.

• Coastal communities have expressed great need for integrated oceans, coasts,

and estuary centric products, services and delivery mechanisms for weather

and climate related impacts. Prognostic capabilities must include development of high-resolution models and observations and data management and

delivery systems that inform federal, State, and local agencies.

However:

• There is only sparse information presently available in and over the ocean,

coastal and estuary environs. Examples include sparse marine buoy, coastal

water level, CMAN, ocean, coastal and estuary mooring system based data.

• NWS verifications (the NWS national forecast verification Program) of forecast accuracy indicates that weather forecasts over land are far more accurate

than are forecasts along the coasts and out over the ocean.

• There are many boating deaths and drowning of swimmers that are directly

attributable to the lack of accurate coastal zone forecasts of sea state and currents. It is noteworthy that ‘‘rip currents’’ are responsible for the second largest number of fatalities ascribed to ‘‘weather.’’

• In 2003 the NWS determined that the addition of several new buoys lead to

a dramatic improvement of significant wave height forecast capability lending

credence to the assumption that more data in coastal areas will improve forecasts.

• Coastal ocean and estuary academic community developed coupled models of

storm induced surge and flooding have proven to be very accurate and demonstrate that an advanced systems modeling approach, both deterministic and

probabilistic, will significantly improve forecast accuracy.

Our living and non-living marine resources are in a great state of peril, yet there

are few sustained exploratory missions to adequately measure, monitor, and model

the great oceans. By comparison to the existing investment in research to understand our planet’s vast oceans, an order of magnitude more dollars are available for

fundamental research leading to determination of whether there is water on other

planetary bodies. Our ocean-going fleet of ships, aircraft, and in situ buoy systems

are numbered in the hundreds and are always over committed. Funds to support

ocean-going research experiments are extremely limited and are frequently the component of research funds that are reduced when any funding rescissions have to be

absorbed.

Whereas the previous 50 years were the half-century of rapid progress in numerical weather prediction and atmospheric sciences, the next 50 years could be the era

of even more rapid development in the understanding of the ocean and its major

influence on everyday life including weather over land. Using the advances developed in the world weather community, the capability for highly professional operational ocean services that would support coastal communities, ocean-related industries, and ocean weather prediction is now clearly possible. In this sense, an expansion of the professional oceanography economic sector could be anticipated along the

lines of the meteorological service industry.

Federal funding for technology should be on a par with the requested increase for

ocean research to ensure the Nation has the requisite tools, including the Integrated

Coastal and Ocean Observing and Prediction Systems, to conduct a rigorous program of ocean science.

The Integrated Ocean Observing System and other key elements of the technological infrastructure that support ocean research should be fully funded. Moreover

a robust atmospheric component should be added throughout the entire IOOS and

should become an integral part of the IOOS. The Coastal Ocean Observing System

87

should also be highlighted and embellished as a core component of the IOOS. It

often gets overlooked.

NOAA’s satellites, ships, aircraft, buoy networks and laboratory facilities also provide a vital base for coastal and oceanic research activities. Funding to maintain

this existing national asset and should also be considered and should be available

for the conduct of NOAA projects.

As a corollary to the above, there should be a federal research policy which urges

Congress to demand the Administration develop cross agency coordinated five-year

science plans to improve stability in the research base. Congress should with the

Administration in developing this planning process as the current annual appropriations process does not lend itself to five-year forward funded programs.

NOAA should partner with other federal ocean agencies to adopt a unified grants

process within each agency, which also employs three-year grants. Additionally,

NOAA should work ambitiously to streamline its grants process.

The transition of research into operations is a critical issue for NOAA that is actively being addressed by the NOAA Research Council, the NOAA Science Advisory

Board, and the Blue Ribbon Research Review Panel. Hopefully this issue will be

properly resolved.

4. Would it be helpful for NOAA to have an organic act? Why? What would

be most important to include in such legislation?

NOAA needs to have an Organic Act so it can have clear and specific responsibilities assigned to it with an unambiguous partitioning of responsibilities. Otherwise

NOAA’s responsibilities are defined by a collection of non-connected laws and policies. These laws were often developed in response to specific issues rather than

being in response to the generic, fundamental mission and role of NOAA in the context of its relationship to other federal agencies.

If there is limited new money available from the Federal Government,

what are the top three recommendations regarding NOAA you believe

should be implemented without delay?

I will do this by linking some of the overlapping recommendations.

• Support of the linked Recommendations 23.5, 23.6, 26.2, 26.9, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3,

to fully implement an end to end architecture for the complete optimal suite

of measurement sites of ocean, atmospheric and hydrologic physical, chemical,

biological state variables, for data recovery, for data assessment, for data dissemination, for data archiving and for data access; all in real time and on the

fly.

• Support for the development of a truly cross-cutting oceanic, coastal, atmospheric, hydrologic physical, biological, chemical, human socio-economic impacts integrated, complete Earth System Modeling and Operational Forecast

capability (Recommendations 27.2, 27.5, 28.2).

• The development of an ambitious Socio-Economic capability, broadly defined,

that supports and will help NOAA better meet its mission to serve the citizenry of the Nation, build capacity for the Nation and build a greatly expanded stakeholder network of NOAA supporters (Recommendation 25.3).

I thank you for this opportunity to meet with you, applaud you for your hosting

of this important hearing, applaud the extraordinary efforts of the USCOP, and

would be happy to provide any additional information and personal opinions to you

and your staff.

BIOGRAPHY FOR LEONARD J. PIETRAFESA

Areas of Interest:

Observations and Modeling of Non-Linear Couplings of Atmospheric, Oceanic, Estuary, Hydraulic Coupled Systems, Oceanic and Atmospheric Weather and Climate

Phenomena and Impacts, Wind-Wave-Current Coupled Interactions, Precipitation

and River Discharge, Relationships between Climate Conditions, Weather Events

and Human Health, Science and Public Policy.

Education:

1965 BS, Fairfield University (Fairfield, CT) Physics & Mathematics

1967 MS, Boston College/University of Chicago (Boston, MA/Chicago, IL) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics (Advisors: Fr./Dr. J. DeVane, Dr. L.F. McGoldrick)

88

1973 Ph.D., University of Washington (Seattle, WA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics

(Advisors: Dr. M. Rattray, Dr. J.D. Smith)

Industry Employment:

1965, 1966, 1968 Weston Geophysical Engineers, Boston, MA. (Projects: U.S. Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Verification; New England Power Blackout Source; Panama Canal Expansion Assessment; West Australia Environmental Assessment;

Preservation of Old Man on the Mountain, NH)

Academic Experience:

10/1999—Director, Office of External Affairs, College of Physical and Mathematical

Sciences, NCSU

7/1989–10/1999—Head, Dept. of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, NCSU

5/1988–8/1989—Associate Dean for Research, College of Physical and Mathematical

Sciences, NCSU

7/1988–6/1989—3rd Director, University Honors Council, NCSU

7/1992–12/1996—Director, Southeast University Consortium for Severe Storms

(NCSU, FSU, GTU, UAL–H)

7/1981– —Full Professor, Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric

Sciences, NCSU

7/1976–6/1981—Tenured Associate Professor, Departments of Geosciences & Marine

Science & Engineering. NCSU

7/1973–6/1976—Assistant Professor, Dept. of Geosciences, NCSU

Recent (Selected) National Committee Service and Special Recognition:

01/2004–07—American Meteorological Society, Chair, Education Advisory Comm.

01/2004–05—American Meteorological Society, Co-Chair 2005 Conference on Living

in Coastal Region (with M. Davidson, reporting to President S. Avery)

07/2003–04—Chair, National Center for Environmental Prediction Ocean Modeling

Review Panel

10/2002–05—Board of Trustees of University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

(Elected)

10/2002—Received 2002 UCAR ‘‘Lifetime Achievement Award’’ as a Champion for

Science (Picture on the front of a ‘‘Wheaties’’ Box of whole grain Cereal

8/2000– —University Member Representative to the University Corporation for

Atmospheric Research (UCAR)

6/2001–02—Chair, NOAA/National Geodetic Research Program Review Team

5/2002– —Member, NOAA/Climate Monitoring & Diagnostics Laboratory Review

Team

10/2001—Received 2001 ‘‘Cheerleader for Science Award’’ from UCAR

6/1998–07—Chair, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) Science Advisory Board (FACA approved)

3/1997– —Member, National Water Initiative Task Force of National Association

of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC)

11/1999—Member, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) Executive Committee on Food, the Environment and Natural

Resources

11/1996–11/1997—Chair, NASULGC Board on Oceans and Atmosphere

01/2004– —Chair, American Meteorological Society (AMS)/UCAR Board on Higher Education

3/1998–3/2000—Chair, Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education

(CORE) Board on Education

5/1996– —Member, American Geophysical Union (AGU) Committee on Natural

Hazards

5/1999– —Member, NASULGC/Department of Interior (USGS) Partnership Committee

5/1998–1/2001—Member, IPCC Assessment of Coastal Effects of Climate Change

5/1999– —Member, NASULGC/NASA Partnership Committee

3/1996–11/1997—Chair (the 3rd), Council on Ocean Affairs (the Precursor to CORE)

89

3/1997–10/2001—Presented oral and written testimony before Six different United

States Senate and House Subcommittees on issues related to science, technology, natural resources, severe storms, coastal flooding, societal impacts of severe storms, ocean and atmospheric observing systems, education reform.

9/2002—Presentation to the U.S. House Science Committee staffers on the need for

value of the USWRP Collaboration Fund at invitation of UCAR.

Professional Organizations:

1) American Meteorological Society—Elected Fellow

2) Sigma Xi (past local chapter president)

3) Phi Kappa Phi

4) American Association for the Advancement of Science

5) Society for Non-Linear Mathematics

6) American Geophysical Union

7) Oceanography Society (Charter—Lifetime member)

Five recent selected of 168 peer reviewed publications

1) Bright, R., L. Xie, I.J. Pietrafesa, 2003. Evidence of the Gulf Stream’s Influence

on Tropical Cyclone Intensity. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 29, No. 48, 1–

4.

2) Pietrafesa, L.J., L. Xie, D. Dickey, S.M.C. Peng, S.W. Bao. 2003. Numerical Modeling of Coastal & Inland Flooding, Vol. 1, Sect. 1, 101–111, Ecosystems and Sustainable Development. WIT Press.

3) Xie, L., L.J. Pietrafesa, K. Wu, 2003. Numerical Study of wave-current interaction through surface and bottom stresses: Part II, Wind driven circulation in

the South Atlantic Bight under uniform winds. J. Geophys. Res., 108, 16841–

16856.

4) Pietrafesa, L.J., C. Flagg, L. Xie, G. Weatherly, 2002. Winds, currents, sea level

and sea state in the Mid-Atlantic Bight during the winter/spring 1996 Ocean

Margins Program. J. of Deep Sea Research, 49, 4331–4354.

5) Xie, L., L.J. Pietrafesa and K. Wu, 2002. Inter-annual and decadal variability of

land-falling tropical cyclones in the United States Southeastern States. Advances

in Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 19, 677–686.

Professional and Public (Invited Only) Presentations: Total of 177

Student Committees Supervised: Chair or Co of 22 Ph.D. (22 completed) & 22

MS (21 Completed)

Post Docs and Technicians Supervised: 32 Total.

Grants: Total of 81 Awards as Principal or Co-Principal Investigator totaling

$20,865,069.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Doctor.

Dr. Freilich.

STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL H. FREILICH, ASSOCIATE DEAN,

COLLEGE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY

Dr. FREILICH. Chairman Boehlert, Members, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Ocean’s Committee—Commission report from the standpoint of research and observations. I am Michael Freilich.

The report emphasizes scientific understanding as the foundation

for wise ocean management and stewardship. It highlights the

need to implement an Integrated Ocean Observing System that has

global scope as well as regional focus, and it serves local and nongovernmental as well as federal users. I emphatically agree.

The report advocates a strengthened NOAA as the Nation’s lead

agency for ocean-related research, education, management, measVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:42 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 093362 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\050504\93362 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
90

urements, and predictions. I agree, with reservations. In an ideal

world, a strong lead agency may be the correct answer, but such

an agency must recognize the equal importance of its research and

education, management, and prediction and assessment tasks. It

must be able to interact effectively with many diverse user communities. It must be funded sufficiently so that it can satisfy its responsibilities and plan realistically for future improvements. Faced

with funding shortfalls, yet under the unremitting pressure to

produce regular operational forecasts, I fear that NOAA, or any

agency in that position, might shortchange its research activities.

Indeed, between 1997 and 2002, NOAA research support at the selected core institutions decreased 12 percent in inflation-adjusted

dollars, while NASA and NSF funding increased substantially. In

this context, a near-term transfer of responsibilities for ocean observing research satellites from NASA to NOAA is premature. I am

convinced that long-term research quality ocean observations, especially satellite observations, will eventually be acquired by operational observing systems since NASA’s charter, indeed, does not

include responsibility for acquiring long-term ocean observations.

However, NASA’s Earth science enterprise has not prematurely

terminated any ocean observing research mission as implied by the

report. NASA continues to operate missions, which have both research and operational utility far beyond the end of their baseline

lifetimes. Turning NASA’s Earth science enterprise into a satellite

engineering and launch activity only while levying additional research satellite responsibilities on an already overburdened NOAA

seems to me needlessly risky, at least until NOAA has demonstrated its ability to take over those tasks.

So what do we do? Both the National Research Council’s Committee on NASA-NOAA Transition from Research to Operations

and the Ocean Commission advocate formal interagency coordination groups to help the research to operations transition. Moving

the Executive’s review of NOAA’s budget to OMB’s Natural Resources Program should help coordinate multi-agency funding, especially for satellite missions, which support both scientific and

operational activities. Stronger interagency coordination, not a

superagency, is the answer, in my opinion.

In the area of data systems and data management, it is costly

but absolutely necessary to integrate appropriate data centers into

an ocean information system that transforms measurements into

useful policy guidance. I endorse the recommendations that an

interagency coordination group, called Ocean.IT, be empowered to

address ocean and coastal data and information issues and that a

Presidential interagency task force be established to oversee the

modernization, actually the creation, of the Nation’s environmental

data and information system.

The challenge for Ocean.IT will be to guide the development of

flexible and evolvable ocean information systems that can meet the

changing needs of the research and decision support communities.

I thank the Committee for your strong support of ocean sciences

and multi-agency ocean research. I applaud you for taking the time

to consider the Ocean’s Commission report thoughtfully and carefully. The report’s emphasis on science as the foundation for the

Nation’s ocean management and education policies is absolutely

91

correct. We must increase federal investment in ocean-related research and education. We must implement an Integrated Ocean

Observing System that builds on past technological and scientific

successes that connects coastal measurements to open-ocean observations and that serves a wide range of users. We must have better

interagency coordination. Any transition to a primarily single agency approach must be measured and robust. We must ensure that

research, education, and management activities are not neglected

in the face of operational requirements and constrained budgets.

There are advantages to having multiple agencies with overlapping responsibilities and different approaches. One agency may falter, but it is likely that another will succeed. Concentrating ocean

responsibilities in a single agency without strong assurances of success is an extremely fragile strategy.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Freilich follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL H. FREILICH

Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, Committee Members:

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Oceans Committee Report. I am

Michael Freilich, Associate Dean of the College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences

at Oregon State University and Chair of the National Research Council’s Committee

on Earth Studies.

I strongly endorse the Report’s emphasis on science as the foundation for wise

ocean management and stewardship. We must understand interdisciplinary ocean

processes and the interactions between the ocean, the atmosphere, the sea bed, and

the land.

Implementation of the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) is crucial. The

IOOS must have global scope as well as regional focus—global processes force the

local ocean, just as distant storms influence local weather. The Report correctly advocates broadening the scope of data products and services to address the needs of

non-federal and non-research users.

Our national ocean policy is at best loosely coordinated. The Report advocates a

strengthened NOAA as the government’s lead agency for ocean-related research,

education, measurement, management, and prediction.

In an ideal world, a strong lead agency may be the correct answer. But such an

agency must recognize the equal importance of its research and education, management, and prediction/assessment tasks. It must be able to interact effectively with

many diverse user communities. It must be funded sufficiently so that it can satisfy

its responsibilities and plan realistically for future improvements.

Faced with funding shortfalls, yet under the unremitting pressure to produce regular operational forecasts, I fear that NOAA—or any agency in that position—will

short-change its other (research, education, and management) activities. Indeed, between 1997 and 2002, NOAA research support at CORE institutions decreased 12

percent in inflation-adjusted dollars, while NASA and NSF funding increased substantially.

A near-term transfer of responsibilities for ocean-observing satellite missions from

NASA to NOAA is premature. While NASA’s charter does not include responsibility

for acquiring long-term ocean observations, NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise has

not prematurely terminated any ocean-observing research mission as implied by the

Report. NASA continues to operate missions which have both research and operational utility far beyond the end of their baseline lifetimes. NASA maintains effective ties with the ocean research community.

I am convinced that long-term research-quality ocean observations—especially

satellite observations—will eventually be acquired by operational observing systems.

However, turning NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise into a satellite engineering and

launch activity only, while levying additional space mission research support responsibilities on an already overburdened NOAA seems needlessly risky until NOAA

has demonstrated its ability to take over those tasks.

Both the National Research Council’s CONNTRO report and the Oceans Commission advocate formal interagency coordination groups to help the research-to-operations transition. Moving the Executive’s review of NOAA’s budget to OMB’s NatVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:42 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 093362 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\050504\93362 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
92

ural Resources Program should help coordinate multi-agency funding for satellite

missions which support both scientific and operational activities.

Data Systems and Data Management

Acquiring accurate ocean measurements is necessary, but not sufficient. The

measurements must be made available to researchers, and the data must be transformed into useful guidance for managers, policy makers, and the public. Ocean information must be archived, refined, and distributed for decades and longer.

The Report highlights the need for timely and consistent submission of ocean data

sets to national data centers.

Equally importantly, the centers must advertise their holdings to potential users,

and be adaptable and flexible in response to changing user needs, technology, and

understanding. It is these tasks which differentiate useful ‘‘knowledge systems’’

from ‘‘data repositories.’’

It is costly but necessary to integrate our national data centers into a knowledge

system. I endorse the recommendations that an interagency coordination group,

Ocean.IT, be empowered to address ocean and coastal data/information issues and

that a Presidential interagency task force be established to oversee the modernization—actually the creation—of the Nation’s environmental data and information

system. The challenge for Ocean.IT will be to guide the development of flexible and

evolvable information systems that can meet the changing needs of the research and

decision-support communities.

Concluding remarks

I thank the Committee for your strong support of ocean sciences and multi-agency

ocean research. I applaud you for taking the time to consider the Oceans Commission report thoughtfully and carefully. The Report’s emphasis on science as the

foundation for the Nation’s ocean management and education policies is absolutely

correct; we must increase federal investment in ocean-related research and education.

We must implement an Integrated Ocean Observing System that builds on past

technological and scientific successes, connects coastal measurements to open-ocean

observations, and serves a wide range of users. Pilot projects will help develop the

organizational structures needed to ensure that the Integrated Ocean Observing

System truly is integrated and useful.

While better interagency coordination is necessary, any transition to a primarily

single-agency approach must be measured and robust. The transition must ensure

that research, education, and management activities are not neglected in the face

of operational requirements and constrained budgets. There are advantages to having multiple agencies with overlapping responsibilities. Different agencies will address challenges in different ways. One may falter, but it is likely that another will

succeed. Concentrating ocean responsibilities in a single agency without strong assurances of success is an extremely fragile strategy.

BIOGRAPHY FOR MICHAEL H. FREILICH

Born: January 14, 1954

Citizenship: U.S.

Affiliation: Professor and Associate Dean, College of Oceanic & Atmospheric

Sciences, Oregon State University, Oceanography Admin. Bldg. 104, Corvallis,

OR 97331–5503

EDUCATION

1971–1975—B.S. Physics (Honors), B.S. Chemistry, Haverford College, Haverford,

PA

1975–1981—Ph.D. Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University

of California, San Diego

DISSERTATION

Resonance effects on shoaling surface gravity waves: Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 113 pp.

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

American Association for the Advancement of Science (past member)

American Geophysical Union

93

American Meteorological Society

The Oceanography Society (past member)

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

1977–1981—Sea Grant Trainee, Shore Processes Laboratory, Scripps Institution of

Oceanography

1982–1983—Assistant Professor, Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY/Stony

Brook

1983–1992—Member of Technical Staff, Oceanography Group, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

1992–present—Associate Professor/Professor/Associate Dean, College of Oceanic and

Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University

1983–1992—Project Scientist, NASA Scatterometer Project

1985–1987—Associate Editor, JGR–Oceans

1987–1990—Member, U.S. WOCE Science Steering Committee

1988–1998—Member (Science PI), ESA ERS–1/2 Science Working Team (also Coordinating Investigator for U.S. Scatterometer Activities)

1989–present—NASA Mission Principal Investigator, NASA EOS Scatterometer

(SeaWinds)

1992–1999—Member (Science PI), NASA Scatterometer Science Working Team

1992–1999—Member, NASA/JPL PO.DAAC User Working Group

1992–1995—Member, NAS/NRC Ocean Studies Board

1993–1995—Member, NAS/NRC Panel on NOAA’s Coastal Ocean Program (Chair,

Coastal Hazards, Physical Oceanog. & Met. sub-group)

1994–1996—Chair, NASA EOS Panel on Data Quality

1994–2000—Member, NASA EOS Science Executive Committee

1996–present—Chair, NASA EOS Oceans Panel

1996–present—Member, NSCAT/QuikSCAT Calibration/Validation Panel

1997–1999—Member, NASA EOSDIS Review Group

1997–present—NASA Mission Principal Investigator, NASA QuikSCAT Mission

1999–present—Member (PI), NASDA (Japanese Space Agency) ADEOS–2 Science

Team and AMSR/AMSR–E Science Team

2000–present—Member, NASA Earth Science Data and Information Systems and

Services Advisory Subcommittee (official FACA NASA Advisory body)

2000–present—Team Leader, NASA Ocean Vector Winds Science Team

2001–present—Chair, National Research Council Committee on Earth Studies

2001–present—Member, National Research Council Space Studies Board

2002–2003—Member, National Research Council Committee on NASA–NOAA Transition from Research to Operations

94

95

DISCUSSION

TOP PRIORITIES FOR OCEAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

Dr. Watkins, you must be gratified by the very favorable comments this distinguished panel has about this excellent report, and

I applaud the report.

Admiral WATKINS. I did not talk to them ahead of time, I assure

you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, and let me say this. Any field, any

discipline, is able to present a panel of very distinguished Americans to make a solid case for more money, and you make it better

than most. But the reality is that we are faced with budgetary

challenges, not like any in previous years. And so we are not going

to be able to do everything you want. So we have to do some

prioritizing.

So let me ask each of you, given the reality of the situation that,

obviously, I think, we are going to be pushing for more, not nearly

the more that you would like to satisfy your defined needs, but nevertheless a little bit more, what would be your top priorities? And

let me go from the last to first. You know, the last shall be first.

We know that one.

Dr. Freilich.

Dr. FREILICH. There are several top priorities, of course.

The very top priority is for better interagency coordination, so

that the expertise that has been developed already in the Federal

Government can be applied to interaction.

Chairman BOEHLERT. But that is not excessively costly. I am

talking about dollars. We have got to have better coordination

across the board. I mean, the intelligence community, it is about

time. It took 9/11 to get the FBI to talk to the CIA. You know, I

serve on the Intelligence Committee. I thought for the longest time

that they were competitors rather than being on the same team.

So the interagency coordination, I agree with that. And you won’t

find any dissenters up here, but that doesn’t cost a ton of new

money. But things that cost new money, prioritize. If you will, give

me a couple of top priorities.

Dr. FREILICH. If we were to integrate the Integrated Ocean Observing System, which is absolutely the top research, scientific, and

therefore, the foundational requirement. In an era of constrained

budgets, we have got to spend our money wisely. That is a costly,

but absolutely necessary initiative that we must implement rapidly. But given that we can’t simply throw money at the issue, it

does get back to the coordination problem. We have expertise

spread among many agencies, expertise in making measurements,

and expertise in dealing with the scientific and user communities.

And that is where the coordination comes in so that the money that

is spent on the Integrated Ocean Observing System is efficiently

spent and not frittered away, if you will, building capabilities that

exist well in one agency in another agency, which takes time as

well as money.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you.

Dr. Pietrafesa.

96

Dr. PIETRAFESA. I think the top priority should be the implementation and the establishment of the Integrated Ocean Observing

System.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The score is two to nothing.

Dr. PIETRAFESA. Yes. The second is the implementation of an

end-to-end Earth system modeling capability, which is not highly

expensive. To put my first choice in context, North Carolina, as a

single state, has been hit with approximately 20 billion dollar—in

excess of billion dollar events, weather-related events, over a 22-

year period. That is one state, and that is a great cost, not only

to that state, but to the Federal Treasury. So by way of comparison, the investment called for in the Commission report pales, by

comparison, to what that one state is having—has had to deal with

over the last two decades.

Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you.

Dr. Pomponi.

Dr. POMPONI. I have two top priorities. My first would be a robust, well disciplined, ocean exploration program. I believe that the

outcomes from an ocean exploration program would provide the

American public with many benefits, including national security,

mapping of our coastlines, inventory of new resources, and outcomes related to our health, and fisheries as well. My second would

be an Integrated Ocean Observing System.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Okay. You are an expensive date.

Dr. Solow.

Dr. SOLOW. I guess I think that observations is the top priority,

but I am a statistician, and I think that it is important that observation systems be designed efficiently, and in this case, specifically

to address scientific questions. And at a time when there are budget constraints, I am not as enthusiastic as Dr. Pomponi is about exploration. I am more enthusiastic about science to answer scientific

questions and questions of importance to society.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you.

And Admiral.

Admiral WATKINS. On page 374 of our report, we include a table

of estimates on cost recommendations. The Commission decided

that they are not in the right position to set priorities, particularly

when you talk about research. From my experience as the Secretary of Energy, the most difficult task I had was to convince the

physicists that chemistry was also important, that biology was important, that geology was important. And those are difficult things

to do. So we say in our report, if you are willing to set up the less

costly organizational structure that we have called the framework,

we are ready to receive the kind of direction we could get out of

the Congress. If you only have a few hundred million to give us instead of a billion, then give us that and tell the White House to

come back from the National Ocean Council with a priority on

which they can work with you. They ought to set priorities in concert with the Congress, not ask the Commission to come up and

give you the line items. We can’t do that.

So if you look at that table, it costs $1 million a year to $2 million, maybe, to set up the National Ocean Council framework that

we recommended. So, to get it going is not beyond the scope of the

97

text here in Congress. Then we itemize the more expensive ones,

for example, ocean science exploration and support for the states,

to whom we give a lot of tribute to here, because they are the ones

that have to do a lot of the work. And then other recommendations

to take us up to the costs I mentioned earlier. If you gave us a fraction of the latter, then I would say make it proportional to costs

estimated in our table, but tell the White House to come back to

Congress with their list of priorities. I took this approach at Energy, and it worked. It worked, and instead of $800 million a year

into waste cleanup for 50 years of nuclear bomb building, we

ramped up to a sustained $6 billion a year. And the reason for this

is that the President said, ‘‘I want to do it.’’ And the Department

of Defense hated it, because it came right out of their budget.

But that is the kind of direction we are talking about for the Assistant to the President. So let us set up an organization that is

ready to receive the new guidance and the horizontal integration

by ecosystems across the government and up here on the Hill. If

we do that, then we are ready to move no matter how many dollars

you give us.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I see a lot of nodding of the heads in the

affirmative, so thank you very much for that. You can understand,

Admiral, that all of us, with the exception of, well, we have got a

few exceptions, like Dr. Ehlers, a distinguished physicist, but most

of us are laypeople, and we are struggling all of the time with the

various subject matter that comes before the Committee. And we

are always looking for some guidance on establishing priority from

the experts. And we would look for that, but you are saying that

the new infrastructure, or the new structure, if we implement your

recommendations, would be the ideal person to come before us. Because I can remember the frustration I experienced, particularly as

a Junior Member, and we were going through something that you

are familiar with, the future of the superconducting supercollider.

I mean, I would get witnesses after witnesses, some of them with

Nobel laureates in their satchel. And I would say, ‘‘Please, guide

us. Give us some priorities.’’ And I found, my experience was that

one discipline did not want to be about another discipline, because

then they said, you know, they saw the position they were in, and

they said, but for the grace of God, when my turn comes, I don’t

want them saying things negative, but so thank you for the recommendation. Thank all of you for that input.

Mr. Cardoza. Or Mr. Honda, the distinguished colleague.

ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Mr. HONDA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for putting

this panel together, and I appreciate the report that I am reading

and listening to. As a science teacher, your comments, Admiral,

seem to make a lot of sense in terms of coming up with a global

approach where you integrate all of the ecosystems together, unless

you call the ecosystem the entire arena that is covered by water.

And I think that those are important comments to make. And I

guess what you are saying is that you gave us some of the information and you have the vision that we have to write it into statute

and then pass it along so that we can get started. Is that a correct

assumption?

98

Admiral WATKINS. Yes, it is, Congressman. And you know, a

powerful theme in our entire report throughout is an approach to

ecosystem-based management. We are not ready to do that today.

We hear the buzzword around this town about science-based decision-making and ecosystem-based management. But, we are not

ready for either one of them, because we don’t devote the investment. We don’t have an integrated strategy. We don’t work together enough to accomplish that. So everything we are talking

about is ecosystem-based management. You have 24 bills that are

ocean-related right now in the 108th Congress here in the House

of Representatives. If you properly handle those bills in a new way

to demonstrate the Congress interest into ecosystem-based management, staffs need to talk to each other. You may need a select

committee on the oceans to bring the staffs together. You will try

to ensure that those individual bills aren’t continuing the piecemealing that you have heard outlined here today. So there are a

lot of people that need to get in the act here. It is not just the Executive Branch.

And so what I am saying is that we are recommending a new

way of doing business. If we believe in ecosystem-based management, and I can’t find anybody against the concept, then let us get

on with it. We recognize that this is very difficult. If you take the

budget process alone on ecosystem-based management, do you

think OMB gives guidance to the National Ocean Partnership Program for integrated research packages? No way. They are not even

an accepted entity by the Administration. They have about a $25

million budget at the end of seven years that the Program has been

in effect. Their impact has been neutered, because nobody in a

power position in the White House pays any attention. So the Congress has to say, ‘‘Pay attention. We want to see an integrated

budget package. We want to see a strategy come up here, and we

will be willing to support you, and we will organize our Congressional Committees to come together in some new way so that these

bills don’t continue to be piece-mealed, and, in many cases, counterproductive.’’

Mr. HONDA. I note to the Chair, I agree with you, and I think

that I agree, also, if I understand it correctly, the reasons why you

keep NOAA and NASA separate for the time being, because you

want information to be gathered in a way that is going to be applicable to the ecosystem-based management. It sounds like this addresses all of the kinds of battles that we have along both coasts

and along the Gulf areas where we are trying to manage our fisheries and yet, based on even the local science, it is only part of the

solution and problem set, because we are not integrating the rest

of the ocean in terms of looking at how you manage certain kinds

of species and sustain them. And it appears that you have given

us a pretty clear direction in order to come up with a statute or

a policy that we can give to the other body and to the Administration, so I appreciate all of your work. And you know, it sounds like

it makes sense to me, and I would like to support those positions

that you have shared with us.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Dr. Ehlers. I—excuse me. Excuse me. Mr.

Gilchrest. We have got to go in order of appearance.

99

PUBLIC AWARENESS OF OCEAN ISSUES

Mr. GILCHREST. I will ask some questions with great appreciation

to Dr. Ehlers for letting me go before his time.

We have been talking about this, the Chairman mentioned a couple of times, some of you mentioned a couple times the physics and

physicists. I just want to bring up Jacob Burnowski was a physicist

prior to World War II. He wrote that wonderful book, ‘‘The Ascent

of Man’’, about 30 years ago. He saw the importance of biological

diversity, so he went from physics to biology. We are still trying to

talk Dr. Ehlers into doing that, and there is some hope, I think,

serving on this committee and listening to the witnesses. It—I

think your testimony has been invaluable. This study is not going

to go on a shelf and gather dust. We are going to use all of the energy possible to move this idea, these concepts forward. And it can

not just be, like the Admiral has mentioned, in the Executive

Branch. There is—all of the leadership, all of the organizations, all

of the brains do not reside in the Executive Branch. It has got to

be co-equal with the Legislative Branch, and we are going to push

and hopefully create, in the next Congress, a Committee to deal

with the oceans. And we are working on that right now. It won’t

be a Select Committee. We want it to be a Standing Committee,

and we want the Committee criteria and jurisdiction to be based,

pure and simple, on the kind of testimony you gave here this morning and also the outline to the Commission’s report, which is broad

and encompasses all of the real vital things that the oceans involve.

The other thing is, I really think, with the help of the Executive

Branch, and, certainly, this Congress, we have to raise the level of

NOAA to the same level of NASA. I would venture to say that we

ought to get Jay Leno to ask people on the street what NASA is.

And I would hope that you get about 90 percent of the people that

he would ask those questions to would know what NASA is. But

you wouldn’t have one percent of the population that knows what

NOAA is. That push has to come from us so that NOAA has the

same level, I am going to say the same level of funding, the same

level of prestige, the same level of importance, and the same level

of direction that NASA has. We are constantly discussing the understanding of creation of the universe in the sense of what the

physics are. Well, we need, I think, to have some understanding of

the physics of the ecosystem before us. And a number of you mentioned, and Admiral Watkins just mentioned again, we can’t just

bust right into ecosystem fisheries management or ecosystem management, because there is not enough known on it yet. But that is

the clear direction that we need to move.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Hold on just one second, if you will. We

have got a series of votes now, so here is what I would like to do.

If you could come to a——

Mr. GILCHREST. I am going to wrap it right up.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Okay. And then we will have Dr. Ehlers

and Mr. Gutknecht, both, quick questions, and then we will go and

we will dismiss the panel. It is not fair to keep you here another

half-hour while we wait around over there for the next vote. You

know the system as well as I do.

100

Wrap up.

Mr. GILCHREST. 30 seconds. Not only education for those people

in the various agencies, but we all know what the ‘‘Three Rs’’ are:

reading, writing, arithmetic. In our public schools, it is essential

that we add the biosphere to that, that you weave that curriculum,

from K through 12, how life on Planet Earth needs to be sustained.

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

Dr. Ehlers.

SPECIFIC FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, one of the Commission’s recommendations is that

Congress pass an Organic Act for NOAA. As you probably know,

my staff and I have been working on this for well over a year, and

we hope to introduce the bill fairly soon. I would be interested in

what specific recommendations each of you have on the NOAA Organic Act, and I could give a number of specifics, but I would just

be interested in your comments on that.

Let me also say that I noticed the dearth of the ‘‘G’’ word during

the testimony, and that is the Great Lakes. We have more coastline

in the Great Lakes than we do on the Atlantic seaboard, and the

interest and the comments from each of you as to whether or not

the Great Lakes should receive a greater portion of the research

and exploration money than it is getting at this time compared to

the other coastline of our nation. And are there specific science and

research needs for the Great Lakes that are different from those

of the saltwater ecosystem? My understanding is that we will ask

for written responses from you on each of these questions, so I zip

through them fairly quickly, but I am very interested in how the

Great Lakes fit into all of this. And I know almost everyone here

represents the saltwater research, but let us consider the Great

Lakes.

The other comment, hearing the brief interchange between Dr.

Pomponi and Dr. Solow about exploration versus research, I

thought I was listening to a NASA panel once again. That is an

issue that we, as the Congress, have to resolve, I think, in every

individual case. But I appreciate both points of view. I think we

need both. And we need substantially more funding to do both

properly, and I think that is the real answer. So we, rather than

fighting about which it should be, I think we all have to join together, as a community, to request more funding so we can do both.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers and Mr. Gutknecht,

and we will submit these questions to you in writing, but we want

to be considerate of your schedules and mindful of ours.

Mr. Gutknecht.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I will submit a statement, not

so much a question. It relates to agriculture, and we realize that

there are some bad operators, and we are, in fact, part of the problem. But we also want to be part of the solution. So I will submit

this for the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilknecht follows:]

101

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE GIL GUTKNECHT

I want to offer a couple of words of caution and then talk about some good news

relating to agriculture and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report.

First, a word of caution. I think that America’s farmers are often an easy target

when we talk about pollution. Many who don’t come from rural America and don’t

understand how modern production agriculture works think of manure pouring into

streams, and farmers applying five times the fertilizer and other inputs needed.

This is not the case.

America’s farmers are the best stewards of our land and water. They not only care

about the land because they live on it, but they also need to ensure it is productive

for years to come. All of our producers voluntarily use Best Management Practices.

It is also amazing to see how technology is being implemented to improve management practices. Farmers in Minnesota and around the country use global positioning

systems and computers connected to their sprayers. Soils samples taken in every

portion of their fields ensure that they spray just what is needed for that soil type.

They use this to ensure that they spray the exact amount of inputs in every portion

of their fields. Remember that fertilizer and other inputs cost money. Farmers know

that fertilizer running off the field into streams wastes money and does not help

their crops grow.

I also want to point out that most of the recommendations in the report relating

to agriculture have already been implemented, either fully or partially. You recommend more strict regulations for animal feeding operations. In late 2002, EPA

issued updated strict CAFE ́ regulations and states are quickly coming into compliance and our producers are doing the same. Let’s not forget though that compliance

can be a very expensive and certainly can be hardest on some of our smaller and

mid-size producers.

Most of your recommendations in regard to USDA conservation programs have already been implemented, many as part of the 2002 Farm Bill. The Farm Bill’s unprecedented commitment to conservation contained more than $17 billion for conservation programs, and as you recommend, this funding is tied to compliance and

cooperation with other programs. Approximately $1 billion annually is spent on the

Environmental Quality Incentive Program, which cost shares environmental projects

to, among other things, help producers comply with CAFE ́ rules.

In addition, you recommend a watershed approach. Minnesota and many other

states have implemented Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs to tackle

runoff issues on a watershed basis. The Conservation Security Program is a new

and unique program that, while still being implemented, provides financial incentives for conservation practices.

I could go on and on.

I’ll close again, with a word of caution. We need to be careful to consider the economic cost to our producers and also give America’s farmers credit for the care and

steps they’ve already taken to protect our oceans and environment.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you.

And once again, let me stress that we will submit some questions

to you, those outlined by Dr. Ehlers, and you will get the benefit

of the comments of our distinguished Vice Chairman, Mr. Gutknecht, who will have a few other questions. We would appreciate

a timely response, and we are mindful of your schedules, too. We

are not the only people in town that claim to be busy. But let me

thank all of you for serving as resources. Admiral Watkins, thank

you, particularly, for your leadership, but all of you in the field of

science, you know, you are preaching to the choir here. I mean, we

are arguing all of the time with OMB and other agencies on the

importance of making the investment that we all appreciate is absolutely necessary for our long-range future and to guarantee that

we remain preeminent in the international community. And shame

on us if we don’t heed the call and address the need.

Thank you very much. With that, we are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(103)

Appendix:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

104

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Admiral James D. Watkins, U.S. Navy (Retired); Chairman, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

Q1. Dr. Freilich testified that rather than having control of research satellites (once

in orbit) transferred from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), those

agencies should instead establish an Interagency Transition Office to better coordinate planning and development of satellite programs between NASA and

NOAA. Such an office was recommended by the National Research Council in

its 2003 report ‘‘Satellite Observations of the Earth’s Environment—Accelerating the Transition of Research to Operations.’’ Please explain why the Commission did not recommend an Interagency Transition Office. What other options, if any, did the Commissioners discuss for improving the transition between NASA research programs and NOAA operational programs?

A1. The Commission specifically did not recommend an Interagency Transition Office because we did not see that as a particularly viable option. It would not, in our

opinion, rectify the existing problem of lack of transition of research satellites into

operational ones. As we note in our report, ‘‘The integration of space-based Earth

environmental observing operations into one agency will greatly ease the implementation of a functional national system. By transferring Earth, and particularly

ocean, observing satellite missions to NOAA, more seamless concept-to-operations

data collection will be possible.’’

We also note in the report that NOAA and NASA need to work together to

achieve the smooth transfer of Earth-observing satellites and we state very specifically in Recommendation 26.8 that, ‘‘NOAA and NASA should work together to

identify research satellite missions which have operational applications and to ensure the smooth transition of each Earth environmental observing satellite after its

launch.’’

During our deliberations we did not consider other options for accomplishing the

transfer of Earth-observing satellite operations from NASA to NOAA. Our recommendation is based on the model which is currently being used for the transfer

of the polar orbiting and geostationary weather satellite operations in which NASA

has research, engineering, and development responsibility for the satellites and

operational control of the satellites is turned over to NOAA after the integrity of

the satellite is confirmed in orbit.

Q2. What is the difference between coastal observing systems and ocean observing

systems? If there is not enough money to completely fund both systems, how

should Congress allocate funding between the two systems and their components?

A2. While there is a differing geographic focus and varying parameters to be measured, coastal and ocean observing systems are integral components of the single Integrated Ocean Observing System, which also includes a global component. All three

components are critical to the success of the IOOS. Thus, it is not realistic to consider funding one component, rather it must be viewed as an ‘‘integrated’’ system

whose growth should be balanced across the three elements—coastal, ocean, and

global. Our plan for building the IOOS is a step-wise process in which the first stage

is implementation of two national pilot projects and one or two international pilot

projects to link existing systems and produce operational applications relevant to

national policy and a broad spectrum of users. Even with limited funding available,

these pilot projects could still be developed. The pilot projects will provide important

visibility and demonstrate the potential economic and societal benefits of the full

system, while advancing research and development of useful technologies and applications.

Q3. Dr. Pietrafesa testified that NOAA does not have sufficient in-house leadership

and technical capability to implement the Integrated Ocean Observing System

(IOOS). Do you agree with his assessment? If so, how can the situation be improved to carry out the Commission’s recommendation that NOAA be the lead

agency in implementing IOOS?

A3. The Commission clearly recognized the limitation of the current NOAA organization, and highlighted the need to address these issues as part of the process for

105

strengthening NOAA. In Chapter 7, ‘‘Strengthening the Federal Agency Structure’’

the Commission states:

‘‘NOAA needs both to manage its current activities more effectively and, if some

or all of the recommendations discussed in this report are implemented, to handle a number of new responsibilities. For example, Chapter 26 discusses significant improvements that will be needed at NOAA to enable its effective implementation of the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), including streamlined distribution of funds to other involved agencies, closer partnerships with

industry and academia, and the ability to assume operational responsibilities

for satellite Earth observing programs. A stronger, more effective, science-based

and service-oriented ocean agency—one that contributes to better management

of oceans and coasts through an ecosystem-based approach—is needed.’’

Contrary to Dr. Pietrafesa’s statement, we believe that NOAA has the necessary

core capacity which can be enhanced to achieve the requisite management, communication and science capabilities. Throughout our report we call for an overall

strengthening of NOAA and discuss in some detail specific areas in which the agency needs to improve to take on the increased responsibilities we recommend for it.

Inherent in our concept of strengthening NOAA is the recognition that action must

taken to make it more capable, effective and efficient. As part of this process the

Commission also recognized the potential need for NOAA to reconsider its current

organizational structure, stating in Chapter 7:

‘‘NOAA’s three primary functions can be categorized as follows: 1) assessment,

prediction, and operations for ocean, coastal, and atmospheric environments; 2)

marine resource and area management; and 3) scientific research and education. One of the critical objectives for a strengthened NOAA is improved interaction within and among these categories. It is important for the execution of

NOAA’s functions to complement and support each other. For example, resource

management decisions should be based on the best available science, research

efforts should be planned to support the agency’s management missions, and all

research—sea, land, and air—should be connected and coordinated. Changes of

this nature will likely require adjustments to the internal operation of the agency, including possible additional changes to the current line office structure.’’

These changes will require Congress to pass an organic act for NOAA, as highlighted in recommendation 7–1, an action that I identified in my testimony as one

of this Congresses’ highest priorities. I would also emphasize the need for an interagency coordination mechanism, such as the National Ocean Council we propose, to

ensure the coordination and cooperation of all federal agencies in integrated coastal,

ocean and Earth observations. NOAA should have a lead role in this effort; however,

by no means should it be the only agency, nor should it duplicate effort or capacity

that is more appropriately housed in another federal agency.

Q4. Dr. Freilich testified that ‘‘While better interagency coordination is necessary,

any transition to a primarily single-agency approach must be measured and robust. The transition must ensure that research, education, and management activities are not neglected in the face of operational requirements and constrained

budgets. There are advantages to having multiple agencies with overlapping responsibilities. Different agencies will address challenges in different ways. One

may falter, but it is likely that another will succeed. Concentrating ocean responsibilities in a single agency without strong assurances of success is an extremely

fragile strategy.’’ What is your response to Dr. Freilich? Did the Commissioners

consider risks, such as the one mentioned above, that a single agency might

face?

A4. Yes, in our recommendations to strengthen NOAA we did consider the potential

risks that concentrating certain ocean responsibilities in a single agency might pose.

And, quite frankly, we found those risks to be minimal; they paled in comparison

to the limited capacity for coordination and communication of the current bureaucratic system. I appreciate Dr. Freilich’s concerns in this regard, but I believe the

National Ocean Policy Framework we outline in Chapter 4 of the report will go a

long way towards alleviating any significant concerns regarding the strengthening

of NOAA and concentration of additional responsibilities within the agency. As an

example, even though NOAA would have budgetary and operational responsibility

for the IOOS including satellites, it would be required to coordinate with other federal agencies and gain prior approval for proposed actions and expenditures from

the National Ocean Council. Having an interagency NOC with that level of authority and chaired by an Assistant to the President would virtually eliminate any risks

of NOAA or any other federal agency ‘‘going it alone’’ on ocean science, education

106

and management policy actions. The key to strengthening NOAA and giving it additional responsibilities is to make sure it is also given the tools and the resources

necessary to get the job done right.

Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

Q1. Are there specific science and research needs for the Great Lakes that are different from those of saltwater ecosystems?

A1. In a word, no. We explicitly included the Great Lakes in our deliberations and

in the writing of our report and treated them as the United States’ northern ocean

and northern coastline from the very beginning. Our early adoption of a holistic ecosystem-based management strategy as one of our guiding principles unequivocally

dictated that the Great Lakes had to be considered in the same manner as we did

for the oceans. The exact same categories of problems facing the Nation’s salt

oceans—point and non-point source pollution, over-fishing, dead zones, coastal development, contaminated seafood, natural hazards, invasive species, dredging, commerce and transportation, education and stewardship, and coastal development to

name but some of them—face the Great Lakes. Thus, the broad science and research needs are the same. The site specific issues obviously do differ, for example

zebra mussels are not a saltwater problem, but the same type of site-specific differences occur among the different ocean and marine coastal ecosystems. However,

we believe that the national and regional strategies and processes we discuss and

recommend in our report will serve the needs of the Great Lakes just as well as

they do the open and coastal ocean areas.

The potential impact of increased water diversion for domestic, industrial and agricultural purposes at first glance would appear to be unique to the Great Lakes.

But in reality it is not since aquifer drawdown and diversion of riverine waters are

issues impacting marine coastal areas as land development and population growth

continue to occur at high rates and as more and more marine coastal communities

seriously consider turning to desalination of seawater to meet growing demand.

One good way for the Great Lakes governmental bodies to ensure that their issues

and concerns and those of their constituencies are not overlooked by the National

Ocean Council is to work together to develop and implement a Great Lakes Regional

Ocean Council as the Commission outlines in its proposed National Ocean Policy

Framework.

Q2. Given that the coastline of the Great Lakes is longer than the entire U.S. Atlantic coastline, is the Great Lakes basin receiving a fair portion of coastal research

and management funds?

A2. This is a very difficult and subjective question to answer. It could just as easily

be asked for the other coastal areas as well. To make a judgment simply based on

miles of shoreline is not a valid or credible approach. To address the question

knowledgeably and adequately and based on real need would almost require a task

force or committee of its own. The Commission did not address the question of regional funding distribution. Rather, we recommended that one of the functions of

the National Ocean Council would be to, ‘‘guide the effective use of science in ocean

policy and ensure the availability of data and information for decision-making at national and regional levels.’’ We also recommend that the Assistant to the President

‘‘. . .consult with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director and NOC

members to identify programs that contribute significantly to the national policy for

oceans and coasts, advise OMB and the agencies on appropriate funding levels for

ocean- and coastal-related activities.’’ In other words, the needs of the Great Lakes

must be considered in the context of national ocean and coastal objectives, and an

appropriate balance will need to be struck. Probably the best answer I can give is

to iterate the value of creating a Great Lakes Regional Ocean Council to ensure that

the coastal research and management and other needs of the Great Lakes are recognized and considered by the National Ocean Council.

Q3. You support increasing funding for ocean exploration from $10 million to $100

million annually. Given the difficult budgetary situation, why should we spend

so much money on ocean exploration when our coastal regions face enormous

problems with pollution and declining fish populations?

A3. As the Commission notes in its report, 95 percent of the ocean floor remain unexplored and unmapped and yet past experience has taught us that these vast areas

are teeming with unknown numbers of new species and untold natural and cultural

resources that we can only begin to imagine. Hydrothermal vents in the Pacific,

chemosynthetic communities in the Gulf of Mexico, numerous new species of fish

107

and invertebrates, and important archaeological sites are but a few of the important

discoveries made in the past thirty years alone. There is much more out there that

remains to be discovered and which will make significant contributions to humanity

in areas such as archaeology, marine-derived medicines, understanding the ocean’s

role in climate, and new energy sources. We see exploration as a critical component

of the national ocean science strategy we lay out in our report. Exploration and research compliment each other; discovery leads to new research and research findings lead to new discovery. Both are important to advancing our scientific understanding of the oceans.

Ocean exploration also offers an unprecedented opportunity to engage the general

public in marine science and conservation. Exploration missions to the depths of the

ocean provide images of ancient human artifacts, amazing creatures, and never-before-seen ecosystems. These images stimulate the imagination of people of all ages

and can be used in both formal and informal educational settings. It is the exploration activities of oceanographers like Dr. Bob Ballard, a member of our Commission, that kindles the desire to learn in young and old people alike and that helps

to foster and galvanize a stewardship ethic in them.

When considering the importance of the world’s oceans in human history and in

regulating climate change, guaranteeing food security, providing energy resources,

and enabling worldwide commerce, I find it astounding that we still know so little

about the oceans and devote so little resources to exploring them and making new

discoveries for the benefit of humankind. One hundred million dollars is not a lot

of money to commit to gaining a better understanding of the 95 percent of the

oceans we know virtually nothing about. I find it astounding that we know more

about the surface of Mars than we do about the bottom of our oceans or that maps

of Mars’ surface are of higher resolution than maps of our ocean sea floor. We need

to focus greater attention on the planet we live on and on the oceans which cover

more than 70 percent of it and in doing so we will reap scientific, economic and cultural rewards beyond those associated with the space exploration program.

108

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Andrew R. Solow, Director, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution

Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

Q1. In your testimony you expressed support for the Commission’s recommendation

to establish a National Ocean Council. Why do you think this is a better approach to coordination than the existing (or a strengthened) National Oceanic

Partnership Program (NOPP)?

A1. The National Oceanic Partnership Program (NOPP) provides a good way to integrate science and technology across agencies. However, it is not set up to integrate

ocean policy, as is the intent of the proposed National Ocean Council. I believe that

both are needed.

Q2. The Commission recommends transferring several responsibilities from other

agencies to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Do

you agree with these recommendations? If not, which programs should not be

transferred? Are there programs not mentioned by the Commission that should

be transferred to NOAA?

A2. I believe that it is first and foremost important to strengthen NOAA as it now

exists before transferring new responsibilities to it. There is a need to modernize

the way that NOAA is structured and operates so that it can perform its current

mission effectively and efficiently. An important part of this modernization would

be to strengthen procedures for external advice and review. It does not make sense

to me to transfer new responsibilities to NOAA before its ability to meet its current

responsibilities are strengthened.

Q3. What is the difference between coastal observing systems and ocean observing

systems? If there is not enough money to completely fund both systems, how

should Congress allocate funding between the two systems and their components?

A3. Although the line between coastal and ocean observing systems is not always

clear, the former tends to focus on processes that occur over the continental shelf

and the latter tends to focus on processes beyond the shelf. In some ways, coastal

processes are of more immediate importance to human society—for example,

through connections to fisheries, pollution, erosion, etc. However, processes that

occur beyond the shelf can have profound impacts on society through their connection to climate. In my opinion, how to allocate resources not only between coastal

and ocean observing systems but also within each system has not been adequately

addressed by the oceanographic community. If it were up to me, I would establish

a process for doing this—for example, administered through the Consortium for

Ocean Research and Education (CORE)—with a clear charge and a relatively short

lifetime.

Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

Q1. One of the Commission’s recommendations is that Congress pass an organic act

for NOAA. The Committee is currently developing this bill. Are there specific

structural components of NOAA that you believe should be written into law? If

so, should an organic act reflect the current structure of NOAA or a different

one? Are there specific missions for NOAA that should be in law?

A1. One important change that the organic act should include is an explicit statement that basic scientific research and education are part of NOAA’s mission. On

the structural side, I believe that it is critical that a functional external scientific

advisory board be established to provide substantive advice and review on both

planning and execution.

Q2. Given that the coastline of the Great Lakes is longer than the entire U.S. Atlantic coastline, is the Great Lakes basin receiving a fair portion of coastal research

and management funds?

A2. I am embarrassed to say that I do not know what proportion of funds are allocated to the Great Lakes. As a general proposition, I do not believe that funds

should be allocated on the basis of coastline length. There are other, more sensible

criteria connected to the scientific and societal problems that funds are used to address.

109

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Shirley A. Pomponi, Acting Managing Director, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution

Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

Q1. In your testimony you expressed support for the Commission’s recommendation

to establish a National Ocean Council. Why do you think this is a better approach to coordination than the existing (or strengthened) National Oceanic

Partnership Program (NOPP)?

A1. Agencies tend to look out for their own, wholly-owned priorities first, leaving

promising, cooperative programs such as NOPP to languish. NOPP’s National Ocean

Research Leadership Council (NORLC) was intended as a forum that would bring

together the leaders of the participating agencies to discuss the great challenges and

opportunities that faced the ocean science community.

This has not happened because NORLC meetings are rarely attended by agency

leaders, thus making NORLC a forum that can only present and discuss ideas and

programs, but cannot make decisions. Moreover, agencies do not budget major

project funds to NOPP, because to do so would be relinquish those funds to collective use rather than perhaps better defined, more urgent programs that indeed are

congressionally-mandated.

The U.S. Commission of Ocean Policy recommends establishing a National Ocean

Council (NOC) precisely to remedy many of NOPP’s shortcomings. Chief among

them is the lack of attention ocean issues get from the highest levels of the Executive branch. Establishing the NOC within the Executive Office of the President will

immediately elevate the visibility and relevance of ocean issues within the Executive

Branch. While Congressional support is necessary for the creation of policies and

programs, the Executive branch has far-reaching influence on the vitality and importance policies and programs subsequently enjoy. It was Vice President Hubert

Humphrey’s support and personal interest in ocean policy that elevated the importance of the Stratton Commission Report and gave it such lasting impact.

Likewise, a 1997 National Research Council report recommended creating an office at the highest level of the Executive branch for the purpose of coordinating the

Nation’s ocean policies. Given that at least 15 federal departments and agencies

have some jurisdiction over ocean issues, a high-level coordinating entity must exist

that can provide leadership and break bureaucratic log jams between competing interests and between federal departments and agencies. If the NOC is created, the

Departments of Agriculture, Defense, and Homeland Security, to name a few, as

well as NOAA, EPA, Navy, Interior and other agencies, will have to coalesce around

important ocean issues and policies because leadership will come from the very

highest levels of the Executive Office.

Q2. What is the difference between coastal and ocean observing systems? If there is

not enough money to completely fund both systems, how should Congress allocate funding between these two systems and their components?

A2. The differences between coastal and ocean observing systems can best be defined by the purposes they serve. Coastal observing systems will be most helpful in

describing and monitoring human impacts on natural systems and resources within

the US EEZ. Therefore, coastal observing systems will tend to be most useful in

gathering data:

• to develop models and management practices to mitigate the harm caused by

human impacts;

• for predictive models that can improve the efficiency of navigation and maritime transport;

• for national security intelligence assessments and to bolster homeland security;

• for basic research in coastal, estuarine and continental slope systems; and

• to develop products and services of commercial and societal value, much like

the National Weather Service does with its weather forecasts.

For the most part, coastal observing systems will return benefits on a regional

and national scale.

Ocean observing systems on the other hand will serve economic, scientific and social purposes on a continental and global scale. Systems that can measure physical,

110

chemical, biological, geological and atmospheric variables will in essence be taking

the pulse of the oceans and will enable scientists to:

• understand and model climate change;

• accurately track fisheries trends and better manage fish stocks;

• predict storm events;

• understand and model circulation patterns; and

• understand the interactions at the land-sea interface and at the atmospheresea interface.

Beyond these benefits, ocean observing systems will play an integrative role in

helping scientists understand the entire Earth system. Taken to its logical conclusion, a global ocean observing system should become a component of an all-inclusive

Earth observing system that will gather data on land, in the ocean and in the atmosphere.

Defense, Homeland Security and Intelligence gathering would gain new surveillance and intelligence gathering capabilities, allowing coverage and tracking of most

maritime activity taking place within the system’s coverage area.

It is difficult and somewhat arbitrary to argue for the development of either a

coastal observing system first, followed by an ocean observing system later on, or

vice versa, but considering that several incomplete and poorly inter-connected coastal observing systems already exist, this might be the place to start. Also, coastal

observing systems might provide greater immediate societal benefits, giving these

systems the appearance of being more immediately valuable.

Given that numerous coastal observing systems already exist, it would possibly

require a smaller investment to bring all of these systems up to shared acceptable

standards and then to interconnect all existing systems. If any obvious location gaps

exist between systems, it would be necessary to fund the construction of enough systems to create a seamless web of coastal sensors from Alaska to Maine.

If this course of action is pursued it should be coupled with a comprehensive effort

to improve and standardize data management among all existing coastal observing

systems because the potentially biggest pitfall would be to have a system that lacks

interconnectedness and the necessary data management protocols to make the collected data widely accessible.

Q3. Dr. Pietrafiesa testified that NOAA does not have sufficient in-house leadership

and technical capability to implement the Integrated Ocean Observing System

(IOOS). Do you agree with this assessment? If so, how can the situation be improved to carry out the Commission’s recommendation that NOAA be the lead

agency in implementing IOOS?

A3. As recommended in the Ocean Commission report, NOAA, as the Nation’s lead

agency for the collection, analysis and dissemination of atmospheric and oceanic

data, should be the lead agency for the implementation of the IOOS. However,

equally important to note is that NOAA cannot develop IOOS on its own. Given that

the IOOS is a very diverse system of systems, its development and implementation

must be coordinated using the best federal, academic and private resources available. Furthermore, overall direction and oversight must be provided from above,

perhaps in the form envisioned by the Commission, the National Ocean Council.

While it is important that NOAA lead the implementation of the IOOS, successful

implementation may require significant restructuring of NOAA. If IOOS is to be

successfully implemented NOAA will need to be reorganized according to its primary, or mission-dictated, functions.

Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

Q1. One of the Commission’s recommendations is that Congress pass an organic act

for NOAA. The Committee is currently developing this bill. Are there specific

structural components of NOAA that you believe should be written into law? If

so, should an organic act reflect the current structure of NOAA or a different

one? Are there specific missions for NOAA that should be in law?

A1. The Commission is substantially right in recommending a reorganization and

codification of NOAA’s functions. NOAA needs to be restructured to carry out its

three most important functions.

a. Observing systems (atmospheric and oceanic)

Because the scientific frame of reference has shifted to ecosystem-based approaches, and as we embrace the notion of looking at interactions between

111

large scale systems, it is no longer useful to delineate research according to

where it is carried out, i.e., in the atmosphere or in the ocean. Add to that

the urgency with which we need to develop observing systems and it becomes quite clear that NOAA’s current structure which separates atmospheric science from oceanography is no longer productive.

Rather, the future lies in seamlessly moving across the atmosphere-ocean

interface by building new tools, instruments and facilities that will allow scientists to ask a fresh set of questions about the interactions between these

systems. NOAA’s greatest contribution over the next decade will be to implement and coordinate the operation of the Nation’s observing systems. Consolidating observing technologies and operations in this fashion will yield

more scientific insight and will enhance the efficiency of NOAA’s operations.

b. Resource protection, management, restoration.

There is little doubt anymore that the Nation’s coasts, including its wetlands, estuaries, Great Lakes, and coral reefs are in considerable peril. For

that reason, resource protection and restoration must become a central

theme for NOAA if it wishes to remain relevant and be trusted to provide

solutions to the restoration, management and remediation issues that now

impact our coastal areas.

c. Research and Education.

Research and education are very important functions if we as a society wish

to overcome the challenges that now overwhelm us and escape our understanding. NOAA should make research and education a foundational component of their mission. The reason for this to both advance scientific knowledge and improve humankind’s and Earth’s condition, but also to increase

the U.S. public’s awareness of, and appreciation for, the state of our oceans.

A general public that understands the costs and consequences of inadequate

stewardship of our ocean resources will demand corrective action and will

also more readily understand the need for conservation and remediation.

Research and education are functions that can very well be coordinated

by NOAA, while allowing a large proportion of the actual work to be done

by the best qualified extramural applicants for those research or reading

programs. Open, competitive and merit-based processes for awarding research and education grants are very effective ways of making sure that

public money is spent on the best available research and education products.

Q2. You support increasing funding for ocean exploration from $10 million to $100

million annually. Given the difficult budgetary situation, why should we spend

so much money on ocean exploration when our coastal regions face enormous

problems with pollution and declining fish populations?

A2. As a member of the panel that developed the National Research Council report

titled Exploration of the Seas (2003, National Academy Press) and as a member of

the committee that recommended the original framework of what was to become the

Ocean Exploration program within NOAA, I have been involved in lively discussions

regarding the risks and rewards of exploration. I have also had the opportunity to

conduct missions of exploration using Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution’s

Johnson-Sea-Link submersibles for the collection of novel specimens with pharmaceutical potential.

Bringing my experience to this debate, I am firmly convinced that if exploration

is to be undertaken it needs to be done in a manner that allows investigators to:

• access new and truly unexplored sites (which may require more expensive

transits to and from the exploration sites);

• utilize, within reason, the most appropriate tools to carry out the mission,

rather than the cheapest compromise solution;

• engage in truly interdisciplinary exploration, thus creating conditions for new

and creative ways of looking at new, as well as established research questions; and

• develop new tools and technologies for exploration.

Upon pondering resource allocations for research and exploration programs, it

might be useful to establish the smallest possible funding amount that would return

worthwhile results. Starting with the $10 million figure for current exploration efforts, allow me to list what does not get funded:

• post-cruise science is not funded; not all discoveries are made during the actual off-shore effort;

112

• data management is not funded; so no one else in the community has access

to data collected with public funds;

• only limited technology development is funded. Completely new technology

and sensors capable of measuring unsampled properties at novel sites are beyond financial reach;

• ship, ROV, and HOV costs are leveraged in an ad hoc manner with other investigators who are not necessarily doing work that is relevant or complementary to one’s own work, thus emphasizing time at sea rather than productive

collaborations;

• international cooperative efforts are not supported; and

• scientific community does not see a small exploration program as a promising

or stable source of funding.

Therefore, in a sense, one could argue that spending $10 million on an inadequate

program is a waste of public funds.

While coastal pollution is a very real and dire threat that requires immediate and

aggressive attention, and while the budgetary picture gives plenty of reasons to say,

‘‘the Nation can’t afford a $100 million exploration program,’’ we should nonetheless

pause to recognize that the term ‘‘exploration’’ is loaded with excitement, adventure,

and optimism. Pollution remediation, on the other hand, conjures up images of oil

soaked birds, floating trash and other unpleasant reminders of man’s carelessness

and indifference. No matter how important and pressing it is to spend money on

reversing the effects of coastal pollution, it is still a depressing message, unlike the

positive, expectant, can-do spirit of the exploration message.

$100 million is the cost of running an exploration program that can not only carry

out its mission, but can also infect the general public with the excitement and anticipation of delving into the unknown. In the greater scheme of things, exploration

symbolizes hope and optimism: and, as we often find out when we take our ships

and submersibles to new, unexplored locations, we discover new life forms, some of

which hold promising compounds that could someday be used to fight human diseases. Finally, it is important to consider ‘‘exploration’’ as the first step in the continuum of research—allowing us to formulate the questions we ask and the

hypotheses we test.

113

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Director of External Affairs, College of Physical

and Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University

Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

Q1. You testified that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) does not adequately use the external community as a resource to quickly

develop and transition science and technology research into operations. Please

provide specific examples of cases where NOAA neglected to take adequate advantage of expertise in the external community. What could Congress do to encourage NOAA to work more closely with the external community?

A1.

a. The concept of ‘‘helicity’’ which basically means the condition of the atmosphere favorable to support spinning motions (like counterclockwise during a

thunderstorm; thereby creating a tornado). This concept was introduced in

about 1972 by a university scientist and it took until the mid 1990’s to be

accepted within the NWS as a useful operational forecast concept.

b. Operational forecast wave modeling at NOAA is a generation old and not in

keeping with the state of university science.

c. Coupled ocean—atmospheric modeling has been done successfully at universities and could be made operational at NOAA but this has not been done.

d. Ocean buoy development is sorely lagging at NOAA. NOAA’s technology,

which is well tested and highly durable, is also out of date for much of the

Nation’s waters. Other technologies, developed by industry and universities

is also highly durable, far less expensive than NOAA’s technology, more portable, more modern and more cost-effective.

e. River/Estuary/Ocean Coupled modeling is being done in the university community but lags badly at NOAA.

f. Highly advanced Ecosystem modeling is being done in the university community and private industry but lags badly at NOAA.

g. Injesting of precipitation data into coastal and estuary models is now being

attempted by the university community but NOAA is not engaged.

h. Socioeconomic data analyses and modeling, which has never been a NOAA

activity, but is needed by the agency, will best be done by the university

community. However, as the NOAA socioeconomic enterprise within NOAA

is beginning to take root and emerge, there does not appear to be much university engagement.

i. Tropical cyclone modeling within NOAA has traditionally ignored the importance of the ocean. While NOAA resisted including the ocean in its TC modeling, it finally was forced to by the university community, but it still remains a NOAA centric activity.

j. Storm surge and coastal and inland flood inundation modeling at NOAA is

several decades out of date. The university is well ahead of NOAA but NOAA

chooses to maintain the status quo.

k. Socioeconomic data analyses and modeling at NOAA was essentially non-existent but following strong recommendations of the NOAA Science Advisory

Board, NOAA created an internal activity. However, NOAA does not have

the core competency to conduct this in-house without engaging the external

community and there is no evidence that this is being done.

l. Congress could empower and authorize the NOAA Science Advisory Board to

assess NOAA’s science and technology to ensure that NOAA is supporting the

creation and utilization of the best science and technology available to meet

its mission. The NOAA SAB could evaluate program progress, with metrics,

sponsor external reviews and make recommendations on how NOAA should

proceed; either internally, externally or some combination of both.

Q2. The Commission recommends transferring several responsibilities from other

agencies to NOAA. Do you agree with these recommendations? If not, which programs should not be transferred? Are there programs not mentioned by the Commission that should be transferred to NOAA?

A2.

114

a. NASA satellite sensors and satellites that have NOAA applications, particularly with regard to operations, should be transferred to NOAA; including

the necessary resources and assets required to maintain and advance the capability.

b. The NASA data archives that have value for NOAA’s mission as relates to

weather, water, climate, fisheries, etc., should be transferred to NOAA’s National Climatic data Center with all assets.

c. USGS’s river and estuary modeling program assets should be transferred to

NOAA. USGS should focus on maintaining the Nation’s river gage monitoring network and leave the modeling to NOAA.

Q3. Please expand on your statement that NOAA does not have sufficient in-house

leadership and technical capability to implement the Integrated Ocean Observing System. Please provide specific examples and any recommendations you may

have to remedy the problem.

A3.

a. NOAA does not have the necessary experience in designing, deploying, maintaining and upgrading ocean monitoring systems. The TAO–TOGA Array

was a university-NOAA partnership. That is how the IOOS system architecture/infrastructure should be designed up front.

b. Regionally focused and global scale focused teams of university and NOAA

scientists, engineers and technical staff should be brought together and then

these teams should work together to create the TAO Array analogues.

Q4. What is the difference between coastal observing systems and ocean observing

systems? If there is not enough money to completely fund both systems, how

should Congress allocate funding between the two systems and their components?

A4. From the East Coast U.S. perspective the difference is establishing a more robust capability to monitor and make forecasts of weather and ecosystem variability

in the marine, coastal environments of the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. East Coast and

the Great Lakes. Deeper ocean observing systems are necessary on the West Coast

of the U.S. because weather systems over the Pacific Ocean generally move east

across the Pacific Ocean towards the U.S. Pacific Coast. In the GOM, along the U.S.

East Coast and in the Great Lakes, the most expedient and productive investments

would be in the coastal observing array; especially since the waters are so shallow

on the broad continental shelves. On the West Coast an optimal deep water array

along with a near coastal array are both required.

Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

Q1. One of the Commission’s recommendations is that Congress pass an organic act

for NOAA. The Committee is currently developing this bill. Are there specific

structural components of NOAA that you believe should be written into law? If

so, should an organic act reflect the current structure of NOAA or a different

one? Are there specific missions for NOAA that should be in law?

A1.

a. NOAA should have more responsibility in the monitoring and modeling the

hydrologic, i.e., water systems of the Nation. The mention of ‘‘hydrologic systems’’ is done because this is a vastly overlooked responsibility that NOAA

has that no one seems to really pay attention to but it should be part of this

document which details NOAA’s reason for existence. Water, i.e., hydrologic

systems include the water in the Oceans, the Atmosphere and then what’s

on land. Now, one could argue that land water is overseen by USGS but

USGS really only is good at the river monitoring network and underground

water. NOAA is responsible for satellite estimates of precipitation, the National Doppler Radar Network, from which precipitation estimates can be derived, and for river, estuary and coastal (including the Great Lakes) flood

forecasts. So, hydrologic system responsibilities need to part of the NOAA

Organic Act. In fact, one of NOAA’s four core areas is ‘‘weather and water.’’

b. The most rapid advances from targeted research to the creation of new operational forecast tools at NWS WFOs has occurred where WFOs are co-located

on university campuses. So, identifying weather forecast challenges/issues

that are really regional to local in nature, and for which there is core competency at the local WFO and university, could be addressed in a formal way

115

via the creation of ‘‘test beds’’ where the problem(s) could be addressed, solutions found and then tested out to ensure that the forecasts improve. Once

proven, the new tool becomes part of the routine operations of that particular

WFO specifically and probably part of the NWS in general. In summary,

NOAA needs to partner better with the university community and work with

the latter to improve its ability to better meet its mission. The NOAA SAB

should be more like the National Science Foundation’s National Science

Board (the NSB). The point is that the NSB is a fiduciary board and the

NOAA SAB should be more like the NSB. In fact, if NOAA ever became an

independent agency, then the NOAA SAB should be almost exactly like the

NSF NSB. The purpose of the Science Advisory Board should be expanded

beyond just advising the Administrator and should be to also provide independent oversight of NOAA to Congress on long-range and short-range strategies for research, education, budget assessments, major project and program

evaluation, policy directions and the application of science to resource management and environmental assessment and prediction. Science Advisory

Board members who have rotated off of the Board could become ex-officio

members of the board and be invited to regular meetings of the Board. Staffing support of the Science Advisory Board could be hired by and report to

the Board.

c. No real changes in agency mission; which is quite broad and deep as it is.

Q2. You support increasing funding for ocean exploration from $10 million to $100

million annually. Given the difficult budgetary situation, why should we spend

so much money on ocean exploration when our coastal regions face enormous

problems with pollution and declining fish populations?

A2. Actually this is a good point. The coastal issues of the Gulf, East Coast, Great

Lakes, Alaska, Hawaii, and West Coast are challenging and sufficiently demanding

enough that if there were additional investments to be made this is where the

money should go first. My comment was with regard to monies I believe are being

wasted in coastal zone management for coastal zones that are being mismanaged,

in my estimation. I would rather see this money be reprogrammed for Ocean Exploration where new pharmaceuticals and life forms, etc., will likely be discovered ultimately for the betterment of the human species and other life forms of our planet.

116

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Submitted to Mr. Michael H. Freilich, Associate Dean, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University

These questions were submitted to the witness, but were not responded to by the

time of publication.

Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

Q1. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has proposed cutting some of its Earth Science projects to fund the President’s exploration vision.

Are there any of these projects that you think it would be particularly detrimental to cut? How important is it, for example, to restore funding for the Global Precipitation Mission?

Q2. Is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) adequately

preparing for data management in its new satellites programs (the National

Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, NPOESS, and the

next generation of Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites, GOES–

R)?