Congressional Hearings
NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY: STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES
Congressional Hearings
SuDoc ClassNumber: Y 4.C 73/7
Congress: Senate
CHRG-115shrg37296
| AUTHORITYID | CHAMBER | TYPE | COMMITTEENAME |
|---|---|---|---|
| sscm00 | S | S | Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation |
[Senate Hearing 115-650]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-650
NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY:
STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 12, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-296 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MIKE LEE, Utah GARY PETERS, Michigan
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CORY GARDNER, Colorado MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
TODD YOUNG, Indiana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
Nick Rossi, Staff Director
Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Renae Black, Senior Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES,
AND COAST GUARD
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska, Chairman GARY PETERS, Michigan, Ranking
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
MIKE LEE, Utah EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
CORY GARDNER, Colorado TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 12, 2017................................ 1
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 1
National Ocean Policy slide.................................. 46
Opposition letter dated September 23, 2016 to Hon. Harold
Rogers, Hon. Nita Lowey, Hon. Thad Cochran and Hon. Barbara
Mikulski................................................... 47
Support letter dated December 12, 2017 from Christine Todd
Whitman, Co-Chair, Joint Ocean Commission Initiative and
Norman Y. Mineta, Co-Chair, Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative................................................. 48
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 3
Letter dated December 11, 2017 to Hon. Daniel S. Sullivan and
Hon. Gary C. Peters from Kate Killerlain Morrison,
Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the
Ocean...................................................... 4
Letter dated December 12, 2017 from W. Mark Swingle, Director
of Research & Conservation, Virginia Aquarium & Marine
Science Center Foundation.................................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 43
Witnesses
Bonnie Brady, Executive Director, Long Island Commercial Fishing
Association.................................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Christopher Guith, Senior Vice President, Global Energy
Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce............................ 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Dan Keppen, Executive Director, Family Farm Alliance............. 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Kathy Metcalf, President and CEO, Chamber of Shipping of America. 31
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Appendix
Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from Florida, prepared statement.. 51
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to:
Bonnie Brady................................................. 51
Dan Keppen................................................... 53
Response to written questions submitted to Kathy Metcalf by:
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 54
Hon. Edward Markey........................................... 55
NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY:
STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and
Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Dan Sullivan,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Sullivan [presiding], Peters, Fischer,
Inhofe, Cantwell, Blumenthal, and Markey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. The Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere,
Fisheries, and the Coast Guard will now come to order. Good
afternoon.
I would like to start by thanking our witnesses, who I
think are an outstanding group of experts, for appearing before
this Subcommittee today. We've been a busy Subcommittee. I want
to thank again my Ranking Member, Senator Peters, on working
closely with all of us on several hearings, many of which have
focused on legislation.
This is actually one of our first oversight hearings. Today
we will examine the National Ocean Policy, which was
established by Executive order in 2010 with questionable
statutory authority. Despite its good intentions, the National
Ocean Policy does little to help the management of our oceans,
but may do harm by adding layers of Federal bureaucracy that
undermine already effective legislation and statutory programs
covering our oceans.
As one of Alaska's Senators, I care deeply about America's
oceans and marine resources. My state, for example, is
negatively impacted, more than many others, more than pretty
much all others, by ocean pollution and ocean debris, which is
one of the reasons we had a strong bipartisan bill called the
Save Our Seas Act that passed not only this Committee, but the
entire Senate, and is waiting action in the House that
addresses the important issue of ocean pollution and ocean
debris.
Alaskans have a symbiotic relationship with their oceans
and marine life, and more so than any other state, rely on the
health and sustainability of our oceans and the resources
within them.
While the National Ocean Policy's roots can be traced to
Bush era policy recommendations, its current form is
drastically larger in scope and features unwieldy regulations.
The policy establishes a top-down management structure based on
coastal and marine spatial planning that has the potential to
significantly impact a wide range of economic sectors including
commercial and recreational fishing, which are critical to my
state, inland agriculture, maritime commerce, and energy
development.
Congress recognized the problematic nature of the National
Ocean Policy when similar attempts and schemes in legislation
failed to advance in four consecutive Congresses under both
Democrat and Republican majorities.
Among the concerning characteristics of the Executive
agency advancement of National Ocean Policy is the concept of
zoning our oceans. The architects of the Policy maintain this
process is designated and designed to unite stakeholders with
state, Federal, and tribal partners to streamline
decisionmaking. I think most of us would agree that's actually
a very, very good idea.
But the structure that we'll talk about, and you'll see
here, with regard to what this Executive order actually looks
like, might have the very opposite effect. The National Ocean
Policy establishes 9 regional planning bodies composed of 27
Federal agencies, again, that's a schematic of what this
Executive order does, relevant states, tribes, and territories.
In some cases, the RPBs include representatives from foreign
governments. The policy also establishes an 18-member
governance committee, a 5-member steering committee, and two
policy committees to oversee resource management in science and
technology. As you can see from this chart, this is a complex
and bureaucratic system that was not set forth in any statute.
One of the biggest concerns about this Executive order is
that it could undermine the successful state-run regional ocean
partnerships and regional fisheries management councils, and
would create statutory conflicts with landmark laws, like the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. An Executive order undermining finely
balanced legislation that works right now, like the MSA does,
should concern all members of this body.
The perhaps most troubling aspect of the National Ocean
Policy is the regulatory burden it can place on maritime
commerce, recreational and commercial fishing, energy
development, and small businesses. Not only could its national
standards grind permitting processes to a halt, but would also
make Federal agencies vulnerable to costly lawsuits. This is
particularly troubling when you consider that these regulations
will also impact inland areas, not just oceans and coastlines.
The United States has a very strong record of sustainable
management of our oceans and marine resources. While our system
is not perfect, it remains the envy of the world. Undermining
this functional statutory structure by replacing it with an
Executive order with a top-down Federal bureaucracy approach
not authorized by Congress raises many concerning issues, which
will be the focus of today's hearing. Congress has attempted to
stop this Executive policy by withholding funds for its
implementation, but Federal agencies have moved forward in
implementation nonetheless.
I do, however, want to make clear that there are some
positive aspects about the National Ocean Policy. The National
Ocean Policy, for example, has requirements to increase data-
sharing between agencies and promote invaluable science and
research to better understand our oceans and marine resources.
I believe that every member of this Committee supports those
important goals. Since I joined the Senate, these have been
priorities of mine and I believe should be a top priority of
Congress and the executive branch.
Today we will hear from some of the different user groups
and communities most impacted by this policy. I'm confident
that their invaluable perspectives will help us shed light on
this Executive order as part of our oversight responsibilities.
Senator Peters.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan. And it's good
to be with you again for another important hearing. And I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses.
And I want to take this opportunity to thank each of our
witnesses for being here and for sharing your views on the
state of ocean planning.
Mr. Chairman, our home states of Alaska and Michigan are
both maritime states, and we are a maritime nation. Our oceans
and our Great Lakes are economic engines providing millions of
Americans with jobs and income through fishing, tourism,
shipping, energy, research, boating, and military and national
security activities. In turn, the industry is supporting these
millions of jobs that rely on healthy, functioning marine and
freshwater ecosystems.
Today's hearing is titled, ``National Ocean Policy,'' but
for good reason, I must add the current National Ocean Policy
explicitly recognizes the Great Lakes. The lakes hold a full 20
percent of the world's surface fresh water and are in the
middle of one of the world's most productive agricultural
areas. Recreational boaters and commercial freighters from
around the world sail through the Great Lakes, and our
fisheries alone support more than 75,000 jobs in the region.
As a result, through formal law and through good practice,
the United States, Canada, and Native American tribes routinely
coordinate on management decisions. We recognize the lakes are
a shared public resource as well as a national treasure, and by
and large, we manage them that way. This coordination spans in
scale from local agreements to formal treaties.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, after our many hearings together,
considering the Magnuson-Stevens Act, let me recommend our own
Great Lakes Fishery Commission to you as a possible model for
fisheries management practices.
Because it has been some time since the Senate has held a
hearing on National Ocean Policy, I want to just take a moment
to acknowledge the leadership shown by this Committee and our
last two Presidential administrations on this issue.
Back in 2000, led by Senator Hollings and Senator Stevens,
Congress passed the Oceans Act. The law created a
Presidentially appointed commission, which was directed to
consider and provide a report back to Congress with
recommendations to guide effective ocean governance. The law
also directed the President to submit a comprehensive ocean and
coastal policy plan back to Congress within 120 days of
receiving the report.
President Bush's administration did so through the Ocean
Action Plan, and the President established a Federal
interagency coordination process by Executive order.
President Obama then expanded the National Ocean Policy
effort in a few ways, for example, proposing a new framework
for maritime spatial planning to help inform and prioritize
potentially competing ocean and coastal areas.
President Bush's National Ocean Plan and his Great Lakes
Executive order led to the development of a very successful
Great Lakes restoration initiative formalized during the Obama
administration. The initiative, which brings together 15
Federal agencies, in addition to state and local partners, has
provided Federal support to over 3,500 projects to protect and
restore the Great Lakes, and have fundamentally transformed the
region.
I regret that we won't hear from any of the Federal
agencies or states involved with ocean planning today, as I
certainly would have welcomed the opportunity to hear about
some of the successes that have been achieved as well as some
of the lessons that have been learned. However, I have received
letters from the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, from
several industry leaders, and from the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Council on the Ocean.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter those records for the
hearing record.
Senator Sullivan. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean
December 11, 2017
Hon. Daniel S. Sullivan,
Chair,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Gary C. Peters,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Sullivan and Ranking Member Peters:
In anticipation of your ``National Ocean Policy: Stakeholder
Perspectives'' hearing on December 12, the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Council on the Ocean (MARCO) expresses its continued strong support for
an inclusive national ocean policy framework that sustains regional
ocean planning efforts in the Mid--Atlantic. The States are the biggest
stakeholder in the national ocean policy conversation and have been the
direct beneficiaries of the current emphasis on regional ocean
planning.
The Mid--Atlantic has its roots in the ocean, and our coastal
communities remain the lifeblood of the regional economy and the key to
its high quality of life. Established as a partnership of the coastal
programs of Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey and New York,
MARCO seeks to further enhance the vitality of the regional ocean
ecosystem and economy by advancing issues important to all five States.
MARCO was formed out of recognition that States have a collective
interest in the wise stewardship of shared ocean resources and
coordinated management of their use. But to truly be successful in
maintaining a healthy ocean and driving economic growth along our
coasts, we need a willing and able Federal partner. Through regional
ocean planning, the National Ocean Policy provides a clear and direct
opportunity to recognize the regional nature of ocean issues and drive
Federal programs to address them collaboratively and at a manageable
scale.
Regional ocean planning is a non--regulatory process that improves
the effectiveness of Federal, State, and Tribal implementation of their
responsibilities in the Mid--Atlantic Ocean through three core
elements. Together, these three elements support economic development
and ecosystem conservation so that multiple interests can co--exist in
a manner that provides for sustainable uses, reduces conflict, and
enhances compatibility. These include:
1. Coordination and collaboration at a regional scale
With over twenty stove--piped entities managing uses and
resources in Federal waters, coordination among Federal, State,
and Tribal entities is key to shifting to a more comprehensive
and integrated regional perspective on management.
2. Effective engagement with all ocean users
On-going communication and information sharing with all ocean
stakeholders is critical to ensure that all perspectives and
interests are heard and that actions reflect the economic,
social, cultural, and ecological needs and goals of the Mid--
Atlantic region.
3. Public access to best available data and information
Our Mid--Atlantic Regional Ocean Data Portal provides a
centralized source for the best available spatial data about
ocean uses, species and habitats. By providing information
about the types of uses or species and habitats that co--occur
in a particular location, both decision--makers and permitting
applicants can have information to identify potential conflicts
and compatibilities. The Portal offers a streamlined source of
information that can more efficiently inform environmental
impact assessments and siting proposals throughout the pre--
planning and application processes.
Regional ocean planning has become vital to ensuring State
interests are considered and integrated into decision making. Put
simply, this type of coordinated effort is fundamental to ``good
government'' and reflects an appropriate respect for State's rights in
issues under Federal control. We urge you to ensure these key elements
of ocean planning continue to be implemented by supporting the goals of
the National Ocean Policy and the Mid--Atlantic Regional Ocean Action
Plan.
Thank you for considering our views on this very important issue.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for further information.
Sincerely,
Kate Killerlain Morrison,
Executive Director,
Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean.
______
Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center Foundation
December 12, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard.
Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson, Subcommittee Chairman
Sullivan and Subcommittee Ranking Member Peters,
On behalf of the Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center
Foundation, our thriving ocean industries and our treasured marine
ecosystems, I am writing in support of the National Ocean Policy and
regional ocean planning efforts that are making a difference for
Virginia and the Nation. As evidenced by the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Ocean Action Plan, coastal states and the Federal Government, tribes,
fisheries managers, and other stakeholders have made significant
progress in defining new opportunities for engagement on coordinated
ocean management.
Virginia Aquarium research has contributed to the ongoing planning
process by providing marine mammal and sea turtle data. This kind of
common sense coordination is needed to encourage sustainable economic
development while also protecting and restoring our living marine
resources.
Created as a result of recommendations from two bi-partisan
national commissions, the National Ocean Policy benefits our ocean
economy, safety and security, and our ocean and coastal resilience by
supporting local actions. Here in Virginia, massive new ships are
arriving from an expanded Panama Canal; there is great demand for
offshore sand mining to rebuild beaches; we are looking at offshore
wind to power our cities and towns; and our military fleet is growing.
Our busy waters support a thriving fishing industry and are home to
endangered North Atlantic right whales and sea turtles. On top of
increased competition for space, ocean life--and the jobs, food, and
recreation that depend on it--face new stresses of wanning waters and
acidification as a result of climate change. Ocean planning tools such
as the regional ocean plans and the ocean data portals, advanced and
supported by the National Ocean Policy, are vitally needed to make
smart decisions that promote responsible ocean growth and support
families and businesses for multiple generations.
Virginia' s ocean is an economic powerhouse. In 2014 alone, ocean
sector industries, such as ship building, fishing and tourism,
contributed more than $8.2 billion to Virginia's gross domestic product
(GDP) and supported more than 118,000 jobs.i There's too
much at stake to risk our healthy ocean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Quick Report
Tool for Socioeconomic Data. Ocean Economy, New York, 2014. Available
at: http://coast.noaa.gov/quickreport/#/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a broad base of support for regional ocean planning
efforts to continue. Fishermen, shipping companies, offshore wind
developers, conservationists and others support the data portals and
efforts of the state and Federal agencies to implement the regional
ocean plans. The National Ocean Policy helps keep the ocean working for
everyone to use and enjoy. We urge the committee to support the
National Ocean Policy, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Ocean Action Plan and
other regional plans, and to help ensure that our Nation has the
Federal support needed to protect our ocean for the future.
Sincerely,
W. Mark Swingle,
Director of Research & Conservation,
Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center Foundation.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Peters. And again I would like to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I look forward to
hearing from our four witnesses today.
Again, thank you for making the effort to be here. We look
forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Senator Peters follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gary Peters, U.S. Senator from Michigan
Thank you Chairman Sullivan. I'm pleased to join you in welcoming
today's witnesses. Thank you all, for your willingness to be here
today, and for sharing your views on the state of ocean planning.
Mr. Chairman, our home states of Alaska and Michigan are both
maritime states, and we are a maritime nation. Our oceans and our Great
Lakes are economic engines, providing millions of Americans with jobs
and income through fishing, tourism, shipping, energy, research,
boating, and military and national security activities. In turn, the
industries supporting these millions of jobs rely on healthy,
functioning marine and freshwater ecosystems.
Today's hearing is titled National Ocean Policy, but for good
reason the current national ocean policy explicitly recognizes the
Great Lakes. The Lakes hold a full 20 percent of the world's surface
freshwater and are in the middle of one of the world's most productive
agricultural areas. Recreational boaters and commercial freighters from
around the world sail the Great Lakes, and our fisheries alone support
more than 75,000 jobs in the region.
As a result, through formal law and through good practice, the
United States, Canada, and Native American tribes routinely coordinate
on management decisions. We recognize the Lakes are a shared public
resource and a national treasure, and by and large we manage them that
way. This coordination spans in scale from local agreements to formal
treaties.
By the way Mr. Chairman, after our many hearings together
considering the Magnuson Stevens Act, let me recommend our own Great
Lakes Fishery Commission to you as an excellent model for fisheries
management.
Because it has been some time since the Senate has held a hearing
on the National Ocean Policy, I want to take a moment to acknowledge
the leadership shown by this Committee and our last two Presidential
Administrations on the issue. Back in 2000, led by Senators Hollings
and Senator Stevens, Congress passed the Oceans Act. The law created a
presidentially appointed Commission, which was directed to consider and
provide a report back to Congress with recommendations to guide
effective ocean governance. The law also directed the President to
submit a comprehensive ocean and coastal policy back to Congress within
120 days of receiving the Commission's report.
President Bush's Administration did so through an Ocean Action
Plan, and the President established a Federal interagency coordination
process by Executive Order. President Obama then expanded the National
Ocean Policy effort in a few ways, for example proposing a new
framework for marine spatial planning to help inform and prioritize
potentially competing ocean and coastal uses.
President Bush's National Ocean Plan and his Great Lakes Executive
Order lead to the development of the very successful Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative, formalized during the Obama Administration. The
Initiative, which brings together 15 Federal agencies in addition to
state and local partners, has provided Federal support to over 3,500
projects to protect and restore the Lakes, fundamentally transforming
the region.
I regret that we won't hear from any of the Federal agencies or
states involved with ocean planning today, as I would have welcomed the
opportunity to hear about some of the successes that have been
achieved, as well as the lessons that have been learned. However, I've
received letters from the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, from
several industry leaders and from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on
the Ocean. Mr. Chairman, I'd be grateful to enter these letters for the
hearing record. With that I thank you for calling this hearing, and I
look forward to hearing from the four witnesses today. Thank you again
for being here.
Senator Sullivan. Great. And thank you, Senator Peters. And
again I appreciate all the cooperation that we've had on this
Subcommittee. I think it has been a very active Subcommittee.
And I look forward to our witnesses today. Today we do
have, and I want to welcome, a distinguished panel of experts,
starting with Ms. Bonnie Brady, Executive Director of the Long
Island Commercial Fishing Association; Mr. Christopher Guith,
if I'm saying that right. Did I get that right?
Mr. Guith. Close, ``Gooth.''
Senator Sullivan. Guith, OK. Mr. Christopher Guith, Senior
Vice President, Global Energy Institute, U.S. Chamber of
Commerce; Mr. Daniel Keppen, Executive Director, Family Farm
Alliance; and Ms. Kathy Metcalf, President and CEO of Shipping
of America.
You will each have 5 minutes to deliver an oral statement,
and a longer written statement will be included in the record
if you so desire.
Ms. Brady, why don't we begin with you.
STATEMENT OF BONNIE BRADY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
LONG ISLAND COMMERCIAL FISHING ASSOCIATION
Ms. Brady. Thank you very much. Chairman Sullivan, Ranking
Member Peters, and members of the Subcommittee, it is a great
honor to be chosen to testify before you today. My name is
Bonnie Brady, and I am the Executive Director of the Long
Island Commercial Fishing Association, which represents
fisherman from all gear types throughout Long Island.
From New York Harbor to Montauk Point, we are 118 miles
long, with Long Island Sound to the north and the Atlantic
Ocean on the south and east. Ninety-nine percent of all the
seafood landing in New York State comes off of the waters off
of Long Island, and in 2016, just shy of 30 million pounds with
just under $50 million.
Long Island is home to two of the Nation's top commercial
fishing ports, Montauk and Shinnecock. It may not be on
breaking from--it's not one of the top 13 of the top 70, like
yourself, Senator, because I was counting and looked, but for
us, we consider it to be quite a task.
It is the number one port in the state, and it's where I
call home. It's 68th in the Nation, which is for us a little--a
pretty impressive thing, especially in light of the fact that
about 300 members of our community make their living directly
or indirectly from the sea.
My involvement in the fishing industry is not through my
lineage. I'm the daughter of an Irish Catholic cop from Yonkers
and a fashion model from New Jersey. I spent the formative
years in New Jersey and New York, went to journalism school in
South Carolina, and then spent several years in D.C. working,
among other things, as a Hill staffer. I moved to Montauk in
1989 to help with my family care for my younger siblings when
my father retired.
After a job as a local beat reporter, a Peace Corps tour as
a health volunteer in Cameroon, I returned to Montauk again,
became a paramedic, and met my husband, a fisherman. I began
working with fishermen in 1999 when I had the choice of picking
up the chalk at an informational new fishing group meeting and
tried to help organize various fishermen's ideas about
regulations on the blackboard for future discussion.
Since 2000, I've represented commercial fishermen at the
local, county, state, and Federal level, attending numerous
Federal fishery management council meetings and educating the
public on the importance of commercial fishing in New York.
We fish in state and Federal waters regulated by the state
in conjunction with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission and both the New England and the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council. In all my years of experience with
fisheries management, President Obama's 2010 National Ocean
Policy Executive order represents one of the greatest threats
I've seen to the health and economic well-being of the Long
Island commercial fishing community.
I've been a stakeholder of the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Planning Body, the Mid-RPBs, created under the National Ocean
Policy since 2013. I've been to Mid-RPB public meetings,
breakout sessions, flip-charting focus groups, and all-day
marathon webinars for the last 4 years. I'm also a Mid-RPB
stakeholder liaison and last month attended the New England RPB
for a one-day workshop on its portal.
From New Hampshire to Virginia, I've driven up and down the
seaboard to represent commercial fishermen at public comment
opportunities for their RPB's Ocean Action Plans, not just
representing New York's fishermen, but often those of the Mid-
Atlantic because I'm often the only fishing person there.
Meetings are often held at a nondescript hotel conference room
nowhere near any coastal town or fishing port that could really
feel the repercussions of possible future actions.
At most meetings, I am one of maybe two representing
coastal fishing communities in a virtual sea of ENGOs and
government bureaucrats. I stand before the RPB at each and
every meeting and I repeatedly explain that fish and
fishermen's data is not being represented appropriately, it is
not complete, and is often highly inaccurate. I suggest
alternative data streams and cooperative research initiatives
for gathering better data. I've been doing this to no avail for
years and at a significant cost to me and my members in terms
of both time and money.
Beginning in September 2015, I challenged the Mid-RPB on
their fisheries data, and requested that any fishery-specific
data be vetted through the commercial fishing industry,
specifically the Trawl Advisory Panel of the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council because of multiple issues relating
to vessel trip report data and National Marine Fisheries
Service Trawl Survey calibration methods.
For months, I was told by the Mid-RPB a fishermen's
workshop would happen. It never happened. The fisheries data
issues remain unaddressed. Underscoring these concerns is the
Mid-RPB's effort to identify ecologically rich areas, which,
under their Ocean Action Plan, would subsequently be
incorporated into government decisionmaking.
In addition to identifying these areas based on inaccurate
data, this effort may create actions to create new marine
protected areas, MPAs, where fishing is either off limits or
severely restricted without any statutory authority for doing
so and without the transparency associated with the authorized
mechanism, such as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The National Ocean Policy takes the statutory power of
NMFS, NOAA, and the fishery management councils, and seeks to
place it with the RPBs so that the Mid-Atlantic--I'm sorry--the
Mid-RPB could falsely declare an area worthy of greater
protection outside of these long-established and authorized
processes. While the RPB states it's nonregulatory, the
Executive order and agency commitments make clear that this is
in fact a body whose actions will have regulatory impacts.
One of the many concerns is RPB discussion about possibly
using these unauthorized plans to carry out elements of the
Coastal Zone Management Act and impose new pre-application
consultation requirements and the RPB's desire to favor certain
uses over others to the detriment of commercial fishing.
Also significant since at least 2008, the Gordon and Betty
Moore Foundation has awarded copious grants to ENGOs in the
records to push ecosystem-based management, coastal and marine
spatial planning, and MPAs, in addition to the RPBs and the
entire National Ocean Council plan. This includes funding for
the RPB's activities until 2016.
Groups like the Coastal State Stewardship, Urban Coast
Institute, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment,
Wildlife Conservation Society, Nature Conservancy, NRDC, Living
Oceans, Surfrider, and many, many others are all grant-funded
to show up to RPB meetings and pretend they have no bias or
specific agenda nor funding sources when the entire process has
been funded by at least one ENGO from the beginning, leaving
us, the fishermen, possibly one of the oldest stakeholders in
the sea, with no voice that matters and no seat at the decision
table--decisionmaking table.
Thus, our very future could be decided by an unauthorized
planning process that is as transparent as mud, and our two
choices we are offered as commercial fishermen seem to be to
get closed out of productive fishing grounds via MPAs or be
subject to closures with the RPB's blessings. This is not
doable for thousands of commercial fishing families throughout
the country. We could lose everything--our jobs, our homes--as
we are pushed out, destroying the very fabric of our coastal
fishing communities.
It's not about retraining for a new job. Stocks are
sustainable. We shouldn't be forced off into a quasi-parallel
ocean-governing body whose goal is to push us off the ocean, to
force an agenda that they haven't been able to democratically
push through, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its fish councils.
We, the commercial fishermen of the U.S., are the ones who
need help and protection now from Congress. We desperately need
your help to ensure that commercial fishermen are no longer
saddled with additional uncertainty or new regulatory hurdles
as the result of the National Ocean Policy Executive order, and
that Federal agencies will no longer flout the will and intent
of Congress.
I look forward to any questions you may have. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brady follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bonnie Brady, Executive Director,
Long Island Commercial Fishing Association
Dear Chairman Thune, Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and
Members of the Subcommittee:
It is a great honor to be chosen to testify before you today.
My name is Bonnie Brady, and I am the Executive Director of the
Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, which represents fishermen
from all gear types throughout Long Island, NY. From New York Harbor to
Montauk Point, Long Island extends 118 miles with Long Island Sound to
our north and the Atlantic Ocean to our south and east. 99 percent of
all the seafood that is landed in New York State comes from the waters
off Long Island, which in 2016 translated to just shy of 30 million
pounds of fish worth just under $50 million dollars to our New York
coastal communities.
Long Island is home to some of the Nation's top commercial fishing
ports, including Montauk (53rd in poundage and 68th in dollars) and
Shinnecock (78th in poundage and 93rd in dollars). Montauk is also the
number one commercial fishing port in the state, and where I call home.
For a small town of 3,100 people with approximately 300 who make their
living either directly or indirectly from the sea, 68th in the Nation
is a pretty impressive accomplishment.
My involvement in the fishing industry is not through my lineage.
I'm the daughter of an Irish Catholic cop from Yonkers and a fashion
model from New Jersey. I spent my formative childhood years in New
Jersey, then New York, went to journalism school in South Carolina,
then spent several years in DC working, among other things, as a Hill
staffer. I moved to Montauk in 1989 to help my care for my younger
siblings, where my parents had moved after my father retired from the
police department.
After a job as a local beat reporter and a Peace Corps tour as a
health volunteer in Cameroun, I returned to Montauk again, became a
paramedic, and met my husband, a fisherman.
I found myself working with fishermen in 1999 when I picked up the
chalk at an informational new fishing group meeting and tried to help
organize various fishermen's ideas about regulations on a blackboard
for further discussion.
Since 2000, I have represented commercial fishermen at the local,
county, state and federal level, attending numerous meetings including
Federal fishery management council meetings, educating the public on
the importance of commercial fishing in New York. We fish in State and
Federal waters regulated by the state in conjunction with the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission, and both the New England (NEFMC)
and Mid-Atlantic (MAFMC) Fishery Management Councils.
In all my years of experience with fisheries management, President
Obama's 2010 National Ocean Policy Executive Order represents one of
the greatest threats I have seen to the health and economic well-being
of the Long Island commercial fishing community. I have participated as
a stakeholder of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body (Mid-A RPB)
created under the National Ocean Policy since late 2013. I've attended
Mid-A RPB public meetings, multiple breakout sessions, flip-charting
focus groups, and all-day marathon webinars for the last four years. I
am also a Mid-A RPB stakeholder liaison and attended the New England
Regional Planning Body just last month for a one-day workshop on its
portal.
From New Hampshire to Virginia, I have driven up and down the
Atlantic Seaboard to represent commercial fishermen at public comment
opportunities for the RPB's ocean action plans. Not just representing
New York's fishermen, but often those of the Mid-Atlantic, because I'm
often the only fishing person there. Usually the meetings are held at a
non-descript hotel conference room, nowhere near any coastal town or
fishing port that could really feel the repercussions of possible
future actions. At most meetings, I am one of possibly only two
representing coastal fishing communities in a virtual sea of ENGOs and
government bureaucrats.
I stand before the RPB at each and every meeting and repeatedly
explain that fishermen's data is not being represented appropriately,
and that the data they are using is not complete, and is often highly
inaccurate. I suggest alternative data streams and cooperative research
initiatives for gathering better data. I've been doing this to no avail
for years, and at significant cost to me and my members in terms of
both time and money.
Beginning in September of 2015, I have challenged the Mid-A RPB on
their fisheries data, and requested that any fisheries specific data be
vetted via commercial fishermen, specifically the Trawl Advisory Panel
of the MAFMC, prior to its being released because of multiple issues
relating to Vessel Trip Report Data and National Marine Fisheries
Service trawl survey calibration methods.
For months, I was told by the Mid-A RPB that a fishermen's workshop
would be forthcoming. It never happened. The fisheries data issues
remain unaddressed.
Underscoring these concerns is the Mid-A RPB's effort to identify
``Ecologically Rich Areas,'' which under their Ocean Action Plan would
subsequently be incorporated into government decision-making.
In addition to identifying these areas based on inaccurate data,
this effort may result in actions to create new marine protected areas
where fishing is either off-limits or severely restricted, without any
statutory authority for doing so and without the transparency
associated with authorized mechanisms such as the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act and Magnuson-Stevens Act. The National Ocean Policy
takes the statutory power of the National Marine Fisheries Service,
NOAA, and the regional fishery management councils and seeks to place
it with the RPBs, so that the Mid-A RPB could falsely declare an area
worthy of greater protection outside of these long-established and
authorized processes.
While the RPB states it is a non-regulatory body, the Executive
Order and subsequent federal agency commitments make clear that this is
in fact a body whose actions have regulatory impacts. In addition to
usurping the authority of fishery management councils, one of many
concerns I have is RPB discussion about possibly using these
unauthorized plans to carry out elements of the Coastal Zone Management
Act and impose new pre-application consultation requirements. The
regulatory nature of RPB activities underscores concerns about the
RPBs' desire to favor certain uses over others, to the detriment of
commercial fishing.
Also of significance, since at least 2008, the Gordon and Betty
Moore foundation has awarded copious grants to ENGOs in their efforts
to push ecosystem based management (EBM), coastal and marine spatial
planning (CMSP) and marine protected areas (MPAs), in addition to the
RPBs and the entire National Ocean Council plan. This includes funding
for Mid-A RPB activities until 2016.
Groups like the Coastal State Stewardship, Monmouth University
Urban Coast Institute, Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment,
Wildlife Conservation Society, the Nature Conservancy, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Living Oceans, Surfrider, and many, many
others, are all grant-funded to show up to RPB meetings and pretend
they have no bias or specific agenda, nor funding sources when the
entire process has been funded by at least one ENGO from the beginning.
Leaving us, the fishermen, possibly one of the oldest stakeholders in
the sea, with no voice that matters and no seat at the decision-making
table.
Thus, our very future could be decided by an unauthorized planning
process that is as transparent as mud, and our two choices we are
offered as commercial fishermen seem to be get closed out of productive
fishing grounds via MPAs or sanctuaries, or be subject to closures with
the RPBs' blessings.
This is not doable for thousands of commercial fishing families
throughout the country. We could lose everything, our jobs and our
homes, as we are pushed out, destroying the very fabric of our coastal
fishing communities. It's not about retraining for a new job. Stocks
are sustainable. We shouldn't be forced into a quasi-parallel ocean
governing body whose goal is to push us off the ocean to force an
agenda that they haven't been able to push through democratically
through the Magnuson Stevens Act and its fish councils.
We, the commercial fishermen of the US, are the ones who need help
and protection now from Congress. We desperately need your help to
ensure that commercial fishermen are no longer saddled with additional
uncertainty or new regulatory hurdles as a result of the 2010 National
Ocean Policy Executive Order and that Federal agencies no longer flout
the will and intent of Congress. I look forward to any questions that
you may have.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Ms. Brady. Very, very powerful
testimony.
Mr. Guith.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER GUITH,
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, GLOBAL ENERGY INSTITUTE,
U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Mr. Guith. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member
Peters, and members of the Subcommittee. I'm Christopher Guith,
Senior Vice President of the Global Energy Institute, an
affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest
business federation, representing the interests of more than 3
million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well
as state and local chambers and industry associations, and
dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending America's
free enterprise system.
The business community views the National Ocean Policy as a
unnecessary bureaucratic and unauthorized regulatory action
that creates significant risk and uncertainty to both private
and public sector investment and the regulatory processes
already in place. The impacts on fishing, shipping, and
offshore energy, like oil and natural gas development, as well
as wind generation, are clear.
But while this policy is punitively focused on oceans, the
final recommendations from the Interagency Ocean Policy Task
Force make it clear that the policy's impacts will not stop at
the coastline. To be sure, the reach could be economy-wide.
These actions will be taken not only without statutory
authorization, but in the face of continued congressional
opposition, as expressed via the appropriations process.
Healthy and sustainable oceans are absolutely in the
national interest. Congress has seen fit to enact dozens of
laws to ensure this. Together with hundreds of state laws, a
framework has been created to do precisely what the National
Ocean Policy ostensibly will do, but without legal authority.
Coastal and marine spatial planning under the policy is a
concept that, if implemented, would limit specific areas of
ocean for particular uses. There are already numerous
mechanisms under Federal law to resolve such conflicts.
Allowing unelected regional planning bodies to essentially zone
state and Federal waters is not authorized in any statute, nor
is it remotely envisioned by any previous congressional action.
The task force provided little analysis for even
description for the problems its recommendations allege to
address, nor do the recommendations provide any constraint or
even oversight that might otherwise allay concern over
potentially severe negative impacts.
These concerns are no longer prospective. The creation and
operation of regional planning bodies in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic have already given rise to forced and exclusionary
efforts to create regional plans that could be used to preclude
recreational and economic activity. Through implementation,
Federal agencies have been charged to use these plans to inform
and guide their actions and decisions. These bodies consist
solely of governmental officials with no representation of the
industries they intend to regulate.
The breadth of this policy inspires our greatest concern.
It explicitly calls for addressing urban and suburban
development as well as land-based source pollutants. Both have
already significantly--both are already significantly regulated
at the Federal, state, and local levels.
Additionally, it allows for regional planning bodies to
include upland areas. It finds that current conditions
necessitate land-based planning efforts with ocean, coastal,
and Great Lakes planning. It also explicitly targets certain
specific industries by name, including energy, agriculture,
forestry, and infrastructure development. The infrastructure
industry must already negotiate a Byzantine regulatory
labyrinth that often leads to costly delays. As Congress and
the administration continue preliminary plans to bolster
infrastructure investment, the National Ocean Policy stands as
an unnecessary and unauthorized obstacle.
The impacts of this policy are already being felt through
the increased regulatory uncertainty. Moreover, while the
policy was first being implemented, the previous administration
cited it as justification for placing more than 94 percent of
Federal waters off limits for energy development.
The policy exacerbates the uncertainty and adds yet another
maze of real-world fact and regulation for businesses to
attempt to navigate. As the chart you referenced, Mr. Chairman,
illustrates, it provides a daunting visual representation of
how complex and overbroad this new bureaucracy is. This may, in
turn, lead to even less investment in areas such as
infrastructure construction, manufacturing, and energy
production. This is why some 80 associations sent this letter
to President Trump asking that the policy be rescinded.
At a time that everyone desires greater economic growth,
the country is looking for its leaders to put an end to
unnecessary red tape and get the economy moving again.
Comprehensive tax reform would be a tremendous step towards
making the United States more competitive, and we encourage
Congress to pass tax reform now.
Regulatory relief is also a priority, and the National
Ocean Policy is a step in the wrong direction and is already
increasing the level of uncertainty, and left intact, will for
years to come. It is an aggressive regulatory action in search
of a problem. It lacks statutory authority, is overly broad,
and will add layers of bureaucracy that will stifle economic
growth and job creation. It should be rescinded. Until or
unless that occurs, Congress should continue to aggressively
review its implementation and deny it funding.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher Guith, Senior Vice President,
Global Energy Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Thank you, Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and members of
the Committee. I am Christopher Guith, senior vice president of the
Global Energy Institute (Institute), an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, the world's largest business federation representing the
interests of more than three million businesses of all sizes, sectors,
and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry
associations, and dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending
America's free enterprise system.
The mission of the Institute is to unify policymakers, regulators,
business leaders, and the American public behind a 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. The business community views
the National Ocean Policy, which was set in motion by an Executive
Order from President Obama, as an unnecessary, bureaucratic, and
unauthorized regulatory action that creates significant risk and
uncertainty to both private and public sector investment and legal
regulatory processes already in place. This policy has been developed
with little transparency and notice from the American businesses and
other stakeholders that the policy could impact most. We applaud this
Subcommittee, and Congress at large, for utilizing its oversight
function to examine the National Ocean Policy and highlight the new and
unnecessary barriers it has created that jeopardize economic growth.
The impacts on fishing, shipping, infrastructure development, and
offshore energy, like oil and natural gas production and wind
generation, are clear. While this policy is putatively focused on
oceans, the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task
Force make it clear that the policy's impacts eventually will 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. Agriculture,
construction, and manufacturing are squarely within the potential reach
of this policy. Moreover, onshore energy operations like mining, oil
and natural gas production, and electricity generation are also
vulnerable to new regulatory actions. To be sure, the reach could be
economy-wide. These actions will be taken not only without statutory
authorization, but in the face of continued Congressional opposition as
expressed via the appropriations process.
Rationale
Healthy and sustainable oceans are absolutely in the national
interest. Congress has seen fit to enact dozens of laws to ensure this
interest. Together with hundreds of state laws, a framework has been
created to do precisely what the National Ocean Policy ostensibly will
do. The authority to implement such a policy is purportedly based on
many Federal statutes. At no point in this policy's promulgation,
however, did the Obama Administration suggest that is was explicitly
supported by Congressional intent under any individual statute or
combination of statutes. The regulatory record argues the creation of
this new regulatory structure is needed to allocate ocean use through
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning and to ``strengthen the governance
structure.'' Both purposes should give everyone pause, including,
anyone who ever intends to enjoy the beach or ocean, and anyone
concerned about jobs and economic growth.
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning under the National Ocean Policy
is a concept that, if implemented, would limit specific areas of an
ocean for particular uses. This is a solution to a problem that does
not appear to currently exist. It is true some areas of the ocean are
already designated for uses that may preclude additional uses. For
example, significant swaths are designated for use by the Department of
Defense and National Marine Sanctuaries. If, however, 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 Bodies to essentially ``zone''
state and Federal waters, as in the case of the National Ocean Policy,
is not authorized in any statute, nor is it remotely envisioned by any
previous Congressional action. If economic growth is a priority,
Congress should take note that these planning authorities are expressly
empowered by the policy to limit commercial endeavors at will, despite
no clear statutory authority.
This may sound alarmist, but it is the obvious outcome given the
vagueness of the policy itself and the non-transparent fashion in which
it was created. The previous administration's Interagency Policy Task
Force provided little analysis or even description for the problems its
recommendations allege to address. More troubling still is that the
Task Force Recommendations and the subsequent Executive Order provide
little, if any, constraint or even oversight that might otherwise allay
concern over potentially severe negative impacts. While technically not
regulations per se, the Executive Order mandates that agencies
implement marine plans and the National Ocean Policy overall to the
fullest extent, including through regulations. The entire policy is
overly vague, which only magnifies the concerns any current or
potential ocean user should have.
These concerns are no longer prospective. In the seven years since
its creation, implementation of the National Ocean Policy has shown
these concerns are well-founded. The creation and operation of Regional
Planning Bodies in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic have already given
rise to forced and exclusionary efforts to create regional plans that
can be used to preclude recreation and economic activity. In ordaining
these bodies, the Federal Government committed to ensuring agency
actions, ``use the Plan[s] to inform and guide its actions and
decisions.'' These bodies consist solely of governmental officials with
no representation of the industries they intend to regulate.
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 previous administration's well-
documented regulatory overreach on numerous ``land based pollutants''--
some of which were at least nominally authorized by statute--it does
not require a vivid imagination to foresee future administrations using
this policy as 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 Spatial 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 the country needs. As Congress and the Trump administration
continue preliminary plans to bolster infrastructure investment, the
National Ocean Policy stands as an unnecessary and unauthorized
obstacle.
Not only does the 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 are viewed.
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. As a
practical matter, then, the precautionary principle states that unless
there is currently accepted scientific finding that a specific proposed
human activity does not cause environmental degradation, it should be
limited at least until such a finding is determined.
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 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. One impact that has already come from
this policy is increased regulatory uncertainty. The recent regulatory
overreach has permeated so many areas of commercial enterprise already,
ranging from healthcare to financial services, labor relations, and
energy production, to name just a few. While the National Ocean Policy
was first being implemented, the previous administration cited it as
justification for placing more than 94 percent of Federal waters off-
limits for energy development.
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 more than 190,000 regulations have been promulgated since
1976. The National Association of Manufacturers concluded that the
total cost of Federal regulations to the U.S. economy in 2012 was over
$2 trillion. The National Small Business Association estimates the
average regulatory cost for each employee of a small business exceeds
$12,000 per year and an astounding $83,000 for a start-up. Ultimately,
additional 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 National Ocean Policy exacerbates this uncertainty and adds yet
another maze of real or de facto regulation for businesses to attempt
to navigate. As an illustration, the attached flow chart provides a
daunting visual representation of how byzantine and over-broad this new
bureaucracy is. 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 ocean
policy has the potential to close off even more off-shore areas,
harming our energy security by forcing the country to continue to
import energy we could be producing domestically. It is no secret that
oil and natural gas production on Federal lands has been flat or
declining while production on private lands has been soaring. This
policy could make this disparity even worse to the detriment of our
energy security.
Conclusion
At a time everyone desires greater economic growth, the country is
looking to its leaders to put an end to unnecessary red tape and get
the economy moving again. Comprehensive tax reform would be a
tremendous step forward towards making the United States more
competitive, and we encourage Congress to pass tax reform now.
Additionally, regulatory relief is crucial for encouraging greater
capital investment. This investment will not only generate economic
growth, but create jobs in nearly all sectors. The National Ocean
Policy is a step in the wrong direction and is already increasing the
level of uncertainty, and left intact, will for years to come.
Over the last decade, American business has been the target of a
regulatory onslaught of historic proportions. The National Ocean Policy
is only one example. Fundamentally, it is an aggressive regulatory
action in search of a problem. It lacks statutory authority, is overly-
broad, and will add layers of bureaucracy that will stifle economic
growth and job creation. It should be rescinded. Until and unless that
occurs, Congress should continue to aggressively review its
implementation and deny it funding.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Guith.
Mr. Keppen.
STATEMENT OF DAN KEPPEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
FAMILY FARM ALLIANCE
Mr. Keppen. Good afternoon, Chairman Sullivan and Ranking
Member Peters and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Dan
Keppen, and on behalf of Family Farm Alliance, I thank you for
this opportunity to present this testimony on the implications
of the administrations--or the Trump administration--the Obama
administration's National Ocean Policy. The alliance is a
grassroots organization of family farmers, ranchers, irrigation
districts, and allied industries in the 16 western states.
Some of you today may be wondering, why is an organization
that represents family farmers and ranchers in the mostly
inland West concerned with a policy that would appear to apply
more to the ocean and coastal communities? We have monitored
this issue for some time and have formally raised concerns with
how this policy would be implemented.
The policy sets forth yet another level of Federal
management and oversight intended to improve the way inland
ocean and coastal activities are managed. Unfortunately, this
has the potential to impose negative impacts, intended or not,
on the western interests we represent.
We fear that the Federal Regional Planning Bodies proposed
under the Ocean Policy framework could dramatically increase
the role of Federal agencies on inland areas. As the Federal
presence grows, so must the diligence of producers, who must
closely monitor agency actions directed from afar and spend
valuable time and resources doing so. Some of us have learned
the hard way: if you're not at the table, you'll end up on the
menu.
The National Ocean Policy would also establish a framework
for collaboration and a shared set of goals to promote
ecosystem-based management. This would allow new regional
planning bodies to potentially impact activities that occur on
lands that drain into the ocean. This objective involves vague
and undefined goals and policies. We know from experience that
these can be used by critics of irrigated agriculture as a
basis for actions to stop or delay federally permitted
activities.
We believe the National Ocean Policy will affect already
budget-strapped agencies that interact closely with western
agricultural irrigators. As Federal budgets are further reduced
or remain flat, it is unclear how much funding the agencies are
taking from existing programs to develop and implement this
initiative.
Finally, we believe there's a high risk of unintended
economic and societal consequences associated with implementing
this policy. The National Ocean Policy creates the potential
for unforeseen impacts to inland areas like agriculture. The
family farmers and ranchers we represent are part of a $172
billion contribution that western irrigated agriculture makes
to our economy every year.
Our producers also contribute to a luxury all our nation's
citizens enjoy: spending less of their disposable income on
food than anywhere else on the planet. Consumer spending drives
economies. Inexpensive safe food helps drive consumer spending.
We must move away from spending Federal funds to support
new bureaucracies and procedures that could lead to further
uncertainty, restrictions, and delays in food production.
Instead, taxpayer dollars should be allocated to existing and
proven entities, programs, and activities that have already
been authorized.
Given these concerns, we believe the Federal Government
should vacate the existing Executive order. Instead,
stakeholders should be engaged to ensure effective,
transparent, and beneficial ocean policies under existing
statutory frameworks. The government should only support
policies that enable us to maximize our nation's economic and
societal benefits from our oceans. We must avoid unnecessary
duplication and confusion.
The Family Farm Alliance and the farmers and water
management organizations we work with are willing to implement
pragmatic actions. They seek to find a sustainable balance of
environmental protection and economic prosperity. Farmers are
producers. When they set out to do something, their mindset is
to get results, to get something done, and generate a tangible
output for their efforts. That is why farmers and ranchers and
certain constructive environmental groups work so well
together.
Our organization seeks to collaborate with those groups
that also seek positive results as an objective. The foundation
for some true collaborative solutions will be driven from the
constructive center. This approach steers away from the
conflict that can ensue between new regulatory outreach and
grassroots activism intended to resist any changes to existing
environmental and natural resource laws, regulations, and
policies.
We don't need to create new processes and planning groups
to tackle pressing marine challenges. Instead, existing
collaborative programs that have proven successful should be
given emphasis and perhaps be used as templates to duplicate
that success elsewhere.
American farmers and ranchers for generations have grown
food and fiber for the world. We will have to muster even more
innovation to continue to meet this critical challenge. That
innovation must be encouraged by our government rather than
stifled with new Federal regulations and uncertainty over water
supplies or irrigated farms and ranches in the rural West. We
welcome your leadership to help make that possible. We're
pleased that your Subcommittee is paying attention and
providing this opportunity to voice our concerns.
Thank you for the chance to provide this testimony today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keppen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan Keppen, Executive Director,
Family Farm Alliance
Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters and Members of the
Subcommittee: My name is Dan Keppen, and on behalf of the Family Farm
Alliance (Alliance), I thank you for this opportunity to present this
testimony on the implications of the Obama Administration's National
Ocean Policy (NOP). The Alliance is a grassroots organization of family
farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts, and allied industries in 16
Western states. The Alliance is focused on one mission: To ensure the
availability of reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to
Western farmers and ranchers. We are also committed to the fundamental
proposition that Western irrigated agriculture must be preserved and
protected for a host of economic, sociological, environmental, and
national security reasons--many of which are often overlooked in the
context of other national policy decisions.
The Family Farm Alliance is respected for its reputation in helping
to solve Western water challenges in a constructive manner. The Western
family farmers and ranchers who we represent are confronted with many
critical issues today. At the top of the list is the daunting number of
administrative policy and regulatory initiatives that our Western
agricultural producers face daily.
Some of you today may be wondering--why is an organization that
represents family farmers and ranchers in the mostly inland West
concerned with a policy that would appear to apply more to the ocean
and coastal communities? We have actually monitored this issue for some
time and have formally raised concerns with how the Obama
Administration's ocean policy would be implemented. Specifically, we
were concerned with the role states and stakeholder user groups would
play within this policy. We had questions about whether the potential
impact on the economy, budget, and existing statutes and regulatory
processes had been assessed. For example, how would this complement or
conflict with the authority of states? Many of our farmers and ranchers
have been impacted by implementation of Federal environmental laws
intended to protect ecosystems far-removed from their operations. For
these reasons, we remain concerned that this policy could dramatically
increase the role of Federal agencies on inland rivers and adjacent
lands, as further outlined in this testimony.
Importance of Western Irrigated Agriculture and Key Challenges
Irrigated agriculture in the West not only provides a $172 billion
annual boost to our economy, it also provides important habitat for
western waterfowl and other wildlife, and its open spaces are treasured
by citizens throughout the West. Family farmers and ranchers are
willing to partner with constructive conservation groups and government
agencies, especially if there are opportunities to both help strengthen
their businesses and improve the environment.
Still, many Western producers face significant regulatory and
policy related challenges, brought on--in part--by Federal agency
implementation of environmental laws and policies. The challenges are
daunting, and they will require innovative solutions. The Family Farm
Alliance and the farmers and water management organizations we work
with are dedicated to the pragmatic implementation of actions that seek
to find a sustainable balance of environmental protection and economic
prosperity. Farmers are producers; when farmers set out to do
something, their mindset is to get results, to get something done, and
generate a tangible output for the effort. That is why farmer and
ranchers and certain constructive environmental groups work well
together.
All too often, unfortunately, environmental policy is not driven to
achieve meaningful results. That is why our organization seeks to
collaborate with those groups that also seek positive results as an
objective. The foundation for some true, collaborative solutions will
be driven from the constructive ``center'', one that steers away from
the conflict that can ensue between new regulatory overreach and
grassroots activism intended to resist any changes to existing
environmental and natural resource laws, regulations, and policies.
Background of Executive Order 13547
On July 19, 2010 President Obama signed Executive Order 13547 to
adopt the final recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task
Force to implement a new NOP. The policy set up a new level of Federal
management intended to improve the way inland, ocean and coastal
activities are managed. Unfortunately, this has the potential to impose
impacts--intended or not--across a spectrum of sectors, including the
Western agricultural organizations we represent.
The National Ocean Policy made it clear that activities that might
adversely affect the ocean ecosystems might also be impacted--no matter
how far inland they may occur.\1\ While the NOP stated that this policy
or marine planning ``creates or changes regulations or authorities'',
it also proposed that agencies would ``coordinate to use and provide
scientifically sound, ecosystem-based approaches to achieving healthy
coastal and ocean habitats.'' The NOP further stated that ``effective
implementation would also require clear and easily understood
requirements and regulations, where appropriate, that include
enforcement as a critical component'' \2\ and that the Executive Order
mandates that Federal agencies make all their actions consistent with
the NOP and any related plans.'' \3\ From our standpoint, this
presented some uncertainty as to how the Federal Government in the
future intended to either revise existing regulations or impose new
regulations on activities that were already permitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Final Recommendations, which were adopted by the 2010
Executive Order (see language in Section 9(c) state: ``. . . the
geographic scope of the CMSP (Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning) area
in the United States would not include upland areas unless a regional
planning body determines to include them.'' (emphasis added). ``The
geographic scope [of CMSP] would include inland bays and estuaries in
both coastal and Great Lakes settings. . . . Additional inland areas
may be included in the planning area as the regional planning bodies .
. . deem appropriate. Regardless, consideration of inland activities
would be necessary to account for the significant interaction between
upstream activities and ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes uses and
ecosystem health.''
\2\ https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/files/documents/
OPTF_FinalRecs.pdf
\3\ See Section 6(a) at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/files/
documents/2010stewardship-eo.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support for Voluntary Incentive-Driven Provisions
The Family Farm Alliance has long advocated a voluntary, incentive-
driven philosophy to advance conservation, and thus we supported the
NOP's intent to provide financial assistance to private landowners
seeking to apply voluntary conservation practices. While we were
pleased to see the NOP acknowledge that ``collaborative watershed
restoration efforts are important to the overall success of coastal and
marine habitat conservation,''--a principle we also embrace--this
acknowledgement did little to alleviate our over-arching concerns about
the uncertainties associated with the expansive and uncertain nature of
the NOP. We continue to strongly believe that, rather than creating new
processes and planning groups to tackle pressing marine challenges,
existing collaborative programs that have proven successful should be
given emphasis and perhaps be used as templates to duplicate that
success elsewhere.
The NOP points to restoration efforts for Pacific Northwest salmon
as an ``excellent example of collaborative, voluntary upland watershed
conservation and restoration.'' We agree that there are good examples
of successful partnerships involving farmers and ranchers and
anadromous fish recovery projects on the West coast, to wit:
The NOAA Fisheries Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho
Salmon calls for public-private partnerships to conserve
habitat for the threatened species, positioning coho for
possible removal from the Federal list of threatened and
endangered species within the next 10 years. The plan is
voluntary, not regulatory, and hinges on local support and
collaboration. The plan promotes a network of partnerships that
integrate the needs of Oregon Coast coho with the needs of
coastal communities.
The Yakima River Basin Integrated Plan in Washington State
is the result of a collaborative effort on the part of
irrigators, environmentalists, local governments, the Yakama
Nation, the Federal Government, and the State of Washington.
The plan looks to improving water for farms, fish and the
environment in a manner that does not pit one use against
another. Anadromous fish runs are already benefiting from this
forward-thinking partnership.
Unfortunately, in other parts of the Northwest, this collaborative
philosophy approach is less visible, as underscored by last year's
decision by U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon, who ruled the
government hasn't done nearly enough to improve Northwest salmon runs
on the Columbia River. ``These efforts have already cost billions of
dollars, yet they are failing,'' he wrote in May 2016. Now, certain
environmental groups say the Lower Snake River Dams--which fuel much of
the Northwest's power supply and make possible irrigation for farms and
navigation for agricultural commodities--are the problem, and must come
down. As further described below, our members fear that the ``federal
regional planning bodies'' proposed under the Ocean Policy framework
could dramatically increase the role of Federal agencies on inland
rivers and adjacent lands, including all uses (agriculture, irrigation,
ports, etc.), at a time when Northwest hydropower dams are the topic of
ongoing litigation driven by certain litigious environmental groups.
Concerns of Western Family Farmers and Ranchers
The Family Farm Alliance certainly supports the goals of the NOP,
which are intended to guide Federal agencies to ``ensure the
protection, maintenance, and restoration of the health of ocean,
coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources, 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.'' However, we have some
grave concerns that extend beyond this broad intent.
Funding concerns
We believe NOP will affect already budget-strapped agencies that
interact closely with Western agricultural irrigators, including the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Departments of Commerce and the
Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Army Corps
of Engineers. Despite USDA's involvement in the National Ocean Policy
over the past fours, the full extent of the department's activities and
role in the process is not clear. As Federal budgets are further
reduced or remain flat, it is unclear how much funding the agencies are
taking from existing programs to develop and implement this new
initiative.
Uncertain Impacts to Inland Areas
The NOP proposes that, working through the U.S. Coral Reef Task
Force, agencies will coordinate to address key threats to coral reef
ecosystems, including impacts from land-based sources of pollution.
Through ``more effective use'' of voluntary programs, partnerships, and
pilot projects, agencies will work to ``reduce excessive nutrients,
sediments, and other pollutants''. The NOP would also establish a
framework for collaboration and a shared set of goals to promote
``ecosystem-based management'', where agencies will ``develop
principles, goals, and performance measures'' that support this
management philosophy.
The ``Ecosystem-based management'' authority created by this
executive order would allow federally-dominated Regional Planning
Bodies to reach as far inland as they deem necessary to protect ocean
ecosystem health. It could potentially impact all activities that occur
on lands adjacent to rivers, tributaries or watersheds that drain into
the ocean. For example, although the policy was portrayed by the Obama
Administration as primarily targeting ocean-related activities, the
National Ocean Policy Final Recommendations adopted by the 2010
Executive Order specifically stated that the policy plans to address
``the major impacts of urban and suburban development and agriculture--
including forestry and animal feedlots.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/files/documents/
OPTF_FinalRecs.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``ecosystem based management'' authority involves vague and
undefined objectives, goals, and policies that we know from experience
can be used by critics of irrigated agriculture as the basis for
negative media or lawsuits to stop or delay Federally-permitted
activities. For example, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
has determined that Central Valley salmon populations will go extinct
unless government agencies change their water operations in California.
In a draft biological opinion, NMFS concluded that the southern
resident population of killer whales might go extinct because its
primary food--salmon--is imperiled by California's network of dams and
canals. Similar linkages between these orcas and potato farmers
(located hundreds of miles from the Pacific Ocean) were contemplated as
a biological opinion was being drafted by NMFS for the Klamath
Irrigation Project, located in the high desert of southern Oregon. The
NOP opens the possibility of further emphasizing such `ecosystem-based'
relationships. Further, the NOP sets up `pre-application consultations'
where requested Federal permits would be subject to additional
consultation processes prior to any formal consideration.
Another example of Federal overreach in my home state of Oregon,
NMFS is being criticized for issuing land use commands to local
governments in the name of protecting anadromous species. NMFS is
currently under fire for insisting that communities adopt federally-
driven land use restrictions meant to help endangered species like
salmon and steelhead in order to be eligible for Federal flood
insurance program coverage.\5\ This, even though neither the flood
insurance program nor FEMA, which administers it, has any power over
land use. In an editorial last year, the Eugene Register-Guard noted
that the NMFS restrictions had the potential to ``place floodplains in
271 communities off-limits to development, agriculture and forestry.''
Affected regions, the paper wrote, would include not just significant
municipal areas, but ``swaths of farm and forest land.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Feds turn flood insurance into a tool for land grabs in
Oregon'', Damien Schiff for the Capital Press, November 20, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traditionally, land use is a local and regional responsibility. At
the Family Farm Alliance, we strongly advocate that the best decisions
in resources management are made at the local level. In a state where
local communities must adhere to some of the most extensive land use
regulations in the country, some point to the NMFS actions in Oregon as
proof positive that future implementation of the vague NOP will lead to
similar expanded intrusion by other Federal interests.
Finally, we believe there is a high risk of unintended economic and
societal consequences associated with implementing this policy, due in
part to the unprecedented geographic scale under which the policy is to
be established. As set forth, the National Ocean Policy creates the
potential for unforeseen impacts to inland sectors such as agriculture,
which is connected via the ``ecosystem''-based approach to the ocean.
The family farmers and ranchers we represent are part of a $172 billion
annual contribution--made up of direct irrigated crop production,
agricultural services, and the food processing and packaging sectors--
the ``Irrigated Agriculture Industry'' makes to our economy every year.
Our producers also contribute to the fact that our Nation's citizens
spend less of their disposable income on food than anywhere else in the
world--a luxury only Americans enjoy.
The Need to Consolidate--and not Complicate--Existing Fisheries
Management Efforts
Western watersheds that drain to the Pacific Ocean are home to many
species of fish, some of which are listed as ``endangered'' or
``threatened'' under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and fall
under the responsibility of NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) but have different migration patterns or life histories, often
leading to duplicative and sometimes overlapping actions by each of the
agencies under the ESA. Several of these species--like the Lost River
and Short Nose suckers in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Delta Smelt in
the Sacramento-San Joaquin River & San Francisco Bay-Delta, and the
bull trout in the Upper Snake River--spend their entire lives in
freshwater. Other anadromous species--such as the coho salmon in the
Lower Klamath River, chinook salmon in California's Central Valley, and
salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River--spawn in freshwater,
migrate to the ocean to mature, and return to spawn in freshwater.
Still other species are polymorphic: an individual O.mykiss may live
its entire life in freshwater, in which case the fish is a rainbow
trout, or that fish may ultimately spend part of its life in the ocean,
in which case it is a steelhead and potentially subject to NMFS
jurisdiction if listed under the ESA.
The scope of similar or identical ESA actions performed by each
agency can be extensive, and include designating critical habitat,
developing and implementing recovery plans for endangered and
threatened species, and more. It would seem intuitive to many that
these functions would most effectively and efficiently be conducted
under the roof of one government agency and not be arbitrarily split
between two different agencies housed in two completely different
Federal departments. In fact, up and down the West coast--from
California's Central Valley Project, to the Upper Snake River Basin in
Idaho, to the Klamath Irrigation Project in Oregon and California--
duplicative bureaucracies are generating ESA plans that sometimes
compete with one another. When push comes to shove, water users are
left to wonder, ``how do we do satisfy both agencies, and still provide
water for our farms and communities?'' In some cases, the farms and
communities don't get the water, as demonstrated by the devastating,
regulatory-driven curtailment of water to rural communities in
California's Central Valley (in 2009, and 2014-2016) and the Klamath
Project in 2001.
The NOP--in our view--provides potential to further these types of
unfortunate examples. Instead, we should be looking for ways to
streamline, improve and consolidate Federal resource management
efforts. We need to be sure that new planning groups and programs are
necessary and do not waste public resources. One example of a proposal
that would streamline and improve management of fisheries on the West
coast is embedded in H.R. 3916, the ``Federally Integrated Species
Health (FISH) Act.'' This bill would amend the ESA to vest in the
Secretary of the Interior functions under that Act with respect to
species of fish that spawn in fresh or estuarine waters and migrate to
ocean waters, and species of fish that spawn in ocean waters and
migrate to fresh waters. We believe that by combining the ESA
implementation responsibilities of both NMFS and FWS under one Federal
roof, we would promote more efficient, effective, and coordinated
management of all ESA responsibilities for anadromous and freshwater
fish in Western watersheds, from the highest reaches of our headwaters
to the Pacific Ocean.
Recommendations
Rather than expend Federal funds to support policies that create
new bureaucracies, procedures and regulations that could lead to
further uncertainty, restrictions and delays, scarce taxpayer dollars
should be allocated to existing entities, programs and activities that
have been authorized by Congress and are necessary for businesses and
the economy to properly function. Given these concerns, the Family Farm
Alliance earlier this year signed letters to U.S. House and Senate
Appropriations Committee leadership and President Trump in support of
(1) appropriations language that would be restrictive of the National
Ocean Policy; and (2) executive action to vacate the Obama-era National
Ocean Policy Executive Order and alternatively engage stakeholders to
ensure effective, transparent, and beneficial ocean policies under
existing statutory frameworks. We reiterate our call for these actions
in this testimony.
Conclusions
In a time when our Nation is beginning to return to the path of
economic prosperity, we cannot support the creation of an expansive,
new Federal watershed planning program, particularly for those states
that have existing, productive watershed programs in place. Federal
participation should be channeled through existing state and local
programs, rather than creating uncertainty through potentially
cumbersome new Federal requirements which threaten to derail important
water quality and water conservation projects already underway. And, we
need to focus Federal ESA-listed fish management within one agency.
American family farmers and ranchers for generations have grown
food and fiber for the world, but we will have to muster even more
innovation to continue to meet this critical challenge. That innovation
must be encouraged by our government rather than stifled with new
Federal regulations and uncertainty over water supplies for irrigated
farms and ranches in the rural West. We welcome this committee's
leadership to help make that possible.
We look forward to working with you and other Members of Congress
towards this end.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide this testimony today.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Keppen.
Ms. Metcalf.
STATEMENT OF KATHY METCALF, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CHAMBER OF
SHIPPING OF AMERICA
Ms. Metcalf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify, Ranking Member Peters, members of the
Subcommittee. I'm going to take 15 seconds and do something
that some of your public affairs people would cringe at, and
that is throw my notes behind me because I'm sitting here
listening to the other testimony, and I'm beginning to realize
that we all don't disagree that much, that there's a concept at
play here, a need for collaboration and coordination in making
decisions affecting potentially conflicting ocean users. But I
have to do a little bit of the formal thing.
So my name is Kathy Metcalf. I'm the President and CEO of
the Chamber of Shipping of America. I have sailed afloat as a
deck officer. I have worked over the last 40 years in the
maritime industry.
I am proud to lead the Chamber. And our chamber is made up
of a number of members that own and operate and charter
oceangoing vessels of a variety of types. We conduct operations
throughout the United States, including, Senator Peters, the
Great Lakes. Our focus is not only on assisting our members on
what they have to do today to comply, but what they will have
to do tomorrow to comply or to become or maintain the position
of being good environmental citizens.
Shipping is the global engine for trade, handling almost 80
percent of the U.S. imports and exports, valued at over $1
trillion, 13 million jobs, $14.4 billion in GDP. But the
National Ocean Policy, from our perspective, at its core, is
about good governance. I looked at that diagram, and I wanted
to run for the hills, but I've also seen a diagram of the
Federal Government that doesn't look all that different, the
government that already exists within the executive branch, and
it's that part of the executive branch that needs to be
compelled to work together to make decisions that are smart for
America, smart for the marine environment, and smart for ocean
users.
As you indicated, this is not a bipartisan issue, nor
should it be. It was initiated with the second Bush
administration. It became a little more formalized or a lot
more formalized with the Obama administration. So our plea to
you today is please don't throw the baby out with the
bathwater. There are good pieces of the National Ocean Plan
that need to be kept. And the concerns of my colleague
witnesses here need to be looked at and seriously evaluated and
measures taken to prevent that.
In my written testimony, I indicated we had concerns with
it. What happens to the regional planning bodies when they make
some sort of a decision or some sort of recommendation? Where
does that actually go? Does it become new state regulations,
which, from an international shipping perspective, we can't
afford. We trade through all the United States, the coastal
United States. We can't have different regulations in every
state of which we visit.
And now I have thrown the notes out, so my colleagues
behind me are probably about ready to fall off their chair.
The National Ocean Policy encompasses a lot of issues, and
where we engage and we've found the most beneficial is the use
of ocean planning as a tool to address priorities. The data
portal, for instance, is an invaluable set of data for those of
the shipping industry, and as it has built upon and hopefully
problem data is corrected with more accurate data, we can have
a system that people can use to make informed decisions. We
value this approach to good governance. The Coast Guard
themselves has indicated the need for good marine spatial
planning for the purposes of maritime security and maritime
stewardship.
Poor planning and lack of consideration for navigational
safety has the potential to impact all of our values. Regional
ocean planning is not about new regulations, but it's about
helping the Federal and State agencies do the jobs you've given
them in already existing statutes.
We--my colleague, Director of Maritime Affairs, has worked
with the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic, and we have found
positive developments there. We still have concerns about what
happens to these decisions, and that needs to be clarified. It
needs to be made clear that these just not go off into some
other legal stratosphere and then suddenly become detriments to
the operation of the industries that use the world's oceans.
In closing, I hope this Subcommittee will allow industries
to continue to work with the Federal agencies and states within
this format or some revised format. Without it, we will be
limited in our ability to adapt to the complex and rapidly
changing maritime domain.
And I might add I've got some really good examples of where
coordination and collaboration have worked very well. I was
hoping Senator Markey would still be here, particularly in the
Port of Boston, where we solved an LNG siting problem with a
safety of navigation problem and protected endangered North
Atlantic right whales, a perfect example of collaboration. A
perfect example of lack thereof was one morning when I opened
an electronic file and I saw lease plots for wind farms sitting
in the middle of the vessel traffic lanes approaching Hampton
Roads.
Thank you for the opportunity, sir.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Metcalf follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathy Metcalf, President and CEO,
Chamber of Shipping of America
The Chamber of Shipping of America (CSA) is a membership based
organization that acts as a subject matter expert on marine issues
including those domestic and international legislative, regulatory, and
administrative issues that fall under our expertise. We represent a
membership of companies that own, operate, charter, or maintain a
commercial interest in ocean-going tanker, container and dry bulk
vessels operating in both the domestic and international trades. Our
member companies conduct operations internationally and domestically in
all major ports in the United States, including Alaska, the Gulf of
Mexico, and the East and West coasts of the United States. With more
than thirty organizations depending on our representation, we speak for
a diversity of interests including freight, oil and gas transportation,
marine spill response, marine vessel inspection and compliance
programs, and technology development over a wide array of ocean faring
industries. Our focus is not only on assisting our member companies in
compliance with existing requirements but also on future requirements
likely to be imposed on the maritime industry with the goal of
assisting in the design of these new requirements in a manner which is
economically feasible, operationally practical and with due regard to
safe and environmentally responsible operations.
I graduated from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and have worked
in the maritime sector for almost 40 years. I am currently the
President and CEO of the Chamber of Shipping of America. Prior to that,
I have held positions in the energy industry including deck officer
aboard large oceangoing tankers, marine safety and environmental
director, corporate regulatory and compliance manager, and state
government affairs manager. I have served the maritime industry for my
entire career.
Ports, container ships, bulk carriers, tankers, and the tug and
barge industry are all working to move cargo into and out of U.S.
ports. Shipping is the global engine for trade handling almost 80
percent of all U.S. imports and exports, valued at over $1 trillion,
and this is only expected to increase with the global economy becoming
more interconnected. We are seeing the largest container vessels in
history with expansion of the Panama Canal, with tens of thousands of
containers now coming into U.S. ports each day. The marine
transportation system supports 13 million jobs and the industry
contributes over $14.4 billion in GDP. This economic powerhouse and
integral part of global trade is inherently linked to operations
happening on the ocean and the ability to move freely and with minimal
risk on the water.
The National Ocean Policy at its core is about good governance.
This policy is the result of decades of research, public outreach, and
the recommendations of two separate ocean commissions to ensure ocean
management is done in an effective and coordinated way. Policies of
this nature were traditionally bi-partisan and should continue to be.
Discussions on the need for a national ocean plan were initiated by the
George W. Bush Administration with his ocean commission with additional
work and a more formal approach implemented by the Obama
Administration.
In all candor, I must admit that we viewed the development of a
National Ocean Policy with regional components with some concern. While
we were and are still supportive of the need for better coordination of
ocean policy decisions across all Federal agencies, our concerns were
initially focused on the potential for regional decisions which did not
take into account the need for consistent national requirements as
applied to the maritime industry to ensure the free flow of marine
transportation assets to and from U.S. ports and in coastal waters.
These concerns still remain particularly relating to how new state
regulations, which could result in the proverbial ``patchwork quilt''
of different or conflicting requirements across the regions or states,
would be managed. Should this result, the benefits of transparency,
engagement of all stakeholders, both public and private, and the
opportunity to provide input on proposals facilitated by the National
Ocean Policy framework would be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of
inconsistent or conflicting requirements as applied to the maritime
industry which relies on the fundamental principles espoused in the
Constitution's Admiralty and Commerce clauses, to ensure that a set of
uniform national requirements are applied to our industry. Our concerns
thus far have been addressed in the regional ocean plans but can be
significantly reduced if it is agreed that any regional recommendations
are vetted upward to the National Ocean Council for further discussion
and debate. While the Policy is non-regulatory and instead works within
Federal agencies existing authorities, if future regulatory initiatives
are initiated they should be done so through the Federal rulemaking
process which provides the opportunity for comment by all stakeholders.
We continue to believe that coordination among all the players,
especially the Federal agencies that have the authority to regulate our
industry is beneficial and should be encouraged. With this caveat in
mind, we offer the following comments.
The National Ocean Policy encompasses a range of ocean issues and
priorities including marine transportation, addressing illegal,
unreported, and unregulated fishing, converting offshore oil and gas
platforms to artificial reefs for fishermen, siting of alternative
energy installations offshore and resolving ocean user conflicts where
necessary. Where the Chamber of Shipping of America engages and finds
the most value in the National Ocean Policy is the opportunity for
regions to use ocean planning as a tool to address relevant ocean
priorities. Many of the global shipping companies that we represent are
well versed in ocean planning as more than 65 countries have ocean
plans in place around the world. We see this type of marine planning as
a common-sense approach to ocean management; it should not be about
politics but instead government efficiency and the ability of Federal
management agencies to make the best, most informed decisions.
Ocean planning in the United States is voluntary and regionally-
driven with states requesting Federal agencies to help them address
their ongoing management challenges. While each region's challenges are
unique, there are overarching elements of government and permitting
efficiency that ocean planning creates and that the Chamber supports.
Interagency coordination, so we can talk with one agency about issues
that may impact the maritime community rather than with the more than
20 agencies with jurisdiction over the ocean helps us achieve
economical, safe and environmentally responsible outcomes for our
industry. Having good data and information on our industry in one
central location through regional ocean data portals that helps
agencies solve conflicts and keeps our mariners safe and our ports
operational is also key.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Subcommittee, permitting efficiency and
streamlining and the ability to access good data to achieve these goals
is bipartisan and fundamental to good government.
I am here today to tell you that we see the value in this approach
to good governance. Our business is built on itineraries, logistics,
and speed. The data provided through this process helps us achieve
those and allows agencies like BOEM who permit projects that have the
potential to overlap with shipping traffic separation schemes and ship
traffic to make more informed decisions. The result is a reduction in
conflicts with industry uses resulting in permitting efficiency and
streamlining for industry and a reduction in costs for permit
applicants.
Given this is the Subcommittee on Oceans and the Coast Guard,
members should understand that the Coast Guard has specifically
outlined how important marine planning is to their statutory missions.
The Coast Guard has explicitly stated that ``Effective maritime
governance has always been, and will continue to be integral to meeting
Service responsibilities. It requires prioritization and uniformity
throughout the Coast Guard and coordination of ongoing and projected
activities with other stakeholders in shaping a consistent national
approach, while affording operational commanders necessary flexibility
to accommodate unique regional factors. A comprehensive and well
integrated concept for the governance, within the bounds of existing
Coast Guard statutory authorities, applied to the ocean, coastal areas,
the Great Lakes and inland waterways, will have positive impacts across
all Coast Guard mission areas.''
As someone who has been fortunate enough over the years to work
with the Coast Guard, I can attest to the importance of their mission
in keeping our mariners safe and our Nation secure. Regional
coordination and data helps the Coast Guard and the Navy accomplish
these objectives. As the ocean becomes increasingly crowded with
recreational uses, shipping, energy development, and other activities,
comprehensive ocean plans ensure that the Coast Guard can continue to
carry out its Maritime Security and Maritime Stewardship missions,
including protecting and managing America's ports and waterways,
securing our coasts from threats, protecting valuable marine living
resources, and ensuring the safety of Americans on the water.
While the ocean may look vast, it is an incredibly busy place. Our
mariners know more than anyone the potential for use conflicts out on
the water. The shipping industry operates at a large, global scale.
When thinking about shipping or the cruise line industry, it's the
cumulative impacts over time to navigate around, for example offshore
wind and oil and gas platforms, that can add up to hundreds of
thousands of dollars in lost revenue over the course of a year simply
in fuel costs. This in turn, has an effect on the economy and the price
of goods. Understanding the complexities of our industry through ocean
planning will help ocean managers make better, more informed decisions
that better serve our industry and the American people. Additionally,
as entities like the Coast Guard work to ensure navigation and safety
for our mariners, having information on other ocean use activities such
as commercial fishing traffic and recreational fishing and boating
activity is helpful when addressing navigation and safety concerns as
it relates to placing offshore structures that could impact these uses
and potentially conflict with safe navigation.
Shipping companies need certainty and the ability to get into and
out of ports safely. This not only matters to the bottom line for
shipping companies but has the potential to impact ports as well. A
company will chose another port to conduct its business, if it is no
longer cost effective to offload cargo or conduct other business
operations. This Subcommittee represents some of the Nation's busiest
ports. Poor planning and lack of consideration for navigational safety
has the potential to impact those values significantly. The impact to
the port will, in turn, impact the state and local economy with
secondary impacts in lost wages to port workers and ship pilots who
depend on business coming into and out of the port. Navigation and risk
assessment is inherently linked to regional ocean planning. In fact,
because of this planning process the Coast Guard now hosts a maritime
commerce and navigational safety working group to better coordinate
with maritime stakeholders on relevant planning issues.
Regional ocean planning is not about new regulations but about
helping Federal and state agencies do their job better. The Chamber and
many of the industries we interact with feel strongly that regional
approaches to ocean management with involvement of Federal and state
agencies, and stakeholders are invaluable. We also find value in
regional ocean data portals that house ocean data from agencies and
industries in one central, publically accessible location. Using these
data portals, permitting applicants and industry can leverage the broad
spectrum of data sources to conduct risk analyses, identify potential
conflicts, analyze trends, and plan for future uses, thereby ensuring
better predictability for our businesses and avoiding disruption.
Within existing ocean plans, agencies have committed to this early
engagement when planning major actions offshore. Early stakeholder
involvement leads to improved permitting efficiency and ensures
agencies are prepared in advance to make more informed permitting and
management decisions. This approach also ensures conflicts are avoided,
which are often the result of a lack of government coordination and
outreach. Lastly, industries suffer when agencies are not coordinated,
and ocean industries are uniquely vulnerable with over 20 Federal
agencies and entities sharing responsibility for management of Federal
ocean waters. Regional ocean plans provide an opportunity for agencies
to work more effectively with one another and that government
efficiency has in turn helped the maritime sector.
We have actively engaged with the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
Regional Planning Bodies to ensure harmonization of policies, data, and
practices as it pertains to the shipping industry. We agree that a
regional approach is the appropriate lens through which to plan, but
made sure that consistency was addressed as it relates to our industry.
We know that a better understanding from decision-makers on the scale
at which our industry operates will lead to more informed decisions
that support our shipping economy. The Chamber of Shipping of America's
Director of Maritime Affairs serves on the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Council's
Stakeholder Advisory Committee. We have attended meetings and made
recommendations on data and information reflected in the ocean plans
and data portals, and encourage all ocean users, including those
testifying today, to do so.
We have made recommendations about the support and inclusion of
Automatic Identification System (AIS) data in the regional data
portals. Availability of this data is critical to ensuring shipping and
piloting routes are safe and protected. Maps on navigation and
commercial traffic are valuable for those making decisions and working
to address these regional, cumulative impacts. In fact, this data set
is one of the most valuable and used data sets on both the Northeast
and Mid-Atlantic Regional Ocean Data Portals, highlighting the need and
value of data on the shipping industry in management and permitting.
Ability for permitting agencies as well as state and Federal managers
to access this AIS data to view ship traffic and overlay with other
ocean uses like commercial fishing, recreational boating, and offshore
infrastructure platforms all in one place means smarter more efficient
decisions that lead to better outcomes for all industries. Government
efficiency is a key component of these data portals and we fully
support these efforts.
Agency commitments within the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Regional
Ocean Plans to improve not only early coordination with industry but to
improve coordination with one another are invaluable. This is
especially true with respect to USCG, MARAD, and Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) as it relates to the maritime community. We fully
believe that better coordination among the agencies managing our
waterways results in better decisions for the shipping industry. USCG,
MARAD and USACE are important voices for the shipping industry in
Federal decision-making. The commitment to continue engagement with
potentially affected ocean users before a proposed project occurs
offshore is of the upmost importance to the Chamber and our members. As
I discussed above, cumulative impacts of proposed projects can be
incredibly devastating to the shipping industry.
In closing, I hope this Subcommittee will allow industries to
continue to work with Federal agencies and states to solve the
conflicts and challenges we encounter every day. The Chamber supports
the regional data portals, continuing to push for interagency
coordination during permitting processes, and commitments from Federal
agencies to involve industry earlier in decision-making. Our hope is
that the good work related to the regional ocean plans and data portals
continue and that the Subcommittee will not let politics get in the way
of good governance. The ocean economy needs smart approaches to
management and having Federal agencies coordinate with one another on
information and data sharing is just common sense. Our members fully
support these objectives. Without it we will be limited in our ability
to adapt to the complex and rapidly changing maritime domain.
Senator Sullivan. Well, thank you, Ms. Metcalf.
Let me begin with a couple of questions, and I really want
to open this up. I appreciate all of the witnesses' testimony
today.
You know, as I mentioned, Ms. Brady, you gave a very
powerful testimony. I like the phrase ``You're the original
stakeholders,'' and I think sometimes that's forgotten with
regard to the men and women and their families who have been
fishing our oceans for generations.
You mentioned and you spelled out pretty well, with this
policy and this setup, which by any measure is quite unwieldy,
your voice is not heard. But you also talked about the resource
misalignment--right?--with some of the groups that are
participating. How difficult is it if you're a small fisherman,
not only to have your voice heard, but to make it through this
labyrinth of--well, I don't even know what you would call it--
regulations and committees and subcommittees to get to really
Ms. Metcalf's point, which is trying to get policy ideas and
finality out of it? Can you talk to those two points?
Ms. Brady. Well, I can try. I think the big difference,
however, between shipping and fishing is you have to find them
first. And for shipping, it's going from point A to point B.
For us, I actually came--the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council is being held in Annapolis right now, in case anybody
wants to come by and be numbed to death with the regulations.
We have so many constraints upon us right now regarding our
fisheries regulation: where we're allowed to catch, where we
aren't, depending on gear type, where you go, what kind of
gear, gear-restricted areas, rolling closures, other closures,
whether you use a trawl, what the regulations are for that, if
you use a longline or if you use a trap, regulations specific
to each.
The biggest concern that we have is being closed off for
more areas that, under the guise of marine-protected areas,
where there are no regulations, like through National Marine
Fisheries Service with the Sanctuary Act where you can actually
show real science. The science that's being created, the MDAT
data, is for whales, it's very good, for birds, it's very good.
There is no bad data, for those of you that are bat fans,
offshore, in which the eastern red bat is one of the guys that
actually travels offshore, but there's--the fish data is
really, really bad.
They're only using the fall Trawl Survey. So when all the
other surveys, they start to spin and show the great migration
patterns of where the fish go or where the birds or where the
whales go, it's a blank screen, and then in the fall, in
September, they show a blip for 2 months, and then it's gone.
They haven't used the appropriate data. The data that they use
isn't indicative of where these species of fish are.
And we just can't take the chance of being closed out of
more areas by another splinter group that decides to put new
restrictions upon us by possibly extending territorial waters
through interagency consistency requirements of the Coastal
Zone Management Act, and then deciding this is the area that we
want to use or to close.
Senator Sullivan. Yep.
Let me ask a similar question for you, Mr. Keppen, in terms
of your voice. And I think that your testimony is very
interesting because, to be honest, you represent a group that
you don't always think about with regard to fishing and coastal
communities, and yet your testimony was powerful in that you
could or are being impacted. How do you get the voice of the
rancher or farmer in the western part of the state into this
process?
Mr. Keppen. Well, it looks very daunting. And, frankly, I
really don't know a lot about the process or where they're at
right now. I kind of found out from other folks in the
regulated community as to what was going on, you know, a couple
years ago.
But I know, you know, we've dealt with similar types of
processes, which I identify in my written testimony. I live in
the high desert of Oregon, several hundred miles from the
ocean. We have five large dams in the Klamath River between our
irrigation project and the mouth of the river. We've got listed
fish. Coho salmon, they're threatened under the Endangered
Species Act. National Marine Fisheries Service has jurisdiction
over them. When those fish were first listed, irrigation
diversions weren't even mentioned as a stressor to the fish,
but since we're a Federal project, it's become the sole focus,
a means of protecting the fish from being exterminated, we're
sending more flows downstream for those fish.
So here we are hundreds of miles away, we've got anadromous
fish in the ocean and in another state that are impacting our
farmers to the degree in 2001 so much water was sent downstream
for the fish and reserved in our lake for suckers and other
listed fish, the farmers went without water for the first time
in 95 years. It did a $300 million impact to our economy.
Our farmers tried to influence that process that was going
on downstream that led to the flow recommendations. It was very
difficult, not only because of the distance, but the limited
resources they had to engage in that process.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again thank you to each of our witnesses for your testimony
today. I want to drill down a little and get a little sense of
some specific kind of issues.
Ms. Metcalf, in your written testimony, you talked about
the importance of marine planning to the U.S. Coast Guard. And
as you know, this Committee also has jurisdiction over the
oversight of the U.S. Coast Guard, so I want to expand a little
bit on that, if you could for us, and the Coast Guard's ability
to carry out maritime security and stewardship missions. The
National Ocean Policy allows the Coast Guard to address a
number of these issues, and I just wanted to know kind of your
sense of how maritime planning has improved national security
and the ability for the Coast Guard to do its job, if it has.
Ms. Metcalf. I will answer on the Chamber's behalf, and
hopefully it will be what the Coast Guard would respond as
well.
Senator Peters. Well, your perspective would be helpful.
Ms. Metcalf. Marine spatial planning, as you know, is
locating and siting activities on the oceans and the coastal
waters, and to be able to know what's there and when it's there
and in what densities is very important to us, particularly in
shipping, for the purposes of safe navigation. It's also
important to the Coast Guard to know where ships are and who
those ships are.
So not only does marine spatial planning assist in the
marine stewardship piece of the Coast Guard, the safe and
environmentally responsible operations of vessels, but it also
provides them a maritime security perspective and additional
data that allows them to evaluate any potential threats that
may be coming in from the water's side.
Senator Peters. Great. Thank you.
The many uses of our oceans' coasts and Great Lakes also
require infrastructure, something that I've been working on a
great deal in the Great Lakes area in particular, and as a
shipper, having access to ports and other types of
infrastructures important to move goods back and forth. I'll
just get your sense of, how can strategic maritime planning
help us really meet these infrastructure needs? And what are
some of those pressing needs that you see as a shipper?
Ms. Metcalf. Well, as a shipping--someone representing the
shipping industry, obviously, a safe path in which to travel to
and from a port area in a very predictable way and in a safe
way. The efficiencies of port operations can be enhanced by
making sure all the potential conflicting users know where each
other are and don't get in each other's way. And I think the
extension from--increasing the efficiency of the ports also
increases the efficiency of the state, its economies, and the
jobs that are supplied by the port infrastructure. So it's all
connected.
Senator Peters. Very good.
Ms. Brady, in a March 2017 political article, you were
quoted in reference to offshore energy development in the
Northeast by saying, and I think this is your quote, hopefully
it's accurate, and you can tell me if it is or not.
Ms. Brady. I will. I will. Don't worry.
Senator Peters. It says, ``If they keep selling off these
portions of the ocean indiscriminately without determining
first where they shouldn't be going, it will be too late.
You'll be bankrupting these coastal communities.'' Is that an
accurate quote?
Ms. Brady. That is an accurate quote, yes.
Senator Peters. And so I read that with great interest, and
I agree with you, that we have to be very careful before we
sell off these properties, and we need to make sure that we are
conducting proper ocean planning.
So my sense is, how do you believe that we can accomplish
that sort of planning? And is there a role for a regional
planning body in trying to do what's right when it comes to
protecting these vital areas from oil and gas exploration?
Ms. Brady. I don't believe, unfortunately, that the
regional planning body, because if you look at the sustainable
uses that they choose for ocean uses, they've got commercial
and recreational fishing, they have aquaculture, and the only
energy choice that they gave was offshore energy as being the
option.
I think that BOEM, in and of itself, if they had the
ability to include the National Marine Fisheries Service and
the fish councils as having first dibs to be able to say,
``These are traditional historic fishing grounds, you cannot go
there,'' and then from there, decide where are options, then
that could be. They could easily go off the shelf, but the
companies that create those might not make as much profits as
they wish to, and that's inherently the problem.
But, I mean, as far as in--giving the fish councils, giving
NOAA, the ability--the only way that a project, if it's in a
certain area, could have a consult by NOAA is if they have an
ESA--ESA species, Endangered Species Act species, and that's
the only option for them to say, ``No, don't go there.'' Other
than that, it's all wide open. That's the problem.
Senator Peters. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Let me, I want to go back to just a
couple other points on the broader structure of this. The
Executive order for the National Ocean Policy says it's
voluntary marine planning, that's a quote, but it also made
clear that even in regions of the U.S. where the states decide
not to participate, which includes Alaska and some of the Great
Lakes states, Federal agencies still need to address things
such as information ocean management issues associated with
maritime planning, as described in the Executive order, and I'm
reading a quote.
So, Mr. Guith, let me just start with you. Does that sound
voluntary?
Mr. Guith. As long as enforcement is voluntary as well.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Guith. No, it clearly isn't. And I think you hit
exactly on the primary reason why this is an issue. I mean, I
agree with Ms. Metcalf, that there's a considerable amount of
overlap as far as what we all want by way of ensuring that you
can essentially have your cake and eat it, too. I mean, we
want--there are multiple uses of the ocean, and we all want to
do it in sustainable ways that, you know, protects the
environment.
But the primary issue here is the lack of statutory
authority.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Guith. Even if it's the greatest thing in the world,
you can't do it without Congress designating that. And if we
ever get to a point of an actual final regulatory action, I
think you would see several lawsuits filed successfully.
Senator Sullivan. So your point on that, is it also
illustrative of that issue of lack of legal authority that
there has been numerous attempts not only to pass this
legislatively, which would be the proper way to do that, which
have not happened, and, again, as I mentioned, under Congress's
control by both parties, but also Congress's attempts to defund
the program, which is another way of saying that the Congress
believes that if this kind of process is going to go forward,
it should have a statutory basis? Does that further kind of
bolster your claim that this has some shaky legal grounds?
Mr. Guith. Precisely.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
Let me ask, Ms. Metcalf, we were talking about elements of
this that I appreciated you going off script, even if the folks
who you came with might not have, in your testimony. But I
think you made a good point, right? There are some things in
here that are important where there is--I think we would have
bipartisan consensus certainly on this Committee.
Can you point out the few things that you think are
positive, but also things that you have challenges with? I note
that associated groups, maritime industry groups, like the AFL-
CIO's Maritime Trade Department, the American Waterways
Operators, the Transportation Institute, have all weighed in
with either their opposition to this National Ocean Policy
Executive order or raising some significant concerns.
So can you give me your sense again on kind of some of the
positive aspects, but also some of the negative aspects that
you and some of your affiliated groups in the maritime industry
have voiced concerns about?
Ms. Metcalf. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think the response to
your last question is one of those. I happen to be an attorney,
but I don't engage in the practice of law, as they say in the
ethics rules. I have not done a legal analysis of this. I have
looked at this from a practical operating standpoint from
shipping, and so I am not in the position to suggest that there
are lawsuits or other legal action that would be warranted,
although I certainly defer to my colleague that so stated.
We look at the National Ocean Policy, not as a new bunch of
requirements, but as a formative tool to help the agencies do
the jobs you have already given them in existing statutes. They
all have responsibilities, but sometimes the sandbox either
gets too crowded or people are too cranky, and the coordination
does not happen that should.
So the positive part of this is the urge to have bodies not
hidden behind closed doors, and that have been some of the
concerns we have voiced in our--in the written testimony, as a
matter of fact, is, ``What happens? What's the process?''
rather than to in the full sunlight say this is a process to
make agencies, with their responsibilities from Congress
already established, do it better, do it more efficiently.
So the negative side is the uncertainty associated with
some of the provisions in there. I was astonished, quite
frankly, because when my colleague from the Farm Alliance
Bureau, just I'm going, ``What does this have to do with the
National Ocean Policy?''
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Ms. Metcalf. And then I see this language in here that some
I guess smart text drafter threw in that potentially brings in
the inland waterways and, heavens to bid, all the way up in the
mountains. And it's the National Ocean Policy, folks, it's not
the national let's do all the environmental litigation--or not
litigation, but regulation we can by taking advantage of a
process that was not intended to do that. So the negative----
Senator Sullivan. Yes. That's a very good point, and that's
why I think having Mr. Keppen here is powerful because, like I
mentioned earlier, it's not what you normally would anticipate
on such a hearing, but I think it just gives you the sense of
the expansiveness of this.
Let me end with one final question, and I'll just pose it
to each of the panelists. As I mentioned, we're trying to do
this in terms of oversight. Some of you have recommended, hey,
we need to start over again particularly because of legal
aspects that look dubious or because it's just almost an end-
around to existing statutory authority, such as the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
And I know, Ms. Brady, you're here for the council process
in Annapolis, but that is a well-established process set up by
statute that I think, although, not without some controversy,
it has done a good job over the decades, bringing public input
in to help us manage our fisheries in the most sustainable way.
Everyone wants to do that. Everyone on this Committee wants to
do that.
I just ask for each of you to close with your thoughts on
what you see as kind of the most egregious aspect of this, but
then also again trying to get a balance here if there are any
positive elements that as we're looking at new legislation, for
example, the reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, we've had
several hearings on that already, what would be something that
could be possibly viewed as positive from here that we could
put in statutory form that could maybe help advance what we all
want, which is clean oceans, sustainable fisheries, the ability
to use all the resources in the oceans in an environmentally
sensitive way, including energy, which is very important to my
state.
So we're going to end just with all of your thoughts on
those two points, that would be helpful.
We'll start with you, Ms. Brady.
Ms. Brady. I was hoping I'd be last this time.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Brady. Let's see, I just--I will slightly disagree. I
would like the baby to be tossed out with that bathwater
completely, send the baby and the bath right down the stream.
The most egregious is the fear of having additional
closures.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Ms. Brady. I mean, we are being----
Senator Sullivan. With a process that's very hard to
understand.
Ms. Brady.--with a process that has ulterior motives. And
if you can't put it in through law and have it passed, go
through the council process, go through the scientific process,
of proving that something is of such a value that it needs
extra protection, that is the council process.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Ms. Brady. And create an alternative pathway to getting it
done. That's the problem.
Senator Sullivan. Great. That's powerful.
Ms. Brady. As far as what we would keep from it, can I--can
you get back to me?
Senator Sullivan. You can submit anything about that for
the record. And if you don't have anything positive, that's all
I'm going to ask for.
Ms. Brady. I think everyone should do the jobs that already
exist. You know, the fact that they have to get together in a
room and hang out and chat and have great lunch together and,
you know, have this idea, that should already be going on, and
it isn't.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Ms. Brady. And--but to create a new policy that has multi-
sequelae that none of it's good for us in the fishing industry,
this is not the way. Send it downstream.
Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. OK. Mr. Guith.
Mr. Guith. As I stated in my testimony, I mean, first and
foremost, the breadth. I mean, I think we're all in agreement,
we just--we just established that, that, you know, reaching to
the Continental Divide or inland Alaska is not where ocean
policy should start. Uncertainty is very real.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Guith. I mean, the inability to make plans, especially
when you're talking about multi-million or billion dollar
investments, knowing how that is to be navigated and what the
repercussions are going to be. And then ultimately the risk. I
mean, I appreciate that you brought up offshore energy
development. I mean, obviously, it's a huge component of the
Alaskan economy and, more importantly, of the American economy.
Senator Sullivan. Yes, I agree.
Mr. Guith. And as we wait for this administration to
propose a new offshore development plan, I mean, we've seen how
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act works. I mean, it
requires consultation with stakeholders and with states. I
mean, those processes already exist, and all of a sudden, you
overlay that on top of it, what does that mean for these
companies that we're looking to, to make multi-billion dollar
investments over the course of 20 years to secure America's
energy future? Who knows? But if you have to face that on top
of everything else, why would you go here as opposed to South
America or the North Sea or what have you?
Senator Sullivan. Right. Thank you. Excellent.
Mr. Keppen.
Mr. Keppen. I think it's just, again, it's the uncertainty
and the breadth of it all. I think a lot of our folks really
took some offense to the makeup of these regional bodies.
They're all Federal agencies. There are some tribal interests
in there, but there are no opportunities for the producers to
have any say, you know, and why is that?
I guess there's not a lot about the overall policy that I'm
really keen on, but I just think maybe this is an opportunity.
I think, like you, it needs to be vacated, but use this
opportunity to draw attention to the issue and really try to
find ways to underscore what existing programs are doing and
try to make those more transparent and effective.
Senator Sullivan. Great.
Ms. Metcalf.
Ms. Metcalf. Thank you, Chairman. I'm not prepared to
suggest vacation of this. If that's the process that allows us
a clean slate to take the good things out of the current policy
and start anew----
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Ms. Metcalf.--then fine. And I will leave it to the
professionals here on Capitol Hill to decide how that's best
done, but we cannot throw the good aspects of this out. We've
come too far with the coordination and the collaboration.
I do take notice, though, that the different ocean users
have very different perspectives on this, particularly, you
know, the offshore, the fishing.
And heaven forbid how you got involved here. I'm sorry.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Metcalf. But--so some sort of a Federal level ocean
council, committee, that oversees this process. It's no new
statutory requirements, it's an attempt to coordinate
activities. And we do see ambiguity in the current plan.
Clarify that, no, we're not going to go to the Rocky Mountains
with the National Ocean Plan. Get rid of some of the
overreaching that seems to have been slid into the text of the
pan--plan, and make sure that it is never going to be a tool
for mischief for those that can't get what they want through
the transparency of the legislative process.
Senator Sullivan. Excellent. Thank you.
Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And
thanks for holding this excellent hearing.
I want to focus on the National Ocean Policy and its impact
on shipping, particularly in the medium-size ports, like
Bridgeport, New Haven, and New London.
Does the National Ocean Policy do enough, Ms. Metcalf, to
support shipping in these ports, which are really oceangoing,
in terms of the kind of trade and jobs that they support?
Ms. Metcalf. To go back almost 40 years ago, I will say
that my first assignment as a third mate on a tanker, I was
going in and out of New Haven, so I appreciate the efficiency
of that port back then, and I'm sure it's only gotten better.
I think we can always get better. I can tell you that the
ports of New Haven, and some of the smaller northeastern ports,
but very important ports, such as the ones in your state, can
always be made better because remembering that Long Island
Sound, much like the Great Lakes--I'm sorry the Senator from
Michigan had to leave--but the more enclosed your space is, the
more important it is to identify ocean user conflicts. And so
we can more logically wade through the problems.
And I would hope--the example that Ms. Brady provided gave
me some pause because this should never be about choosing one
user over another; it should be about coordinating use among
all the users. And so the answer--that was a long answer to the
question. Yes, I think the National Ocean Policy and the
principles for coordination and collaboration can help any
port, but especially those that are in more constrained
waterways.
Senator Blumenthal. And dredging is probably important for
those ports.
Ms. Metcalf. Dredging is really important. Yes, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you, Ms. Brady, in terms of,
once again, going to the fishing industry in Connecticut, I
know you're a strong supporter, the mishmash of supposed
oversight----
Ms. Brady. I can't even see it from here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Blumenthal. And you don't need your eyeglasses
because seeing it won't make it any more understandable.
Laughter.]
Senator Sullivan. It makes it worse.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Brady. Great.
Senator Blumenthal. Right. I would probably make it worse,
more frustrating----
Ms. Brady. Right.
Senator Blumenthal.--if you see it, even more frustrating
if you experience it. But one of the imperatives I think about
ocean policy is to translate policy into action and make it
fair and effective, which right now it is not for our fishing
industry. If you had to identify two or three of the most
important changes you would like to see either in the structure
or in the policies, what would they be?
Ms. Brady. Other than the baby in the bath downstream, the
ability of NOAA to say no. Our traditional historic fishing
grounds, that's where we go. And we adhere to everything. I
mean, if you're been around since Magnuson started, we've got--
I should have brought like a fishery management plan or an
amendment just to be like ``thunk.''
We adhere to the highest regulations in the world. Our
stocks are sustainable. What is it, 91 percent overfishing
isn't occurring, 84--no, 91 percent aren't overfished, and 84
percent overfishing isn't occurring? Either/or, we have 250
species of stocks in the U.S. that we sell commercially, you
know. But we have adhered to all regulations that exist, and
yet we're at 92 percent imports because no one else holds any
of those values when they ship it into this country.
A really quick fact, I looked this up, 1996, Magnuson-
Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act with a 10-year timeline went
into place, as I'm sure both of you guys are aware of. We were
at 52 percent imports in the U.S. Twenty years later, we're at
92 percent, and that's because the consumers did not stop
eating fish, they just got them where--because it's price
point, everyone wants--they don't want to have to spend a
fortune. So we've had to be forced to a higher standard than
everyone else, and we've seen no--I'm going to use the pun, no
net benefit from that since then.
How to make it better? I thought about one thing on the
Outer Continental Shelf Act. There is no fund for offshore wind
at all. They have up to I think it's a million dollars if you
trash a net when you're on the Gulf on a thing or something
like that, but there's no--because offshore wind energy wasn't
even in existence. So there is no fund that needs to deal with
short-term, medium-, and long-term mitigation in case things
happen. There is--I have--I could contact one of your staffers,
but there are a lot of things that would wish that they would
go off the shelf to do it because you don't--you don't set your
fields on fire and you don't destroy your traditional fishing
grounds in order to produce energy, you can go--I lived
overseas for 2 years, no energy, you know, and that was fine,
but food, you still need food. And it's national food security
as far I'm concerned when it comes to fish.
Senator Blumenthal. Is the 92 percent figure, which I find
staggering----
Ms. Brady. Yes.
Senator Blumenthal.--true of both coasts? In other words,
is that national----
Ms. Brady. It's 92 percent nationally. I believe some of it
is because--and I'm sorry to take up time with fish stuff, but,
hey, you know, you've got a couple people--it's because it's
cheaper to catch the fish here, ship them overseas to have them
processed in some places, and then return them back to this
country because we can't get processing in this country because
of the amount of regulations that's involved. There are some
places that do it, but we lost a lot of infrastructure since
the Magnuson-Stevens Act went into play and since a lot of the
regulations started taking place.
Senator Blumenthal.--and would you attribute the increase
from about 50 percent to 92 percent to the regulation of the
processing or the regulation of the fishing?
Ms. Brady. No, no, no. Regulation in general. I mean, you
had like the--you know, it used to be work as hard as you can
and just, you know, that it was forever. Obviously, we have
regulation, we understand that. We want to have fish for the
next couple of centuries. But the problem is, is that the death
by 1,000 cuts and not looking at the cumulative effect of
multiple fishery management plans upon fishermen that catch
them, and having cuts upon cuts, and we're--at MPA, where if
it's not coming--you know, we have gear-restricted areas all
the time, but that's based on science.
What they're doing now--and I know the scientists that are
working, you know, but they're bringing back deliverables with
the National Ocean Policy, and that's not exactly science, and
that's a problem.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Thanks.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
If there is no objection, I would like to submit for the
record this slide, illustrating the bureaucracy called for in
the National Ocean Policy, a letter in opposition of the
National Ocean Policy written by various stakeholders, and a
letter on the National Ocean Policy written by the Joint Ocean
Commission Initiative, which I believe is supportive.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
September 23, 2016
Hon. Harold Rogers,
Chairman,
Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nita Lowey,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chairman,
Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
Vice Chairwoman,
Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairmen Rogers and Cochran and Ranking Member Lowey and Vice
Chairwoman Mikulski:
In connection with congressional efforts to fund the Federal
Government for Fiscal Year 2017, the undersigned groups request your
support for including language that ensures commercial and recreational
interests spanning nearly every sector of the U.S. economy are not
saddled with additional uncertainty or new regulatory hurdles as a
result of implementation of two particular components of the July 2010
Executive Order establishing the National Ocean Policy.
Among other things, the Executive Order directs a multitude of
Federal entities to participate in ``Coastal and Marine Spatial
Planning'' (CMSP) in all nine U.S. coastal regions. The Interior
Department has likened CMSP to a ``national zoning plan'' that ``will
serve as an overlay'' in Federal decisions, NOAA recently stated that
government-only Regional Planning Bodies created under the policy ``may
consider [marine protected areas],'' and draft Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic marine plans include proposed actions to identify ``important
ecological areas'' and ``ecologically rich areas.'' Concerns are
further heightened given that the geographic coverage of CMSP includes
inland bays and estuaries and upland areas as the new Regional Planning
Bodies deem appropriate, and since Federal entities will ``address
priority . . . ocean management issues associated with marine planning
as described in the Executive Order'' even if all states in a region
decide not to participate.
In addition to CMSP, the National Ocean Policy requires the Federal
Government to implement ``Ecosystem-Based Management'' (EBM), which is
described as a ``fundamental shift'' in how the U.S. manages ocean,
coastal, and Great Lakes resources, with Federal entities directed to
``[i]ncorporate EBM into Federal agency environmental planning and
review processes'' by 2016.
Language adopted by the Executive Order states that effective
National Ocean Policy implementation would ``require clear and easily
understood requirements and regulations, where appropriate, that
include enforcement as a critical component,'' and acknowledges that
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.'' In
order to ensure that further implementation of some of the most
concerning and potentially impactful aspects of an initiative that has
not been authorized by Congress does not create additional regulatory
uncertainty, result in new regulatory hurdles, or siphon away scarce
Federal dollars from critical and authorized activities, the
undersigned groups respectfully request that any FY 2017 funding bill
includes language stating that ``None of the funds made available by
this Act may be used to further implementation of the coastal and
marine spatial planning and ecosystem-based management components of
the National Ocean Policy developed under Executive Order 13547.''
Including this language will provide Congress with an important
opportunity to more closely examine the National Ocean Policy and the
full range of its potential impacts before it is fully implemented. It
would also follow 35 House and Senate floor votes since 2012 in support
of actions to prohibit, restrict, or shed light on National Ocean
Policy implementation, including several bills that were signed into
law. In closing, we appreciate your attention to this issue and
respectfully request inclusion of the proposed language in any
legislative vehicle(s) for FY 2017 funding.
Sincerely,
Agricultural Retailers Association Long Island Commercial Fishing
Alabama Charter Fishing Association Association
Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers Louisiana Trade Consultants
Alaska Groundfish Data Bank Mexico Beach Charters
Alaska Miners Association Mexicobeach.bz Inc. (Mexico Beach,
Alaska Oil and Gas Association FL)
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce Montauk Inlet Seafood
Alaska Support Industry Alliance National Agricultural Aviation
Alaska Whitefish Trawlers Association
Association National Association of Charterboat
Alliance of Communities for Operators
Sustainable Fisheries National Cattlemen's Beef
American Energy Alliance Association
American Exploration and Mining National Fisheries Institute
Association National Ocean Industries
American Farm Bureau Federation Association
American Fishermen's Research National Ocean Policy Coalition
Foundation National Onion Association
American Loggers Council 1New Bedford Seafood Consulting
American Petroleum Institute North Carolina Watermen United
At-sea Processors Association North Myrtle Beach Fishing Charters
B Cubed Associates LLC (Powder Offshore Mariners Wives'
Springs, GA) Association
California Wetfish Producers Organized Fishermen of Florida
Association Pacific Seafood Processors
Charisma Charters Association
Charter Boat Miss Mary (Mexico Panama City Boatmen Association
Beach, FL) Public Lands Council
Consumer Energy Alliance Recreational Fishing Alliance
CropLife America Recreational Fishing Alliance-
Directed Sustainable Fisheries, Forgotten Coast Chapter
Inc. Recreational Fishing Alliance--
Family Farm Alliance Oregon State Chapter
Florida Keys Commercial Fishermen's Resource Development Council for
Association Alaska
Forest Landowners Association Seafreeze Ltd.
Freezer Longline Coalition Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Garden State Seafood Association Council
Grand Strand Fishing Alliance Society for Mining, Metallurgy and
Great Lakes Boating Federation Exploration
Gulf Economic Survival Team Southeast Alaska Fishermen's
Half Hitch Tackle (Destin, Panama Alliance
City Beach, Port St Joe, FL) Southeastern Fisheries Association
Hispanic Leadership Fund Southern Offshore Fishing
Independent Petroleum Association Association
of America The Fertilizer Institute
Institute for 21st Century Energy Transportation Institute
International Association of United Catcher Boats
Drilling Contractors U.S. Chamber of Commerce
International Association of U.S. Oil and Gas Association
Geophysical Contractors Virginia Charter Boat Association
LA 1 Coalition Wahblee LLC (Mexico Beach, FL)
West Coast Seafood Processors
Association
Western Energy Alliance
Western Fishboat Owners Association
______
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative
Washington, DC, December 12, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard.
Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson, Subcommittee
Chairman Sullivan and Subcommittee Ranking Member Peters,
Thank you for scheduling a hearing on the National Ocean Policy, a
topic of the utmost importance to a maritime nation that looks to its
oceans for prosperity, transportation, protein, energy, protection, and
inspiration.
The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative (Joint Initiative) was
established in 2005 to continue the legacy of the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy (USCOP) and the Pew Oceans Commission. The Joint
Initiative's work embodies the vision that comprehensive, coordinated
ocean policy is paramount to successful management of our oceans and
coasts, both now and for future generations. As Co-Chairs of the Joint
Initiative, we are writing to express our support for a broadly
supported, bipartisan National Ocean Policy that coordinates and
integrates ocean governance in the United States.
The USCOP's landmark report, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st
Century, was groundbreaking in its vision for comprehensive ocean
governance in the United States. Its guiding principles established a
bipartisan path forward to support ocean and coastal economies,
communities, and ecosystems. These principles, including stewardship,
multiple use management, and science-based decision making, should
guide Congress and the Administration as they consider updates or
revisions to the current executive order establishing a National Ocean
Policy. As part of any review, existing mechanisms that effectively
advance these principles should be preserved. In addition, Congress
could work to develop a national ocean policy that supplements the
current executive order, garners support from all relevant sectors, and
maximizes use of our oceans for the commonwealth.
In the meantime, many elements of the current National Ocean Policy
are delivering results and are strongly supported by industry, states,
regions, and other stakeholders. Through its implementation,
stakeholders have gained broader access to ocean policy decision
making, thereby fulfilling the USCOP principles of stewardship,
participatory governance, and accountability. By supporting the
creation of new data products that increase data and information
availability to all stakeholders, the National Ocean Policy is ensuring
the use of best-available science and information in public and private
sector decision1making. In supporting action on illegal, unreported,
and unregulated fishing, the National Ocean Policy promotes
international responsibility. By integrating ocean governance, the
National Ocean Policy helps to insure sustainability and stewardship of
our oceans and coasts.
Perhaps most importantly, the National Ocean Policy improves
coordination among government agencies and Federal oceans programs.
This coordination increases the efficiency of Federal efforts to assist
states and regions in achieving critical resource management goals for
our oceans and coasts. It also increases efficiency in regulatory
decision making. This dual efficiency not only exemplifies the vision
of the USCOP, it also embodies the bipartisan need to ensure that
Federal spending goes as far as possible.
The current National Ocean Policy is far from perfect, and should
be improved on. This underscores the need for a visionary, durable
policy that can withstand changing administrations, and brings
coherence and a sound strategy to ocean management. The United States
lacks a strategy for sustainable development of its offshore areas.
Conflicts abound among users, among agencies, and between different
levels of government over the use of ocean resources and space. In some
cases, such as energy development, U.S. policy oscillates between
unmitigated development thrusts and the adoption of wholly
conservationist approaches. This oscillation precludes a balanced, long
term sustainable outcome and creates a policy vacuum that remains
untenable. The prosperity of our Nation's bustling ocean economy and
the longevity of our marine resources depends on sound, integrated
ocean governance.
We urge you to demonstrate leadership by ensuring that the
principles of stewardship, multiple-use management, best-available
science, adaptive management, coordination, participatory governance,
and government efficiency are enshrined in U.S. ocean policy, as the
USCOP intended. Regardless of policy mechanism, these principles must
be maintained for coastal communities and economies to thrive. The
current executive order establishing a National Ocean Policy is
accomplishing many of these goals and, in our view, should be improved
and not abandoned. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative remains
dedicated to helping you and other U.S. leaders address ocean policy
priorities through integrated ocean governance.
Sincerely,
Christine Todd Whitman,
Co-Chair,
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative.
Norman Y. Mineta,
Co-Chair,
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative.
Senator Sullivan. I want to thank the witnesses again for
their outstanding testimony. This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from Florida
The success of Florida's economy is intimately connected to our
Nation's oceans.
Florida is the fishing capital of the world, home to some of the
country's largest ports, and every year our beaches attract millions of
tourists. It goes without saying that when our oceans are healthy and
well-managed Floridians prosper.
But keeping our oceans healthy and well-managed is not an easy
task. First and foremost, the Earth's climate is changing and it is
disproportionately affecting our oceans. In the U.S., a variety of
local, state, and Federal stakeholders are trying to navigate these
changes while simultaneously complying with a mix of laws and
regulations. Further, our oceans are affected by actions of foreign
states, which is why we must continue to lead the international
community on sensible ocean policy.
On July 19, 2010, President Obama signed Executive Order 13547,
which established the National Ocean Policy. The National Ocean Policy
is the culmination of a bipartisan, decades-long process to determine
how to best manage our Nation's oceans.
It directs the Federal Government to coordinate with local and
regional stakeholders on policies that will lead to healthier and
better-managed oceans.
These policies address such issues as IUU fishing, harmful algal
blooms, ocean acidification, coastal resilience, coastal mapping, and
coordinated ocean management; all of which have a direct impact on
Florida.
Americans that rely on our oceans need responsive executive
agencies that are willing to put energy into helping efficiently solve
problems.
The National Ocean Policy charges the Executive Branch with doing
just that. And when our Federal Government is directed to listen to
local communities on ocean policy, all Floridians, and all Americans
benefit.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Bonnie Brady
Question 1. Senator Peters, thank you for giving me the opportunity
to speak further re: alternative data streams that I believe should be
included within the Regional Planning Bodies data on commercial
fishing.
The present MDAT data for fisheries uses only fishery-
independent trawl data from four research trawl surveys (as per
its technical report on methods and development http://
seamap.env.duke.edu/models/mdat/MDAT-Technical-Report-v1_1.pdf
pg 21,)
``While the marine mammal and avian MDAT partners developed models
to show abundance and distribution, the Work Group guiding the process
for fish products decided on products that represent the original data.
There are four sources for fisheries trawl data: the NOAA Northeast
Fishery Science Center (NEFSC), North East Areas Monitoring and
Assessment Program (NEAMAP), Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
(MDMF), and Maine & New Hampshire state trawls (ME/NH). There is some
spatial overlap among the surveys, and the NEFSC survey area is much
larger than any of the others (Figure 5). Each set of data sources have
used standardized survey designs and data collection methodologies but
some have used different vessels and gears over time. Results have been
normalized to account for these vessel and gear differences within each
data source, however no method has yet been applied to normalize data
across the different sources. For that reason, they are presented
separately.''
Only the fall NOAA research survey trawl survey is used for
MDAT, and in recent years the RV Bigelow has missed portions
of, or complete legs of, the fall surveys due to vessel
breakdowns.
MDAT does not utilize additional state trawl surveys other
than the Massachusetts and the joint NH/ME trawl survey. As is
noted in the MDAT tech report, when describing the four trawl
surveys used, two regional and two state-specific, each has its
own sized boat, net, speed, and gear configuration. To the best
of my knowledge, there are no joint protocols and no
calibration between the surveys has been attempted.
Two out of four MDAT-used surveys take place in state waters
north of Rhode Island. Mid-Atlantic fish abundance and/or
distribution trends may not be effectively captured without
including other state trawl surveys south of Massachusetts.
There are also clear limits to the data resolution of the
NOAA trawl survey. Used for stock assessment to show abundance
and distribution trends via the RV Bigelow, its survey data
resolution is coarse, detecting variations in abundance only
within approximately 40 kms (24 miles.) It cannot fine tune
data at a smaller spatial scale.
MDAT does not use other fisheries-independent data sources,
like longline or plankton surveys, to capture fisheries data
for areas where bottom trawls would not be effective.
No fisheries-dependent data is used within MDAT, including
observer data, or trusted electronic monitoring programs such
as the NEFSC's Cooperative Research Study Fleet, comprised of
industry fishing boats who work collaboratively with NEFSC
scientists on real-time fisheries tow-by-tow data.
The accuracy of Portal maps portraying commercial fishing vessel
activity is also a concern. Northeast and Mid-Atlantic ocean
``Portals'' show Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) data as the basis for
commercial fishing activity on both the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
ocean portals, additionally with Vessel Trip Report (VTR) data included
for the Mid-Atlantic portal. Many caveats to using both VMS and VTR
data are not noted however.
Not all New England/Mid-Atlantic fisheries were/are required
to carry VMS. Only some VMS fisheries are listed on the portal,
for small sample years, which can translate to a very cherry-
picked one-dimensional snapshot of commercial fishing activity,
not one for those wishing to understand where species of fish
exist in the context of fishing effort through time and space.
VTR data (which shows listed fishing effort within a
statistical area) gathered by NOAA has often been viewed by the
NEFSC as inaccurate, or a somewhat incomplete picture of where
fishing occurs due to clerical errors on the part of fishermen
filling out the forms. The portal data also acknowledges it
does not separate fishing activity from transit areas to/or
from ports.
So while MDAT models temporal and spatial movement for avian and
marine mammals, none of the MDAT fish products capture a complete
picture of biomass or individual fish species richness, or capture the
same movement, temporally or spatially of fish or fishermen based on
migrations of fish, or seasons, on the Portals. Unfortunately, the
majority of the MDAT data is static, and lacks the requisite types of
industry-informed, cooperatively-gathered data products that can show
the dynamic nature of the ocean, including temporal and spatial
movement of both the fish and the fishing industry.
The Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils, via
their Science and Statistical Committees (SSC), utilize both fishery-
independent data streams to estimate stock abundance and set total
allowable biological catch limits, and fishery-dependent surveys, such
as those utilizing observers and landings to determine level and scale
of removal through fishing effort.
Collaborative research, once peer-reviewed, can be added to
fisheries data during an SSC Benchmark Assessment of a fishery for
consideration as it relates to stock abundance. NOAA has already
approved cooperative and collaborative science research projects with
industry to augment fisheries data, in part through research set-aside
projects, such as with the scallop industry,
The types of alternative data streams that I believe should be
added within the Regional Planning Bodies MDAT data should include:
Fisheries-dependent data streams such as those from the
NEFSC's Cooperative Research (CR) Study Fleet. This program
includes gathering a whole range of ecosystem data and
products, including as mentioned previously, real time catch
data at the individual haul level. This type of data has
already been vetted through the NEFSC, and includes the work of
John Manderson of NEFSC-Cape May and his peer-reviewed
butterfish model.
A push-in crowd-sourcing program of data, one that
integrates the ocean observing capability of the on-the-water
fishing industry with real-time peer-reviewed fisheries data
via the CR-Study Fleet. I'm told such a program is currently
under development by the NEFSC's CR department, one that could
add multiple layers of ecological, biological and economic
real-time data and value to lacking MDAT data. I believe that
could solve a lot of the gaps of the present data picture.
Fishery-independent data surveys such as the CR bottom long-
line survey, one that is focused on surveying species in rocky
complex habitats that are very difficult to detect using trawl
survey gear. This type of survey can help to address gaps in
regional abundance and distribution trends, and captures
fisheries data at a finer level of data resolution.
Another way to improve the data streams would be to create
more state-wide fishery-independent surveys using the NEAMAP
model (which has high trust among industry) for each Southern
New England and Mid-Atlantic state (with uniformity of gear
etc.), working collaboratively to assure effective, accurate
and uniform regional fishery-independent data.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Dan Keppen
Question 1. Agency Coordination: Mr. Keppen, in your testimony you
discuss the need to streamline the existing fisheries management
framework. One of the major advantages of having regional planning
bodies is to address the problem you have described: to get all of the
federal, state, and local partners into one room so that they can
identify discrepancies and coordinate solutions. Clearly the best
outcome would be to have the government work in the most efficient and
effective way possible. What is your ideal process for all of the
Federal agencies to cooperate in a successful multi-faceted economy,
which includes fisheries, farmers, energy, and shipping?
Answer. It is true that regional planning bodies provide a forum to
get all of the federal, state and local partners into one room so that
they may identify discrepancies and coordinate solutions. Fishermen,
farmers, and shippers are all producers, whose interests are often best
represented by industry associations who advocate for them.
Unfortunately, the National Ocean Policy (NOP) created regional
planning bodies made up of government officials and no private sector
representatives. An ideal, collaborative process should include key
federal, state and local government representation--as well as
participation from key private sector and non-profit interests.
Such processes will be unique to each specific region and the
challenges facing that region. My experience suggests that there is no
``one size fits all'', ideal solution. However, there are templates for
success in the region spanned by my membership, some of which are
described in a 2016 report the Family Farm Alliance prepared and
presented to President Obama's White House Water Forum, conducted on
World Water Day in March 2016. That report, entitled ``Western Farmers
and Ranchers as Problem Solvers: A Compilation of Case Studies
Highlighting Locally-Driven Solutions to Western Water Resource
Challenges'' includes two case studies that might be considered as
examples to further supplement this response to your question. One is
``Collaboration, Ecosystem Restoration, and New Storage: Yakima Basin
(Washington)'' and the other is ``Collaboration, Conservation, Energy
and Water Reliability, and Regulatory Assurances: Deschutes River Basin
(Oregon)''. Both of these efforts are notable for the vast and diverse
array of local, state and Federal agencies and stakeholders that came
together to forge reasonable, successful solutions to natural resources
challenges. You can download our full report here.
Question 2. Improving Restoration: Mr. Keppen, you have identified
how nutrient and sediment pollution from inland farms can have
detrimental environmental effects on the marine environment. In your
written testimony, you state that the Family Farm Alliance is ``pleased
to see the NOP acknowledge that collaborative watershed restoration
efforts are important to the overall success of coastal and marine
habitat conservation . . .'' I am very pleased to hear that the FFA
supports comprehensive watershed restoration efforts. While the NOP
does not grant regulatory authority to the regional planning bodies nor
extra authority to the Federal agencies that participate, they do have
the ability to increase coordination of restoration efforts on a
voluntary basis at a more local level. What would you recommend to
improve these efforts?
Answer. While the NOP may not grant regulatory authority to the
regional planning bodies nor extra authority to the Federal agencies
that participate, the Regional Planning Body actions are binding on the
participating Federal agencies, with potential impacts including
restrictions on human activities. Something similar to these regional
bodies--modeled on the considerations I outlined in my previous
response--might indeed offer the ability to increase coordination of
restoration efforts on a voluntary basis at a more local level.
However, additional actions would further improve these efforts.
First, the NOP Executive Order should be vacated and efforts should
instead be directed to work with all stakeholders to ensure transparent
and thoughtful ocean policies. This effort should seek to underscore
the primacy of existing authorities and processes that are authorized,
well-established, and well understood. Federal agencies must recognize
the concerns and contributions that ocean-using stakeholders have
regarding ocean policy. The collective effort should adhere to and
embrace policies that promote sound and science-based decision making.
All of these recommendations are intended to address one of our
primary concerns with this process: avoiding unnecessary duplication
and confusion.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Kathy Metcalf
Question 1. Stakeholder Engagement: Ms. Metcalf, in your testimony,
you mention the Chamber of Shipping of America's active engagement with
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Bodies. Stakeholder
participation seems critical to the success of these bodies. Can you
talk about your experience in dealing with the Regional Planning Bodies
and their willingness to accept stakeholder input?
Answer. Our experience in participating in and contributing to the
Regional Planning Body process has been positive. The most beneficial
stakeholder engagement in this process has been the networking and one
day or half day workshops prior to the Regional Planning Body meetings.
These workshops were the only opportunity to sit down around a table,
off the record, with commercial stakeholders and Government officials
to discuss issues/areas of concern, accurate or inaccurate perceptions
and mutual points of interest. These roundtable discussions are the
heart of this process and our reason for engagement. We found that our
involvement and talking points stated in these workshops were raised in
the RPB meeting the following day, sometimes with our Organization's
name and exact words.
In particular, during one workshop we interacted with the USCG,
State of New York and other stakeholders to help them understand that a
wider buffer zone was needed between the New York wind energy area
lease and the traffic separation schemes in the approaches to the port
of New York. We believe these conversations were essential pieces in
the buffer zone being increased for the safety of ships entering and
exiting the port.
Since the decisions of the Regional Planning Body and Ocean Plans
are not regulatory, we can openly express the concerns and needs of the
shipping industry without fear of regulation following. We convey our
critical views that the regional plans must coincide to prevent
confusion for ships transiting multiple region ocean plans.
Additionally, the involvement of the U.S. Coast Guard in the process as
a Federal Agency that understands and regulates commercial shipping is
vital contrary to riders to bills that have been introduced to keep
USCG out of the planning process.
Question 2. Ocean Use: Ms. Metcalf, you stated that having
information on other ocean use activities such as commercial and
recreational fishing and boating activity is helpful when addressing
navigation and safety concerns as it relates to placing offshore
structures that could impact these uses and potentially conflict with
safe navigation. Anytime there are multiple stakeholders with diverging
interests, conflicts are bound to ensue. What does the NOP do to
address conflicts and help mitigate future conflicts between
stakeholders with different priorities and interests regarding their
uses of the ocean?
Answer. We believe that NOP and the regional planning bodies when
fully operational will allow for the identification of conflicts early
on in the process, permit a full discussion including comments from
stakeholders (public and private) and lead to a better final decision
on ocean uses.
Question 3. Emergency Response: Ms. Metcalf, you also mention the
conflicts and dangers that exist in and around the marine environment
and maritime community that the National Ocean Policy helps make sense
of through contingency planning and preparedness. This is not limited
to weather events like hurricanes or environmental hazards like oil
spills, which can negatively impact our economy and national security,
but it now includes cyber and terrorists' threats as well. Can you give
an example of how interagency coordination and planning has helped when
emergencies occur?
Answer. As you are aware, the National Contingency Plan (NCP)
already establishes a unified response system for maritime emergencies.
For more information, please see https://www.epa.gov/emergency-
response/national-oil-and-hazardous-substances-pollution-contingency-
plan-ncp-overview similar national planning work is being done for the
``new'' threats e.g., cybersecurity and terrorism as it relates to the
maritime sector.
While these national planning efforts predates the creation of the
National Ocean Policy and regional planning framework, we believe that
they can be a facilitator to ensure that all stakeholders and all
levels of government understand the multi-agency planning efforts which
already exist and can contribute to the regular review and revision of
these plans to better respond to maritime sector emergencies.
Question 4. Coordinated Data: Ms. Metcalf, your testimony
highlighted the importance of having data from multiple agencies,
states, and regions in a central location for permitting and decision-
making. What differences do you notice between regions with coordinated
data portals created through the National Ocean Policy and regions
without such centralized data hubs?
Answer. At these early stages of data portal development, we have
not observed differences to date. We fully support all data points
including offshore energy not currently in the data portal to be added.
We believe that the full development and funding of regional data
portals will most certainly result in a decision making process which
takes into account all ocean users and fully coordinates the Federal
and state agencies' discussions leading to a final well-informed
decision. These efforts will never resolve all the conflicts but we
believe they will result in a forum where concerns can be voiced and
considered before a final decision is made.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
Kathy Metcalf
Question 1. Back in 2005, Massachusetts joined with other New
England states to form the Northeast Regional Ocean Council, an effort
that helped pave the way for the development of the Northeast Ocean
Plan under the National Ocean Policy. This work brought together
various stakeholders such as the environmental community, fishing and
shipping industries, and local and Federal governments to create a
planning process where we could be smart from the start in deciding how
to use our oceans and minimize potential conflict. This type of ocean
planning is a perfect example of working smarter, not harder. By
increasing coordination between these stakeholders, it helped pave the
way for the successful first commercial offshore wind project off the
coast of New England, off of Block Island. Can you describe for me how
the enhanced planning and coordination provided by the Northeast Ocean
Plan can help ensure that we can select and permit offshore wind
projects in locations that minimize potential conflicts and have the
support of the various stakeholders?
Answer. History as always is the best teacher and thus past
experiences and challenges will better inform future decisions made in
conjunction with the NE Ocean Plan. As indicated in my testimony,
several years ago, I received a copy of a chartlet for the approaches
to Hampton Roads, Virginia and on that chartlet, lease plots being
offered for offshore wind projects were overlaid. These plots included
areas in the established traffic lanes and vessel traffic systems for
the approaches to Hampton Roads and the entrance to Chesapeake Bay. In
this case, the horse appeared to have already left the barn and
proposals were being offered for these areas key to the safe navigation
of vessels into and out of Hampton Roads. Although we learned that
several local meetings had been held to receive comments of
stakeholders (which we understand the local U.S. Coast Guard attended),
the process moved forward without consideration of the safe navigation
issues associated with keeping the traffic lanes open and clear.
Unfortunately, the only way to put rational brakes on this initiative
was to discuss with senior U.S. Coast Guard officials (in this case the
Commandant) at which time the U.S. Coast Guard initiated a Port Access
Route Study (PARS) for the entire Atlantic Coast. The large
unprecedented geographic scope of the PARS study was justified because
a number of similar projects were being proposed in multiple locations
on the Atlantic Coast (New York, New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina)
and little or no consideration seemed to have been given for
established traffic routes/systems for entry into nearby ports. As a
result of the PARS study, these considerations were finally taken into
account.
This lesson leads to the answer to the question you have posed. If
the NE Ocean Plan (and any other regional plan) works the way it
should, these discussions and potential conflicts will occur BEFORE one
agencies process (in this case, DOE/DOI proposed lease plots are
published) is underway and future proposals will have taken into
account potential conflicts for a specific area and resolved with input
from ALL stakeholders.
Question 2. Do you think that the coordination provided under the
National Ocean Policy, which we have demonstrated in the Northeast, can
provide similar benefits to other regions of the country in terms of
developing offshore wind?
Answer. Yes, we do and evidence of that is also showing up in the
Mid-Atlantic Plan process. All stakeholders can benefit from having a
forum where all can provide input to the process and assure that all
considerations are taken into account before any decisions to move
forward are made.
Question 3. Senator Wicker and I worked together with the President
Obama's Task Force on Combatting Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated
Fishing and Seafood Fraud to establish the NOAA Seafood Import
Monitoring program. That taskforce is now a committee under the
National Ocean Council and oversees progress in implementing the
Taskforce's recommendations. Stopping Illegal, Unreported, and
Unregulated Fishing requires many agencies including the Departments of
Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, among
others. The National Ocean Policy is crucial because it helps these
many agencies work together.
In your testimony you say that ``Regional Ocean planning is not
about new regulations but about helping Federal and state agencies do
their job better.'' In your experience, how do regional ocean plans
help ensure that these sorts of efforts that cross the jurisdictional
boundaries of multiple agencies are successful?
Answer. There is no guarantee that regional ocean plans will
achieve these very important goals but regional planning bodies are a
good step forward to ensure this coordination. However, without a
regional ocean planning body, issues which cross jurisdictional
boundaries of multiple agencies and impact potentially conflicting
ocean user may not be fully appreciated by all the stakeholders and we
are left with the same situation as we encountered in the Hampton Roads
example referenced above.
Question 4. In 2007, federal, state, and local groups
collaboratively developed new shipping guidelines to prevent mariners
from hitting endangered right whales in the Boston Harbor and in Cape
Cod Bay, a move predicted to reduce whale strikes by as much as 81
percent. We are now in the middle of what NOAA has declared an Unusual
Mortality Event for Right Whales: more than 3 percent of the entire
population of this endangered species has died in the past year. How
does the shipping industry use Regional Ocean Plans to coordinate with
other federal, state, and local stakeholders to protect species such as
endangered Right Whales?
Answer. At this point, we have not since the creation of the NE and
Mid-Atlantic plans are really in their infancy. In the case noted above
re: endangered right whales in the Boston and Cape Cod Bay areas, the
shipping industry, NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard has been working on
this problem for over a decade not only in this area but along the
entire Atlantic Coast migration route of the endangered right whales
which eventually led to the final regulation focused on mitigating ship
strikes. In this case, the two Federal agencies and the shipping
industry recognized the need to collaborate in designing a solution
that worked e.g., seasonal management areas with mandatory speed
restrictions, dynamic management areas with recommended speed
restrictions. This resulted without the benefit of having a regional
ocean planning body as we now have and was a good example of
collaboration at the Federal level, but with little input from local
stakeholders. We would hope that issues of this type will now be the
topic of discussion among Federal and state agencies with input from
all stakeholders.
Question 5. The Northeast Massachusetts Aquaculture Center at Salem
State University used data from the Northeast Ocean Plan to advise the
development of the first shellfish farm in Atlantic Federal waters.
Because the data was in one central, public location, Salem State was
able to determine that the 33-acre farm for blue mussels, would not
adversely affect whales, shipping traffic, or existing fishing
activity. Can you speak to how important and useful Data Portals have
proven to be in your own experience?
Answer. Given that the data portals are only just now being
populated with data from multiple ocean users, we have not had the
benefit that is expected to be provided when they are fully populated
with information from all the ocean users in a region. Commercial
shipping is readily available via the now mature Automatic
Identification System (AIS) and is included in the data portals now. It
will be very important that similar data from other ocean users be
collected and included in the data portals to fully appreciate the
multiple uses in a given region. One additional and obvious point about
data portal information, is that it needs to be accurate. During the
hearing, the witness from the fishing industry indicated significant
concern about what she indicated was inaccurate data being loaded in
the data portals which is a legitimate concern that will need to be
addressed to ensure the support of this process from ALL ocean users.
[all]
| MEMBERNAME | BIOGUIDEID | GPOID | CHAMBER | PARTY | ROLE | STATE | CONGRESS | AUTHORITYID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wicker, Roger F. | W000437 | 8263 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | MS | 115 | 1226 |
| Blunt, Roy | B000575 | 8313 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | MO | 115 | 1464 |
| Moran, Jerry | M000934 | 8307 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | KS | 115 | 1507 |
| Thune, John | T000250 | 8257 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | SD | 115 | 1534 |
| Baldwin, Tammy | B001230 | 8215 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | WI | 115 | 1558 |
| Udall, Tom | U000039 | 8260 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | NM | 115 | 1567 |
| Capito, Shelley Moore | C001047 | 8223 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | WV | 115 | 1676 |
| Cantwell, Maria | C000127 | 8288 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | WA | 115 | 172 |
| Klobuchar, Amy | K000367 | 8249 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | MN | 115 | 1826 |
| Heller, Dean | H001041 | 8060 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | NV | 115 | 1863 |
| Peters, Gary C. | P000595 | 7994 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | MI | 115 | 1929 |
| Gardner, Cory | G000562 | 7862 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | CO | 115 | 1998 |
| Young, Todd | Y000064 | 7948 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | IN | 115 | 2019 |
| Blumenthal, Richard | B001277 | 8332 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | CT | 115 | 2076 |
| Lee, Mike | L000577 | 8303 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | UT | 115 | 2080 |
| Johnson, Ron | J000293 | 8355 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | WI | 115 | 2086 |
| Duckworth, Tammy | D000622 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | IL | 115 | 2123 | |
| Schatz, Brian | S001194 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | HI | 115 | 2173 | |
| Cruz, Ted | C001098 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 115 | 2175 | |
| Fischer, Deb | F000463 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | NE | 115 | 2179 | |
| Booker, Cory A. | B001288 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | NJ | 115 | 2194 | |
| Sullivan, Dan | S001198 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | AK | 115 | 2290 | |
| Cortez Masto, Catherine | C001113 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | NV | 115 | 2299 | |
| Hassan, Margaret Wood | H001076 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | NH | 115 | 2302 | |
| Inhofe, James M. | I000024 | 8322 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | OK | 115 | 583 |
| Markey, Edward J. | M000133 | 7972 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | MA | 115 | 735 |
| Nelson, Bill | N000032 | 8236 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | FL | 115 | 859 |
Disclaimer:
Please refer to the About page for more information.