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

70-597 PDF 2012

THE PRESIDENT’S NEW NATIONAL 

OCEAN POLICY—A PLAN FOR FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON OCEAN, 

COASTAL AND INLAND ACTIVITIES 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 

Serial No. 112-68 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ Fleischmann, TN 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, October 4, 2011 ............................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 1 

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

Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Massachusetts ........................................................................................... 3 

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

Pierluisi, Hon. Pedro R., the Resident Commissioner in Congress from 

Puerto Rico, Statement submitted for the record ....................................... 64 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bullard, John, President, Sea Education Association ................................... 35 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 37 

Coleman, W. Jackson, Co-Managing Director, National Ocean Policy 

Coalition ......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12 

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

California ....................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Gilmore, Jim, Director of Public Affairs, At-sea Processors Association ..... 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Gorelnik, Marc, Board of Directors, Coastside Fishing Club ........................ 31 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32 

Guith, Christopher, Vice President for Policy, Institute for 21st Century 

Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce ........................................................... 22 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23 

Lanard, Jim, President, Offshore Wind Development Coalition .................. 39 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41 

Rutenberg, Barry, Chairman-Elect of the Board, National Association 

of Homebuilders ............................................................................................ 27 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28 

Additional materials supplied: 

Robins, Richard B., Jr., Chairman, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, Statement submitted for the record ............................................. 64 

Spence, Captain Jay W., President, Passenger Vessel Association, Letter 

and statement submitted for the record ..................................................... 65 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING TITLED ‘‘THE PRESIDENT’S NEW NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY—A 

PLAN FOR FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON 

OCEAN, COASTAL AND INLAND ACTIVITIES.’’ 

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, The Honorable Doc 

Hastings [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hastings, Young, Duncan of Tennessee, 

Bishop, Lamborn, Wittman, Fleming, McClintock, Duncan of South 

Carolina, Tipton, Gosar, Southerland, Flores, Runyan, Markey, 

Holt, Bordallo, Sarbanes, Tsongas, Pierluisi, Garamendi, and 

Hanabusa. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. The Chairman notes the presence of a quorum, which under Rule 3[e] is just 

a couple Members, and we have that easily. 

The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on an oversight hearing on ‘‘The President’s New National Ocean Policy—A 

Plan for Further Restrictions on Ocean, Coastal and Inland 

Activities’’. Under Rule 4[f], opening statements are limited to the 

Chairman and the Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous 

consent that any Member who wishes to submit a statement provide that statement before the close of business today. Without objection, so ordered. I will now recognize myself for my opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

The CHAIRMAN. In 2009, President Obama ordered the creation 

of an Interagency Ocean Task Force to establish a new policy for 

management of our oceans and coasts. From the onset, there are 

serious questions about the task force work and the recommendations. A bipartisan group of 69 Members of Congress wrote the 

Chairman of the task force expressing concerns that the effort was 

not balanced and failed to recognize the need for a multi-use 

policy—a multi-use policy that includes both the responsible use of 

our ocean resources and environmental stewardship. 

From fishing to energy production to recreation, our oceans are 

an integral part of our national economy that supports millions of 

jobs throughout the country. Any new regulations or changes to the 

management of our oceans should be done thoughtfully and in full 

collaboration with those affected. 

2 

Despite expressions of concern from various sectors of our economy and bipartisan voices in Congress, President Obama last year 

signed an Executive Order to unilaterally implement the final recommendations of the task force. This was done without congressional approval and without specific statutory authority. With the 

stroke of a pen, President Obama created a new, huge, top-heavy 

bureaucracy that could override state and local authorities, and 

change the way activities on the oceans, coasts and far inland, as 

a matter of fact, will be managed. 

The Executive Order creates 10 national policies, a 27-member 

national ocean council, an 18-member governance coordinating 

committee, and nine regional planning bodies. This has led to the 

creation of nine national priority objectives, nine strategic action 

plans, seven national goals for coastal marine spacial planning, and 

12 guiding principles for coastal marine spacial planning. 

This tangled web of regulatory layers will only lead to increased 

uncertainty for many diverse sectors of the economy, and it will 

create demands for new spending by the Federal bureaucracies 

charged with executing and funding this Executive Order. 

Especially alarming is the mandatory ocean zoning order to be 

imposed. Disguised with the label of coastal marine planning, 

ocean zoning would place huge sections of the ocean off limits to 

activities not zoned as government approved. Ocean zoning is posed 

to impact commercial and recreational fishing, and energy development, including renewable energy, recreational activities, marine 

commerce, shipping, transportation, construction and manufacturing. It has the potential to stop economic growth and the jobs 

associated with that growth. 

Though labeled as ocean policy, the Executive Order scope goes 

way beyond the oceans. The order includes the Great Lakes where 

states could be dictated to by a regional planning body on where 

certain activities are allowed. Regional planning bodies are empowered to reach far inland to potentially regulate activities occurring 

on lands adjacent to rivers, tributaries, or watersheds that drain 

into the ocean or, in this case, the Great Lakes. 

None of the people, communities, and businesses most affected 

by this policy will have representation on the regional planning 

bodies. They have no seat at the table deciding their fate. The 

President’s Executive Order places all the power in the hands of 

the government. 

So, let me be clear. The Administration can, and should, require 

Executive Branch agencies with jurisdiction over our ocean policies, 

to work in a coordinated manner, to share information, and reduce 

duplication of their work. However, this White House policy has 

been driven under the claim that it is only an ocean conservation 

measure when its actual effects could be far-reaching and economically hurtful to American jobs and businesses both at sea and well 

onshore. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman, 

Committee on Natural Resources 

In 2009, President Obama ordered the creation of an Interagency Ocean Policy 

Task Force to establish a new policy for the management of our oceans and coasts. 

From the onset, there were serious questions about the Task Force’s work and recVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:24 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\70597.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
3 

ommendations. A bipartisan group of 69 Members of Congress wrote the Chairwoman of the Task Force expressing concerns that the effort was not balanced and 

failed to recognize the need for a multi-use policy. A multi-use policy that includes 

both the responsible use of our ocean resources and environmental stewardship. 

From fishing to energy production to recreation, our oceans are an integral part 

of our national economy that supports millions of jobs throughout the country. Any 

new regulations or changes to the management of our oceans should be done 

thoughtfully and in full collaboration with those affected. 

Despite expressions of concern from various sectors of our economy and bipartisan 

voices in Congress, President Obama last year signed an Executive Order to unilaterally implement the final recommendations of the Task Force. This was done without Congressional approval and without specific statutory authority. 

With the stroke of the pen, President Obama created a new, huge top-down bureaucracy that could over-ride states and local authorities, and change the way activities on the oceans, coasts and far inland will be managed. 

The Executive Order creates: 10 National Policies; a 27-member National Ocean 

Council; an 18-member Governance Coordinating Committee; and 9 Regional Planning Bodies. This has led to the creation of: 9 National Priority Objectives; 9 Strategic Action Plans; 7 National Goals for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning; and 12 

Guiding Principles for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning. 

This tangled web of regulatory layers will only lead to increased uncertainty for 

many, diverse sectors of the economy; and, it will create demands for new spending 

by the federal bureaucracies charged with executing and funding this Executive 

Order. 

Especially alarming is the mandatory ‘ocean zoning’ ordered to be imposed. Disguised with the label of Coastal Marine Spatial Planning, ‘ocean zoning’ could place 

huge sections of the ocean off-limits to activities not ‘zoned’ as government-approved. 

‘Ocean zoning’ is poised to impact commercial and recreational fishing, energy development—including renewable energy, recreational activities, marine commerce, 

shipping and transportation, construction and manufacturing. It has the potential 

to stunt economic growth, and the jobs associated with that growth. 

Though labeled as ‘ocean policy,’ the Executive Order’s scope goes well beyond the 

oceans. The order includes the Great Lakes, where states could be dictated to by 

a Regional Planning Body on where certain economic activities are allowed. 

Regional Planning Bodies are empowered to reach far inland to potentially regulate activities occurring on lands adjacent to rivers, tributaries or watersheds that 

drain into the ocean. 

None of the people, communities and businesses affected the most by this policy 

will have representation on the Regional Planning Bodies. They have no seat at the 

table deciding their fate. The President’s Executive Order places all the power in 

the hands of the government. 

So, let me be clear, the Administration can and should require Executive Branch 

agencies with jurisdiction over our ocean policy to work in a coordinated manner, 

to share information, and reduce duplication of their work. 

However, this policy has been driven under the claim it’s only an ocean conservation measure, when its actual effects could be far-reaching and economically hurtful 

to American jobs and businesses both at-sea and well-ashore. 

The CHAIRMAN. With that I yield back my time. I am pleased to 

recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDWARD MARKEY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

welcome our guest, Mr. Farr, and everyone else who is here with 

us today. 

The letters P-L-A-N, may be a four-letter word but they are not 

a dirty word, as the Republican Majority would have us believe. 

The last time I checked plans were helpful things. We have an 

emergency evacuation plan for this building. We have a plan for 

the airspace above us that says no one can fly too close to the Capitol. We have long-term investment plans so we can enjoy a comVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:24 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\70597.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
4 

fortable retirement, but no plans would be a loss day to day and 

long term. We would struggle when decisive action was needed. It 

would cause unnecessary conflicts that could be avoided. 

Just like other plans, comprehensive ocean planning would allow 

everyone with an interest in our coasts and oceans to participate 

in the transparent decisionmaking process to determine how to 

best utilize an increasingly busy, productive, and important national resource. This would increase productivity and certainly for 

existing and new uses of these areas, and improved ocean health 

would provide certainty. 

Opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic control. You 

can do it, but it will cause a mess or lead to dire consequences. And 

it is time for our nation to have an ocean plan. The United States 

and territories have exclusive economic jurisdiction over approximately 4.5 million square miles of ocean. These areas are a vital 

part of the United States economy, supporting tens of millions of 

jobs and contributing trillions of dollars annually to our national 

economy. Our coastal counties which make up only 18 percent of 

the country’s land area are home to 108 million people, or 36 percent of our nation’s population, and these numbers are steadily increasing. These growing uses within our ocean and coastal areas 

are placing significant pressures on these natural resources, and 

planning will help ensure that they are healthy and available for 

future generations. 

Last year, the President established the National Ocean Policy to 

do just that, begin planning to protect, maintain, and restore our 

ocean and coastal resources. Instead of supporting a plan for our 

oceans, the Republican Majority continues to pursue scare tactics, 

claiming that the policy creates additional regulations and kills 

American jobs. Just the opposite is true. 

By harmonizing the existing regulations that govern our coasts 

and oceans, this policy will allow developments to move ahead 

more quickly while creating jobs and improving the health of the 

oceans. 

This is not just a theoretical debate. We know ocean planning 

works. Look at what has happened in my home state of Massachusetts. In 2008, Governor Deval Patrick signed into law the landmark Massachusetts Oceans Act to develop the first in the Nation 

ocean management plan designed to balance commercial and recreational use with wildlife and habitat protection in state waters. 

The plan uses hard data, and web-based mapping to make sure we 

are not creating conflict on the high seas. 

For example, Massachusetts works with stakeholders to refine 

the area considered for offshore wind energy development to take 

into account certain areas identified as important to the fishing industry while still making wind energy developers happy because 

plenty of space was still going to be available for them in future 

offshore energy development. 

An ocean plan enables businesses to create, catch the wind or to 

catch the fish without getting caught up in unnecessary conflict. An 

ocean plan will also allow military operations and maritime shipping to both to occur off the coast of Virginia so the Armed Forces 

can practice landing tanks and companies can still land their tankers. An ocean plan means we can lay down fiber optic cable from 

5 

Cape Cod to Martha’s Vineyard without affecting fish habitat so 

customers can surf the World Wide Web without affecting the web 

of life below the surf. 

The National Ocean Policy, like the Massachusetts ocean management plan, is a plan that we should all support. The ocean plan 

promotes commerce while encouraging economy, and promotes the 

economy while protecting ecosystems. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The letters, P–L–A–N may be a ‘‘four-letter’’ word, but they are not a dirty word, 

as the Republican Majority would have us believe. The last time I checked, plans 

were helpful things. We have an emergency evacuation plan for this building. We 

have a plan for the airspace above us that says no one can fly too close to the Capitol. We make long-term investment plans so we can enjoy a comfortable retirement. 

Without plans, we’d be at a loss day-to-day and long-term. We’d struggle when 

decisive action was needed. We’d cause unnecessary conflicts that could be avoided. 

Just like other plans, comprehensive ocean planning would allow everyone with 

an interest in our coasts and oceans to participate in a transparent, decision-making 

process to determine how to best utilize an increasingly busy, productive and important national resource. This would increase predictability and certainty for existing 

and new users of these areas and improve ocean health. 

Opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic control. You can do it but it 

will cause a mess or lead to dire consequences. 

It is time for our nation to have an ocean plan. The United States and territories 

have exclusive economic jurisdiction over approximately 4.5 million square miles of 

ocean. These areas are a vital part of the U.S. economy, supporting tens of millions 

of jobs and contributing trillions of dollars annually to our national economy. Our 

coastal counties, which make up only 18% of the country’s land area, are home to 

108.3 million people or 36% of our nation’s population, and these numbers are steadily increasing. These growing uses within our ocean and coastal areas are placing 

significant pressures on these natural resources and planning will help ensure that 

they are healthy and available for future generations. 

Last year, the President established the National Ocean Policy to do just that— 

begin planning to protect, maintain, and restore our ocean and coastal resources. 

Instead of supporting a plan for our oceans, the Republican Majority continues to 

pursue scare tactics, claiming that the policy creates additional regulations and kills 

American jobs. 

Just the opposite is true. By harmonizing the existing regulations that govern our 

coasts and oceans, this policy will allow developments to move ahead more quickly 

while creating jobs and improving the health of the oceans. 

This is not just a theoretical debate. We know ocean planning works. Look at 

what has happened in my home state of Massachusetts. In 2008, Governor Deval 

Patrick signed into law the landmark Massachusetts Oceans Act to develop the 

first-in-the-nation ocean management plan designed to balance commercial and recreational use with wildlife and habitat protection in state waters. The plan uses 

hard data and web-based mapping to make sure we’re not creating conflict on the 

high seas. 

For example, Massachusetts worked with stakeholders to refine the area considered for offshore wind energy development to take into account certain areas identified as important to the fishing industry—while still making wind energy developers 

happy because plenty of space was still going to be available to them for future offshore energy development. An ocean plan enables businesses to catch the wind or 

catch the fish, without getting caught up in unnecessary conflict. 

An ocean plan will also allow military operations and maritime shipping to both 

occur off the coast of Virginia, so the armed forces can practice landing tanks and 

companies can still land their tankers. 

An ocean plan means we can lay down fiber optic cable from Cape Cod to Martha’s Vineyard without affecting fish habitat, so customers can surf the worldwide 

web without affecting the web of life below the surf. 

6 

The National Ocean Policy, like the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan, is 

a plan that we should all support. The ocean plan promotes commerce, while encouraging comity, and promotes the economy while protecting ecosystems. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and I thank the gentleman, and I 

would just make a note regarding his testimony. He talked about 

planning. Nobody is opposed to planning. But the operative words 

of what the gentleman said was that there is a law signed by the 

Governor of Massachusetts. I don’t think any of us would argue 

with that process. What we are having this hearing on today is 

something called an Executive Order coming unilaterally from the 

White House, and that is the distinction, and that is something obviously we can discuss. 

I appreciate the gentleman’s testimony and I am very pleased to 

welcome our first panel, a former colleague of ours on this Committee and a gentleman from California, Mr. Farr, and I don’t 

think I have to go through the drill. You know what the green light 

means, the yellow light means and the red light means. What you 

don’t know is that we strictly enforce this in this Committee, so 

with that we are very pleased to welcome the gentleman from California, Mr. Farr. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SAM FARR, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Chairman Hastings, and thank 

you, Ranking Member Markey, and all of the Members, many new 

to me when I was on this Committee. 

I just want to point out that the issue that you have before you 

was brought to you, brought to us by us, by this Committee. This 

Committee, in the year 2000 under the Republican leadership of 

Don Young, passed the Oceans Act of 2000, and that Act created 

an Oceans Commission. The bill actually was signed into law, I 

think, by President Clinton, but the appointees to the Commission 

were made by President Bush, and those on the Commission represented oil companies and port authorities, oil drilling companies, 

the University of Washington, Oil Shipping Council, Wells Fargo 

Bank in Alaska, University of South Florida and others. 

That Commission published for us, because we asked them, what 

do we need to do about our oceans, and here is the issue. As you 

pointed out, we have dozens, dozens, multi dozens, I think 140 Federal laws and dozens of agencies. I have been dealing with coastal 

issues all my political life, and what you have is a conflict of the 

seas; is that Mineral Mining Agency doesn’t tell fishermen where 

they are going to patrol for seismic issues, pulling up crab pots, destroying fisheries. I mean, there has just been a lack of communication, and for years the states have asked the Federal Government 

to try to resolve these conflicts, which are all Federal agencies, and 

to work with state agencies to come up with a process that allows 

you to know what is going on in your back yard, and that is what 

this report, the final report given to Congress recommended essentially everything that is in the President’s Act. 

We in Congress introduced bills, not much of which had to be 

done statutorily except for I think the permanence of governing 

commissions, so I think the criticism of the Chairman is, well, 

7 

these are regional commissions. Sure, we have regional commissions for clean water, we have regional commissions for clean air, 

but most importantly we have regional commissions to set up our 

fishing policies, and those commissions have reported back to us 

that we can’t just deal with whether you can or cannot fish without 

dealing with all these other issues that your other Federal agencies 

do, so your 27 Federal agencies need to come together and come up 

with a plan. That is exactly what the President did. I think every 

Federal agency was involved in discussing how we have an oceans 

policy. 

I might add that the Chair of the private nonprofit, the Pew 

Oceans Policy, which actually made recommendations to this Committee about the same time as the committee’s Ocean Council did. 

That was chaired by Leon Panetta, who was very involved in 

oceans issues and is now Secretary of Defense, and I think if he 

were here to testify today he would tell you this is absolutely essential for our national security. 

Look, the planet is blue, and it is 73 percent water. The United 

States has more ocean territory than any other country, not because of just our coastlines but we have exclusive economic zone jurisdiction 200 miles out from all the possessions that we have, so 

the Guams, the Hawaiis and all the Atolls in the South Pacific that 

we are responsible for managing, we have that. So we are the king 

of the world on oceans and we don’t have a policy until the President came along and did exactly what essentially a Republican-led 

Commission recommended to be done. 

I think that if you are going to deal with the Act we ought to 

look at statutorily implement some of these things because we 

want it to be permanent. As you know, an Executive Order can be 

repealed by the next President. So, the statements that you made, 

Mr. Chairman, that I have to take issue with. There is no mandated zoning planning in this. It is a bottoms-up process. It is one 

that our state, California, is very involved in because we have probably the strongest Coastal Act in California, and it is almost sacred 

to the state. In fact, nations around the world are coming to California to look at what they are doing because they want to implement coastal zone management as we have done in our state. So 

it in no way restricts any ocean activity, and it doesn’t impose any 

new regulations. 

What they said is we need much more of a planning process that 

can deal with these conflicts of the sea. We do it in the law, it is 

a bottom-up planning approach. It gives states and regions the 

ability to make informed decisions about how best to use the ocean. 

Each state has a right to decide whether they would like to conduct 

marine spacial planning off their coasts. It is not mandated. Twenty-two of the 35 coastal states have expressed the need for coastal 

marine spacial planning in their coastal zone management plans. 

So, I think that we are right on target in meeting what this Committee earlier, working with then-Chairman Don Young, about how 

the Commission should do this report to Congress and what should 

be included, we are now implementing it. We ought to be praising 

the action taken because you are the responsible steward for all of 

this ocean. There is no other committee in Congress that has this 

jurisdiction, and it is a global responsibility. 

8 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Farr follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Sam Farr, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of California 

Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, and to the rest of my colleagues 

that sit on this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on 

the President’s National Ocean Policy. This issue is of particular importance to me, 

as I have spent much of my career fighting to improve ocean governance and management. I think many of my colleagues here today would agree that the oceans 

play a critical role in our national economy. Commercial fishing, for example, contributes $70 billion annually to our nation’s economy and is an industry that impacts businesses in every community across America. From the fisherman who 

catches our dinner, to the truck driver who transports the seafood, to the mom and 

pop seafood restaurant owners, all of these people depend on healthy oceans for 

their livelihoods. 

The terrifying fact is, however, that our ocean economy is at risk. Just this summer, a growing 83-mile dead zone in the Chesapeake Bay was described by scientists as the worst in history. Simply put, if we continue on our current destructive 

path, oyster and shellfish populations in Chesapeake Bay will be doomed, placing 

further economic hardship on shellfish harvesters and fishermen. 

Our inability to deal with the serious pressures facing our oceans stems from the 

way we manage our oceans, which historically has been a bureaucratic mess where 

we manage our resources in what amounts to policy ‘‘silos.’’ Over 140 Federal laws 

and dozens of agencies have jurisdiction over ocean resources. This problem was recognized by both the Bush Administration’s U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and 

the Pew Oceans Commission. These two separate Commissions found the Federal 

government’s management of our oceans to be fragmented, uncoordinated, and in 

dire need of improvement. Following consultation with hundreds of stakeholders 

and scientists, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy published its final report which 

called for a comprehensive and coordinated national ocean policy. 

To fulfill the Bush Commission’s recommendations, President Obama established 

America’s first National Ocean Policy to reduce duplicative efforts and waste and 

increase the effectiveness and coordination of ocean management. The National 

Ocean Policy emphasizes the importance of oceans for jobs, food, energy development, transportation, trade, and international security with the goal of sustaining 

both our ocean economy and our marine resources. 

The National Ocean Policy has laid out nine priority objectives in order to address 

the most pressing challenges facing our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. These priority objectives include: enhancing water quality, addressing changing conditions in 

the Arctic, implementing ecosystem-based management, improving Federal coordination with State, tribal, local, and regional efforts, developing adaptation strategies 

for ocean acidification, and utilizing a data collection and analyzing tool called 

Coastal Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP). Through the nine priority objectives, tangible benefits will be achieved by all ocean users. 

Unfortunately, however, there has been a great deal of misconception regarding 

CMSP, which is just one of the nine priority objectives. This misconception has 

wrongly tainted the understanding of the National Ocean Policy at its most basic 

level. Some claim that CMSP is a new, mandatory program that will impose jobkilling regulations on ocean industries and restrict ocean uses and activities—but 

this is simply untrue. The National Ocean Policy explicitly states that CMSP shall 

‘‘Support sustainable, safe, secure, efficient, and productive uses of the ocean, our 

coasts, and the Great Lakes, including those that contribute to the economy, commerce, recreation, conservation, homeland and national security, human health, 

safety, and welfare ... and ... Provide for and maintain public access to the ocean, 

coasts, and Great Lakes.’’ Ultimately, the National Ocean Policy is about balance 

and will ensure long-term sustainability for our ocean economy, ocean jobs, and 

ocean environment. 

The Administration has made very clear that the National Ocean Policy is a nonregulatory, bottom-up approach. CMSP is an adaptive, ecosystem-based tool that 

has been used for decades to analyze current and anticipated uses of our coastal 

and marine resources. Under the National Ocean Policy, each state has the right 

to decide whether they would like to conduct CMSP off of their coasts, and decisions 

about the offshore environment will be made by local governments in coordination 

with tribal, State, and regional entities. It is important to point out that 22 of the 

35 coastal States explicitly recognize the need for CMSP in their Coastal Zone Management plans, including Washington, Texas, Georgia, Virginia, and South Carolina. 

These states recognize that improved decision-making across multiple levels of govVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:24 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\70597.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
9 

ernment will translate to saving both the government and permit applicants’ time 

and money by reducing duplication of effort. 

Additionally, CMSP will produce upfront benefits to the industry and agencies, 

helping create jobs in emerging industries by providing more certainty for offshore 

projects. CMSP in the State of Massachusetts, for example, allowed for coordinated 

planning between Federal and State agencies and stakeholders in the planning of 

offshore wind energy development. Through a collaborative effort, the State was 

able to acquire and analyze existing data and information regarding fisheries, transportation, navigation infrastructure, sediment, recreation and cultural services, and 

wind. Using this information, the State was able to determine the area most suitable for offshore wind energy, while taking into account areas identified as important to the fishing industry. This example demonstrates how CSMP can successfully 

reduce conflict, provide certainty to the industry, and also result in a streamlined 

decision-making process leading to substantial ecological, social, and economic benefits. 

I agree that implementation of the National Ocean Policy must be a transparent, 

open, and stakeholder driven process. So far, the Administration has made an effort 

to ensure that stakeholders have a voice through public workshops and comment 

periods, but these efforts need to be expanded as we move forward so the actions 

and issues most important to the American people can be brought to the forefront. 

The National Policy will ultimately provide States, Tribes and Local governments 

an unprecedented forum, through the newly established Governance Coordinating 

Committee which represents all parts of the U.S. with the purpose of coordinating 

on an ongoing basis with the Federal government. Congress, however, has not recognized that this stakeholder engagement comes at a cost, and if we want a transparent process, we must provide the necessary funding. 

The National Ocean Policy is a common-sense, bipartisan idea that has spanned 

both Republican and Democratic Administrations. If we want to ensure that fishing, 

recreation, and other uses are available to future generations, we must act now to 

change the status quo. The National Ocean Policy is about good governance, not restricted use, and it is necessary both for the long term health of our national economy and our ocean environment. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today, and I hope that we can 

work together to ensure that our vibrant coastal economies thrive and local communities have a voice in ocean governance. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for his testimony, and 

while we don’t ask questions of Members, there is a precedent of 

doing that here on this Committee. I think the gentleman was part 

of that the last time we had that. 

Mr. FARR. Three hours. 

The CHAIRMAN. I just want to make an observation because you 

are testifying in front of a committee that probably to a person 

would not say we have to be responsible for planning on the 

oceans. That is a great unknown really when you think about it. 

But this hearing is about an Executive Order by the President, and 

in your own testimony you suggested that there ought to be some 

statutory means to address this. I am not opposed to that. We may 

have a huge debate of what those statutory efforts will be, but 

there has been nothing, there has been no legislation sent to this 

Committee to implement the task force recommendations. Nothing 

has come down. 

And I know the gentleman has introduced legislation. You and 

I have had conversations on that. But I think the proper way and 

what this hearing is all about, the proper way is the role of Congress in all of this. I am certainly open to that. 

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I used to be a 

member of this Committee. There was a former Chairman, Mr. 

Pombo, who would not even hear the report even though Admiral 

Watkins, our former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was involved 

on this Committee, was Chair of the Committee, came before it 

10 

asking to be able to present the report to the Committee. They 

were denied. Bills have been introduced and they haven’t had a 

hearing, and you had leaders on your side. You had Congressman 

Greenwood, Don Young has been involved in it, Congressmen 

Saxton and Gilchrest, all active members of this Committee who 

really wanted to move forward with legislation, and essentially it 

never got the hearings, it never got the time of day. 

So, if you are interested in doing it, we certainly have the framework of legislation, I will give it to you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Every Member is free to introduce legislation. 

Are there further questions of the gentleman from California? 

The gentleman from Massachusetts. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman, I just want to thank the 

gentleman for his work. You are the single most consistent supporter of the oceans in the Congress, and no one can match your 

passion and your knowledge of the subject, and we thank you for 

being here. 

Mr. FARR. Well, thank you very much. Let me tell you why. I 

grew up on the oceans, and I saw these conflicts, and my family 

has probably been more involved in helping the fishermen in getting—we used to have the largest sardine port in the world in Monterey, California. When that port closed, when the sardines disappeared because we just over fished them, it was devastation, 

really devastation. Now they have turned it into a tourist industry, 

thank God to John Steinbach writing the book ‘‘Cannery Row’’. But 

the fishing is coming back and we are working with it. 

Our biggest tourist attraction is not on the gulf, it is in the Monterey area, but it is the aquarium on the Monterey Bay area. It is 

essentially the ocean and the watchable water life of sea otters, sea 

lions, bird life, now we have condors being restored. It is a huge 

market. People pay a lot of money to come see watchable wildlife, 

and all of you have that in your district, and what this Committee 

is and why I love this Committee is because you are the stewards 

for that. 

You know, the birds and trees and animals don’t vote, but you 

represent them, and I think we find when we manage our resources well they are sustainable, and the issue on the oceans is 

they are dying. All you have to do is get the reports of what happened two weeks ago in the ocean clean up of all the stuff they 

found. Oceans are dying, and if they die mankind dies because we 

are dependent on that sea. 

So, we have to find a way to sustain a livable ocean, and the only 

way you are going to do it is with good strong planning. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Further questions of the gentleman? If not, Mr. 

Farr, thank you. OK, Mr. Farr, thank you very much for your testimony, and if further questions are asked of you, it will be in writing, and we would like you to respond. I am not sure it is going 

to happen, but the opportunity is open. 

Mr. FARR. We will get you a copy of the report that was prepared 

for this committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have a copy of it here. I have been perusing 

it. 

Mr. FARR. OK. Thank you very much 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Farr. 

11 

Next, I would like to call our next panel to testify. We have Mr. 

W. Jackson Coleman, Co-Managing Director of the National Ocean 

Policy Coalition; Mr. Jim Gilmore, Director of Public Relations, Atsea Processors Association; Mr. Christopher Guith, Vice President 

- Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Barry Rutenberg, Chairman-Elect of the Board of National Association of Homebuilders; 

Mr. Marc Gorelnik, Board of Directors, Coastside Fishing Club; Mr. 

John Bullard, President of the Sea Education Association; and Mr. 

Jim Lanard, President of Offshore Wind Development Coalition. 

I want to thank all of you for joining the Committee today, and 

once again, under the rules by which we operate, the green light 

in front of you means you are free to talk, but when the yellow 

light comes on it means you have one minute left, and when the 

red light comes on it means your five minutes are up. Your full 

written testimony will appear in the record, so I invite you to summarize your testimony orally. 

With that we will go to our first witness, Mr. W. Jackson Coleman, Co-Managing Director of the National Ocean Policy Coalition. 

You are recognized for five minutes, Mr. Coleman. 

STATEMENT OF W. JACKSON COLEMAN, CO-MANAGING 

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY COALITION 

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Congressman Hastings and Ranking 

Member Markey, and Members of the Committee. We are very 

pleased to be able to provide our testimony today on behalf of the 

coalition. As a personal note, I appreciate the opportunity to testify 

before the Committee having served here for almost six years, and 

previously to that for 14 years at the Interior Department dealing 

with ocean issues, and before that at NOAA for three and a half 

years. So most of the last 29 years I have been personally involved 

in ocean policy issues. 

Now, the Ocean Policy Coalition is an organization of diverse interests united in our desire to ensure that the implementation of 

this new National Ocean Policy is done in a way that is helpful 

rather than harmful to the national interest, including the interest 

of commercial and recreational users of the ocean and marine-related natural resources. 

As currently set forth, the National Ocean Policy has the potential to unnecessarily damage both terrestrial and marine economic 

value by affecting sectors such as agriculture, commercial and recreational fishing, construction, manufacturing, marine commerce, 

mining, oil and gas, renewable energy, recreational boating, and 

water-borne transportation, among others. These sectors support 

tens of millions of jobs and contribute trillions of dollars to the U.S. 

economy. 

The Coalition believes that the justification for many aspects of 

the policy including, but not limited to coastal and marine spacial 

planning, has not been adequately established by information 

based on realities on the ground and scientific data. In addition, 

uncertainty continues to abound—in some cases within the Administration—about what the policy means, how it will be implemented and the potential scope of its impact. I want to emphasize—tremendous uncertainty. 

12 

This policy has created, as I said, uncertainty across the whole 

economy of this country. As the Administration has acknowledged, 

the policy ‘‘may create a level of uncertainty and anxiety among 

those who are relying on these resources; and they generate questions about how they align with existing processes, authorities, and 

budget challenges.’’ 

So, frankly, the risk of unintended economic and societal consequences remains particularly high due in part to the unprecedented geographic scale under which the policy is to be established—I should say has been established because the policy is in 

effect already even if we don’t have coastal marine spacial plans 

yet. 

The ecosystem-based management requirements of the policy are 

fully in effect, as are the requirements that the agencies exercise 

their discretion under the statutes to accommodate the National 

Ocean Policy. 

The Coalition has repeatedly brought up these concerns to the 

Administration in great detail. At this time, however, the policy remains on a fast track for nationwide implementation. A few of the 

problems that we are most concerned about is, number one, the 

negative impact on U.S. jobs and the economy at large, potentially 

affecting every major sector of the economy. This policy would essentially create exclusionary zones within our Great Lakes, coastal 

areas and oceans, and provide a new regulatory ocean policy overlay over all Federal permits for inland and offshore activities. 

Ocean zoning and the broader ocean policy will not be limited to 

these coastal marine areas but to the extent of every watershed in 

the country, and coastal marine spacial planning specifically talks 

about it will be used to better manage things like aquaculture, 

commerce and transportation, commercial and recreational fishing, 

and the list goes on and on. 

So, the regional planning bodies, as has been mentioned, also do 

not have user groups. The people who produce in this economy will 

not be part of those regional planning bodies. They will be all governmental. The Federal Government will have the majority vote on 

every planning body. I understand the states will have one vote 

each. 

So, there is so much to be talked about here that five minutes, 

of course, doesn’t do it justice, but we very much appreciate the 

hearing and the great concern that we have, that the Coalition 

members have, and the opportunity to express that. Thank you 

very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coleman follows:] 

Statement of W. Jackson Coleman on Behalf 

of the National Ocean Policy Coalition 

I. Introduction 

Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, and Members of the Committee, 

my name is Jack Coleman and I am Co-Managing Director of the National Ocean 

Policy Coalition (Coalition). We appreciate the invitation to present the Coalition’s 

views at this hearing on ‘‘The President’s New National Ocean Policy—A Plan for 

Further Restrictions on Ocean, Coastal and Inland Activities.’’ 

On a personal note, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Committee 

which I served for almost six years from 2003 until 2009, first as Energy and Minerals Counsel and then as Republican General Counsel. My first work on ocean 

issues began during the period from March 1982 until August 1985 when I was SpeVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:24 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\70597.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
13 

cial Assistant to the Associate Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This was followed by more than 14 years in the Department 

of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor—first as Senior Attorney for Environmental 

Protection and later as Senior Attorney for Royalties and Offshore Minerals. So, for 

most of the last 29 years I have been personally involved in ocean policy issues. 

The National Ocean Policy Coalition is an organization of diverse interests united 

in our desire to ensure that the implementation of the new National Ocean Policy 

is done in such a way that it is helpful rather than harmful to the National interest, 

including the interests of commercial and recreational users of the oceans and marine-related natural resources. Please see our website, www.oceanpolicy.com for information on our membership and as a resource for information on ocean policy. 

As currently set forth, the National Ocean Policy has the potential to unnecessarily damage both terrestrial and marine economic value by affecting sectors such 

as agriculture, commercial and recreational fishing, construction, manufacturing, 

marine commerce, mining, oil and gas and renewable energy, recreational boating, 

and waterborne transportation, among others. These sectors support tens of millions 

of jobs and contribute trillions of dollars to the U.S. economy. 

The Coalition believes that the justification for many aspects of the policy, including but not limited to coastal and marine spatial planning, has not been adequately 

established by information based on realities on the ground and scientific data. 

In addition, uncertainty continues to abound, in some cases within the Administration, about what the policy means, how it will be implemented, and the potential 

scope of its impact. As the Administration has acknowledged, the policy ‘‘may create 

a level of uncertainty and anxiety among those who rely on these resources and may 

generate questions about how they align with existing processes, authorities, and 

budget challenges.’’ At the same time, federal entities ‘‘whose actions affect the 

ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes’’ are directed to move aggressively forward 

with implementation. 

Finally, the risk for unintended economic and societal consequences remains particularly high due in part to the unprecedented geographic scale under which the 

policy is to be established. Given the scope and nature of the policy, the Coalition 

has consistently maintained—and continues to believe—that a measured approach 

in which potential impacts are examined in a pilot project in a limited area would 

be a wiser course of action. 

The Coalition has repeatedly brought these concerns to the Administration in 

great detail. It has filed numerous, lengthy documents raising concerns and suggesting a different approach to solving whatever problems might exist. Recent documents include 16 pages of comments on development of strategic action plans which 

was submitted on April 28, 2011, and 98 pages of comments on strategic action plan 

full content outlines which was submitted on July 1, 2011. At this time, however, 

the policy remains on a fast track for nationwide implementation. 

Let me highlight in detail a few of our concerns: 

• We are very concerned that the National Ocean Policy will be negatively 

impactful to U.S. jobs and the economy at large, potentially affecting nearly 

every major sector of the economy. 

• This policy would essentially create exclusionary zones within our Great 

Lakes, coastal areas, and oceans, making it more burdensome for citizens and 

organizations to conduct commercial and recreational activities that already 

must comply with a myriad of environmental regulatory regimes. 

• Ocean zoning and the broader National Ocean Policy will not be limited to 

coastal and marine areas—it could be applied to restrict activities far inland—to the extent of every watershed in the country. 

• The Administration itself acknowledges these legitimate concerns: ‘‘The Task 

Force is mindful that these recommendations may create a level of uncertainty and anxiety among those who rely on these resources and 

may generate questions about how they align with existing processes, 

authorities, and budget challenges.’’ (Ocean Policy Task Force Final Recommendations) 

• Coastal & Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP), a zoning tool, to be used to ‘‘better manage’’ supposed conflicts involving human uses including: aquaculture, commerce and transportation (e.g., cargo and cruise ships, 

tankers, and ferries), commercial and recreational fishing, boating, 

mining (e.g., sand and gravel, oil and gas exploration and development, 

ports and harbors, recreational fishing, renewable energy, boating, 

beach access, swimming, surfing, security, emergency response, and 

military readiness activities, subsistence uses, tourism, and traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering. 

14 

• Regional planning bodies, whose decisions and disputes will be vetted in 

Washington, DC by the National Ocean Council and the President if necessary, have the authority to include inland areas when developing 

coastal and marine spatial plans. 

• CMSP is but one of several National Ocean Policy priority objectives that address land-based activity. For example: 

Æ Ecosystem-Based Management: ‘‘an integrated framework that accounts 

for the interdependence of the land, air, water, ice, and the interconnectedness between human populations and these environments.’’ Officials 

within the Administration have stated to us that they are unsure what 

this means in the context of the National Ocean Policy. 

Æ Water Quality and Sustainable Practices on Land Objective: to address 

‘‘major impacts of urban and suburban development and agriculture, including forestry and animal feedlots,’’and ‘‘relative contributions of the relative contributions of land-based sources of pollutants, sediments, and nutrients to receiving coastal waters and ways 

to address them. . .;’’ ‘‘poor land management practices’’ and ‘‘runoff 

from. . .streets and lawns, agricultural and industrial uses, transportation activities, and urban development. . .negatively impacts 

water quality. . .’’ 

Æ Climate Change & Ocean Acidification objective: outline cites resource 

extraction as one of several ‘‘stressors’’ whose impacts should be reduced, references regulatory decision-making, and references ‘‘feasible alternative scenarios’’ for the future operation, maintenance, and relocation of built infrastructure such as coastal roads, port facilities, 

and dam operations. 

Æ Regional Ecosystem Protection & Restoration objective: proposes exploration of policy options for incorporating carbon sequestration services of coastal wetland habitats into federal decision-making. 

Æ Use of the Precautionary Approach or Principle which provides that federal decisionmakers should reject permit applications and other requests 

if the federal agency determines that information is lacking about some 

potential impact of a proposed activity. 

• Though a National Ocean Policy could be beneficial, serving as a mechanism 

for job creation, infrastructure revitalization, and economic growth, this particular effort seems to be guided by a bias toward conservation and against 

human activity. 

• Rather than conduct analysis of the potential economic impacts prior to implementation, the Administration simply states that the National Ocean 

Council ‘‘will address questions and specifics as implementation progresses’’ 

and references opportunities for stakeholder and public engagement. (Final 

Recommendations) 

• In light of the Administration’s own admission that the policy in part represents ‘‘a fundamental shift in how the United States manages [ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes] resources,’’ failing to assess economic consequences prior 

to mandating and enforcing this broad and sweeping policy threatens federal, 

state, and local budgets, jobs, and the economy at large. 

• National Ocean Policy and CMSP will require a significant amount of federal 

human and financial resources, as the administration has acknowledged— 

complete information as to what the National Ocean Policy-related federal 

budgetary costs have been and are likely to be (including those at the nonfederal level, where applicable) has not been forthcoming. 

• National Ocean Policy creates a new bureaucracy, including a 54-member National Ocean Council with officials from 27 different federal entities, two 27- 

member interagency policy committees, and nine regional planning bodies 

covering every coastal region of the United States. 

• Governance structure includes federal officials from entities ranging from the 

Departments of Defense, Interior, and Homeland Security all the way to Agriculture, Labor, and Health & Human Services. 

15 

• Final Recommendations cite some of the many programs and authorities already in place that address ocean and coastal activities, including the Coastal 

Zone Management Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. 

• The National Ocean Policy has not been congressionally authorized and Executive Branch has not adequately engaged Congress. Efforts to pass major 

ocean policy legislation have failed three successive Congresses under both 

Democrat and Republican control, thus showing that there has been no consensus in Congress for a vast restructuring of laws governing ocean and 

coastal resources and uses. 

• Congress should have an integral role in any effort to address changes to the 

way that ocean and coastal resources and uses are managed, particularly in 

light of the fact that governance/management of these resources and uses 

‘‘span hundreds of domestic policies, laws, and regulations covering international, Federal, State, tribal, and local interests,’’ (Final Recommendations) 

• NOPC represents many of the sectors that are supposedly in conflict with 

each other, and we have yet to hear any discussion about inherent conflicts 

that exist in ocean, coastal, or Great Lakes areas that require a response of 

this magnitude 

• While conflicts among various uses and between uses and the environment 

is cited as justification for the policy, no scientific data is referenced to back 

up the claims. 

• The Administration has stated that it will seek to find funding efficiencies to 

further the program in light of current budget constraints. 

• The Policy has the potential to harm existing jobs and economic activities by 

diverting funds from existing federal programs and operations (e.g. permitting) that such activities rely on. 

• There is a real and growing possibility that NGOs will be empowered to help 

fill a funding void and influence policy outcomes, potentially blocking stakeholders with user perspectives from contributing to the process. 

• The Outline released by the National Ocean Council proposes improved coordination through government-private partnerships to ‘‘enable all parties to 

better leverage limited resources’’ and calls for the identification and inventory of ‘‘specific ways to leverage funding sources among and between’’ federal 

agencies and NGOs, among others. 

• Ocean zoning has never been attempted at this geographic scale, yet calls for 

a pilot project have been ignored. As the NOAA Science Advisory Board observed earlier this year, the spatial scale U.S. Coastal and Marine Spatial 

Planning effort is unprecedented, with the total area of the nine U.S. Regional planning areas equaling the total area of all the world’s existing marine spatial plans combined. The Board’s finding that the U.S. effort ‘‘argues 

for consideration of smaller areas (and possibly fewer objectives) that can be 

nested within larger regions over time’’ is consistent with NOPC advocacy for 


70597.001.eps
16 

a pilot project in a limited geographic area to reduce the risk of unintended 

consequences. 

• Lack of adequate legal analysis raises many concerns about conflicts between 

the policy and existing federal laws and constitutional questions over matters 

of state sovereignty, among others. 

• Effective policy implementation will require ‘‘clear and easily understood requirements and regulations, where appropriate, that include enforcement as 

a critical component’’ (Final Recommendations), and federal entities are ordered to implement policy, based in part on guidance from National Ocean 

Council. 

• The Policy has strong potential to infringe on the power and authority of federal officials by requiring them to always exercise their discretion in favor of 

the policy. 

• The Final Recommendations also state that the National Ocean Policy has 

been established in part to address ‘‘the challenges we face. . .in the laws, 

authorities, and governance structures intended to manage our use and conservation’’ of these resources, and CMSP is to be carried out ‘‘under the authority of’’ existing statutes. 

• Since Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans are expected to vary by region, application of the federal laws used to allegedly authorize such plans may vary by 

region as well, causing such federal statutes to no longer be uniformly applied 

in national manner as originally intended. 

• Constitutional concerns regarding: (1) the inclusion of non-advice and consent 

officials on the National Ocean Council; and (2) the authority provided to regional planning bodies. (potential conflicts with the Appointments Clause resulting from non-federal officials sitting on bodies issuing policies binding on 

federal officials) 

• The Policy also intrudes into the sovereignty of coastal and inland states, including in part through establishing the geographic scope of CMSP to include 

state waters, inland bays, estuaries, and additional inland areas if deemed 

appropriate. 

• By ordering federal entities to implement the policy, based in part on guidance from the National Ocean Council, there is a real potential for contravention of Administrative Procedure Act and Regulatory Flexibility Act provisions, which respectively require agency consideration of all comments on an 

equal basis prior to issuing a regulation and agency consideration of potential 

impacts on small entities and less burdensome alternatives. 

• The Administration has severely limited opportunities to express concerns, 

and stakeholder concerns have not been adequately addressed. 

• The Administration has called for a robust and meaningful stakeholder engagement process, but so far, stakeholder engagement has been largely defined by document dumps of voluminous yet vague information with fast-approaching deadlines to respond, both of which have helped inhibit the development of informed comments. 

• The Administration began holding ‘‘listening sessions’’ on 92 pages of Strategic Action Plan outlines on the policy within seven days of their release. 

• Draft Strategic Action Plan outlines were written before the public comment 

period on the development of Strategic Action Plans had even come to an end. 

• Town Hall meetings held on the policy last year in Alaska, Massachusetts, 

New Jersey, and Virginia were announced not via Federal Register or web announcements, but rather through agency e-mail lists, greatly limiting the 

amount of public notice. 

• The recent national workshop on CMSP limited public participation to the 

first day of the three-day workshop, with only 200 pre-screened members of 

the public allowed in; audio/video or written materials from the non-public 

portion of the workshop has not been made available. 

• Comments submitted by stakeholders who are not biased against human uses 

and activities have for the most part been ignored (e.g. calls for a pilot 

project, more openness and transparency, and greater engagement with user 

groups). 

• The policy is not voluntary: administration plans to implement it wherever 

federal jurisdiction exists over activities deemed to affect the oceans, coasts, 

or Great Lakes. 

• The Administration has implied that the policy is really just a voluntary program that will be whatever the regions decide they want it to be. As they 

have stated privately, and in a few cases publicly, however, this is not voluntary, and the Administration intends to vigorously implement the policy 

17 

pursuant to the Executive Order wherever they have jurisdiction. (federal 

waters, state waters, inland) 

• The Policy has already been cited in December 2010 Interior Department announcement (Revised OCS Leasing Program) restricting certain economic activity in certain areas through 2017. 

• The policy creates new vehicles for attempts to further restrict domestic economic activity. We are already seeing the potential for this to occur. 

• In June, groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity, citing in part the 

National Ocean Policy as legal justification, filed a petition with NOAA seeking to restrict the speed for vessels greater than 65 feet in length to 10 knots 

when traveling through national marine sanctuaries offshore California . Petition calls this ‘‘an excellent opportunity to implement the sort of coordinated, 

forward-looking marine spatial planning called for by President Obama’s National Ocean Policy initiative.’’ If the petition is granted, it could more than 

double the time it takes to transit through these areas, adding that there’s 

no clear science that there is any benefit to whales (the petition’s purported 

goal). 

It is for all of these reasons that, consistent with previous Coalition statements, 

we and other signatories wrote a letter of support for the Flores amendment to HR 

2584, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, to achieve a 

pause in policy implementation. Such a suspension would provide additional time 

to allow for the careful consideration of all potential economic, societal, and legal 

implications associated with implementation, well-informed stakeholder input, and 

adequate congressional engagement. 

To be clear, the Coalition is not opposed to a National Ocean Policy. The Coalition 

supports the development of a sound, balanced, and effective policy that serves as 

a mechanism for job creation, infrastructure revitalization, and economic growth 

and relies on full utilization of existing programs and well-established authorities 

that are already in place, rather than the creation of new bureaucracies, procedures, 

and regulations that only serve to create additional uncertainty, unnecessary restrictions, and delay. A pause in policy implementation will help reduce the risk of 

detrimental economic and societal impacts and ensure a policy that fully recognizes 

and accounts for the critical role our oceans, coastal areas, and marine ecosystems 

play in our nation’s economy, national security, culture, health, and well-being. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be pleased to answer any 

questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Coleman, for your 

testimony. Now I would like to recognize Mr. Jim Gilmore, the Director of Public Relations with the At-sea Processors Association. 

Mr. Gilmore, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JIM GILMORE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC 

RELATIONS, AT-SEA PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. GILMORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee for the opportunity to testify today. I am testifying on 

behalf of 10 West Coast and Alaska fishing and fish processing organizations. 

The fishermen processors for those organizations participate in 

fisheries that buy volume account for over half of all seafood landed 

annually in the United States. Our testimony focuses on how the 

National Ocean Policy initiative, one, establishes a new bureaucracy with sweeping powers; two, usurps the role of expert Federal 

fishery managers and reduces public participation in the fishery 

regulatory process; and three, creates regulatory uncertainty. 

We conclude our testimony to request the Congress prohibit the 

expenditure of any funds to establish regional planning bodies or 

to develop any plans referenced in the National Ocean Policy Executive Order until the structure, scope, and cost of the program 

have been reviewed by Congress. 

18 

The plain language of the Executive Order and the Ocean Policy 

Task Force final recommendations explicitly state that coastal and 

marine spacial planning process intends to manage uses and activities. This is not the benign collaborative planning process described 

by some proponents, but a program that anticipates the regulations 

and changes to existing regulations if it is to achieve its management objectives. 

The Ocean Policy Task Force recommendations state that CMSP 

is intended to improve ecosystem health and services by planning 

human uses and the conservation of important ecological areas 

such as areas of high productivity and biological diversity, areas in 

key species that are critical to ecosystem function and resiliency, 

areas of spawning, breeding, and feedings, areas of rare or functionally vulnerable marine resources, and migratory corridors. 

This passage illuminates that the purpose of the ocean policy is 

less about coordinating fishing activities with other ocean user activities and is more about creating regulatory process for further 

restricting ocean use, including commercial fishing. 

Federal fisheries are managed currently under the authority of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act which establishes eight Regional Fishery Management Councils tasked with conserving and managing 

fishery resources out to 200 miles. Each council is composed of one 

Federal official, a state official for each state in the region, and private citizens with requisite fishery management experience who 

are appointed by the Commerce Secretary. Private citizen appointees constitute a voting majority on those councils. 

On the other hand, the national ocean regional policy body is 

tasked with developing coastal and marine plans are described as 

consisting only of Federal and state officials and tribal interests. 

Few government officials from the Federal agency serving under 

the regional planning boards will even be knowledgeable about 

fisheries management. The result is the National Ocean Policy creates a new regulatory process that competes with and threatens to 

supersede the Regional Fishery Management Council process. The 

decisionmakers will have little expertise and there will be less opportunity for public participation. 

National ocean proponents argue unconvincingly that the coastal 

ocean spacial plans do not supersede current statutory authorities. 

The Ocean Policy Task Force report states, however, where existing 

regulatory or statutory requirements impose constraints on the 

ability of an agency to fully implement because of the marine 

spacial plan the agency would seek regulatory or legislative 

changes to fully implement the CMS plan. 

The above passage is unambiguous. The agencies are expected to 

either develop new regulations or change any existing regulations 

in order to be compliant with the CMS plan. The Regional Fishery 

Management Council will have no choice but to defer to CMS plans 

developed by regional planning boards. Under Section 304 of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act if a Regional Fishery Management Council 

does not act to develop regulations the Commerce Secretary is authorized to bypass the council and promulgate regulations. The 

NOP effectively creates an end run of the existing Regional Fishery 

Management Council process, not coincidentally a long-time goal of 

many organizations supporting the National Ocean Policy. 

19 

To date, the Administration has financed its NOP initiative by 

diverting existing appropriations from various agencies and it appears intent on continuing to do so without congressional authorization. We are concerned that NOAA programs that are needed for 

fishery assessments, protected species research, and fisheries monitoring enforcement are being short changed to create a new bureaucracy with potentially adverse impacts of commercial fishing. 

In closing, we propose that Congress explicitly prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds to establish regional planning bodies or 

to develop any plans identified within the scope of the Executive 

Order. 

That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again 

for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilmore follows:] 

Statement of Jim Gilmore, Director of Public Affairs, 

At-sea Processors Association 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to 

testify today on the Obama Administration’s National Ocean Policy (NOP) initiative, 

including the Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) component of that 

policy. 

I am testifying today on behalf of ten West Coast and Alaska fishing and fish 

processing associations. The organizations are: the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers; 

Alaska Crab Coalition; At-sea Processors Association; Crab Group of Independent 

Harvesters; Deep Sea Fishermen’s Union; Fishing Vessel Owners Association; Freezer Longline Coalition; Groundfish Forum; Pacific Seafood Processors Association; 

and United Catcher Boats. 

The fishermen and processors from the above organizations participate in fisheries that, by volume, account for over half of all seafood landed annually in the 

U.S. The fisheries include the Alaska crab, Alaska groundfish, halibut and sablefish, 

Alaska salmon, and Pacific whiting fisheries. The seafood harvested provides tens 

of thousands of jobs in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, generates $2.0 billion in 

economic activity, and accounts for a large percentage of U.S. seafood export 

earnings. 

Our testimony focuses on how the Administration’s NOP/CMSP initiative 1) establishes a costly new bureaucracy with sweeping powers; 2) usurps the role of expert 

federal fishery managers and reduces public participation in the fishery regulatory 

process, and 3) creates regulatory uncertainty and places unnecessary burdens on 

the seafood industry. We conclude our testimony with the request that Congress 

prohibit the expenditure of any federal funds to establish Regional Planning Bodies 

or to develop any plans referenced in Executive Order 13547 until the structure and 

scope of the program have been reviewed by Congress and supported by the ocean 

user community. 

The Regional Planning Bodies That Develop Coastal and Marine Spatial 

Plans Are Granted Sweeping Authority to Regulate Ocean Users, Including the Commercial Fishing Industry 

Executive Order 13547, which creates the National Ocean Policy, defines the 

CMSP component as providing ‘‘a public policy process for society to better determine how the ocean, our coasts, and Great Lakes are sustainably used.’’ According 

to the Executive Order, CMSP ‘‘identifies areas most suitable for various types or 

classes of activities in order to reduce conflicts among users, reduce environmental 

impacts, (and) facilitate compatible uses. . .’’ The Final Recommendations of the 

Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, which are incorporated by reference into the 

Executive Order, state, ‘‘(T)he recommendations provide a framework for CMSP that 

offers a new, comprehensive, integrated, regionally-based approach to planning and 

managing uses and activities.’’ While the benefits anticipated by the Administration 

in its NOP are open to debate, the plain language of the Executive Order and the 

Task Force’s final recommendations cited above explicitly state that the CMSP process intends to manage ‘‘uses and activities.’’ This is not the benign collaborative 

planning process described by some proponents, but a program that anticipates new 

regulations and changes to existing regulations if it is to achieve its management 

objectives. 

20 

Specific to fisheries management, the Ocean Policy Task Force recommendations 

state that, ‘‘CMSP is intended to improve ecosystem health and services by planning 

human uses in concert with the conservation of important ecological areas, such as 

areas of high productivity and biological diversity; areas and key species that are 

critical to ecosystem function and resiliency; areas of spawning, breeding, and feeding; areas of rare or functionally vulnerable marine resources; and migratory corridors.’’ This passage illuminates that the purpose of the National Ocean Policy is 

less about coordinating fishing activities with other ocean user activities and more 

about creating a new regulatory process for further restricting fishing opportunities 

for both the recreational and commercial sectors. 

The organizations on whose behalf I am testifying today have expressed these concerns consistently over the past two years to the Administration, but those concerns 

have not been addressed. We are left to conclude that the intent of the National 

Ocean Policy is, in fact, to create a Cabinet-level council and federal agency-dominated planning boards that are empowered to trump the Regional Fishery Management Council process established under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (‘‘MSA’’). 

‘‘Top Down’’ Federal Regional Planning Bodies Will Usurp the Authority of 

‘‘Bottom Up’’ Regional Fishery Management Councils Established 

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

Federal fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

or MSA. The MSA created eight Regional Fishery Management Councils tasked 

with developing plans and regulations necessary to conserve and manage fishery resources in federal waters out to 200 miles. Each Council is composed of one federal 

official, a state official from each state in the region, and private citizens with requisite fisheries experience who are nominated by Governors and appointed by the 

Commerce Secretary. The Regional Fishery Management Councils involve affected 

users directly in the decision making process. Private citizen appointees constitute 

a voting majority on the Councils. This unique public role in federal fisheries management in waters off Alaska and the West Coast has worked well since the MSA’s 

enactment in 1977. 

Federal fisheries management in the Alaska Region, in particular, is recognized 

internationally for its forward looking, precautionary, science-based approach. All 

fish stocks are managed to ensure sustainable harvest levels. Regulations are in 

place to minimize impacts of fishing on non-target species, other living marine resources, and sensitive habitat. Conservation measures include establishing more 

than 100 fishing area closures to avoid prey competition with Steller sea lions and 

closing 250,000 square miles of ocean to fishing gear that contacts the ocean floor 

to protect sensitive habitat. I would note that 250,000 square miles is an area only 

slightly smaller than the State of Texas. Fisheries management is complex and contentious, especially where catch allocations are involved, but stakeholder confidence 

is high because the process is guided by individuals with knowledge of, and experience in, the fisheries, and the public is engaged every step of the way in the highly 

transparent planning and regulatory process. Congress has shown strong support 

for this system by having repeatedly reauthorized the MSA and by having provided 

necessary funding every year. 

The NOP Executive Order undermines the current fisheries management system 

by anticipating that Regional Planning Bodies will include provisions in Coastal and 

Marine Spatial Plans that restrict fishing. The Regional Planning Bodies tasked 

with developing CMSPs are described as consisting of federal and state officials and 

tribal interests. Few government officials from the federal agencies serving on Regional Planning Boards will be knowledgeable about, and experienced in, fisheries 

management . The result is that the NOP creates a new fisheries regulatory process 

that competes with and threatens to supersede the MSA process. The decision makers will have little expertise, and less opportunity is provided for public participation. 

The NOP Creates Uncertainty in the Regulatory System for the Commercial Fishing Industry and Will Unnecessarily Increase the Burden on an 

Already Highly Regulated Industry 

It is simply not good public policy to create an additional regulatory process, to 

confuse lines of authority, and to likely end up fostering litigation due to inevitable 

inconsistencies in regulations developed under different processes. NOP proponents 

argue unconvincingly that Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans do not supersede current statutory authorities. The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force report states, 

however, ‘‘Where pre-existing legal constraints, either procedural or substantive, are 

identified for any Federal agency, the NOC would work with the agency to evaluate 

21 

the necessary and appropriate legislative solutions or changes to regulations to 

address the constraints. In the interim, agencies would comply with existing 

legal requirements but should endeavor, to the maximum extent possible, to 

integrate their actions with those of other partners to a CMS Plan.’’ 

The above passage is unambiguous that agencies are expected to change any existing regulations in order to be compliant with a CMS Plan. The Cabinet-level National Ocean Council (‘‘NOC’’) is directed by Presidential decree to ensure that federal departments and agencies, including the Regional Fishery Management Councils, change any regulations deemed inconsistent with the Strategic Action Plans or 

Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans. Similarly, fishery managers would be obligated 

to promulgate new regulations deemed necessary to meet management objectives established under new policies and plans developed under the NOP. 

The Regional Fishery Management Councils will have little choice but to defer to 

CMS Plans developed by Regional Planning Boards and approved by the National 

Ocean Council. Under section 304 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, if a Regional Fishery Management Council does not act to develop regulations, the Commerce Secretary is authorized to bypass the Council and promulgate regulations. The NOP effectively creates an ‘‘end run’’ of the existing Regional Fishery Management Council 

process, not coincidentally, a long-time goal of many of the organizations supporting 

the NOP. 

Proponents of NOP/CMSP construct their statements carefully when arguing that 

the CMS planning process is not a regulatory process, but the intent of the Executive Order is clear in promoting the development of Cabinet-level approved CMS 

plans that dictate areas ‘‘suitable’’ to various activities, including commercial fishing. Similarly, the NOP establishes broad performance standards for protecting 

‘‘breeding, spawning, and feeding’’ areas for living marine resources. The scope of 

authority conferred upon Regional Planning Bodies is extraordinarily broad. It may 

be the case that provisions of CMS Plans will be implemented under the general 

wording of the existing Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standards, but the salient 

point is that such regulatory measures will be developed by inexpert federal agency 

officials usurping the role of Regional Fishery Management Councils. 

NOP proponents argue also that this initiative is intended to coordinate federal 

oceans management, and yet the policy creates duplicative processes and ambiguous 

authorities. If implemented fully, the effective, fisheries conservation-focused and 

stakeholder supported Regional Fishery Management Council process will be compromised. Stakeholders will be faced with having multiple decision making processes at work. The result will be more costly, less effective, and less coordinated 

fisheries management. Stakeholder support for federal resource management will be 

eroded and the likelihood of litigation will increase. 

Need for Legislation 

President Obama issued a memorandum on June 12, 2009 establishing an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and directing the Task Force to develop recommendations for a National Ocean Policy. Those recommendations were published 

on July 19, 2010 and implemented that same day without public review through Executive Order 13547. A National Ocean Council has been formed and it is being advised by the intergovernmental Governance Coordinating Committee. The next 

planned step is to establish Regional Planning Bodies composed of federal, state and 

tribal interests, and these entities will design regional ocean-zoning plans. 

There is no statutory authorization for the National Ocean Policy. The few measures introduced by Members of Congress to establish the NOP have won little support, and accordingly, have made very little headway. The Administration has offered no legislative proposal and has simply made an end run around Congress by 

Executive fiat. 

The pending House and Senate appropriations bills provide no funding for the National Ocean Policy initiative. Some funds are provided in the Commerce, Justice, 

and State appropriations bills reported by the House and Senate Appropriations 

Committees for state-run coastal and marine spatial planning projects limited to 

state waters, and we do not oppose these pilot projects. 

To date, the Administration has financed its NOP initiative by diverting existing 

appropriations from various agencies, and it appears intent on continuing to do so 

without Congressional authorization. We are concerned that NOAA programs that 

are needed for fishery assessments, protected species research, and fishery monitoring and enforcement activities, among other critical functions, are being shortchanged to create a new bureaucracy with potentially adverse impacts on commercial fishing. 

We propose that Congress explicitly prohibit the expenditure of federal funds to 

establish Regional Planning Bodies or to develop any plans identified within the 

22 

scope of E.O. 13547. We urge Congress to request the Administration to provide a 

budget for the cost of implementing the Order and to define the scope and structure 

of activities provided for under the NOP. Finally, we urge the Administration to address the concerns stated repeatedly by the ocean user community before attempting 

to proceed further. 

That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, again for the opportunity to testify. I am glad to respond to any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gilmore. You took exactly five 

minutes. That is pretty good. 

I am pleased to recognize Mr. Christopher Guith, Vice President 

of Policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Guith, you are 

recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER GUITH, VICE PRESIDENT— 

POLICY, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Mr. GUITH. Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, Members of the Committee, thank you for convening this hearing. From 

my vantage point, the National Ocean Policy is the most significant 

issue affecting energy security, job creation, and economic growth 

that no one has heard about. The policy has been promulgated with 

little fanfare from the Administration, with little notice from the 

American household and businesses that the policy can impact 

most. 

Healthy and state of oceans is absolutely in our interest. Federal 

state governments have enacted literally hundreds of laws creating 

a framework to do precisely what this policy presupposes it to do, 

and at no point does the Administration suggest that this policy is 

what Congress intended under any statute or combination of statutes. The policy seeks to utilize coastal marine spacial planning, a 

concept that would limit specific areas of ocean for particular use. 

This is a solution to a problem that does not appear to currently 

exist. Allowing unelected regional planning authorities to essentially zone state and Federal waters is not authorized in any statute nor envisioned by any previous congressional action. 

The facet of this policy that inspires our greatest concern is its 

potential breadth. On several occasions the policy explicitly suggests that any and all activities onshore could come under the regulatory reach of these regional planning authorities. The policy also 

suggests that the existing statutory authority, such as the Clean 

Air Act and the Clean Water Act, should be harnessed by the planning authorities when allocating ocean use. 

The policy also brings to bear the precautionary approach or 

sometimes termed precautionary principle which is intended to preclude, stop, or otherwise take regulatory action against human activity when there exists the possibility that future scientific conclusions may find such activity is linked to environmental degradation. 

To put it differently, the principle states unless there is a current, conclusive scientific finding that a specific proposed human 

activity does not cause environmental degradation it shouldn’t go 

forward. 

By preemptively utilizing the precautionary approach in such a 

broad context, this policy reorders our existing regulatory construct 

by shifting the burden of disproving environmental harm to those 

23 

intending to engage in a specific activity as opposed to allowing 

such activities until environmental harm is actually proven. This 

reversal is not sanctioned by any statutory authority and has in 

fact previously been rejected by Congress. 

The National Ocean Policy results in a plethora of impacts in the 

country. Healthy or more sustainable oceans may or may not be 

one of them. However, one impact that is most likely to come from 

this policy is increased regulatory uncertainty. We estimate that 

nearly 2,500 rules were proposed in 2010, requiring some $1 trillion in compliance costs paid by American businesses. Small businesses, the jobs engines of our economy, pay an average of $10,000 

per employee per year for compliance costs. Ultimately this uncertainty makes it difficult, if not impossible, for any business to modify its operations to ensure both compliance and profitability with 

any level of surety. 

The President’s National Ocean Policy will exacerbate this uncertainty and add yet another maze of real or de facto regulation for 

businesses to attempt to navigate. By discouraging investment into 

energy production , you have the additional result of threatening 

our energy security by forcing the country to continue to import 

energy when we could be producing significantly more of it domestically. 

At a time of anemic economic growth and persistently high unemployment, the country is looking to its leaders to reverse these 

trends. The single most impactful action that can be taken is to increase the level of regulatory certainty to encourage private investment again. The President’s National Ocean Policy is a step in the 

wrong direction and will only increase the level of uncertainty for 

years to come. 

We would encourage the Administration to back away from this 

current policy and look to Congress to determine the scope and 

breadth of any changes in current ocean policy. The Administration’s time would be much better served by reversing its record of 

decreasing energy production on Federal lands and forcing the 

country to import more energy. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have 

been created in the energy over the past five years supporting 

energy exploration and production on private and state lands. Millions more could be created in the immediate future if the Administration made domestic energy production a priority once again. 

America business has been the target of a regulatory onslaught 

of historic proportion. Much of Congress’s time has rightfully been 

devoted to oversight of these regulatory actions, and in many cases 

attempting to pass legislation reversing these actions. However, in 

the case of the President’s National Ocean Policy, Congress still 

has time to act before the initial impact of the Administration’s actions are realized. We would encourage you to take these actions 

immediately. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Guith follows:] 

Statement of Christopher Guith, Vice President for Policy, 

Institute for 21st Century Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, and members of the Committee. 

I am Christopher Guith, vice president for policy of the Institute for 21st Century 

Energy (Energy Institute), an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. 

24 

Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation, representing the 

interests of more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector and region. 

The mission of the Institute is to unify policymakers, regulators, business leaders, 

and the American public behind common sense energy strategy to help keep America secure, prosperous, and clean. In that regard we hope to be of service to this 

Committee, this Congress as a whole, and the Administration. 

Thank you for convening this hearing. From my vantage point, The National 

Ocean Policy is the most significant issue affecting energy security, job creation, and 

economic growth that no one has heard about. This policy has been promulgated 

with little fanfare from the administration and with little notice from the American 

households and businesses that the policy could impact the most. Congress should 

and must utilize its oversight function to examine the National Ocean Policy to ensure it is consistent with the administration’s statutory authority, and that it would 

not create new and unnecessary barriers that would jeopardize economic growth or 

energy security. 

The potential impacts on offshore energy like oil and natural gas production and 

renewable electricity generation are clear. However, while this policy is focused on 

oceans, the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force 

makes it clear that the policy’s impacts do not stop at the coastline. Through a myriad of drawn-out arguments, the recommendations allow for regulatory coverage of 

virtually every bit of land and any entity operating or living on it. Onshore energy 

operations like mining, oil and natural gas production, and electricity generation are 

also vulnerable to new regulatory actions. The potential impacts do not hit just the 

energy sector but also agriculture, manufacturing, and construction. To be sure, the 

reach could be economy wide. 

The Chamber’s Energy Institute, and many of the other organizations represented 

on this panel, have spent a great deal of time educating our members and the public 

about the potential impacts of this policy. While they are quick to understand the 

potential implications, the unfortunate reality is that this represents just one of dozens of actions in a historical regulatory onslaught that has undercut any semblance 

of the certainty required to foster the investments that will create jobs and economic 

growth. 

RATIONALE 

Healthy and sustainable oceans are absolutely in our nation’s interests. The federal government has seen fit to enact dozens of laws to ensure that interest. Together with hundreds of state laws, a framework has been created to do precisely 

what the President’s National Ocean Policy presupposes it will do. The administration argues that the authority to implement such a policy is based in this myriad 

of federal statutes. However at no point does the administration suggest this policy 

is what Congress intended under any statute, or combination of statutes. The administration suggests that amongst other things, the creation of this new regulatory 

structure is needed to allocate ocean use through Coastal and Marine Spacial Planning and to ‘‘strengthen the governance structure.’’ Both purposes should give pause 

to every Governor, anyone who ever intends to enjoy the beach or ocean, and anyone 

concerned about jobs and economic growth. 

Coastal and Marine Spacial Planning is a concept that would limit specific areas 

of ocean for particular use. This is a solution to a problem that does not appear to 

currently exist. It is true some areas of ocean are already designated for uses that 

may preclude additional uses. For example, significant swaths are designated for 

use by the Department of Defense. However, if a specific use of ocean waters otherwise precludes another use, there are existing avenues through statute and common 

law to resolve such a question. Allowing unelected regional planning authorities to 

essentially ‘‘zone’’ state and federal waters, as in the case of the National Ocean Policy, is not authorized in any statute, nor remotely envisioned by any previous Congressional action. At a time of prolonged unemployment and anemic economic 

growth, Congress should take note that these planning authorities would be expressly empowered to limit commercial endeavors at will without such statutory authority. 

I do not desire to play the role of alarmist, but I am left with little option given 

the vagueness of the policy itself and the non-transparent fashion in which it was 

created. The President’s Task Force provides little analysis or even description for 

the problems its recommendations allege to address. More troubling however, the 

Task Force Recommendations and the subsequent Executive Order provide little insight or detail about how the recommendation will be implemented. Nor do the recommendations provide any facet of constraint or even oversight which might otherwise allay concern over potentially sever negative impacts. The policy is overly 

25 

vague throughout which only magnifies the concerns any current or potential ocean 

user should have. 

BREADTH 

The facet of this policy that inspires our greatest concern is its potential breadth. 

On several occasions, the policy explicitly suggests that any and all activities on 

shore could come under the regulatory reach of the regional planning authorities. 

The policy explicitly calls for addressing, ‘‘urban and suburban development,’’ as 

well as ‘‘land based source pollutants.’’ Given the administration’s existing regulatory overreach on numerous ‘‘land based pollutants,’’ that in many cases are explicitly authorized by statute, it does not require a vivid imagination to foresee an 

unchecked regional planning authority attempting to take action on inland activities 

that it finds are having an impact on ocean waters. 

The Coastal and Marine Spacial Planning section explicitly allows for the regional 

planning authorities to include upland areas. In fact, this policy finds that current 

conditions, ‘‘necessitate connecting land-based planning efforts with ocean, coastal, 

and Great Lakes planning.’’ The policy continues to find that existing statutory authorities such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act should be harnessed 

by the planning authorities when allocating ocean use. 

The policy utilizes the overly broad and vague term ‘‘industries’’ when describing 

‘‘human activities’’ that are ultimately impacting the oceans, which presumably then 

can fall under the regulatory reach of this action. However, it also explicitly targets 

certain specific industries by name including energy, agriculture, forestry, and development. 

The policy provides the following concern as context for why and how action 

should be taken: 

‘‘Urban and suburban development, including the construction of roads, 

highways, and other infrastructure. . .can adversely affect the habitats of 

aquatic and terrestrial species.’’ 

Infrastructure developers must already negotiate a byzantine regulatory labyrinth 

that often leads to costly delays. Superimposing the will of a regulatory planning 

authority on top of this process has the very real potential of precluding many of 

the infrastructure projects which the country needs and the administration itself 

has been clamoring. 

Not only does the President’s National Ocean Policy allow for the inclusion of virtually every sector of private enterprise to fall under new regulation, but it also 

brings to bear the ‘‘precautionary approach,’’ a new prism by which the prospective 

regulatory actions should be taken. The precautionary approach—also commonly referred to as the Precautionary Principle—was adopted in 1992 by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil (‘‘The 

Rio Declaration’’). 

The Rio Declaration states, ‘‘[w]here there are threats of serious or irreversible 

damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing 

cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.’’ The intent of employing this ‘‘precautionary approach’’ is to preclude, stop, or otherwise take regulatory action against human activity when there exists the possibility that future 

scientific conclusions may find such activity is linked to environmental degradation. 

To put it differently, the principle states, unless there is current conclusory scientific finding that a specific proposed human activity does not cause environmental 

degradation, it should be limited. 

While similar regulatory formulas are explicitly called for in statute where Congress intended to preserve the status quo, they are few and far between. By preemptively utilizing the ‘‘precautionary approach’’ in such a broad context, this policy reorders our existing regulatory construct by shifting the burden of disproving environmental harm to those intending to engage in a specific activity as opposed to allowing such activities until environmental harm is proven. Since the policy clearly 

seeks to include land-based human activities under its regulatory purview, the ‘‘precautionary approach’’ may presumably be applied to any such activities. This reversal is not sanctioned under any statutory authority and has previously been rejected 

by Congress. This is a significant shift in regulatory policy and law, and will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on many forms of enterprise and economic activity, 

most especially technological innovation. 

IMPACTS 

The President’s National Ocean Policy will result in a plethora of impacts on the 

country. The stated impact of healthier and more sustainable oceans may or may 

not be one of them. However, one impact that is most likely to come from this policy 

is increased regulatory uncertainty. The recent regulatory overreach has permeated 

26 

so many areas of commercial enterprise already, ranging from healthcare to financial services to labor relations to energy production to name just a few. 

Businesses of all sizes and sectors are impacted by these regulatory actions and 

will be attempting to determine the ultimate impacts on their operations for years, 

if not decades, to come. We estimate that nearly 2,500 rules were proposed in 2010 

requiring some $1 trillion in compliance costs on the back of American businesses. 

The impact of these costs is greatest on small businesses. Businesses with fewer 

than 20 employees incur regulatory costs 42% higher than larger businesses of up 

to 500 employees. The average regulatory cost for each employee of a small business 

exceeds $10,000 per year. Ultimately, this uncertainty makes it difficult, if not impossible, for any business to modify its operations to ensure both compliance and 

profitability with any level of surety. 

The most visible effect of this environment is a lack of capital investment. This 

is the foundation of what some economists have described as a ‘‘job-less recovery’’. 

The country is experiencing some economic growth, but the private sector is not creating jobs at a rate that should correspond with that growth or to ensure future 

growth. It is estimated that throughout the recovery some $2 trillion has remained 

liquid, without being invested. The uncertainty caused by the recent regulatory 

overreach is a primary reason so many are not comfortable investing this capital. 

The President’s National Ocean Policy will exacerbate this uncertainty and add 

yet another maze of real or de facto regulation for businesses to attempt to navigate. 

This may in turn lead to even less investment in areas such as infrastructure construction, manufacturing, and energy production. These are all areas that have significant track records of generating economic growth for the nation, as well as creating millions of jobs. By discouraging investment into energy production, this policy 

has the additional impact of harming our energy security by forcing the country to 

continue to import energy when we could be producing significantly more of it domestically. 

CONCLUSION 

At a time of anemic economic growth and persistently high unemployment, the 

country is looking to its leaders to reverse these trends. The single most impactful 

action that can be taken is to increase the level of regulatory certainty to encourage 

private investment again. This investment will not only generate economic growth, 

but create jobs in nearly all sectors. The President’s National Ocean Policy is a step 

in the wrong direction and will only increase the level of uncertainty for years to 

come. 

We would encourage the administration to back away from this current policy and 

look to Congress to determine the scope and breadth of any changes in current 

ocean policy. The administration’s time would be better served reversing its record 

of decreasing energy production on federal lands and forcing the country to import 

more energy. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created in the energy industry over the past five years supporting energy exploration and production on private 

and state lands. Millions more could be created in the immediate future if the administration made domestic energy production a priority once again. 

Additionally, we would encourage the administration to increase its efforts to ensure ratification and adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the 

Sea (also referred to as the Law of the Sea Treaty), which will provide not only an 

environmental benefit by ensuring America’s arctic territory is officially identified 

and defined (and thus protected by U.S. law), but also pave the way for tremendous 

investment into those areas. 

American business has been the target of a regulatory onslaught of historic proportions. Much of Congress’ time, especially in the House of Representatives, has 

rightfully been devoted to oversight of these regulatory actions, and in many cases 

attempting to pass legislation to reverse final actions taken by the administration. 

However, in the case of the President’s National Ocean Policy, Congress still has 

time to act before the initial impact of the administration’s actions are realized. We 

would encourage you to take such action immediately. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Guith. Next we will 

hear from Mr. Barry Rutenberg, Chairman-Elect of the Board of 

the National Association of Homebuilders. Mr. Rutenberg, you are 

recognized for five minutes. 

27 

STATEMENT OF BARRY RUTENBERG, CHAIRMAN-ELECT OF 

THE BOARD, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOMEBUILDERS 

Mr. RUTENBERG. Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, 

and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today. 

My name is Barry Rutenberg, and I am NAHB’s Chairman-Elect 

of the Board and a regional builder from Gainesville, Florida. 

NAHB recognizes the need to preserve the health of the marine 

ecosystem as it is one of the many lifelines upon we as a nation 

depend. NAHB members are national stewards of the ocean, coasts 

and Great Lakes, and regularly take steps to improve the longterm conservation of these resources. 

As the Committee considers the National Ocean Policy, I hope 

Members will be mindful of the unintended consequences on regulated entities and stakeholders. President Obama and the Inner 

Agency Ocean Policy Task Force had developed an ambitious and 

far-reaching set of policies and actions that are expected to be undertaken in the next several years. NAHB has a number of concerns on how the implementation of any ocean policy may affect 

the health of the homebuilding industry, housing affordability, and 

our nation’s overall economy. 

Given the significant impacts that may accrue from the implementation of this policy, NAHB is concerned by the Administration’s attempt to authorize these activities through an Executive 

Order instead of securing congressional support and approval. 

NAHB believes it is imperative that the Administration only implement any such policy after securing specific statutory authority. 

Further, it is unclear if or how the task force of the agencies will 

be required to consider the economic impact of their actions. NAHB 

strongly believes some type of economic analysis should be conducted prior to implementing any of the proposed actions. Overall, 

NAHB is concerned that agencies will enact regulations that will 

only have a minor impact on the environment at a significant cost 

to private landowners and businesses. 

When contemplating how the National Oceans Policy will be implemented, the Administration must take care to ensure that its 

actions do not disrupt the ability of communities to define themselves how they choose. Any potential government policies that will 

broadly shape the future of our communities must be based on 

solid research and sound science. 

As one of the most highly regulated industries, homebuilders already comply with numerous Federal, state, and local environmental statutes. We can offer a unique view on how the National 

Oceans Policy might impact regulated entities. 

For example, homebuilders must already comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s national flood insurance 

program when siting, designing and constructing their homes. We 

meet the mandates of the Clean Water Act for controlling 

stormwater discharges. We demonstrate that the activities are consistent with our states’ coastal zone management plan, and we 

meet the requirements of the local zoning critical areas for 

shoreland protection ordinances. Clearly, governments at all levels 

have already taken significant steps to protect coastal areas. 

28 

Further, while the focus of the policy is to protect ocean health, 

because its scope is currently undefined it has the potential to 

make land-based activities without limit to the health of the ocean. 

Instead of blindly adopted blanket policies that are far-reaching 

the task force must identify where the gaps and coverages exist so 

that those voids can be targeted. 

NAHB has significant concerns about the potential for the Federal Government to overstep its bounds with regard to land use 

planning. This practice allowed home buyers and homeowners the 

opportunity to choose a location of their homes and past experience 

suggests that caution must be taken to ensure that local governments are free to direct their community growth without Federal 

interference or coercion. 

It is likely that the agencies and courts will struggle with the 

scope, definitions, and implementations of the National Oceans Policy, making regulatory compliance a great challenge. Given the 

number of existing policies the efforts already taken at the Federal, 

state, and local levels, and the need to preserve the rights of local 

governments, NAHB questions the need for an additional layer of 

regulation. 

The deep recession that has permeated all segments of the housing industry since 2008 continues to hold back the economic recovery of the United States. The already battered housing industry 

cannot successfully face the forthcoming challenges already done by 

additional regulatory burdens that are not based upon science. 

While we support the overall intent of the National Oceans Policy, we cannot currently support any action that would unnecessarily impede recovery of this important economic sector. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rutenberg follows:] 

Statement of Barry Rutenberg, Chairman-Elect of the Board, 

on Behalf of the National Association of Home Builders 

Introduction 

Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey and members of the House Natural 

Resources Committee, I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the 

160,000 members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) to share our 

views on President Obama’s National Ocean Policy. We appreciate the invitation to 

appear before the Committee on this important issue. My name is Barry Rutenberg 

and I am the Chairman-elect of the Board for NAHB and a home builder from 

Gainesville, Florida. 

NAHB recognizes the need to preserve the health of the marine ecosystem as it 

is one of the many lifelines upon which we as a nation depend. NAHB members are 

national stewards of the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes and regularly take steps 

to improve and promote the long term conservation and use of these resources. Due 

to the impact that the National Oceans Policy may have on the future of our homes 

and communities, NAHB has been monitoring its development and on a number of 

occasions, has provided input to the White House Council on Environmental Quality 

and the Interagency Task Force on Ocean Policy. In general, NAHB has supported 

the goals of these programs, but has raised a number of concerns on how the implementation of any oceans policy may affect the health of the home building industry 

and our nation’s overall economy. 

National Oceans Policy 

President Obama and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force have developed 

an ambitious and far-reaching set of policies and actions that are expected to be undertaken over the next several years to ‘‘ensure the protection, maintenance, and 

restoration of the health of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:24 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\70597.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
29 

sources, enhance the sustainability of ocean and coastal economies, preserve our 

maritime heritage, support sustainable uses and access, provide for adaptive management to enhance our understanding of and capacity to respond to climate change 

and ocean acidification, and coordinate with our national security and foreign policy 

interests.’’ 

Given the significant impacts that may accrue from the implementation of this 

policy, coupled with its far-reaching effects, NAHB is concerned by the Administration’s attempt to authorize these activities through an Executive Order instead of 

securing Congressional support and approval. In four separate Congresses, legislation has been introduced to create ocean policy. None of these attempts have ever 

reported out of Committee. During the 111th Congress, NAHB submitted a statement for the record to the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans, and Wildlife 

opposing that legislative effort. It is clear from these unsuccessful attempts that 

there are differing views on the need for, and scope of, any national oceans policy. 

Due to these widespread discrepancies, NAHB believes it is imperative that the Administration only implement any such policy after securing specific statutory authority to do so. 

Further, it is unclear from the Executive Order and the Final Recommendations 

of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force if or how the Task Force or the agencies 

will be required to consider the economic impact of their actions. Because we believe 

the impacts could be significant, NAHB strongly believes some type of economic 

analysis should be conducted prior to implementing any of the actions. NAHB also 

believes that the requirement for the agencies to implement the National Oceans 

Policy ‘‘to the fullest extent possible’’ further limits their ability to conduct a costbenefit analysis before implementing any new regulation or requirement. Overall, 

NAHB is concerned that agencies will enact regulations that will only have a minor 

impact on the environment but a significant cost to private landowners and businesses. Such an outcome is unacceptable and completely contrary to this Administration’s pledge to make regulations more effective and less burdensome. 

The Oceans Policy Must Preserve Community Choice 

The strength of our communities is their reflection of a diverse range of people, 

needs, ideals, and locales. Their design and shape are dictated by powerful market 

forces and realities that reflect the choices consumers make about where they live, 

work, and play. As communities age, evolve, and grow, community leaders must balance often competing needs, including a wide range of neighborhood and housing options; housing that meets the needs of families across the economic and demographic spectrum; reasonable proximity to jobs, commerce, and recreation; safe 

neighborhoods and a healthy environment; and open space and access to natural resources. When contemplating how the National Oceans Policy will be implemented, 

the Administration must take care to ensure its actions do not disrupt or otherwise 

impede the ability of communities to define themselves how they choose. For example, although a number of coastal communities have recently undertaken efforts to 

revitalize their waterfronts or downtown areas, strict implementation of the Policy 

may no longer allow such activities to occur. Further, any potential government policies that will broadly shape the future of our communities must be based on solid 

research and sound science and data and allow for choices and flexibility in the marketplace. 

NAHB Is Concerned About Potential Unintended Consequences 

As one of the most highly regulated industries, home builders already comply with 

numerous federal, state and local environmental statutes and can offer a unique 

view on how the National Oceans Policy might impact regulated entities. For example, homebuilders must already comply with the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency’s National Flood Insurance Program when siting, designing and constructing 

their homes; meet the mandates of the Clean Water Act for controlling storm water 

discharges during their construction activities; demonstrate that their activities are 

consistent with their state’s coastal zone management plan; and meet the requirements of their local zoning, critical areas and/or shoreland protection ordinances. 

Clearly, governments at all levels have already taken significant steps to protect, 

maintain, and enhance their waterways and coastal areas. As a result, any National 

Oceans Policy has the potential to create yet another set of standards and/or approvals that could unnecessarily impose significant impacts on home builders, private 

landowners, and other businesses while providing minimal benefits. 

Further, while the focus of the policy is to protect ocean health, because its scope 

is currently undefined and also references coastal areas, it has the potential to link 

land based activities, without limit, to the health of the ocean whether or not such 

activities have an actual impact. For example, even though they already contain 

30 

stringent standards to guard against environmental degradation, any type of permit 

issued under the Endangered Species Act or Clean Water Act could be impacted by 

the National Ocean Policy. Instead of blindly adopting blanket policies that are farreaching and may not meet their intended goals, the Interagency Task Force must 

identify where the gaps in coverage exist across the range of federal, state, and local 

environmental, land-use, and zoning requirements rather than putting new regulations on top of existing regulations. 

Likewise, because a portion of the Policy concerns the use of coastal areas, NAHB 

has significant concerns about the potential for the federal government to overstep 

its bounds with regard to land use planning. Currently, state and local governments 

have the ability to plan for and determine appropriate uses for their entire communities, including coastal areas. If a local government deems an area fit for residential development and the site/project meets all of the existing federal requirements, 

construction may be allowed to occur. This practice allows homebuyers and homeowners the opportunity to live in a home of their choice in a location of their choice. 

The National Oceans Policy, however, has the potential to significantly change this 

standard practice. Past experience suggests that caution must be taken to ensure 

that local governments are free to continue to direct their community growth without any federal interference or coercion. 

Finally, although one goal of the National Oceans Policy is to better coordinate 

and plan for competing uses of the oceans, Great Lakes, and coastal areas, NAHB 

cautions against planning for that objective alone. Planning is not simply about 

managing resources with one objective in mind, but about optimizing multiple community or society goals. Solutions that seem simple to some may be complex and 

fraught with tradeoffs that make them far from ideal. A proposal that may solve 

one problem may generate new problems. Indeed, placing too much emphasis on one 

objective may not result in success, thus policymakers must seek to balance the full 

range of policy goals and should not address ocean health (or any other issue) to 

the exclusion of other crucial concerns. Clearly, decision makers must also be mindful of unintended consequences as they develop solutions to address this complex 

web of issues. 

Based on past efforts, it is likely that the agencies will struggle with the scope, 

definitions and implementation of the National Oceans Policy, making regulatory 

compliance a great challenge for not only the nation’s home builders, but other 

stakeholders, as well. Given the number of existing policies specifically designed to 

protect our nation’s oceans, coastlines, and watersheds, the efforts already taken at 

the federal, state, and local levels, and the need to preserve the rights of local governments to make their own decisions about the fate of their communities, NAHB 

questions the need for an additional layer of regulation. At a minimum, NAHB suggests that any action that would impact or impeded the ability of the housing sector 

to recover be avoided and/or delayed until the industry is back on sound footing. 

Climate Change 

The Task Force has implicated climate change as part of its rationale for the need 

for the National Oceans Policy. Over the past two decades, concerns in the United 

States have increased over the potential impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

on water resources. Research, however, has yielded mixed results regarding the direct impacts of emissions on global resources, atmospheric events and atmospheric 

particle deposition on aquatic resources. Likewise, due to limited knowledge, dependency on forecasting models, and contradictory evidence, there is a high degree 

of uncertainty associated with climate change findings and assumptions. For example, estimating future impacts on precipitation events and aquatic resource availability have proven to be difficult. Similarly, research on anthropogenic impacts on 

climate change and water availability has been hypothesized to fluctuate, but definitive research has not yet proven to what degree. 

Additionally, research regarding the hydrologic (and other) impacts of climate 

change and the subsequent preventative measures needed must be an interagency 

effort. NAHB commends the Task Force for collaborating with the various agencies 

that have climate change policies currently in place. At a minimum, a holistic approach to research, programmatic strategy development, and coordinated implementation oversight will help to reduce duplication and improve overall results. 

Until the true causes and effects of human interaction with the marine biological 

and ecosystem cycles are better understood, any major actions to mitigate or adapt 

to the effects of climate change should be undertaken with extreme caution to avoid 

onerous or duplicative regulations that fail to provide adequate water protection or 

ensure efficient use. The Administration must commit to performing research on the 

effects of climate change on ocean health and water availability and supporting existing policies that can be adapted to address the research findings. It is vital to 

31 

continue to research the development of cooperative solutions in the face of scientific 

uncertainty, not adopt additional regulations based upon minimal data. There must 

be definitive science that fully supports policy and policy implementation. 

Conclusion 

NAHB’s members are stewards of the environment. Many builders go above and 

beyond current requirements of the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and 

other federal, state and local environmental statutes in order to build an environmentally friendly home. NAHB’s members take their responsibilities under the ESA, 

Clean Water Act, and other federal and state environmental statutes seriously. 

As you are well aware, the deep recession that has pervaded all segments of the 

housing industry since 2008 continues to hold back economic recovery in the United 

States. The already-battered housing industry, however, cannot successfully face the 

forthcoming challenges while weighed down by additional regulatory burdens that 

do little to further protect the nation’s natural resources, including our oceans, 

Great Lakes, and coastal areas. While we support the overall intent of the National 

Oceans Policy, we cannot currently support any actions that would impede recovery 

of this important economic sector. 

NAHB appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the implementation 

of the President’s Executive Order and the Task Force’s recommendations on the 

National Oceans Policy. Protecting, maintaining and restoring the health of the 

oceans, Great Lakes, and coastal areas, as well as planning for their sustainability, 

is of great importance and we look forward to continued opportunities to participate 

in this undertaking. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Next we will hear from Mr. Marc Gorelnik, Board of Directors, 

the Coastside Fishing Club. You are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MARC GORELNIK, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 

COASTSIDE FISHING CLUB 

Mr. GORELNIK. Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, 

Committee Members and hard working staff, my name is Marc 

Gorelnik, and I serve on the Board of Directors of the all-volunteer, 

10,000-member-strong Coastside Fishing Club, and I am a life-long 

recreation angler. I am here today with a cautionary tale from 

California. 

For myself and many of the other millions of salt water anglers 

in the United States going fishing is more than a recreational past 

time. It is a tradition, a connection to the generations before us, 

and a tradition that we pass to the generations that follow us. It 

is also a recreational activity that binds us tightly to the health of 

the environment. 

What makes our ocean activity so different from any other ocean 

users is that the quality of our experience depends directly on the 

health and vitality of the resource. To us the ocean isn’t merely a 

surface to be transited from port to port, or a fruitful place from 

which to extract energy and minerals. On this basis a reasonable 

observer might believe that California recreational anglers are over 

the moon about the President’s National Ocean Policy and its 

coastal and marine spacial planning. But we Californians are living 

the nightmare of a similar program. The Marine Life Protection 

Act, also know as the MLPA, which included its own component of 

marine spacial planning, and it is our experience in California that 

brings me to my cautionary tale. 

The MLPA eliminates or severely restricts recreational and commercial fishing activities without regard to species management. 

While posited as a science-driven process, it was far more political. 

32 

After all, private foundations funded this pseudo-public process, 

and he who pays the piper names the tune. 

It was a biased process and recreational anglers who devoted 

thousands of hours in stakeholder and other meetings in the end 

served merely as window dressing. Proposals supported by environmental NGO’s always triumphed over proposals by anglers, and 

this is true even when the NGO favored proposal offered no conservation benefits and higher social-economic costs than the angler 

proposal. 

Now, there may be times when sound fishery management guided by credible scientific data instructs that angling must be curtailed in order to restore a species or habitat. Recreational anglers 

on the whole would not and have not chafed at such restrictions 

because the restrictions are generally narrowly tailored, temporary 

in duration, and directed toward increasing future recreational opportunities. But that is not what happened in California where the 

MLPA usurped the role of fishery management. 

The President’s National Ocean Policy does not need to go down 

the same road as California’s MLPA. As I noted at the beginning 

of my testimony, anglers, unlike many other ocean users that may 

be impacted by national ocean policy, need and desire a healthy 

ecosystem in order to engage in our pursuits. Because we generate 

billions of dollars of economic activity, there are real jobs and businesses that desperately need and desire a healthy and vibrant 

ocean ecosystem. We would like to work with the Administration 

to this end but your experience in California leaves us wary. 

Why don’t recreational anglers, and there are more than 12 million of us on our nation’s coasts, have a hand on the tiller? Will 

our participation be merely window dressing as it was in California? It seems that that is the way we are headed. 

A year or two ago a National Ocean Policy Task Force met publicly in San Francisco. The recreational angling community was not 

included except as spectators to a series of speakers praising California’s MLPA process. This provides us with little room for optimism. 

In closing, I would urge the Administration to remember that 

recreational ocean angling is woven into the fabric of our nation’s 

coastal communities and is important to tens of millions of voting 

age anglers and their families. It brings billions of dollars of economic benefit to coastal economies, and our nation’s anglers already deal with vast closures imposed by fishery managers. The notion that further restrictions, unrelated to fishery management and 

largely politically driven, may be visited upon anglers is unacceptable. 

In California, we were told not to worry about the process as it 

would be fair to all. Well, it wasn’t, and we do not want to see California’s politically drive and unfair marine spacial planning promoted to the national stage. 

Thank you very much for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gorelnik follows:] 

Statement of Marc Gorelnik, Member, Board of Directors, 

Coastside Fishing Club 

I am here today with a cautionary tale from California. My name is Marc 

Gorelnik. I am a director of the all-volunteer, 10,000 member strong Coastside FishVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:24 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\70597.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
33 

ing Club and a lifelong recreational angler. I grew up fishing from the ocean piers 

of Southern California and now fish from my own trailer boat in the waters of Central and Northern California. For myself many of the other millions of saltwater anglers in the United States, going fishing is more than a recreational pastime. It is 

a tradition, a connection to the generations before us, and a tradition that we pass 

to the generations that follow us. It is also a recreational activity that binds us 

tightly to the health of the environment. 

What makes our ocean activity different from that of some other witnesses here 

is that the quality of our experience depends on the health and vitality of the resource. To us, the ocean isn’t merely a surface to transit from port to port or a body 

of water that lies between us and minerals to be extracted. 

On this basis, a reasonable observer might believe that California recreational anglers are over the moon about the President’s National Ocean Policy initiative. But 

we Californians are living the nightmare of an analogous program, the Marine Life 

Protection Act, also known as the ‘‘MLPA,’’ which included its own marine spatial 

planning initiative. And it is our experience in California that brings me to the cautionary tale of recreational anglers. 

The debacle of the MLPA in California should not be visited on the nation. National Ocean Policy initiative should not be directed to decreasing recreational freedoms on our nation’s ocean waters. Rather, the policy should work to improve the 

quality and scope of recreational experiences for Americans. 

There may be times when sound fishery management, guided by credible scientific 

data, instructs that angling must be curtailed in order to restore a species or habitat. Recreational anglers would not, and have not, chafed at such restrictions because they are generally narrowly tailored, temporary in duration, and directed toward increasing future recreational opportunities. But that’s not what happened in 

California, where the MLPA usurped the role of fishery management. 

The MLPA eliminates or severely restricts recreational and commercial fishing activities without regard to species management. Closures are self-justifying. While 

posited as a science driven process, it was far more political. After all, private foundations funded this pseudo-public process, and he who pays the piper names the 

tune. It was a biased process and recreational anglers, who devoted thousands of 

hours in stakeholder and other meetings, served merely as window dressing. In the 

end, proposals supported by environmental NGOs always triumphed over proposals 

by anglers. This is true even when the NGO-favored proposal offered no conservation benefit and higher socio-economic costs. 

We see a similar path with National Ocean Policy. Ecosystem based management 

is laudable from a lay or political perspective, but it is not a well-defined scientific 

standard unlike management standards in Magnuson-Stevens. In the end, it is a political football. In California, we saw ‘‘ecosystem protection’’ as an all-purpose, one 

size fits all, justification for any path sought by the environmental NGOs. Even in 

the absence of any scientific justification, the so-called ‘‘precautionary principle’’ was 

invoked as a lazy device to deprive recreational anglers from locations that had been 

sustainably fished for generations. 

Here is some background on the MLPA. Shortly before the MLPA became California law, the federal government amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act (creating 

the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. Federal policy changed from one of expanding 

US fisheries while excluding foreign fisheries from US waters. Instead of maximizing yield, the policy changed to maximum sustainable yield—a huge difference. 

The focus and weight of law was now on sustainability. And with that, the Pacific 

Fisheries Management Council really did change the way in which it managed the 

fishery off California’s coast. 

The Council declared that several groundfish species were overfished, and undertook rebuilding plans based on the biology of the fish and the needs of the fishing 

community. And with these rebuilding plans in place, these depleted species became 

the controlling factor for the majority of the species that have always remained 

healthy. By-catch of these constraining fishes shut down otherwise healthy fisheries 

when rebuilding take limits were attained. 

Unlike other coastal waters around the world, California’s fishery is healthy and 

rebuilding. Then what is the role of the later-enacted MLPA? What role does its marine protected areas play in supporting sustainability or improving the rebuilding 

rate of critical species? For those fisheries that are healthy, and successfully managed to maximum sustainable yield, there is no need to close fishing, as the same 

number of fish will ultimately be allowed to be taken from areas outside of the 

MPAs—they will just be harder and more expensive to get. So with no net reduction 

in the amount of fish taken, there will be little if any net gain as a result of an 

MPA closure. And if you are a recreational fisher, in some cases that increase in 

34 

difficulty and expense will result in forgone opportunity and a slower economic engine within the recreational sector. 

This concept of no net gain presents an interesting paradox. The annual catch 

limits are set by the PFMC based on the best available science regarding the status 

and biology of the stocks. The PFMC is required by law to set levels that do not 

allow overfishing to occur—i.e. the level must be sustainable; and to rebuild those 

stocks that are overfished in as fast a time as practicable. But once those levels are 

set, the fishermen are largely free to fish to those limits. Closing small areas will 

not have a significant effect on the total number of fish extracted—they will just 

shift where they are caught and how difficult—expensive—it will be to catch them. 

Controlling the level of fishing is the responsibility of federal and state fishery management organizations; and, rightly so, not the responsibility of the MLPA. Closing 

areas to fishing within the structure of the MLPA will not impact the level of extraction, and thus not affect the level of sustainability of the vast majority of our 

fish stocks—which are healthy. 

But then what about those handful of groundfish species that are overfished and 

are rebuilding? The Big Old Fat Female (‘‘BOFF’’) theory and the size and spacing 

requirements of the MPAs are relevant to that discussion. But the fact is that the 

preferred habitat for these few critical fish are largely outside of state waters, and 

thus the MLPA is working on the margins of the habitat for them. Compare that 

with the thousands of square miles of preferred habitat already closed by the federal 

fishery managers in what are known as Rockfish Conservation Areas, and Cowcod 

Conservation Areas. These areas are basically closed to both recreational and commercial bottom fishing, and are critical elements of the rebuilding strategy of the 

PFMC and the NMFS. 

While changes to the boundaries are made in response to improved understanding 

of the stocks, the size of these closed areas makes the MLPA closures relatively insignificant to the rebuilding rate. So while the concept has relevance to the rebuilding discussion, the potential magnitude of the impact of the MLPA’s BOFF and the 

associated size and spacing is likely to be of no significance to the rebuilding of the 

few overfished stocks off California. 

And just like the healthy stocks, the concept of no net reduction in take is still 

going to control the rebuilding rate of these fish. The PFMC sets the allowed level 

of take for these fish too—be it unintended by-catch, or minimal directed harvest 

based on the approved rebuilding plan strategy. So as long as that level of take occurs, the rebuilding rate will not significantly change. 

The MPAs established under California’s MLPA are simply not relevant to the 

concept of sustainable fishing: they are not impairing sustainability, but they are 

not enhancing it either—decent science based fishery management has simply overtaken the MLPA, and made it a relic of the past. But it is affecting the way recreational fishermen pursue their passion. It is changing where we fish, and the expenses we incur in pursuit of those fish. The MLPA impacts the infrastructure that 

we depend on as we attempt to catch a fish. 

Our charter boat industry, the bait shops, marine fueling operations, etc. are all 

affected by the resulting increases in operating costs and forgone opportunity. They 

are struggling to stay in business, and many are not making it. The most obvious 

operating cost impacts result from travel distances increasing as a result of closures 

near the ports, resulting in added fuel costs. And in some cases it is possible that 

the added distances could prove to be a safety hazard should boats try to return 

to port in front of approaching storms. The economic impact is real: Morro Bay has 

already lost most of its sportfishing fleet, and tourism is down dramatically. The 

same is true in Bodega, and other small coastal communities. 

Fishing is a mainstay of tourism in our coastal communities and the MLPA 

doesn’t have the money to encourage the ecotourism used to justify the closures. To 

be sure, there will be offsetting economic gains to coastal communities, when or if 

the economy switches from fishing to ecotourism. But I for one prefer a working marina to tee shirt and souvenir shops. 

During the implementation phase, 10s of millions of dollars have been spent— 

mostly from private funding sources, but significant amounts of taxpayer money as 

well. However the huge cost issue with the MLPA will be the ongoing enforcement 

and monitoring expenses. Estimates from the California Department of Fish and 

Game project additional annual expenses from 10 to 50 million dollars a year— 

money they don’t have, and won’t get. The Department has repeatedly said they 

don’t have the money to do the job, and will likely not be able to effectively enforce 

the regulations. Which raises the very real possibility that these MPAs could become viable target areas for poachers—which would be doubly bad. First because 

that would defeat the biological gains we expect to see inside the MPAs, but also 

35 

because these catches would be un-reported and thus detract from our ability to accurately monitor actual take levels. 

The implications relative to the national movement for Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning are significant. If the California MLPA example is followed on a national basis, fishermen have good reason to be concerned. Already we are seeing 

that getting fishermen and fishery science a seat at the planning table is an uphill 

battle. Given all the other competing users and preservationists, who do have strong 

presence on the planning councils and oversight bodies, our ability to influence the 

outcome is doubtful. Our ability to have access to a healthy fishery is in real jeopardy. 

While repeatedly touted as ‘‘the most open and transparent process in state government,’’ this was instead a brave new world of ruthless NGO-driven regulations. 

Indeed, the ‘‘open and transparent’’ MLPA organization refused to respond to a public records request on grounds that it wasn’t a state body. It took a lawsuit and 

court order to force open the MLPA records. 

The flawed MLPA process in California is relevant to the President’s Ocean Policy 

Initiative because we see the same actors on stage. The same NGOs with the same 

objectives and principles, such as self-justifying recreational access closures. Like 

the MLPA, we see a complete absence of representation of American anglers in any 

meaningful way, and certainly not in balance with those who drove the MLPA in 

California. 

With the bitter aftertaste of the railroad job anglers received in California, and 

seeing many of the same environmental NGOs striving for a hand on the steering 

wheel, you can understand why anglers may be apprehensive about the National 

Ocean Policy. We fear that it may be California’s MLPA, writ large. We fear the 

same lost opportunities, with greater concentration in fewer areas; more closings of 

landings and lost jobs; more high-minded rhetoric. 

The President’s National Ocean Policy does not need to go down the same road 

as California’s MLPA. As I noted at the beginning of my testimony, anglers—unlike 

most other ocean users that may be impacted by the National Ocean Policy—need 

and desire a healthy ecosystem in order to engage in our pursuits. Because we generate billions of dollars of economic activity, there are real jobs and businesses that 

derivatively need and desire a healthy and vibrant ocean ecosystem. We would like 

to work with the Administration to this end, but our experience in California leaves 

us wary. 

Why don’t recreational anglers, and there are more than 12 million of us on the 

oceans, have a hand on the tiller? Will our participation be mere window dressing 

as it was in California? It seems that that’s the way we’re headed. A year or two 

ago, a National Ocean Policy task force met publically in San Francisco. The recreational angling community was not included except as spectators to a series of 

speakers praising California’s MLPA process. This provides little room for optimism. 

In closing, I would urge the Administration to remember that recreational ocean 

angling is woven into the fabric of our nation’s coastal communities and tens of millions of voting age anglers and their families. It brings billions of dollars of economic 

benefit to coastal economies. And our nation’s anglers already deal with vast closures imposed by fisheries managers. The notion that further restrictions, unrelated 

to fishery management and largely politically driven, may be visited on anglers is 

unacceptable. In California, we were told not to worry about the process as it would 

be fair to all. Well, it wasn’t. And we do not want to see unnecessary, feel-good closures imposed throughout our nation’s coastal waters. Thank you for your time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Gorelnik. 

Next we will hear from Mr. John Bullard, the President of the 

Sea Education Association. Mr. Bullard, you are recognized for five 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN BULLARD, PRESIDENT, 

SEA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BULLARD. Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, 

Members of the Committee, my name is John Bullard. I am President of Sea Education Association in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. 

We teach college students about the ocean. It is nice to see one of 

our alumni on your staff. 

36 

I was also selected by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick to 

serve on the Commonwealth’s Ocean Advisory Commission, a body 

which was heavily engaged in the development of the Massachusetts Ocean Plan. Additionally, I am a former mayor of the fishing 

port of New Bedford, a historic fishing port which in recent years 

has consistently ranked as the top ranked port in the country in 

terms of value landed. 

In Massachusetts and the rest of New England, we value our traditional uses of the ocean greatly. Commercial fishing, shipping, 

tourism, and recreation are mainstays of the coastal economy, and 

they help define the character of many of our seaports. At the same 

time in Massachusetts and elsewhere new proposals for the use of 

our oceans are emerging, many of which may offer opportunities to 

provide new jobs, feed a growing nation, and address other important policy goals. Renewable energy, aquaculture, extraction of 

sand resources to provide protection for low lying coastal areas are 

all examples of recent new types of human activities proposed for 

our coastal and ocean waters. In many areas of the ocean there are 

existing economically important uses that we value and cherish 

that could conflict with these type of emerging uses. 

With sufficient public discussion and application of best available 

information early in the process we have seen examples in New 

England of how new and existing uses can coexist. 

Ocean planning boils down to two main components as I see it. 

Open transparent dialogue about public goals and desires for the 

ocean from all stakeholders and incorporation of science, data, and 

information from the beginning of this dialogue. This is an important departure from past practice where certain viewpoints were 

not represented during the review of a specific project until late in 

the specific project review process. This ultimately leads to project 

delays, lawsuits, and general frustration with the process. 

Ocean planning efforts do not necessarily equate to ocean zoning. 

It is up to the participants of the planning effort to determine the 

end result. Similarly, it is clearly laid out in the National Ocean 

Policy it will be up to the regions themselves to determine the content of a regional ocean plan. 

In Rhode Island and Massachusetts, ocean planning efforts have 

resulted in development of better information and public discussion 

over how to balance new and existing uses of our ocean. This will 

ultimately lead to better and faster decisionmaking, increase certainty in the decisionmaking process because certain issues will 

have already been addressed once specific projects are proposed because these decisions incorporate better science and data, and because the decisions are in the public realm, and with the data gathered in the ocean planning process it is possible to talk about opening areas that have been closed to fishing, not just closing more 

areas. This can be a net gain for fishermen. 

The two basic tenants of ocean planning all involve interest with 

the seat at the table and incorporation of best science and data will 

lead to more efficient, transparent, and fair decisionmaking about 

our oceans. The President’s National Ocean Policy incorporates 

these principles which have been put into action already in several 

states. The National Ocean Policy rightly requires new focus on 

Federal agency coordination as well, but also appropriately leaves 

37 

it up to the regional efforts to determine the substance of these regional ocean plans. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bullard follows:] 

Statement of John Bullard, President, Sea Education Association, Woods 

Hole, Massachusetts; and Former Mayor of the fishing port of New Bedford, Member of the Massachusetts Ocean Advisory Commission 

Introduction 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on today’s hearing on the 

President’s New National Ocean Policy. My name is John Bullard, and I am the 

President of the Sea Education Association, located in Woods Hole Massachusetts. 

At SEA, we teach college students about the oceans with a semester program in 

which students prepare an oceanographic research project that they conduct at sea 

on one of our two sailing research vessels. In addition to my current role as President of Sea Education Association, I was also selected by Massachusetts Governor 

Deval Patrick to serve on the Commonwealth’s Ocean Advisory Commission—a body 

which was heavily engaged in the development of the Massachusetts Ocean Plan, 

which I will discuss in a few minutes. Additionally, I am a former mayor of the fishing port of New Bedford—a historic fishing port which in recent years has consistently ranked as the top-ranked port in the country in terms of value landed. 

Background 

In Massachusetts and the rest of New England, we value our traditional uses of 

the ocean greatly. Commercial fishing, shipping, tourism, and recreation are mainstays of the coastal economy—providing thousands of jobs and for many of us, providing the character of our coastal communities which we cherish. The continued 

economic health of these uses is directly tied to the environmental health of our 

coasts and oceans—for example, as many fish stocks in New England continue to 

recover, commercial fishing will continue to be vital. Tourism and recreation rely on 

clean water and habitats for marine animals and fish. 

At the same time, in Massachusetts and elsewhere new proposals for the use of 

our oceans are emerging, many of which may offer opportunities to provide new 

jobs, feed a growing nation, and address other important policy goals. Renewable 

energy (wind and tidal-based generation), aquaculture, and extraction of sand resources to provide protection for low-lying coastal areas are all examples of recent, 

new types of human activities proposed for our coastal and ocean waters. I am not 

here to debate the validity of these types of activities; more to the point, they are 

a reality as our society increasingly looks to the ocean to assist us in meeting our 

economic goals and to address significant issues related to energy generation and 

food production. The issue I do wish to speak to is this: in many areas of the ocean, 

there are existing, economically important uses that we value and cherish that could 

conflict with these types of emerging uses. 

I stress the word could, however, because these potential conflicts do not have to 

become reality. With sufficient, public discussion and application of best available 

information early in the process, we have seen examples in New England of how 

of how new and existing uses can co-exist. 

The National Ocean Policy and Framework for Coastal and Marine Spatial 

Planning 

These two simple concepts: everyone having a seat at the table, and application 

of best available science and data, are at the heart of the National Ocean Policy’s 

Framework for Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. As you know, the National 

Ocean Policy calls for the development of regional ocean plans, to be developed 

through a transparent, bottom-up process. I would like to offer a few points on this 

aspect of the National Ocean Policy, drawing upon recent experience in New England: 

First, coastal and marine spatial planning (or ocean planning) as described in the 

National Ocean Policy is not a new concept. As I described earlier, ocean planning 

boils down to two main components: 

• Open, transparent dialogue about public goals and desires for the ocean 

• Incorporation of science, data, and information from the beginning of this dialogue 

Thus, ocean planning, as described in the National Ocean Policy, brings all viewpoints to the table: energy, recreation, conservation, fisheries, national security, 

38 

safety and navigation, commerce (shipping), and others. This allows all voices to be 

heard and to have a say in how ocean space is utilized. 

This is an important departure from past practice, where certain viewpoints were 

not represented during the review of a specific project until late in a specific project 

review process. This ultimately leads to project delays, lawsuits, and general frustration with the process—from all standpoints. We are all familiar with examples 

of this in action. Additionally, by allowing all voices to be heard up-front, combined 

with a focused effort to incorporate best available data from the beginning of the 

process, ocean planning is a simple, straight forward tool that will enable better, 

more efficient, and more transparent decision-making. These two main tenets of 

ocean planning are incorporated in the National Ocean Policy and its Framework 

for Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. 

In New England, aspects of ocean planning have been in place for years, such as 

through fishery management efforts. There are also several recent examples of a 

broader approach to ocean planning, including those led by the states of Rhode Island and Massachusetts. These states have led the way in New England in thinking 

more comprehensively about how we value and use our coastal and ocean resources. 

The need for these states to undergo this activity is as I described previously: in 

recognition of New England’s connection to its ocean and the cultural and economic 

importance of this connection in the face of increasing desire for new uses of ocean 

resources. 

New England states, led by its Governors, are also considering potential new uses 

of ocean waters—including renewable energy—that could result in potential conflict 

with these traditional uses such as fishing. As you know, the Governors of several 

states beyond New England are also realizing the potential for offshore energy—and 

the jobs it will bring—on the east coast of the United States, so this is a phenomenon not limited to New England. 

Recognizing that reality for us in New England, but realizing the importance of 

this issue as well, both Rhode Island and Massachusetts have applied ocean planning principles of open dialogue, with all voices at the table, and development and 

incorporation of science and data to help inform decision-making. These efforts have 

been recent undertakings, as Massachusetts completed its Ocean Management Plan 

in 2010, and Rhode Island completed its effort earlier this year. In my role as a Governor-appointed member of the Massachusetts Ocean Advisory Commission, I was 

able to help the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan happen in real time—consequently, I’m speaking to you with the perspective of someone who has successfully 

lived through an ocean planning effort. 

This brings me to a very important second point: both efforts were completed in 

relatively short order: 18 months in MA, and about two years in the case of Rhode 

Island, demonstrating that such an effort can be done in a timely fashion. Partly, 

this timeliness was because neither the Rhode Island nor Massachusetts attempted 

to develop ocean zoning schemes that divvy up all ocean space for particular activities. Ocean planning efforts do not necessarily equate to ocean zoning: it is up to 

the participants in an ocean planning effort to determine the end result. Similarly, 

as is clearly laid out in the National Ocean Policy, it will be up to the regions themselves to determine the content of a regional ocean plan. 

The Rhode Island and Massachusetts ocean planning efforts have resulted in development of better information (science, data) and public discussion over how to 

balance new and existing uses of our ocean. This will ultimately lead to better and 

faster decision-making, increased certainty in the decision making process because 

certain issues will have been already addressed once specific projects are proposed, 

because these decisions incorporate better science and data, and because the decisions are in the public realm—available for all (including future potential projects) 

to draw from in the future. 

As a specific example of this: Coming from New Bedford, the nation’s top dollar 

port for 11 straight years and a city that plans to be the staging area for Cape 

Wind, I know the importance of early communication between fishing interests and 

ocean planners who are searching out areas appropriate for renewable energy. No 

matter the background interest, certainty in decision making is something we all 

seek. For example, turbines can be beneficial to some fishing methods such as fixed 

gear or aquaculture. It can conflict with mobile gear. So communication early on in 

decision-making is essential so that fishermen and renewable energy developers 

alike can plan ahead. And with the data gathered in the ocean planning process it 

is possible to talk about opening areas closed to fishing as well as closing some. This 

can be a net gain for fishermen as we have seen with scallops. But we will not be 

able to explore even this possibility unless all voices are at the table. 

39 

This example and others from Massachusetts and Rhode Island are important 

demonstrations of the benefits of the type of approach envisioned in the National 

Ocean Policy’s Framework for coastal and marine spatial planning. 

In addition, there are four other important aspects of the National Ocean Policy, 

which are important to point out: 

1. First, it requires all federal agencies to work together on addressing important ocean issues—a significant improvement over the often-fragmented approach that has occurred historically. President George W. Bush’s US Ocean 

Commission was just one of the more recent examples where the issue of coordinating multiple agencies was highlighted as a significant policy issue. 

The oft-cited issue of regulatory certainty is one that cuts across agencies as 

well, and this National Ocean Policy is significant in its requirements for 

federal agencies to cooperate—in ways not seen before. 

2. Second, it clearly recognizes the reality that certain human activities are regional in nature—such as fishing. If a boat is fishing on Georges Bank east 

of Cape Cod, it could be from a home port in any of the New England states. 

Therefore, it makes sense that regions of the country—states and the federal 

government together—should work together to address those issues of importance to that region. 

3. It also clearly recognizes that the ocean ecosystem—its species, habitats, and 

physical aspects such as circulation/currents—do not necessarily follow jurisdictional lines. 

4. It does not include a ‘‘one-size fits all’’ approach to ocean planning. Rather, 

it outlines a series of principles for ocean planning but leaves the details to 

be determined by the individual regions. Thus, the National Ocean Policy includes an appropriate level of flexibility to enable the development of regional ocean plans that are appropriate to those issues—and appetites to address those issues—identified at the regional level. 

Conclusion 

We in New England, like other parts of the country, are reliant on our coasts and 

oceans for jobs, recreation, and the very fabric of our coastal communities. These 

connections to the oceans are a strong tradition, and we are now looking to the 

ocean for critical new services in the future while continuing the traditional. Ocean 

planning, such as the framework put forth in the President’s National Ocean Policy, 

is a sensible approach that will enable new and existing uses to thrive together. 

The two basic tenets of ocean planning—all involved interests with a seat at the 

table and incorporation of best science and data—will lead to more efficient, transparent, and fair decision-making about our oceans. The President’s National Ocean 

Policy incorporates these principles, which have been put to action already in several states. The National Ocean Policy rightly requires a new focus on federal agency coordination, as well, but also appropriately leaves it up to the regional efforts 

to determine the substance of these regional ocean plans. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony for the Committee’s consideration and to make an oral presentation of the summary of my written comments. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bullard. 

And last we will hear from Mr. Jim Lanard, the President of the 

Offshore Wind Development Coalition. Mr. Lanard, is it Lanard? 

Did I say it correctly? 

Mr. LANARD. It is. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JIM LANARD, PRESIDENT, 

OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT COALITION 

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

Markey, Members of the Committee, thank you very much for having us here today. 

My name is Jim Lanard, President of the Offshore Wind Development Coalition. We represent 11 offshore wind developers that 

are developing projects in the Great Lakes, along the Atlantic 

Coast, and in the Gulf of Mexico, particularly off the coast of Texas. 

40 

Our mission is a very simple one. We push for legislative and regulatory policies that will promote the development and the faster 

moving development of offshore wind projects that will support 

thousands of high-skilled jobs and support billions of dollars of investment in manufacturing facilities along our coasts. 

Let me give you a quick history of the status of our industry. We 

are losing the intellectual and economic race for offshore wind to 

Europe and China. They are exporting their products throughout 

Europe and throughout the world and yet here in the United 

States we don’t have a market and we are exporting or developing 

none of those products whatsoever. It is time to catch up. 

The first step in that catch up is for this Congress to consider 

the investment tax credit. Chairman Hastings, we have spoken 

with you and your Committee about this before, but it is the highest priority for the Offshore Wind Development Coalition and our 

developers. 

Let us look at the state of the ocean. It is busy out there and 

it is getting busier. There are expanding and existing uses. You 

have heard them today, oil and gas production, shipping, commercial and recreational fishing, national security issues, Department 

of Defense territories. Let me say that we work very closely with 

the Department of Defense. We have a great working relationship 

with them, and we are going to continue to find areas of common 

ground with DOD. There are also other recreational uses. There 

are cultural resources that need protection as does wildlife and 

habitat protection. 

So, where does offshore wind fit into this plan? The Department 

of the Interior asked and answered this question for first mover 

projects. They adopted the ‘‘Smart From the Start Program’’, which 

is a process involving state task forces and stakeholders throughout 

the coastal areas of the United States. This Smart From the Start 

process identified the best areas for first mover offshore wind 

projects, and as a result of that they reduced the permitting 

timeline by over two years so that we can start putting our workers 

back on the job developing offshore wind and getting that investment here in the United States. 

And the Smart From the Start also gives us great ideas about 

where we should consider developing in the future. We are a new 

use in the ocean. We are not an existing use, but we need to be 

compatible with all the uses that are already out there, so we believe there needs to be better planning, better cooperation, and better management so that all of this can be coordinated and integrated in a reasonable and fair process for all users, and that is 

where we think the President’s National Ocean Policy comes in. 

The National Ocean Policy is very simple. It provides for better 

planning to protect and to use our ocean resources. It is basic, too. 

It calls for broad-based data collection, science-based management, 

and this leads, I believe, to certainty for our developers and for the 

manufacturers, and the certainty that our developers and manufacturers need. 

We all need to know that we have a process that is ecologically 

and socially significant, that we have to protect these areas. We 

have to know where not to develop, and we have to know where 

not to develop so we don’t waste our developers’ time, and so we 

41 

don’t waste the government’s time reviewing permit applications 

for sites that just don’t make sense. 

Ocean planning isn’t new as we have heard and it is bipartisan. 

In Massachusetts, as we have heard, the ocean management plan 

was adopted by a Democratic Governor. In Rhode Island, the special area management plan was adopted by a Republican Governor, 

and today in New Jersey, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has 

stated that he wants New Jersey be the first in offshore wind in 

the United States, and is relying on policies that they have adopted 

called the Ecological Baseline Study. So we have Democrats and 

Republicans supporting an initiative to move forward with offshore 

wind and with new uses for the ocean. 

Our bottom line is simple: We support economic and environmentally sustainable use of our oceans and the Great Lakes. We 

need to protect marine ecosystems and we think that is good for 

all users that have talked about this today, and we think that is 

what the National Ocean Policy is all about. Thank you very much 

for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lanard follows:] 

Statement of Jim Lanard, President, Offshore Wind Development Coalition 

Introduction 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

Good morning. 

My name is Jim Lanard, President of the Offshore Wind Development Coalition. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our testimony to you today on ‘‘The President’s New National Ocean Policy.’’ The Offshore Wind Development Coalition represents offshore wind developers, service providers to the industry including turbine 

manufacturers, cable manufacturers, submarine cable installers, other supply chain 

businesses, offshore submarine transmission providers, environmental consulting 

firms, and law firms. Our Board of Directors includes eight offshore wind developers 

and a representative from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 

The highest priority of the Offshore Wind Development Coalition is a long-term 

extension of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC). Due to the long period of time it takes 

to develop and permit an offshore wind farm, a long-term extension of the ITC is 

critical. Said another way, a failure to reauthorize and extend the ITC for offshore 

wind farms will make it very hard—if not impossible—to finance these projects. 

For additional background about the Offshore Wind Development Coalition, and 

our perspective on offshore wind issues in general, please refer to written testimony 

we submitted in advance of your Committee’s June 1, 2011 hearing on the ‘‘American Energy Initiative: Identifying Roadblocks to Wind and Solar Energy on Public 

Lands and Waters, Part II—The Wind and Solar Industry Perspective’’, at which we 

also presented oral testimony. 

The economic and job creation potential of a robust U.S. offshore wind 

industry 

The offshore wind industry has the potential to create thousands of jobs in the 

manufacture of wind farm components, and in the construction, installation and operation and maintenance of the wind farms. These are high-skilled jobs that could 

be supplied by the existing workforce in Atlantic Coast states. To realize the full 

job-creating potential of offshore wind development, however, it will be necessary to 

build offshore wind farms at scale, as is occurring today in Europe and China. Manufacturers will only be able to invest in new US-based facilities if they have the 

magnitude of orders necessary to justify the huge outlays associated with the building of complex wind turbines (composed of as many as 8,000 discrete parts), construction of special purpose-built vessels and manufacturing of highly-specialized 

submarine cables. Accordingly, we hope the Committee and the Congress will continue to consider initiatives to spur and expedite development of these facilities so 

that US workers can join the world’s ever-growing offshore wind workforce. 

Establishment of an offshore wind industry in the U.S., in addition to creating 

thousands of jobs, will result in billions of dollars of economic development, reduction in the need for costly and divisive new interstate transmission lines, and will 

42 

1 U.S. Department of Energy, 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply (July 2008) (available at http://www.20percentwind.org). 

help coastal States meet their renewable electricity standards. A 2008 study by the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), entitled ‘‘20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing 

Wind Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply’’, found that the U.S. could 

obtain 20 percent of its electricity from wind by 2030, and that 15 percent of that 

wind power could come from offshore projects with a total of 54 Gigawatts of generating capacity.1

Hosting utility-scale offshore wind farms: a new role for our oceans and 

Great Lakes 

The oceans, our coasts and the Great Lakes have supported a wide range of industrial, commercial, national defense, and cultural and recreational activities since the 

founding of our country. These uses are increasing. And increased use leads to increased competition. These growing competitive pressures are exemplified by calls 

for expanded oil and gas drilling along our coasts, by more and expanded shipping 

lanes that are being considered, by greater competition among commercial fishing 

operations, by the need for state-of-the-art national defense measures and by increased recreational uses in our oceans and the Great Lakes. And now, an additional use is about to be introduced into this mix—the use of our oceans and the 

Great Lakes for utility-scale offshore wind farms, which will have the potential to 

generate clean, renewable energy for hundreds of thousands of homes up and down 

our coasts. 

The footprints for utility-scale offshore wind farms may range from 25 square 

miles to 100 square miles. To maximize the output of a wind farm as the wind 

moves through the turbine array, larger turbines will likely require more separation 

between their foundations. Hence, wind farms with larger turbines—and perhaps 

with more of them—could utilize 100 square miles of the ocean. With larger separation between turbines—ranging from one-half mile to nearly a mile between turbines—many other ocean uses will be feasible at a wind farm site. We recognize, 

however, that an additional use of our already heavily used ocean resources will require better planning, better cooperation, and better management. For these reasons, the offshore wind industry believes that the President’s National Ocean Policy 

is essential to ensure that our oceans, coasts and Great Lakes remain economically 

and environmentally viable. 

DOI’s Smart from the Start 

Congress, when it enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005, mandated that regulations related to the use of the OCS for offshore wind be adopted within 180 days 

of the bill becoming law. Five years later, on April 29, 2009, those regulations were 

finally adopted by the Department of the Interior. Interior, in collaboration with the 

Governors of many East Coast states, announced in November 2010 the Smart from 

the Start initiative, a program that is intended to accelerate the responsible development of our offshore wind resources. 

Smart from the Start is a major step to ensure that all ocean uses are fully considered when developing policies for the new offshore wind industry. Specifically, 

Smart from the Start is intended to shorten the leasing and permitting timeline for 

offshore wind projects to be located in the most favorable locations off the Atlantic 

coast. Under prior rules and policies, leasing and permitting of an offshore wind 

project in federal waters—even at the least-sensitive, least-controversial sites—was 

estimated to require seven-to-nine years. By working closely with state officials to 

identify areas characterized by (1) strong development potential (favorable winds 

and proximity to demand centers), (2) abundant existing environmental data, and 

(3) low potential for conflict with existing uses, BOEMRE has moved to streamline 

early, leasing stage environmental review, and thereby shave years from the permitting timeline for some first-generation projects, while still requiring completion of 

thorough environmental reviews prior to a developer receiving approval to actually 

construct an offshore wind farm. 

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

by the Regional Planning Bodies anticipated in the National Ocean Policy. Smart 

from the Start takes into account existing information on wildlife and ecosystems 

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

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

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

Final Report at 63. In many ways, the development of offshore wind farms provides 

43 

2For more information see: the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan, (http:// 

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

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

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

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

Studies http://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/ocean-wind/. 

a fulcrum for putting CMSP into practice. Indeed, the Smart from the Start program can serve as a pilot program for larger CMSP efforts. 

There already are some important lessons learned from the Smart from the Start 

process. For example, even at sites selected as among the most favorable for early 

development, the need for additional data and a systematic framework for understanding and resolving potential conflicts has been apparent. At sites off the coasts 

of Delaware, Maryland, and Massachusetts, other agencies, existing users and resource advocates have identified uncertainties about the effect of wind farm development on existing resources or uses, prompting BOEMRE to reduce areas initially 

designated for Smart-from-the-Start leasing and permitting. 

The President’s National Ocean Policy 

During the development of the National Ocean Policy, many of our member 

groups commented both individually and collectively on how the policy could be tailored to ensure the responsible development of our nation’s significant ocean renewable energy resources like offshore wind. The development of offshore wind resources can play a vital role in the nation’s effort to restructure its electrical power 

sector in a manner that increases employment and manufacturing opportunities, improves national security, reduces price volatility, and combats climate change. In 

general, our members have been supportive of the Administration’s efforts to create 

a national oceans policy and implement coastal and marine spatial planning in U.S. 

waters and we continue to participate actively in the development of the policy. 

One critical goal of the National Ocean Policy is to create better planning to protect our oceans in the future, especially as demands on them continue to grow. Planning requires informed, broad-based data collection and data integration that right 

now is managed by a vast array of federal agencies. Better plans lead to road maps 

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

their business plans. Thus, these types of planning and data collection will help industry by providing us with more certainty about the rules of the road. Certainty 

leads to the avoidance of conflicts, improves efficiencies and minimizes competing 

uses. 

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

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

we see a comprehensive, science-based oceans management framework as an indispensable long-term complement to the Administration’s well-conceived Smart from 

the Start approach for offshore wind. 

Unlike some users of the oceans and Great Lakes, we don’t consider coastal and 

marine planning to be an ocean zoning exercise. Rather, we see it as a process to 

identify ecologically and socially significant areas that should be considered whenever any use is proposed for a specific area. While it is true that these plans could 

indicate preferences and priorities, proposed uses for any site will still have to be 

studied separately. We also think ocean planning is important to protect marine ecosystems while ensuring the orderly and sustainable development of ocean resources 

in a manner that respects and minimizes conflicts and existing uses including commercial fishing, recreational boating, surfing, aesthetic appreciation, wildlife, habitat, shipping, oil and gas and national defense activities. Regarding national defense, the offshore wind industry has an excellent working relationship with the Department of Defense; we’re working with DOD to avoid conflicting uses of the ocean 

and to identify opportunities to provide domestically-produced power to their military bases located along the Atlantic Coast. 

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

either. Massachusetts, led by Democratic Governor Deval Patrick, Rhode Island, led 

by Republican Governor Don Carcieri and New Jersey, led by Republican Governor 

Chris Christie are relying on their states’ ocean planning processes to identify the 

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

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

for the potential development of offshore wind farms.2 In each of these state’s processes there was extensive stakeholder involvement. The National Ocean Policy requires the Regional Planning Bodies to ensure similar extensive stakeholder participation, a critical component as ocean planning evolves in the U.S. 

44 

Ensuring a smooth transition to a National Ocean Policy 

OffshoreWindDC and our members believe there are a number of policies that 

should be considered as the National Ocean Policy evolves. We have suggested that 

the National Ocean Council adopt an appropriate transition protocol to deal with 

projects that are progressing through the permitting process and believe that guidance should be adopted that makes clear how CMSP will move forward without 

causing delay to pending plans and projects. We have stressed that there must not 

be a moratorium related to permitting of offshore wind farms as coastal and marine 

spatial plans are being developed; any such moratorium would make it impossible 

to finance these capital-intensive projects. 

We also support comprehensive government-supported environmental data collection, which will increase public confidence in the decision-making process related to 

the siting of offshore wind farms. To that end, we have encouraged the National 

Ocean Council to expand the Multi-Purpose Marine Cadastre (MMC) that is managed by NOAA and BOEMRE. By bringing many datasets together and representing 

them in a single web interface, the MMC is a powerful tool for agencies, developers, 

and other stakeholders to evaluate offshore wind siting decisions. 

Conclusion 

In summary, we support the National Ocean Policy and believe that it can help 

bring clarity to the management of our oceans and advance the growth of the offshore wind industry. A National Oceans Policy will result in the protection of marine ecosystems and will ensure the orderly and economically- and environmentallysustainable development of ocean resources, in a manner that respects and minimizes conflicts with existing users. We are eager to support our nation’s efforts to 

create more jobs for U.S. workers and think that thoughtful implementation of the 

National Ocean Policy will help achieve that goal. 

OffshoreWindDC believes that comprehensive, science-based management of 

ocean resources, conducted in accordance with the CEQ’s July 19, 2010 Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and Executive Order 

13547, ‘‘Stewardship Of The Ocean, Our Coasts, And The Great Lakes’’ (July 19, 

2010), will lead to a shorter, more predictable leasing and permitting process for offshore wind projects. In our view, a comprehensive, science-based approach to oceans 

management is a critical long-term complement to the Administration’s more immediate effort to speed offshore wind development at the most favorable, least controversial sites through its Smart from the Start initiative. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Lanard. 

We will now begin the round of questioning, and I will recognize 

myself. Mr. Coleman, in my opening statement I referenced or at 

least questioned the statutory authority that the President has in 

his action and several of the other witnesses also raised that question. You are an attorney. Your thoughts on that. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, this is such a broad reaching policy. We have all agreed there are many statutes that are engaged 

with ocean use and coastal use, but what we have here is we have 

a policy which has taken the discretion that each one of those laws 

gives to the implementer of that policy, it has taken that discretion 

away from—it is basically amending those statutes. 

There are huge legal problems with this policy. That is one of 

them. When you say to the Secretary of Commerce you no longer 

have the discretion in amending the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation Act, you have to exercise whatever discretion you have toward 

amending the National Ocean Policy, that, frankly, is not what 

Congress intended. The Congress intended that the Secretary of 

Commerce would have the discretion, the full discretion, not some 

limitation that the President decides to put on it. 

The same thing would be for the Secretary of the Interior in the 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Same thing for the Secretary 

of Homeland Security dealing with the Coast Guard and L&G terVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:24 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\70597.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
45 

minals. There are so many different statutes that I could list where 

this policy, just by the stroke of a pen has taken away a portion 

of the discretion that the Congress has given to those officials, all 

without any action or approval by Congress. 

So, there are huge problems with it. There are many other problems, frankly, legal problems. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Coleman, thank you for that. I am sure that 

we will have more discussions on that. 

Mr. Gilmore, I want to ask you a question. You have attended 

a number of briefings, I understand, on the CMSP. In those briefings do you have a clear understanding of how this is going to be 

implemented? 

Mr. GILMORE. No. I could expand on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, why don’t you just—— 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Just real briefly if you would. 

Mr. GILMORE. Yes. The assurances that we have received in the 

briefings don’t match up with the language in the Executive Order. 

The example of fishery management councils, we are told that this 

isn’t intended to impinge at all on the authority of Regional Fishery Management Councils, and yet the plain wording of the Executive Order and the task force final recommendations that are incorporated by whole into the Executive Order make very clear that if 

something is in a coastal marines spacial plan the Secretary of that 

agency is obligated to act to enforce that through developing a regulation or changing an existing regulation that is inconsistent. 

The CHAIRMAN. This is consistent then with what Mr. Coleman 

just said about the discretion then within the statutory agencies or 

laws that are already developed. 

Mr. GILMORE. I mean, the best case scenario we are creating two 

regulatory processes where we have the Regional Fishery Management Councils and then we have something entirely different going 

on over at the regional planning bodies established under this 

which just creates uncertainty and legal challenges, I suspect. I am 

not a lawyer but I know you can find one in this town. 

The CHAIRMAN. Neither am I. 

Mr. Guith, I want to ask you a question. The marine spacial 

planning initiative clearly intends on adding a new layer for any 

activity that may affect ocean ecosystem health no matter how far 

inland. If this were taken to the extreme or fully implemented, how 

would this affect job creation in this country? 

Mr. GUITH. I think it would affect job creation in this country the 

same way that dozens of other proposed or contemplated regulations over the last three years have done, and that is increase the 

level of regulatory certainty to the point where cumulatively we 

now have over $2 trillion of cash sitting on the sidelines instead 

of being invested from non-financial sector companies because they 

don’t have the certainty necessary to make a prudent decision of 

how to invest that money. 

And while I don’t necessarily assume that the Administration 

will try and regulate every acre of land, the problem with this policy is it provides no constraint, and therefore those regional planning authorities have that opportunity, and therefore you have to 

46 

assume that at least in some instances that might happen, therefore if you are a business you can’t move forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is one more layer of uncertainty. 

Mr. GUITH. A very significant layer of uncertainty at this point. 

The CHAIRMAN. My time has expired. I recognize the gentleman 

from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

The National Ocean Policy is based on existing laws, and I would 

like to submit, Mr. Chairman, for the record a document citing the 

legal authorities related to implementation of the National Ocean 

Policy. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very much. 

[The document offered by Mr. Markey follows:] 

[NOTE: The documents submitted for the record have 

been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. MARKEY. The Constitution vests the Senate with the responsibility of ratifying treaties, and I have been interested in reading 

in the written statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce here 

today that they actually support ratification of the international 

treaty known as the Law of the Sea although it is being blocked 

by Republicans in the Senate even while opposing the National 

Ocean Policy, so that means that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

actually supports international coordination on ocean issues, but 

not national coordination, so that is just something I thought I 

would throw out there. 

Mr. Bullard, Mr. Lanard, you have heard my Republican colleagues argue that marine spacial planning would cause additional 

delays to offshore development. In your experiences, hasn’t the lack 

of coordination actually been that which is responsible for the lack 

of development offshore. Mr. Lanard, then you Mr. Bullard. 

Mr. LANARD. Thank you, Mr. Markey. 

We are at a loss right now. The Energy Policy Act was passed 

in 2005. The Congress mandated that the Department of the Interior adopt within 180 days rules regulating the use of the offshore 

space, the Outer Continental Shelf for offshore wind. It took five 

years, and it occurred very early in this Administration’s tenure, 

and started giving us a roadmap to go forward. 

The next step was the Secretary of the Interior’s adoption of 

Smart From the Start, which I mentioned in my testimony, and 

through work that the developers had been advocating for many 

years we were able to cut off at least two years in the permitting 

process, but we still need a roadmap for when this industry becomes more robust, when we have many different offshore wind 

farms working with billions of dollars of investment and thousands 

of workers. Right now there is no roadmap. Those jobs won’t be created. 

Mr. MARKEY. And Mr. Bullard, could you deal with the issue of 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island while they were developing their 

ocean plans in actually under two years? Were you aware while 

they were being developed of any activities that were halted or prevented from moving forward until the plan was completed? 

Mr. BULLARD. No, the planning process didn’t halt any existing 

activities. If I could respond to the earlier question about delays, 

47 

I think the best example I can see of the need for this is that ten 

years ago Jim Gordon proposed a substantial renewable energy 

field of wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, and whether you are a 

champion of free market or whether you want renewable energy to 

deal with the issue of CO2 emissions, ten years later there is only 

a met tower. 

Now, certainly we can do better than this. This is death of a 

thousand cuts. This is what the policy tries to get at with regulatory certainty. I think what Massachusetts and Rhode Island are 

doing to try and lay out in advance here are our areas where renewable energy works and where it would not conflict with mobile 

gear would make it a lot quicker to achieve an important goal like 

that, but that is not the only goal. 

Mr. MARKEY. And again let us zero in on that a little bit because 

in the United States there has been permitted less than 500 

megawatts of wind offshore, and the construction right now is exactly zero on those 500 megawatts. Meanwhile our counterparts in 

Europe and China have permitted more than 40,000 megawatts 

and they have 6,000 megawatts already operating or under construction right now. The Governors of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Jersey are using ocean planning now to identify the 

best sites for offshore wind, and we know Governor Christie doesn’t 

make decisions about the future lightly. 

So the Department of the Interior now has a process for Federal 

waters called Smart From the Start that incorporates principles of 

coastal and marine spacial planning in bringing stakeholders together. Isn’t that the type of planning which we need nationwide 

if we want to telescope the timeframe that it takes for us to have 

that offshore wind, Mr. Lanard and Mr. Bullard? 

Mr. LANARD. Mr. Markey, first, you know, one thing that we 

haven’t said here today is that there is ocean zoning already in 

place. There is ocean zoning for shipping. There is ocean zoning for 

marine protected areas. The Department of Defense has zoned 

areas. The fisheries, the commercial fisheries areas have zoned 

areas, so we already have that, and what we need now is a regulatory framework that provides certainty, that shows us a roadmap 

to move forward in a way where we can put our workers to work 

and catch up to Europe and China. 

China, by the way, started a few years ago. Mayor Bullard talked 

about the fact that Cape Wind started 10 years ago. They don’t 

have any steel in the water for turbines. China started three or 

four years ago and has hundreds of turbines either in construction 

or in the water. There is a way to catch up and there is a way to 

put these multi-billion dollar projects on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf so that we can create the economy that we want. 

The CHAIRMAN. Time of the gentleman has expired. 

Before I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Fleming, 

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the State of Alaska, 

and Governor Sean Parnell, letter from Taylor Shellfish, a June 29, 

2000, letter to the Chair of the National Ocean Council from the 

eight Regional Fishery Management Councils, and a letter from 

Richard Robins, Jr., Chair of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council be part of the record, and without objection so ordered. 

48 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent and 

enter into the record numerous letters in support of the National 

Ocean Policy by 154 organizations from over 30 states and other 

comments as well at this point? 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection as long as you don’t say all 

154. Without objection, so ordered. 

[NOTE: The documents submitted for the record have 

been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Fleming. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just some general comments before I get to questions that I find of interest today. The 

gentleman from Massachusetts talks about this being a mere plan. 

It sounds very benign, but obviously if you are going to create a 

hyper regulatory atmosphere, which I think this will do, it all begins with a plan, and that worries me very much. 

The other thing that bothers me. Congressman Farr made the 

comment that this should be kind of a grass roots from the ground 

up sort of process, and yet he willingly admits that this Committee 

and Congress in general has been unwilling to go along with this, 

and therefore that the President should somehow bypass the whole 

process and by fiat create what he has done, and that is an Executive Order. 

What has that done for us so far? The Executive Orders that 

have come down from President Obama have included, in effect, 

the Dream Act, which again Congress would not pass, and 

endangerment finding for the EPA, which was really just cap and 

trade by another name, and then the refusal to defend DOMA, the 

Defense of Marriage Act, which puts the President—substitutes his 

wisdom for that of the Supreme Court. 

So, it seems to me that what we are seeing here is an unprecedented power grab to make decisions from a bureaucratic standpoint from the Oval Office that affects so many people. So, if indeed 

this is a grass roots from the ground up and we should all have 

input, I think it should go through regular order, and that is not 

what we are seeing here today. 

A comment about losing market, that somehow that seems to be 

a great fear on the left. But when it comes to wind, sir, that we 

are losing all this market. Well, a market is a market. If there is 

a market there and we are competitive, it will happen, but to continue to prop these kind of alternative green energy forms through 

tax credits is absolutely ridiculous. We see now the scandal we 

know with Solyndra today where this was attempted and, of 

course, a lot of taxpayer money being wasted. 

So, I get to my question. As a Representative of the State of Louisiana, I recognize the importance of healthy coastal communities. 

We are affected more by that than any state. I am, however, skeptical as to whether the Administration’s national ocean policy takes 

into account the significance as it relates to the people who reside 

near these communities. The Administration has even noted that 

the National Ocean Policy may create a level of uncertainty and 

anxiety among those who rely on these resources, and may generate questions about how they align with existing processes, authorities, and budget challenges. 

49 

My question to both Mr. Gilmore and Mr. Guith, am I saying— 

Guith. I am sorry. What has the Obama Administration done to ensure the livelihood of those in coastal communities that is not disrupted by the National Oceans Policy? 

Mr. GILMORE. Thank you, Congressman. 

You know, the one thing that jumps out at us the State of Washington has a statute for coastal and marine spacial planning, and 

in their statute they point out that any element of a marine spacial 

plan that touches on commercial or recreational fishing must minimize the negative impacts on fishing and must provide substantial 

deference to the state fish and wildlife director in his opinion of 

how to mitigate any of these negative impacts. 

There is nothing like that in the National Ocean Policy. There 

is nothing like that. So, I think we are learning from these state 

plans a good bottom-up way to do it, the way Congressman Farr 

speaks to, but we don’t see that in the National Ocean Policy, and 

we have received no assurances other than don’t worry, be happy. 

Mr. GUITH. The only thing that I would add is that if I were a 

Governor of any state, whether it be the middle of Colorado or 

whether it be Alaska or Louisiana, I would be very concerned. In 

fact, I would be even more concerned if I were a Governor Brown 

or Governor Patrick from a state that has actually taken steps to 

pass legislation to cover our coastal areas because these regional 

planning authorities can circumvent that and completely take that 

authority away from them. 

As you mentioned, they went through their regular order and in 

this case there has been none whatsoever. I think it is important 

to remind people, this is an oversight hearing. This is not a legislative hearing. You are not considering legislation. You are considering a unilateral action the Administration has taken, one that 

was not promulgated as a proposed regulation because there is not 

a specific statute in order to which to propose it under, so it was 

unilateral, and if I were a Governor I would be very concerned. 

Dr. FLEMING. Yes, I would just submit in closing, Mr. Chairman, 

that this is clearly a bait and switch process going on. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman and the Chair recognizes 

the gentlelady from Guam, five minutes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to 

thank our witnesses for their testimony today, and I would like to 

state my strong support for the National Ocean Policy. 

The demands in our oceans’ resources are always increasing, and 

it is time we establish a national framework to coordinate efforts 

and balance these demands to ensure our oceans remain healthy 

and productive for future generations. 

Mr. Bullard, my home district of Guam relies heavily on the 

ocean for our culture, our fisheries, and our tourism economy. The 

island is currently undergoing a military build up which will increase the demands on our local waters, so it is important to me 

and my constituents that a plan be in place to adequately balance 

these demands. I believe that the regional coastal and marine 

spacial planning as envisioned in the National Ocean Policy will be 

critical. 

50 

Drawing on your experience developing the Massachusetts ocean 

plan, could you describe for the Committee how coastal and marine 

spacial planning could be a benefit to areas like Guam or other 

state and local jurisdictions? 

Mr. BULLARD. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

One of the greatest benefits of participating in the process in 

Massachusetts was just the accumulation of relevant data, whether 

it is where people fish or shipping channels, and starting to map 

all of that data so that every user of the ocean could start to see 

a richer picture of the ocean, so it was educational to begin with, 

and that was terrific. 

I think the Governor, I can’t speak for Governor Patrick in Massachusetts, but we certainly were aware that we bumped up to the 

three mile limit and were very anxious as most natural systems 

don’t recognize that limit, that that process continue out into the 

200 mile limit. So, one was just the information and mapping it so 

that all stakeholders could see it. 

The other was the conversations that started to take place 

among different user groups in the planning process that perhaps 

should have occurred before but hadn’t. That was helpful so that 

different people understood the needs of different constituencies, 

and I think that was epitomized for me in a hearing about lease 

tracts in Federal waters for offshore wind that was held in New 

Bedford where Federal agencies came and said, well, we have 

looked at all these things and this is where we think you could put 

wind, and the fishermen in New Bedford had not been consulted 

and they went crazy, and they said, who knows more about this 

than we do. So there started an intense communication between 

the Federal agencies, not in charge of fishery management, but 

who were planning where to locate wind, and an interest group 

that had the historical knowledge and right to those spaces. That 

resulted in a much better placement of where wind should occur. 

So, I think the ability to have the conversations between user 

groups was a tremendous benefit of the Massachusetts experience, 

and I would say that one of the things, and I am all for bottom up 

and lots of stakeholders being involved in it, but one of the problems is the death by a thousand cuts, all of the different agencies 

that can impede any project, and so having every Federal agency 

that has an ore in the water at the table saying you need to work 

together is going to make it a lot simpler for anyone trying to do 

anything. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. 

Now, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 

portrayed the regional planning bodies as having no representation 

or any input by the people in the communities that will be impacted by the National Ocean Policy. Is this true or will local 

stakeholders be engaged in the regional planning and decisionmaking process? 

I would also like to put in one more thing, Mr. Chairman. About 

the offshore wind development, and ask you, what have you done? 

Have you looked into the Pacific Islands such as Hawaii, American 

Samoa, or Guam? 

Mr. BULLARD. Is that for—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes, we only have a few minutes left. 

51 

Mr. BULLARD. I think the biggest challenge for us at the beginning was getting people at all interested in the marine environment. As Congressman Farr said, there are no voters out there, 

and when you talk about ocean planning you will immediately get 

eyes glazing over. And so it is great to see the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Homebuilders interested in 

the marine environment. I never knew that existed before. So if 

this process can start to get that kind of engagement, I think it is 

terrific. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record the Governors’ comments on the preliminary report of the U.S. Commission 

on Ocean Policy from 2004, which includes letters from 14 Republican Governors in the support of the National Ocean Council and 

the Regional Ocean Councils. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

[NOTE: The documents submitted for the record have 

been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Coleman, just to follow up on that line of questioning. How 

many seats on the National Ocean Council are there for enterprise, 

for commerce, or for simple citizens whose land is at stake? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Every person on the National Ocean Council is an 

appointee of the President. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So the assurance we just heard that don’t 

worry, the stakeholders will be fully involved in this process is simply a ‘‘smarmy’’ facade. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Even at the regional basis there will be no individuals on the councils. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The analysis reads as follows. ‘‘The zoning 

plans will reach as far inland as necessary to protect ocean ecosystem health and protect ocean bio diversity. All Federal agencies 

will be required to follow the zoning plan when making decisions 

on granting permits or when authorizing activities under their jurisdiction.’’ 

Is that accurate? 

Mr. COLEMAN. It is absolutely accurate. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, now, virtually the entire land mass of 

the United States drains into an ocean ultimately in one form or 

another. Does this mean that this National Ocean Council can assert land use planning authority over virtually the entire land 

mass of the United States? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, Congressman, it does mean that. The opportunity to do this is based on this inclusion of this whole 78-page 

final recommendations. The President incorporated that into the 

Executive Order. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So this is basically the death of local land use 

planning. It is the death of state jurisdiction over state waters. It 

is the assertion of Federal authority over virtually the entire land 

mass of the United States on the sophistry that the ocean ultimately is affected by drainage from every water source in the 

United States. 

52 

Mr. COLEMAN. That is true, Congressman. To a great degree one 

of the main statutes that they are basing this authority on is the 

Coastal Zone Management Act, and I must say I have been disappointed over the years that the people in charge of that implementation that NOAA have said things like permitting something 

in Iowa is subject to the Coastal Zone Management Act because it 

will have impact down in Louisiana, or that they could choose the 

color of buildings on a naval base because of aesthetic reasons. 

There is really no limit to how far that they can take these acts 

if they wish. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Is there anything left to the concept of state 

waters under this Act? 

Mr. COLEMAN. All Federal agencies will have to follow this policy 

if they are permitting things in state waters or Federal waters. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. According to the analysis states may opt out 

of serving on the regional planning boards. However, the regional 

planning board will continue with the zoning plan regardless of 

state participation. This is true even if all states in the region decline to participate. Is that accurate? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Absolutely accurate. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Any state which agrees to participate in the 

planning process will then be required to make sure all state permit activities meet the guidelines and goals of the zoning plan. 

Mr. COLEMAN. That is accurate. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So there really is nothing left of state jurisdiction over state waters or local land use authority over local communities. 

Mr. COLEMAN. We have great concerns about it and that is why 

we have stated numerous times in submittals to the Administration and in written testimony here that this infringes on state sovereignty. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What are our options as a Congress? This is 

obviously a user patient of legislative authority under Article 1 of 

the Constitution, but it is an Executive Order. Does that mean it 

can be rescinded by Executive Order? 

Mr. COLEMAN. A President may rescind this. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Obviously it will require a different President 

to do so since this President has set this process in motion. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Apparently. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What can Congress do? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Congress can do many things. One of the simpler 

things would be to prohibit spending of funds on a temporary basis. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We tried that and the Administration just 

thumbed its nose at us on other matters. 

Mr. COLEMAN. I understand, Congressman, and I want to reiterate the National Ocean Policy Coalition is not against a policy 

which would help coordination and make the economy grow. We 

are just so much against adding this huge new burden overlay 

across the whole country. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Rutenberg, you warned of unintended consequences of this Act. What makes you think they are unintended? 

There is a body of thought on the lunatic fringe of the environmental left that government’s role is to force people into dense 

urban cores, and restore the vast land mass of the United States 

53 

to its pristine prehistoric condition. The problem with that, of 

course, is that most people don’t want to be forced into dense urban 

cores. They want a yard in which their children can play. They 

want a little elbow room. But this does seem to fit in with this radical agenda of urban centralization. 

Mr. RUTENBERG. Congressman, I had actually turned to the 

points that you were reading from because if I was asked I was 

going to comment, and I think what concerns me most is that the 

general public do not understand where this is going to go, and 

what is going to happen, and the potential for—I have had 30 plus 

years in land development and land conservation. I have been on 

both sides of it. And this just really scares me of where we could 

be going with it and what we might wind up with. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Hanabusa. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Lanard, I would like to follow up with what the Congresswoman from Guam was speaking about and that, of course, is the 

offshore wind development, and you are, of course, in Massachusetts, and I believe she was asking about what about areas, for example, like Guam. In Hawaii, we have wind, of course, but we are 

on land, and we haven’t ventured yet out offshore. 

Can you tell us how, for example, the NOP would be assisting 

a company such as yours because you do say it is a great development of jobs that you are engaged in, and whether you see this 

type of activity moving to areas in the Pacific? 

Mr. LANARD. The roadmap that the industry needs doesn’t exist 

yet, and because of all the different competing uses in the ocean 

we think it is essential that there be coordination among all of 

those users. I have listed them before. I think it is very important 

to have this coordination so that we can all find the best places and 

preferred places to site our resources. 

The way that I have read the National Ocean Policy and the way 

that I read coastal and marine spacial planning there is no definition that I have never found that talks about ocean zoning. It talks 

about science-based management and data collection so that we 

can understand where the best uses are, and when there are conflicting or competing uses then we need to find a resolution that 

works for all the parties. 

As far as Hawaii is concerned, one of the sister companies of one 

of our members, First Wind, is a developer in Hawaii on land and 

working actually to bring a submarine cable, I believe, between two 

of your islands to make sure that you can have clean renewable energy. You have some of the most expensive electricity prices in the 

United States. 

So, as far as offshore wind is concerned, I believe that the demand would not be great enough for the investment in infrastructure that would be necessary. We really are looking for areas where 

we have huge load centers, where we build facilities that are serving several hundred thousand homes with offshore wind and balancing that with not intermittent wind energy sources as well. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Have you looked at, for example, with the buildup in Guam whether or not you would be able to accommodate 

54 

Guam’s growing need if, for example, it builds up to the capacity 

that they are looking at? 

Mr. LANARD. I would have to understand more what the load and 

demand is before I could answer that, and to the Congresswoman 

from Guam I would be happy to work with your office to give you 

some good data from people who understand that. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you. Mr. Lanard, one last thing. You talk 

about the fact that there is no zoning per se of the ocean. We have 

heard about the Magnuson-Stevens Act which is something that I 

am very concerned about because of the—as you can imagine, fishing is a very critical part of Hawaii, not only as the Congresswoman from Guam said we have cultural ties, but in addition to 

that it is a source of our food. As a matter of fact I was home and 

was told, and I also would address this to Mr. Gilmore, is that Hawaii will use its quota up by October, and we are hosting APEC 

this November, and our wholesalers have been contacted by China 

saying don’t worry, you can buy your fish from us, and I find that 

to be rather more than disturbing that, you know, we have a great 

fishing industry but because of the quotas imposed upon it we are 

not going to be able to sell our own fish to APEC when they come 

to Hawaii. We are going to have to buy it from China. 

So, do you see, for example, a conflict in that area with the NOP? 

Mr. LANARD. I actually think the opposite occurs. Mayor Bullard 

talked about a meeting in New Bedford. I was also asked to come 

to New Bedford and work and talk with the commercial fishermen 

there about how to find compatible uses, and we learned a lot in 

a great several hour conversation. 

When I started in this industry I was a developer of offshore 

wind farms to different companies, and we started talking about 

three megawatt turbines. We are now looking at five, six, and 

seven megawatt turbines which require greater separation between 

them, so we can imagine wind farms with separation of over a mile 

apart between the turbines which gives great access to commercial 

fishing operations. 

There are some issues that we are still looking at and working 

with commercial fishing industries on this but we are very comfortable that not only do we create greater habitat with these new 

foundations that don’t exist in the ocean for fishing, mostly for recreational fishing, but for commercial fishing we have learned that 

their turning radius, their dredges, all of the different types of 

equipment that they use would be compatible with in a wind farm 

the way we are configuring them, and in fact we are going to be 

so wide apart that you could have competing commercial fishermen 

passing each other within one array of turbines and still have plenty of safety other than maybe in really major storms, which I hope 

they wouldn’t be out there anyway, but they do that kind of fishing 

I would rather than go every other array in a case like that. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. [Presiding.] Thank you. The gentlelady’s time 

has expired. The Chair recognizes Mr. Runyan for five minutes. 

Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of you 

for your testimony. 

It is ironic that I think we have had a hearing very similar to 

this in the past, and it was the Administration’s wildlands policy, 

55 

which I think, you know, we keep going through these same scenarios, and quite frankly, I think the Administration has stepped 

up and rescinded that policy because much of the same fears we 

are talking about here today. 

Representing coastal New Jersey, obviously have a lot of commercial and recreational fishermen there, and whether we are dealing with uncertainty of catch shares, now we are thrown into another realm of uncertainty here, and I just wanted to ask Mr. 

Gorelnik. 

I think you kind of alluded to in your testimony that you have 

dealt with this in California, one of those pitfalls that our fishermen, coastal fishermen, you know, they would want to voice this 

but obviously as we have testified over here that they might not 

be able to hear their voice because of the way these things would 

be set up. What are some of those obstacles that you faced in California? 

Mr. GORELNIK. Thank you, Congressman. 

The fundamental problems we found are really twofold. One, the 

process essentially was rigged from the beginning. The private 

funding that allowed the process to go forward had changed the 

rules along the way, and there really was not sufficient objectivity 

amongst the decisionmakers in the process. 

Second, the science behind the process was not—well, as a person with a bachelor’s and master’s degree in physics I was very disappointed by the science that I saw going forward. It seemed that 

in the absence of any data the precautionary principle was invoked 

as a way to drive the process in a predetermined direction, and 

when contrary data in abundance was provided against that predetermined direction it was merely ignored. 

So, I think that planning is not inherently a bad thing, but if 

planning is going to go forward on the nation’s oceans, which that 

could be a good thing if it is done the right way, but I think we 

have to have an open process, one that is open-minded and does 

have the involvement of all of the stakeholders, and that would include recreational and commercial fishing. 

Mr. RUNYAN. And I agree on that. I just wanted to bring that 

point out because as we—you know, whether we are dealing with 

Magnuson or we are dealing with this, and I think Mr. Bullard 

said, you know, best science available. Well, a lot of the best 

science we have available right now is killing our fishing industry 

because it is not the most accurate science because some of it is 10, 

15, 20 years old, and we have NOAA creating regulation around 

that, and quite frankly, driving our fishermen right out of the industry, so that is really something, not only the structure of it, but 

to have the science to do it, and I don’t even know if within my 

time here in Congress there will ever be even close enough to have 

something like that, so I caution everybody on moving forward with 

that, and with that I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for your 

testimony. I wanted to pick up on a couple of things that have been 

said. 

56 

One, well, you are there from California, I can’t see your name, 

sorry. Mr. Gorelnik, sorry about that. You did say just now that 

planning can be a good thing if it is done right, and I agree with 

you, and you are bringing in a particular case study. I don’t know 

enough about it to argue back the point from the other side, but 

I think implicitly you are making the case for the fact that if we 

use data correctly, if we do get our hands on the best science, if 

we make sure that we listen carefully to all the evidence and 

science that is brought forward, that that can result in a very effective planning and decisionmaking resource, and I don’t think the 

National Ocean Policy is aspiring to do anything other than that. 

You are offering some good cautions as we move forward. You 

have to make sure that you have these principles in place so that 

the process is as good as it can be. 

Congressman, I think it was McClintock, made what I thought 

was a breathtaking statement. He said that the National Ocean 

Policy would result in the death of all land use planning in the 

country, something to that effect, and I can’t imagine that anyone 

sitting here would agree that that is going to be the result of this 

process, but feel free to interrupt me as I continue on with the 

questioning if you do feel passionately about it. 

Mr. GUITH. Death may be an overstatement but I think it is very 

clear that any regional, local, or state planning is very much in 

jeopardy of Federal preemption by these regional planning authorities, clearly. 

Mr. SARBANES. OK. Well, let me ask—go ahead. 

Mr. RUTENBERG. I was going to say that based upon experience 

with other agencies interacting on local and regional and state 

matters, I have seen a precedent for it, and I am fearful of it. 

Whether it would happen in this case is not certain, but we have 

certainly got precedent. We have the potential. 

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Bullard, what is your position and what office 

do you hold or have you held? 

Mr. BULLARD. I was mayor of the City of New Bedford. 

Mr. SARBANES. OK, so you would be very sensitive to the impact 

or on the ability to make local decisions and so forth of the kinds 

of policies that are being discussed here. Do you want to respond 

to this scenario that somehow the ability of local officials and state 

officials and others to make good decisions about zoning and planning would be completely up-ended by something like the National 

Ocean Policy? 

Mr. BULLARD. When I read the National Ocean Policy I was not 

fearful that it would usurp local zoning. Now, I think there are all 

kinds of connections between land and water. It is one of the wonderful things that exist, but I think that is an overstatement. 

Mr. SARBANES. OK. 

Mr. BULLARD. And I am not mayor anymore, but I think zoning 

is very important, and zoning being decided at the local level is 

very important, and I don’t think it is at all threatened by this policy. 

Mr. SARBANES. Well, I think it is an overstatement, too. When 

we had this hurricane recently I was coming down from Montreal 

to Maryland, and I was trying to figure out the best path to take 

to avoid the storm, the full impact of the storm. The problem was 

57 

that I only had state maps in my car so every time I was getting 

ready to cross the border or trying to anticipate what my route 

should be I found that I didn’t have the right kind of information 

in my fingertips to do that, which made for a very bumpy ride because the passengers weren’t happy with me. 

My point is this: Just the informational dimension with the National Ocean Policy is trying to achieve it seems to me is a very 

noble goal here, and that is to provide us with a more comprehensive map so that we can make all kinds of decisions in a more intelligent fashion. 

Again, I haven’t heard from this side of the table real resistance 

to the information dimension of this, the data collection dimension 

of this, and, you know, Maryland is benefitting, the Chesapeake 

Bay is benefitting from efforts right now in that regard working 

with NOAA. I understand when it gets to, OK, then how do you 

use it there is some anxiety here about the decisionmaking implementation of the information that you have, but again, I think that 

the benefits of this far outweigh the anxieties that have been presented, particularly if the agencies which will be collaborating more 

as a result of this process are sensitive to the concerns that are 

being expressed here, and I think that they will be. With that I 

yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Southerland. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

all the witnesses here today. 

I wanted to allude to some of the comments earlier. You know, 

the Ranking Member spoke about a plan. He also made a statement that, you know, I am sure we disagree on both sides of the 

aisle that all Republicans are against plans. That was a pretty 

broad statement. I know my family we put together business plans 

and have for many, many generations. But he also makes an assumption that all plans are good, and I think that is also extremely 

dangerous. 

You know, he stated that our side’s view would be like having 

no air traffic control. That is ludicrous. However, I think his view, 

quite honestly, would be like having an air traffic control help coordinate an air invasion on our own freedoms. That would be ludicrous, and I think that is what we see here in these efforts. 

We talk about stakeholders, we talk about advisory councils and 

planning bodies, and authorities, and management councils, and I 

believe oftentimes we do see window dressing. You know, this call 

to participation. You know, we don’t need as a people—we do not 

need the government to remind us that we can talk to each other. 

I mean, have we been so dumbed down that we need ‘‘Oz’’ to tell 

us that we can communicate? How pathetic that we have been just 

so denigrated as a thinking people that we need a government and 

a bureaucracy to remind us how important communication is to 

make a better and brighter future. 

We have seen so often times where these planning boards and 

all these stakeholders are brought together just to window dress 

and to make it look like we are all working together. Well, I can 

tell you there are abuses of councils and planning bodies all over 

the country, only to push through an agenda that harms us. 

58 

I will say that asking all these bodies to participate reminds me 

it would be similar to the Greeks asking the people of Troy to help 

plan the design and construction of a Trojan Horse. 

Thank you for allowing me to have some say, to literally plan the 

dismantling of my freedoms. Thank you for allowing me to have 

some say in that regard. I am not so dumbed down, I have never 

served in an elected office before in my life. January the 5th I left 

my family business to come here, and I am telling you I don’t need 

the government to help me anymore. They are helping our family 

business—it is 60 years old—to struggle like we have never struggled before, and our story is no different than small businesses all 

over this country. Please stop helping me. 

I want to ask, many of you have traveled many distances. Mr. 

Rutenberg, thank you for being here. I know you are not from my 

district but you are from Florida. You represent homebuilders. Obviously, the real estate crisis in Florida is deeply affecting our economy in Florida, an economy that right now is suffering through historic unemployment numbers. Let me ask you this. 

Why would this Administration feel the need to implement upon 

your industry more regulations? Your opinion. 

Mr. RUTENBERG. Our industry is being blasted at the moment by 

regulations from all fronts. We have lots of regulations that are 

coming our way. This is just one instance of it, and I suspect it is 

a way of implementing a belief that has not gone through the congressional process, and that has been one of the discussions today. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you. And last, you know, and I have 

some issues that have been raised, we talk about economic analysis 

and economic impacts, and oftentimes in Washington we do little 

to do a constitutional analysis, do we have the authority to do this, 

but let us just say to be assume that we have the constitutional 

authority, and let us also, you know, pretend that the Administration cares about this body’s opinion and our commitment to that 

Constitution. 

I would ask Mr. Bullard, how do we pay for this? 

Mr. BULLARD. I think the question is we are paying for it now. 

The example that I used before of someone 10 years ago proposing 

renewable energy, and in 10 years nothing happens. I mean, there 

is a cost to that. There is an opportunity cost. There is a jobs cost. 

The number of regulations—regulatory bodies that developers had 

to go through to get nothing in the ground. I mean, there is a cost. 

Whether you agree with that type of development or not, that is 

a private developer trying to do something and being absolutely 

suffocated, and I think if we had a way of saying what are our 

goals with the ocean environment that solicited all stakeholders’ 

opinions and said here is where we want to put wind turbines, you 

would have them built right after they were proposed. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Holt, is 

recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As someone who also represents an ocean-bounded state, I am 

very interested in this discussion, and it is particularly noteworthy 

59 

that we have At-sea Processors and the Chamber of Commerce and 

Homebuilders, and I am pleased to say a physicist—I am speaking 

as a physicist here—involved in this to make the point that there 

are many competing interests, and the function of government can 

be described as finding beneficial, optimal, balancing of competing 

interests, and when you have this many different interests, not to 

mention a lot of different agencies involved in the balancing of 

those interests, it seems obvious that we would want coordination. 

My colleague, Mr. Sarbanes, had, I thought, a fairly apt description of saying if you have small-scale maps with a large-scale problem you are limited, and it is not just that your passengers might 

get angry with you, peoples’ quality of life, whether you are talking 

about their economic vitality, their environment or their food supply, are put in jeopardy, so I think we should welcome this, and 

look for ways to make this coordination work well, and there is so 

my railing against regulations. I believe it is true. I have looked 

to the Chairman. There is nothing in this policy that actually specifies new regulations. I see the Ranking Member nodding her head. 

We can talk about the wisdom of individual regulations, but that 

is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about coordination. 

In the limited time I have, I would like to focus on wind so let 

me direct my question or questions to Mr. Lanard because this is 

an area where in New Jersey Republicans and Democrats, Governor Christie, and the congressional delegation should be working 

together and could work together. There is an enormous resource 

out there that I believe can be harvested in a way that is economically advantageous and very beneficial environmentally. 

Could you comment on whether the Smart From the Start kind 

of cluster of recommendations and regulations is working? Is that 

what we need? Do we need more or less of that approach? And in 

the minute and a half that you have are there any specific regulations that you would like to talk about which will be the subject 

for another hearing another time? 

Mr. LANARD. Thank you, Congressman. 

First, the Smart From the Start has worked very well for first 

mover projects; that is, to start getting these facilities developed in 

the ocean, it is working very, very well. The Department of the Interior acknowledged that it was the first step, and it is a very, very 

important first step. 

As far as specific regulations are concerned, we need coordination 

among all the different regulatory bodies, Department of Commerce, the Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, the Department of 

the Interior, Department of Defense, so at the secretariat level in 

the Department of the Interior there is a group that gets together, 

deputy secretaries from all the different agencies starting to work 

together. Our biggest concern is that they get enough resources to 

get the job done. 

I do want to just mention about local zoning and what we have 

heard from others on the panel is the death of local zoning. We 

have to bring our submarine cable from offshore onto land. We 

cross territorial waters at three miles and then we have to interconnect on the property someplace into the electric grid. There are 

many different state and local zoning ordinances that we will have 

60 

to follow, and I can assure you the National Ocean Policy will not 

overrule one of them. Some of our developers might like that, but 

it will never happen. They will be subject to many different state 

and local zoning and regulatory ordinances. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South 

Carolina, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

and gentlemen, thank you for sitting here so long. I appreciate 

your patience. 

I remember back in 2009 when the Ocean Policy Task Force first 

started its work. I as Chairman of the House Agricultural and Natural Resource and Environmental Affairs Committee in my State 

of South Carolina’s General Assembly, because I was contacted by 

sport fishing groups, I was contacted by commercial fishermen, 

equipment manufacturers, former chairman of the Congressional 

Sportsmen Caucus there in the state legislature, so I have been following this for quite awhile, and I see that as a result of this Executive Order the Federal agencies are required to determine whether the activity has a potential to harm ocean ecosystems, help no 

matter where the activity occurs. 

And so as I read that requirement and I start looking at the 

makeup of the 27-member National Ocean Council, you have the 

Secretaries of State, Defense, Interior, Agriculture, Health and 

Human Services, Commerce, Labor, Transportation, Energy, Homeland Security, the Attorney General, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the Chairs of the Council on Environmental Quality, and the list goes on and on, OMB, NOAA. In 

addition, the five-member steering committee. It is just amazing to 

me that we are going to create something with this many layers. 

Where I come from we would say that is too much government 

because of all the people that have input into setting policies for 

the nation’s oceans that affect our ability to go out and maybe sport 

fish or our ability for commercial fishermen in South Carolina and 

all along the East Coast to practice their trade. 

We had a hearing earlier on this year where some commercial 

fishermen came and they shared the data that is being used to 

close bottom fishing, and how skewed it was and how flawed the 

science was. And I remember a gentleman from Florida talking 

about policies being set forth by folks in lab coats who aren’t going 

out in the ocean and really understanding the true fishery, and so 

I am concerned that we have gotten to this level via an Executive 

Order and creating this what I would say is too much government. 

The question I have is for the gentleman from the American 

sports fishing association, Mr. Gorelnik. Is that pronounced correctly? 

Mr. GORELNIK. Gorelnik and I am from the Coastside Fishing 

Club. 

Mr. DUNCAN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. OK. Well, thank you. You 

were on the Governmental Affairs Committee with the sports 

fish—— 

Mr. GORELNIK. I am here in another capacity. 

61 

Mr. DUNCAN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. I understand that as well, but 

I wonder if you can add any input as to where our American tackle 

manufacturers stand on this particular oceans act. 

Mr. GORELNIK. Well, I think that naturally the economy is affecting that business like it is all other businesses, but the issues specifically in California, which have thrown a lot of fishermen off the 

water, has decreased tackle sales. We have seen tackle stores close. 

We have seen landings close as a result of the regulations adopted 

in California. Of course, that filters right back up to the tackle 

manufactures. So I would say our lesson in California is if the process is not done right and we have unnecessary closures, you know, 

you are going to see businesses take an unnecessary hit, and it is 

tough enough in this economy, but to have these what I would say 

is gratuitous closures is going to have a further negative impact. 

Mr. DUNCAN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. All right. Going back to the 

too much government and it is still directed at you, you know, in 

your testimony that at a public meeting in San Francisco only 

those invited to speak were allowed to participate. Does that fit 

into your definition of public participation in a bottom-up approach? 

Mr. GORELNIK. Speaking to that one event, there really wasn’t 

much of a big tent philosophy there. Recreational anglers were 

never contacted in terms of being one of the invited speakers, and 

there wasn’t really sufficient time really for public comment, and 

we really felt shut out. We were very frustrated at that event. We 

felt that not only were our voices not heard, but voices on the other 

side of our issue were given an abundant amount of time to set 

forth their views. 

Mr. DUNCAN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Right, and you are not alone 

on that. I have heard that on the East Coast as well, and we have 

heard that from the fishermen within the sport fishing arena but 

also the commercial fishermen I was talking about earlier that as 

they were determining closures for the Atlantic Coast and the 

Eastern Gulf, they were never given an opportunity to really have 

their voice heard, so that concerns me if we are going to have true 

participatory government that we allow that, so I appreciate you 

testifying, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does yield back his time and the 

Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

your testimony. 

I have been in Congress almost four years, so will be coming up 

on my four-year anniversary, and as I have worked on this Committee I think it was maybe several years ago we had testimony 

come in about the state of our oceans, and Jacques Cousteau, who 

has done so much really to dramatize the remarkable oceans that 

we have had, his grandson came in and talked about how he used 

to go out with his grandfather, and the remarkable life that took 

place in the ocean as compared to his more recent forays into the 

depths of the ocean where he really bemoaned their sad state, and 

it was a story that has really stuck with me. I cannot say I spent 

a lot of time underwater looking at what we have down there, but 

clearly this was a young man who has spent his life there. 

62 

So, as we talk about—as we are here today to hear your testimony, we have to remember that our oceans really are at risk, and 

I happen to come from a state in which so much of our economic 

health is tied to the health of the ocean. We depend on it for tourism, for shipping, for commercial fishing. Now we will see activity 

in energy generation, renewable energy. So much is at stake here, 

and not only do the coastline communities stand to benefit, but our 

Commonwealth as a whole, and really our country because even 

those kinds of businesses, tackle businesses or whatever that are 

related to fishing, they will be dramatically impacted if our oceans 

are not healthy in the long run. 

We have already heard testimony, differing testimony about the 

processes different states have undertaken, so we have in Massachusetts a story that is a very good one in which it was not overly 

lengthy. There was adequate effort to bring in all the stakeholders 

to the table. It was a process that seems to have satisfied those 

stakeholders versus the story of California which it has not been 

so necessarily the case, so it is an object lesson that we need to remember as we go forward. 

We have also been hearing the concern about the fishing industry so I have a question for Mr. Bullard. Did the ocean plans of 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island hinder the work of the New England’s Fisheries Council in any way? And how did you work with 

them in the course of doing your work? 

Mr. BULLARD. The fishing industry is very important in Massachusetts economically in terms of defining character of seaports 

and also politically it is a very strong entity. I think that is true 

nationwide. And so in the Massachusetts ocean plan it was very 

specific that this was not to infringe on the management of fish 

through Magnuson in Federal waters, and yet it also required that 

the fishing industry be very active participants, so they participated actively. We learned a lot, but it was very clear that this was 

not an end around or different attempt to manage fisheries. 

I do think there is one thing that may come out of this that can 

benefit fishermen. Fishermen look at Magnuson which in New England has used closed areas as a way of managing fishery or enforcing fishery regulations, and then they see wind developers come, 

and that is like another closed area where they see sanctuaries 

come and they feel that is another threat for a closed area, so fishermen look at all of this as saying you are just taking more and 

more bottom away from me. 

I think if you put all these together in an ocean plan it is possible, I hope it will happen that people will start to say with this 

science and data we should be able to talk about opening areas to 

fishermen, not just closing them. So that if we are going to close 

an area so that there can be a marine protected area, maybe we 

can open an area that was enclosed for enforcement purposes. It 

should be a two-way street if fishermen are involved in the overall 

planning process. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Well, I agree with you and I have seen in the 

coastal communities of the Cape just how really very important the 

fishing industry is, and yet the fishing industry is dependent upon 

a vibrant ocean, so I commend you all for your testimony today, 

and thank you. I yield back. 

63 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and I want to thank all the panelists 

for their testimony today. I must say what has struck me with the 

testimony of all of you and the questions from the members of the 

Committee is that the ocean is a great unknown and there needs 

to be a proper way to address that. The question is how and what 

is the process, and I think most people would probably agree with 

the notion that the government closest to the people is probably 

more responsive to the diversity at a local level and community. In 

fact, Mr. Bullard talked about the Massachusetts process which apparently was very transparent. 

But the debate here and the reason for this hearing was the Executive Order of the President and the potential mischief that could 

happen because of that Executive Order. If you start up the process 

at a local level, which I think again most people would agree with, 

and then you go to the next level you would probably have less 

agreement because there would be more special interests that could 

insert their views, and then you go to the next level, which would 

be the Federal Government, and then you take out the legislative 

process, the statutory process and put it within the Executive 

Branch, then you have the potential for real mischief. 

And in response to what Mr. Holt said that the task force has 

no regulations in there, I wish he were here, but this is what the 

task force said and it is on page 47 under six, the authority for 

coastal and marine spacial planning, and it says, second to the last 

paragraph, it says, ‘‘Where preexisting legal constraints, either procedural or substantive, are identified for any Federal agency, the 

NOP would work with the agency to evaluate necessary and appropriate legislative solutions,’’ which is good, ‘‘or changes to regulations to address the constraints.’’ 

Now, this is where the uncertainty that was said by several of 

the panelists exists, and I think that is probably where we will 

have further discussion on the process of how this should be address in the long run, and so that was the reason for the hearing. 

I certainly didn’t hear disagreement on anybody here that there 

ought to be a proper way to proceed forward, but the key is how 

do you do it so that all of the interests are properly represented. 

And again, when you start at the lowest level, at the grass roots 

and go all the way up to an Executive Order, does not even have 

congressional input, a whole lot of mischief can be had, and I think 

that is the concern certainly of this Chairman. That was the reason 

for this hearing. 

I would ask all the witnesses if there are questions that come 

from other Committee Members that you would respond in a timely 

manner, make that response available to the whole Committee, 

and once again I want to thank you very, very much for your testimony, and with no further business coming the Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

[A statement submitted for the record by Mr. Pierluisi follows:] 

64 

Statement of The Honorable Pedro R. Pierluisi, 

the Resident Commissioner in Congress from Puerto Rico 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

I have great interest in this morning’s hearing on U.S. ocean policy because Puerto Rico is one of the nation’s 35 coastal states and territories, and the ocean plays 

an integral role in the Island’s social, cultural and economic life. Accordingly, I believe the National Ocean Policy, as embodied in the President’s July 2010 Executive 

Order, deserves our strong support. 

I am keenly aware that federal support and intergovernmental cooperation is essential to protect Puerto Rico’s roughly 700 miles of coastline and our waters and 

submerged lands that extend nine miles from shore. The ocean surrounding Puerto 

Rico is home to diverse and precious coral ecosystems, beautiful beaches that underpin our tourism economy, and unique bioluminescent bays and mangrove lagoons. 

The NOAA-approved Puerto Rico Coastal Program—which is supported by scores 

of dedicated professionals from the Puerto Rico government and the Island’s 44 

coastal municipalities, along with numerous non-governmental organizations—is the 

chief means by which we are addressing the challenges to and stressors upon our 

marine ecosystem. Tourism, shipping, agriculture, fishing, and coastal development, 

are among the many factors that must be managed for their impact on the ocean. 

This Committee—and this Congress—should find value and promise in the President’s National Ocean Policy. The Policy places a premium on shared ocean governance, and appropriately aligns the otherwise varied efforts that span the Executive 

Branch. In a time where efficiency, coordination, and prevention of government duplication is sought, we are presented with a Policy that achieves precisely that. 

Importantly, the Policy fosters greater collaboration within the federal government and between the federal government and the states and territories. Though 

this collaboration, solutions to mitigate stress on the ocean and to plan for its sustainable use can be more easily accomplished. Balancing competing interests and 

multiple uses of our ocean is needed now more than ever, and that is why I join 

many of my colleagues in recognizing this Policy’s capacity to accelerate coastal and 

marine spatial planning. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today about how the Policy will help 

us grapple with the effects of land-based sources of pollution, over-fishing, a deficit 

of public awareness about impacts, and recreational misuse or overuse of the ocean 

resource. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[A statement submitted for the record by Richard B. Robins, Jr., 

Chairman, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, follows:] 

Statement submitted for the record by Richard B. Robins, Jr., 

Chairman, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

Chairman Hastings and distinguished members of the Committee, I sincerely appreciate the invitation and opportunity to provide written testimony regarding the 

National Ocean Policy. will focus my remarks on one of the nine priority objectives 

identified in the policy that has important implications for the Mid-Atlantic region; 

specifically, Coastal Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP). 

It is widely anticipated that the Mid-Atlantic region will become a modern epicenter of offshore energy development as the private and public sectors work to develop a large scale renewable wind energy system in the region. As an example of 

the scale of proposed development, the Atlantic Wind Connection project proposes 

to connect up to 1.9 million households with 6,000 MW of offshore wind turbine capacity from Virginia through New Jersey. 

In addition to having a reliable corridor of winds that make the region favorable 

for emerging wind energy development, the marine ecosystem within the region supports billions of dollars of economic activity related to traditional uses of the area, 

including recreational and commercial fishing, shipping, military and national security, and other recreational and commercial activities that are powerful drivers of 

the nation’s economy. 

CMSP, as contemplated in the National Ocean Policy, is expected to provide for 

a more integrated and proactive approach to evaluate complex interactions between 

traditional and emerging uses of the ocean than those currently in place. The current processes for managing potentially conflicting uses of the ocean related to offshore energy development do allow for public input but lack transparency in the decision making process and do not benefit fully from interdisciplinary and interjurisdictional integration. If CMSP is implemented effectively at the regional level, it has 

65 

the potential to improve the transparency and coordination in the planning and decision-making process which will lead to better coordination of uses of the ocean environment. 

In 2010, BOEMRE proposed a Massachusetts RFI area of 3,000 square miles, 

south of Nantucket, for offshore wind energy development. The proposed area overlaid shipping lanes, the Nantucket Lightship Habitat Closure Area, the Nantucket 

Lightship Groundfish Closed Area, and one of the most productive scallop grounds 

in the region—the Nantucket Lightship Scallop Access Area. The proposal met with 

extensive protest and the RFI area was subsequently reduced by over 50 percent. 

This is a contemporary example of what we might expect in the absence of a 

proactive, integrated CMSP approach that would anticipate and evaluate conflicting 

uses of the ocean across a broader spectrum of regulatory entities and user groups 

to facilitate appropriate planning. 

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council was established by the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and has authority over the fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean seaward of the states of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. For the past 35 years, the Mid-Atlantic Council, along with the other U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils 

(RFMCs), has been engaged in the geospatial management of fisheries within complex marine ecosystems. The Council has identified essential fish habitat (EFH) for 

its 13 managed species, in addition to habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC), 

and gear restricted access (GRA) areas to manage discrete portions of the marine 

environment for specific fisheries management objectives and related ecosystem and 

habitat considerations. 

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has also been actively engaged 

with the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO) since it was formed 

by five Mid-Atlantic governors in 2009. Earlier this year, the Council has named a 

staff representative to MARCO’s CMSP and Habitat Action Teams, in order to make 

the fisheries-related expertise available to the teams and to provide a conduit between the two organizations. MARCO has made early progress in developing a mapping and planning portal that will benefit future planning processes in the Mid-Atlantic region. Our engagement with MARCO is typical of the other RFMCs in regions around the U.S. that have established regional ocean agreements that are 

viewed as potential precursors to the Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) described in 

the National Ocean Policy. 

The National Ocean Policy describes the role of the RFMCs as a consultative role 

and leaves further specification of the role to the National Ocean Council (NOC). 

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, together with our peer Councils, 

has requested that the NOC grant the RFMCs membership on the RPBs. The 

RFMCs have extensive experience and specialized expertise in the management of 

the marine environment and well established conduits for stakeholder input that 

can and should be harnessed in the CMSP process to contribute to the success of 

the RPBs. The Massachusetts RFI example underscores the shortcomings of the current limitations of the system to anticipate and resolve conflicting uses of the ocean 

in a cohesive manner, and suggests that a CMSP framework would facilitate a more 

robust planning process in the Mid-Atlantic region. RFMC membership in the RPBs 

will contribute to the success of the RPBs and will ensure that fisheries resources 

and uses are considered at appropriate points in the process. 

Working with limited resources, MARCO has experienced early success with their 

portal development but full CMSP implementation will require significant additional resources. As future decisions concerning funding are considered, I would encourage the Committee to identify funding opportunities for CMSP implementation 

that do not diminish the budgets of NOAA Fisheries that are already challenged to 

support the scientific and management programs that are critical to the core mission of the Agency and the RFMCs. 

[A letter and statement submitted for the record by Captain Jay 

W. Spence, President, Passenger Vessel Association, follows:] 

October 3,2011 

The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman 

Committee on Natural Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

66 

The Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) would like to thank you for taking up the 

issue of a national ocean policy and marine spatial planning. PV A would like to 

add comments to the record for the hearing in your Committee on ‘‘The President’s 

New National Ocean Policy—A Plan for Further Restrictions on Ocean, Coastal and 

Inland Activities’’ on Tuesday, October 4, 2011. 

The Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) is the national trade association for owners and operators of U.S.-flagged passenger vessels of all types. PYA currently has 

nearly 550 vessel and associate members. Our members own and operate passenger 

and vehicular ferries, dinner cruise vessels, sightseeing and excursion vessels, private charter vessels, whale watching and eco-tour operators, windjammers, gaming 

vessels, amphibious vessels, water taxis, and overnight cruise ships. 

Washington State is home to 63 members of PVA, including the Washington State 

Ferry System, many other vessel companies, four shipyards, several naval architects 

and vessel design firms. 

The issue of a national ocean policy and marine spatial planning is of great concern to the members of the Passenger Vessel Association. Ferry routes and other 

traditional navigational lanes are located where they are for a reason. These are the 

most economical and safest routes by which a vessel can reach its destination. They 

cannot be arbitrarily moved for someone else’s convenience or whim. 

PVA is also concerned that marine spatial planning may become one more method 

by which the government imposes yet more costs on small businesses and small entities. 

Your consideration of our comments is appreciated. Please let us know if we can 

answer any questions or provide you with any additional information. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Captain Jay W. Spence 

President 

Passenger Vessel Association 

Statement submitted for the record by Captain Jay W Spence, 

President, Passenger Vessel Association 

The Passenger Vessel Association (PV A) is the national trade association for owners and operators of U.S.-flagged passenger vessels of all types. 

PVA currently has nearly 550 vessel and associate members. Our members own 

and operate passenger and vehicular ferries, dinner cruise vessels, sightseeing and 

excursion vessels, private charter vessels, whalewatching and eco-tour operators, 

windjammers, gaming vessels, amphibious vessels, water taxis, and overnight cruise 

ships. 

The diverse membership of PVA includes small family businesses with a single 

boat, companies with several large vessels in different locations, and governmental 

agencies operating ferries. 

The passenger vessel is a vital and thriving segment of the U.S. maritime industry. It has a longstanding presence on our nation’s oceans, coastal and Great Lakes 

waters, rivers, and lakes. 

Ferries are an important aspect of the nation’s surface transportation system. 

They provide essential services in places as diverse as New York Harbor, North 

Carolina’s Outer Banks, the offshore islands of Maine and Massachusetts, Delaware 

Bay, San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound, and Lake Michigan. To obtain a more comprehensive view of the role of ferries in the national Maritime Transportation System, PV A refers the Interagency Task Force to the National Census of Ferry Operators maintained by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics of the U.S. Department 

of Transportation and posted at www.bts.gov. 

Ferry routes and other traditional navigational lanes are located where they are 

for a reason. These are the most economical and safest routes by which a vessel can 

reach its destination. They cannot be arbitrarily moved for someone else’s convenience or whim. 

As governments begin to implement ‘‘marine spatial planning’’ (or ocean zoning) 

as directed by a national ocean policy, it is essential to be aware of the needs of 

the maritime industry, especially ferry operators, to preserve and protect their 

routes and traditional navigational lanes. The passenger vessel industry and its 

ferry operators must not be considered an afterthought, inconvenience, or obstacle 

when someone proposes a new and conflicting use for waters traditionally used for 

navigation. 

Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened in Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts with a proposal for a massive offshore wind energy development. Neither 

67 

the developer nor the federal government properly considered the impact of the 

project on the safety to the vessels and passengers of the ferries that serve the island of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard. The ferry operators and PV A are greatly 

concerned that navigational safety will be compromised. The attached letter to the 

Minerals Management Service describes PVA’s concerns and includes the resolution 

adopted by PYA’s Board of Directors opposing the proposed wind energy installation 

because of its deleterious effect on the marine safety of the area’s ferries. 

As people and industry look to ocean waters for nontraditional uses (wind and 

tidal energy, artificial islands, large aquaculture installations, expanded sanctuaries 

or marine protected agencies), the possibility of conflicts with traditional navigational uses Increases. 

While all federal agencies involved in carrying out marine spatial planning 

through a national ocean policy must be cognizant of the needs of ferries and other 

vessel operators, the U.S Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration must be 

‘‘aggressive’’ advocates for traditional navigational users when conflicting uses are 

proposed. The existing Committee on the Marine Transportation System 

(www.cmts.gov) in the Department of Transportation can play a helpful coordinating 

role. 

PVA in no way opposes offshore wind energy or other nontraditional ocean uses, 

but they must be sited in a manner that does not impinge on traditional vessel navigational lanes or compromise the safety of U.S. ferry operations. Those who promote 

marine spatial planning through a national ocean policy must ensure that navigational uses are recognized and protected. 

It is crucial that Congress and Federal Agencies involved in the development of 

a national ocean policy the take into account the cost and cumulative impact of regulation on small business. PV A members are greatly concerned about the economic 

burdens imposed by the cumulative impact of numerous federal laws and regulations. In recent years, passenger vessel operators have had to absorb costs associated with Coast Guard maritime security mandates, higher assumptions about average passenger weight for purposes of calculating vessel stability, new rules for serving customers with disabilities and EPA permit requirements for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. 

Nearly all vessel-operating members of PVA are small businesses or small entities 

as designated by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). According to the 

SBA small businesses ‘‘continue to bear a disproportionate share of the federal regulatory burden.’’ The SBA estimates that the cumulative cost of federal regulation per 

employee for a firm with fewer than 20 employees is $10,585 per year. For a company with between 20 and 499 employees, the estimated annual cost per worker is 

$7,454. 

Federal regulators must also take into account that many PV A vessel operators 

have seasonal businesses, and that they frequently compete with land-based venues. 

Since the potential customer can often find similar services or attractions ashore, 

more burdensome rules placed on the vessel operator create a financial disadvantage, since the land-based competitor does not have to shoulder a similar regulatory 

burden. 

Your consideration of our comments is appreciated. Please let us know if we can 

answer any questions or provide you with any additional information. 

Æ