U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

75–681 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 110–1164 

OVERSIGHT OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, 

FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 6, 2008 

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

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director 

CHRISTINE D. KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

PAUL NAGLE, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST 

GUARD 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chairman 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Ranking 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 6, 2008 ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Boxer .................................................................................... 60 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 1 

List of NOAA Contributors to the IPCC Assessments .................................. 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 7 

Statement of Senator Stevens ................................................................................ 14 

WITNESSES

Fosmark, Kathy, Co-Chair, Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries ....................................................................................................................... 52

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Gray, Jefferson, Superintendent, Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

and Underwater Preserve .................................................................................... 39 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Lautenbacher, Jr., Vice Admiral Conrad C., (U.S. Navy, Ret.), Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce .................. 15 

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

Levin, Hon. Carl, U.S. Senator from Michigan ..................................................... 3 

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

Williams, Dr. Susan L., Professor of Evolution and Ecology, Director, Bodega 

Marine Laboratory, University of California at Davis ...................................... 42 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted to Vice Admiral Conrad C. 

Lautenbacher, Jr. by: ...........................................................................................

Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 72 

Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 67 

Hon. John F. Kerry .......................................................................................... 80 

Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg ............................................................................... 86 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 81 

Hon. Olympia J. Snowe .................................................................................... 86 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from Louisiana, prepared statement .............. 65 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 

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

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria Cantwell, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Good morning. The Senate Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Oceans, 

Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard will come to order. 

We have an oversight hearing this morning on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s budget, and we will hear 

from Admiral Lautenbacher shortly, but we are going to hear from 

my colleague Senator Levin, this morning, who wants to testify 

about legislation that is also on the docket this morning as it relates to marine sanctuaries. 

So, welcome, Senator Levin. Thank you for being here this morning to talk about the impacts and expansion of proposed legislation 

in Michigan in regards to the expansion of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. 

So, welcome to the Committee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

I’d like to welcome you all to today’s oversight hearing of the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), its Fiscal Year 2009 budget, and issues 

facing the National Marine Sanctuaries program. 

Thank you, Admiral Lautenbacher, for being here today. 

I would like to start out today with an important note of congratulations. 

NOAA scientists are among the hundreds of researchers across the globe who contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

Last year, the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and I was delighted to 

see that many of NOAA’s scientists shared in this prestigious honor. 

I have here a list of the NOAA scientists who contributed to this effort, and will 

be including it in the record. 

I congratulate those individuals, and all those in NOAA who work so hard on this 

vital topic. 

Budget Overview 

I’m happy to see that for the first time, the President’s budget request for NOAA 

actually exceeds last year’s Congressional appropriation. 

2 

I am concerned, though, that when we look deeper into the numbers, this budget 

is not the victory we would like it to be. 

NOAA’s fiscal year budget request for 2009 of $4.1 billion is 5 percent above Fiscal Year 2008 enacted levels of $3.9 billion. 

Almost this entire increase, though, goes toward funding the cost overruns in the 

troubled weather and climate satellite acquisition program. 

Unfortunately, this means that while NOAA’s top-line budget request is larger, 

the President is still proposing cuts for our Nation’s ocean programs. 

Troubled Satellites Program 

Admiral, as you know, there has been a lot of attention of late to the troubles 

with NOAA’s satellite acquisition program. 

Our aging fleet of satellites monitors weather, hurricanes, the climate, and the 

oceans, and desperately needs to be replaced. 

But the failures of this acquisition are impossible to ignore. 

While cost overruns have driven the price of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System from $6.5 billion to $12.5 billion, the lead 

contractor was awarded $123 million in ‘‘award fees.’’ 

This is inexcusable. 

U.S. Census 

I am also concerned about recent revelations over the 2010 Census. 

The Census Bureau’s handheld census computer acquisition has failed miserably. 

More than doubling in price, the computers are riddled with so many problems they 

will not be ready for use during the 2010 census. 

To help pay for these troubles, Secretary Gutie ́rrez has asked Congress to transfer 

$27 million from NOAA to the Census Bureau during this fiscal year. He has also 

indicated he will need to move up to $700 million from NOAA and other agencies 

in Fiscal Year 2009 to make up for the Census shortfall. 

As these failures threaten to decimate NOAA’s budget, it is once again the oceans 

that will be asked to suffer. 

Cuts to Ocean Programs 

Because of the financial demands of the satellite acquisition program and the 

Census Bureau, we are seeing cuts proposed for many of your most important agencies. 

The National Ocean Service, the office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, and 

the National Marine Fisheries Service all see their budgets slashed. 

Despite the demands Congress laid out in the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization, and despite ocean acidification and the role the oceans play in global warming, 

the Administration still feels the need to weaken our ocean programs—in a time 

when attention to the oceans is needed now more than ever. 

In Washington, the Puget Sound Partnership is embarking on a mission to save 

the Puget Sound’s ecosystem—everything from salmon to orca whales. But the 

Puget Sound Partnership’s efforts cannot succeed without strong Federal support— 

and this budget lacks support for either the orcas or the Puget Sound. 

Salmon Recovery Fund 

If you recall, last year I told you how disappointed I was to see the President request only $67 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund—a program 

that averaged $87 million in funding per year from 2000 to 2005. 

I’m sure you can guess, then, that I and many of my colleagues are even more 

upset at this year’s request of only $35 million—representing a 60 percent cut over 

the historically-funded level. 

This funding goes to those on the front lines of salmon recovery—the states and 

tribes that do the hard, on-the-ground work to protect our salmon. 

In just the past week we have seen: 

• the emergency shut-down of West Coast Salmon Fisheries and the declaration 

of a fisheries disaster, 

• the release of new Biological Opinions for Northwest listed Salmon, and 

• the further escalation of the controversy over sea lions and salmon at the Bonneville Dam. 

In such a critical time for salmon recovery, the Bush Administration’s proposed 

cuts to our salmon recovery funding are unacceptable. 

I was also disappointed to see funding for NOAA’s Education Program take a 51 

percent cut from 2006 levels, from $34 million to $16.5 million. 

3 

I look forward to working with you and my colleagues to restore funding to these 

critical programs. 

Doppler Radar Gap 

Finally, Admiral, I would like to briefly discuss the Doppler radar gap on the 

outer coast of Washington State. 

I have discussed this issue with you before, and last year I secured funding for 

a NOAA study on how best to address this gap. 

I want to emphasize, though, that Washington State communities were devastated by massive storms and flooding last December. 

The urgency for solving this problem is greater now than ever before. 

Two months ago today, I held a community meeting on this issue in Grays Harbor, Washington, and the message from my constituents was clear: we need a solution now. 

I look forward to working with you to find that solution quickly, and implementing it as soon as possible. 

Conclusion 

So thank you again, Admiral for your testimony and for appearing here today to 

discuss NOAA’s budget. 

At this time I would like to hand it over to my colleagues for their opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. The—I very much 

appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of my bill, which 

would expand the boundaries, out into the Great Lakes, of this 

sanctuary. 

This is the only freshwater sanctuary that we have. Our other 

sanctuaries are all saltwater. And the difference that that makes, 

in terms of preservation of wrecks is significant. Because it is 

freshwater and there is no salt in it, the shipwrecks, which are— 

this area is famous for, are very well preserved, and the expansion 

of this boundary will actually preserve some of our already bestpreserved wrecks, because the waters that we’re talking about are 

deeper waters and colder waters to the ones that already exist. 

It would more than double the number of shipwrecks which are 

protected. The estimate is, now, that there are about 116 shipwrecks inside this Shipwreck Alley, the very famous area in Thunder Bay where so many of the ships which plied the Great Lakes 

were, in fact, wrecked, usually by weather. It would double that 

number to over 300 wrecks. These are a huge attraction for us. It’s 

a part of the state which is sometimes overlooked, in terms of tourism and economic development, so there is a real spinoff effect. It’s 

not just that we get divers and people who are into the history of 

the Great Lakes; this is a major part of the maritime history of the 

Great Lakes that is actually, just, located right in this area because 

of the type of ships which went down. So, this is a huge educational attraction, as well as a diving attraction, and that’s of significance to a state which is suffering a great deal economically, 

and when we have an attraction such as this, which has just been 

there now 8 years, but which has proven to be a huge magnet for 

people coming to the lakes, personally; but also, interestingly 

enough, Madam Chairman, this is, because of our telepresence and 

the connection of this sanctuary to other sanctuaries around the 

country, what is going on underneath those waters can be seen not 

only in the visitors center in Alpena, but in a number of sancVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Aug 29, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75681.TXT JACKIE
4 

tuaries around the country, in real-time. This is the new technology, which has been installed there, which means that there can 

be a connection, educationally, immediately. The curiosity of people 

around the country—indeed, all the way out to—I believe, to Hawaii; I think it’s already connected to the Hawaiian sanctuary—can 

be met. Educational opportunities can be achieved. The visitors’ 

presence can be increased. 

The bottom line is this, Madam Chairman. We’ve got an area 

now there, out in the waters—originally, it was supposed to be 

larger than it is now. It was pared down because of a reasonable 

determination that we wanted to make sure that the people along 

those shores wanted, in fact, this kind of protection. So, it was reduced from what it was originally intended to be. Now we want to 

go back and increase the protection of these ships. 

There’s no greater cost that is necessary. The only cost issue here 

is whether or not there might be a need, at some point, or a desirability, for a second NOAA boat. We can do this without a second 

NOAA boat. We can add protection to an additional 160 or 180 

ships without an additional NOAA boat. We have the Coast Guard 

out there anyway. They’re going to expand their station at Alpena 

anyway. They do the law enforcement there. They’re the ones that 

protect these ships anyway. NOAA does not go out and protect 

these ships. Their function is a different function. 

So, while it may desirable, at some point, that there be a second 

NOAA boat, we don’t have to have a second NOAA boat. There is 

no additional cost, in other words, to expanding these boundaries. 

What is additional will be the protection to more than twice as 

many shipwrecks, which represent a critical part of the maritime 

history of these lakes and represent a huge attraction for people, 

both in person and through this telepresence, to understanding this 

history, the excitement and the knowledge that it produces. 

So, we hope that this committee will approve our bill, which provides for the expansion of these waters. This is not like expanding 

a national park, where you’ve got infrastructure, where you’ve got 

trails, where you’ve got things that have a cost to them when you 

increase the size. 

My final point would be this. We recently created—fairly recently—the most recent sanctuary was the one in Hawaii, which is 

120,000 square miles of water—120,000 square miles—with one 

boat that NOAA has, basically, to perform the purpose that would 

be—is being performed by the NOAA boat that we have. Our increase is a very tiny increase, in terms of square miles, compared 

to what we just did in Hawaii. In fact, it’s, like, one—it’s 120,000 

square miles to that sanctuary in Hawaii; the number of additional 

square miles here is a very small percentage, like 3 percent of that 

area that was just created for Hawaii. So, we hope that we will 

give this additional protection to this spectacular site that is part 

of the marine history of the Great Lakes. 

We have another Great Lakes Senator which has joined us, who 

I think has a special appreciation, sensitivity about our history, our 

maritime history. The Chairman of this committee has her own 

very special understanding of our coast and the marine sanctuary 

which is in the State of Washington. And this is a unique sanctuary, because it’s freshwater. We hope that—— 

5 

And, by the way, finally, the people support this. There’s no 

doubt about that. We don’t have to go through a long—years-long 

administrative process to determine whether the people support 

this. The three counties involved are on record, their resolutions 

are on record. The townships all support this. There’s no doubt 

about the public support. So, we don’t want to wait years, needlessly, for the administrative process here to go through the hearings. The three counties have gone through that process and are 

on record as supporting this increase in the size. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify and for being with you this 

morning. I’d be happy, obviously, to try to answer a few questions, 

but there are people here that I know you want to hear from who 

have firsthand expertise, more than I do. But, again, I’d be happy 

to try to answer any questions if you have any. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

Thank you Senator Cantwell and thank you Commerce Committee members for 

allowing me to testify this morning. 

The Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, located in Lake Huron near 

Alpena, Michigan, has been a resounding success since it was created as a unique 

Federal-state partnership back in October 2000. It has preserved the proud maritime history of the Great Lakes, offered educational opportunities to children, 

adults, maritime history enthusiasts, and researchers, and provided a fascinating 

site for divers and snorkelers to explore. 

NOAA initially proposed that the sanctuary cover an area twice as big as was established in 2000, but the proposal had to be scaled back to address concerns raised 

by some in the local community. Now, community leaders and residents agree that 

it is time to expand the sanctuary; numerous local units of government have expressed their support for an expansion through resolutions. 

Last year, I introduced legislation (S. 2281) that would expand the sanctuary, 

bringing even greater benefits to the local community, historians, and people from 

across the country who take advantage of the artifacts and educational resources 

made available there. 

The current sanctuary includes 448 square miles of water and 115 miles of shoreline, and the expansion would include 3,722 square miles and include 226 miles of 

shoreline. 

Thunder Bay has been a regular byway for ships traveling on Lake Huron, and 

it earned the name ‘‘Shipwreck Alley’’ because the geography and weather patterns 

in the bay led to over 300 shipwrecks. The sanctuary currently protects 116 shipwrecks; the expansion would protect an estimated additional 178 shipwrecks. Additionally, the sanctuary reserves and interprets the remains of commercial fishing 

sites, historic docks, and other underwater archaeological sites. 

This expansion is needed to protect the maritime history of Michigan and the 

Great Lakes. Historically, this region was influenced by the demand for natural resources. Because local roads were so inadequate, the Great Lakes became an important passageway and trading route for settlement and industrialization. 

The expansion would protect a number of historically significant sites that can illuminate the history of commerce on the Great Lakes. For example, it would protect 

the CORNELIA B. WINDIATE, a three-mast wooden schooner which is one of the 

Great Lakes’ most intact shipwrecks. The ship sank in December 1875 when bound 

from Milwaukee to Buffalo with a cargo of wheat, and was featured in an episode 

of Deep Sea Detectives on The History Channel. 

This and other shipwrecks are not only historically important, they are very popular with divers. Because deep water sites are often well preserved in the cold freshwater, they contain many artifacts and provide a treasure of information about the 

past. Many of the shallow water wrecks are accessible by snorkelers, boaters and 

kayakers. 

In 2005, NOAA opened the Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center in Alpena, an 

educational station and visitors’ center that traces maritime history in the Great 

Lakes. As you know, families, school groups and history buffs can even explore the 

shipwrecks by live video feeds from divers in the sanctuary, extending the reach of 

the vast educational opportunities in the sanctuary not only to large numbers of 

6 

visitors each year, but to people around the country who visit the other 13 NOAA 

National Marine Sanctuaries. 

Visitors to Thunder Bay can also view artifacts and interpretive exhibits and 

watch films about Thunder Bay and all of our Nation’s Maritime Sanctuaries. Also, 

scientists from around the world dock their vessels in the Thunder Bay River as 

they use the facility for their research. 

The Sanctuary has also been a real asset for the local community, and the community has responded in kind. Since the establishment of the Sanctuary, local citizens have worked with the sanctuary to improve the Alpena County George N. 

Fletcher Library, to provide volunteers at festivals and outreach events, and to help 

digitize the Thunder Bay Sanctuary Research Collection. 

Since the time glaciers receded leaving the two pleasant peninsulas that form 

Michigan, the Great Lakes have shaped my home state. Physical boundaries are 

only the beginning. From the Native Americans who lived around and explored the 

lakes and adjacent land, to the European settlers who developed trading routes for 

furs, then lumber, and eventually automobiles that Michigan shipped around the 

world, the Great Lakes hold the story of Michigan’s history. One part of that story 

is being preserved at the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and that Sanctuary deserves to be expanded. 

I hope that the Committee will support this effort, and I appreciate your consideration. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, Senator, let me thank you, again, for 

being here this morning to talk about this important legislation, 

the expansion. 

It’s my understanding that diving and fishing and other recreational activities are permitted within this area. 

Senator LEVIN. That is correct. 

Senator CANTWELL. And so, that has probably led to an easier 

management and oversight, given that those activities are allowed? 

Senator LEVIN. Not only is that true, but it’s also resulted in 

greater public support. There was some concern about that on the 

part of the neighboring counties. Two of the three that did not 

originally—they wanted to wait, see how it worked out—because of 

those kind of activities being allowed, they are very supportive of 

this. All three counties that border on this area are supportive of 

this. 

Senator CANTWELL. And, in addition, it—besides the Coast 

Guard, obviously, doing their day-to-day duties on oversight of our 

waters and the variety of responsibilities that they have there, it 

looks like the Michigan State Police and County Sheriff’s Office 

and your State Department of Natural Resources are also involved 

in policing and enforcing these waters. Is that correct? 

Senator LEVIN. They are. There’s a—of course, great reliance, 

more and more, on the Coast Guard, which are—is in those waters 

anyway, because of the financial—fiscal constraints that the state 

has, make it even more difficult for our state enforcement folks to 

be there. But, the Coast Guard is in all those waters, in any event. 

I wish we could do more, from a D&R perspective, as you point out, 

but our budget constraints make that, I’m afraid, more difficult, so 

I can’t point to that as being, really, the major source of the enforcement. They’re there. There’s a presence, but it’s not as strong 

as we’d like. 

Senator CANTWELL. Senator Klobuchar, do you have any questions? 

7 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, I just wanted to say I was enjoying 

this moment, because, Senator Levin, I’m the only member of the 

Subcommittee that doesn’t have an ocean. And now that you’re 

here, you and I, as Great Lakes Senators, outnumber the ocean 

Senators here, so—as it should be. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LEVIN. First time in—we call this the—we call this the 

Fourth Coast. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Exactly. 

Senator LEVIN. And we—you and I and the other Great Lakes 

Senators are all part of a Great Lakes Task Force, which tries to 

bring to the attention of our colleagues the fact that this is a longer 

coastline than any other coastline we have. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And one of the things that I’m going to 

focus on a little today is just the—what we’ve seen, the changes to 

the Great Lakes, in terms of the invasive species and—and I know 

this wasn’t the focus of your testimony today—but also the lowering in—Lake Superior, last year, was at its lowest level in 80 

years, because the water has been evaporating with climate 

change, the ice melting. And I just wondered if you’d seen similar 

things with Lake Michigan. 

Senator LEVIN. I think we have some good news on Lake Michigan this year, although I’m not positive. I think the majority of our 

lakes actually have seen a slight increase. And I don’t know if it’s 

true in Superior, but I think it is true in Michigan. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, there might have been an increase 

this year. We’re just seeing a trend down that—— 

Senator LEVIN. Yes. Oh, no—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR.—has affected our barge traffic. 

Senator LEVIN.—oh, our—the dredging problems that we have at 

all of our ports is huge. We’ve got a major problem because of the 

lowering of our waters, even though there may have been a bumpup this year. It’s one of the greatest problems we face in Michigan, 

is in our ports. It’s desperate. We have lost—we have lost access 

to our ports because they cannot be dredged; we don’t have the 

funds to get them dredged. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. And we also—there are some decreases in this budget, that I’m concerned about, for research that 

was really—been very important to our area. And so, I’m going to 

voice those concerns when I have an opportunity. 

So, thank you very much. 

Senator LEVIN. Well, thank you. 

And the Great Lakes Task Force thanks you, Madam Chairman, 

and—for holding these hearings and for your support. I know, even 

though you’re a saltwater state, and we’re freshwater states in the 

Great Lakes, that you have a special understanding of shipping 

and the history of the waters, whether they be salt or fresh, so that 

we feel like we’re in good hands in this committee. 

Thank you. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Senator Levin. And, again, thank 

you for being here this morning. 

8 

Just so people are aware, our second panel will focus on sanctuary expansion issues—this Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary issue, as well as another one proposed, expansion in California. So, we will have a second panel on that, but we appreciate 

Senator Levin coming to be with us this morning. 

We’ll now turn to Admiral Lautenbacher for your testimony, but 

I’m going to make an opening statement first. And if my colleague 

Senator Klobuchar would like to follow with that, we will proceed 

then with you, Admiral Lautenbacher. 

I want to thank everyone for being here today on this oversight 

hearing of the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration’s 

Fiscal Year 2009 budget and the issues facing the National Marine 

Sanctuary Program. 

And, Admiral Lautenbacher, again, thank you for your time in 

being here today to talk about these many important issues within 

your budget oversight. 

I would like to start with a note of congratulations. NOAA scientists are among the hundreds of researchers across the globe who 

are contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. And last year the—that same panel was awarded a Nobel 

Peace Prize, and I’m delighted to see that many of the NOAA scientists shared in this prestigious honor. 

I know that we have a list somewhere here of the scientists that 

were part of that, so we’re going to enter that into the record, but 

we do send our congratulations to those who were involved in this 

vital topic. 

[The information previously referred to follows:] 

NOAA Contributors to the IPCC Assessment Reports 

Last Name First Name Line Office IPCC Working 

Group 

Contributors to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) 

NOTE: No NOAA personnel are listed as contributors to Working Group 3 

Austin John WG1 

Antonov John WG1 

Boyer Tim NESDIS WG1 

Conway Thomas J. OAR WG1 

Delworth Thomas L. OAR WG1 

Dixon Keith OAR WG1 

Dlugokencky Ed OAR WG1 

Easterling David OAR WG1 

Elkins James W. OAR WG1 

Fahey David W. OAR WG1 

Feely Richard OAR WG1 

Free Melissa OAR WG1 

Garcia Hernan NESDIS WG1 

Gleason Byron NESDIS WG1 

Groissman Pavel NESDIS WG1 

Gudgel Richard OAR WG1 

Held Isaac OAR WG1 

Karl Thomas NESDIS WG1 

Kiladis George OAR WG1 

Knutson Thomas OAR WG1 

Lanzante John OAR WG1 

Lau Ngar-Cheung OAR WG1 

Lawrimore Jay NESDIS WG1 

Leung Ruby OAR WG1 

Levinson David NESDIS WG1 

9 

NOAA Contributors to the IPCC Assessment Reports—Continued 

Last Name First Name Line Office IPCC Working 

Group 

Levitus Sydney NESDIS WG1 

Manning Martin OAR WG1 

Masarie Ken OAR WG1 

McPhaden Michael OAR WG1 

Miller John B. OAR WG1 

Molinari Robert OAR WG1 

Montzka Stephen A. OAR WG1 

Peng Tsung-Hung OAR WG1 

Peterson Thomas NESDIS WG1 

Ramaswamy Venkatachalam OAR WG1 

Reid George OAR WG1 

Rosati Anthony OAR WG1 

Rosenlof Karen OAR WG1 

Sabine Christopher OAR WG1 

Schwarzkopf Dan OAR WG1 

Solomon Susan OAR WG1-Co-chair 

Stern William OAR WG1 

Stouffer Ronald J. OAR WG1 

Vose Russell NESDIS WG1 

Wanninkhof Rik OAR WG1 

Wuertz David NESDIS WG1 

Wyman Bruce L. OAR WG1 

Pulwarty Roger OAR WG2 

Contributors to the IPC Third Assessment Report (2001) 

Albritton Dan OAR WG1 

Barnston A. NWS WG1 

Bates J. OAR WG1 

Broccoli A. OAR WG1 

Brooks H. OAR WG1 

Cooke W. OAR WG1 

Crowe M. NESDIS WG1 

Daniel J.S. OAR WG1 

Delworth Thomas L. OAR WG1 

Dixon K. OAR WG1 

Dlugokencky Ed OAR WG1 

Easterling David NESDIS WG1 

Eskridge R.E. NESDIS WG1 

Free Melissa OAR WG1 

Gaffen (now Seidel) Dian J. OAR WG1 

Gallo K. NESDIS WG1 

Groissman Pavel NESDIS WG1 

Griffies S.M. OAR WG1 

Gutman G. NESDIS WG1 

Held Isaac OAR WG1 

Karl Thomas NESDIS WG1 

Knight Richard W. NESDIS WG1 

Knutson Thomas OAR WG1 

Landsea Chris OAR WG1 

Lawrimore Jay NESDIS WG1 

Livezey Robert E. NWS WG1 

Montzka Stephen A. OAR WG1 

Murphy D. OAR WG1 

Norris J. OAR WG1 

Overpeck J. NESDIS WG1 

Owen T. NESDIS WG1 

Peterson Thomas NESDIS WG1 

Quayle R. NESDIS WG1 

Quinn Patricia OAR WG1 

Ramaswamy Venkatachalam OAR WG1 

Reynolds R. NWS WG1 

Ross R. OAR WG1 

10 

NOAA Contributors to the IPCC Assessment Reports—Continued 

Last Name First Name Line Office IPCC Working 

Group 

Schwartzkopf M.D. OAR WG1 

Solomon Susan OAR WG1 

Stensrud D.J. OAR WG1 

Stouffer Ronald J. OAR WG1 

Tans P.P. OAR WG1 

Winton M. OAR WG1 

Xie P. NWS WG1 

Buckley Earle N. WG2 

Buizer James L. OAR WG2 

Davidson Margaret NOS WG2 

Fahn James OAR WG2 

Farrow Lisa OAR WG2 

Foster Joshua OAR WG2 

Kane Sally OAR WG2 

Landsea Chris OAR WG2 

Lewsey Clement NOS WG2 

Mieremet Richard B. WG2 

Nierenberg Claudia OAR WG2 

Piotrowicz Stephen R. OAR WG2 

Pulwarty Roger OAR WG2 

Schnell Russ WG2 

Simpson Caitlin OAR WG2 

Stewart Macol OAR WG2 

Surgeon Tonna-Marie OAR WG2 

Trtanj Juli M. OAR WG2 

Wilson Stan WG2 

Contributors to the IPCC Second Assessment Report (1995) 

Albritton Dan OAR WG1 

Angell J.K. OAR WG1 

Arkin Phillip A. NWS WG1 

Bates T. OAR WG1 

Butler J.H. OAR WG1 

Delworth Thomas L. OAR WG1 

Diaz H. F. OAR WG1 

Dlugokencky Ed OAR WG1 

Douglas B. NESDIS WG1 

Easterling David NESDIS WG1 

Elkins James W. OAR WG1 

Elliott William P. OAR WG1 

Gaffen Dian J. OAR WG1 

Haywood J. OAR WG1 

Kanamitsu Masao NWS WG1 

Karl Thomas NESDIS WG1 

Knight Richard W. NESDIS WG1 

Knutson Thomas OAR WG1 

Lau Ngar-Cheung OAR WG1 

Levitus Sydney NESDIS WG1 

Livezey Robert E. NWS WG1 

Montzka Stephen A. OAR WG1 

Novelli Paul C. OAR WG1 

Ohring George NESDIS WG1 

Overpeck J. NESDIS WG1 

Quinn Frank H. OAR WG1 

Ramaswamy Venkatachalam OAR WG1 

Ropelewski C.F. NWS WG1 

Solomon Susan OAR WG1 

Stouffer Ronald J. OAR WG1 

Tans Pieter P. OAR WG1 

Assel Raymond A. OAR WG2 

McVey James H. OAR WG2 

Methot Richard NMFS WG2 

11 

NOAA Contributors to the IPCC Assessment Reports—Continued 

Last Name First Name Line Office IPCC Working 

Group 

Mountain David NMFS WG2 

Sherman Kenneth NMFS WG2 

Kane Sally OAR WG3 

Contributors to the IPCC First Assessment Report (1990) 

Angell J.K. OAR WG1 

Arkin Phillip A. NWS WG1 

Bryan Kirk OAR WG1 

Chelliah Muthuvel NWS WG1 

Diaz H.F. OAR WG1 

Elkins James W. OAR WG1 

Fehsenfeld Fred OAR WG1 

Gruber A. NESDIS WG1 

Hayashi Y. OAR WG1 

Karl Thomas R. NESDIS WG1 

Levitus Sydney NESDIS WG1 

Manabe S. OAR WG1 

Reynolds R.W. NWS WG1 

Ropelewski C.F. NWS WG1 

Stouffer Ronald J. OAR WG1 

Wetherald Richard T. OAR WG1 

Woodruff Scott D. OAR WG1 

Everett J. WG2 

Hayes * J. WG2 

LaRoe E. WG2 

Lawford R. WG2 

Liu * C. WG2 

Meehan J. WG2 

Rodionov Sergei WG2 

Stewart * R. WG2 

Yamada T. WG2 

* 11/16/2007—only people working NOAA at the time of publication and included in the Reports’ Contributing Authors lists are included. 

Source: NOAA Personnel contributing to the Four IPCC Assessment Reports—taken from appendices of 

IPCC Assessment Reports. 

Senator CANTWELL. I’m happy to see that, for the first time, the 

President’s budget request for NOAA actually exceeded last year’s 

Congressional appropriation. I’m concerned, though, that, when we 

look deeper into how we got to that number, and some of the other 

discussions that are roaming around within the Department of 

Commerce, that this may not be as big a victory as we would like 

to see. 

The NOAA fiscal budget for 2009, of $4.1 billion, is 5 percent 

above the 2008 level, and almost this entire increase goes toward 

funding the cost overruns in the Weather and Climate Satellite Acquisition Program. Unfortunately, though, that means that the 

NOAA top-line budget request is larger, and that the President is 

still proposing budget cuts for the Nation’s oceans programs. 

Admiral, you know that we have seen a lot of attention lately, 

and a lot of concern from Members of this Committee, about the 

satellite program. Our aging fleet of satellites which monitor 

weather, hurricanes, climate, and oceans desperately need to be replaced, but the failures of these acquisitions are impossible to ignore. 

The National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System will have cost overruns from $6.5 billion to $12.5 billion, 

12 

and the lead contractor, Northrop Grumman, was awarded $123 

million in award fees. I think this is inexcusable. 

We also have this discussion about what’s going to happen within 

the Department of Commerce as it relates to concerns about the 

2010 Census, the fact that the Census Bureau’s handling of computer acquisition has failed, more than doubling the price, the computers are riddled with many problems; and, to help pay for this, 

Secretary Gutie ́rrez has asked Congress to transfer $27 million 

from NOAA to the Census Bureau during this fiscal year. He has 

indicated that he will need to move up $700 million from NOAA 

and other agencies in Fiscal Year 2009 to make up for the Census 

shortfall. 

As these failures threaten to decimate NOAA’s budget, it is, once 

again, the oceans that will suffer the consequences. Because of the 

financial demands of the Satellite Acquisition Program and the 

Census Bureau, we are seeing cuts proposed by many of—to many 

of these important programs. The National Ocean Service, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, the National Marine 

Fishery Service all see their budgets slashed. And, despite the demands Congress laid out in the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization, and despite ocean acidification, the role that oceans play in 

global warming, the Administration still sees the need to weaken 

the oceans program in a time when we need even more attention 

than ever. 

If you recall, last year, I was very disappointed to see the—what had been a budget request in the previous years of $87 million for 

2000 to 2005 for our salmon recovery plan only down to $67 million. And I expressed that—disappointed. So, I don’t think I’m 

going to surprise you today by saying that my colleagues are very 

concerned and upset about the budget request for this year that is 

only $35 million, which is a 60 percent reduction over the 2000 to 

2005 budget level. And I can tell you, with the—all the discussion 

this week on the buy up and the salmon recovery plan, how essential these funds are. These funds go to the front line of salmon recovery. The states, the tribes, they do their hard work to protect 

our salmon, but they need the additional support. 

And in just this past week, we’ve seen the emergency shutdown 

of West Coast salmon fisheries and the declaration of a fishery disaster. I will note that in that request from states we will end up 

seeing the Administration spend the same amount of money we 

could have been spending on other programs to help prevent this 

situation. 

We saw the release of a new Biological Opinion and further escalation of other fishing issues in the Northwest. 

So, in such a critical time for salmon recovery, the Administration, I believe, has proposed unacceptable levels of salmon funding. 

I’m also disappointed to see that NOAA’s education program, 

which is focused on environmental stewardship, takes a 51 percent 

cut from the 2006 levels, and I look forward to my—working with 

my colleagues to restore that. 

And, finally, Admiral, I’d like to mention a few other issues that 

are critically important, not just to the Nation, but to the Northwest. We have had an opportunity to discuss, in my office, the need 

for a Doppler radar system on the coast of Washington. We had 

13 

documented hurricane-force winds, according to the Coast Guard, 

that caused a devastating impact in the Northwest, with floods and 

devastation last December. And having a better system there for 

emergency response is critically important. 

There are other issues that I would love to discuss here in my 

opening remarks, but I want to give my colleagues a chance to also 

make comments. And, Admiral, we have many questions about everything from the salmon recovery plans to the orca population to 

many other things. So, again, we appreciate you being here to answer these questions. 

Senator Klobuchar? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And 

thank you for holding this hearing. 

Thank you, Admiral, for being here. I was reviewing your testimony, and I saw that you have—you mentioned how you’ve converted a fleet of research vessels from 100 percent—from petroleum-based to 100 percent bio-based fuel, and I wanted to thank 

you for that. I think it’s a good model that we could look at in other 

areas of the government. 

The—as I mentioned before, when Senator Levin was here, 

NOAA’s role is particularly important when it comes to the Great 

Lakes. And I listed these concerns. I wanted to go through them 

again. While we may have seen a slight increase in the water levels this year—I’m just guessing, because we had a little more 

snow—but overall we’ve seen a downward trend. Lake Superior’s 

water levels are at their lowest point—this was last year—in eight 

decades, which have reduced the commercial shipping tonnage that 

can be brought into our harbors. There’s a lot of concern in the 

business community about that. We’ve had invasive species issues 

that have done a lot of harm to the lake’s ecosystem. We have the 

concern about the Asian carp coming up, and some other things. 

And also, the harbor and open water infrastructure used to manage 

these problems continues to age and deteriorate. 

Given these threats to the Great Lakes and other coastal maritime environments, as Senator Cantwell was going through, while 

I understand that you—there was a funding increase in certain important areas, I’m concerned about other critical programs that 

are—that have not received that kind of treatment in the President’s FY09 budget. For instance, the major research grants of 

NOAA, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, is proposed for a decrease of over $15 million. This may include significant cuts in funding for the ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research laboratories. Over the past few years, the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory has conducted high-quality research and provided scientific leadership on important issues for 

the Great Lakes and for other coastal environments. This research 

has led to innovative solutions to protect these environments, and 

I’m just particularly concerned, because we’re seeing such a change 

in the Great Lakes environment, which I attribute, in large part, 

to climate change. But, we’re seeing a major change, and I would 

think it would be—not be a good time to be cutting back on research. 

14 

With that, I look forward to hearing your testimony, and I thank 

you very much for your work and all the work that the people that 

work with you do. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CANTWELL. We’ve been joined by our Ranking Member, 

Senator Stevens. 

Would you like to make an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator STEVENS. Well, thank you very much. 

Good morning, Admiral. It’s nice to see you here. I know that you 

realize that our state has half the coastline of the United States, 

and NOAA is one of our most important agencies. I’m delighted to 

see that this 2009 budget request is the largest one I’ve ever seen. 

I’m disturbed that the fisheries have been reduced. I hope that you 

can find a way to readjust that as we go along. Very clearly, it’s 

$46 million less for marine fisheries, which the Chairman has mentioned. 

We have, a growing problem in our state, as you know, in terms 

of the IUU fisheries. And they’re outside the 200-mile limit, they’re 

coming across our line. We’re trying our best to work out, along 

with the various agencies, some form of monitoring the maritime 

border, which is really beyond our 200-mile limit, but at least it 

would give us some understanding who’s out there, in terms of 

these new enormous vessels. 

We do not overfish any species. There are no endangered or 

threatened species that we harvest off of Alaska. And we’re very 

proud of our fisheries. We’re very disturbed about the continued increase in the IUU fisheries capability, and really more disturbed 

than anything over the fact we don’t know what they’re doing. So, 

I would urge you to concentrate on that, to find some way to get 

us the knowledge of what species are these vessels harvesting and 

where are they taking that catch, and is there any way at all for 

us to determine what they’re catching? Because I think they could. 

If we don’t find some way to regulate them, they could destroy everything we’ve done and everything the world has done by following our example and having a 200-mile limit within which you 

can have scientific management. Ours is the best in the world, and 

we’d like to work with you to continue that. 

So, I look forward to your statement. I’m pleased to see you here 

today. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Senator Stevens. 

Again, Admiral Lautenbacher, welcome to the Committee, and 

we look forward to hearing your testimony this morning. 

15 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, 

JR., (U.S. NAVY, RET.), UNDER SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND 

ATMOSPHERE, AND ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC 

AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF COMMERCE 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, 

Senator Klobuchar, Senator Stevens, and distinguished members of 

the staff. It’s a great pleasure to be here with you this morning. 

I appreciate the support of this committee over the years and the 

interest that you have in the number of significant challenges 

which you’ve outlined in your opening statements. I thank you for 

your leadership and help with our people and our programs. 

The President’s budget this year supports the priority of advancing mission-critical services. The budget request, as mentioned, is 

$4.1 billion, which represents a $202 million, or 5.2-percent, increase over the enacted level in Fiscal Year 2008. The major increases are in the areas of satellites, facilities, and implementation 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

For NOAA overall, this is the minimum that we need to maintain our current level of services and to carry out our mission, to 

understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, and to 

conserve and manage coastal, marine, and Great Lakes resources. 

NOAA has had many notable accomplishments during the past 

fiscal year. They’re recited in my written testimony, but I want to 

mention one, which was already mentioned by the Chair. 

First of all, I have always mentioned how proud I am of the people who work in NOAA and what they do for the Nation. I’m particularly proud, this year, to make mention of the 120 NOAA scientists that were recognized by the Nobel Prize Committee for 

their work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Many people in the NOAA family were intimately involved, including numerous lead, review, and contributing authors, as well as 

line offices, in our observations and modeling, which were critical. 

I will move to the 2009 budget request, and I want to highlight 

just a couple of areas for you so we can get to the questioning. 

The budget requests $49 million in increases to support the implementation of the President’s Ocean Initiative. This includes $18 

million to advance ocean science and research, $5 million to protect 

and restore marine and coastal areas, and more than $26 million 

to ensure sustainable use of ocean resources. 

The budget also requests $32 million in increases to support the 

new provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens bill and to provide better 

management of fisheries harvests. This includes an increase of 

$81⁄2 million to expand annual stock assessments. Magnuson-Stevens also requires NOAA to establish annual catch limits for all 

managed fisheries by 2011. To do this effectively, we need sound 

science to determine appropriate catch levels. We are asking for $5 

million in increases to support annual catch limits and stipends, as 

well as $4 million for a resource survey program to track the abundance of North Atlantic scallops and West Coast groundfish. We 

are also asking for a $1 million increase to support enforcement 

against illegal, unregulated, and unreported, or IUU, fishing, which 

has been an important issue to members of the Committee. 

16 

The budget request also includes $21 million for the Integrated 

Ocean Observing System, or IOOS. Projects to protect and restore 

valuable marine and coastal areas include funding of $4 million to 

implement the newly enacted Marine Debris Research, Prevention, 

and Reduction Act. The budget also provides $1 million to support 

implementation of the Ocean and Human Health Act through the 

Oceans and Human Health Initiative. 

NOAA views its education mission as one of its top priorities, 

and has requested more than $15 million in our 2009 budget. We 

are currently updating our education plan, as required by the 

America COMPETES Act. 

The 2009 budget requests $60 million to support the ongoing construction and relocation efforts to the Pacific Regional Center on 

Ford Island in Hawaii. We are also asking for $8 million to support 

management of the national monument in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, mentioned earlier by Senator Levin. 

NOAA also requests funding to restore several of our base programs that were reduced in the 2008 omnibus. The fisheries budget 

request includes restoration of just over $8 million for fisheries research and monitoring. This will maintain our ability to provide 

value-added analysis to the Fishery Management Councils. 

The Weather Service budget request includes restoration of just 

over $10 million for local warnings and forecasts. To enhance our 

weather forecasting abilities, ensure consistency, we are requesting 

a funding increase of $242 million to continue support of the Next 

Generation Geostationary Satellite Program, called GOES–R. 

These unique sentinels in the sky provide the images of severe 

weather you see on TV. All of the sensors are on contract, and we 

plan to issue major contracts for space and ground segments in Fiscal Year 2009. This is a critical time for the program, and we must 

keep it on track. 

In 2009, NOAA will invest more than $319 million on climaterelated activities. This is an increase of $85 million over the FY08 

enacted. We are requesting an increase of $74 million for climate 

sensors that were removed from the Next Generation Polar Satellite Program, or NPOESS. The money is specifically for instruments called TSIS and CERES, which measure the Earth’s radiation budget. 

NOAA’s 2009 request provides modest new investments in our 

priority areas, while maintaining critical services. We will build on 

our successes for last year and stand ready to meet the challenges 

that will surface in 2009 and beyond. 

With regard to the proposed boundary expansion mentioned for 

Thunder Bay, Cordell Bank, and the Gulf of Farallones National 

Marine Sanctuaries, under S. 2281 and H.R. 1187 respectively, 

NOAA generally agrees with the intent of these bills to protect the 

important marine resources off the Michigan and California coasts. 

The concepts behind expanding these three sanctuaries have support from the respective advisory councils and many constituents. 

As a general matter, NOAA prefers to manage sanctuaries through 

the Federal regulatory process rather than through statutory requirements; therein, including a—robust public processes where 

stakeholders and other constituents are given multiple opportuniVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Aug 29, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75681.TXT JACKIE
17 

ties to provide input. NOAA looks forward to working with the 

committees—Committee as these bills move forward. 

Again, thank you for your—opportunity to present the budget request, and I’m happy to answer the questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Vice Admiral Lautenbacher follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR., (U.S. 

NAVY, RET.), UNDER SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, AND

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, before I begin my testimony 

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

shown the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Your continued support for our programs is appreciated as we work to improve our products 

and services for the American people. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on 

the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Budget Request for NOAA. 

The FY 2009 President’s Budget supports NOAA’s priority to advance missioncritical services. The FY 2009 request is $4.1 billion, which represents a $202 million or 5.2 percent increase over the FY 2008 enacted level. This request includes 

the level of resources necessary to carry out NOAA’s mission, which is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, and conserve and manage 

coastal and marine resources to meet our Nation’s economic, social and environmental needs. At NOAA we work to protect the lives and livelihoods of Americans, 

and provide products and services that benefit the economy, environment, and public safety of the Nation. Before I discuss the details of our FY 2009 budget request, 

I would like to briefly highlight some of NOAA’s notable successes from the past 

Fiscal Year (2007). 

FY 2007 Accomplishments 

NOAA Is Major Contributor to Nobel Prize-Winning Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change Reports 

Scientists from NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory were among those 

sharing in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. The scientists were recognized for their contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC 

was created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program to provide regular assessments for policymakers of the 

scientific, technical and socioeconomic aspects of climate change. IPCC has produced 

its major assessments every five to 6 years since 1990. 

NOAA scientists served as contributors to and government reviewers of the 

Fourth IPCC Assessment Report. NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory 

provided model runs that enhanced the projections used in the IPCC report. 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Implementation 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization 

Act of 2007 was signed into law on January 12, 2007. The reauthorized Act contains 

significant new provisions to end overfishing, promote market-based approaches to 

fisheries management, improve the science used in fisheries management, improve 

recreational data collection, enhance international cooperation in fisheries management, and address illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, as well as bycatch 

of protected living marine resources. Especially notable is the requirement to establish an annual catch limit for each fishery, which for the first time creates a mandate with a timetable to end overfishing. 

Progress on Next Generation Geostationary Satellite Program 

Geostationary satellites remain the weather sentinels for NOAA. The next-generation geostationary satellite series, GOES–R, will provide new and improved atmospheric, climatic, solar, and space data. In 2007, NOAA revised the management and 

acquisition strategy for the GOES–R program, partnering more closely with NASA 

to take advantage of each agency’s technical expertise. In February 2007, the Advanced Baseline Imager, the main instrument on GOES–R, completed a key milestone, enabling the contractor to begin building the first instrument. Throughout 

2007, NOAA awarded the three remaining instrument contracts for the Solar Ultraviolet Imager, Extreme Ultra Violet and X-Ray Irradiance Sensors, and GeoVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Aug 29, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75681.TXT JACKIE
18 

stationary Lightning Mapper. These instruments will help us to understand and 

forecast solar disturbances as well as track lightning strikes from space. 

NOAA’s National Weather Service Provides More Specific Warning Information for 

Severe Weather 

NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS) began issuing more geographically specific warnings for tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, floods, and marine hazards on 

October 1, 2007. The new ‘‘storm-based warnings’’ allow forecasters to pinpoint the 

specific area where severe weather threats are highest, thereby reducing the area 

warned by as much as 70 percent when compared to the previously used countyby-county warning system. Storm-based warnings are displayed graphically and are 

extremely adaptable to cell phones, PDAs, and the Internet. The Emergency Alert 

System (EAS) is geared toward counties and NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) All Hazards will still sound an alarm if there is a warning anywhere in a county. However, 

text and audio messages will provide more specific information about the location 

of the storm in the county, and the direction in which it is moving. Storm-based 

warnings will reference landmarks such as highways, shopping centers, and parks, 

and will use directional delimiters to indicate county location. 

Fleet Modernization Moves Ahead 

In June 2007, NOAA celebrated the keel laying of NOAA ships BELL M. 

SHIMADA and FERDINAND R. HASSLER in Moss Point, Mississippi. This marked 

the first time NOAA has celebrated this important construction milestone for two 

ships simultaneously. HENRY B. BIGELOW, second of the four fisheries survey vessels of the same class being built by VT Halter Marine, was commissioned into the 

fleet in July before beginning operations in New England. In September, Phase I 

of conversion of NOAA Ship OKEANOS EXPLORER (formerly USNS CAPABLE) to 

an ocean exploration ship was completed. NOAA ship PISCES was christened in December and subsequently launched in Moss Point, Mississippi. 

New State-of-the-Art Satellite Operations Facility Officially Opened 

In June 2007, NOAA and the General Services Administration officially opened 

the new state-of-the-art NOAA Satellite Operations Facility (NSOF). NSOF is the 

new home for NOAA’s around-the-clock environmental satellite operations, which 

provides data critical for weather and climate prediction. NSOF supports more than 

$50 million of high technology equipment, including 16 antennas monitoring the operations of 16 on-orbit satellites. 

National Water Level Observation Network Upgraded to Real-time Status 

The National Ocean Service (NOS) completed a three-year effort to upgrade the 

technology of its National Water Level Observation Network (NWLON). NWLON 

stations provide mariners, first responders, and the public with real-time tide and 

water-level information. A major benefit of the upgrade is that network stations normally equipped to transmit water-level and other environmental data at hourly increments via NOAA Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites now transmit data every 6 minutes, thus enabling users to access data more quickly. 

NOAA Aids in the Recovery of Fisheries and Fishing Communities Damaged by 

Hurricanes 

NOAA funded and conducted a number of activities aimed at helping Gulf Coast 

fisheries recover from the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and 

Wilma, which struck the Gulf Coast in 2005. The states are using these funds to 

restore and rehabilitate oyster, shrimp, and other marine fishery habitats damaged 

or destroyed by hurricane events, and to conduct cooperative research and monitoring and other activities designed to recover and rebuild Gulf of Mexico fisheries 

and fishing communities. 

NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards Activities: Meeting the Expectations of the Nation 

for Weather and All Hazard Warning Information 

NOAA’s National Weather Service added 16 broadcast stations to the NOAA 

Weather Radio (NWR) All Hazards network in 2007. In addition to achieving 100 

percent coverage of high-risk areas, NOAA refurbished 62 broadcast stations with 

technology upgrades that significantly improved reliability and availability, while 

decreasing maintenance costs. This allows the network to meet expectations of 

availability as the Nation’s weather and all hazard warning system. 

NWR is a reliable and inexpensive means of communicating weather, hazard, and 

emergency information directly to the public. The network infrastructure consists of 

986 broadcast stations covering 98 percent of the Nation’s population and has the 

ability to deliver messages to individuals monitoring their own receivers as well as 

19 

the ability to reach millions of listeners and viewers through the Emergency Alert 

System, which is monitored by television and radio license holders. The network is 

required to broadcast to all areas of the United States identified as being at high 

risk of experiencing severe weather and to sustain a high level of reliability and 

maintainability in those areas. 

Marine Reserves Established in Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary 

In 2007, NOS established the Federal portion of the marine reserves and conservation area network within the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. 

This is the largest network of marine reserves in Federal waters in the continental 

United States. This action complements the State of California’s established network of marine reserves and conservation areas within the state waters of the sanctuary in 2003. 

Expanding U.S. Tsunami Preparedness 

NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS) is responsible for the expansion of the 

U.S. network of tsunami detection sensors. During 2007, 14 Deep-ocean Assessment 

and Reporting of Tsunamis (DARTTM) buoys were established: four in the Western 

Pacific Ocean, three off the Pacific Coast of Central America, five in the northwestern Pacific Ocean, and two in the North Atlantic Ocean, bringing the total number of U.S. DARTTM stations to 34. The United States, with NOAA as lead agency, 

is currently working with approximately 70 countries, the European Commission, 

and over 50 non-governmental agencies in planning and implementing the Global 

Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), which includes a global tsunami 

warning system. In addition, NWS works with communities to prepare for tsunamis 

through the TsunamiReadyTM Program. As of December 12, 2007, there are 47 

TsunamiReadyTM sites in 10 states, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The National Weather 

Service reached its goal of recognizing 10 new TsunamiReadyTM communities in Fiscal Year 2007. 

First Buoy to Measure Acidification Launched 

The first buoy to directly monitor ocean acidification was launched in the Gulf of 

Alaska. Ocean acidification is a result of carbon dioxide absorbed by the ocean. The 

new buoy, part of a National Science Foundation project awarded to PMEL and the 

University of Washington in Seattle, in collaboration with Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada and the Institute of Ocean Sciences in British Columbia, measures the airsea exchange of carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen gas, in addition to the pH (a 

measure of ocean acidity) of the surface waters. The buoy is anchored in water nearly 5,000 meters deep and transmits data via satellite. Rising acidity in the ocean 

could have a detrimental effect on ocean organisms, with resulting impacts on ocean 

life and the food chain. 

NOAA Ships Arrive at New Home Port in Hawaii 

NOAA ships OSCAR ELTON SETTE, HI’IALAKAI, and KA’IMIMOANA relocated 

to their new home port at Ford Island, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, heralding the permanent presence of NOAA on Ford Island. This was a major milestone in the multiyear, multi-phase construction of the NOAA Pacific Regional Center, a project to 

consolidate NOAA programs and operations on the island of Oahu into a single facility on Ford Island. 

NOAA’s Open Rivers Initiative Completes First Projects 

In its first year, NOAA’s Open Rivers Initiative completed three projects that restored over 30 miles of spawning and rearing habitat for migratory fish. The obsolete Brownsville Dam, located on the Calapooia River in Oregon, was removed in 

August 2007, effectively eliminating an obstruction to migratory fish and a safety 

hazard to the local human community. In California, two failing and undersized culverts were removed, allowing endangered salmon to reach their historic spawning 

and rearing grounds. In collaboration with local communities, NOAA’s Open Rivers 

Initiative will continue to restore free fish passage to historic habitat by removing 

obsolete dams and barriers that dot the rivers of coastal states. 

Delivering Real-Time Data to Help Shellfish Growers 

Shellfish growers in the Pacific Northwest can now get near real-time water quality data from the System-wide Monitoring Program operating at National Estuarine 

Research Reserves in Alaska, Washington, and Oregon. The data are available 

through telemetering capabilities, which measure, receive, and transmit data automatically from distant sources. Water quality data can be viewed on a website jointly sponsored by NOS and the Northwest Association of Networked Ocean Observing 

Systems (http://www.nanoos-shellfish.org/). Water quality and weather data are 

20 

transmitted every 30 minutes via satellite from monitoring stations at all 27 National Estuarine Research Reserves, providing information to the growing Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). 

Great Lakes Lab Recognized for ‘Green’ Research Vessels 

NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) converted a 

fleet of research vessels from petroleum-based to 100 percent bio-based fuel and lubricants, earning a White House Closing-the-Circle Award in the green purchasing 

category. GLERL operates research vessels throughout the Great Lakes region as 

scientific platforms for ecosystems research and other NOAA interests in the area. 

The conversion was a result of a call for ‘‘greening’’ of Government agencies through 

waste reduction, recycling, and the use of environmentally friendly and sustainable 

products including bio-products. 

FY 2009 Budget Request Highlights 

Supporting the President’s Ocean Initiative 

Building on last year’s investment in Ocean Initiative related activities, the FY 

2009 President’s Request includes new increases of $49.1 million for NOAA over the 

FY 2008 President’s Request to support the President’s Ocean Initiative. This ocean 

initiative includes more funding to advance ocean science and research; protect and 

restore marine and coastal areas; and ensure sustainable use of ocean resources. 

New investments in ocean science are aimed at monitoring and better understanding marine ecosystems. Increased funding of $7.0 million is included for the 

Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) to support Data Management and Communications, Regional Observations, and the Data Assembly Center (DAC), which 

delivers real-time, quality controlled data from NOAA and regional observing systems. An increase of $1 million is requested to manage the escalating size and quantity of hydrographic datasets collected by NOAA and other providers. This increase 

in funding will help NOAA update the nautical charts provided to mariners navigating on U.S. waters in a more timely fashion. In addition, NOAA is requesting 

$2 million in increased funding for the PORTS® program, to improve and expand 

the delivery of real-time and forecasted navigation information. A recent economic 

benefits study of the Houston/Galveston PORTS® program, released in May 2007, 

showed that the program brought the Houston/Galveston area significant economic 

benefits and has helped to achieve a 50 percent reduction in groundings. 

Projects to protect and restore valuable marine and coastal areas include funding 

of $4 million to implement the newly enacted Marine Debris Research, Prevention, 

and Reduction Act. This funding will allow NOAA to provide competitive grants and 

to develop the first Federal clearinghouse on marine debris. NOAA also requests increased funding of $5.4 million for the Open Rivers program to restore stream miles 

of fish habitat through watershed-level projects with multiple fish passage opportunities. 

Finally, the budget provides support to ensure sustainable access to seafood 

through the development of offshore aquaculture and better management of fish 

harvests. In direct support of new provisions of the MSRA, and to provide better 

management of fish harvests, NOAA requests increased funding of $31.8 million 

over the FY 2008 enacted level. Of this amount, $5.1 million is requested to enhance 

the independent peer-review process for scientific data required to appropriately set 

the annual catch limits for all managed fisheries; $8.5 million will initiate and expand existing sampling programs and management procedures in order to end overfishing by 2011, as mandated by the MSRA; and $3.0 million will complete the final 

implementation phase of a new registry system for recreational fishermen and forhire fishing vehicles. An additional $1.5 million increase is requested in support of 

deep sea coral research, allowing NOAA to begin identifying, understanding, and 

providing the information needed in order to protect deep coral habitats. 

Sustaining Critical Operations 

As always, I support NOAA’s employees by requesting adequate funding for our 

people, infrastructure, and facilities. NOAA’s core values are people, integrity, excellence, teamwork, ingenuity, science, service, and stewardship. Our ability to serve 

the Nation and accomplish the missions outlined below is determined by the quality 

of our people and the tools they employ. Our facilities, ships, aircraft, environmental 

satellites, data-processing systems, computing and communications systems, and 

our approach to management provide the foundation of support for all of our programs. Approximately $42.0 million in net increases will support our workforce inflation factors, including $37.5 million for salaries and benefits and $4.5 million for 

non-labor-related adjustments, such as fuel costs. 

21 

This year we have focused our increases on satellite continuity and operations and 

maintenance support for our aircraft and NOAA vessels. A funding increase of 

$242.2 million is requested to continue support of the Geostationary Operational 

Satellites (GOES–R) program. GOES satellites provide critical atmospheric, oceanic, 

climatic, and solar products supporting weather forecasting and warnings, 

climatologic analysis and prediction, ecosystems management, and safe and efficient 

public and private transportation. This increase will be used for continued systems 

engineering, development of satellite instruments, risk reduction activities, and 

transition to the systems-level acquisition and operations phase of the program. 

Funding of $6.1 million is also requested in support of a Major Repair Period for 

the RAINIER, NOAA’s most productive hydrographic vessel. At 39 years old, the 

RAINIER requires a major capital investment in its mechanical and electrical systems in order to maintain its current operational tempo and reduce risks to personnel, property, and mission capability. 

Finally, NOAA requests an increase of $4.0 million in support of additional flight 

hours and operations and maintenance for our aircraft. The requested funds will 

provide an additional 1,295 flight hours for hurricane research, surveillance, and reconnaissance, as well as for other research and forecasting requirements. NOAA 

also asks this year for restoration to several of our base programs, most notably in 

the National Weather Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. These requested increases in our base accounts will allow NOAA to sustain on-going programs and projects at the levels recommended in the FY 2008 President’s Budget. 

Improving Weather Warnings and Forecasts 

Severe weather events cause $11 billion in damages and approximately 7,000 

weather-related fatalities yearly in the United States. Nearly one-third of the U.S. 

economy is sensitive to weather and climate. Realizing this, NOAA seeks to provide 

decisionmakers with key observations, analyses, predictions, and warnings for a variety of weather and water conditions to help protect the health, life, and property 

of the U.S. and its economy. Landfalling hurricanes are one of the most physically 

destructive and economically disruptive extreme events that impact the United 

States, often causing billions of dollars of damage in their wake. In FY 2009, NOAA 

will continue to improve our hurricane research and modeling capabilities with a 

requested increase of $4.0 million for operational support and maintenance of the 

next-generation Hurricane Weather Research and Forecasting model and storm 

surge prediction system, as well as accelerated improvements to that system. Increased funding of $3.0 million will support the operations and maintenance of 15 

hurricane data buoys in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic Ocean, enhancing our real-time hurricane storm monitoring and observations. NOAA also continues to improve and maintain our weather warning infrastructure, with requested 

funding of $6.6 million to upgrade the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing 

System, the Nation’s weather and flood warning system. Increased funding of $4.8 

million will be used to upgrade twelve NOAA Wind Profilers and to perform a techrefresh on this twenty-year-old radar system. Finally, NOAA is requesting $2.9 million in increased funding for modernization of the NOAA Weather Radio network. 

Climate Monitoring and Research 

Society exists in a highly variable climate system, and major climatic events can 

impose serious consequences on society. Preliminary estimates of the impact of the 

severe drought which affected the Great Plains and the Eastern United States 

throughout 2007 are in the range of $5 billion, with major reductions in crop yields 

and low stream and lake levels. Continued drought and high winds in the Western 

United States in 2007 resulted in numerous wildfires, with 3,000 homes and over 

8.9 million acres burned, and at least 12 deaths. The FY 2009 Budget Request contains investments in several programs aimed at increasing our predictive capability, 

enabling NOAA to provide our customers (farmers, utilities, land managers, weather 

risk industry, fisheries resource managers and decisionmakers) with assessments of 

current and future impacts of climate events such as droughts, floods, and trends 

in extreme climate events. NOAA continues to build a suite of information, products, 

and services that will enable society to respond to changing climate conditions. In 

FY 2009, NOAA will support the critical National Integrated Drought Information 

System with increases of $2 million to develop and bring into operation by FY 2010 

the next-generation Climate Forecast System, leading to improved climate forecasting products. An increase of $74 million will be used to develop Clouds and the 

Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) and Total Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS) 

climate sensors to preserve decades long climate data records. The CERES sensor 

will measure the Earth’s radiation budget, an essential measurement for determining the causes of climate variability and change. The TSIS sensor measures the 

22 

total energy of the sun falling on the Earth, a measurement used to identify and 

isolate natural solar variations that impact climate in contrast to other factors, such 

as human influences on climate. 

Critical Facilities Investments 

The FY 2009 President’s Budget Request also includes important increases for 

critical facilities, necessary to provide a safe and effective working environment for 

NOAA’s employees. 

For FY 2009, NOAA will concentrate their modernization efforts on three main 

projects. NOAA requests an increase of $40.2 million for the continued construction 

of the new Pacific Region Center on Ford Island in Honolulu, Hawaii. This increase 

in funding will support the continued construction and renovation of two buildings, 

enabling NOAA to reduce expenditures for rent and relocate operations from their 

current location in the deteriorating Kewalo Basin and Dole Street Lab Facilities. 

An increase of $12.1 million will complete the design and initial preparations for 

a replacement facility for the Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Finally, $11.7 

million is requested to support the installation of a semi-permanent replacement 

structure for the at-risk Operations Complex at the NESDIS Command and Data 

Acquisition Station in Fairbanks, Alaska. The current facility is at risk to experience a major structural failure in the next 5 years. The requested funding will ensure that NOAA maintains crucial mission operations support for the Polar-orbiting 

satellites, as well as backup support for others. 

Conclusion 

NOAA’s FY 2009 Budget Request provides essential new investments in our priority areas while maintaining critical services, reflecting NOAA’s vision, mission, 

and core values. The work NOAA accomplished in 2007 impacted every U.S. citizen. 

We will build on our successes from last year, and stand ready to meet the challenges that will surface in FY 2009 and beyond. NOAA is dedicated to enhancing 

economic security and national safety through research and accurate prediction of 

weather and climate-related events, and to providing environmental stewardship of 

our Nation’s coastal and marine resources. That concludes my statement, Madam 

Chairwoman. Thank you for the opportunity to present NOAA’s FY 2009 Budget Request. I am happy to respond to any questions the Committee may have. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Admiral, very much. 

And if I could start with something that’s a very burning issue 

in our state, the salmon Biological Opinion issue. Obviously, at the 

direction of a very frustrated judge, the previous opinion, there was 

lots of concern. And since what the court has released, what we’ve 

just seen is, you know, the work of four states, four Federal agencies, seven tribes, so there is much collaboration. And so, I think 

that’s encouraging, that there is that much collaboration. But, it’s 

going to take a lot of hard work to continue to make this plan a 

success. And so, what is your plan to make sure that the collaboration and implementation phase goes well? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Well, first of all, we’re committed to the 

collaboration. I’m hoping that people have reviewed the Biological 

Opinion that stated it incorporates much of the public commentary 

as—and building a general consensus as to where we ought to go. 

Our program includes $12.3 million to try to ensure that the implementation is done correctly. This is at a level that allows us to 

follow the implementation of it and ensure that it is managed correctly. We will continue to support that commitment, and we—as 

we go forward, and provide the resources and the people necessary 

to support and monitor the Biological Opinion. 

Senator CANTWELL. And how do we look at this issue? I mean, 

I don’t understand—how do you think you’re well-positioned to do 

that, if we see this 60 percent cut in the salmon recovery funds? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. The Salmon Recovery Fund is—which 

is—it’s all connected. First of all, we have a fairly robust salmon 

23 

budget, when you look at the entire picture. From the Salmon Recovery Fund, this is an area where we’ve invested probably a billion dollars in working in this way. We had, this year, a limited 

amount of resources and a number of requirements, so this is a 

matter of priority, it’s not a matter that I don’t view that that program is worthwhile or that there—or that the funding wouldn’t be 

used—or it’s not—it’s not—it’s not been reduced from our requirements list. But, if you go through the programs that we have to 

support for the Northwest and for all the fisheries, these are the 

decisions we made in priority. As I always do when I come here, 

I’m willing to work and to look for the best program that we can 

provide for the money that we have to offer. 

Senator CANTWELL. But, wouldn’t you say—wouldn’t you say, on 

the surface of it, having this biological opinion and all the coordination that it takes, and then seeing that the funds are being cut 60 

percent, it’s kind of hard to imagine how that’s going to support 

that effort? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Well, there is still a considerable 

amount of effort going on for recovery, the recovery plans. We have 

the money to support the monitoring and the evolution of the biological opinion, as it pertains to the recovery efforts that are going 

on in the Columbia River, so we’ll be able to tell what’s happening 

and what’s not happening and how things are improving. If we 

need to provide more, those types of results will be shown from the 

monitoring efforts. 

Senator CANTWELL. It’s my understanding, though, that some of 

those same monitoring and mapping efforts are also being curtailed. And so, I look at it as—if someone thinks that somehow 

that’s going to help us in saving budget costs, because now, here 

we are having a disaster declared, having states, you know, all 

along the West Coast coming and looking for Federal dollars, and 

perhaps some of the mapping programs and some of the planning 

would have detailed some of this. So, I feel like we’re still spending 

the money that—from a disaster-recovery perspective, after-thefact, after the disaster. So, I look forward to working with you specifically on making sure there is an appropriate amount of money 

there for salmon recovery and that the biological opinion is able to 

be carried forward. So, I’ll look forward to working with you in detail on that. 

Senator Klobuchar? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Cantwell. 

Admiral in my opening statement I talked about the President’s 

budget, proposed cuts to the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, and specifically I’m concerned about the impact this may 

have on the ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research laboratories, 

including the work of the Great Lakes Environmental Research 

Laboratory that I believe is essential to properly maintain the 

Great Lakes ecosystem. 

What impact do you think this is going to have on the laboratory’s ability to complete their assigned research projects? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Regarding the issue about the overall 

reduction, there was an overall reduction in OAR from the enacted. 

That’s generally consistent with the pattern of adjusting, as we do 

year by year for one-time Congressional additions which have 

24 

been—which are made to the budget. The good news is, that reduction is less than it was last year. I know that’s not much, you 

know, solace, but it is—we are doing better, I think, in terms of 

bringing Congress and the Administration together on what that 

level is. So—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But, what—— 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER.—it’s not—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR.—impact do you think this budget level will 

have on the research projects that are going on? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Let me talk about the Great Lakes. Our 

budget for the Great Lakes is roughly equal to what it was last 

year. Some of the money is in a few different places, but we believe 

that the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory is funded at roughly the same levels as it was last year, so we were able— 

we will be able to continue with our projects on zebra mussels, our 

projects on building the Great Lakes Observing System, our work 

with USGS and EPA on the Great Lakes Task Force to ensure 

some progress is made in these areas. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Could I just mention—thank you—and 

could I just mention a few things, important things—— 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR.—that—some of the initiatives underway. I 

just want to make sure you don’t foresee cuts to them. The efforts 

to explain and to predict changes in water resources, lake water 

levels, and ice cover, do you think there’ll be changes to that because of the budget? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. No. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. The measures to prevent the introduction of aquatic invasive species, that I talked about earlier? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. With the exception of any changes that 

were made—last-minute changes made—and I don’t have that in 

front of me—first of all, there is a very small amount of money we 

devote to that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. You know, I think we can probably all 

agree on that. It’s roughly about the same as it was last year. I 

don’t expect that there’ll be much of a change—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But, could we just—— 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER.—in our level of support for—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR.—focus on that a little bit? Is that—— 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR.—you know, that these species oftentimes 

enter the lakes through the ballast water. Could you talk a little 

bit about what you see that—the effect—the impact these species 

have, or may have, in terms of plagues or what other things they 

could spread? And, obviously, we’re trying to take some action, here 

in Congress, with ballast water. But, just you—what you see as the 

threat from the invasive species. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. The invasive species are an enormous 

threat to all of our coasts and the Great Lakes, as has been documented. In many places, once invasive species gain a hold, they’re 

very difficult or impossible to remove. They require a great deal of 

effort and a lot of resources to contain them and to mitigate some 

25 

of the effects. So, they’re—it is something that we need to work on 

and to prevent. 

The best way is to prevent them from coming in, which is education and barriers and ways to deal with it preemptively, because 

once they get a foothold, then it’s very difficult, as you know from 

the zebra mussel issue that we have—— 

So, we support—we’ve worked on education programs, we’ve 

worked on research projects, we have supported the ballast water 

bill to improve the ‘‘no ballast on board’’—the ‘‘BOB ships’’ that 

come in—to improve our ability to reduce the levels of risk involved 

with having any kinds of invasive species in the Great Lakes and 

to strengthen the requirements for that—for the water coming into 

the Great Lakes—ballast water coming into the Great Lakes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And one last thing, I mentioned, in my 

opening, about how you converted the fleet of research vessels from 

petroleum-based to 100 percent bio-based fuel. Do you see this as 

a future model for NOAA, for other vessels, and for the government 

as a whole? And are there other similar green programs that 

NOAA is conducting elsewhere? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I do. We have a staff that’s very interested in green projects. The facilities that we’ve worked on are all 

green facilities, and we’ve won prizes for the buildings that we’ve 

put up. They’re very energy efficient and in line with the latest 

technology. We are looking at the experimental or research conversions of the ships on the Great Lakes as a model for the rest of 

NOAA boats that will be, you know, compatible will that kind of 

conversion. It is—it’s an important example, and we’re very proud 

of the work we’ve done there, and we’re going to advertise and try 

to expand it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much. And if I have 

some follow up questions on the budget, we’ll put them in writing. 

Appreciate it. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I’d be happy to respond. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Senator CANTWELL. Senator Stevens? 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. Admiral I note that there is $1 million that’s earmarked for fisheries enforcement, and I question whether this is enough to deal 

with the law enforcement in the fisheries area, particularly in view 

of this expanding threat from the IUU fisheries. Where are you 

going to get the money for law enforcement? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. We—the law enforcement’s a—an issue 

that’s handled both by our fisheries marshals, the Coast Guard, 

and the local port authorities for entry into the United States. Our 

increases for IUU—we’ve basically doubled the amount of money 

against it. Now, it’s not a lot of money, I agree, but it—but it’s put 

in very—some very critical areas. 

We have two major thrusts that we’re trying to work on. First 

of all is to, as you’ve said, find out what’s going on, on the high 

seas. We’re working, you know, intently through the regional fisheries management organizations, the international organizations. 

In fact, there is even a new one in the Pacific that we’re now supporting. So, those are organizations that have regulations and have 

visibility into what’s going on in the various parts of our oceans. 

26 

So, we are putting more effort into trying to ensure we understand 

what’s coming out of those organizations and so that we can have 

the enforcement so that the products that are illegally taken are 

not—do not enter this country, and that we can stand up and make 

a case in the world court of opinion to ensure that they are not 

being marketed in other places, as well. So, the other half of the 

increase is designed to improve our ability to be able enforce those 

regulations at our ports of entry, that we will not tolerate that, and 

we will then, through the—as I said, through the international organizations, push them to accept the same kinds of limitations on 

buying illegally caught fish. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, I’ve been in hopes that NOAA, working 

with the Coast Guard, would be able to give the State Department 

the information it needs to go to the U.N. to try and start an initiative to bring about U.N. recognition of the problem and action to 

deal with the IUU fisheries. It doesn’t seem to me that this million 

dollars is going to go that far. I would hope, at the very least, that 

you would agree that you could start a task force with the Coast 

Guard, working with the State Department, to find money within 

the three agencies to deal with this. 

Now, in my opinion, the IUU fisheries are growing so large that 

they’re going to monopolize the high seas, they’re going to attack 

the species that go beyond the 200 mile limits, and they’re going 

to destroy the reproductive capability, particularly of the North Pacific, if we don’t get on them. Now, I don’t see that, sense of emergency in this budget, and I certainly don’t see it as far as the cooperation between your agency, the State Department, and the 

Coast Guard. 

Now, the Coast Guard, is more aware of the presence of the 

emergency. But if I’m informed correctly, this IUU fleet is expanding exponentially, it’s almost doubling every 2 years. Now, we’ve 

just got to get a handle on that or there are not going to be fisheries of the world left. There is no regulation, no science, and no 

reporting at all. 

And, Admiral, with your background, I’m sure you could get the 

cooperation of the Coast Guard, but I would hope you’d commit 

yourself to really getting this initiated. There’s going to be a 

change of Administration. God knows who’s going to be in charge 

of the next Administration in your area. But, in any event, we’ve 

got to have something that’s nonpartisan, that is directed toward 

ending IUU fisheries. And if we don’t, the fish that we get and we 

harvest for our Nation off Alaska are going to be gone. 

Already, we’re seeing runs completely disappear, as you know. 

We’ve had areas that have produced salmon for years and years 

and years, all of a sudden, bam, they’re closed, there are no fish 

there at all. That’s only coming about because of these IUU fisheries. 

Now, I don’t see a sense of urgency coming out of this plan, and 

I would hope that you’d take that on. I really do. You’ve got the 

capability to do it, and I really think that somehow or other we 

have to find a way to take this to the U.N. before the meeting next 

year. And I’ve been talking to some people about that. They all say 

you have to have some facts and figures to deal with the U.N. We 

27 

don’t have them. But, it’s your responsibility, Admiral, to get them 

for us. I hope you’ll find some way to do that. 

And I’d like to have a meeting, a bipartisan meeting with members of this committee and with representatives of your agency, the 

Coast Guard, and the State Department to see what we’re going to 

do about this. Because unless we wake up, there is not going to be 

a fishery in the North Pacific of any anadromous fish. It’s very, 

very serious, in my opinion. 

And look what’s happened to California. A lot of people have 

blamed the California orca. In Washington, the salmon have disappeared. They didn’t disappear because of overfishing from the 

American side. There has been very little salmon fishing from vessels that are associated with the harbors along the West Coast. 

That is the result of IUU fisheries, in my opinion. And it’s got to 

stop. Because if it hits our fish, the last remaining sound salmon 

fishing in the world, because it’s scientifically managed and it’s 

really increasing, still increasing every year, the returns in our 

state are, as you know. I hope, I just pray that you’ll find some way 

to put this task force together and get active on it, because I don’t 

see a sense of urgency in this budget. 

You have, in this budget, reduced the funds for fishery surveys to $15 million from $25 million. That’s cancellation of many of the 

surveys, in my state, of the populations. How are we going to know 

when they hit—this reduction hits our state, unless you have those 

surveys? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, sir. There are two issues here. 

There’s the 2008 budget, which Congress gave us with a reduction, 

and we are working through that. There will be impact, as you’ve 

suggested, to some surveys all around, including ones in Alaska. 

In 2009, we’re asking for that money back. So, this—the new 

budget that we’re asking for, if we can get those funds, we’ll be 

able to do all the surveys that we have projected as being needed 

for Alaska and for the other regions. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, that was going to be—— 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. So, I ask for your support—— 

Senator STEVENS.—my next question—— 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER.—on that. 

Senator STEVENS.—is whether or not the 2009 budget really restores that. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. You’re saying the cut that took place, of $10 

million, is replaced in 2009? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. When will you start those surveys, then? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. If we have approval from Congress for 

the money, we will begin them right away. And obviously we have 

a problem with the CR. If we end up with a CR that locks in some 

of last year’s limits without some help, then we won’t be able to 

do that. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, have you had any meetings yet with the 

State Department and others on the IUU problem? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I have talked to the Commandant of 

the Coast Guard. I’ve not talked to the State Department. I will get 

with the Commandant of the Coast Guard again. And remember 

28 

that part of what we’re using this money for is to try to get the 

facts and figures you’re talking about. They’re—that’s not an easy 

project, as you’ve suggested, but I will—I take this just as seriously 

as you do, Senator, and I will work with the State Department and 

the Coast Guard to see what more we can do, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, thank you. I’d like to visit with you later 

this year about that. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. I am disturbed about the COBB. Now, this 

looks like provincial concepts, but I understand that you’re going 

to retire the COBB, which has been the vessel that has been doing 

the surveys in southeastern Alaska, which is the most threatened 

area of our state. And it is not going to be replaced at all. How are 

you going to do the surveys if the COBB just disappears from our 

waters? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. We have a plan—or, we’re working on 

a comprehensive plan, but we have—you know, we have an outline 

of how we would do this. Part of it would be done by the DYSON, 

and the other part will be done by shallow-draft vessels that we’re 

going to charter. 

Senator STEVENS. DYSON works north of Juneau, doesn’t it? It’s 

out of Kodiak. I’m talking about southeastern Alaska now. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, sir. We have a plan to fill in all— 

all of the surveys that the COBB does will be taken care of, either—— 

Senator STEVENS. By whom? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER.—as I said, some of them can be handled—a few of them can be handled by the DYSON, and the rest 

will be handled by shallow-draft charter vessels or, potentially, 

other NOAA vessels. We’re working on a full-course program. But, 

you remember, the COBB is 59 years old. It is—it’s a museum 

piece, at this point. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, I’m almost 85, and I’m still going. That 

boat can keep up. 

[Laughter.] 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, sir. You’ve been much better taken 

care of, though. 

Senator CANTWELL. I might add, you’re going very well this 

morning, as well. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STEVENS. Well, I’ve got to tell you that I understand 

what you’re saying, but it does look to me like you’re robbing Peter 

to pay Paul; you’re taking it out of the largest area that we have 

to cover, which is the Kodiak area, that’s an enormous area; the 

southeastern is the smallest area, but, I agree, it’s most pressured. 

But, to have the DYSON come down from Kodiak to operate out 

of Juneau is wrong. You need more help up there, too. The species 

that are up north are even more threatened than those down 

south. 

I really think the threat is there now, and it’s not from pollution, 

it’s not from changes in any circumstances on land, it’s at sea. And 

unless people get that message, I think we’re going to be in real 

trouble. The chairperson right now, with the Seattle interests, has 

as much or greater interests in what goes on in southeastern AlasVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Aug 29, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75681.TXT JACKIE
29 

ka than we do. That’s most fished by boats from the Seattle region. 

But, the impact of these IUU fisheries are greater there, as they 

come out of the Gulf of Alaska, more than anywhere in our state. 

I’m worried about them getting into the area—but, they don’t really get too far up there, where we have the closure and there is no 

open ocean between the Russian zone and ours. I’m not as worried 

about that as I am down south, where there is no active border patrol, ‘‘maritime boundary patrol,’’ I should say, rather than ‘‘border.’’ 

But, I hope we can find some replacement for COBB. And I am 

disturbed; before 9/11, we had double the amount of boats we’ve got 

there now in the Coast Guard and national marine fisheries. 

They’ve been cut in half. And that’s what’s happening to the protection of the fisheries. And the United States is going to wake up 

some day, half of the fish consumed by the United States comes 

from the waters I’m talking about. Half of it. And we’re increasingly relying on fish products in our market, daily purchasing from 

markets. It’s not going to be there, because the IUU fisheries are 

not dumping their stuff in the United States, we know that. I think 

we’ve really got to wake up. 

Last, we have some necessity to look at the concept of expanding 

some sanctuaries for fisheries off our shores. Are you looking at 

that? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, sir. I was asked to comment in my 

testimony, which I did earlier, to talk about boundary expansions 

for the Thunder Bay and the Gulf of Farallones and one other California—— 

Senator STEVENS. I didn’t read that in connection with my state. 

Where are you talking about? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER.—we were talking about one that’s in 

the Great Lakes, and we’re talking about two that are basically in 

the San Francisco area, off—— 

Senator STEVENS. You’re not talking about looking at protecting 

the area of the Aleutian chain that goes out there 2,000 miles. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER.—no, sir, we’re not talking—I’m not 

talking about any of that. This—the comments on this hearing 

have been directed toward expansion of the National Marine Sanctuaries, two of them off the coast of California, and one of them— 

I think it’s in—— 

Senator STEVENS. Well, most people don’t realize that it’s 2,000 

miles. You go out that chain, all the way out, and south of that we 

have 200 miles, but that abuts the great Gulf of Alaska. And that’s 

where they are now, that’s where those vessels are coming now. I 

don’t think we’ve apprehended but one in this whole period. Now, 

I do think that we have to find some way to form an alliance. I’m 

getting redundant. But IUU fisheries are the greatest threat to our 

fisheries in the North Pacific today. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER.—yes, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. And we can’t manage them through our regional council. We can’t even affect what they do outside that line. 

So, I hope you’ll help us. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Senator Stevens. And thank you 

for your comments, both from the perspective of Alaska and cerVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Aug 29, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75681.TXT JACKIE
30 

tainly the Northwest overall. And we certainly agree that a lot 

more attention needs to be paid both on the analysis and on the 

planning side. 

And I don’t know, Admiral Lautenbacher, if you wanted to comment right now on what you think NOAA science is telling us 

about this drastic situation in the West Coast. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Well, there are a number of issues that 

go with this. First of all, we’ve talked about the water conditions, 

so the general—generally, anadromous fish depend on water conditions and upwelling of nutrients and, basically, the food chain 

that’s out there. They also depend upon the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the general—what I would call climate change variables 

that you look at. So, there are a lot of factors at play. 

But, from an international perspective, the best—we don’t have 

enough—when I talk to the Coast Guard—we don’t have enough 

resources to go out and surveil the whole ocean to find everyone 

that’s doing something wrong. The best chance that we have is to 

ensure that there is no market for those products. So, if there is 

no market for them, we’re—we shut them down, basically. We’re 

trying to work on ways to get inventories of what’s coming into the 

various ports around the Pacific—and the Atlantic, for that matter—with—through these regional fisheries management organizations that are multinational agreements under the FAO and part 

of international agreements to stop IUU. I mean, it’s a—that’s the 

principle of the organizations that work in these areas. So, if we 

can—we can get more information on what ships are doing this, 

where they’re making the transfers, and what ports they’re coming 

into, we can, you know, gradually, hopefully—more than gradually—eventually shut them down. But, that’s the task that we’re on 

now. 

But, as I said, I will talk to the Commandant of the Coast Guard 

and get his current wisdom on it at this point. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I join Senator Stevens in saying that 

we have to be aggressive about the programs that you run, and 

have the resources to do so. So, we certainly will be looking at this 

budget perspective and making sure that we actually have the 

planning and dollars. No one expects you to map the entire ocean, 

but we do expect to have a rigorous program on this issue, and we 

certainly think that coming behind the problem after a disaster is 

declared, and having the Federal Government pay out resources, 

rightly so, is coming behind the problem, and so, we certainly will 

want to see that this budget reflects what we expect it will take 

to protect salmon on the West Coast. 

I’d like to turn to a couple of other issues, if I could, Admiral, 

particularly the NOAA satellite system. And obviously we have a 

lot of concern about schedule delays in that program. I think, last 

time the Commerce Committee had a hearing on this, in 2007, we 

were talking about various documents and reports that were part 

of where we were—the Acquisition Program Baseline, the Acquisition Strategy Report, the Award Fee Plan, all of this, because it obviously is a very complicated acquisition program, with problems in 

it, Tri-Agency Memorandum of Agreement, Test Evaluation and 

Master Plan, all those were reports that were part of this process. 

And we asked then when we could see those documents and when 

31 

they would be completed. And at the time, they weren’t completed, 

and I don’t know if they’re completed yet. Can you give us an update on that? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. We have made great progress in completing the documents. I think we’re down to five, at this point, 

which I expect to be done with in the next month. And I have 

brought it up—— 

Senator CANTWELL. Those five that I just mentioned? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER.—they include the Acquisition Program 

Baseline, the Tri-Agency MOA, the Strategy Report, and the 

TEMP, which I think is signed, or close to it. 

But, there are more programs than the ones you mentioned that 

had not been signed, so they are—there progress has been made. 

First of all, those documents are all at a place where they’re not 

interfering, or not detracting from our ability to manage the program, because they are completed to the point—with the exception 

of final review by principals in the Department of Defense. And I’m 

optimistic that they’ll all be signed within 4 or 5 weeks. But, 

they’re not hindering progress on our ability to manage the program. They are essentially done, with the exception of—— 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, we’ve had—but, we have had cost overruns, we’ve had concerns—obviously, our—this is a multi-agency— 

we’ve had a whole committee hearing on this, and obviously many 

of my colleagues showed up to express their concern and frustration about the multi-agency approach and the cost overruns 

and—— 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER.—we have put in a completely different 

management system. This program is still a tri-agency program, 

because there is no real option to changing that at this point. We 

have put in the management—a new set of management controls. 

We have new people in this process. We are—we can measure 

every time a pin drops in this. We have provided briefings to the 

staff and any members who wish to have them. The government 

oversight of this program, starting 2 years ago—two and a half 

years ago—has been improved well beyond what anybody ever expected when they created the program. It is on cost. It is on cost, 

and the schedule was created after that review, which showed that 

the initial estimates were well below anybody’s likely—likely costs. 

The current schedule is being maintained, and the current costs 

are being maintained. 

Senator CANTWELL.—we’ve seen the NPOESS satellites fire out 

of control, though, from $6.5 billion to $12.5 billion. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Six point five billion dollars, that was 

a number that was created from a baseline in the late 1990s. This 

is 10 years later. It was created before anybody had any experience 

in building the instruments or in the acquisition system that was 

installed at that point to manage it. It proved that that estimate 

was not correct, because they could not—the contractors could not 

build the instrument in accordance with the schedule and the contract that they signed. You go back to the contractor’s making 

money. We have reduced the contractor’s fees, and we have put the 

contractor under a much stronger leash than was in place at the 

time this program was started, in the middle nineties, basically. 

There’s been significant change in the way it’s being managed, and 

32 

the price, we believe—this independent cost-reviewed, based on experience, is the right cost. We are maintaining that schedule and 

that cost at this point. 

Senator CANTWELL. Am I not correct, Admiral, that, even with 

those problems, that the contractor, Northrop Grumman, received 

$123 million in award fees, even though they had cost overruns? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. The process that was built into the 

original contract was a process that allowed them to get profit. And 

it was—I can’t verify that number, but they did receive profit. We 

have changed their structure—— 

Senator CANTWELL. We’re not talking about profit, we’re talking 

about award fees, which are usually associated with good performance. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER.—the way that program was set up was, 

there was a series of milestones and achievements that they had 

to reach, which they did. So, those awards were legitimate under 

the contract. And remember, these—there is only, really, one thing 

wrong with this program; it’s the VIIRS instruments. Everything 

else is working fine. So, it’s one instrument that is the problem. 

But, other parts of that contract were being met on time and on 

schedule. The contract said they get an award for doing—for meeting those milestones on time. We have since changed that so it’s 

a much stricter system and pays more attention to the areas where 

they’re behind, which obviously are the ones that we should be 

more concerned about than where they’re on schedule. 

Senator CANTWELL. So, are you saying, Admiral, that there will 

be no cost overruns in the future? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I wish I could sit here and guarantee 

there wouldn’t be any cost overruns in the future. I believe we’re 

as protected as we possibly can be. We have applied every convention that I know of in my 40 years, or that—the independent cost 

reviews and management experts that we’ve had look at the program; and, as of right now, we are within what—the government 

estimates; we are still maintaining course and speed on this program. 

Senator CANTWELL. So, you think the NPOESS number, that has 

moved from $6.5 to $12.5 billion—you think $12.5 billion is the 

right number. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I think $12.5 billion is the right number. 

Senator CANTWELL. And what happens if we’re back here in another year and we find out that it’s much greater than that? What 

will you say now—then about the process? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Well, I will have to know what—I can’t 

think of anything now that would change this. I mean, I—there 

is—you know, there would have to be some kind of a catastrophe 

or something that was not—I don’t know. I was going to say, I can’t 

guarantee the future. I can tell you what happened in the past, and 

I can tell you what we’ve done to improve it. And I’ve watched 

these acquisition programs for years and years, I’ve been an independent cost analyst in the Department of Defense, I’ve managed 

programs, I’ve been a budget analyst—I’m not going to sit here and 

tell you that this is the end of the cost. 

33 

Generally speaking, our satellite programs have cost at least 

twice as much as the original estimate. That’s been the track 

record since the beginning of the satellite programs in 1970. So, the 

initial estimates are always optimistic, if you want to put it that 

way. We were always betting that we can deliver something with 

a minimum amount of fuss in the shortest period of time, we’re 

going to have technology that shows up at the right point. And they 

are so complicated that that has rarely proven to be the case. And 

I don’t see any—I see that we’re in the same situation right now. 

What I’m trying to do is make sure we have the right costs in 

place. I believe, based on everything we know today, that that’s the 

right number and we can deliver it for that cost. And I also am trying to do that on the GOES–R program, so there is a cost in the 

GOES–R program which I believe we’re ahead of the problem, 

we’re putting the right cost in, at this point, so there won’t be this 

tendency for year-by-year cost overruns to occur in the GOES–R 

program. And we’ve taken every possible lesson learned from 

GOES–R—or from NPOESS, and put it into GOES–R in the way 

the management structure is set up. And, again, it’s transparent— 

we’re making it transparent to the oversight committees, to ensure 

that everyone has the information they need as we move along. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I would certainly say that having a 

track record of having an original estimate, and then having the 

cost to the taxpayer be twice that amount, is not a good example 

to continue to follow. I think it points to problems with the acquisition process for these resources, and I certainly plan to look into 

making changes in that process. 

But, since you mentioned the geostationary satellites, what’s 

going to happen if Congress pursues a continuing resolution and 

we don’t carve out something? What’s—what could be the delay in 

the program? What actually would be the impact? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. We believe that, at this point, it would 

be at least a year delay, because this is the time when we need to 

sign the contracts and start work on the—from the prime contractor for both the space segment and the ground segment. The 

contracts have already been let for the instruments. This is a lesson we learned from NPOESS. So, the contract for the instruments 

have been working—been working on them to make sure that 

they’re ready for the satellite. So, if we—if we have to stay at the 

same levels, we will have to slow down, substantially, either the instruments or the space segment. And we believe that would delay, 

probably, a year—more than a year in the—being able to launch 

the satellite. And then, that would be a risk that we’d go below— 

we like to have a risk of no greater than—or, no less than 80 percent, that we’re—we’ll—that we’ll have our two satellites in orbit 

to—as warning sentinels against severe weather and other disasters. We do not like to drop below 80 percent. If we have this delay, 

caused by not being able to increase the funding, as we’ve proposed, that is a strong possibility. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I’m sure my colleagues, from other 

parts of the country who have that kind of weather conditions 

much more frequently than we do in the Northwest, would be very 

concerned about that. So, we certainly want to make sure that 

34 

we’re doing all that we can to improve the delivery on this program. 

Let me turn to another technology question, as it relates to a 

specific issue that you and I have discussed as—it’s particular to 

Washington State—I brought it up in my opening statement— 

about the extreme damage done to the State of Washington from 

hurricane-force winds that we definitely weren’t anticipating or expected. We certainly get 100-mile-and-hour winds from time to 

time—or quite frequently, in the fall and winter of the year, 70- to 

80-mile-an-hour winds, but this was something even above what 

has been our historical trends. And we have discussed the fact that 

the West Coast, in this particular area of Washington State, probably has some of the worst radar coverage in the U.S. Would you 

agree with that, Admiral, that we are less resourced there than 

probably anybody else? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I would agree that the radar coverage 

is blocked in certain areas. We put resources into Northwest Washington as well as we do around the country. We try to spread our 

resources where it makes sense and to provide uniform kinds of 

coverage. So, I don’t—I—we are not shorting, basically, resources 

for the Northwest. I want to make that clear. 

Now, I agree that we have some issues there. We’ve worked on 

it. We appreciate your help in supporting the meeting that we had, 

on March 6th, where we got together with all of the constituents, 

emergency managers, everyone who was involved in, basically, 

dealing with this very severe winter storm, and I think we have 

a much better understanding of what the constituents need and 

what we need. So, we’re working on improving the observations. 

We’re improving forecasts. And better communication and dissemination came out as an issue. So, we’re working across the entire 

Weather Service to deal with that. The warning—our forecast office 

out there is working to make sure that they have the right kinds 

of connections with the emergency managers, radio stations, people 

who can effect an understanding for the public as to what’s happening, and provide direct support. 

We are doing a full assessment of all of the services out there, 

from the headquarters perspective, as to what we delivered and 

can we improve on it. We expect that to be done by end of the 

month. 

We are working with the FAA to incorporate the—as I mentioned 

to you earlier—the data from its air route surveillance radar at 

McChord Field, Washington, because that’s a place where you can 

see down the coast with some information. So, we believe that can 

be finished—we can do that by the end of 2008, and have that in 

place, have that connection made and have that data input into the 

weather systems. So, that will make a—that will make a significant difference in radar coverage. 

Senator CANTWELL. But, Admiral, could you—beyond that, do 

you support improved technology solutions for that area? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Oh, yes. Yes. And we are working with 

the University of Massachusetts and the Collaborative Adaptive 

Sensing—CASA program—to determine the feasibility of the smaller radars to see what makes sense. And, in the end, we are looking 

at a—I would say, a full-court press, as I mentioned, a mixed—I’ve 

35 

asked—directed the head of the Weather Service to look at the full 

array of sensors so we can provide the right information—buoys 

that are far enough off the coast, increasing radar coverage, that 

we’ve talked about, other types of ground sensors. 

And another issue that doesn’t come up real often in most other 

parts of the country is the need for localized models. That’s a very 

specialized terrain area. And so, when you look at the large-scale 

generalized models, where you have a grid size that’s 10 kilometers, that doesn’t detail what happens in that specialized area, 

with this rugged geometric. So, those are—those are—we are looking at a full-court press on trying to deal with the issues that resulted from that storm. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, certainly this storm hit in a most vulnerable spot, from a technology perspective. I mean, the least 

amount of information ended up being the eye of the storm. What 

funds are included in the FY09 budget to address this gap? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. We have the money in there for the 

studies, for the radars, and we will have to use Fiscal Year 2009 

funds to look at modernizing if we have the results from the studies that tell us what to do. We could provide buoys, and we can provide modeling, and we’ll have to look at the cost of the small radars, which—we haven’t completed the study yet, so I can’t tell you 

what that is. 

Senator CANTWELL. And you think that can be done within the 

FY09 budget, those kinds of—— 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I think that some of it can be done. I 

don’t think that all of it can be done. I think that this will take 

time. This is not—this is not an instantaneous fix. There’s—it’s 

not—there is nothing on the shelf, other than the things I’ve mentioned. We have a National Data Buoy Center, and we can—and 

we can schedule installations of buoys and hook them up to the 

Net. We can schedule some sensors. We can look at changes to 

models. In terms of building radars and putting in modernized radars, that takes, normally, several years to do that and complete 

it. It’s not something that can be done very quickly. But, we will 

start on it. We are committed to start on it and provide the funding 

when it’s—when we have a program that meets a sensible cost-benefit analysis that you would agree to. 

Senator CANTWELL.—well, we appreciate you continuing to work 

on this very important issue. And I can’t explain to those who are 

in attendance today how devastating that was to a particular area 

of our state, the flooding. The Coast Guard rescued hundreds of 

people off of rooftops and everything else. But, no one expected 

150-mile-an-hour winds. And with the shadow of the Olympic 

Mountain Range, it does cause quite a bit of problem in getting 

good weather and forecast data into that region. 

A related issue—I’m sticking on a technology trend here for a 

second—on the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, I know that your 2009 

request includes $6.3 million to conduct UAV tests in four different 

regions: the Pacific, the Arctic, West Coast, East Coast. So, what 

type of—will those be ready for the 2008 hurricane season? What 

is your anticipation? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. We plan to—if the tracks are such that 

are amenable to where we have asset stationed, we plan to test it 

36 

again in the 2008 hurricane season, yes. So, one of the tests will 

be for hurricanes and the others we plan for the Pacific and for the 

Arctic area, both West Coast and Hawaii or the Central Pacific. 

Those tests are more amenable to scheduling. And that’s part of 

the budget, and we will—you know, we will conduct them for 2009, 

and we have some money in 2008 that we’ll continue to expand on 

our ability to use unmanned aerial systems. 

I think they’re essential for the future. They allow us to see in 

places that are remote. Satellites can’t see the detail; they’re not 

low enough or have enough fidelity. Manned aircraft are dangerous; you can’t maintain the mission profiles for very long without incurring a huge expense because of the cost of manned aircraft. And particularly for looking at weather systems that come 

into the western part of the United States, I think that UAVs offer 

a great benefit, and, potentially, leap forward for us to be able to 

provide better weather forecasting along the West Coast. So, we 

are very interested in making these tests. 

Senator CANTWELL. Has the FAA given you approval to do so, 

particularly as it relates to, you know, mainland or adjacency to 

international waters? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. This is—if—the technology is fairly 

proven, it’s—it really is the operational issues that we have with 

using manned airspace and unmanned air vehicles in that airspace. 

We are working with the FAA. We’ve been able to get approval to 

do the tests, so far. We would like to be able to get more—I don’t 

want to say ‘‘blanket authority,’’ but more rapid response for areas 

that are not conflicting with manned aircraft. We think that’s possible off the coasts, in areas away from, obviously, airports and—— 

Senator CANTWELL. So, you have got—you have gotten authority 

for—— 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER.—I don’t have ‘‘blanket authority,’’ but 

we have—— 

Senator CANTWELL.—no, but—— 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER.—been able to do it for tests, yes. We 

have been able—but, it requires you to work closely with—well, 

NASA helps us with the FAA, to get permission to fly these routes. 

Senator CANTWELL.—and so, have they given you specific restrictions? Is that what happens—— 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. They give you restrictions, and it has to 

fit in with the—with their operations. So, there are restrictions. 

There are time and airspace restrictions that are placed on us. 

Senator CANTWELL.—well, this is an issue for the larger committee as a whole, but we certainly—we’d like to see those restrictions, and we’d like to see NOAA continue to push forward on getting a broader authority. We think it is critical, both for weather 

and information, that the unmanned vehicle technology be used in 

helping gather and getting us more consistent and timely information. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I agree, and I will keep pressing on it. 

Senator CANTWELL. I’d like to turn to a couple of other issues, 

if I could. I want to make sure this—in your proposed budget, the 

educational—NOAA education has been cut $34 million, and many 

of the programs are directed at scholarships and education and— 

how does cutting that budget sync up with Congress’s focus on 

37 

science and education and the COMPETES Act and everything that 

we’re trying to do, and yet we’re cutting this vital element? And, 

as you were saying in answer to Senator Stevens’ question, getting 

to the bottom of mapping and science and—we need these individuals, as it relates to better science, to guide our decisions in management of fisheries. So, how is—cutting that program help us attain those goals? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Obviously it doesn’t. I’m a big supporter 

of education programs, and I have spent a lot of time trying to reinstall them in the NOAA budget and in our planning. 

What happens if the education budget—first of all, it has grown 

over the years, both in terms of what NOAA has been able to provide in its initial submission to Congress and in what Congress has 

eventually appropriated for us and that the President has agreed. 

What we have each year is a series of educational programs which 

are, from the viewpoint of our leadership, one-time programs that 

are directed toward very specific items. The general intent—directions that I’m given when—to build a budget, is to ensure that we 

have competitive processes and that we have national programs, 

and so that there is a broader coverage applied to it. 

To the extent that I’ve been able to get those programs through, 

that’s where we are today. And those include the scholarship programs that we have, which I think are very, very vital, and several 

other open grant programs that are there. I’m looking for a way to 

try to convert most of what happens into those kinds of systems. 

Now, to help support building better agreement on it, I would 

say, between the Administration and Congress, we have asked the 

National Academies to help us with a plan, and give us priority, 

so that we can have some—what I would say, outside legitimate assurance that what we’re doing makes sense, and that it’s cost-effective, and that this is a—the right place to spend resources for education. When that—hopefully, that’ll be done this year—we’ll be 

able to have—I would like to have a better agreement on the 

amount of resources that we provide for education, between Congress and the Administration. I believe this foundation will help us 

with that discussion. 

Senator CANTWELL. Could you talk a little bit about the Office 

of Response and Restoration, as it relates to oil spill capacities and 

the budget? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes. OR&R, as we call it, is an important responsibility of NOAA. We are the trustee for Federal resources in the marine environment. This is a group of experts that 

helps with major disasters, such as oil spills, chemical spills, and 

other types of environmental issues that come up. They have experts that help determine the spread of oil or the currents, the 

waves; they work hand-in-hand with the Coast Guard and the 

State cleanup responding parties to ensure that it’s done correctly, 

that it’s done efficiently, and it’s an important service that’s been 

termed very valuable by everyone who uses it. 

We had, last year, a reduction in the—what we call the base 

funding for that program, and so, we have asked to restore that 

that this year in our program. We’re—we had about $11 million 

last year, and we’re asking for $17 million this year. This will allow 

us to be responsive to more than one event at a time, basically. ObVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Aug 29, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75681.TXT JACKIE
38 

viously, the oil spill in the San Francisco Bay that happened this 

year is an example of why we need this kind of capability, and I 

think it’s very important for the country. And I ask for support for 

the full amount for OR&R. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. Thank you. And one last question. Believe it or not, I have several others, but I want to get on 

to our second panel, and I’ll submit those—— 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator CANTWELL.—in writing. And if you could be as—help 

from your staff to answer those and get back to the Committee, 

that would be very helpful to members. 

But, the orca recovery funding is of—something that—unique 

concern to us. The recovery plan released by NOAA this year says 

that the cost to actually delist them from a recovery plan would be 

somewhere in the $50 million range over 28 years. And so, right 

now the budget includes, I think, a million dollars for these—so, if 

you’re talking that size and scale, you know, over a 20-plus-year 

period of time, how are we going to—how are we going to make 

progress? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Well, this is a—an initial downpayment, obviously. When you look at those plans, they are—we generally work with partnerships. So, in the areas where we need to 

look at recovering habitat and that sort of things, it becomes State, 

local, NGO. There are other ways and other parts of our general 

system to help support that. Obviously, we don’t have in our budget anywhere near the number that’s talked about there, but we do 

have enough to get started. I believe, with the million dollars that 

we have in here, as we move ahead we’ll be able to have a better 

handle on this rough estimate of $50 million and what it would 

take to do it. And our plan is to continue to work on this program 

and ensure that we put absolutely as much as we can against the 

recovery plan. 

Senator CANTWELL. And so, you would think—I mean, certainly—I don’t think the orca population can tolerate a 50-year recovery plan. I’m not even sure it can sustain the 28 years that 

we’re looking at. So, you’re saying that this initial $1 million is 

more a reflection of the need to get your arms around the various 

aspects of the program, and that next year we might see a more 

robust number. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I’m—that is our plan. Our plan is to try 

to learn more about what we can do with a million, what it takes, 

and see if there are other options, other ways to get the resources, 

and more definitive—more definition of what those resources are 

and who might provide them, or when they need to be, you know, 

enacted or in—— 

Senator CANTWELL. But, given—— 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER.—in play. 

Senator CANTWELL.—I don’t know who came up with the initial 

$50 million in costs, but you would agree that having $50 million 

over 28 years, and starting with $1 million this year, might not get 

us to—— 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. It—you have to have a pretty steep profile to take care of that; I do agree with that. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

39 

Thank you, Admiral Lautenbacher, for being here this morning 

and for answering all of these questions. We appreciate you answering additional ones that might be submitted, not only by the 

Chair, but by other members of the Committee. 

But, we, as you can see from my colleagues who did attend, have 

great concern about the budget impacts, from a fisheries management perspective, as well as some of the other resources that we 

count on from NOAA to maintain a pristine maritime environment 

in the various regions of our country, and to continue to manage 

the resources of the habitats that are there. So, we’ll look forward 

to continuing to work with you on those particular problems, and 

to try to drive these numbers to actually meet the goals that NOAA 

has set. 

So, we thank you, again, for being here today. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. And thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your support. Thank you. 

Senator CANTWELL. So, we’ll turn now to the second panel that 

we have this morning, which is—if they could make their way to 

the front table—we have with us Mr. Jefferson Gray, who is the 

Superintendent of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary; 

Dr. Susan Williams, who is the Director of the Bodega Bay Marine 

Laboratory, University of California; and Ms. Kathy Fosmark, who 

is Co-Chair of the Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries. 

So, welcome, to all. Thank you for being here today to talk about 

marine sanctuary expansion issues, these specific proposals. 

So, Mr. Gray, I think I’m going to start with you. And if you 

can—turn on your microphones, pull them up close, and we would 

appreciate it if you could keep your comments to 5 minutes, and 

we’ll go down the line. And then, after the end of each—after the 

end of all presentations, then we’ll have some questions. 

But, again, thank you for being here, and welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFERSON GRAY, SUPERINTENDENT, 

THUNDER BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY 

AND UNDERWATER PRESERVE 

Mr. GRAY. Good morning. And, Madam Chairman, thank you for 

having us here—and the distinguished members of the Subcommittee staff. 

My name is Jefferson Gray. I am the Superintendent of the 

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve 

located in Alpena, Michigan. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on Senate bill 2281, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification Act. 

Designated in 2000, the sanctuary provides long-term protection 

and management to a nationally significant collection of shipwrecks and other maritime heritage resources. NOAA agrees with 

the underlying purpose of the bill, which is to provide Federal protection to the maritime heritage resources located off of Michigan’s 

Presque Isle and Alcona Counties by incorporating them into the 

existing sanctuary. 

The proposal has widespread support in the local communities. 

In May of 2000, the Thunder Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council recommended expending the sanctuary 3,662 square miles to an area 

40 

extending between those two counties and all the way to the international border with Canada. 

Formal support for sanctuary expansion has been received from 

seven local units of government. This is not surprising, given the 

success we’d had matching the sanctuary, building strong partnerships in Michigan, and the sanctuary’s positive influence on local 

communities. One example of that positive influence is the opening 

of the Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center, which is our visitor 

center and research center, by converting a brownfield site into a 

green building, which was recently certified gold by the LEED®

certification, as well as the biodiesel vessels, that we mentioned 

earlier, operate out of Alpena. 

The bill would expand the sanctuary approximately eight times 

from its current size, of 448 square miles. The sanctuary shoreline 

would increase from 95 to 225 miles, and would include the cities 

of Alpena, Harrisville, and Rogers City. 

Under this proposal, five State parks, seven lighthouses, and a 

lifesaving station would be adjacent to the expanded sanctuary. 

More than 200 shipwrecks rest within this proposed area. Magnificently preserved by Lake Huron’s cold freshwater, these archaeological sites are one of the Nation’s best-preserved and historically 

significant collection of shipwrecks. From pioneer steamers to majestic schooners to modern freighters, these sites represent a microcosm of maritime heritage on the Great Lakes. Memorials to the 

men and women that worked and died on the inland seas, these 

unique sites have a tremendous historical, archaeological, and recreational value. They not only connect us with the past, but they 

connect us to the Great Lakes, one of the Nation’s most precious 

natural resources. 

The bill would add important protection to a nationally significant collection of maritime heritage resources that are vulnerable 

to human and natural impacts. This proposal has received widespread support in the communities, as it would highlight these resources and provide additional opportunities for tourism and economic growth. 

It’s important to note that NOAA’s currently undergoing management plan review for the existing sanctuary. During the initial 

scoping conducted as part of this process, significant public comment was received in support of expansion. As noted earlier, the 

Advisory Council, which advises the sanctuary superintendent during management plan, passed a resolution recommending that the 

sanctuary be expanded as soon as feasible. While there is public 

support for expansion, as a general matter, NOAA prefers to see 

significant actions such as these vetted through public management and regulatory processes rather than legislatively. Again, 

NOAA supports the intent of the bill and looks forward to working 

with the Committee as the bill moves forward. 

Thank you, again, for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gray follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFERSON GRAY, SUPERINTENDENT, THUNDER BAY

NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY AND UNDERWATER PRESERVE

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Jefferson 

Gray, the Superintendent of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 

41 

(NOAA) Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve (Sanctuary). Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 2281, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification Act. 

The Sanctuary was designated in October 2000 for the purposes of providing longterm protection and management to the conservation, recreational, research, educational, and historical resources and qualities of a nationally significant collection 

of shipwrecks and other maritime heritage resources in the area. Along the lines 

of the maritime heritage resource protection goals of the Sanctuary, NOAA agrees 

with the underlying purpose of S. 2281, which is to provide Federal protection to 

the shipwrecks, and other maritime heritage resources, located off Michigan’s 

Presque Isle and Alcona Counties by incorporating them into the Sanctuary. 

This proposal has widespread support in the local communities. On May 22, 2007, 

the Thunder Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) recommended expanding the 

Sanctuary to a 3,662-square-mile area extending from Alcona County to Presque 

Isle County, east to the international border with Canada. Formal support for sanctuary expansion has been received from the City of Alpena, Alpena County, Alpena 

Township, Sanborn Township, Presque Isle Township, the City of Rogers City, 

Alcona County, Michigan Sunrise Side Travel Association, and the Sunrise Side 

Coastal Highway Management Council. 

Support for Sanctuary expansion should not be surprising given the success we 

have had in managing the Sanctuary, building a strong partnership with the State 

of Michigan, and having a positive influence on the local community. Here are just 

a few of NOAA’s recent accomplishments: 

The ribbon cutting for the Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Trail took place at the 

seventh annual Thunder Bay Maritime Festival in July 2007. The trail offered dockage for visiting tall ships and allowed visitors to the festival to tour the tall ship 

HIGHLANDER SEA. As part of the Sanctuary’s education mission, twenty full-color 

historic markers are being developed to interpret shipwrecks, lumber mills, dock 

remnants, historic waterfront buildings and Great Lakes shipping to create a broader maritime heritage context for the sanctuary’s shipwrecks. 

NOAA sponsored the Great Lakes Regional Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) 

building competition in April 2007. The contest featured 12 teams of high school 

students vying for a spot at the Marine Advanced Technology Education Center’s 

international ROV competition in St. John, Newfoundland. The Great Lakes Home 

School—first time competitors from Wolverine, Michigan—took first place at the regional event, and finished sixth overall. The competition is designed to inspire the 

next generation of underwater scientists and explorers to pursue careers in marine 

fields. 

Sanctuary staff recently finished digitizing one of the Nation’s largest archives of 

19th-century Great Lakes vessel data and maritime history documents. Volunteers 

contributed 3,500 hours to digitizing 15,000 Great Lakes vessel files. Digitization is 

the first step toward making the information searchable and useful for research and 

conservation purposes. The files are housed in Alpena County’s George N. Fletcher 

Public Library, where staff are developing a searchable interface for the collection 

that will allow users to retrieve information using the Michigan Electronic Library 

or Internet search engines. 

In 2007, the Sanctuary’s Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center in Alpena, Michigan, was presented with the Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Saver Award. 

The purpose of the award is to promote wise energy and water use throughout the 

Federal Government by recognizing agencies that showcase cost-effective, energy-efficient, water-conserving and renewable energy technologies in their facilities. The 

center is on track to becoming a Gold Certified Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design building. This is only the fifth time NOAA has received the award 

since 1995. The Center not only serves to educate the public about the significance 

of shipwrecks and maritime heritage though exhibits, but it is also the headquarters 

for NOAA’s Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The Center also won a Department of Energy ‘‘You Have the Power’’ award for energy conservation in 2006. 

Senate bill S. 2281 would expand the sanctuary’s boundaries to approximately 

eight times its current size of 448 square miles. The sanctuary’s shoreline would 

also increase from 95 to 225 miles and subsequently include the cities of Alpena, 

Harrisville and Rogers City. Under this proposal an additional five state park properties, seven historic lighthouses and one lifesaving station would also be adjacent 

to the expanded boundaries. 

More than 200 shipwrecks rest within the proposed expansion area. Magnificently 

preserved by the cold freshwater of Lake Huron, these archeological sites are one 

of the Nation’s best-preserved and historically-significant collections of shipwrecks. 

From pioneer steamers to majestic schooners to modern freighters, these sites represent a microcosm of maritime commerce on the Great Lakes. Memorials to the 

42 

men and women that worked the inland seas, these unique sites have tremendous 

historical, archaeological, and recreational value. They not only connect us to the 

past, but they also connect us to the Great Lakes—one of our most precious natural 

resources. NOAA agrees that S. 2281 would add important protection to nationally and 

internationally significant maritime heritage resources that are vulnerable to 

human impacts and invasive species. This proposal has also received widespread 

support in local communities, as it would highlight these resources and provide additional opportunities for tourism and economic growth in Northeastern Michigan. 

It is also important to note that NOAA is currently undergoing a management 

plan review for the existing Sanctuary. During the initial public scoping that was 

conducted as part of this process, significant public comment was received in favor 

of sanctuary boundary expansion. As noted above, the Thunder Bay SAC, which advises the Sanctuary Superintendent during management plan review, passed a resolution that recommended the sanctuary be expanded as soon as feasible. While there 

is public support for such an expansion, as a general matter NOAA prefers to see 

that significant actions such as these be vetted through public management plan 

and regulatory development processes rather than legislatively, as S. 2281 would do. 

Again, NOAA supports the intent of S. 2281 and looks forward to working with 

the Committee as the bill moves forward. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Gray. 

Dr. Williams, welcome to the Committee. Thank you for being 

here. 

STATEMENT DR. SUSAN L. WILLIAMS, PROFESSOR OF EVOLUTION AND ECOLOGY; DIRECTOR, BODEGA MARINE LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS 

Dr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am Professor at the 

University of California at Davis, and I am the Director of the 

Bodega Marine Laboratory. I appear before you as an independent 

marine scientist with over 30 years of experience. 

Senator CANTWELL. You might pull that just a little bit closer. 

Dr. WILLIAMS. It should—— 

Senator CANTWELL. There you go. There you go. Now you’re—— 

Dr. WILLIAMS.—hello? 

Senator CANTWELL.—perfect. 

Dr. WILLIAMS. OK, thank you. 

I have been involved in the review—public review process for the 

proposed sanctuary expansion since 2002. 

I wish to emphasize three points in my remarks. First, the Gulf 

of the Farallones and the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries lie within one of the most productive and unique marine 

ecosystems on Earth, the California Current Upwelling Ecosystem. 

It’s one of only four coastal upwelling ecosystems on Earth, and the 

only one of its kind in the United States. These upwelling ecosystems cover only 1 percent of the ocean’s surface, but are responsible for 20 percent of the world’s fish catch. 

Second, an integral piece of this unique ecosystem lies unprotected outside the existing boundaries, and this area includes the 

wellspring for life in the downstream sanctuaries. And without protecting this expansion area, the marine life in the existing sanctuaries is put at risk. The rich food produced in this upwelling ecosystem supports a diverse assemblage of local and migratory life in 

the sanctuaries and in the expansion area. For example, one-third 

of the world’s whale and dolphin species, including the highest concentration of endangered blue whales on Earth; the largest concentration of breeding seabirds in the continental U.S.; over 200 

43 

species of fishes, including threatened rockfish and salmon; commercial seafood species such as Dungeness crab and abalone; bamboo corals, which provide invaluable record of climate change. Scientific research has demonstrated that the expansion area from 

Point Arena to Bodega Bay is consistently the most productive region in the entire ecosystem, and thus, is vital to protect. 

New research has demonstrated that the expansion area is the 

wellspring for the sanctuaries. It generates their source waters, nutrients, and food. And this computer simulation demonstrates that 

the area in Point Arena provides the source water nutrients and 

food for the areas downstream, which include the sanctuaries. 

These data come from the Bodega Marine Lab’s Coastal Ocean Observing System. 

So, this expansion area is also a documented hotspot of fish and 

bird diversity and abundance, and a critical habitat for endangered 

whales, threatened sea lions, vulnerable fur seals, and fishery species such as the Dungeness crab, rockfish, and sole. In fact, biological resources in certain areas in the expansion area are richer than 

in the sanctuaries themselves. H.R. 1187 will protect the source 

waters for this phenomenal marine life downstream in the sanctuaries. The public review process has been exceptionally thorough, 

starting in 2001 and before, and the Act has broad support. 

The threats are real. Oil spills have occurred; most notably, the 

COSCO BUSAN spill in November 2007. Importantly, this bill protects fishes and does not change existing fishery regulations, so it 

has received the support of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations and the Local Bodega Bay Fishermen’s Marketing Association. 

In conclusion, the whole is only as good as the sum of the parts. 

H.R. 1187 will protect the breadbasket, the food pipeline, which I 

attempted to show in the computer simulation, and the biological 

hotspots in the expansion area, as well as the downstream sanctuaries. Without this protection, the life in the sanctuaries is at 

risk. 

I thank the Committee, and I would be happy to provide any further assistance in your deliberations. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Williams follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. SUSAN L. WILLIAMS, PROFESSOR OF EVOLUTION AND

ECOLOGY, DIRECTOR OF THE BODEGA MARINE LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

As a marine scientist with over 30 years of experience, I have a special interest 

in preserving the cleanest, most pristine and bountiful waters of our planet. It is 

important for researchers like me to be able to observe marine life in healthy and 

intact ecosystems. As a scientist, I know that the healthiest ecosystems need to be 

protected to ensure the survival of threatened and endangered marine species and 

commercially valuable species. As a Professor who teaches Marine Biology to nonscience majors, it is equally important to be able to show students living examples 

of magnificent species such as blue whales. The Sanctuary expansion areas in H.R. 

1187 serve these purposes, and in my testimony I wish to mainly address the 

science behind the need to include these areas in the Marine Sanctuary system. 

I wish to emphasize three points in my remarks: 

1. The existing Gulf of the Farallones and the Cordell Bank National Marine 

Sanctuaries lie within one of only four coastal upwelling ecosystems on Earth, 

and the only one in the United States (the California Current Upwelling Ecosystem); upwelling ecosystems are the most productive ocean ecosystems. 

44 

2. H.R. 1187 will protect the source of the water, nutrients, and food and critical 

habitats for the exceptionally diverse marine life that resides in or utilizes the 

Sanctuaries, including fisheries species, endangered or threatened species, species important to understanding global climate change, and the oceanographic 

processes that influence the weather. Without protection for the northern half 

of the California Current Upwelling Ecosystem, marine life within the existing 

Sanctuaries is placed at risk. 

3. Public support for the Sanctuaries boundary modification has been exceptional over the lengthy review process. 

Below, I will address each point in detail. 

1. The Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries lie 

within one of the most productive ocean ecosystems on Earth: the California Current 

Upwelling Ecosystem. The California Current Upwelling System is one of only four 

coastal upwelling ecosystems on Earth and it is the only coastal upwelling ecosystem in the United States. Upwelling systems are collectively responsible for 20 

percent of the total world fish catch, even though they occupy less than 1 percent 

of the total area of the world’s oceans (Cushing 1969, Bakun and Parrish 1982, 

Botsford et al., 2003). 

Upwelling ecosystems worldwide are defined by special oceanographic processes 

that lead to exceptional biological productivity. In response to winds blowing over 

the ocean, shallow sunlit waters are fertilized with nutrients welled up from deeper 

colder waters. The nutrients stimulate the growth of the microscopic marine plants 

(phytoplankton) at the base of open ocean food webs, resulting in dense concentrations of food for marine animals. The upwelling in the area from Point Arena to 

Bodega Bay to be included in the modified boundary is known to be the most intense upwelling in North America (see below). 

2. H.R. 1187 will protect the source of the water, nutrients, and food and critical 

habitats for the exceptionally diverse marine life that resides in or utilizes the Sanctuaries, including fisheries species, endangered or threatened species, species important to understanding global climate change, and the oceanographic processes that 

influence weather. 

The scientific justification for the expansion is well-founded and summarized 

below. 

A critical center of upwelling—providing the source waters for the Gulf of the 

Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries downstream—lies outside 

of the existing boundaries. The proposed 2093 square nautical mile expansion from 

Point Arena to Bodega Bay includes this critical upwelling center. Deep, cold, nutrient-rich water wells up to the ocean’s surface at Point Arena and flows to the south 

and into the existing National Marine Sanctuaries (Largier et al. 1993, Kaplan and 

Largier 2006, Kuebel-Cervantes and Allen 2006), initiating and fertilizing blooms of 

the marine plants along the way and supporting organisms at all higher levels of 

the food web. Figure 1 shows ocean currents moving downstream from Point Arena 

south to the present Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries. The upwelling leads to such a great abundance of food that many top predators, including marine mammals and great white sharks, can thrive in the region. 

The area to be included within the modified boundary (Point Arena to Bodega 

Bay) is not only the source of water, nutrients, and food for the existing Sanctuaries, 

but it also consistently generates the most intense upwelling in North America. 

Ocean production is positively correlated with upwelling intensity: the more intense 

the upwelling, the more productive the ocean. The intensity of the upwelling from 

Point Arena to Bodega Bay is characterized according to NOAA’s upwelling index: 

http//www.pfeg.noaa.gov/products/PFEL/modeled/indices/upwelling/NA/dailyl 

upwell-graphs.html#p09daily.gif. Cold water is also an indication of upwelling 

strength. Figure 2 shows water temperatures are coldest around Point Arena, also 

signifying the intensity of the upwelling. 

The rich food generated by the upwelling provides a feast for a diverse assemblage 

of local and migratory marine life in the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank 

National Marine Sanctuaries. Overall, the California Current Upwelling Ecosystem 

supports more than one-third of the world’s whale and dolphin species in the region 

between Bodega Bay and Monterey Bay (Keiper et al., 2005). The Gulf of the 

Farallones has the largest concentration of breeding seabirds in the continental U.S. 

(12 species) and is home to five species of seals and sea lions. Thirty-six species of 

marine mammals migrate through the Sanctuary where they feed on the rich food, 

as do 163 species of birds. The Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary is home 

to at least 240 fish species, 69 species of seabirds, and 28 marine mammal species, 

with other species migrating through. The nearshore fish community includes many 

45 

commercially valuable, but also threatened, species of rockfish, lingcod, and 

greenling. 

In the fall, a species of seabird (sooty shearwater) migrates from the north to the 

south through the Sanctuaries en route to South America and to New Zealand, 

which protects the shearwaters as important elements of indigenous Maori culture. 

The shearwaters are so numerous that the flocks resemble smoke over the ocean’s 

surface. 

Black-footed albatross migrate between their feeding ground on Cordell Bank and 

their nesting sites on Midway Atoll in the central Pacific. 

Humpback and blue whales, both endangered with extinction, feed on the rich 

abundant food in the Sanctuary waters, generated by the upwelling. The blue 

whales utilizing these waters represent the largest concentration of this species on 

Earth. 

This highly productive marine ecosystem also gave rise to the oldest known coastal human settlement in northern California (at Duncan’s Landing), which was dated 

at 8,600 years (Kennedy et al., 2005). 

Mobile marine species cross over from the Sanctuaries to utilize critical habitat 

that lies unprotected in the expansion area. The expansion area hosts diverse populations of local and migratory fishes, birds, and marine mammals, which are attracted to the rich food, in a very similar manner to the areas protected in the existing Sanctuaries. 

NOAA’s Biogeography Program (NOAA 2003) revealed that the area to be included 

in the modified boundary in fact has in some cases even richer biological resources. 

‘Hotspots’ for high species diversity and high abundances of fishes and birds were 

identified within the expansion area. Some of the highest habitat suitability for the 

following species extends north of the boundary: commercial fish species (juvenile 

bocaccio, dover sole adults and juveniles, rockfish, Dungeness crab), harbor seals, 

Risso’s dolphin (seasonally). Two sites near Point Arena remain major winter haul 

out areas for the diminishing population of Steller sea lions (threatened). The area 

visited most by gray whales occurred between Fort Ross and Point Arena, outside 

the existing boundaries. Similarly, the seasonal high use area for the northern fur 

seal (conservation status: vulnerable) was just to the north and west of the Sanctuaries. 

Resident species in the expansion area include rockfish, lingcod, flatfish, Dungeness crab, sea lions, seals, and seabirds. Coastal seabirds and migratory shorebirds 

using the Pacific flyway frequent this stretch of coast. Secluded stretches of coast 

offer haul out areas for harbor seals and Steller sea lions (threatened) as well as 

nesting sites for many species of local seabirds. Gray whales pass through this corridor during their annual migration between breeding areas in Mexico and feeding 

grounds in Alaska. Other migratory species visiting the area seasonally to forage 

in the food-rich waters include endangered and threatened species such as humpback and blue whales, northern fur seals, coho salmon, black-footed albatross and 

leatherback sea turtles. Chinook or king salmon from northern California watersheds also frequent this area in spring and summer to feed on shrimp-like krill, anchovies, and sardines. 

In addition to fishes, birds, and marine mammals, extensive underwater forests 

of kelp (a giant seaweed) grow close to shore in the expansion area, where they 

serve as a critical nursery grounds for rockfishes. The kelp forests also support 

thriving populations of commercially valuable red sea urchins and red abalone 

(Karpov 2001, Rogers-Bennett 2003). The red abalone are abundant enough for an 

active recreational fishery, the only remaining abalone fishery on the west coast. 

Species of ancient deep-sea corals (bamboo corals) also live throughout the region 

and provide scientists with clues to climate change. The corals lay down growth 

rings like trees, providing incomparable records of past climate conditions (Roark et 

al., 2005). In addition these corals provide important habitat for deep-sea fishes. 

These corals are structurally fragile and susceptible to disturbance from oil and 

mineral exploration and extraction. 

The Bodega Canyon lies within the modified boundary of the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary and is a specialized habitat for a variety of species. The 

Bodega Canyon is one of several submarine canyons along the west coast. Cutting 

into the continental shelf, these canyons are critical conduits for transporting organic matter that provisions deep-sea animals (Vetter 1995). The steep walls of the 

canyons support a diverse assemblage of marine species including deep-water corals. 

Small shrimp-like animals (‘zooplankton’, especially the type know as ‘krill’) emerge 

from Bodega Canyon every night, attracting predators that aggregate on the down 

current side of submarine canyons to feed (Chess 1989). Krill is an important link 

in the Cordell Bank food web. Krill is the primary diet for blue whales and a seabird 

species (Cassin’s auklet) and a dietary staple for rockfishes, coho and king salmon. 

46 

Endangered blue whales are the largest animals ever known and each day they 

must consume two tons of food largely in the form of krill. To maintain this consumption rate, they seek dense krill aggregations. The krill in turn depend on the 

algal blooms sustained by upwelling. Krill concentrate downstream of intense 

upwelling centers, such as Point Arena, and at the edges of submarine canyons, including Bodega Canyon. California blue whales predictably can be found foraging 

at the edge of submarine canyons (Croll et al., 2005). Protecting these critical foraging areas is important to securing the continued survival of these magnificent 

whales. 

Expanding the boundary for the Sanctuaries is crucial to achieving their management goal of protecting the ecosystem for the marine life within, as stated in the 

Draft Joint Management Plan. The expansion area is an integral part of the California Current Upwelling Ecosystem which also encompasses the existing Sanctuaries. The abundant food for the species living in the Sanctuaries is produced upstream of the existing boundaries. And, many of the larger and mobile species travel 

outside of the Sanctuaries to utilize habitats in the expansion area. Critical parts 

of the ecosystem, such as the upwelling center at Point Arena and Bodega Canyon, 

are not protected in the existing Sanctuaries. Ecosystem-based management has 

strong support from both scientists and the public in recognition that species do not 

live in isolation of their environment or other species, including humans. 

The California Current Upwelling Ecosystem not only sustains phenomenal biological productivity, it also generates weather patterns along the west coast. The 

thick cloud cover over the ocean and coast—the ‘marine layer’ noted by Pacific coast 

weathermen—results from the cold surface waters of the upwelling, in conjunction 

with the summer Pacific High Pressure System. Such clouds are known to have an 

important influence on the heat budget of Earth (Rogers et al., 1995, Faloona et al., 

2005, Wen et al., 2006). This thick cloud layer can be strongly altered by pollution 

and by disruption to the upwelling system. 

3. Public support for the Sanctuaries boundary modification has been exceptional 

over the lengthy review process. 

Since my appointment as the Director of the University of California’s Bodega 

Marine Laboratory, I have personally witnessed overwhelming support for the Sanctuaries and the expansion. I have been involved in the Gulf of the Farallones, 

Cordell Bank, and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries due to common 

research and education interests. The Sanctuaries and the Bodega Marine Laboratory collaborate on public education efforts. The Laboratory provides a neutral 

venue for public meetings, including fishermen’s associations and scoping meetings 

for the Joint Draft Management Plan, and hosts Sanctuary-sponsored lectures and 

Sanctuary Advisory Council meetings. I attend Sanctuary volunteer celebration 

events. In addition, I participate in public forums and workshops dedicated to the 

science-based management of California’s ocean resources, as a charter member of 

the University of California’s Marine Council and until recently, a member of the 

California Resources Agency Sea Grant Advisory Panel. I interact frequently with 

the public through these activities, the students I teach and their parents, and 

Bodega Marine Laboratory’s public education program, which reaches up to 12,000 

visitors yearly. The public I have met who know about the Sanctuaries consider 

them a national treasure and are pleased that Congress is considering an expansion. 

Specifically, my direct involvement with the public review process for the expansion is as follows: 

• January 2002—Bodega Marine Laboratory hosted public scoping hearing on 

Joint Management Plan (attended by over 120 people). 

• August 2004—Testified at a public scoping hearing for Congresswoman Woolsey. Provided new scientific information that inextricably linked the expansion 

area to the current NMS through providing food and habitat for the organisms 

that depend on the NMS. 

• December 2004—Testified before the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, who 

unanimously approved of the expansion. 

• August 2005—Participated in an informational conference on the proposed expansion at Sanctuary Headquarters in San Francisco in 2005 on behalf of Senator Boxer and Congresswoman Woolsey. 

• January 2006—Provided scientific briefing for the proposed expansion for California’s Secretary to Resources, Mr. Mike Chrisman. The California Coastal 

Commission approved of the proposed legislation for the expansion. 

• November 2007—Testified on H.R. 1187 before the House Subcommittee on 

Fisheries, Wildlife, and the Ocean. 

47 

• Attended public scoping and informational meetings for the Sanctuaries and the 

expansion. 

• Attended meetings of the Sanctuary Advisory Councils, often hosted by the 

Bodega Marine Laboratory. 

• Supervise faculty who serve on the Sanctuary Advisory Councils and conduct 

research in the Sanctuaries and expansion area. 

• Provide scientific advice on areas within my expertise. 

This legislation has been in the making for a long time. As early as 2001 the expansion was considered in public scoping hearings for the Joint Draft Management 

Plan for the three Sanctuaries. The 2003 release of the NOAA’s Biogeographic Assessment (see bibliography provided at the end of the written testimony) provided 

impetus for this legislation. The assessment revealed the inextricable ecological 

linkages between the current Sanctuaries and the expansion area and that biological resources were in some cases richer in the expansion area. The bill was first introduced in the House by Congresswoman Woolsey in 2004 and reintroduced with 

a companion bill by Senator Boxer in 2005. Congresswoman Woolsey reintroduced 

a modified bipartisan bill with Congressman Gilchrist in 2007 and Senator Boxer 

introduced the Senate bill in 2008. A revised version of H.R. 1187—the same bill 

that this subcommittee is now considering—passed the House in March 2008. 

Along the way, public review and comment on the proposed expansion has been 

exceptionally thorough. The bill was launched with a capacity crowd public hearing 

attended by scientists, fishermen, environmentalists, and members of the general 

public at the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Chambers in 2004. The bill has 

also been reviewed several times by the Gulf of the Farallones NMS and Cordell 

Bank NMS Advisory Councils, the groups that under administrative procedures, 

begin the designation process. The bill has been endorsed by both Advisory Councils. 

Additionally, the bill had a House Oceans Subcommittee informational hearing in 

October 2007 and markups by the Subcommittee and the full House Natural Resource Committee in March 2008. 

Additionally, the legislation has been reviewed and endorsed by the California 

Coastal Commission, the California State Lands Commission, the Boards of Supervisors of Marin, Sonoma, San Francisco and Mendocino Counties, the City of San 

Francisco, and the Port of Oakland. All these meetings were noticed and the public 

was given the opportunity to comment. If the expansion is authorized, the public 

will again have ample opportunity to participate in the details of the expansion as 

the regulations will be developed through the administrative process. 

The members of the California State Lands Commission include the Lieutenant 

Governor, the State Controller and the State Director of Finance. The Commission 

has broad authority to protect lands including the state’s waterways, tidelands, and 

submerged lands. As part of its responsibilities, the Commission regulates and permits oil and gas leases and has comprehensive oil spill prevention programs. In its 

endorsement resolution, it noted the need to protect ‘‘these currently unprotected 

but biologically significant ocean areas in the Sanctuaries.’’ 

At least 36 local, state, and national organizations supported H.R. 1187, including 

the state, county, and city governments listed above and 

• California State legislators representing Mendocino and Sonoma County, including Assemblywomen Patricia Berg and Noreen Evans, Assemblyman Jared 

Huffman, State Senator Pat Wiggins and former State Senator Wes Chesbro 

while in office. 

• distinguished scientists (letters from 25 scientists from the University of California and other research institutions), 

• businesses (the Russian River Chamber of Commerce, Sonoma County Economic 

and Development Board, Mendocino Sea Vegetable Company), 

• fishermen (the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association; Bodega Bay 

Fishermen’s Marketing Association), 

• environmental groups (individual and joint letters of support from Natural Resources Defense Council, Ocean Conservancy, Sierra Club, Marine Conservation 

Biology Institute, Conservation Law Foundation, U.S. Public Interest Research 

Group, Cook Inletkeeper, Planning and Conservation League, The Marine Mammal Center, Surfrider Foundation, Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association, 

Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Pacific Environment, 

Mendocino Sea Vegetable Company, California Coastal Protection Network, Environment California, Environment America, National Marine Sanctuary Foundation). 

48 

Notably, there is wide support from the fishing community for the expansion. 

These fishermen recognize that protecting the quality of the source waters and the 

food pipeline for the Sanctuaries and critical fishery habitat that is currently unprotected is important for sustainable fisheries in the area. In addition, California 

State Senator Pat Wiggins, the Chairwoman of the Joint Legislative Committee on 

Fisheries and Aquaculture having oversight over the State Department of Fish and 

Game, stated in her endorsement letter for H.R. 1187: ‘‘This bill places no additional 

restrictions on the fishing community, so does not conflict with existing or future 

regulations from our State Department of Fish and Game.’’ The Sanctuary designation protects fisheries while allowing fishing and does not change existing authorities for fisheries. 

This great public interest is attracted fundamentally by the diverse marine life 

of the region (including iconic species such as the California sea lion), which also 

generates an important tourism economy and serves as a hook for science education. 

The Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary has attracted over 100 dedicated volunteers a year in its beach watch program alone. The volunteer contributions have been estimated at over $200,000 worth of effort annually. The beach 

watch program has been sustained for 10 years, with more than 90 percent of the 

volunteers returning each year. The interpretive center in San Francisco for the 

Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary hosts over 40,000 visitors yearly. 

The expanded boundary would bring the superb public education programs of the 

National Marine Sanctuaries farther north along the Pacific coast to reach rural and 

disadvantaged children. The Sanctuaries work closely with local schools and provide 

teacher training for activities such as monitoring tideline and beach communities 

and building a new curriculum that integrates geography and marine science 

through tracking tagged migratory animals online. They also have been exceptional 

research and education partners for institutions of higher education in the region. 

The public is concerned that the expansion be authorized now because the threats 

have been realized and will continue. 

The expansion area and the California Current Upwelling Ecosystem have been 

threatened by pollution historically and recently. 

The most environmental impact on the Sanctuaries and unprotected adjacent waters occurred on November 7, 2007, when 58,000 gallons of bunker oil spilled from 

the COSCO BUSAN and were dispersed into the Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey Bay Sanctuaries. At first count, 2,200 birds were oiled or killed. The research 

of the environmental impacts of this spill will only add to a solid base of knowledge 

about the effects of hydrocarbons on marine life built upon by scientists in NOAA, 

universities, and private institutes after similar incidents such as the EXXON 

VALDEZ oil spill. 

The COSCO BUSAN spill was presaged in the Gulf of the Farallones Draft Management Plan, which cited the evident risks from commercial vessels like the 

COSCO BUSAN that draw greater than 50 feet of water and are fueled with bunker 

oil, which is similar to crude oil. Additional risks were cited from the movement of 

oil tankers carrying an estimated 544 million gallons annually along the California 

coast. In addition to the COSCO BUSAN spill, there have been 10 vessel oil spills 

in the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary since 1971 (tallied in the 

Gulf of the Farallones Draft Management Plan), which killed tens of thousands of 

seabirds. The debilitating effects of oiling sea birds and marine mammals are well 

known by the public. 

In the late 1970s and 1980s there were attempts to lease oil tracts off the counties 

of Sonoma and Mendocino. Congress and past Republican and Democratic Administrations have already recognized that oil drilling is inappropriate in this area and 

have placed them under moratoriums. However, the current moratorium will expire 

in 2012 and there have been efforts to erode it in the meantime. Exploration and 

extraction activities disturb the sea floor and even minute concentrations of chemicals from oil and mineral extraction (in the ‘production water’) are toxic to sea life 

including economically valuable marine species (herring, sea urchins, Pacific oysters) that live in the Sanctuaries and expansion area (Garman et al., 1994, Krause 

1984). 

Sewage pollution is another type of pollution that threatens the Sanctuaries and 

the area to be included in the modified boundary. In 1986, 1995, and as recently 

as 2003, there were proposals to build ocean sewage outfalls along the Sonoma 

Coast, and there was a massive raw sewage spill in the Russian River in 1985, all 

just north of the existing boundary. 

More generally, the reports of the recent Pew and U.S. Ocean Commissions reflect 

broad public sentiment that our oceans are under incredible environmental stress 

and rapid and substantive action is required to redress the perils facing our oceans. 

Given that the Pew and U.S. Ocean Commissions agree that it is a priority to proVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Aug 29, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75681.TXT JACKIE
49 

tect biologically important areas and that there is ample scientific evidence of the 

value of the resources within the proposed expansion area, sound economic reasons, 

and broad public support for the expansions, it is important that Congress pass this 

legislation, rather than wait on the uncertainties of a lengthy administrative designation process. Congress previously created three Marine Sanctuaries. Congress 

also directed the Secretary of Commerce to administratively designate four National 

Marine Sanctuaries by specific dates. In 1996, Congress expanded the Flower Garden Bank NMS by adding Stetson Bank, a direct precedent to H.R. 1187/S. 2635. 

In sum, Congress has had direct involvement in the designation of seven of thirteen 

National Marine Sanctuaries and expanded one National Marine Sanctuary. 

Giving the Sanctuary program authority to address these threats and realities 

will help ensure that these ecologically unique waters remain clean and abundant 

with marine life. The Sanctuary would be able to collect penalties and settlements 

after spills and dedicate them to restoration projects in the expansion area, as it 

has in the existing Sanctuaries. 

The expansion will also better enable the Sanctuaries to carry out their management goal of protecting the ecosystem for the marine life within by including the 

critical parts currently unprotected, such as Bodega Canyon and the upwelling center at Point Arena. The expansion thus also addresses the U.S. and Pew Ocean 

Commissions conclusion that the ocean management must be based around ecosystems, rather than traditional jurisdictional boundaries; the legislation would adjust the jurisdictional boundary to better match the ecosystem. 

In the invitation letter, the Committee asked me to address the resources necessary to carry out the expansion. It is important to fully fund the National Marine 

Sanctuaries to further protect one of the richest marine ecosystems on Earth. However, funding should not stand in the way of passing the legislation because it provides in itself important protection for nationally valuable marine resources. As 

stated earlier in my testimony, the designation alone allows the Sanctuaries to collect fines. Potential polluters might think twice. The designation would attract competitive research grants. Although it was a hardship, the Cordell Bank NMS operated without funding in the first few years of its designation. The Sanctuary programs have achieved admirable success in partnering within the region, using volunteers, and attracting private donations to leverage their limited resources. However, additional funding is important for the Sanctuaries to fully expand its program 

and activities into new areas. 

H.R. 1187 authorizes an appropriation of $6,500,000 for implementation of the 

boundary modification and such sums as necessary for construction and acquisition 

projects for the Sanctuaries. The Congressional Budget Office, as ordered by the 

House Committee on Natural Resources, reported on March 12, 2008 that ‘‘enacting 

the bill would have no effect on revenues or direct spending.’’ The CBO estimated 

that ‘‘assuming appropriation of the amounts specified by the bill for sanctuary 

management or estimated to be necessary for authorized construction and acquisition activities’’, implementation would cost $20 million over the 2009–2013 period. 

The average annual appropriations to manage the two marine Sanctuaries currently 

are approximately $2 million. This small amount supports an exceptional Sanctuary 

program in management, public education, and research. 

In summary: Expanding the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National 

Marine Sanctuaries to include the Point Arena upwelling center is necessary to protect and study the source water for these two existing Sanctuaries. Nutrients and food 

produced in the Point Arena upwelling center are delivered by water currents moving 

south to the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank. By expanding the Gulf of the 

Farallones and the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries north to Point Arena, 

the wellspring for the biological productivity, the food pipeline, hotspots of biological 

diversity, and critical habitat for seabirds, marine mammals, and fisheries species 

that range northward from the existing Sanctuaries will be protected. Expanding the 

two Sanctuaries in H.R. 1187 will help achieve the goal of ecosystem-based management on a regional scale. 

As a marine scientist and educator, and as Director of one of the Nation’s oldest 

marine laboratories (Bodega Marine Laboratory) situated within the proposed 

boundary modification, I find the ecological uniqueness of the region a compelling 

reason to protect the source waters and critical habitat for the marine life that frequents the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries. 

Together, the area encompasses a major portion of the only coastal upwelling ecosystem in the United States, which is one of only four on Earth. As a citizen and 

a resident of this exceptional and unique stretch of the Nation’s coast, I find the 

diversity and abundance of marine life and the high productivity that puts food on 

the table very valuable to protect now and for future generations. 

50 

I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to share this information and offer 

any assistance I can provide in the next stages of its actions concerning H.R. 1187. 

Relevant Scientific Literature (Upon request, I will provide copies of any of these 

and additional publications). 

Bakun, A. and R.H. Parrish. 1982. Turbulence, transport, and pelagic fish in the 

California and Peru Current systems. CalCOFI Rep. 23:99–112. 

Botsford, L.W.; C.A. Lawrence; E.P. Dever; A. Hastings, and J. Largier. 2003. 

Wind strength and biological productivity in upwelling systems: an idealized study. 

Fisheries Oceanography 12:245–259. 

Chess, J.R. 1989. Sebastes jordani off central California. California Cooperative 

Oceanic Fisheries Investigation Report, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOAA– 

TM–NMFS–SWFC–133. 11 pp. 

Croll, D.A.; B. Marinovic; S. Benson; F.P. Chavez; N. Black; R. Ternullo; B.R. 

Tershy. 2005. From wind to whales: tropic links in a coastal upwelling system. Marine Ecology Progress Series 289:117–130. 

Cushing, D.H. 1969. Upwelling and Fish Production. FAO Fisheries Technical 

Paper No. 84, FRs/T84. FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/89204E/89204E00.htm. 

Faloona, I.; H. Lenschow; T. Campos; B. Stevens; M. van Zanten; B. Blomquist; 

D. Thornton; A. Bandy and H. Gerber. 2005. Observations of entrainment in eastern 

Pacific marine stratocumulus using three conserved scalars. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 62:3268–3285. 

Garman, G.D.; M.C. Pillai and G.N. Cherr. 1994. Inhibition of cellular events during early algal gametogenesis development: effects of select metals and an aqueous 

petroleum waste. Aquatic Toxicology 28:127–144. 

Kaplan, D.M. and J.L. Largier. 2006. HF-radar-derived origin and destination of 

surface waters off Bodega Bay, California. Deep Sea Research II 53:2906–2930. 

Karpov, K.; M.J. Tegner; L. Rogers-Bennett; P. Kalvass and I. Taniguchi. 2001. 

Interactions among red abalones and sea urchins in fished and reserve sites in 

northern California: implications of competition to management. Journal of Shellfish Research 20:743–753. 

Keiper, C.A.; D.G. Ainley; S.G. Allen and J.T. Harvey. 2005. Marine mammal occurrence and ocean climate off central California, 1986 to 1994 and 1997–1999. Marine Ecology Progress Series 289:285–306. 

Kennedy, M.A.; A.D. Russell and T. P. Guilderson. 2005. A radiocarbon chronology 

of hunter-gatherer behavior from Bodega Bay, California. Radiocarbon 47:265–294. 

Kuebel-Cervantes, B.T. and J.S. Allen. 2006. Numerical model simulations of continental shelf flows off northern California. Deep Sea Research II 53:2956–2984. 

Kennedy, M.A.; A.D. Russell and T. P. Guilderson. 2005. A radiocarbon chronology 

of hunter-gatherer occupation from Bodega Bay, California, USA. Radiocarbon 

47:265–293. 

Krause, P.R. 1994. Effects of an oil production effluent on gametogenesis and gamete performance in the purple sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus 

Stimpson). Environmental and Toxicological Chemistry 13:1153–1161. 

Largier, J.; B.A. Magnell and C.D. Winant. 1993. Subtidal circulation over the 

northern California shelf. Journal of Geophysical Research 98:18147–18179. 

NOAA, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) 2003. A Biogeographic Assessment off North/Central California: To Support the Joint Management Plan Review for Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries: Phase I—Marine Fishes, Birds and Mammals. Prepared 

by NCCOS’s Biogeography Team in cooperation with the National Marine Sanctuary 

Program. Silver Spring, MD. 145 pp. 

Roark, E.B.; T.P. Guilderson; S. Flood-Page; R.B. Dunbar; B.L. Ingram; S.J. 

Fallon and M. McCulloch. 2005. Radiocarbon-based ages and growth rates of bamboo corals from the Gulf of Alaska, Geophysical Research Letters 32: L04606, 

doi:10.1029/2004GL021919. 

Rogers, D.P.; X. Yang and P.M. Norris. 1995. Diurnal evolution of the cloudtopped marine boundary layer. Part I: Nocturnal stratocumulus development. American Meteorological Society 52:2953–2966. 

Rogers-Bennett; L. Rogers; D.W. Bennett; W.A. and T.A. Ebert. 2003. Modeling 

red sea urchin growth using six growth models. Fishery Bulletin 101: 614–626. 

Vetter, E.W. 1995. Detritus-based patches of high secondary production in the 

nearshore benthos. Marine Ecology Progress Series 120:251–262 

Wen, J.; Y.J. Zhao and A.S. Wexler. 2006. Marine particle nucleation: Observation 

at Bodega Bay, California. Journal of Geophyscial Research—Atmospheres 111. 

D08207, doi:10.1029/2005JD006210. 

Website for Upwelling http://www.pfel.noaa.gov/pfel/qtrlylrepts/fy96q4/sep96 

l3.html. 

51 

Figure 1. The source waters for the Gulf of the Farallones and the Cordell Bank 

National Marine Sanctuaries lie in the expansion area from Point Arena to Bodega 

Bay. Point Arena is an important center of ocean upwelling, providing nutrients and 

food. Surface currents are shown flowing southward from Point Arena, California. 

‘BML’ refers to Bodega Marine Laboratory, situated just north of the existing Sanctuary boundary. Arrows point in the direction of the surface currents. Color indicates the speed of the current (red = faster). 

Data from the coastal radar of the Bodega Ocean Observing Node at the Bodega 

Marine Laboratory, University of California at Davis. Funding was provided by the 

Bodega Marine Laboratory and the State of California’s Coastal Ocean Currents 

Monitoring Program. 

Figure 2. Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) for the northern half of the California 

Current Upwelling Ecosystem. Data from the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

The darker the blue, the colder the water, indicating the strength of the upwelling. 

The expansion area from Point Arena to Bodega Bay is the area of strongest 

upwelling. 


506will1a.eps
52 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Dr. Williams. Thank you for your 

testimony and for the demonstration—the interactive demonstration. 

Ms. Fosmark, thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF KATHY FOSMARK, CO-CHAIR, ALLIANCE OF 

COMMUNITIES FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 

Ms. FOSMARK. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, members of the Subcommittee, for the record, my 

name is Kathy Fosmark, and I’m appearing today to present the 

views of the Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries on 

H.R. 1187, the Gulf of Farallones and Cordell Bank Marine Sanctuaries Modification Act. 

The Alliance is a nonprofit organization, and we represent 18 

subgroups that range throughout the West Coast. We are basically 

representing waterfront communities, and we work constructively 

with agencies and individuals and other marine protection organizations in order to ascertain the—and guarantee—that the best 

and current science is used. And we are here to promote public policy and linkage between healthy, sustainable fisheries and marine 

conservation. 

The Alliance and its members have extensive experience in dealing with National Marine Sanctuary Program over the last 15 

years. 

On a personal level, I am part of a multigenerational fishing 

family that first settled in California in the 1800s. I fished commercially with my father and my husband over the course of 30 years, 

and our eldest son has recently entered the fishery. Our family has 

fished the Pacific Ocean in the area covered by these sanctuaries, 


506will2.eps
53 

for tuna, salmon, swordfish, crab, Pacific halibut, shrimp, and 

groundfish, using a variety of gears. 

I am a member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, although I am not here representing the members—the other members’ views. I am here representing the Alliance. 

Fishermen don’t oppose marine sanctuaries. Fishermen are conservationists, and need to depend on good science-based management in order to supply healthy seafood to the American consumer. 

California fishermen were responsible for the creation of these 

sanctuaries, but only in the condition of a promise made to the 

fishermen. 

I will read a small excerpt from the designation document. ‘‘Fishing is not being regulated as part of the sanctuary regime and is 

not included in the designation document as an activity subject to 

future regulation. Fisheries management will remain under the existing jurisdiction of the State of California National Marine Fishery Service and the Pacific Fishery Management Council.’’ 

Fishermen have come to distrust the sanctuary program. It appears their decisionmaking is political instead of science-based. Recently, the Magnuson-Stevens Act was amended to ensure the 

councils used good science. Sanctuaries need to meet the same scientific standards as the Councils. Fishermen need to be protected 

as much as resources. 

I appreciate the Committee considering the House-passed version 

of H.R. 1187, as there have been some important changes, but we 

have concerns about the bill, based on the promise. It doesn’t make 

it clear who controls fishing, gives sanctuary authority over living 

marine resources, and it also mandates zoning, which is a particular concern of ours, as you have heard earlier, with the Thunder Bay testimony, that that is not a situation of concern. 

Note that concerns have been realized from testimony of Bill 

Douros before the House and the Monterey National Marine Sanctuary need-decision paper that was issued, decision on marine protected areas without talking to the Council. The Pacific Fishery 

Management Council was not consulted before the need-decision 

was made. This is why fishermen want to have the promise kept. 

We cannot support the bill unless these concerns are addressed. 

Attached is suggested language, and we’re happy to work with 

the Subcommittee to refine and improve the bill. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fosmark follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHY FOSMARK, CO-CHAIR, ALLIANCE OF COMMUNITIES

FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES

Madame Chair, members of the Subcommittee, for the record my name is Kathy 

Fosmark and I am appearing today to present the views of the Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries on H.R. 1187, the ‘‘Gulf of the Farallones and 

Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries Boundary Modification and Protection 

Act.’’ 

The Alliance is a nonprofit organization representing eighteen commercial and 

recreational fishing organizations, ports, and harbors along the California Coast. 

Based in Monterey, California, the Alliance advocates for the heritage and economic 

value of fishing to California coastal communities by offering a broadly representative educational and promotional voice for waterfront communities to work constructively with interested agencies, individuals, and other marine protection organizations in order to ascertain and guarantee that: the best and most current oceanoVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Aug 29, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75681.TXT JACKIE
54 

graphic, socio-economic and fisheries science is accurately compiled; that science is 

readily available to the public for use in crafting and promoting public policy; and 

that the linkage between healthy sustainable fisheries, marine conservation, and 

coastal communities is firmly established in the public mind. The Alliance and its 

members have extensive experience in dealing with the National Marine Sanctuary 

Program over the past 15 years. 

On a personal level, I am part of a multi-generation fishing family that first settled in California in the 1800s. I fished commercially with my father and my husband over the course of 30 years and our eldest son now has entered the fishery. 

Our family has fished in the Pacific Ocean, including in the area covered by these 

Sanctuaries, for tuna, salmon, swordfish, crab, halibut, shrimp, and groundfish 

using a variety of gear types. I am also a member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, although the views I am presenting today do not necessarily reflect 

those of the Council or its other members. However, I have attached to my testimony a letter from the Council to Senator Smith which provides the Council’s views 

on the bill and ask that it be included in the record. 

My comments will address H.R. 1187 as passed by the House, as it is my understanding that this is the language the Subcommittee is considering. While not perfect—as noted below—we believe that substantial progress has been made on the 

bill and that it more generally addresses many of our concerns than the companion 

Senate bill, S. 2635. 

Fishermen do not oppose the concept of National Marine Sanctuaries. In fact, it 

was California fishermen who worked hard to have both of these Sanctuaries created. We recognize that Sanctuaries are designed to conserve special areas in the 

ocean and prevent damage to sensitive resources and habitats. 

However, when California fishermen supported creation of these Sanctuaries, they 

did so under a condition that has become popularly known as the ‘‘promise to fishermen’’: the Sanctuaries would not manage or otherwise regulate fisheries and fishing 

activities. Fisheries management in the ocean waters off California is in the hands 

of the Pacific Fishery Management Council. Fishermen are familiar and comfortable 

with the Council’s system of management, which is an open and transparent process 

that is based on the best scientific information available and that solicits and respects diverse views. Without that promise, fishermen would not have supported 

creation of the Sanctuaries. 

This is the focus of our concerns regarding the language of H.R. 1187. We appreciate the statement up front in the bill (section 3(c)) that nothing is intended to 

‘‘alter any existing authorities’’ regarding fishing. Those existing authorities rest on 

the weak foundation of the Sanctuaries’ respective designation documents. They are 

regulations, not law. And as such, they can be changed virtually at any time, as 

we saw happen over the last few years with the Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary—an area where the promise to fishermen was broken. 

Further reinforcing our concern is the language in sections 5(a)(2)(A)(i) and 

5(b)(2)(A) which includes ‘‘living marine and other resources within’’ the expanded 

boundaries of the Sanctuaries. Fish are living marine resources and these sections 

give the Sanctuaries clear authority over fish. Because the language regarding fishing in section 3 is not clear, the Sanctuaries could easily change their designation 

documents during a future management plan review such as the one required under 

section 7(b). 

We believe that our fears of the Sanctuary program taking a bigger role in fisheries management are well founded. For example, last year Mr. William Douros, 

West Coast Regional Director for the National Marine Sanctuary Program, testified 

before the House Committee on Natural Resources on reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and emphasized the program’s role in resource management, stating that ‘’the System is continually on the cutting edge of resource 

management.’’ In February of this year, the Monterey Bay Sanctuary announced it 

was moving forward with designing marine protected areas ‘‘in which the removal 

or alteration of marine life is prohibited or restricted’’; in other words a marine reserve. No discussion on this issue was held with the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council until April, in spite of the fact that designation of marine reserves in ocean 

waters could have a profound affect on the fisheries managed by the Council. We 

are not opposed to fisheries conservation and management, or even to time and area 

closures that are scientifically based and designed to protect important fish stocks 

and habitat. We are opposed to more and more Federal agencies arbitrarily deciding 

that they don’t want anyone to catch fish. 

Given this background, we are opposed to the language in section 7(e)(2) that 

mandates establishment of zones ‘‘if necessary to ensure protection of sanctuary resources.’’ While we can understand the need for zoning to protect important historical artifacts such as the wreck of the S.S. MONITOR off North Carolina, adding 

55 

this mandate here reinforces the concern about Sanctuary intrusion into the realm 

of fisheries management through the use of marine protected areas. 

In the area of sport fishing, we have been concerned about prohibiting the ‘‘deposit or discharge of any introduced species’’ into Sanctuary waters. The Sanctuaries 

themselves recognize that there is a thriving catch and release fishery for striped 

bass (Morone saxitilis) within the Sanctuaries and the proposed management plan 

changes published by the Sanctuaries last October make a clear exception for that 

fishery. H.R. 1187 acknowledges this by providing simply for appropriate regulations in section 7(d)(2). 

Similarly, sport fishermen are concerned about regulation of marine sanitation devices. While they agree with—and already meet—the requirements to use Type I or 

II devices, they are afraid that having language in a statute governing Sanctuaries 

will mean that Sanctuary enforcement officers, along with the Coast Guard, will be 

stopping their fishing operations and boarding their boats to inspect marine sanitation devices. We note that the House removed specific language on marine sanitation devices from H.R. 1187. 

California ports are worried about the effect of extending the Sanctuary boundaries to the mean high water line as described in section 5. The dynamic nature 

of our west coast currents requires frequent dredging of navigation channels and 

berthing areas to accommodate commercial and recreational vessel traffic. Prohibitions on discharge in Sanctuaries could effectively override the authority and scientific standards of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers, making it difficult to keep our ports open. The House removed such language 

from H.R. 1187 during Committee mark-up and we believe this to be the best approach. 

Madame Chair, we appreciate the Congress’s efforts to expedite changes in the 

Sanctuary boundaries through legislation and that some of our suggestions for 

changes in the original version of the bill have been adopted by the House. But unless our concerns about keeping the promise to fishermen are met, we cannot support the bill. We would rather take our chances with the existing administrative 

process; even the proposed regulations changing the management plans for these 

Sanctuaries are explicit in protecting our commercial and recreational fisheries. 

I have attached to my written testimony some suggested changes to H.R. 1187 

that we think would provide continued protection for our fisheries. We would be 

happy to work with you and your staff to further refine the language in the bill. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to present the Alliance’s views on H.R. 1187. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Proposed Changes to H.R. 1187 (as Passed by the House) Offered by the Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries 

1. Strike subsection 3(c) 

2. Redesignate sections 6 through 8 as sections 7 through 9 

3. Insert a new section 6 as follows: 

‘‘SEC.6.REGULATION OF FISHING—The regulation of commercial and 

sport fishing within the Sanctuaries shall be exclusively under the jurisdiction 

of the Pacific Fishery Management Council established under section 

302(a)(1)(F) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(1)(F)) and for those portions within State waters the applicable laws and regulations of the State of California.’’ 

4. In the first sentence of subsection 8(e) as redesignated, strike ‘‘shall’’ and insert 

‘‘may’’ 

5. Strike paragraph 8(e)(2) as redesignated and renumber the following paragraphs appropriately. 

PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

Portland, OR, April 24, 2008 

Senator GORDON H. SMITH, 

404 Russell Building, 

Washington, DC. 

RE: PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL COMMENTS ON S. 2635 

Dear Senator Smith: 

Thank you for your continued interest in west coast fishery issues and your request for Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) comments on legislative matters of interest to the Pacific Council. 

56 

At its April 2008 meeting, the Pacific Council and its Legislative Committee reviewed a variety of legislative matters including H.R. 1187, the Gulf of the 

Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries Boundary Modification 

and Protection Act, as passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 31, 

2008 and referred to the U.S. Senate. Additionally, on February 13, 2008, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D–CA) introduced the bill in the U.S. Senate as S. 2635. Given 

these bills are now matters for U.S. Senate consideration, the Pacific Council requested I reiterate the following comments of the Pacific Council on H.R. 1187 originally conveyed to you in my letter of October 9, 2007. 

• It is unclear why these proposed boundary expansions and protective measures 

were not adopted and implemented under the recently completed Joint Management Plan Review (JMPR) process for the Monterey Bay, Gulf of the Farallones, 

and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries. The Pacific Council believes 

some of the expansion alternatives and prohibitions may have been considered 

and rejected during the JMPR, and questions why these provisions are being 

proposed for implementation through legislation rather than the public JMPR 

process. 

• Section 2 of H.R. 1187 and S. 2635 find the areas within these sanctuaries ‘‘include some of the Nation’s richest fishing grounds’’ and that ‘‘Cordell Bank is 

at the nexus of an ocean upwelling system, which produces the highest biomass 

concentrations on the west coast of the United States.’’ While the Pacific Council agrees these areas are productive and are likely to be ecologically important 

to the west coast, these findings would benefit from independent verification. 

• Section 3 of H.R. 1187 and S. 2635 states that ‘‘nothing in this Act is intended 

to alter any existing authorities regarding the conduct and location of fishing 

activities in the Sanctuaries.’’ The Pacific Council recommends this stated intent be accompanied by a statutory mandate that fishery management authority 

in Federal waters of the Sanctuaries is retained by the Pacific Council and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

• Section 6 of H.R. 1187 and S. 2635 further clarifies that these bills do not intend to prohibit the discharge of biodegradable effluents or the discharge of fish, 

fish parts, and chumming materials while legally fishing. The Pacific Council 

is concerned about the regulation of waste water discharges and would like to 

confirm that the United States Coast Guard retains its current level of authority on these matters. 

Perhaps central to the Pacific Council’s interest in these matters is achieving legislative clarity on the authority to regulate fishing within National Marine Sanctuaries. The Pacific Council is in the early stages of initiating an Ecosystem Fishery 

Management Plan (EFMP) that is intended to serve as an ‘‘umbrella’’ plan that 

would advance fishery management under our four existing fishery management 

plans by introducing new science and new authorities to the current Pacific Council 

process. The Pacific Council has successfully employed spatial management concepts 

for years and has recommended closed areas to rebuild overfished species, minimize 

bycatch, and preserve essential fish habitat. The Pacific Council believes an EFMP 

will be an effective tool in achieving shared ecosystem-based management goals and 

objectives of the Pacific Council, National Marine Fisheries Service and the National 

Ocean Service within and outside National Marine Sanctuaries. 

Thank you again for providing the Pacific Council an opportunity to provide comments on H.R. 1187 and S. 2635. 

Sincerely, 

D.O. MCISAAC, PH.D., 

Executive Director. 

MDB:kam 

cc: U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, (D–CA) 

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, (D–WA) 

U.S. Senator Larry Craig (R–ID) 

U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R–ID) 

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, (D–CA) 

U.S. Senator Patty Murray, (D–WA) 

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, (D–OR) 

Pacific Fishery Management Council Members 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

57 

I’m going to start with Mr. Gray, on the Thunder Bay Sanctuary 

and its origins. Originally, when that was proposed, it was proposed as a much larger sanctuary, is that correct—originally? 

Mr. GRAY. Yes, ma’am, it was proposed to be about twice the size 

of the current boundaries. In the negotiations with the State of 

Michigan, entire sanctuaries within State waters, as all the Great 

Lakes bottom lines, belong to the states. Due to concerns about the 

sanctuary, it was negotiated to about half the size of the current 

proposed—current sanctuary. 

Senator CANTWELL. And has that been effective at meeting its 

original goals and protecting the historic shipwrecks and everything within the sanctuary? 

Mr. GRAY. I believe it has. The communities that were opposed 

to joining the sanctuary at the beginning have all passed formal 

resolutions at the county level and the city level and township level 

asking to be brought into the sanctuary. 

Senator CANTWELL. So, you think the differences from where we 

were on the original proposal to now, today, in expansion, is just 

that people have gotten more comfortable with the result of the 

sanctuary creation and now are back to where the original proposal 

was. Is that—— 

Mr. GRAY. It’s actually back, and expanded beyond that, is what 

this proposal and our Advisory Council have proposed—beyond the 

original scope. I believe a big part of that success is NOAA being 

in the community and part of the community. We work very closely 

with all of our community partners from the State level down to 

the local community, local businesses. And I believe that’s the 

strongest change. Prior to designation, there wasn’t the same presence in the community. 

Senator CANTWELL.—okay. And Senator Levin mentioned that 

there was a lot of discussion from community leaders, and you just 

mentioned the county, so is there—were those public forums—how 

did they reach their—— 

Mr. GRAY. During—we held scoping meetings at the beginning of 

our boundary—or at the beginning of our management plan review 

process throughout the three counties. We received comment at 

those. The local governments, they all passed their resolutions as 

part of their formal meetings, so those—yes, they were all public 

forums. 

Senator CANTWELL. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. GRAY. Thank you. 

Senator CANTWELL. And so, you don’t know of any local opposition, is what you’re saying. Is—— 

Mr. GRAY. No, ma’am. 

Senator CANTWELL. Right. And I didn’t ask Admiral 

Lautenbacher about this in his testimony, but obviously they have 

been supportive of this expansion, as well. 

Mr. GRAY. The local communities or—— 

Senator CANTWELL. NOAA. NOAA has been supportive of this 

expansion, as well. 

Mr. GRAY.—the underlying goals of it is to protect these shipwrecks. Yes, they are. 

Senator CANTWELL. OK, thank you. 

58 

Dr. Williams, Ms. Fosmark talked about the large support from 

the fishing industry, in general. What do we—what else do we 

know about local support of this expansion? And what has the process been to actually ascertain that local support? 

Dr. WILLIAMS. The formal process for the local support and 

broader support started when Congresswomen Woolsey introduced 

the bill in 2004. Thereafter, four county boards of supervisors— 

Sonoma, Marin, San Francisco, and Mendocino—called for a public 

meeting, a hearing. They passed a resolution endorsing the bill. All 

of those meetings were publicly noticed, and public comment, oral 

and written, were encouraged. 

In addition, the Gulf of the Farallones and the Cordell Bank 

Sanctuaries Advisory Council had meetings that were noticed, and 

they ended up endorsing the Act, the legislation. 

In addition, the City of San Francisco and the Port of Oakland 

also endorsed the bill. And before 2004, there was public scoping 

processes going on in regards to the proposed legislation, but the 

proposal for the expansion was brought up originally by the public, 

and that started, in part, as part of the joint draft management 

scoping plan, and even before that. For example, the fishermen 

in—associated with the largest fishing group on the West Coast, 

the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association, had requested that the Cordell Bank boundary, when it was designated, 

include part of the expansion area. So, public support has really 

been overwhelming. Since 2002, I’ve attended, that I can recall and 

have on record, at least seven public scoping meetings where public 

comments, written and oral, have been encouraged. Some of these 

scoping meetings were done at the request of the sanctuary managers. For example, there was one in 2006, held at Bodega Marine 

Laboratory, where, as part of the agenda, the Modified Boundary 

Act was considered. At that time, it was H.R. 1712 and Senate bill 

880, I believe. 

So, I have heard no local opposition; in fact, what I hear is overwhelming support for this expansion; in particular, because people 

recognize the economic importance of the marine resources in the 

sanctuary, both the fishes, but also the tourism industry is very 

important along the coast. 

Senator CANTWELL. Ms. Fosmark, you talked about the fishing 

issues. And obviously the Sanctuaries Act requires cooperation with 

appropriate fisheries management authorities. And so, doesn’t the 

Pacific Council get their say in the expansion? I mean, won’t they 

have their input as it relates to fisheries management? 

Ms. FOSMARK. Yes. Actually, there is a letter that was sent by 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council—it should be attached to 

my written testimony—from the Pacific Council regarding this bill. 

They’re—the Alliance is also—the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council did comment on the need question for marine protected 

areas, and the issue here is, in 2004, there wasn’t that risk of zoning, and this particular issue came up later. However, PCFFA, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association, is a subgroup of 

the Alliance, and did separately write a letter supporting some language, the same exact language that we have in our testimony here 

today. 

59 

Senator CANTWELL. I guess my question is, if this is a concern, 

then why are organizations like the Pacific Coast Federation of 

Fishermen and the Association of Bodega Bay Fishermen endorsing 

the proposal? I mean, they’re local fishermen that are supporting 

it. So, I think of the council management as, you know, a coordinating agency, but I would think that they would take their cues 

from local fishermen, whether they—there were—they were concerned. And if local fishermen weren’t concerned, how is that—you 

know, how are those two things not being represented? 

Ms. FOSMARK. Local fishermen, which, I may say, I am one of 

those local fishermen, they did have a concern, but they were reassured there was language in the bill that would protect them. However, it doesn’t make it totally clear about fisheries management in 

the bill. It only says that fishermen—that fishing—it’s a very vague 

version, it just doesn’t clarify who has the authority to manage 

fish. The difference between the Sanctuary and the Pacific Council 

is, the Pacific Council is a very open process, it’s based on subcommittees, science and statistical committees. It has a checksand-balance system, and it regulates fisheries very well. That is 

not the case in the Sanctuary—— 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I think—I think the point is, is that— 

while I’m not sure if you’re referring to the House bill, but H.R. 

1187 may not have that language clarified as to the point you’re 

making, but certainly the National Marine Sanctuary Act does. 

And it requires that they—there be cooperation with other appropriate fishery management authorities in drafting any fishing regulations in the sanctuary. So, that authority is there in the original 

Act. So, you may not—you’re not seeing that coordination in the 

language of this proposed bill, but it’s certainly there in current 

law, so you would have that coordination. 

Ms. FOSMARK. Yes. And we do understand—I do understand that 

there is that coordination and that they must come to the council 

to find a proper course of action. It says that, as well. Our problem 

is that, rather than come to the council, they’re announcing that 

marine protected areas and zoning closures in marine reserves are 

necessary in other sanctuaries south of there, and the fear that 

fishermen have is that they will lose fishing grounds. And if they 

don’t have access to their fishing grounds, including crab and salmon, which is a very important fishery to those regions, they will 

suffer, and those communities will suffer. And this is the main 

problem we’re having, is that zoning is not being considered a fishing regulation. 

Senator CANTWELL. Dr. Williams, would you like to comment on 

that? 

Dr. WILLIAMS. H.R. 1187 addresses Cordell Bank and Gulf of the 

Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries, and these sanctuaries 

have forged a very cooperative and responsive relationship with the 

fishermen. This—examples of this are on the record of the House 

subcommittee consideration of this legislation. And there has never 

been a problem in those sanctuaries with cooperating and being responsive to the fishermen’s needs. 

Zeke Grader, who is the Executive Director of the Pacific Coast 

Federation of Fishing Associations, which is the largest on the 

West Coast, submitted a written statement that stated, ‘‘The lanVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Aug 29, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75681.TXT JACKIE
60 

guage, as it exists in 1187, was a model for the rest of the Nation.’’ 

Other sanctuaries have different relationships with the fisheries. 

We are talking about the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank 

managers, and they have excellent relations. They have included 

fishermen, and they have—if you read the notes in the fisheries— 

Pacific Fisheries Management Council and the Sanctuary Advisory 

Council, you can see that over the past few years there has been 

exchange about fishing in these sanctuaries. Also, the issue here is 

not the designation of marine protected areas, it’s expansion of the 

boundaries of the Cordell Bank and Gulf of the Farallones National 

Marine Sanctuaries. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

Well, we’ve been joined by my colleague Senator Boxer. Thank 

you very much for being here. And I obviously—know you have 

great interest in at least one of these two areas—— 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator CANTWELL.—we’re hearing about this morning. So, I’m 

going to turn the questioning over to you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

And I just wanted to explain that all morning I’ve been chairing 

a hearing about perchlorate, over in—and the dangers of perchlorate—over at EPW, and I’m done. I turned over the gavel so 

I could stay here, because this is such an important matter. And 

I thank the witnesses. 

And I thank you so much, and Senators Inouye and Stevens, for 

having a hearing here. 

If it’s OK with you, could I respond to this fishery issue here and 

then could I give a—I think it’s about a—oh, 4-minute opening 

statement? Because—and I want to show you some photos and 

such, and then I’ll be done. 

Senator CANTWELL. Certainly. 

Senator BOXER. I don’t have a lot of questions, because, frankly, 

I think the questions have been answered by my fishermen up 

there. I do understand and respect the comments of Ms. Fosmark, 

but we are talking about a sanctuary in the northern part—it’s not 

the Monterey Bay. As a matter of fact, in the bill itself, in H.R. 

1187—and I quote from the written statement of Zeke Grader, Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association; he made this statement to the House. He said, ‘‘Finally, 

H.R. 1187 makes clear that existing fishery entities’’—and he lists 

who they are—California Department of Fish and Game, he lists 

them all—‘‘retain sole activity over fisheries within sanctuary 

water.’’ Section (3)(c) effect on fishing activities says in our bill, 

‘‘Nothing in this Act is intended to alter any existing authorities regarding the conduct and location of fishing activities in the sanctuaries.’’ 

I think this is a—if I could say, a strong man, strong person— 

because it’s just not true. And I see our fishermen from that area 

being so supportive. They are one of the lead supporters of this bill. 

I mean, what—let me tell you what Zeke Grader said, Ms. 

Fosmark. He said, ‘‘In supporting the creation of the Gulf of the 

61 

Farallones Sanctuary, our organization sought to protect some of 

the best fishing grounds along the Pacific Coast, not to close them.’’ 

And so, I think, you know, if there are some issues—maybe there 

is a little misunderstanding, and I would love to meet with Ms. 

Fosmark, because I love the work she does. But, I just feel there 

is a disconnect here between the reality and some of the things 

you’ve said. 

And I think that when the House passes a bill—what was it? By 

voice vote? Is that right—a bill by voice vote, frankly I don’t think 

there is any controversy, really, because it wouldn’t have done that. 

So, our important bill will protect one of the world’s most biologically diverse and productive regions. And I wanted to compliment Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, Senator Feinstein, and 

again say, to have a bill pass by voice vote in the House is almost 

impossible, and this one did it, and I would hate to see any slowdown here. I’d like to move this along. I feel strongly about it. 

I want to show you the photo of the Sonoma coast to show you 

how truly spectacular and pristine this area is. And, Madam Chairman, I don’t have to prove anything to you, but I always—one of 

the favorite things I do as a Senator is work toward these kinds 

of bills, and wilderness bills, like you, and I want to share this. 

Established in 1980 and 1989, respectively, the Gulf of the 

Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries have 

helped protect the marine waters and the coastline that are 

quintessentially Californian and quintessentially West Coast. My 

bill will protect an even greater part of my state’s coast by expanding the sanctuaries’ boundaries to include more of northern California’s great upwelling marine area, one of only four on the planet. 

And I want to take just a moment. Upwelling areas are places 

where deeper water comes to the surface, bringing the nutrients 

needed by marine algae to grow and support all higher forms of 

marine life. Though upwelling areas comprise only 1 percent of the 

world’s ocean, they produce 20 percent of the fish. Let me say it 

again: 1 percent of the world’s ocean are upwelling areas, but they 

produce 20 percent of the fish. So, we can’t turn away and—and 

especially we can’t turn away in the name of saving fisheries. We 

need to save the fisheries by protecting these areas. 

The area from Point Arena to Bodega Bay, currently outside the 

sanctuary boundary, is particularly important. It has the most intense upwelling in all of North America, and an enormous capacity 

to support marine life. And I am proud that Senator Feinstein’s 

and my bill will expand the sanctuary boundaries to protect this 

upwelling area. 

The unique productivity of this region is illustrated by the abundance and diversity of marine life it supports. And I want to show 

a series of charts here: 36 species of marine mammals, including 

the endangered blue and humpback whales. And, Madam Chair, 

we have worked so hard on protecting these creatures. Numerous 

coastal and migratory seabirds—we’ll show you—oh, that’s another 

beautiful—that is a seal, and you don’t have it listed here, but I 

know that’s a seal. And— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER.—coastal and migratory seabirds, including the 

blackfooted albatross. Do we actually have that one? I’m getting 

62 

you very confused. This is—these are the seabirds. Look at them. 

Endangered leatherback turtles and coho salmon. 

And this is the—this is the beauty. Expanding the existing sanctuaries to include this area is necessary to protect this remarkable 

ecosystem from pollution and habitat degradation. 

I want to list the broad support the bill has: the California Coastal Commission, the California State Lands Commission, the counties of Sonoma, Marin, and Mendocino, and the City of San Francisco. Madam Chair, those are the areas that have the elected officials that are in closest proximity to this. Also supported by the 

fishermen in the area, including the Pacific Coast Federation of 

Fishermen’s Association, by far the largest and most active association of commercial fishermen on the West Coast. 

The fishermen, most of all, recognize the urgency of passing this 

legislation: to preserve the water quality and habitat essential for 

good fishing. Our bill will help preserve an incomparable gem of an 

ecosystem, and I certainly look forward to working with you and 

our colleagues to move this important legislation forward. 

And, again, I want to thank Dr. Williams. And, Ms. Fosmark, I 

hope after the hearing we can have a chance to chat, as well. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

Thank you Chairwoman Cantwell and Ranking Member Snowe, and Chairman 

Inouye and Ranking Member Stevens, for including ‘‘the Gulf of the Farallones and 

Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries Boundary Modification and Protection 

Act’’ in today’s hearing. This important bill would protect one of the world’s most 

biologically-diverse and productive marine regions. I am proud to be joined in this 

effort by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and Senator Dianne Feinstein, and pleased 

that this bill passed the House of Representatives in March by voice vote. 

This photo of the Sonoma Coast shows how truly spectacular and pristine this 

area is. Established in 1981 and 1989 respectively, the Gulf of the Farallones and 

Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries have helped protect the special marine 

waters and coastline that are quintessentially Californian. My bill will protect an 

even greater part of my state’s coast by expanding the Sanctuaries’ boundaries to 

include more of northern California’s great ‘‘upwelling’’ marine area, one of only four 

on the planet. 

Upwelling areas are places where deeper water comes up to the surface, bringing 

the nutrients needed by marine algae to grow and support all higher forms of marine life. Though upwelling areas comprise only 1 percent of the world’s ocean they 

produce 20 percent of its fish—that’s right, 20 percent. The area from Point Arena 

to Bodega Bay, currently outside the sanctuaries’ boundaries, is particularly important since it consistently has the most intense upwelling in all of North America 

and an enormous capacity to support marine life. I am proud that my bill will expand the sanctuaries’ boundaries to protect this upwelling area. 

The unique productivity of this region is illustrated by the abundance and diversity of marine life it supports: 36 species of marine mammals, including the endangered blue and humpback whales; numerous coastal and migratory seabirds including the black-footed albatross; endangered leatherback turtles; and coho salmon. Expanding the existing Sanctuaries to include this area is necessary to protect this remarkable ecosystem from pollution and habitat degradation. 

My bill has broad, local support, including from the California Coastal Commission, the California State Lands Commission, the Counties of Sonoma, Marin, and 

Mendocino, and the City of San Francisco. It is also supported by fishermen, including the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, by far the largest and 

most active association of commercial fishermen on the West Coast. Fishermen recognize the urgency of passing this legislation to preserve the water quality and 

habitat essential for good fishing. 

My bill will help preserve an incomparable gem of an ecosystem. I look forward 

to working with my colleagues to move this important legislation. 

63 

* All of these documents are retained in the Committee’s files. 

I would like to enter the following documents for the record: * 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, thank you, Senator Boxer. And thank 

you for making it over, obviously, from chairing your own hearing 

on an important topic, to being here. 

And I think that concludes where we are today with our hearing 

on two topics, both the marine sanctuary and the NOAA budget 

hearing. And so, I thank the witnesses for being here to testify. 

And we’re adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(65) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA

The United States has the greatest amount of coastline in the world, and more 

than half of the Nation’s residents live in coastal counties. Our Nation will be increasingly affected by coastal issues, and NOAA must be equipped to handle them. 

Louisianans are concerned about many of these issues, including sustainable and 

productive fisheries, hurricane and storm surge forecasting, and coastal erosion and 

restoration. 

I am concerned by the distribution of funds in the President’s FY 2009 NOAA 

budget. This year’s budget of $4.1 billion represents a modest increase of $202 million over the FY 2008 enacted levels, but comes at a $40 million cost for the ‘‘wet 

side’’ programs of NOAA. 

Hurricane Research 

I am pleased that NOAA is supporting more hurricane research. Additional research, forecasting, and infrastructure will help mitigate the impact of hurricanes 

along our coasts. Increases for the Hurricane Weather Research and Forecasting 

model, hurricane data buoys in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere, and additional 

aircraft hours dedicated to hurricane research are a step in the right direction. 

I also urge NOAA to work toward better storm surge predictions. I have previously introduced legislation on this important topic and believe that we need to 

make significant progress on storm surge prediction. Hurricane Katrina’s storm 

surge flooding was devastating, and I hope NOAA can advance the state of the 

science in this area to help prevent more loss of life and property. 

Hypoxia and Harmful Algal Blooms 

I am also concerned about the twin problems of hypoxia and harmful algal 

blooms. Louisiana’s offshore hypoxic zone is growing and impacts our tradition of 

productive fisheries. In 2007 the dead zone was 7,900 square miles—that’s roughly 

the size of New Jersey. 

Fish and shrimp cannot survive in the dead zone. Loss of ocean habitat in the 

future through dead zone expansion may have severe consequences for Louisiana’s 

commercial fisheries, yet plans to reduce the size of the dead zone to 2,500 square 

miles by 2015 are not on track. 

In addition, harmful algal blooms damage commercially valuable fisheries and 

shellfisheries and threaten public health. I urge NOAA to devote more energy to further research and practical control and mitigation solutions for harmful algal 

blooms and hypoxia. 

Marine Monuments 

As this hearing also dealt with some marine sanctuary issues, I’d like to reiterate 

my opposition to any plans for a new Gulf of Mexico marine monument. The use 

of the Antiquities Act to create a monument could restrict vitally important marine 

areas without the benefit of public participation and stakeholder input. The Gulf is 

home to nationally significant commercial and recreational fisheries as well as critical energy infrastructure, and a monument designation would take away these and 

other voices. 

The two existing NOAA sanctuaries in the Gulf of Mexico established public forums that involve all interested parties in decisions to protect marine areas. I urge 

that proposals in the future continue using these protocols, and not the Antiquities 

Act, so as to maintain a trusted, transparent public process. 

I would like to add a letter signed by Sens. Shelby, Sessions, and myself opposing 

marine monuments to the record. 

66 

U.S. SENATE

Washington, DC, April 21, 2008 

Hon. JAMES CONNAUGHTON, 

Chairman, 

Council on Environmental Quality, 

The White House, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Connaughton: 

We are writing to express our strong objections regarding a proposal to create a 

network of marine monuments within the Gulf of Mexico. This proposal, currently 

being circulated within the Administration, could have grave impacts for the Gulf 

Coast’s recreational fisheries, commercial fisheries, marine cargo shipping, and domestic offshore energy industry. Each of these industries is of fundamental importance to our regional and state economies, and the Nation’s economy as well. 

It is our understanding that you and representatives from the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration have discussed a plan for the President to declare 

a network of marine monuments throughout the Gulf of Mexico under the Antiquities Act of 1906. We are concerned that an attempt to use this authority could 

restrict vitally important marine areas without the benefit of public participation 

and stakeholder input. 

The Gulf of Mexico is home to productive commercial and recreational fisheries 

that have an annual economic impact of over $4.5 billion. A number of the Nation’s 

top ports are also located in the Gulf region. Maritime infrastructure and fisheries 

are still recovering after the devastating 2005 hurricanes, while facing increased 

competition from subsidized foreign aquaculture and unsustainable fishing practices 

of other nations. 

In addition to nationally significant fisheries, the Gulf Coast has the greatest concentration of energy infrastructure in the world, with an estimated 4,000 of the 

world’s 7,000 offshore platforms located here. The Gulf of Mexico supplies up to 30 

percent of the Nation’s energy needs, and provides a source of secure domestic energy in a time of increasing volatility in the world energy market. 

We support the protection of environmentally sensitive marine areas, and feel 

that the best way to continue to protect natural resources is to fully engage the public interest. Recommendations to expand protected areas should be based on recognized need, with sound scientific justification. 

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, which represents a spectrum 

of stakeholder interests from all five Gulf states, is specifically tasked to manage 

fisheries and identify areas of particular concern. The Flower Garden Banks and 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuaries Advisory Councils have already established public forums which involve all interested parties in decisions to protect marine areas. Any proposal under the Antiquities Act would short-circuit these councils, disrupting a trusted, transparent public process. 

We strongly urge you to refrain from moving forward on a Gulf of Mexico Marine 

Monument. This Administration does not have enough remaining time to fully consider the variety of public interests that must be represented, and such a significant 

project should not move forward without the participation and support of the many 

stakeholders involved. 

Sincerely, 


506vitt1.eps
67 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR. 

Question 1a. Admiral Lautenbacher, while I am pleased to see a request of $60.3 

million for the continuation of construction for the Pacific Regional Center, I am 

concerned that this level of funding is sufficient for only two of the three buildings 

included in the initial plan. How do you intend to provide for the construction of 

the third building? 

Answer. The multi-year funding request contained in the FY 2009 President’s 

Budget will fund renovation/construction of two buildings and other support structures for central IT/network infrastructure (‘‘main distribution facility’’), security 

command control center, and other central building operations space required for 

the security and operations of the entire Pacific Regional Center complex. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center and International Tsunami Information Center and 

several other small programs, will remain fully operational in off-site, primarily 

leased space. The multi-year budget request, if appropriated, will allow us to proceed with the consolidated Pacific Regional Center project. 

Question 1b. The unfunded building is intended to house the central computer 

system, correct? Is this system not critical to the operational capabilities of the facilities as a whole? 

Answer. The President’s FY 2009 Budget Request provides funding for a revised 

building plan in which the critical central computer system is housed in Building 

A. As mentioned above, the current plan for Building A supports the central IT/network infrastructure (‘‘main distribution facility’’), security command control center, 

and other central building operations space required to support the security and operations of the entire complex. 

Question 1c. If the requested funds for the Pacific Regional Center are not appropriated in FY 2009, what will be the impact to this project? 

Answer. If the funds requested for the Pacific Regional Center are not appropriated, due to a year-long continuing resolution or reductions effected during the 

appropriations process, there will be substantial delays in both schedule and cost 

associated with the project. We estimate there will be a 10–15 percent cost escalation for each year construction is delayed; for the Pacific Regional Center, this 

would amount to a $20–30 million cost growth. 

In addition to the cost impact, there are increased risks to the NOAA programs 

supported at NOAA’s current facilities, should the project be delayed. The Pacific 

Regional Center replaces dispersed, at-risk, and overcrowded buildings with consolidated, state-of-the-art facilities supporting the critical science, research and operational missions conducted by NOAA in Hawaii. 

Question 1d. Admiral, the Pacific Regional Center in Hawaii represents a unique 

opportunity for NOAA to consolidate its various programs and organizations under 

one roof and to utilize existing Federal property. However, I am concerned that 

NOAA will face funding challenges with the operation of this Center in the future, 

similar to those challenges faced in the Seattle, Washington, Center. How does the 

NOAA intend to fund the day-to-day operating costs at the new Center and to plan 

for out-year funding requirements for repairs at the Center? 

Answer. Costs at an owned-facility can be categorized into three categories: 

• Annual operating expenses (e.g., utilities, maintenance contracts). 

• Sustainment expenses (predictable investments to maintain the functionality of 

a building); e.g., regularly scheduled replacement of building systems and equipment). 

• Repair and restoration expenses (unpredictable repair or replacement of building 

systems to restore operations). 

The first category (annual operating expenses) is predictable, and relatively stable 

from year-to-year. The second category (sustainment expenses), is predictable, but 

not as stable from year-to-year, since it is affected by the life-cycle of specific building systems, and the costs of building systems. For example, a roof may only need 

to be replaced every 20 years (predictable), but its replacement costs are likely to 

cause large spikes in required funding (not stable). The final category (repair/restoration) is not predictable, and also not stable from year-to-year; it is also affected 

by failure to adequately fund sustainment costs at a facility. 

The preferred model for supporting these types of costs at the Pacific Regional 

Center would be as follows: 

1. Annual operating expenses (including sustainment costs): Annual operating 

expenses would be paid through current program/line office ‘‘tenant’’ transfers 

68 

(e.g., for utilities, maintenance contracts, etc.) toward the overall costs of building operations. Any additional operational costs at the new Center above historical cost levels incurred in the separate facilities would be requested through 

the appropriations process as an increase in the Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) account. 

2. Repair and restoration costs: These costs would be funded through the establishment of a dedicated budget line within the Procurement, Acquisition, and 

Construction account. This approach provides a transparent way to evaluate 

and budget for major facility repairs during each fiscal cycle. 

Question 2a. The NOAA budget requests an additional $4.5 million for non-labor 

related adjustments, such as fuel costs. Given record high energy prices, is this increase sufficient for NOAA to meet rising fuel costs for its aircraft and vessel operations? 

Answer. At the time of our FY 2009 budget development, NOAA projected ship 

diesel fuel to cost $2.47 per gallon. The FY 2009 President’s Budget request includes 

approximately $14.9 million for ship fuel. NOAA expects the average price for fuel 

for the remainder of FY 2008 to be about $4.12 per gallon. In the event that this 

price remains the average for FY 2009, NOAA would need approximately an additional $10.4 million over the planned amount to cover diesel fuel for the fleet to 

maintain planned FY 2009 operation levels. 

[NOAA attempts to use a Department of Defense fueling contract to refuel its 

ships whenever feasible. However, depending on their in-port location, sometimes 

the ships must refuel paying the prevailing commercial market rate.] 

Rising fuel prices have also impacted NOAA’s ability to charter days at sea. The 

day rate to charter both UNOLS and commercial ships has increased due to the rise 

in fuel costs. For example, R/V REVELLE’s FY 2007 day rate was $26,200/day. As 

of March 2008, this rate is now $32,000/day, a 22 percent increase. Other UNOLS 

vessels of the same class have also correspondingly increased their day rates. 

As with the rising costs of ship fuel, aviation fuel prices have also increased. During development of the FY 2009 budget, NOAA projected aircraft fuel to cost $2.93 

per gallon. The FY 2009 President’s Budget Request includes approximately $4.0 

million for aircraft fuel. However, fuel prices paid by NOAA aircraft have averaged 

$3.79 per gallon in FY 2008, and we estimate that fuel will cost $4.20 per gallon 

in FY 2009. This estimate translates into an FY 2009 aviation fuel cost of approximately $5.8 million for NOAA aircraft to maintain planned operation levels. 

Question 2b. If this funding level is not sufficient, how do you plan to address the 

shortfall? 

Answer. High diesel fuel prices may limit NOAA’s ability to perform scientific operations at sea. At the budget planning estimate of $2.47 per gallon for diesel fuel, 

NOAA ships were expected to support 3,390 operating days in FY 2009. Through 

June 2008, the NOAA fleet has averaged $3.05/gallon for the fiscal year. When 

NOAA finalizes its Fleet Allocation Plan in the year of execution, we will update 

the estimate for operating days. 

Escalating aviation fuel prices will also cut into NOAA’s flight hours. At the budgeted rate of $2.93 per gallon, we expected NOAA aircraft to support 2,845 flight 

hours in FY 2009. At the projected rate of $4.20 per gallon, NOAA could provide 

1,750 flight hours—a reduction of 1,095 hours or a 38 percent decrease. 

To compensate for higher than planned ship and aircraft fuel prices, one or more 

NOAA platforms may need to be brought off-line for the year or platforms may experience a reduction in operating days or flight hours. The NOAA Fleet Council will 

evaluate these measures for their programmatic and public impacts before NOAA 

makes its final decisions. 

Question 3a. In its vision statement, the NOAA underscores the value of an informed society. However, the President’s FY 2009 budget proposes to cut funding 

for NOAA’s education programs by 48 percent. Admiral, how does the NOAA intend 

to educate and inform the public without adequate education programs? 

Answer. NOAA has requested $16.5 million in FY 2009 for the NOAA Education 

Office. NOAA also funds education activities through a number of programs in the 

line offices. For example, the President’s FY 2009 Budget Request includes $3.2 million for educational activities conducted through the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Program, the National Estuarine Research Reserves, and the Coral Reef Conservation Program, all within the National Ocean Service. 

NOAA is currently updating its Education Plan as requested by the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology Education, 

and Science Act. In addition, NOAA has contracted the National Academy of 

Sciences to perform a review of its Education program and provide recommendaVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Aug 29, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75681.TXT JACKIE
69 

tions for optimizing NOAA’s investment in education. That review is currently underway and the results will be considered as NOAA develops future budget requests. 

Question 3b. What is the NOAA doing to assert the value of its education programs both within the government and externally to the public? 

Answer. NOAA has a vision for ‘‘an informed society that uses a comprehensive 

understanding of the role of the oceans, coasts and atmosphere in the global ecosystem to make the best social and economic decisions.’’ Inherent in this vision is 

the need for an environmentally literate public that is aware of, and capable of understanding, issues affecting Earth’s environment. NOAA generates data and scientific findings that are crucial for assessing the state of the oceans and the atmosphere. NOAA is actively working to assure that these unique data and findings are 

provided to the public in a focused manner that will foster advancement of environmental literacy. 

In 2007, Congress recognized the role of NOAA in Earth system science education 

with the passage of the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110–69). This legislation 

mandates NOAA to ‘‘conduct, develop, support, promote, and coordinate formal and 

informal education activities at all levels to enhance public awareness and understanding of ocean, coastal, Great Lakes, and atmospheric science and stewardship 

by the general public and other coastal stakeholders, including underrepresented 

groups in ocean and atmospheric science and policy careers.’’ 

NOAA is actively engaged, both within the Federal Government and externally, 

to meet these requirements. 

Interagency Efforts 

NOAA is the co-chair in the Interagency Working Group on Ocean Education 

(IWG–OE), established by the Interagency Committee on Ocean Science and Resource Management Integration (ICOSRMI). The IWG–OE is tasked to implement 

recommendations of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan to collaborate across Federal agencies in order to increase ocean literacy and build a future work force. Formally established in 2006, the working group has been working to compare agency programs 

and identify common priorities. The IWG–OE’s efforts: 

• Address lifelong learning through formal and informal education; 

• Leverage resources by broadening and strengthening networks and investing in 

common messages; 

• Recognize ocean education as a specific expression of Earth system science and 

environmental education and link to these important concepts; and 

• Promote the 3Ocean Literacy Essential Principles and Fundamental Concepts 

1as a model framework for organizing our efforts to increase understanding of 

the relevance of the ocean to our everyday lives. 

External Efforts 

Partnerships 

NOAA has established strategic partnerships with formal and informal education 

groups that promote the use of NOAA products and services and contribute toward 

the development of an environmentally literate public. Key partnerships include: 

• National Science Teachers Association (NSTA): NOAA is working with NSTA, 

through a Cooperative Agreement, to develop a series of education products for 

teachers on topics aligned to NOAA’s mission. These products provide tens of 

thousands of science teachers with professional development and classroom resources in the form of Science Objects, SciGuides, and WebSeminars. 

• Ocean and Climate Literacy efforts: To ensure consistency and incorporation of 

key NOAA subject areas, NOAA engaged external partners, both Federal and 

non-, for the development of both the Ocean and the Climate Literacy essential 

principles and fundamental concepts. NOAA is working with the education community toward broad adoption of these principles in the classroom and in freechoice learning venues. 

• Smithsonian Institution’s Ocean Initiative (OI): NOAA has made a significant 

commitment to support the OI. Major NOAA-Smithsonian partnership efforts 

include, a national exhibition on the ocean at the National Museum of Natural 

History—the Ocean Hall and a virtual extension of the exhibit through an 

Ocean Web Portal. The mission of the OI is to advance scientific understanding 

of the ocean and increase public awareness of its importance to all life. It is expected that over 6 million visitors will visit the Ocean Hall and over 10 million 

visitors will experience the Ocean Web Portal every year. 

70 

• Coastal Ecosystem Learning Centers (CELC) Network: In partnership with 

Coastal America, NOAA is working with the CELC Network to educate and involve the public in protecting our Nation’s coastal and ocean ecosystems. For 

example, NOAA’s ‘‘Ocean Today’’ kiosk (a continuously updated interface to the 

latest ocean discoveries & originally developed for the Smithsonian’s Ocean 

Hall) is being pilot tested in five CELCs for possible wider use within the network. 

• Science On a Sphere (SOS) Collaborative Network: NOAA has created a collaborative network of more than 30 informal science education institutions and universities interested in the development of spherical display technologies for 

showing current data about Earth processes. Most of these partners have created public exhibits around NOAA’s Science On a Sphere and are evaluating 

the impact it has on the audience. Through this network NOAA promotes sharing of best practices and content for these data visualization systems, and solicits feedback on how to improve its data products for the informal science education community. 

Question 4a. I understand that the cost of fully implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is expected to be, at minimum, $75 

million for FY 2009. Is this correct? 

Answer. The cost of fully implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization 

Act (MSRA) in FY 2009 is $45.3 million, the amount requested in NOAA’s FY 2009 

Budget request. This is an increase of $31.8 million over the $13.5 million provided 

in FY 2008. The $45.3 million will fully meet the FY 2009 requirements necessary 

to fulfill the top MSRA priorities of ending overfishing, implementing widespread 

market-based fishery management, and increasing international cooperation. 

Question 4b. Is the $31.8 million requested in the President’s FY 2009 budget for 

Magnuson-Stevens implementation sufficient to achieve the mandates set forth in 

the Act by 2011? 

Answer. NOAA’s requests over the last few years have been increasing in order 

to meet the highest priority MSRA requirements. In FY 2008 Congress provided 

NOAA $13.5 million for MSRA and closely related items, a decrease of $16.6 million 

compared to the President’s budget. This year, we are requesting an additional 

$31.8 million for a total of $45.3 million to continue MSRA implementation. 

The NOAA FY 2009 budget request focuses on the top MSRA priorities of ending 

overfishing by 2011, implementing widespread market-based fishery management, 

and increasing international cooperation. 

The FY 2009 budget request will help end overfishing by ensuring that annual 

catch limits (ACLs) are put into place. The request supports widespread marketbased fishery management through the increased use of limited access programs, 

and will support increased international cooperation on issues such as illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and international agreements as mandated by the 

MSRA. 

Question 4c. How does NOAA plan to fulfill the mandates set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act with inadequate funding? 

Answer. The $45.3 million in the FY 2009 request for MSRA implementation will 

keep NOAA on pace to meet the 2010/2011 deadlines for ending overfishing and establishing Annual Catch Limits. 

Question 5a. The effects of marine debris on coral reefs are particularly evident 

in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, which include 69 percent of all U.S. coral 

reefs by area. While I am happy to see that the President has included $4 million 

for the NOAA Marine Debris program in the FY 2009 request, do you feel that, 

given the scope of this issue, the request sufficiently addresses this pressing issue? 

Answer. The President’s Budget request for $4 million will allow the NOAA Marine Debris Program to address the most pressing issues of marine debris through 

several different avenues, including funding assessment and research projects, removal projects, and outreach and education activities. All of these are done in conjunction with other organizations and research facilities, so we can leverage the 

amount of funding received from Congress. We are also beginning to better coordinate Federal activities and needs to achieve more by capitalizing on each other’s activities. 

Question 5b. As part of the enacted Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act, Congress instructed the NOAA to create a Federal Information Clearinghouse to provide information about the potential sources of Marine Debris. Can 

you confirm that the NOAA is working toward implementing this database in accordance with all of the requirements contained in the Act? 

71 

Answer. The President’s FY 2009 Budget Request provides NOAA funds to start 

the development and implementation of the Federal Information Clearinghouse, as 

required by the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act. NOAA is 

working toward implementing this data base, and to date has been engaged in the 

planning and scoping for the Clearinghouse. A public-use version is expected to become available in FY 2010. 

Question 6a. There is growing public interest in and support for marine sanctuaries to protect and conserve valuable marine resources and ecosystems. Is NOAA 

able to meet the management and conservation needs at existing sanctuaries with 

the proposed budget level? Answer. The President’s FY 2009 Budget Request provides a total of $49.9 million 

for the 13 national marine sanctuaries and the Papaha ̄naumokua ̄kea Marine National Monument. With these funds, NOAA is able to meet the management and 

conservation needs of our existing sanctuaries. The National Marine Sanctuary System encompasses over 18,000 square miles of waters and marine habitats, and increases our knowledge and understanding of complex marine ecosystems. With the 

increasing environmental pressures on our Nation’s coastal areas, the importance of 

maintaining a system of marine protected areas is evident. 

Question 6b. If the proposed sanctuary expansions become Federal law, can you 

ensure that the additional resources needed for these sanctuaries will not have a 

negative impact on the management and conservation of the existing areas within 

the National Marine Sanctuary System? 

Answer. NOAA will work to ensure that existing sanctuaries are not adversely 

impacted, should the proposed sanctuary expansions (Gulf of the Farallones, Cordell 

Bank, and Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuaries) be enacted. 

Question 7. Admiral Lautenbacher, I want to thank you for your service to NOAA 

for the past 7 years. Reflecting on your service, what would you identify as the top 

challenges facing the NOAA now and in the future? How do you hope to address 

these challenges? 

Answer. NOAA faces many challenges as the country becomes more dependent on 

the products and services we provide. 

Internally, we have tried to break down stovepipes that existed between our different line offices and have instituted a rigorous budget process that directly links 

funding to outcomes. Through this process, we identify specific needs of the American public and are able to bring to bear all of our expertise throughout the agency 

to meet those needs. 

An Organic Act will give statutory guidance to the Agency and will give future 

NOAA leaders the tools they need to meet those goals. 

NOAA continues to be challenged to improve the transition from research to operations. As an operational agency, NOAA has to ensure that fundamental research 

is focused on improving our operational capabilities. In some cases, such as our satellite program, this means improving working relationships across agencies as we’ve 

been doing with NASA. But often, it means simply breaking down historic barriers 

between our researchers and our operational staff. 

With climate variability and change profoundly influencing economic prosperity, 

human health, and national security, NOAA stands committed to providing the public with relevant and reliable climate information in support of policy decisions in 

government and the private sector. To this end, NOAA will seek to leverage its research portfolio, monitoring capacity, and operational infrastructure with those capabilities of its partners. 

Despite these challenges, NOAA is made up of more than 12,000 people who believe deeply in the agency and its mission. I have every reason to believe they will 

continue to rise to meet the challenge as they have always done in the past. 

Question 8. NOAA is charged with collecting data to help the public understand, 

plan for, and respond to the impacts of climate change. In light of a recent study 

indicating that the Federal Government’s efforts fall short in this regard, how will 

you ensure that NOAA’s climate data and services are accessible and useful to decisionmakers, especially at the local level? 

Answer. NOAA’s National Data Centers for Climate, Geophysics, Oceans and 

Coasts work very closely with the climate science community to ensure the data 

they archive is readily available to support deliberation and action by decisionmakers at international, national, regional, and local levels. 

NOAA received a 2007 report from the National Academy of Sciences entitled: Environmental Data Management at NOAA: Archiving, Stewardship, and Access. 

NOAA is developing the necessary management and business processes to implement the nine recommendations from this report. NOAA’s National Data Centers 

work very closely with regional and state climatologists to ensure data are fully 

72 

available to them to support customized climate products that are useful at these 

levels. 

Looking to the future, concurrently with the NOAA satellite acquisition programs, 

NOAA’s National Data Centers have been developing and implementing the next 

generation data archive and access infrastructure—the Comprehensive Large Arraydata Stewardship System (CLASS). CLASS will ensure that NOAA will be able to 

deliver the large-sized complex climate data and products derived from these next 

generation satellite systems to users in a timely manner. The Administration recognizes the importance of providing continuity of data from high-priority climate sensors to the climate science community. Included in the overall strategy is an element focused on the stewardship of climate data records that would be funded 

through the President’s FY 2009 Budget Request for climate sensors. 

Finally, data from NOAA’s Data Centers are currently being incorporated in 

monthly, seasonal, and annual climate assessments, drought outlook products, and 

ocean climatology products, as well as many other climate data products. Full funding of the President’s FY 2009 Budget Request for NOAA’s Data Centers and Information Services will ensure that NOAA’s National Data Centers continue to provide 

these valuable services to regional and local climate data users and continue to develop the necessary processes to deliver future higher resolution data. 

Question 9. Admiral Lautenbacher, it has come to my attention that the Pacific 

Region is the only Weather Service Region whose Director is not a Senior Executive 

Service member, also known as a ‘‘SES.’’ Why is this position not a SES position? 

Does NOAA plan to make this a SES position? 

Answer. Jack Hayes, Director of the National Weather Service for only the past 

9 months, is evaluating his corporate leadership and their roles and responsibilities. 

He is working with NOAA’s Workforce Management Office and NOAA’s Operating 

Executive Resources Board to evaluate the roles and responsibilities of the Pacific 

Region Director to determine if these roles and responsibilities meet the criteria for 

the Senior Executive Service. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR. 

Question 1a. The Administration’s proposed NOAA budget is an increase of 5.2 

percent over the FY08 enacted level. All of this increase, however, goes toward the 

satellites acquisition program, with the National Ocean Service, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, and Oceanic and Atmospheric Research all receiving cuts. Are the 

satellite program’s cost increases eating away at our Nation’s oceans programs? 

Answer. NOAA has a diverse mission ranging from managing fisheries to predicting severe weather. The Administration’s request provides a balanced set of priorities to sustain core mission services and address our highest priority program 

needs. Even within a restrained fiscal environment, however, the President’s FY 

2009 Budget Request includes over $49 million over the prior year request in increases in support of the President’s Ocean Initiative. $21 million is new funding 

over the prior year request that directly supports the additional requirements of the 

reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. As in 

the past, NOAA will continue to work within the Administration and with Congress 

to ensure the needs of ocean, coastal and fisheries program are addressed. 

Question 1b. Are the satellite cost increases presenting a significant budget challenge for NOAA? How are they impacting your ability to support NOAA’s other 

agencies? 

Answer. Although satellite cost increases continue to present a significant challenge for NOAA, we have an extensive planning process that ensures the highest 

priorities are addressed in our annual budget request, and that all programs receive 

appropriate funding. We have not cut or taxed other programs to fund increases in 

satellites, and we work continuously within the Administration and with Congress 

to create a balanced portfolio of programs to address the Nation’s most critical 

needs. 

Question 2a. The 2010 Census has recently experienced major cost overruns and 

acquisition problems. In April, these problems prompted Secretary Gutie ́rrez to submit a plan to Congress, including a request to transfer $232 million in FY 2008 from 

other agencies (including $27 million from NOAA) to the Census Bureau. Additionally, up to $700 million more will be needed in FY 2009 and $2.1 billion between 

2010 and 2013. 

Admiral, were you aware of Secretary Gutie ́rrez’s plan to transfer $27 million 

from NOAA this year before he presented this plan to Congress? 

73 

Answer. Yes, in terms of timing, but it was not a plan to transfer $27 million from 

NOAA. The Administration requested increased statutory authority to transfer 

funds to the Census Bureau, and provided a list showing the universe of candidates 

that might be transferred in the event that Congress provided the authority. The 

list showed that the Department had unrequested funds, including NOAA funds, in 

excess of the maximum estimated need for the Census Bureau. But the minimum 

estimated need was some $70 million less, so there was a substantial likelihood 

from the start that a transfer of NOAA funds would not be necessary. The actual 

need turned out to be $156 million, not $232 million, so even if Congress had provided the requested authority the Department could have met that need without including any NOAA funds in a subsequent transfer proposal. 

Question 2b. Were you or anyone else in NOAA consulted on where from within 

NOAA these funds should come from? 

Answer. Current statutory authority does not permit the Department to transfer 

funds from NOAA to another bureau. Had Congress provided the requested authority to allow such a transfer, NOAA certainly would have been consulted on whether 

to use NOAA funds as a source and, if so, which funds. NOAA was not consulted 

on the Department-wide candidate list. 

Question 2c. If Secretary Gutie ́rrez has his way, where from within NOAA would 

these funds come from? 

Answer. The candidate list consisted of appropriations that the President did not 

request or that exceeded the requested level, and that were not identified in the list 

of Congressional earmarks and Congressionally-directed spending items that accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. 

Question 3a. In a hearing last month before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, you testified that certain divisions 

of NOAA have had to delay hiring due to budget constraints. You identified the National Weather Service as being most affected, although other parts of NOAA have 

also been affected. The proposed budget for the National Marine Fisheries Service 

is $46.8 million less than the 2008 enacted level. How many positions within the 

agency will go unfilled in 2009 because of this budget? 

Answer. Although the President’s FY 2009 Budget Request for NMFS is under the 

FY 2008 enacted levels, this is primarily due to the exclusion of Congressionallydirected projects not requested by the Administration. At this time, and outside of 

being consistent with prior year lapse rates for hiring staff, NOAA does not anticipate that any additional positions will go unfilled for FY 2009. 

Question 3b. What effect will these vacancies have on NOAA’s ability to fulfill the 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act? 

Answer. In FY 2008 Congress provided NOAA about $13.5 million for the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act (MSRA). For FY 2009, we are requesting an additional $31.8 million above the FY 2008 enacted amount. The NOAA FY 2009 budget 

request focuses on the top MSRA priorities of ending overfishing by 2011, implementing widespread market-based fishery management, and increasing international cooperation. 

NOAA does not have the capacity to efficiently meet all the new MSRA requirements in 1 year. However, the FY 2009 NOAA budget request provides adequate 

funding to fulfill the top MSRA priorities of ending overfishing by 2011, implementing widespread market-based fishery management, and increasing international cooperation. We are phasing in the funding increases to match our capacity 

to meet the new requirements. As stated above, we do not anticipate any vacancies 

related to the FY 2008 funding levels. 

Question 3c. The National Ocean Service and Office of Atmospheric Research are 

also slated to incur budget decreases. How will these budget decreases impact hiring? 

Answer. For both the National Ocean Service and the Office of Atmospheric Research, the FY 2008 Omnibus bill reduced funding for a number of core base programs. NOAA has taken a number of steps to absorb these reductions, including deferring program improvements, delaying or terminating contract actions, deferring 

research grants, and delaying hiring for noncritical positions. NOAA is a labor intensive organization with over 12,000 employees and 25 percent of its operating 

budget allocated to personnel-related costs. The full FY 2009 President’s Budget is 

critical for avoiding such actions in the future. 

Question 4a. Because of historically low salmon returns, the states of California, 

Oregon, and Washington are now experiencing the largest fishery closure in U.S. 

history. In 2006, an estimated 800,000 Chinook salmon returned to the Sacramento 

River; but this year, estimates are that less than 90,000 will return. There is deVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Aug 29, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75681.TXT JACKIE
74 

bate, however, whether these poor salmon returns are due to poor oceanographic 

conditions or poor salmon conservation. What is NOAA’s science telling us so far? 

Is it possible that the poor oceanographic conditions might be linked to climate 

change? 

Answer. The ocean conditions necessary for the survival of young salmon are 

linked to the circulation of ocean currents, particularly currents that cause 

upwelling of cold, nutrient rich waters to the surface. The strength and location of 

these currents varies from season to season and year to year. Longer-term changes 

in climate also affect the wind patterns and ocean currents. Both short-term variation and long-term climate change will affect the ocean conditions critical to salmon survival. However, separating the relative effects of these two influences is speculative without a long-term record. 

Question 4b. Do NOAA’s climate, ocean, and fisheries research programs have the 

resources needed to gather the data necessary to definitively explain the cause for 

this disaster? If so, then what is the definitive explanation? 

Answer. NOAA is leading the way in establishing Ocean Observation Systems for 

the purpose of collecting and analyzing data that will help answer this question. 

These data have been collected sporadically in some areas in the past, but comprehensive observations will greatly enhance our understanding of ocean processes 

and their influence on living marine resources. Funding of this work is included in 

the NOAA budget, and continues to be furnished through the cooperation of many 

partners in the ocean science community, including the National Science Foundation. More time is required to amass the observations and to monitor longer-term 

cyclic changes before NOAA will be able to provide a definitive explanation. 

Question 5a.In response to low salmon returns in 2006, $60.4 million in disaster 

assistance was provided to salmon fishermen in Oregon and California. These funds 

were given to the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission to administer a grant 

program for fishermen and businesses affected by the salmon closure. If and when 

Congress provides disaster relief for the salmon fisheries, do you anticipate NOAA 

would use the same mechanism for distributing the funds that was used for the 

2006 salmon disaster? 

Answer. Yes, NOAA intends to partner with the Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

Commission to administer funding for the salmon disaster if funds are made available. The 2006 distribution was made according to plans developed by the affected 

states (Oregon and California), and was implemented through the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. NOAA ensured that the plans developed by the states 

were consistent with Congressional intent, and issued the funds as a grant to the 

Commission for distribution in accordance with the state plans. At this point, the 

states have not yet completed their 2008 plans. As a result, we do not have their 

specific recommendations for distribution of the funds. NOAA is maintaining regular contact with liaisons in each of the Governors’ Offices. With their agreement, 

NOAA intends to follow a similar mechanism this year. 

Question 5b. What are some lessons learned from past distributions during fisheries disasters? 

Answer. The first important lesson was confirmation that the proposed method of 

distribution of funds in 2006 was effective and accountable. 

Once the plans were in place, NOAA was able to move the funds quickly and in 

a way that assured we had effective tracking and accountability. 

This experience also demonstrated the importance of developing clear and detailed 

standards, such as who should receive funds and the qualifying years of fishing, for 

those who may qualify for a share of the funding. 

In general, the 2006 fishery disaster process went well but there was some dispute about the standards developed by the states, and how individual applicants 

qualified for particular amounts of funding. 

We expect that the standards now being developed by the states for distribution 

of the FY 2008 funds will be informed by the 2006 fishery disaster process. 

Finally, when the immediate income needs of the fishing communities were met, 

additional funding still remained. While there were a number of potential uses for 

that funding (to help restore the fishery or prevent a similar failure in the future), 

those uses were, for the most part, not a part of the initial 2006 plans. In this year’s 

distribution, we seek to ensure that plans allow for the best use of any funds remaining after the immediate needs have been addressed. 

The fact that there have been two such distributions in a fairly short period of 

time serves as a reminder that, while distributions can be effective in providing 

short-term income support. it is also vital to identify the underlying causes of the 

fishery failure, and, where possible, invest in long-term solutions. 

75 

Question 6a. At the July 2007 hearing on the NOAA satellites program, I expressed my concerns about the many climate sensors that were cut from the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System. I’m happy to see 

that this year’s budget request includes $74 million to add several of these climate 

sensors back in. How important is it that NOAA get this funding for the climate 

sensors? 

Answer. It is extremely important to NOAA and the national and international climate science community that NOAA receive timely and full funding of the $74 

million for the Climate Sensor/Climate Data Record initiative. The $74 million continues the Administration’s efforts to restore the five high priority climate instruments that were demanifested from the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) in 2006, and to address the recommendation 

of the National Academies of Sciences Decadal Survey Report (2007) to restore key 

climate and environmental sensors. 

The $74 million budget increase in FY 2009 will fund development of Total Solar 

Irradiance Sensor (TSIS) and Clouds and Earth Radiant Energy System (CERES), 

and provide for Climate Sensor/Climate Data Record development and continuity. 

NOAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) previously 

jointly funded restoration of Ozone Mapper/Profiler Suite-Limb onto the NPOESS 

Preparatory Project (NPP) satellite. However, full funding of the NPOESS-related 

budget requests in the NASA, NOAA and Air Force appropriations bills is also required to ensure the climate sensors can be integrated and launched on the NPP 

and NPOESS satellites. By launching these sensors on existing spacecraft, NOAA 

takes advantage of pre-existing launch opportunities on NPP and NPOESS. NOAA 

must receive these funds by October 1, 2008 to meet the schedule for CERES and 

TSIS to be integrated onto NPP and NPOESS, respectively, and still meet scheduled 

launch dates. 

Question 6b. What would be the impact if Congress were to not fully fund this 

request? Answer. If NOAA does not receive full funding at the $74 million level by October 

1, 2008, current acquisition and development activities will be canceled and NOAA 

will not be able to develop TSIS and CERES in time for the respective NPP and 

the first NPOESS satellite (C–1) launch. Further, NOAA would be forced to readjust 

current long lead planning to continue development of climate sensors for future 

spacecraft. NOAA would readjust the Climate Data Record component of the initiative which would diminish the availability of these data to national and international climate scientists. National decision-makers would not have the required 

information to develop the necessary policy (such as Congressional legislation, Presidential directives, or State action) to appropriately respond to global climate change. 

Finally, international bodies such as the United Nations would not have the data 

to support the necessary multilateral dialogue to develop global consensus on the 

appropriate actions required to address climate change. 

Question 6c. Would it hurt NOAA’s ability to monitor global warming and the ongoing changes to our planet’s climate? Answer. Not receiving the FY 2009 budget increase of $74 million to fund development of TSIS, CERES, and associated climate data records and not receiving full 

funding of the NPOESS-related budget requests in the NASA, NOAA and Air Force 

appropriations bills would hinder NOAA’s ability to monitor on-going and future 

changes of the global climate after current missions expire. 

Question 6d. Would it reduce your ability to replace our current sensors without 

a gap in climate monitoring? 

Answer. 6d. Without funding to develop demanifested climate sensors and to develop the Climate Data Record initiative on NPP and NPOESS, there will be a significant gap in our ability to monitor the climate. 

Question 6e. If you got more than $74 million for climate sensors, how would you 

use it? 

Answer. Based on the current portfolio of satellite acquisition activities that 

NOAA, NASA and the Air Force are pursuing, it would be very difficult to absorb 

and effectively use any additional funds above the FY 2009 President’s Budget Request. The President’s FY 2009 Budget Request does assume continued funding of 

Climate Sensor/Climate Data Record development in FY 2010 and beyond to continue these efforts. 

Question 7a. What impacts does the reduced funding for the NOAA Office of Response and Restoration have on our Nation’s oil spill response capabilities? 

Answer. The FY 2008 enacted appropriation for NOAA provides $11.5 million for 

response and restoration base activities; this amount is $5.3 million below the FY 

2008 requested level. Specific impacts include a reduction in: 

76 

• Capacity to respond to two simultaneous medium spill events (which has occurred on two occasions over the past 5 years) or one large spill, such as the 

EXXON VALDEZ or Hurricane Katrina. 

• Developing and updating oil prediction models, 3-dimensional models, Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) maps, and socioeconomic valuation tools. For example, some of the ESI maps are more than 25 years old. 

• Conducting and participating in preparedness and response training and drills, 

such as the highly successful Safe Seas Exercises that contribute so effectively 

to elevating response capacity at the regional level. 

Question 7b. At these funding levels, does NOAA have the ability to fully respond 

to two major oil spills simultaneously? 

Answer. It is important that NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) receive the President’s request of $17.3 million in FY 2009 in order to help rebuild 

core capabilities that have diminished over the past 4 years. At the FY 2008 enacted 

appropriation of $11.5 million, OR&R has limited capacity to respond to two major 

oil spills simultaneously, without taking measures such as temporarily reassigning 

from other NOAA programs, or recalling retired personnel. Without such measures, 

the level of response OR&R would be able to provide, including scientific support, 

on-scene responders, and damage assessment, would be very limited. 

Question 8a. NOAA’s oil spill response office currently has a backlog of its ecological sensitivity maps. These maps are used in decision-making during spill responses 

to decide which environmentally sensitive areas to protect. 

During the COSCO BUSAN oil spill in San Francisco, responders relied on 

NOAA’s ecological sensitivity maps to identify areas that needed protection from the 

spreading oil. NOAA’s maps for the outer coast of Washington, though, are twentythree years old and severely outdated. By relying on outdated maps, aren’t we risking our ability to respond effectively to a spill on the Washington coast? 

Answer. It is true that the Washington Coast atlases are among the oldest in the 

country, but this does not necessarily mean that these maps are outdated. Older 

maps can still provide useful information and NOAA continues to use these maps 

during response events. 

Question 8b. If Congress funds the Office of Response and Restoration at levels 

dramatically below the President’s request like we did last year, isn’t it a safe assumption that the ecological sensitivity map backlog will grow? How much will it 

cost to update all of the maps that need to be updated? 

Answer. Appropriations below the President’s request have led to an increase in 

the Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) backlog. Funding ESI maps has most 

often been accomplished by using a variety of funding sources, both Federal and 

state. Funding at the FY 2009 budget request level will allow NOAA to update 1 

ESI atlas. 

Question 9a. During the recent Coast Guard budget hearing, Admiral Allen testified that he is uncertain of the Coast Guard’s ability to respond to oil spills in the 

Arctic. He even went so far as to question whether the Coast Guard’s ships and 

planes can even operate in Arctic conditions. Do you believe that our Nation currently has the capabilities to effectively respond to a major oil spill in the Arctic 

Ocean? 

Answer. The vast majority of the pollution response equipment in the U.S. Arctic 

Region belongs to Alaska Clean Seas and the petroleum industry. While these prepositioned caches provide a capability to respond to most spills, a prolonged cleanup operation would require transporting resources (i.e., human, mechanical, etc.) to 

the impacted area from outside of the region. 

NOAA’s role in spill response comprises of scientific support and damage assessment. Currently, NOAA’s capability to perform this role in the Arctic is challenged 

by limited experience working in oil-in-ice conditions and limited environmental 

baseline information in terms of both biological densities and environmental sensitivities of resources for damage assessment. However, given current vessel traffic 

in the Arctic Ocean, the likelihood of a major spill in that region is remote. As vessel 

traffic in the Arctic Ocean increases and the likelihood of major spills grows less 

remote, Federal agencies responsible for responding to such spills will adapt. 

Question 9b. Do we have the scientific knowledge necessary to know how to respond effectively to oil spills in the Arctic? 

Answer. NOAA and U.S. Coast Guard continue to develop and acquire the necessary expertise to respond effectively to spills in Arctic conditions. The 

SELENDANG AYU (2004) spill off of Unalaska, Alaska, represents the type of spill 

the U.S. would be facing in the Bering Sea region, as well as the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas. NOAA has the expertise on the current state-of-the-art in response 

77 

techniques and is working with the international research and development community to improve predictive capabilities for oil-in-ice scenarios. NOAA’s work on spills 

like the SELENDANG AYU clearly identifies additional information required to understand how oil released into the Arctic weathers the processes by which oil lingers 

in the environment, and how these processes ultimately result in injuries to the biological and ecological resources in these environments. 

Question 9c. What steps is NOAA taking to prepare us for major oil spills in the 

Arctic? 

Answer. NOAA is proactively looking at plausible spill scenarios that we might 

face in the Arctic. NOAA is working with the U.S. Arctic Research Commission and 

U.S. Coast Guard to define these scenarios. A NOAA-sponsored workshop took place 

in March 2008 to start defining these scenarios and to develop data-gaps and research needs in order to improve response capabilities. NOAA is strengthening these 

partnerships and looking for opportunities to leverage resources to improve response 

capabilities. In addition, NOAA is attempting to increase the education and information base for potential Arctic responders. For increased access to pertinent information before and during an oil spill response, NOAA has developed a new high resolution environmental information system that can access both static data (like biological sensitivities and shoreline characteristics) as well as real-time data from monitoring stations (like weather and currents). Appropriation of the President’s FY 

2009 Budget Request would allow NOAA to make progress on the development of 

this system. 

Question 10a. In a letter commenting on the Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Chukchi Sea oil and gas drilling plan, the National Marine Fisheries Service 

wrote that the Minerals Management Service’s analysis ‘‘did not present a strong 

enough case to NMFS that marine resources would be adequately protected.’’ Do you 

support your agency’s assessment that the Minerals Management Service’s plan for 

oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean’s Chukchi Sea does not adequately protect 

marine resources and ecosystems? 

Answer. The NOAA Fisheries Service’s letter, dated January 30, 2007, presented 

comments on the Minerals Management Service’s (MMS) draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Chukchi Sea Planning Area—Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 

and Seismic Surveying Activities in the Chukchi Sea. The comment letter specifically concerned support for the preferred alternative (Alternative III), and whether 

the DEIS presented a strong enough case to justify that alternative over NOAA 

Fisheries’ recommendation to adopt Alternative IV. While NOAA supported Alternative IV, we do not consider the adoption of Alternative III by the MMS to mean 

the process or conclusions of the EIS are unacceptable. The MMS employed the best 

available scientific data in preparing the DEIS. Furthermore, the alternative the 

MMS adopted excluded a sizable portion of the area we recommended for exclusion 

from the sale area. 

Where appropriate to comply with the Marine Mammal Protection Act, NOAA 

Fisheries Service will issue letters of authorization or incidental harassment authorizations on specific oil and gas activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas to allow 

for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. This allows NOAA Fisheries 

Service to place conditions on the oil and gas drilling activities which may result 

in modification to operations. These conditions are added to ensure that the effects 

of the drilling and production activities do not result in more than a negligible impact on marine mammals in the area. NOAA Fisheries Service will develop our own 

NEPA documentation to support any letter of authorization or incidental harassment authorization. 

NOAA Fisheries Service will continue to coordinate with the MMS as production 

and development plans evolve. 

Question 10b. Do you resent the fact that the Minerals Management Service 

largely ignored your agency’s plea to adopt the more environmentally-sensitive drilling plan for the Chukchi Sea? 

Answer. NOAA did not review a ‘‘drilling plan,’’ but rather an EIS for a lease sale 

which encompasses a much broader range of issues than a drill plan. NOAA recommended an alternative for the sale plan which would have included a 60 mile 

buffer between the lease sale and the Alaska Chukchi coastline. The actual boundaries for Sale 193 are greater than 60 miles offshore in some important habitats, 

such as the Leydyard Bay critical habitat area, and are never closer than 25 miles. 

Thus, we cannot agree that our comments were largely ignored, although our stated 

preference and recommendation was for the 60 mile buffer. NOAA is currently 

working closely with the MMS to reduce impact to our trust resources due to oil 

and gas exploration, and to complete research to answer many of the environmental 

issues raised in our letter. 

78 

Question 11a. In Washington State, we have recently seen the emergence of the 

Puget Sound Partnership—an innovative, collaborative, science-based effort to manage the Puget Sound environment based on an ecosystem-based management approach. Will NOAA invest in this important effort in Washington State, which is 

already being seen throughout the country as a model for regional ocean governance 

and ecosystem-based management? 

Answer. NOAA is currently investing funding and providing staff support in 

Puget Sound. The Director of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, who is a 

member of the Puget Sound Partnership’s Science Panel, is serving as NOAA’s lead 

for the Puget Sound Partnership’s recovery effort. A NOAA Puget Sound Coordination Group has also been formed under the guidance of the Director of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. The Regional Administrator for NOAA’s National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region is one of three Federal representatives 

on the Puget Sound Partnership’s Ecosystem Recovery Board. Additional NOAA 

staff participates in other advisory groups in support of the Partnership. 

Question 11b. In my state, the Puget Sound Partnership is making a major push 

to restore Washington’s waters using a science and ecosystem-based approach. Isn’t 

this the kind of regional effort that you support and that should be replicated elsewhere throughout the country? 

Answer. NOAA is very supportive of the approach being taken to restore Puget 

Sound and views the Puget Sound Partnership as one of the model efforts in the 

Nation for an ecosystem approach to management. 

Question 11c. Is it true that NOAA does not have funding available for participation in the Puget Sound Partnership? 

Answer. In the years 2003 through 2007, NOAA expenditures in Puget Sound 

across all line offices averaged about $27.4 million annually, including habitat restoration, salmon recovery, contaminated sediment cleanup, and science. Approximately $15.7 million annually was from the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. 

The amount for 2008 will be about the same, while the NOAA’s request for 2009 

is lower, largely due to a reduction in the request for Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery 

funding. NOAA is working within the Puget Sound Federal Caucus to better coordinate funding and actions from all Federal agencies, which will create some efficiency 

in carrying out this work. However, NOAA recognizes that moving to an ecosystem 

approach to management will require scientific and management resources and extensive coordination. For example, a Leadership Group composed of city and county 

elected officials from the Puget Sound region, government agency representatives, 

tribes, conservation organizations, and private industry recently completed the recovery plan for Puget Sound Chinook. This plan will require coordination between 

many groups within the Puget Sound. 

As the Partnership develops its Action agenda over the next 6 months, NOAA will 

endeavor to assist the Partnership as much as possible and will work with the Partnership and the Federal Caucus to identify those actions that would benefit from 

NOAA’s leadership and fiscal support. These will be considered as the Administration develops its outyear priorities and budget. 

Question 12. A small program called ‘‘Mussel Watch’’ may be cut under this year’s 

NOAA budget. This program monitors water quality and chemical contaminants by 

analyzing mussel tissues. The 22-year-old program has collected data on over 120 

contaminants along Washington’s shorelines, and has been instrumental in demonstrating the Puget Sound’s toxic problems. Although the program is small, Mussel 

Watch is instrumental in monitoring water quality in Washington. Will NOAA continue support for this successful program? 

Answer. NOAA appreciates your concern for the Mussel Watch Program, and we 

are pleased to hear of the program’s value to your state. Because Mussel Watch is 

funded a year in advance, the program will continue through FY 2009 using FY 

2008 funds. Continued support will depend on the final appropriations for FY 2009. 

However, we continue to explore options, such as increased partnerships with state 

and local stakeholders, to maintain this important national observing program. 

Question 13a. In response to the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, the Bush Administration pledged $37.5 million toward expanding the U.S. Tsunami warning program 

to protect lives and property along all U.S. coasts. NOAA deployed the final two tsunami detection buoys in the South Pacific this past March, completing the U.S. Tsunami Warning System. Given the completion of the Pacific tsunami warning system, 

what grade would you give our current Tsunami Warning System? 

Answer. The U.S. Tsunami Warning System is highly effective. In May 2008, the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) completed a Program Assessment Rating 

Tool (PART) on NOAA’s Tsunami Monitoring, Forecasting, and Warning Program. 

79 

OMB gave the program an ‘‘effective’’ rating, which is the highest score a program 

can receive. 

NOAA has made tremendous progress in just 31⁄2 years. In March 2008, NOAA 

completed the U.S. Tsunami Warning System strengthening effort. In addition to 

the completed deployment of 39 Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami 

(DART) stations, NOAA: (1) upgraded 120 and installed 16 new National Water 

Level Observation Network (NWLON) tide gauges (for a total of 136); (2) added 8 

new seismic stations and worked with partners, such as the U.S. Geological Survey 

to enhance the Nation’s seismic networks; (3) developed site-specific inundation 

models; (4) upgraded telecommunications infrastructure; and (5) expanded operations at its two Tsunami Warning Centers to 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. Equally 

important to success are processing systems, warning message content and generation, communications to coastal communities, local response capability, and the preplanning at the local level which includes public education, warning response, and 

recovery. 

In the Pacific region, NOAA improved accuracy, timeliness, and reliability of tsunami detection. NOAA’s tsunami observational network in the Pacific includes 32 

DART stations, 74 NWLON tide gauges, and 8 seismic stations. NOAA researchers 

and data managers also completed 22 site-specific inundation models. We made improvements in the level of community awareness, preparedness, response, and recovery capability as demonstrated through tsunami communication tests, evacuation 

drills, disaster planning, and public education. 

During the next year, NOAA’s Tsunami Warning System will be reviewed by the 

National Academies of Science to determine if there are any other enhancements 

that can be made to the warning system, so we can better serve coastal residents 

and visitors. 

Question 13b. What other actions need to be taken to ensure accurate and timely 

tsunami predictions? 

Answer. While continued investment in tsunami warning infrastructure, such as 

observing stations, will improve the accuracy and timeliness of tsunami predictions, 

there must be an investment in tsunami research, mitigation, and public outreach 

and education efforts. Maintaining the existing U.S. Tsunami Warning System is 

critical. NOAA is continuing to improve and upgrade the overall Tsunami Warning 

System. This is achieved through improvements to Tsunami Warning Center computing capabilities, such as routine software upgrades and enhancements. Improvements to forecasts and tsunami products, based on new techniques, research and 

customer demand, are also part of a continuous process to improve the service 

NOAA’s Tsunami Warning Centers provide to the Nation every day. Collaborative 

research is needed to advance data collection, analysis, and assessment for tsunami 

tracking and numerical forecast modeling, as well as mitigation science. 

Question 13c. In your opinion, where are the most vulnerable gaps in our tsunami 

warning system? 

Answer. The most vulnerable gaps in the Nation’s Tsunami Warning System include: 

1. Delivery of warning messages to those most at risk—Warning information can 

be effectively distributed through the NOAA/NWS infrastructure, but the information is only useful when people have the capability to receive it, e.g., NOAA 

Weather Radio or other means. We are working to strengthen this infrastructure and improve receipt of warning information. 

2. Improving hazard mitigation—While we have made progress in our modeling 

of inundation mapping for a significant portion of the highest risk areas in 

Washington, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, more can be done for these and other 

areas. Our plans include continued development and refinement of inundation 

maps for evacuation routes, land use planning, and educating the public about 

their risk. 

3. Promoting mitigation activities for exposed communities and infrastructures— Working with our Federal, state and local partners, we will continue an aggressive outreach and education program to ensure the public, both resident and 

visitor, understand how to respond to tsunami information and can take appropriate action. 

Over the next 5 years, NOAA will use funding from the 2008 spectrum sale, as 

directed by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, to reduce these vulnerabilities in the 

Tsunami Warning System. 

Question 14. NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration includes a Marine Debris 

removal program, with a proposed budget of $4 million. Funding for research and 

cleanup of Marine Debris peaked at $4.9 million in FY 2005 and has remained at 

80 

lower levels since then. The need for the removal of marine debris is an ongoing 

issue affecting our oceans and coastal areas. How has the reduced funding levels 

affected the Office of Response and Restoration’s ability to address this important 

issue? 

Answer. The President’s Budget request for $4 million will allow the NOAA Marine Debris Program to address the most pressing issues of marine debris through 

several different avenues, including funding assessment and research projects, removal projects, and outreach and education activities. All of these are done in conjunction with other organizations and research facilities, so we can leverage the 

amount of funding received from Congress. We are also beginning to better coordinate Federal activities and needs to achieve more by capitalizing on each other’s activities. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN F. KERRY TO

VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR. 

Question 1. Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary is one of the richest marine systems in the Nation. However, a 2007 status report evaluated the sanctuary’s 

health based on 17 key indicators—most received marks of fair or poor. We need 

to be making the investments to protect these remarkable resources. At a time when 

there is increased public interest in and support for marine sanctuaries, why does 

the President’s budget call for a $2.5 million decrease to the Marine Sanctuary Program base—reducing funding levels to $44.4 million? 

Answer. The FY 2009 President’s budget provides $44.4 million for the National 

Marine Sanctuary base. These funds will provide resources to protect our investments in our 13 national marine sanctuaries—including the Gerry E. Studds 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary—and the Papaha ̄naumokua ̄kea Marine National Monument. NOAA works within the Administration’s budget process 

to ensure that adequate funds are requested to allow the National Marine Sanctuary Program to manage these sites based on priority needs and critical core requirements. We remain deeply committed to protecting the special natural, historic, 

and cultural resources of these areas. 

Question 2. Congress appropriated $235,000 in FY08 for the deployment of a 

weather buoy in Nantucket Sound—this is critical to safe navigation and weather 

forecasting. What is NOAA’s schedule for deployment of the buoy? 

Answer. The Nantucket Sound Weather Buoy is scheduled to be deployed in April 

2009. This schedule includes acquisition, fabrication, integration, and testing. 

Question 3. I understand that the President’s budget will add back two sensors 

that were de-manifested from the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)—the CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant 

Energy System) and TSIS (Total Solar Irradiance Sensor). What is your long-term 

plan to ensure the continuity of essential climate observation data? 

Answer. The President’s FY 2009 Budget Request includes a $74 million initiative 

to continue the restoration of climate measurements that were demanifested from 

the NPOESS program in 2006, and to address the recommendation of the National 

Academies of Sciences Decadal Survey Report to restore key climate and environmental sensors. 

NOAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have determined that near-term continuity of three of these measurements can be fulfilled 

through existing plans. Aerosol measurements can be fulfilled with the 2009 launch 

of the Aerosol Polarimeter Sensor on the NASA GLORY mission. Ozone vertical profile data requirements were addressed by the NPOESS Executive Committee’s 2007 

decision to remanifest the Ozone Mapper/Profiler Suite-Limb sensor onto the 

NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP). Continuity of RADAR altimetry measurements 

can be fulfilled through the Jason 2 mission that was launched on June 20, 2008. 

Continuity of the remaining two measurements—Earth radiation budget and total 

solar irradiance—will be supported by the $74 million in the President’s FY 2009 

Budget Request. Continuity of the Earth radiation budget data can be met with the 

Clouds and Earth Radiant Energy System (CERES) sensor. NOAA and NASA will 

accelerate development of this instrument and will integrate it on the NPP mission 

which is scheduled for launch in June 2010. A replacement CERES instrument will 

be developed and flown on the first NPOESS satellite (C–1) when it is launched in 

2013. Total solar irradiance measurement continuity can be met by the Total Solar 

Irradiance Sensor (TSIS). The $74 million in the FY 2009 President’s Budget request will allow this instrument to be developed and launched on the first NPOESS 

satellite (C–1) in 2013. 

81 

To achieve this near-term success, these instruments must be delivered in time 

to be integrated onto the NPP and NPOESS C–1 spacecraft, respectively, to meet 

scheduled launch dates. NOAA must receive full funding or authorization to expend 

funds at the $74 million level by October 1, 2008 to meet these schedules. Additionally, full funding of the NPOESS-related budget requests of NOAA, NASA, and the 

Air Force is also required to ensure that the climate sensors can be integrated and 

launched on the NPP and NPOESS satellites to meet scheduled launch dates. 

Regarding long-term planning, NOAA and NASA, in collaboration with the Office 

of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget, continue to work with the climate science community to determine when additional 

sensors must be developed and launched to ensure uninterrupted continuity of these 

climate sensor measurements. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR. 

Question 1. S. 931, the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2007, was 

introduced in March 2007 and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation. This legislation would dramatically expand the scope of basic 

research on hurricanes, including enhanced data collection, data analysis in critical 

research areas, and mechanisms to translate the results into improved forecasts and 

planning. This legislation designates NOAA and the National Science Foundation 

(NSF) as lead agencies for the Initiative. NOAA’s various line offices and many 

other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), and offices within the Department of Defense (e.g., Office of Naval Research) have existing authorities and activities that are closely aligned with the 

goals of this Initiative. Is NOAA prepared to work cooperatively with NSF to manage and implement this 10-year Initiative? 

Answer. NOAA is prepared to work cooperatively with NSF to manage and implement this 10 year initiative. NOAA has already engaged with NSF to formulate an 

agreement aimed at cooperating in the development of improved hurricane forecasting and to ensure expertise and facilities of academic and research institutions 

and other nongovernmental organizations nationwide are leveraged to address this 

national challenge. 

Question 2. How would this Initiative be coordinated with NOAA’s existing hurricane program activities, including the agency’s Hurricane Forecast Improvement 

Project, to avoid duplication of effort and address the highest-priority needs of the 

primary consumers of the research results? 

Answer. NOAA established the national Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project 

(HFIP) to ensure a coordinated NOAA effort for improving hurricane forecasts and 

ensure the efforts meet the highest priority needs of NOAA operational elements. 

One of the primary objectives of HFIP is to accelerate and transition proven research results into operations. The HFIP manager reports directly to the Assistant 

Administrator for Weather Services and the Assistant Administrator for Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Research. This project is overseen by an Executive Oversight 

Board consisting of key NOAA Hurricane Program operational managers. Any 

NOAA hurricane research activities arising from the National Hurricane Research 

Initiative, including the application and transition of the broader initiative research 

results to NOAA operations, would be managed through the NOAA HFIP, with review by its Executive Oversight Board and the responsible Assistant Administrators. The draft plan for HFIP was published in the Federal Register for public comment, and the comments we received supported the plan. 

Question 3. Academic and research institutions and other nongovernmental organizations nationwide possess expertise and facilities that are well suited to undertake much of the research that would be conducted under this Initiative. How would 

NOAA, in coordination with NSF, maximize the effective utilization of these considerable non-Federal assets in conducting the Initiative’s fundamental research and 

in developing and disseminating related products? 

Answer. NOAA is currently engaging with the other key Federal agencies, including NSF, NASA, and the Navy (including Office of Naval Research) to develop a National Hurricane Research Alliance. This Alliance will leverage existing Federal hurricane coordination efforts, including those from the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research, to manage overall roles 

and responsibilities (including those of the broader academic community funded by 

NSF, NOAA, and others). Through this Alliance, NOAA and NSF will work with the 

other entities to maximize the effective use of considerable non-Federal assets in 

82 

conducting the Initiative’s fundamental research, and in developing and disseminating related products and services. 

Question 4. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), 

which was created in 1977, has research goals, program partners, and products 

similar to those proposed for the National Hurricane Research Initiative. In 

NEHRP’s 2004 reauthorization (P.L. 108–360), Congress reorganized the program in 

several ways. Changes included shifting lead-agency responsibilities from FEMA to 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and creating an advisory committee composed of non-Federal experts to provide guidance to the lead 

agency and the program’s Interagency Coordinating Committee. 

Would NOAA view a similar structure—specifically, collaboration between a lead 

Federal agency, an interagency working group, and an expert advisory committee— 

as being beneficial in implementing the National Hurricane Research Initiative and 

in periodically examining its progress and aiding in the review and revision of program goals as needed? 

Answer. NOAA does view a similar structure as being beneficial in implementing 

the National Hurricane Research Initiative but points out that a similar structure 

is already in place. As stated in the previous response, NOAA is currently engaging 

with other key Federal agencies through the National Hurricane Research Alliance 

and the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. NOAA’s existing Science Advisory Board would be an effective expert advisory committee to periodically examine scientific progress and aid in review. 

Question 5. Does NOAA have any other interagency or intergovernmental (i.e., 

Federal/state/local) partnerships through its hurricane research program, forecast 

operations, community resiliency initiative, or other related programs that should 

be considered as Congress considers this National Hurricane Research Initiative? 

Answer. The Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (OFCM) coordinates Federal Hurricane Operations and Research efforts 

across the responsible Federal agencies. Efforts from the OFCM should be considered by Congress as it considers the National Hurricane Research Initiative. We 

suggest hurricane related research efforts from the National Ocean Partnership Program and the U.S. Weather Research Program also be considered by Congress to 

further the overall hurricane research effort. 

Question 6. In addition to reauthorizing and restructuring NEHRP, P.L. 108–360 

established the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP) in 2004. 

The program’s primary goals are to improve meteorological understanding of windstorms, quantify windstorm impacts, and identify and promote cost-effective measures to reduce windstorm impacts. 

Please summarize briefly what progress NOAA has made in addressing the goals 

of NWIRP with the funds appropriated by Congress from FY 2005 through FY 2008. 

In particular, please explain how NOAA intends to spend the approximately 

$700,000 that was appropriated by Congress for FY2008. What additional accomplishments related to NWIRP’s goals has NOAA made through other authorized program activities? 

Answer. The Act stipulates that ‘‘NOAA shall support atmospheric sciences research to improve the understanding of the behavior of windstorms and their impact 

on buildings, structures, and lifelines.’’ In line with the Act, NOAA spends $700,000 

per year on activities that improve the understanding of the behavior of windstorms 

and their impacts. This includes the continuing development and use of the 

H*WIND (hurricane wind analysis) product at the Hurricane Research Division, the 

National Severe Storm Laboratory’s outreach on structural wind hazards, and Sea 

Grant’s funding of an instrumented house in coastal North Carolina and corresponding education and outreach through its extension service. 

In response to the legislation and to a bilateral plan with the National Institute 

of Science and Technology (NIST), NOAA has a $300,000 increase in the FY 2009 

Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project initiative to deploy high time and spatial 

resolution wind measurements along the coast for use by structural engineers. 

In general, NOAA supports a number of activities related to measuring and predicting windstorms and their impact such as: 

• The National Weather Radar Testbed is studying how Multifunction Phased 

Array Radar (MPAR), with its advanced capabilities and performance can meet 

the Nation’s weather, aviation, and homeland security needs. NOAA scientists 

recently proved MPAR can detect rotation, hail, microbursts and gust fronts 

well ahead of other radars due to its rapid scan capability. 

83 

• NOAA researchers co-sponsored the annual NOAA Hazardous Weather Testbed 

with forecasters from the National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center to 

focus on early and precise warnings of severe weather hazards. The Hazardous 

Weather Testbed also emphasizes developing, testing and evaluating forecasts 

that could predict severe weather a week in advance. 

Question 7. In April 2006, the National Science and Technology Council published 

the ‘‘Windstorm Impact Reduction Implementation Plan,’’ as required by P.L. 108– 

360. NOAA was one of several Federal agencies involved in the formulation of this 

plan. 

Since the implementation plan was completed, how has NOAA been engaged by 

the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and/or the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) concerning NWIRP? Beginning with FY 2005, has OSTP or OMB 

ever provided NOAA with any guidance concerning NWIRP during formulation of 

NOAA’s annual budget request? In turn, has NOAA sought assistance from OSTP 

in preparing budget requests or spending plans for NWIRP-related activities? To the 

best of your knowledge, is the level of interaction or guidance that NOAA has received from OSTP typical of that provided to the other agencies participating in this 

program? 

Answer. In response to the NWIRP legislation, OSTP formed a Working Group 

on Wind Hazard Reduction under its Subcommittee for Disaster Reduction in 2005. 

Each agency mentioned in the legislation plus the Federal Highway Administration 

is represented on this Working Group. 

NOAA chaired the Working Group for the first 2 years during which time an implementation plan and a biannual progress report was completed. These were done 

under the guidance of the OSTP. OSTP has discussed the way forward with the 

NWIRP agencies, but no additional actions have been taken under NWIRP. The 

OSTP guidance has been provided at the Working Group meetings to all agency representatives equally, and the agency representatives have had the opportunity to 

provide their ideas about ways forward. 

NOAA has not asked for assistance from OSTP on budget requests or spending 

plans for NWIRP-related activities. OSTP has left these matters to the agencies. 

Question 8. From FY 2005 through FY 2008, NOAA was authorized to be appropriated $2 million per year under NWIRP. Is funding of $2 million per year adequate for NOAA to partner fully with the other NWIRP agencies and accomplish 

the research and operations-related goals described in the NWIRP-authorizing statute and in the April 2006 implementation plan? 

Answer. NOAA supports the President’s FY 2009 budget request of $1 million for 

activities within NOAA related to the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act. 

This funding will allow NOAA to develop new strategies and technologies for observing storms, to improve our models for predicting storm intensity, and to provide critical assistance to forecasters. 

Additionally, the President’s 2009 Budget, not including the recently transmitted 

budget amendment, provides nearly $20 million for hurricane-related increases 

across NOAA, including modeling improvements on forecasts and storm surge and 

research into ocean vector winds and coastal inundation. 

NOAA has a diverse mission ranging from managing fisheries to predicting severe 

weather. The Administration’s request provides a balanced set of priorities to sustain core mission services and address our highest priority program needs. NOAA 

will continue to work within the Administration and with Congress to ensure that 

our program needs are addressed. 

Question 9. Harmful algal blooms (HABs) and hypoxia events have far-reaching 

consequences for coastal communities, including human health impacts, harm to 

wildlife and ecosystems, and economic losses from lost tourism. Congress is currently considering legislation that would reauthorize the Harmful Algal Bloom and 

Hypoxia Research and Control Act (HABHRCA), which was first passed in 1998 and 

last amended in 2004. NOAA has several programs that support research and other 

activities concerning HABs (e.g., ECOHAB, MERHAB, RDDT) and hypoxia (e.g., 

CHRP, NGOMEX). 

For FY 2009, the Administration has only requested $10.8 million for HABHRCArelated programs. While this represents an increase of $2 million over what Congress appropriated in FY 2008, it is still far below historical levels ($12.7–20.2 million) and far below the $25.5 million that is currently authorized. 

Does the Administration view the funding requested for FY2009 as adequate to 

address the myriad research, forecasting, monitoring, prevention, and response 

needs that exist among the state, regional, and local authorities nationwide that are 

dealing with HABs and hypoxia events and their impacts? 

84 

Answer. The President’s FY 2009 Budget Request includes $15.8 million for the 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) Competitive Research line, 

which supports a suite of competitive grant programs including Harmful Algal 

Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act programs. If appropriated at $15.8 

million for the Competitive Research line, NCCOS will use at least $8.9 million for 

research related to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Over the past few years this 

effort has been appropriated below the President’s request. This has reduced the 

scope of activities and delayed progress of NOAA efforts toward mitigating HAB and 

hypoxia impacts to coastal ecosystems and communities. 

Question 10. There are a number of reports required by HABHRCA that NOAA 

is yet to complete and furnish to Congress. Please report on NOAA’s progress in 

completing these overdue reports, including a timeline for final submission. 

Answer. On December 10, 2004 the President signed the Harmful Algal Bloom 

and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2004 (HABHRCA) which calls on NOAA to advance the scientific understanding of, and ability to detect, monitor, assess, predict 

and mitigate, harmful algal blooms (HABs) and hypoxia (low oxygen conditions). 

HABHRCA called for 5 written reports to assess the current state of research on 

and response to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. The Interagency Working Group 

on Harmful Algal Blooms, Hypoxia, and Human Health (IWG–4H), co-chaired by 

NOAA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was tasked with drafting the reports. The IWG–4H has been working to ensure these reports include the 

most up to date information and are of the highest quality, which has taken some 

time. The status of the reports is as follows: 

» The National Assessment of Efforts to Predict and Respond to Harmful Algal 

Blooms in U.S. Waters, was published in September 2007; 

» The National Scientific Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer Plan on Reducing Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms 

(RDDTT Plan) and The Scientific Assessment of Marine Harmful Algal 

Blooms are undergoing interagency review; 

» The Scientific Assessment of Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms has been completed and approved and will be published online soon; and 

» The Scientific Assessments of Hypoxia is currently being drafted by the Interagency Working Group. 

Question 11. Significant hypoxia events have become more numerous in coastal 

waters around the U.S., including in the Great Lakes and along the Pacific Northwest. At this time, scientists or research entities interested in pursuing grants for 

hypoxia-related work, particularly outside of the Gulf of Mexico, have far fewer opportunities to compete for funding as compared to their HABs counterparts. 

Since HABHRCA’s enactment, has NOAA received requests for assistance to undertake hypoxia-related research, forecasting, monitoring, prevention, or mitigation 

activities from areas outside of the Gulf of Mexico? If so, what geographic regions 

were covered by these requests, and what was the cumulative cost (approximately) 

of the requested assistance? How much has NOAA spent (approximately) in the last 

5 years internally and extramurally on hypoxia-related research in the Gulf of Mexico? In areas outside of the Gulf of Mexico? 

Answer. Through the NOAA Coastal Hypoxia Research Program (CHRP), initiated in FY 2004 with competitions held in FY 2005 and FY 2007, NOAA has received requests for assistance to undertake hypoxia-related research, forecasting, 

monitoring, prevention, or mitigation activities from many regions outside of the 

Gulf of Mexico, a testament to the national scale of the problem. These requests 

have been binned into the following regions with a corresponding cumulative cost 

of the requested assistance: 

85 

Hypoxia Requests for Research Funding by Region (FY 05–07) 

Regions not covered by NGOMEX 1

Multiple Regions 2 $14,500,000 

Gulf of Mexico estuaries $6,400,000 

Chesapeake Bay/Delaware Inland Bays $19,700,000 

Great Lakes $6,000,000 

Southeast—NC/SC/GA $14,600,000 

Northeast—NJ/NY/MA $12,500,000 

Pacific Northwest $10,900,000 

Total $84,700,000 

1 Northern Gulf of Mexico Program addressing hypoxia on the Louisiana/ 

Texas shelf influenced by the Mississippi River. 2Projects addressing hypoxia in more than one region. 

Over the past 5 years (FY 2004–2008), NOAA has spent the following on hypoxia 

research: 

Hypoxia Research Funded (FY 04–08) 

Competitive Intramural 

NOS/CSCOR 

Gulf of Mexico $7,640,654 

Outside Gulf of Mexico $7,234,041 

NOS/NERRS (outside Gulf) $180,000 

NOS/NCBO (Chesapeake Bay) $500,000 

OAR/Sea Grant (outside Gulf) $370,000 

OAR/GLERL (Lake Erie Hypoxia—IFYLE) $6,500,000 

Subtotals $15,744,695 $6,680,000 

Gulf of Mexico $7,640,654 

Outside Gulf of Mexico $14,784,041 

Total $22,424,695 

Question 12. The availability of funding notwithstanding, do you have any recommendations on how to achieve greater equity in terms of opportunities for eligible 

entities to compete for funding for hypoxia-related activities? Has NOAA considered 

building on NGOMEX and CHRP to create broader (i.e., national) hypoxia programs 

that are parallel in scope to ECOHAB and MERHAB? 

Answer. The recently reauthorized HABHRCA and the report required by this legislation provide guidance for ongoing and future NOAA research efforts related to 

hypoxia. NOAA has maintained a long-term research program investigating the 

causes, consequences and prediction of the seasonal hypoxic (or ‘‘dead’’) zone in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico, the largest zone of its type in North America. These efforts, 

funded through the northern Gulf of Mexico Research Program (NGOMEX), have 

provided the scientific basis for the Gulf of Mexico Action Plan required by 

HABHRCA. NGOMEX funds interdisciplinary research projects to develop a fundamental understanding of the northern Gulf of Mexico ecosystem with a focus on the 

causes and effects of the hypoxic zone and the prediction of its future extent and 

impacts. The research program is directed toward the goal of developing a predictive 

capability and an adaptive management framework for hypoxia in the Louisiana 

continental shelf ecosystem. Given the scale and impact of the problem in the Gulf 

of Mexico, with nutrient management implications for roughly 40 percent of the 

United States, NOAA continues to support the NGOMEX program and its participation in the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Task Force. Complimentary 

to NGOMEX is the Coastal Hypoxia Research Program (CHRP), the intent of which 

is to expand NOAA’s research capability to address hypoxia in other regions outside 

of the Gulf of Mexico experiencing hypoxia. The objective of CHRP is to provide research results and modeling tools that will be used by coastal resource managers 

to assess alternative management strategies for preventing or mitigating the impacts of hypoxia on coastal ecosystems. Determining the causes of hypoxia, developing the capability to predict its occurrence in response to varying levels of anthropogenic stress, and evaluating the subsequent ecological, economic, and social imVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Aug 29, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75681.TXT JACKIE
86 

pacts are necessary to assess potential management alternatives. Therefore, between the two programs (NGOMEX and CHRP), researchers and managers from 

anywhere in U.S. have an opportunity to compete for hypoxia research support. 

More information about both programs is available at the following websites: 

CHRP: http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/current/chrp.html, 

NGOMEX: http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/current/gomex-fact 

sheet.html. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR. 

Question. To which ports and in which amounts will you distribute FY 2008 funding for operation of the Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS) program? 

Answer. NOAA met with appropriations staff on this issue and will provide funding for the operation and maintenance contracts of the following PORTS: 

Houston Galveston PORTS 

Upper Chesapeake Bay PORTS 

New York/New Jersey PORTS 

$210K 

$235K 

∼$210K (government cost estimate for 

new maintenance contract to be 

awarded by August 30) 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR. 

Question 1a. The Administration has requested approximately $4.1 billion for 

NOAA in its 2009 proposal—a 5.2 percent increase from the level enacted in Fiscal 

Year 2008. This Administration’s request exceeds funding previously provided by 

Congress, which would appear to suggest that the President is placing a greater priority on funding our critical ocean and atmospheric science and management programs. However, upon closer examination, it is clear that this increase in funding 

is entirely devoted to a single satellite program, and that most other programs— 

including all ocean and coastal programs—are facing notable cuts. 

Satellites are expensive and warrant a $200 million request, but is it fair to say 

that this increase is being paid for by requesting cuts for most other programs— 

most notably all oceans and coastal programs? If not, is NOAA suggesting that Congress has been over-funding the ocean and coastal programs? 

Answer. NOAA has a diverse mission ranging from managing fisheries to predicting severe weather. The Administration’s request provides a balanced set of priorities to sustain core mission services and address our highest priority program 

needs. Even within a restrained fiscal environment, however, the President’s FY 

2009 Budget Request includes over $1.9 billion in ocean and coastal program funding, including $49 million in increases in support of the President’s Ocean Initiative. 

NOAA will continue to work within the Administration and with Congress to ensure 

the needs of ocean, coastal and fisheries program are addressed. 

Question 1b. What Congressional directives would not be carried out if these 

ocean and coastal cuts are maintained in the 2009 budget? 

Answer. NOAA removes unrequested Congressional directives and add-ons during 

our annual planning process to prepare the President’s Budget Request, and before 

addressing NOAA’s priorities within the new budget. The determination of NOAA 

priorities within the President’s Budget Request is shaped by both the Administration’s priorities and NOAA’s programmatic needs. Each fiscal year, NOAA undergoes an extensive review of current and future projects, allowing for a continuous 

reevaluation of priorities and funding. The top priorities that emerge come from integrated requirements-based planning linked to NOAA’s strategic vision and the optimization of our capabilities. Within the constraints of the current fiscal environment, NOAA proposes funding its highest priority programs. 

Question 2. Last October, NMFS issued regulations on the lobster industry intended to protect endangered whales. These rules would require lobstermen to use 

sinking rope to connect their strings of pots, something made nearly impossible in 

many areas off the coast of Maine by rocky bottom conditions and strong tides. 

NMFS suggested that these regulations would impose total costs of approximately 

$14 million, over ninety percent of which would be borne by the lobster industry. 

The Maine Lobstermen’s Association puts that figure at $10–15,000 in first year 

87 

costs alone per lobsterman, and annual replacement costs of up to $9,000, far in excess of your agency’s estimates. In July 2007, a GAO analysis of the then proposed 

rules found that NMFS: 

• ‘‘did not adequately represent uncertainties associated with proposed gear modifications cost, and could not fully assess impacts on fishing communities.’’ and 

• ‘‘cannot estimate the extent to which risks to whales will be reduced’’ by these 

regulations. 

In other words, it appears that your agency conducted an inadequate economic 

analysis and then imposed on the lobster industry a set of regulations that have 

an unproven likelihood of success. 

Answer. NOAA Fisheries Service believes the economic analysis presented in the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) used to determine the costs of the 

then proposed fishing gear modifications was adequate. NOAA Fisheries Service 

noted that GAO’s review of the DEIS economic analysis recommended no changes 

to the models or methods employed. GAO’s principal finding with respect to the economic analysis was to recommend that NOAA Fisheries Service improve the representation of uncertainties in the analysis by presenting a range of possible costs 

in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 

In response to this recommendation, the FEIS includes a quantitative assessment 

of the sensitivity of compliance cost estimates to variations in four factors: (1) the 

increase in gear loss that lobster trap/pot vessels fishing in Maine inshore waters 

may experience as a result of converting from floating groundline to sinking and/ 

or neutrally buoyant groundline; (2) the rate at which sinking and/or neutrally 

buoyant groundline will wear out and need to be replaced; (3) the price of sinking 

and/or neutrally buoyant line relative to the price of floating line; and (4) the estimated number of state-permitted vessels subject to the Atlantic Large Whale Take 

Reduction Plan requirements. The FEIS presents this analysis, providing cost estimates for each regulatory option under a range of alternative assumptions. NOAA 

Fisheries Service believes that incorporation of this analysis into the FEIS fully addresses GAO’s recommendations for improvement of the economic analysis presented in the DEIS. 

Some industry organization’s cost analyses include alternative assumptions that 

increase each of the cost parameters to reflect extreme predictions of gear costs and 

functionality. Although the industry organization’s have an intimate knowledge of 

the lobster fishery, their statements are based upon the predictions of individuals 

with limited or no experience fishing with sinking groundline. In contrast, NOAA 

Fisheries Service gear experts developed the assumptions applied in the economic 

analysis based upon detailed conversations with individuals throughout the Atlantic 

coast with years of experience fishing sinking groundline in a variety of habitats, 

including Maine’s rocky bottom. NOAA Fisheries Service would also like to specify 

some additional points related to these comments: 

• The average cost of groundline was estimated based upon estimates for specific 

products. The estimate the commenter uses for certain brands is significantly 

higher than the price at which the brand is sold by gear suppliers. 

• The commenter’s assumptions about the useful life of sinking groundline are 

based upon field studies with experimental gear, instead of commercially available sinking groundline used in NOAA Fisheries Service assumptions. 

• Based upon discussions that NOAA Fisheries Service gear experts had with 

fishermen operating with sinking groundline in hard bottom environments, the 

rate of gear loss would be significantly less than the rate suggested by the commenter. 

• Evidence from Vessel Trip Report data indicates that a significant number of 

Federal permit holders that the commenter assumes would be affected by the 

rule do not actively fish and would therefore not incur costs of gear conversion. 

Question 2a. Do you find it acceptable that a single industry is saddled with such 

major economic impact for regulations that are not even likely to achieve their intended goal? 

Answer. Based on comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), NOAA Fisheries Service developed a new preferred alternative in the 

Final EIS (FEIS) that offered significantly lower economic costs while sacrificing little protectiveness. Chapter 8 of the FEIS provides an overview of the costs and benefits of all the alternatives. Because of the geographic concentration of the lobster 

fishery in New England (see FEIS Chapter 7) and the relatively large size of the 

lobster fishery, it is true that New England vessels bear a large share of the overall 

estimated costs of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan modifications. 

88 

Given whale movements and behavior, however, New England waters represent important areas for entanglement risk reduction. Furthermore, the social impact analysis suggests that only a limited subset of smaller vessels are likely to experience 

costs that represent a significant share of per-vessel fishing revenues. Groundline 

buyback programs will help mitigate compliance cost impacts. 

NOAA Fisheries Service firmly believes that the recent amendment to the Take 

Reduction Plan will achieve its intended goals. NOAA Fisheries Service believes 

that the final rule published in October 2007 represents a comprehensive suite of 

amendments to the Take Reduction Plan. NOAA Fisheries Service worked with the 

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team to help evaluate the Take Reduction 

Plan and discuss additional modifications necessary to meet the goals of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. NOAA Fisheries Service 

also solicited input from the public after issuing a Notice of Intent to prepare an 

EIS. Although there were no consensus recommendations from the Take Reduction 

Team or consistent proposals from the public, NOAA Fisheries Service believes that 

it has developed the best options available for amending the Take Reduction Plan. 

Question 2b. Do you agree that the general public, which receives the benefit of 

that protection, bear some of the cost? If so, what programs do you intend to fund 

within the parameters of this budget request that will help defray the burdensome 

cost to the affected fishing industries? 

Answer. We agree that the general public, which receives the benefit of that protection, should bear some of the cost. While the FY 2009 budget does not request 

additional funding for lobster gear buyback and recycling programs, NOAA Fisheries Service has worked with the fishing industry and conservation organizations 

such as the Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the International Fund for Animal Welfare to promote these activities. 

As a result of these gear buyback efforts, approximately 4,700 miles of floating line 

have been removed from the ocean providing a valuable entanglement risk reduction 

for large whales. 

Question 3. Following a field hearing on this topic in Maine this past February, 

lobster fishermen have been meeting with representatives from environmental 

groups to attempt to come to some consensus about a way forward on this issue that 

will increase benefits to whales but reduce the impacts on the lobster industry. 

These may include permission to use neutrally buoyant rope in certain areas in exchange for a reduction in endlines—the ropes that run from the buoy to the traps 

on the seabed. This proposal would almost certainly result in less rope in the water, 

and greater protection for whales and reduce costs and increase safety for our 

lobstermen. 

If these groups come to a mutually acceptable, scientifically supported agreement, 

how could the regulations be changed to reflect that proposal? Is it feasible for these 

changes to be in place before the scheduled implementation date of October 5, 2008? 

If not, could that date be pushed back to coincide with the start of the next fishing 

year? 

Answer. Should this group develop a mutually acceptable, scientifically supported 

alternative to the sinking groundline requirement, NOAA Fisheries Service would 

forward their proposal to the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team for consideration. If the proposal received a favorable review from the Take Reduction Team, 

NOAA Fisheries Service would develop and publish a proposed rule and supporting 

environmental analysis. The proposed rule and ultimately, the final rule, would go 

through the normal rulemaking process as required by the Administrative Procedures Act and other applicable mandates and statutes. Based on the various mandates and statutory requirements, it would not be feasible to develop and implement 

changes to the sinking groundline provision prior to the scheduled October 5, 2008 

implementation date. 

However, NOAA Fisheries Service has recently published a proposed rule to 

amend the regulations implementing the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan 

to provide an additional 6 months (through April 5, 2009) for trap/pot fishermen 

along the Atlantic East Coast to comply with the broad-based sinking groundline 

requirement. NOAA Fisheries Service will evaluate the comments received on the 

proposed rule prior to making its final determination regarding the 6-month extension. 

Question 4. While many fishermen continue to do their part to minimize right 

whale entanglements, and others are being forced to bear the burden of undue and 

unproven regulatory restrictions, many are troubled by the fact that there seems to 

be little progress in reducing right whale deaths due to ship strikes. In fact, ship 

strikes have killed three times as many north Atlantic right whales since 2001 than 

gear entanglements. In February 2007, NOAA sent a final rule to the Office of ManVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Aug 29, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75681.TXT JACKIE
89 

agement and Budget that would reduce the likelihood of ship strikes by instituting 

speed limits in certain areas along the eastern seaboard at times when whales are 

present. Today, more than a year later, that rule stills sits with OMB. 

Given that it has been over a year since the final rule was submitted to OMB, 

when can we expect to see action taken on it? Do you agree that your agency has 

failed to protect whales from ship strikes as it is required to do under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act? Assuming this failure is unacceptable to you, how do you 

intend to rectify the situation? 

Answer. NOAA has taken and continues to take a comprehensive approach to 

minimizing the risk of ship strikes and other threats to whales. Since NOAA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the ship strike rule in 2004 

and a proposed rule in 2006, NOAA has, with the U.S. Coast Guard and through 

the International Maritime Organization, shifted ship traffic lanes to reduce the risk 

of collisions between large ships and whales into and out of Boston Harbor. The 

shift in Boston ship traffic added only 3.75 nautical miles (roughly 10 to 22 minutes 

to one-way trips depending upon the type of vessel and the speed at which they 

travel), yet would potentially reduce the risk of ship strikes to right whales by moving ships out of known right whale habitat. 

Also, in collaboration with the U.S. Coast Guard and with the support of the 

International Maritime Organization, NOAA established and continues to maintain 

two Mandatory Ship Reporting systems—one in waters off New England and another in calving/nursery areas in waters off Georgia and Florida. The systems, operational since July 1999, require that all ships 300 gross tons and greater report to 

a shore-based station via satellite communication systems upon entering these two 

key right whale aggregation areas. Mariners are required to report ship name, call 

sign, entry location, destination, and ship speed. The reports prompt an automated 

return message providing information about the vulnerability of right whales to ship 

strikes, and recent right whale sighting locations. 

In 2006, NOAA established recommended shipping routes in key right whale aggregation areas within Cape Cod Bay and off three ports in Georgia and Florida. 

The routes are an attempt to reduce the co-occurrence of whales and ships by minimizing ship transit times in whale habitat and avoiding specific whale aggregation 

areas, while also ensuring navigational safety and limiting adverse effects on the 

shipping industry. 

NOAA has also worked with its partners in developing, publishing, and distributing guidelines for mariners when operating in right whale habitat. NOAA and 

other Federal and state agencies support or conduct extensive aircraft surveys for 

right whales. NOAA Fisheries Service assembles reports and right whale ‘‘alerts’’ 

are disseminated to mariners via multiple media. 

Additionally, through U.S. Coast Guard and other broadcasts, NOAA provides 

vessel speed advisories in areas where right whales occur. Education and outreach 

remain an important part of NOAA’s overall strategy for reducing threats to right 

whales and other whales from ship strikes. For example, in June 2007, NOAA and 

the U.S. Coast Guard released ‘‘A Prudent Mariner’s Guide to Right Whale Protection.’’ This interactive, multi-media CD program is distributed free-of-charge upon 

request and contains crew training information about right whales, recommended 

navigation actions when operating in right whale habitat, guidance for compliance 

with the Mandatory Ship Reporting System, and what to do in the event an injured 

right whale is sighted. 

Question 5a. NOAA requires basic oceanographic data to improve climate and resource management models and create more accurate weather and sea state forecasts. I appreciate your request of $6.5 million for implementation of NOAA’s Integrated Ocean Observing System, and $14.5 million for regional observations. These 

are increases from last year’s request, but still below the $26.3 million Congress enacted in FY08 for ocean and coastal observations. And your request is still far below 

the number recommended by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy: $138 million 

to initiate an IOOS system, and escalated that figure to half a billion dollars within 

5 years. While we can argue about actual numbers, investment on this scale is warranted, as forecasts based on data from an ocean observing system in the south Pacific is estimated by NOAA to have generated returns in excess of one billion dollars 

annually. Given these potential economic benefits, why have you requested such a 

relatively modest amount to ocean observing systems this year? 

Answer. The FY 2009 President’s Budget Request is $21 million for NOAA Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) activities. This is $7 million above the FY 

2008 request or nearly 50 percent more than included in last year’s request; this 

increase demonstrates a continuing commitment to the IOOS program. Within the 

context of NOAA’s overall budget, any new investment area is funded at the expense of other important NOAA programs. Modest, incremental budget increases 

90 

can be expected for new programs as they work toward demonstrated and validated 

program results. The requested increase of $7 million will: 

• Support a national technical capability within NOAA ($3.0 million); 

• Improve capacity for the Data Assembly Center at NOAA’s National Data Buoy 

Center (NDBC) in Stennis, Mississippi ($1 million); and 

• Provide additional support for the regional component of IOOS ($3 million). 

Within the $21 million total, $14.5 million is requested for ‘‘IOOS Regional Observations’’. This funding will allow NOAA to continue its competitive selection process 

for grants and cooperative agreements, to establish a regional network of observing 

systems to serve both national and regional needs for ocean observing data and information services. 

The remaining $6.5 million, requested for the NOAA IOOS Program, will continue 

national IOOS implementation efforts and development of an IOOS Data Integration Framework. NOAA has made progress with implementing IOOS. Some examples of our work: 

• Established a dedicated IOOS Program and developed a strategic plan; 

• Conducted the first peer-reviewed, competitive grants process for regional IOOS 

awards; (resulting in 23 IOOS cooperative agreements); 

• Developed a prioritized list of measurements, based on feedback from users: 

temperature, salinity, sea level, surface currents, and ocean color; 

• Established common processing standards to be applied nationally; and 

• Implemented IOOS Data Integration Framework at three NOAA centers of 

data, which will result in interoperable data. 

Making progress on these modest steps is imperative to demonstrating the value 

of a U.S. IOOS and garnering the support to build the IOOS envisioned by the U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy and others. 

Question 5b. What is your opinion of the Ocean Commission’s assessment that an IOOS system will require upwards of $500 million to operate effectively? 

Answer. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy called for a fully developed IOOS in 10 years, with initial estimates of annual funding on the order of $500 to $750 

million. These cost values have not been independently evaluated. NOAA has made 

progress implementing IOOS under our current budget requests. Continued support 

for research and development, regional observing development, and data management and communication efforts will be required to fully develop the U.S. IOOS. 

NOAA believes IOOS can be built and operated in phases, with a level of new investment much below the Ocean Commission’s estimate. 

To do this NOAA is focusing efforts internally and collaborating with its regional 

partners to build and demonstrate the viability of the regional and data management components. NOAA continues to be committed to building a national IOOS, 

and is providing the leadership, management, and oversight needed to facilitate its 

development. 

Question 6a. NOAA is now in the second year of running a competitive national 

program to fund the regional research and operational components of the Integrated 

Ocean Observing System. The funding provided to the IOOS program last year was 

woefully insufficient, and as a direct result, the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System, just one of eleven such systems nationwide, will be forced to remove as many 

as half of its buoys from the water this year because they simply do not have the 

money to continue operating them. Interrupting the continuity of these data streams 

will have consequences beyond baseline research, as a Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institute study has shown that GoMOOS returns six dollars to the regional economy 

for every dollar invested. 

First of all, what does NOAA hope to gain by requiring regional observation programs to compete against one another? Doesn’t this system inherently result in a 

set of winners and losers, when in reality we should be trying to build a system 

in which all regions are equally ‘‘winners’’? Why not promote a ‘‘merit based’’ system, as in S. 950? 

Answer. With the FY 2007 Omnibus Appropriation, NOAA initiated a transition 

from a collection of Congressionally-directed projects to a competitive award system 

to develop a national network of coastal ocean observing systems. 

NOAA is working to establish a national network of regional coastal ocean observing systems by soliciting high-quality proposals through a competitive and meritbased process. NOAA recognizes that past competitive processes may not have been 

optimal to support a national network and we are looking at ways to structure fuVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Aug 29, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75681.TXT JACKIE
91 

ture funding announcements, such that competition is focused within, not among, 

each of the 11 IOOS regions. 

NOAA included a selection criterion within its FY 2008 Federal Funding Announcement that allows proposals deemed to be meritorious of funding to be elevated based on the need to maintain geographic distribution. NOAA continues to operate a highly transparent funding process and works closely with its regional partners on lessons learned to support a fair, yet robust process. 

Question 6b. It is painfully obvious that the top line number—the overall pot of 

money for these regional competitions—is too low. What was the total amount allocated for FY07 and FY08? What is the amount requested for FY09? These numbers 

are not clearly identified in your request. Answer. In FY 2007, NOAA awarded $22.4 million to support regional IOOS development, including the eleven IOOS Regional Associations and Regional Coastal 

Ocean Observing Systems (RCOOS). This included 23 IOOS Development awards 

spanning three focus areas: 

• Regional coastal ocean observing systems development; 

• IOOS applications and product development; and 

• Regional Data Management and Communication guidance and processes. 

In FY 2008, Congress appropriated $26.3 million for NOAA IOOS (approx. 58 per- cent above the President’s Budget Request). NOAA awarded $20.4 million of the 

total IOOS appropriation to support regional IOOS development. This included 11 

new management and planning awards to the Regional Associations and 7 new 

RCOOS awards to continue development of regional ocean observing systems. 

The FY 2009 request for ‘‘IOOS Regional Observations’’ is $14.5 million. NOAA 

intends to use these funds to support existing, multi-year, regional awards. 

Question 6c. If every region were to receive the amount of funding warranted to 

build an effective ocean observation program, how much funding would NOAA have 

to allocate for these regional programs? 

Answer. NOAA is completing program assessments within each IOOS region to 

better understand baseline costs, existing capabilities, and diversity of funding 

sources. This review will serve as a basis for further analysis of regional needs and 

requirements. 

Question 6d. Some regions note that they cannot compete for funds, because they 

are suffering from the effects of being under-funded in the past. Do you agree with 

this characterization? How can NOAA help these programs get on a more competitive footing? 

Answer. NOAA is not aware that some regions have concluded they cannot compete for funds. The NOAA IOOS funding process is transparent, open, and consistent with competitive funding processes across the agency. NOAA is working 

closely with our regional partners to develop viable observing capabilities with available resources. 

Question 7. The New England Fishery Management Council is currently in the 

process of developing the next major amendment to its groundfish fishery management plan. At a meeting last month, the Council decided to table proposals to explore new management methods to replace the existing days-at-sea system. Under 

the present system, groundfishermen have an average of just 47 days-at-sea. Estimates suggest these levels could be cut by as much as an additional 70 percent 

under Amendment 16, leaving the same fisherman with just 15 days to make a living. Has NOAA provided funding in this budget to determine the viability and potential benefits of any groundfish management plan other than days-at-sea? Are any 

existing programs investigating other management measures? 

Answer. Yes. The FY 2009 President’s Budget requests an increase of $4.8 million 

to develop and implement Limited Access Privilege Programs. Of this amount, 

$1.142 million is preliminarily allocated to the Northeast Region. In FY 2008, 

NOAA is funding development of the Amendment 16, which also includes development of sector management. Through sector management part or all of groundfish 

fishery resources (denominated in terms of catch) would be allocated to various industry sectors. One of the major benefits of self-selecting sectors is that they provide 

incentives to self-govern, therefore, reducing the need for the New England Fishery 

Management Council and NOAA Fisheries Service mandated measures. Sectors also 

are thought to reduce the risk of overfishing by operating under a hard total allowable catch (TAC) for at least some species, rather than input controls based on a 

target TAC. 

Question 8. The regulations established by NMFS in Amendment 13 call for a review of the plan for fishing year 2009 using information based on a 2008 peer-reVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Aug 29, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75681.TXT JACKIE
92 

viewed benchmark assessment. This assessment, also known as the GARM III, will 

not be completed until August 2008 at the earliest, yet the Council is already considering plans to cut Days-at-Sea despite the fact that they do not have adequate 

data as mandated by NMFS’s own regulations. The Council’s current plan is to complete work on a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment 16 by the 

first week in June, 2 months before the GARM is completed, and to enact a final 

regulation in October 2008, at the very meeting that will provide the public’s first 

opportunity to hear a formal presentation of the data included in the GARM. 

Given that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council to give the public ‘‘a 

reasonable opportunity to respond to new data or information’’ before taking final 

action, how do you rationalize this schedule for implementation of Amendment 16 

with the requirements of Magnuson-Stevens? Why should the Council not delay action on Amendment 16 until the necessary data can be appropriately considered and 

included in management measures? 

Answer. Based on the preliminary results of the assessment process, the New 

England Fishery Management Council has determined that it is necessary to see the 

final scientific results before it can complete a draft document that will fully inform 

the public of the alternatives under consideration. The Council will continue working on those aspects of the amendment that are not reliant on the final scientific 

results. Because it is unlikely that Amendment 16 measures will be in place at the 

beginning of the new fishing year (May 1, 2009), the agency is evaluating options 

for ensuring that efforts to rebuild stocks and end overfishing are not compromised 

during this time. 

Question 9a. The 2008 budget request included $10 million for the Penobscot 

River Habitat Restoration Project—an unprecedented dam purchase and removal 

partnership among Federal and State agencies, non-profit organizations, a private 

electricity company, and the Penobscot Indian Nation that would retain over 95 percent of the river’s electricity production while providing unrestricted access to nearly 

1,000 miles of unobstructed habitat for salmon and other diadromous species. Of the 

$25 million Congress directed toward the Open Rivers Initiative for Fiscal Year 

2008, how much of that is NOAA now putting toward the Penobscot River Restoration Project? 

Answer. Within the NOAA budget Congress did not appropriate $25 million for 

the Open Rivers Initiative (ORI). The FY 2008 appropriation permits the following 

under the Fisheries habitat Restoration line in the budget: 

• $10.0 million for Penobscot River habitat Restoration. 

• $12.9 million for Community-Based Restoration. 

• $1.6 million for Open Rivers Initiative. 

• $0.8 million for Chesapeake Bay Oyster Restoration. 

No Open Rivers Initiative funding is being used in FY 2008 for the Penobscot 

River Restoration Project. The $10 million in FY 2008 for the Penobscot River Restoration Project is included in NOAA’s $25 million appropriated under the Fisheries 

Habitat Restoration line. 

Question 9b. Going forward with this multi-year project, how will NOAA decide 

how to allocate funding under the Open Rivers Initiative? How will NOAA engage 

its Federal partners such as the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of 

Engineers to help defray the costs of large-scale projects like the Penobscot River 

Restoration? 

Answer. NOAA requested $7 million in FY 2009 for the Open Rivers Initiative. 

Projects selected for funding under the Open Rivers Initiative (ORI) must be a dam 

or stream barrier removal project that benefits diadromous fish and fosters economic, educational, and social benefits for the surrounding community. ORI is a nationally competitive program, with applications going through a multiple step review, ranking and selection process. Projects are ineligible if they are outside of the 

$1,000,000 maximum allowable request or the $30,000 minimum allowable request; 

or if the dam is licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) at 

the time of proposal submission. NOAA also evaluates and selects projects according 

to NOAA’s standard evaluation criteria: 

1. Importance and Applicability of Proposal. 

2. Technical/Scientific Merit. 

3. Overall Qualifications of Applicants. 

4. Project Costs. 

5. Outreach, Education, and Community Involvement. 

93 

NOAA routinely partners with other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, to accomplish habitat restoration goals for coastal and river habitats, including dam removals. 

Regarding the Penobscot River Restoration Project, NOAA is working closely with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers on acquisition, removal and restoration design, and permitting 

issues. NOAA will continue to work closely with these agencies and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as the Federal and state permitting processes progress 

throughout FY 2008 and into FY 2009. These agencies are providing critical technical assistance and funding to advance the project to the next stage. NOAA remains committed to see the project through to completion and will continue to work 

with our Federal partners who are contributing key technical and financial resources to the project. 

Question 10. The FY 2009 budget requests $32.7 million for observer coverage 

overall, on par with last year’s request and the enacted levels, but there is no information in the budget request specifying how much of that will go to the New England Groundfish Observer Program. As you are aware, under Amendment 13, 

NMFS must provide at least 10 percent observer coverage to monitor bycatch in the 

New England groundfishery and in the scallop fishery. How much funding would 

you allocate for groundfish observers in New England? What percentage of coverage 

will this level of funding provide? 

Answer. The President’s FY 2009 Budget Request for the New England Groundfish Court-Ordered Observers budget line is $8.619 million. During litigation concerning Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) Amendment 9, 

NOAA Fisheries Service was temporarily ordered to provide either a 10 percent coverage level or to determine the appropriate coverage level to provide statistically reliable bycatch information on all gear sectors in the Northeast Multispecies Fishery. 

NOAA Fisheries Service’s analysis suggested that 5 percent coverage of all groundfish days-at-sea trips was sufficient to monitor catches and discards in the groundfish fishery with an acceptable level of precision and accuracy. Although NOAA 

Fisheries Service is no longer subject to that court order, it has continued to provide 

a 5 percent coverage level through FY 2008 in the Northeast Multispecies Fishery 

to ensure statistically reliable information on groundfish bycatch levels. 

NOAA Fisheries Service is transitioning to a Standardized Bycatch Reporting 

Methodology (SBRM) process, which is now mandated by the New England Fishery 

Management Council. The SBRM requires a method to allocate sea days for observer coverage in all Northeast fisheries so that bycatch estimates are provided at 

a reliable level. The SBRM includes a prioritization and consultation process with 

the Fisheries Management Councils in the Northeast region. The data is also analyzed statistically to ensure this level of coverage produces a sufficiently precise bycatch estimate. 

The sea scallop program is primarily industry funded through Amendment 13 to 

the Scallop FMP, although still supported by NOAA Fisheries Service funds for specific activities. It is difficult to project the number of observed sea days that will 

occur through an industry funded program. However, in FY 2006 a total of 2,200 

sea days were observed. Assuming this same level of observer coverage, NOAA Fisheries Service anticipated funding the sea scallop industry-funded program at approximately $397,000 in FY 2009. NOAA Fisheries Service funds are used to cover 

the 72-hour call in notifications, data processing, data quality assurance programs, 

program oversight to attain proper coverage and sampling, and portions of the observer training and sampling gear. Approximately 10 percent of the trips are currently observed in the general category access areas, limited access areas, and limited access open area scallop fisheries (not general category open area). Although 

this may change under the SBRM, coverage in the sea scallop fishery will be maintained at a level high enough to provide statistically valid bycatch estimates. 

Question 11. Herring has been described as a ‘‘keystone species’’ in the Gulf of 

Maine ecosystem, serving as forage for larger species such as tuna and endangered 

northern right whales, as bait in the lobster industry, and as a commercially important species in its own right. The New England herring fishery is also in need of 

additional observer coverage to help settle many ongoing disagreements about the 

status of this stock and its harvest and bycatch levels. How much funding—and 

what level of coverage—can NMFS devote to observer coverage in the herring fishery? How much coverage is needed to truly address the ongoing questions about 

stock and bycatch uncertainties? 

Answer. The Northeast Observer Program must now allocate observer coverage in 

the herring fishery pursuant to the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology 

94 

(SBRM), which is now mandated by the New England Fishery Management Council. 

The FY 2009 budget under the New England Groundfish Court-Ordered Observers 

budget line was intended to provide observer coverage in the herring mid-water 

trawl fishery at a target level of 20 percent, with a lower coverage rate, closer to 

5 percent for the purse seine herring fishery. With the transition to the new SBRM 

process, the target coverage levels for the herring fishery will need to be reevaluated. The specific FY 2009 funding amount targeted for these herring fisheries is 

approximately $460,000. 

The Herring Plan Development Team is actively addressing and identifying the 

monitoring needs of the herring fishery as a New England Fishery Management 

Council priority through the proposed Amendment 4 to the Herring Fishery Management Plan. The objectives of this Amendment include implementing measures to 

improve the long-term monitoring of catch in the herring fishery, consideration of 

the health of the herring resources, and evaluation of the important role of herring 

as forage and predator fish throughout its range. NOAA Fisheries Service may 

adapt or readdress target levels of observer coverage as the need for coverage is 

fully examined during this process. 

Question 12a. There are concerns about NOAA’s ability to provide a long-term, 

cost-effective satellite system given its budgetary constraints and its recent track 

record beset with launch delays and instrument development failures. Most recently, the launch date for the NPOESS Preparatory satellite was pushed back an 

additional 9 months to June 2010. This launch was initially scheduled for May of 

2006, so we are now looking at more than 4 years of delay and when the NPOESS 

satellites do fly they will be lacking many key instruments initially planned to be 

onboard. As a matter of fact, a September 2007 National Academy of Sciences Report noted that in January 2006, more than 120 instruments were used to collect 

climate data—a number that is expected to drop to fewer than 80 instruments by 

2010, a decline of 25 percent or more. The FY09 budget includes $74 million to restore key climate sensors cut from the next generation of environmental satellites. 

Will this increased funding address the problems in the NAS report? 

Answer. The President’s FY 2009 Budget Request includes a $74 million initiative 

to fund the Administration’s commitment to restore two of the five high priority climate measurements that were demanifested from the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) in 2006. The Administration has 

previously addressed the other three high priority climate measurements. 

The $74 million budget increase will fund development of Total Solar Irradiance 

Sensor (TSIS) and Clouds and Earth Radiant Energy System sensor (CERES). In 

2007, NOAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) jointly 

funded restoration of Ozone Mapper/Profiler Suite-Limb to the NPP satellite. However, full funding of the NPOESS-related budget requests in the appropriations bills 

for NOAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Air 

Force appropriations bills is required to ensure that the climate sensors can be integrated and launched on the respective NPP and NPOESS satellites. 

NOAA and NASA have determined that near-term continuity of the other two 

measurements can be fulfilled through existing plans detailed below: 

• Continuity of radar altimetry measurements can be fulfilled through the Jason 

2 mission that was successfully launched on June 20, 2008. 

• Aerosol measurements can be fulfilled with the 2009 launch of the Aerosol Polarimeter Sensor on the NASA GLORY mission. 

NOAA and NASA, in collaboration with the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget, continue to work with the climate 

science community to ensure that the climate sensors are developed and placed in 

orbit in time to continue and enhance climate data collection and avoid an interruption of these important space-based climate measurements. 

Question 12b. What assurances can you provide that we will not simply continue 

to see one instrument failure after another and an unending string of delays? 

Answer. NOAA, NASA, and the Air Force carefully assessed the processes and capabilities required to build these instruments and place them onto the appropriate 

and most cost-effective satellite. Careful consideration was given to cost, schedule, 

and technological maturity of the sensors, as well as the capability of the Federal 

Government and its contractors to successfully deliver the instruments. The conclusion of this review indicated that the remanifested climate sensors are instruments 

that have been flown before or will be flown prior to being placed on an operational 

satellite. 

NOAA will work directly with NASA to build near-duplicate instruments (i.e., not 

push for new unproven technology), in order to limit cost growth and ensure we 

95 

meet the launch schedules of the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) and the first 

NPOESS satellites (C–1). These climate sensors will be subject to demanding test 

programs that will identify and address flaws in the design and manufacturing of 

the instruments prior to launch. NOAA and NASA believe that the necessary program management and engineering oversight processes are in place to identify and 

take the appropriate steps to mitigate cost, schedule, and risk of these climate sensors to the NPP and NPOESS programs. 

Question 12c. Will the latest delay in the launch of the NPOESS Preparatory satellite cause additional cost increases? Will there be information gaps? 

Answer. The NPOESS Executive Committee (EXCOM) recently received a revised 

cost estimate from the DOD’s Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG). This estimate included development, production and operations and sustainment costs for 

the baseline program. Given the differences between the CAIG estimate and the Integrated Program Office estimate, the EXCOM members are engaged in ongoing discussions to reconcile the two cost estimates and determine which estimate will form 

the basis of the NPOESS Acquisition Program Baseline (APB). Once the APB is updated, NOAA will inform the Committee of the EXCOM decision and implications 

of the revised estimate to the program. 

With respect to information gaps, existing NOAA, Air Force, and NASA Polar-orbiting satellites continue to provide data. However, as we get closer to 2010 the 

chances of specific instrument failures on these existing satellites increases. All 

three agencies will manage their spacecraft to maximize the health and safety of 

the satellites and instruments to ensure that data will be available until NPP and 

NPOESS are launched. Through a pre-existing agreement with the Europeans, the 

MetOp satellite is on-orbit and also providing critical operational data. The real impact of the NPP delay is the extended time to access and use the improved datasets 

that NPP will provide. The NPOESS Executive Committee and Integrated Program 

Office remain committed to mission success. 

Question 13a. Apparently NOAA satellite operations has uncovered a potentially 

serious battery issue on the GOES–11 (GOES West) satellite currently in orbit and 

covering the Pacific Ocean and Western United States. GOES–11 was expected to 

last until the end of 2011, but that date is now in serious jeopardy. In the process 

of preparing the batteries for eclipse operations, NOAA found that one of the two 

spacecraft batteries was having problems holding a charge. While the satellite could 

go through the upcoming months without a problem, there is a particular failure 

situation that could result in an end of life condition for the satellite. 

What information does NOAA receive from the satellite—and is NOAA prepared 

for a worst case scenario if adjustments to its existing battery charging procedures 

cannot be made in an attempt to manage the GOES–11 problem? What will this 

failure mean to the program? Will GOES–13 be used to collect the information that 

GOES West was expected to send back to NOAA until the end of 2011 or will there 

be gaps in data? 

Answer. GOES–11, which was launched in May 2000, currently serves as the 

operational ‘‘GOES-West’’ satellite and provides operational environmental data and 

other services for the western United States and Central Pacific regions. GOES–11 

provides the following information: 

• Visible and infrared images of the Earth’s atmosphere, at 5, 15, and 30 minute 

intervals. 

• Space environment monitoring data including Earth’s magnetic field and energetic particle measurements. 

• Data collection system receives environmental data from surface based data collection platforms and ocean buoys and relays them to users. Data are also used 

for tsunami detection and reservoir monitoring. 

• Search and rescue distress signals from aircraft, marine, and land based vessels 

are relayed through the Search and Rescue Satellite-Aided Tracking System. 

• Broadcast of operational weather data through the Low Rate Information 

Transfer system and emergency warnings through the Emergency Weather Information Network transponders. 

GOES–11 battery performance degradation was first observed in Fall 2004 as a 

gradual decline in voltage. NOAA satellite operators modified battery charging procedures to allow the spacecraft to maintain acceptable voltage by reducing power 

system loads during the approximately 70 minute eclipse period. The eclipse, approximately 6 weeks long, occurs in the Spring and Fall months when the Earth 

is between the spacecraft and the sun and the spacecraft is unable to charge its batteries to acceptable levels in order to support nominal satellite operations. 

96 

NOAA satellite operators project that the gradual degradation of the batteries will 

worsen with time. During the Spring 2008 eclipse, NOAA identified a limited number of non-time critical services, including secondary payload instruments and communication services that could be turned off during the eclipse periods. Additionally, 

NOAA took GOES–13 (the on-orbit spare spacecraft) out of on-orbit storage prior to 

eclipse season to test a space environment sensor and left it in an operational configuration as a hot backup to GOES–11 in the event of a catastrophic failure of the 

GOES–11 power system. GOES–13 was also used to provide an alternate source of 

data communication and to provide SARSAT services during GOES–11 eclipse. 

In the event of a GOES–11 failure, NOAA is prepared to activate GOES–13 which 

will supply the same data as GOES–11 to ensure continuity of geostationary environmental satellite observations over the western U.S. and Central Pacific. Procedures have been developed and exercised to optimize this transition in the event it 

is required. With a failure of GOES–11 and the early activation of GOES–13, NOAA 

would not have an on-orbit spare spacecraft to meet all of its mission requirements 

until the launch of GOES–O now scheduled for December 2008. Based on current 

analyses, NOAA does not anticipate a gap in geostationary environmental data coverage, but the current situation underscores the importance of developing the nextgeneration GOES–R series so it will be launched and ready to provide uninterrupted 

data when the GOES–N,–O,–P series of satellite has finished its mission life. 

Question 14a. A bluefin tuna tagging program has been ongoing in the north Atlantic since 1999, but the NOAA budget request and Congressional funding has not 

consistently supported this effort. I am very pleased to see the request for $850,000 

in the NOAA FY09 budget request. Bluefin tuna is one of the most valuable fish 

in the ocean—individual fish can bring tens of thousands of dollars at auction—yet 

in recent years, the fishery has declined precipitously. Many scientists and resource 

managers believe that lax regulatory practices in Europe and elsewhere are largely 

to blame for this decline. However, without strong science to back these claims, the 

U.S.’s assertions that our sustainable management practices are being undermined 

by other countries’ policies carry little water. 

Despite an uneven recent history of requesting and enacting funding for bluefin 

tuna tagging, has NMFS been able to maintain this program year after year? To 

what extent have lapses in data collection impacted the long-term viability of the 

study? 

Answer. NOAA Fisheries Service has not been able to maintain this program in 

all years, largely because funding levels have been inconsistent due to Congressional 

earmarks. In the FY 2008 enacted budget, this program was funded at $446,000 

under an earmark. The FY 2009 Budget request includes $850,000 for this program. 

However, different research teams (primarily academics) have conducted electronic 

tagging of bluefin tuna using a variety of funding sources, including Congressional 

funding and private funds. A consistent level of funding for NOAA would ensure 

their long-term viability, to more directly address management questions, and to increase NOAA’s access to the resulting data. It should be noted that other scientific 

research tools, such as genetics and microchemical analyses, also aid in understanding better stock structure and the impacts that eastern Atlantic fisheries have 

on the western population of bluefin tuna. 

Question 14b. How has a lack of data affected the U.S. position at ICCAT? What 

else can we do to increase ICCAT members’ attention to the need to study and conserve these stocks? 

Answer. The United States needs strong and reliable data for accurate estimates 

of the fraction of the total catch by fishermen in the eastern Atlantic comprised of 

fish from the western stock, as well as how the decline of the eastern stock affects 

U.S. catches of bluefin tuna. These data help to make a strong case for the conservation of the eastern stock. 

Last year, compliance concerns together with the steep decline of the eastern 

stock, led the United States to propose a temporary suspension of the eastern 

bluefin tuna fishery until such time as countries could demonstrate control of their 

fisheries. The United States proposal did not achieve consensus. Harvesters did 

agree to report in detail on their implementation of eastern bluefin tuna fishery 

rules before the 2008 ICCAT meeting. The United States will review over the coming months the steps taken by eastern harvesters to comply with ICCAT’s rules. It 

is too early to say where that review will lead us. Measures to improve compliance 

with eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna measures remain a U.S. priority. In general, compliance discussions at ICCAT should be much more robust 

than in the past as the United States now chairs the Compliance Committee. 

In addition to compliance discussions, the management measures for the eastern 

Atlantic and Mediterranean stock of bluefin tuna will be reviewed by ICCAT this 

97 

fall following completion of a new stock assessment. NOAA expects that ICCAT will 

need to adopt new measures to reduce mortality on this stock substantially. This 

will be a high priority for the United States at ICCAT this year. 

Question 15a. Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia continue to wreak havoc on our 

ocean and coastal waters—and the number, size, duration, ecological effects, and 

economic impacts of these events only continue to grow with each passing year. According to NOAA’s own online report, the U.S. seafood and tourism industries alone 

suffer losses of $82 million to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia annually, and these 

numbers are likely to continue to grow. Yet it is very unclear what the Administration proposed to do about this in the future—any effort that NOAA is devoting to 

these outbreaks seems to be buried in the FY09 budget request. 

How much funding is NOAA requesting for harmful algal bloom and hypoxia activities in FY09? On what would you spend this funding? And how did you spend 

the funding allocated to this program in FY08? 

Answer. The FY 2009 President’s Request includes $15.8 million for NCCOS Competitive Research, of which NOAA expects to spend at least $8.9 million on research 

related to harmful algal blooms (HABs) and hypoxia. The Harmful Algal Bloom and 

Hypoxia Research and Control Act (HABHRCA) is primarily implemented through 

the suite of competitive national grant programs (ECOHAB, MERHAB, NGOMEX, 

CHRP) supported through the NCCOS Competitive Research line (formerly ‘‘Extramural Research’’). Congress’ long-term and continued support of HABHRCA has enabled NOAA to provide tools in areas that are necessary for managers to respond 

to and predict annual HAB and hypoxia events such as those affecting the New 

England, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Northwest and California coasts as well as the 

Great Lakes. Products include development and transition of regionally-specific detection and analysis methods, coupled biological-physical models, enhanced state 

and local government HAB monitoring capacity in both marine and freshwater environments and new methods for prevention, control and mitigation. 

NOAA is in the process of finalizing FY 2008 funding recommendations for grants 

related to HAB and hypoxia research. The release of specific funding information 

regarding individual grants is restricted until final awards are made. NOAA can 

provide this funding information on specific projects related to HABs and hypoxia 

funded in FY 2008 later in the fiscal year. 

Question 15b. How is NOAA increasing its ability to work with regions, states, 

and local communities to respond to and mitigate the impacts of these outbreaks? 

As we craft a new bill to reauthorize the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act, what lessons have we learned to guide future efforts? 

Answer. NOAA is taking two steps to increasing regional HAB and hypoxia efforts. The first step is to conduct regional workshops to assess research and response needs and develop plans. Examples of previous and planned efforts include: 

• April 2006—Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Assessing the State of the 

Science Symposium; 

• July 2006—State of the Research on Red Tide in the Gulf of Mexico: Workshop 

and Public Forum; 

• April 2006—Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Assessing the State of the 

Science Symposium; 

• January 2007—Summit on Long-term Monitoring of the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic 

Zone: developing the Implementation Plan for an Operational Observation System; 

• March 2007—Ecological Impacts of Hypoxia on Living Resources; 

• January 2008—Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task 

Force EPA Science Advisory Board Hypoxia Advisory Panel Report; 

• April 2008—Regional Workshop for Harmful Algal Blooms in California Coastal 

Waters; 

• June 2008—Gulf of Maine Operational Forecasting Workshop; 

• September 2008—West Coast Regional HAB Workshop, during the West Coast 

Governors’ Agreement (WCGA) on Ocean Health; and 

• December 2008—Nuisance Macroalgal Blooms in coastal Maui: assessment and 

integration of physical factors and biological processes. 

The second step is to use the information we gather during the regional workshops to set research funding priorities for our HAB and hypoxia programs on a regional basis. This approach is based on lessons learned over the last 10 years of 

HAB and hypoxia research. Some lessons we have learned: 

98 

• Effective HAB and hypoxia management is based on understanding the causes 

and impacts of HABs; 

• There are many immediate short term benefits to HAB and hypoxia research. 

For example, the development of methods to detect HAB cells and toxins is essential to monitoring and early warning and is usually the first product of HAB 

research. Examples of more long term products are annual predictions of bloom 

or hypoxia severity, development of prevention strategies, and development of 

new control methods; 

• The ability to provide assistance during events is critical to resource and public 

health managers in the face of new or large HAB or hypoxia events. Further, 

data obtained during severe outbreaks of HABs or hypoxia has greatly advanced 

our understanding of these events and our ability to predict and manage them; 

• Making research products such as new control methods, prevention strategies, 

and forecasting abilities operational is a challenge that requires considerable 

testing through pilot projects at different scales; and 

• HABs and hypoxia are regionally specific occurrences that are best addressed 

on a regional basis. 

Question 15c. In your opinion, should Congress focus on preventing or mitigating 

these outbreaks? Would it be more cost effective to focus on prevention or mitigation? 

Answer. Both prevention and mitigation are essential goals. Many mitigation 

strategies can be implemented quickly. Prevention, on the other hand, requires a 

more thorough understanding of the causes of a HAB occurrence and the long-term 

management efforts needed to reduce the distribution and severity of blooms. Some 

blooms cannot be controlled at all or only to a limited extent so, for these, mitigation 

is the only option. Proposed regional research and action plans (mentioned in the 

response to 15b) can be used to evaluate the most effective course of action—mitigation, prevention or both—for each regional HAB problem. 

Æ