[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

THE IMPLICATIONS OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY

=======================================================================

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

__________

Serial No. 114-43

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

______________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-220 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016

__________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member

Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Louie Gohmert, TX Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Doug Lamborn, CO Jim Costa, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
John Fleming, LA CNMI
Tom McClintock, CA Niki Tsongas, MA
Glenn Thompson, PA Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Jared Huffman, CA
Dan Benishek, MI Raul Ruiz, CA
Jeff Duncan, SC Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Matt Cartwright, PA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Norma J. Torres, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Debbie Dingell, MI
Paul Cook, CA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Bruce Westerman, AR Lois Capps, CA
Garret Graves, LA Jared Polis, CO
Dan Newhouse, WA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Ryan K. Zinke, MT
Jody B. Hice, GA
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Thomas MacArthur, NJ
Alexander X. Mooney, WV
Cresent Hardy, NV
Darin LaHood, IL

Jason Knox, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
Sarah Lim, Democratic Chief Counsel

------

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS

JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Democratic Member

Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Jeff Duncan, SC Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Paul A. Gosar, AZ CNMI
Doug LaMalfa, CA Raul Ruiz, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Garret Graves, LA Norma J. Torres, CA
Dan Newhouse, WA Debbie Dingell, MI
Thomas MacArthur, NJ Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio

---------

CONTENTS

----------
Page

Hearing held on Tuesday, May 17, 2016............................ 1

Statement of Members:
Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5

Statement of Witnesses:
Keppen, Dan, Executive Director, Family Farm Alliance,
Klamath Falls, Oregon...................................... 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Lanard, Jim, Chief Executive Officer, Magellan Wind,
Collingswood, New Jersey................................... 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Lapp, Meghan, Fisheries Liaison, Seafreeze, Ltd., North
Kingstown, Rhode Island.................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Zales, Bob, President, National Association of Charterboat
Operators, Hurley, Mississippi............................. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Farr, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement of....................... 44
National Ocean Policy Coalition, May 31, 2016 Letter to
Chairman Fleming........................................... 45
Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc., Anchorage,
Alaska, May 13, 2016 Letter to Chairman Fleming............ 46

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S NATIONAL
OCEAN POLICY

----------

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans

Committee on Natural Resources

Washington, DC

----------

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fleming, McClintock, Duncan,
Gosar, LaMalfa, Graves, Newhouse, Bishop; Huffman, Costa,
Lowenthal, and Torres.
Also present: Representative Beyer.
Dr. Fleming. The Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
will come to order. The subcommittee meets today to hear
testimony on an oversight hearing entitled, ``The Implications
of President Obama's National Ocean Policy.'' We will begin
with opening statements, starting with myself.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Dr. Fleming. Today's hearing is about shining some sunlight
on what has become a non-transparent Administration agenda
aimed at curtailing multiple-use access in our oceans and
lands.
The Administration's so-called National Ocean Policy (NOP)
is not new to this committee, as this is the sixth oversight
hearing on this subject. What is also not new is that the
Administration continues to hide its actions on its
questionable policy.
Many questions remain unanswered. For example: Under what
authority is the President acting to implement this policy? Who
is funding activities of the National Ocean Council and the
Regional Planning Bodies? How will this affect Federal and
state fisheries management and offshore energy development, two
industries that are vital to Louisiana's economy? How far
inland does this policy actually reach?
The first Regional Planning Body will release its plan for
the Northeastern United States later this month. Yet, scarce
information has been provided. It will undoubtedly become a
blueprint for other regional plans that really won't be
regional, but will be straight out of Soviet-style command-and-
control casting since these bodies consist primarily of Federal
agencies.
The Administration was invited to answer our concerns and
questions related to this hearing. Indeed, the other side of
the aisle has insisted that we invite more Federal agencies to
our hearings. In this case, inviting the Director of the
National Ocean Council was warranted. So, we did just that. If
you follow the television screen, Majority staff for this
committee sent an email to Ms. Beth Kerttula on May 5, followed
by a formal invitation on May 9, and then with another email on
May 11. There were also a number of phone calls made to Ms.
Kerttula's office and cell phones in between this
correspondence.
There was no response from the Administration until late
last week. At the end of the day, the Administration is a no-
show, and I have little doubt that is by design. What is the
Administration hiding? Their absence is telling and indicative
of this whole effort: share as little information as possible,
even though their stated goal is ``Federal coordination and
transparency.''
We will hear today that coastal and marine spatial
planning, or what some call Federal zoning, is necessary to
combat competing uses among the traditional marine industries,
recreational activity, and offshore development. That is a
false choice. If you go out into the Gulf of Mexico--and a
witness here with us today can attest to this--some of our best
fishing takes place right off of our off-shore oil rigs. These
different uses are not conflicting, but can be complementary of
each other in some cases.
The Administration is aloof of what is going on in the
Gulf, continually ignores the boundaries of the law, and does
whatever it pleases until checked by the judicial branch like
last week with Obamacare, or is held accountable through
congressional actions.
We will hear from those potentially impacted today. From
the Eastern Seaboard, to the Gulf Coast, to the inland farming
communities of the West, we will listen to strong concerns
about these vague policies being implemented by unaccountable
bureaucrats behind the scenes.
It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that the
Administration could not be here to listen to these legitimate
concerns--or should I say would not be here. I look forward to
hearing from all of you here today.
This hearing will be the first of a number of actions this
subcommittee will take to hold the Administration's feet to the
fire on this gross executive over-reach aimed at curtailing
multiple-use access to our ocean resources.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. John Fleming, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Water, Power and Oceans
Today's hearing is about shining some sunlight on what has become a
non-transparent Administration agenda aimed at curtailing multiple-use
access in our oceans and lands.
The Administration's so-called National Ocean Policy is not new to
this committee, as this is the sixth oversight hearing on this subject.
What's also not new is that the Administration continues to hide its
actions on this questionable policy.

Many questions remain unanswered. For example:

Under what authority is the President acting to implement
this policy?

Who is funding activities of the National Ocean Council
and the Regional Planning Bodies?

How will this affect Federal--and state--fisheries
management and offshore energy development--two industries
that are vital to Louisiana's economy?

How far inland does this policy actually reach?
The first Regional Planning Body will release its plan for the
northeastern United States later this month. Yet, scarce information
has been provided. It will undoubtedly become a blueprint for other
regional plans that really won't be regional but will be straight out
of Soviet style command-and-control casting since these bodies consist
primarily of Federal agencies.
The Administration was invited to answer our concerns and questions
related to this hearing. Indeed, the other side of the aisle has
insisted that we invite more Federal agencies to our hearings. In this
case, inviting the Director of the National Ocean Council was
warranted. So, we did just that. If you follow the television screen,
Majority staff for this committee sent an email to Ms. Beth Kerttula on
May 5, followed by a formal invitation on May 9, and then with another
email on May 11. There were also a number of phone calls made to Ms.
Kerttula's office and cell phones in between this correspondence. There
was no response from the Administration until late last week. At the
end of the day, the Administration is a no-show and I have little doubt
that is by design. Their absence is telling and indicative of this
whole effort: share as little information as possible even though their
stated goal is ``Federal coordination and transparency.''
We will hear today that Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning--or
what some call ``Federal zoning''--is necessary to combat competing
uses among traditional marine industries, recreational activity, and
offshore development. That's a false choice. If you go out in the Gulf
of Mexico--and a witness here with us today can attest to this--some of
our best fishing takes place right off of our offshore oil rigs. These
different uses aren't conflicting, but can be complementary of each
other in some cases.
This Administration is aloof of what's going on in the Gulf,
continually ignores the boundaries of the law and does whatever it
pleases until checked by the judicial branch like last week with
Obamacare, or is held accountable through congressional actions.
We will hear from those potentially impacted today. From the
Eastern Seaboard, to the Gulf Coast, to the inland farming communities
of the West, we will listen to strong concerns about these vague
policies being implemented by unaccountable bureaucrats behind the
scenes. It's unfortunate--but not surprising--that the Administration
couldn't be here to listen to these legitimate concerns. I look forward
to hearing from you all here today.
This hearing will be the first of a number of actions this
subcommittee will take to hold the Administration's feet to the fire on
this gross executive over-reach aimed at curtailing multiple-use access
to our ocean resources.

______

Dr. Fleming. And I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Huffman, for his comments.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Huffman. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman. The
Majority has called today's hearing to discuss the implications
of the National Ocean Policy. This hearing, consistent with
prior hearings on the same subject, continues this implication
that the policy has somehow been harmful, or is an over-reach.
And I am certain that my colleagues across the aisle will
engage in the same type of narrative, that this is
unprecedented abuse of executive power, the same things that we
have heard in many identical hearings which the Administration
has participated in in the past.
This familiar refrain, unfortunately, ignores the fact that
the National Ocean Policy, at its core, is nothing more than
air traffic control for the ocean. It is common sense. This
policy coordinates the actions of Federal agencies and
regulated activities at sea and along our coast, so that we can
reduce user conflict, cut through red tape, and support sound
decisionmaking with better information and strategic planning.
It does not create new laws or new regulations. It is not
Soviet-style command-and-control regulation. It certainly is
not non-transparent, as was described. It is the antithesis of
that. It is an attempt to improve communication and
transparency.
The policy is appropriate. It is a necessary use of the
chief executive's authority to direct coordination of executive
branch agencies. And, in my opinion, President Obama should be
applauded for building on what was--and this is important to
remember--a bipartisan action plan in 2004, an action plan that
was an initiative of the George W. Bush administration.
The United States and its territories have exclusive
jurisdiction, economically, over approximately 4.5 million
square miles of our ocean. These areas are a vital part of our
economy. They support tens of millions of jobs; contribute
billions of dollars annually to our national economy and
coastal communities, which make up about 18 percent of our
country's land area; and are home to nearly 120 million people,
37 percent of our Nation's population. And these numbers are
steadily increasing.
These growing uses within our ocean and coastal areas are
inherently going to put significant pressure on our natural
resources. So, planning is needed to help ensure that
everything works together, that we have healthy, natural
resources, and continued economic growth in these areas.
Instead of taking the opportunity to ask how we can
continue to support the growth of our ocean and coastal
economies, the Majority will likely accuse the President of
lacking authority to implement the ocean policy, despite the
fact--and this has been explained repeatedly--that there are no
fewer than 55 separate laws and regulations that speak to the
need and the requirement for adequate ocean planning.
Six years after the Executive Order created the policy,
some on the other side of the aisle still refuse to accept the
facts: the fact that it does not over-ride state water law, for
example, does not restrict use of private property in any way,
does not regulate the raindrops on your roof, and so on.
Contrary interpretations are potentially deliberate
attempts to mislead the public, and have long ago been debunked
as such, including through several hearings in the Natural
Resources Committee.
I had hoped that instead of revisiting this tired argument,
we might hold a hearing on any one of several really important
timely issues facing communities that many of us represent. I
have made formal requests in this Congress for hearings on many
such issues, including improvements to agricultural and
municipal water management and conservation in the face of this
persistent and historic drought in California; an examination
of current drought climate and weather science to help us
understand the long-term prospects for water shortages; the
impacts of ocean acidification on aquaculture and ocean
ecosystems; and how to incorporate climate science into marine
fisheries management.
Unfortunately, none of these hearing requests have been
granted. We have not had conversations on these subjects.
Instead, today, we are trying to manufacture some controversy
out of a completely legal and, frankly, non-controversial good
government initiative.
If we really must revisit the National Ocean Policy, how
about talking about how the ocean-related economy has grown at
a faster pace than the national economy since 2008. We should
be talking about how increasing support for chronically
underfunded coastal and marine resources management and ocean
science programs could support further economic growth, and how
addressing the impacts of climate change on fisheries,
aquacultures, agriculture, and ocean ecosystems could actually
boost income and save jobs in coastal communities, including
those that I represent.
We should be talking about how the National Ocean Policy
can connect all of these things in a more coherent policy and
permitting framework, and ensure that all who benefit from
America's oceans can continue to do so in an economically and
environmentally sustainable way.
I thank the witnesses for joining us today, and I look
forward to our conversation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water, Power, and Oceans
Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman. The Majority has called
today's hearing to discuss the ``implications'' of the National Ocean
Policy. And this hearing, consistent with prior hearings on this
subject, continues this implication that the Policy has somehow been
harmful or is an over-reach, and I'm certain that my colleagues across
the aisle will engage in the same type of narrative that this is
unprecedented abuse of executive power, the same things that we've
heard in many identical hearings which the Administration has
participated in in the past.
So, this familiar refrain unfortunately ignores the fact that the
National Ocean Policy at its core is nothing more than air traffic
control for the ocean. It's common sense. This policy coordinates the
actions of Federal agencies, regulated activities, at sea and along our
coast so that we can reduce user conflicts, so that we can cut through
red tape, support sound decisionmaking with better information and
strategic planning. It does not create new laws or new regulations. It
is not Soviet style command and control regulation. It certainly is not
non-transparent as described. It's the antithesis of that. Its intent
is to improve communication and transparency. Policy is appropriate.
It's a necessary use of the chief's executive authority to direct
coordination of executive branch agencies, and in my opinion, President
Obama should be applauded for building on what was, and this is
important to remember, a bipartisan action plan in 2004. An action plan
that was an initiative of Bush administration.
Now the United States and its territories have an exclusive
jurisdiction economically over approximately 4\1/2\ million square
miles of our ocean. These areas are a vital part of our economy. They
support tens of millions of jobs; contribute billions of dollars
annually to our national economy and coastal communities, which make up
about 18 percent of our country's land area; are home to nearly 120
million people, 37 percent of our Nation's population, and these
numbers are steadily increasing. These growing uses within our ocean
and coastal areas are inherently going to put significant pressure on
our natural resources, and so planning is needed to help ensure
everything works together, that we have healthy natural resources and
continued economic growth in these areas.
Instead of taking the opportunity to ask how we can continue to
support the growth of our ocean and coastal economies, the Majority
will likely accuse President Obama of lacking authority to implement
the Ocean Policy, despite the fact, and this has been explained
repeatedly that there are no fewer than 55 separate laws and
regulations that speak to the need and the requirement for adequate
ocean planning. Six years after the Executive Order created the Policy,
some on the other side of the aisle still refuse to accept the facts.
The fact that it does not over-ride state water laws, for example, does
not restrict use of private property in any way, does not regulate the
raindrops on your roof and so on. Contrary interpretations are
potentially deliberate attempts to mislead the public and have long ago
been debunked as such, including several hearings in the Natural
Resources Committee. Now I had hoped that instead of revisiting this
tired argument, we might hold a hearing on any one of several really
important timely issues facing communities including the one I
represent.
I've made a formal request in this Congress for hearings on many
such issues including improvements to agricultural and municipal water
management conversation in the face of this persistent and historic
drought in California, an examination of current drought climate and
weather science to help us understand the long term prospects for water
shortages, the impact of ocean acidification on aquaculture and ocean
ecosystems and how to incorporate climate science in the marine
fisheries management.
Unfortunately, none of these hearing requests have been granted. We
have not had conversations on these subjects. And instead, today, we
are trying to manufacture some kind of controversy out of the
completely legal and, frankly, non-controversial good government
initiative.
If we really must revisit the National Ocean Policy, how about
talking about how the ocean related economy has grown at a faster pace
than the national economy since 2008? We should be talking about how
increasing support for chronically underfunded coastal and marine
resources management and ocean science programs could support further
economic growth and how addressing the impacts of climate change on
fisheries, aquacultures, and ocean ecosystems could boost income and
save jobs in coastal communities, including those that I represent. And
we should be talking about how the National Ocean Policy can connect
all of these things in a more coherent policy permitting framework and
ensure that all who benefit from America's oceans can continue to do so
in an economically and environmentally sustainable way.

I thank the witnesses for joining us today. I look forward to our
conversation.

______

Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman and now recognize Dr.
Gosar for his comments.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Chairman, for calling today's
hearing. We will hear a lot today about our Nation's oceans and
the impacts that the President's National Ocean Policy might
have on those who want to enjoy and protect the boundary of our
saltwater resources. We have before us witnesses from Rhode
Island and Mississippi, who will rightly discuss their concerns
that the working men and women, recreationalists and others,
could be negatively impacted by this policy.
Since I represent parts of a land-locked state, one
wouldn't immediately think that Arizona would care about what
impacts our Nation's offshore resources. But, we Arizonans like
our seafood and our domestic energy.
Just as importantly, Arizona has thousands of miles of
reservoir shoreline at Lake Havasu, Lake Mead, Roosevelt Lake,
and others, created or managed by the Bureau of Reclamation,
the State, and the Salt River Project, just to name a few. That
shoreline, and the people who depend on the water within those
reservoirs, could very well be roped into the federally-based
National Ocean Policy.
Don't take my word for it, though. Look at the Appendix to
the Implementation Plan for the following items: (1)
restoration of 100,000 acres of wetlands and uplands; (2)
developing measures to evaluate national forest best management
practices; and (3) studying impacts from land-based sources of
pollution.
In addition, we have Mr. Dan Keppen, Executive Director of
the Family Farm Alliance, which includes a number of Arizona's
irrigation districts, testifying that the policy's regional
bodies could ``dramatically increase the role of Federal
agencies on inland rivers and adjacent land uses . . . at a
time when other hydropower dams are under ongoing litigation by
certain environmental groups.''
As he will testify, the policy's ecosystem-based management
scheme ``involves vague and undefined policies that we know
from experience can be used by critics of irrigated agriculture
as a basis for lawsuits to stop or delay federally permitted
activities.'' Of course, the Administration may challenge this,
but they did not even bother to show up today.
This policy is another chapter in the death-by-a-thousand-
cuts strategy this Administration employs against the people
and communities who depend on our natural resources on land and
under water. Federal zoning on both land and water creates
uncertainty, which in turn breeds litigation. It is a clever
way to impose a web of Federal layers of bureaucracy--a recipe
for stagnation.
On its way out the door, the Administration is creating
far-reaching tentacles that will only harm existing uses and
makes it nearly impossible to permit future traditional uses
with some remote nexus from the oceans, even in the Grand
Canyon State.
I thank the witnesses for their courage to ask the tough
questions and for their transparency, which is sorely lacking
from the ``most transparent administration in history.'' I look
forward to working with you and my colleagues on getting some
answers and clarity on this notorious policy.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gosar follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Paul A. Gosar, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Arizona
Thank you for holding today's hearing.

We will hear a lot today about our Nation's oceans and the impacts
that the President's National Ocean Policy might have on those who want
to enjoy and protect the bounty of our saltwater resources. We have
before us witnesses from Rhode Island and Mississippi who will rightly
discuss their concerns that the working men and women, recreationalists
and others could be negatively impacted by this policy.
Since I represent parts of a land-locked state, one wouldn't
immediately think that Arizona would care about what impacts our
Nation's offshore resources. But, we Arizonans like our seafood and our
domestic energy.
Just as importantly, Arizona has thousands of miles of reservoir
shoreline at Lake Havasu, Lake Mead, Roosevelt Lake and others created
or managed by the Bureau of Reclamation, the State and the Salt River
Project, to name a few. That shoreline--and the people who depend on
the water within those reservoirs--could very well be roped into the
federally-based National Ocean Policy.

Don't take my word for it though. Look at the Appendix to the
Implementation Plan for the following items:

restoration of 100,000 acres of wetlands and uplands;

developing measures to evaluate National Forest Best
Management Practices; and

studying impacts from land-based sources of pollution.

In addition, we have Mr. Dan Keppen, Executive Director of the
Family Farm Alliance--which includes a number of Arizona's irrigation
districts--testifying that the policy's Regional Planning Bodies could
``dramatically increase the role of Federal agencies on inland rivers
and adjacent land uses . . . at a time when other hydropower dams are
under ongoing litigation by certain environmental groups.'' As he will
testify, the policy's ecosystem-based management scheme ``involves
vague and undefined and policies that we know from experience can be
used by critics of irrigated agriculture as the basis for lawsuits to
stop or delay federally permitted activities.'' Of course, the
Administration may challenge this, but they didn't even bother to show
up today.
This policy is another chapter in the death-by-a-thousand-cuts
strategy this Administration employs against the people and communities
who depend on our natural resources on land and under water. Federal
zoning on both land and water creates uncertainty, which in turn breeds
litigation. It's a clever way to impose a web of Federal layers of
bureaucracy--a recipe for stagnation.
On its way out the door, the Administration is creating far-
reaching tentacles that will only harm existing uses and make it nearly
impossible to permit future traditional uses with some remote nexus
from the oceans--even in the Grand Canyon State.
I thank for the witnesses for their courage to ask the tough
questions and for their transparency, which is sorely lacking from the
``most transparent administration in history.'' I look forward to
working with you and my colleagues on getting some answers and clarity
on this notorious policy.

______

Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman. We are now ready for
witness testimony.
I will explain how the lights work. You have 5 minutes for
your oral testimony. The written testimony will be entered into
the record, no matter how large it is. So, you will be under a
green light for the first 4 minutes. Then, when it turns
yellow, be thinking about wrapping up. If you have not finished
by the time it is red, please wrap up as soon as possible.
Otherwise, you will be gaveled down so we can keep things
moving, of course.
We have introductions today. First, Mr. Bob Zales,
President of the National Association of Charterboat Operators
based out of Hurley, Mississippi; Ms. Meghan Lapp, Fisheries
Liaison for Seafreeze, Ltd., which is in North Kingstown, Rhode
Island; Mr. Jim Lanard, Chief Executive Officer of Magellan
Wind, based out of Collingswood, New Jersey; and then Mr. Dan
Keppen, Executive Director of the Family Farm Alliance, based
out of Klamath Falls, Oregon.
How large is Klamath Falls, Oregon?
Mr. Keppen. About 50,000.
Dr. Fleming. About 50,000? The reason why that catches my
attention is about a century ago a branch of my ancestors
followed the timber industry to Klamath Falls, Oregon, which is
all I know about it. But if you know any Flemings in Klamath
Falls, they are my cousins.
Mr. Keppen. I do. Some of them are turf farmers.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Fleming. Yes. Well, I come from a long line of dirt
farmers.
As I mentioned in the opening statement, the Director of
the National Ocean Policy, Ms. Beth Kerttula, was invited to
testify today, but unfortunately, did not accept our
invitation.
I now recognize Mr. Zales for his testimony.

STATEMENT OF BOB ZALES, PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
CHARTERBOAT OPERATORS, HURLEY, MISSISSIPPI

Mr. Zales. Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, and
members of the subcommittee, my name is Robert F. Zales, II,
and I am appearing today on behalf of the National Association
of Charterboat Operators. I wish to thank you for your kind
invitation to present testimony on the implications of
President Obama's National Ocean Policy.
H.R. 21, Oceans 21, the precursor to the National Ocean
Policy, was introduced to the House in the mid-2000s. It never
had broad public support, and thanks to the wisdom of our
Representatives and Senators was never approved by Congress.
Due to rejection of the proposed legislation and no action by
Congress, on July 19, 2010, President Obama signed and executed
Presidential Executive Order 13547, creating the National Ocean
Policy and resulting National Ocean Council.
Now, almost 6 years later, this one stroke of a pen that
created an unfunded mandate, has provided for the creation of
the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan and led to the
creation of Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) in the Northeast,
Mid-Atlantic, Pacific, Caribbean, and, most recently, the West
Coast.
Thankfully, we have no functioning RPB in the Gulf of
Mexico region, and do not need one. The last thing we need in
the Gulf, and any region, is the creation of a new government
body and a process that the Federal Government itself has
likened to ocean zoning, neither of which have been authorized
by Congress, that is trying to solve a problem that does not
exist.
Apparently, Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues are not
necessary to the proper management and care of our natural
marine and land-based resources, as Congress has been left
totally out of the NOP process.
Under the coastal and marine spatial planning process, RPBs
are comprised solely of government officials who are charged
with developing a zoning plan. No private-sector stakeholders
are allowed to be included.
Why do we need another bureaucratic entity and overlaid
costs, costing untold sums of taxpayer dollars on top of all
those already in existence to provide more management? Few, if
any, Federal legislators know where the funding for the NOP
comes from now, and who will control the funding and oversight
in the future.
In the Gulf, as well as all areas of the country,
recreational and commercial fishermen are currently over-
regulated, and negatively impacted in every arena. The fishing
industry, both recreational and commercial, cannot absorb any
more regulatory burden.
The NOP process has the potential and is likely to create
new and expanded regulatory requirements in addition to those
we already have, creating more regulatory burdens and
increasing costs on our businesses.
In the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean
Policy Task Force July 19, 2010, page 30 states, ``The plans
would be adaptive to allow for modification and addition of new
actions based on new information or changing conditions. Their
effective implementation would also require clear and easily
understood requirements and regulations, where appropriate,
that include enforcement as a critical component.''
While several lead agencies have stated the NOP has no
regulatory authority, it is clear that the NOP will be adding
new regulatory impacts, including potential regulations on
already overly regulated industries and activities.
Fishing activity and boating are at an all-time low.
Government requirements and expenses keep growing. Allowing the
NOP to continue as is will only continue to reduce this fishing
and boating activity, which will result in lost jobs, lost
wages, and lost taxes, which will harm families in our
communities. Furthermore, the Gulf has a decades-long history
of successful co-existence and environmental stewardship of our
natural resources by commercial and recreational fishermen. Our
historical experience reflects that we do not need this
unauthorized process to create problems where none exist.
The foundational recommendations adopted by the NOP noted
``these recommendations may create a level of uncertainty and
anxiety among those who rely on these resources, and may
generate questions about how they align with existing
processes, authorities, and budget challenges.'' Six years
later, that uncertainty and anxiety is higher than ever, and
those questions are more significant today.
The unforced error created by a stroke of the pen continues
to needlessly drain resources and energy away from what our
industries should and need to be focused on, which is
generating economic activity and providing recreational and
commercial opportunities and outlets to enjoy our natural
resources, all under the oversight of responsible regulation as
authorized by Congress.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Again, I totally
appreciate the invitation and opportunity to provide you and
the subcommittee with this information. I will be pleased to
respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zales follows:]
Prepared Statement of Capt. Robert F. Zales, II, President, National
Association of Charterboat Operators
Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
subcommittee, my name is Robert F. Zales, II and I am appearing today
on behalf of the National Association of Charterboat Operators (NACO).
I wish to thank you for your kind invitation to present testimony on
the ``The Implications of President Obama's National Ocean Policy.''
NACO is a non-profit 501(c)(6) association representing charterboat
owners and operators across the United States including the Great
Lakes. I also serve on the Board of several other recreational fishing
associations as well as the National Ocean Policy Coalition. I have
been involved in fishing for over 50 years with over 25 years of that
time involved with local, state, and Federal fishery management
providing expert testimony, serving on a host of advisory panels, and
working to ensure that reason and common sense are applied to the
management of our natural resources.
H.R. 21 (Oceans 21), the precursor to the National Ocean Policy,
was introduced to the House in the mid 2000s. It never had broad public
support and thanks to the wisdom of our Representatives and Senators
was never approved by Congress. Due to rejection of the proposed
legislation and no action by Congress, on July 19, 2010, President
Obama signed and executed Presidential Executive Order 13547 creating
the National Ocean Policy and resulting National Ocean Council. I
provided my 1 minute of testimony at one of the first public
announcement meetings held in New Orleans, LA a few weeks after the EO
was executed. Now, almost 6 years later, this one stroke of a pen that
created an unfunded mandate has provided for the creation of the
National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan and led to the creation of
Regional Planning Bodies (RPB) in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Pacific,
Caribbean, and most recently the West Coast. Thankfully, we have no RPB
in the Gulf of Mexico Region and do not need one.
The National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan calls for the RPBs to
adopt a comprehensive national ecosystem-based management principal,
implement comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem-based coastal and marine
spatial planning and management, and a host of other management
objectives. All of these proposals are already being researched and in
some cases proposed under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery and Conservation
Management Act and other Federal agencies management efforts. The last
thing we need in the Gulf, and any Region, is the creation of a new
government body and a process that the Federal Government itself has
likened to Ocean Zoning--neither of which have been authorized by
Congress--that is trying to solve a problem that does not exist.
Apparently, Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues are not necessary to
the proper management and care of our natural marine and land based
resources as Congress has been left totally out of the NOP process. We
recently heard of the latest effort by 33 environmental NGOs forming
the ``High Seas Alliance'' to push the United Nations to move forward
with the development of an international legally binding instrument
under the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea on the conservation and
sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national
jurisdiction. As you can fully understand we are seriously concerned
about the continued and ever growing efforts by enviro NGOs to
circumvent the normal operation and regulatory activity of Congress.
The current NOP process, has from day one, suggested that the
Nation's stakeholders have been actively involved and able to provide
input. Reality shows this is blatantly untrue. The fast tracking
underground, lack of adequate public notice, and haphazard manner where
vital stakeholders are left out by the Administration is clear
indication they want this policy to be fully implemented before anyone
is aware of the real impacts of the proposed policy. One has to wonder,
if a policy is so great then why has Congress been left out of the
process and why do the citizens of this country know so little?
Under the Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning process there are
nine (9) Regional Planning Bodies proposed that will include membership
of Federal, state, and tribal representatives, no fishing or other
stakeholder representatives are to be included. We already have eight
(8) Regional Fishery Management Councils and the agencies of NOAA/NMFS
along with EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Fish and Wildlife Service,
the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, three (3) Interstate Fishery
Commissions, coastal State Resource Management Agencies, and a host of
others providing management of our resources. Why do we need another
bureaucratic entity costing taxpayers millions of dollars on top of all
of these to provide more management? Few Federal legislators know where
the funding for the NOP comes from now, who will control the funding
and oversight in the future?
In the Gulf, as well as all areas of the country, Recreational and
Commercial Fishermen are currently over regulated and negatively
impacted in every arena. No fishing seasons, overly restrictive bag
limits and quotas, closed areas to boating and fishing, the Endangered
Species Act, the Clean Water Act, EPA Engine Emission regulations,
Marine Protected Areas, Marine Mammal Interactions, gear restrictions,
U.S. Coast Guard regulations that include a host of vessel safety
requirements, specific manning requirements, life saving requirements,
licensing, drug and alcohol testing, medical review process, navigation
restrictions, FCC radio licensing and requirements, and more. Every
agency and every requirement costs fishermen and our communities
dollars.
The Fishing Industry (recreational and commercial) cannot absorb
any more regulatory burden. Many fishermen have left fishing because
they have simply been regulated out of business. The costs and
regulatory burdens have driven private recreational fishermen to find
other forms of recreation. They have forced the recreational for-hire
owner out of business because the consumer is unwilling to continue to
pay more for the government requirements as the costs of regulations
cannot be passed on. Commercial fishermen are being forced out of
business because the profit margins are not sustainable. All of this
also impacts the support businesses such as tackle shops, boat
builders, and seafood dealers.
The NOP process has the potential and is likely to create new and
expanded regulatory requirements in addition to those we have, creating
more regulatory burdens and expanding costs to our businesses.
According to information provided at a past hearing, then
Representative Steve Southerland, found in the Final Recommendations of
the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, July 19, 2010 on page 30, it
states, ``The plans would be adaptive to allow for modification and
addition of new actions based on new information or changing
conditions. Their effective implementation would also require clear and
easily understood requirements and regulations, where appropriate, that
include enforcement as a critical component.'' While several lead
agency heads have stated the NOP has no regulatory authority, it is
clear that the NOP will be adding new and expanded regulations, without
any rulemaking authority, on already overly regulated industries and
activities.
Fishing activity and boating are at an all time low. Government
requirements and expense keep growing and allowing the NOP to continue
without congressional oversight will only continue to reduce this
fishing and boating activity which will result in lost JOBS, lost
WAGES, and lost TAXES which will harm families and our communities. The
NOP does nothing but add new layers of unaccountable Federal Government
employees while doing nothing to enhance our economy or our resources.
Everything the NOP proposes is already being implemented, proposed, or
thought of.
In addition the NOP will continue the strangulation of our Gulf
offshore oil and gas industries by further restricting exploration,
mining, and production of these resources. This further hampers
fishermen due to the ever increasing fuel costs. In the Gulf of Mexico
the expanded effort to remove non-productive oil and gas platforms that
have become essential fish habitat is a growing problem when the NOAA/
NMFS requires sustainable fisheries. How do you sustain a resource
without habitat?
The Gulf has a decades long history of successful coexistence and
environmental concern of our natural resources by commercial and
recreational fishermen. Our historical experience reflects that we
don't need this unauthorized process to create problems where none
exists. In addition to the negative impacts on our Gulf fishing
industries and in other regions where RPBs have been established, in
the Gulf we are concerned with Federal members who were identified to
serve on a Gulf RPB in 2012, although the five Gulf states did not
agree to participate. Our concern is amplified due to the fact that the
NOP states that Federal entities are to implement marine planning in
regions even where states decide not to participate.
The foundational recommendations adopted by the NOP noted ``these
recommendations may create a level of uncertainty and anxiety among
those who rely on these resources and may generate questions about how
they align with existing processes, authorities, and budget challenges.
Six years later that uncertainty and anxiety is higher than ever and
those questions are more significant today. The unforced error created
by a stroke of the pen continues to needlessly drain resources and
energy away from what our industries should and need to be focused on
which is generating economic activity and providing recreational and
commercial opportunities and enjoyment of our natural resources, all
under the oversight of responsible regulation as authorized by
Congress. If the Federal Government wants to help fix a problem it
should bring industry to the table as an equal partner to work together
to address the regulatory maze that is strangling our ability to
operate, not create unnecessary uncertainty and anxiety by creating
government only entities and regulatory overlays by Executive Order.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Again, I truly
appreciate the invitation and opportunity to provide you and the
committee with this information. I will be pleased to respond to any
questions.

______

Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Zales. The Chair now recognizes
Ms. Lapp for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MEGHAN LAPP, FISHERIES LIAISON, SEAFREEZE, LTD.,
NORTH KINGSTOWN, RHODE ISLAND

Ms. Lapp. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before
you today. My name is Meghan Lapp and I represent Seafreeze,
Ltd., the largest producer and trader of sea frozen fish on the
U.S. East Coast.
I am here today to convey that the impacts of President
Obama's National Ocean Policy are already being implemented
through the Fishery Management Councils and NOAA science and
policy, even prior to any finalized regional ocean action plan.
Rather than detail every specific instance, I would like to
relate my personal experiences thus far, and our increased
concerns as the NOP process moves forward.
NOAA science is the driving force of fisheries management,
and has embraced the fundamental shift to ecosystem-based
management embodied in the NOP. Therefore, regulatory bodies
such as the Regional Fishery Management Councils are forced to
embrace this approach. As a result, the New England Council now
has an Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Committee, which is
conducting an experimental fishery ecosystem plan, as is
outlined in the Policy's Implementation Plan, to implement
pilot projects that use an ecosystem-based approach.
Similarly, the Mid-Atlantic Council now has an Ecosystem
and Ocean Planning Committee. As an advisory panel member to
this committee, I have been asked to give input on policy
toward industrial ocean use, habitat impacts, and potential
trade-offs, much as is discussed in the Task Force
Recommendations on Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. While
incorporating ecosystem considerations in fishery management is
not a new concept, it is only recently that directed management
efforts have been focused on implementation. While the NOP is
touted as non-regulatory, it is clearly controlling the agenda
of Federal agencies and regulatory bodies, which will result in
new regulations.
One serious concern from a fishery stakeholder perspective
is the NOP's commitment to the conservation of important
ecological areas, such as areas of high productivity. As part
of data collection for the NOP, confidential fisheries data has
been compiled into public charts, detailing where concentrated
commercial fishing activity currently takes place, a.k.a. areas
of high productivity.
For the sake of consistency with NOP conservation, does
this mean we could lose access to our fishing grounds?
According to the NOP Task Force, the specific questions and
concerns of those who rely on marine resources will be
addressed as implementation progresses. I find this outrageous.
My experience at a Northeast Regional Planning Body meeting
does not serve to ease our concerns. It was very apparent from
the discussion that the push was to get the RPB plan done at
all costs by 2016.
After the public comment period, during which I raised real
fisheries issues, one RPB member stated that the short timeline
had reduced the RPB's ability to be transparent and conduct
thorough stakeholder engagement, and that they were just going
to create a plan because of a timeline without concerns for
credibility. To this, one of the co-chairs responded, ``We're
going to produce a plan, and it's going to get adopted.'' The
NOC Director quietly nodded. As a stakeholder, this tells me
that our interests do not really matter.
Another comment that, ``At the end of 16 months you want to
make this so hard to shut off,'' tells me that the regional
plan is designed to be railroaded through, regardless of future
objections.
The Administration's top-down approach on NOP
implementation is apparent in the recent marine monument
discussion. Last year, an unexpected email announcement was
distributed via NOAA's Listserv. It gave stakeholders a 2-week
notice that the Administration was considering designating
several deep sea canyons as marine national monuments for
protection of deep sea corals.
This initiative came soon after the Mid-Atlantic Council
had completed a deep sea corals amendment, which included
extensive stakeholder input, including an interactive workshop
to draw boundary lines. It was also the same time that the New
England Council intended to resume work on its own deep sea
corals amendment in that very area.
The canyon areas under consideration as marine monuments
are extremely productive, and have great economic importance to
Seafreeze.
Holding just one public meeting to allow for stakeholder
input, NOAA released a comment portal through which
stakeholders were directed to submit further comment.
Attempting to protect our interests, I submitted not only
written comments, but proprietary charts, documenting our
vessels' fishing activity in the area to argue that our fishing
grounds needed to be kept open.
When I inquired, no one at NOAA could tell me how long the
comment period would remain open. Neither could anyone at the
agency inform me how or why this discussion was initiated, if
there was any specific process being followed, who would be
reviewing our comments, who would be presenting them, and to
whom. It was like a black hole; we had no idea what was going
on.
This is the antithesis of transparency and how decisions
should be made. We still live in the uncertainty of what may
happen. Since NOP implementation, we have had less clarity and
input into our future, not more.
Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Meghan Lapp follows:]
Prepared Statement of Meghan Lapp, Fisheries Liaison, Seafreeze Ltd.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is
Meghan Lapp, and I represent Seafreeze, Ltd., the largest producer and
trader of sea frozen fish on the U.S. East Coast. We operate two
freezer vessels out of Davisville, RI, that fish from the Canadian line
to North Carolina.
I am here today to tell you that the implications of President
Obama's National Ocean Policy (NOP) are already being felt and
implemented through the Fishery Management Councils and NOAA/NMFS
science and policy, even prior to any finalized regional Ocean Action
Plan by a Regional Planning Body. Rather than detail every specific, I
would like to relate my personal experiences thus far, and the
increased concerns I have as the process moves forward.
NOAA science is the driving force of fisheries management, and has
embraced the ``fundamental shift'' to ecosystem-based management.
Therefore, fisheries regulatory bodies such as the Fishery Management
Councils have also been forced to embrace this fundamental shift. As a
result, the New England Fishery Management Council now has an
``Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Committee,'' which is conducting
an eFEP (experimental Fishery Ecosystem Plan), much as is outlined in
the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, i.e. to ``implement
pilot projects that use an ecosystem-based approach'' (p. 20; ``Pilot
projects will . . . enable decisionmakers and managers to understand
how ecosystem-based management can be most effectively implemented at
regional scales . . .''). The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
now has an Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee, of which I am an
Advisory Panel member. To date as an AP member, I have been asked to
give input on policy toward industrial ocean use, as well as habitat
impacts/policy, and potential trade-offs, much as is discussed in the
Task Force Recommendations on Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning.
While incorporating ecosystem considerations in fishery management is
not a new concept, it has only been recently that directed management
efforts have been concentrated on implementation. While the National
Ocean Council and National Ocean Policy are touted as non-regulatory,
they are clearly controlling the agenda of regulatory agencies and
bodies. This will result in regulations to the end user.
One serious concern from a fishery stakeholder perspective is the
policy's commitment to the ``reduction of cumulative impacts from human
uses on marine ecosystems''(Task Force, p. 33) and the ``conservation
of important ecological areas, such as areas of high productivity''
(Task Force, p. 44). Currently, as part of data collection for the
National Ocean Policy, confidential fisheries data has been complied
into public charts that detail where concentrated commercial fishing
activity takes place, a.k.a. areas of high productivity. For the sake
of NOP ``conservation,'' does that mean we will lose access to our
fishing grounds? (Will state or Federal Fishery Management Plans be
required to close these areas, due to the fact that NOAA, which must
comply with these Task Force Recommendations, has the final say on
FMPs? And that the States and Fishery Management Councils on the
Regional Planning Bodies will be bound by RPB Plans? The Northeast
Regional Planning Body has a chart on its Web page that states:
``Regulatory: Use of Ocean Plan Data in NEPA and regulatory
processes,'' and documents containing the Task Force mandate as well as
potential corresponding regulations for fishery management.) According
to the Task Force, the specific questions and concerns of those who
rely on marine resources will be addressed ``as implementation
progresses'' (Task Force, p. 9). I find this outrageous.
My experience at a Northeast Regional Planning Body (RPB) meeting
does not serve to ease my concerns. It was very apparent from the
discussion that the push was to get the RPB Plan done at all costs by
2016. After the public comment period during which I raised real
fisheries issues with the process, data, and impacts to fisheries from
both an equity and ecological perspective, one RPB member stated that
the short timeline had reduced the RPB's ability to be transparent and
do stakeholder engagement, and that they were just going to create a
plan because of a timeline without the credibility needed. To this, one
of the Co-Chairs responded, ``We're going to produce a plan and it's
going to get adopted'' (by the NOC), to which the NOC Director
responded by nodding. As a stakeholder, this tells me that my interests
don't matter and that the only goal is implementation by 2016. Another
comment that ``at the end of 16 months you want to make this so hard to
shut off'' tells me that the Plan is designed to be railroaded through
regardless of future objections.
The Administration's top down approach cannot be made clearer than
through the recent Marine Monument discussion. Last year, an unexpected
email announcement went out over NOAA's Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office listserve. It gave stakeholders a 2-week notice that
there was consideration by the Administration to designate several deep
sea canyons as Marine National Monuments, one reason of which was
protection of deep sea corals. This came soon after the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council had completed a Deep Sea Corals Amendment,
which included extensive stakeholder input, including an interactive
workshop to draw boundary lines. (Seafreeze was a participant in this
workshop.) It was also right about the time when the New England
Fishery Management Council intended to resume work on its own Deep Sea
Corals Amendment in that very area, during which stakeholders expect a
similar interactive process. Many of the environmental NGOs who had
taken credit for collaboration in the Mid-Atlantic workshop were among
those championing a National Monument designation and a bypassing of
the New England Council process. The canyon areas under consideration
as Marine Monuments are extremely productive and of great economic
importance to Seafreeze. Holding just one public meeting to allow for
stakeholder input, NOAA released a comment portal through which to
submit further comment. (The original meeting notice stated that
comments through the portal had to be submitted by the date of the
meeting. The day after the meeting, a notice was released that asked
for further comments to be sent ``as soon as possible.'') In a frenzied
attempt to protect Seafreeze's interests, I submitted not only written
comments but proprietary/confidential charts documenting our vessels'
fishing activity in the area as an argument that our fishing grounds
needed to be kept open. When I asked, no one at NOAA could tell me how
long the comment period would remain open. Neither could anyone at the
agency inform me how or why this discussion was initiated (whether
executive request, response to petitions, etc), if there was any
specific process being followed, who would be reviewing our comments,
who would be presenting them, and to whom. It was like a black hole; we
had no idea what was going on. This is disturbing especially
considering the type of confidential information I felt necessary to
submit. From a current stakeholder's perspective, this is the
antithesis of how decisions should be made. We still live in the
uncertainty of what may happen with this.
Since this Policy, we have had less input into our future, not
more. Thank you and I would be happy to answer any questions.

______

Dr. Fleming. Ms. Lapp, your timing is perfect.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Fleming. I couldn't do any better than that.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lanard for his testimony.

STATEMENT OF JIM LANARD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MAGELLAN
WIND, COLLINGSWOOD, NEW JERSEY

Mr. Lanard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
members of the committee. Good morning.
My name is Jim Lanard. I am CEO of Magellan Wind, which is
an offshore wind developer looking to develop projects on both
the West and East Coast of the United States. Formerly I was
the founder and first president of the Offshore Wind
Development Coalition, which represented offshore wind
developers and the supply chain, as we tried to move forward a
new policy for the United States. And before that I was
Managing Director of Deep Water Wind, which is now building the
first offshore wind farm in the United States, off the coast of
Rhode Island in state water--five 6-megawatt turbines.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before
you today on the implications of the President's National Ocean
Policy. I am delighted to have been here 5 years ago, when we
first addressed this issue, and now we can give you some
updates on our experience.
Let me start by saying that we are proud to report that the
implications of the President's National Ocean Policy are
strongly positive. The National Ocean Policy looks to support
science-based decisionmaking, conflict resolution, data
sharing, proactive planning, all leading to sustainable
development.
We have a big coast in the United States, 32 states border
on coastal waters, about 200 million people live in those
states out of our 320 or so million folks, and there are really
huge ocean users and valuable resources in those waters:
military--national security and national defense are huge
users; commercial fishing and aquaculture; cultural and
archeological sites for tribal nations; national and
international commerce--shipping; recreational uses--fishing,
boating, surfing; energy and natural resources--sand mining,
oil and gas, soon offshore wind, and eventually marine
hydrokinetics; wildlife--sea birds, fish and all marine life;
habitat; and aesthetics, the viewshed.
None of these user groups think they are taking up too much
space in the ocean. None of them have offered to give back any
space to the United States. In fact, there is one thing that
all of these groups have in common: they would like more access
to larger and larger swaths of the ocean.
There are new defense technologies that need more space out
there. There are expanding shipping lanes being proposed.
Fishing and aquaculture needs more space. Expanded oil and gas
programs are all over the place. There are more protected areas
being proposed, and offshore wind wants to come in and work, as
well. So how do we decide how to balance all those uses?
I can tell you what definitely doesn't work. What doesn't
work is a single-sector decisionmaking process that results in
multiple conflicting policy recommendations from too many
perspectives. So, what does work to coordinate all those uses?
Coordinated, multi-sector, multi-stakeholder process with
negotiations and problem-solving, where all interests and
stakeholders can work together. It is just common sense, and it
is exactly what the President has called for with the National
Ocean Policy.
We have had great success in Rhode Island with the Rhode
Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan that coordinated
Federal and state involvement and came out with a really
efficient permitting process.
Offshore wind is new to the oceans. We bring really
important things, we think. We are proud that we are going to
support energy independence, carbon reduction, efforts to fight
climate change, reduce sea level rise, and create high-skilled,
high-wage jobs, long term, for the United States.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Department of
the Interior has worked very hard and already is applying the
ideas and the concepts of the National Ocean Policy. They are
coordinating with 15 states, they have a Federal-state task
force, and they are working to de-conflict the uses with the
military, with the Coast Guard, with commercial fishing in
these initiatives, and we have had great luck.
There is a bipartisan nature to this. Where Ms. Lapp is in
Rhode Island, the Special Area Management Plan was proposed by
Republican Governor Don Carcieri. Governor Chris Christie in
New Jersey has supported funding for ocean planning processes,
as has Deval Patrick, former governor in Massachusetts. And, as
the Ranking Member said, these ideas for the NOP came from
President Bush's U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
This is not ocean zoning, this is ocean planning. There is
no regulatory authority in any of the National Ocean Policy
requirements, whatsoever. It is more for data collection, so
that we can get to a rational decisionmaking process, and have
a multi-sector outcome, not a single-sector outcome.
The NOP establishes an excellent planning process for
better planning, better cooperation, and better management.
There is still much to be done, but when we achieve these
results we will see conservation of ecosystems, we will ensure
an orderly and economically sustainable development of ocean
resources, comprehensive data ports, and maps for all users.
Minimizing conflicts for existing and for future users, we
balance the needs of all users, and we will ensure
environmental constraints will be considered before a project
is fully developed.
We are going to find common ground. That is what this
purpose is.
Thank you very much for the time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lanard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Lanard, CEO, Magellan Wind
introduction
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is
Jim Lanard, co-founder and CEO of Magellan Wind, an offshore wind
development company. Previously I was co-founder and president of the
Offshore Wind Development Coalition (OffshoreWindDC) and, before that,
Managing Director of Deepwater Wind, developer of the Block Island Wind
Farm, which is scheduled to begin operation later this year as the
Nation's first offshore wind farm. Thank you for the opportunity to
present our testimony to you today on ``The Implications of President
Obama's National Ocean Policy.'' I'm delighted to report that the
implications of the President's National Ocean Policy are strongly
positive. The National Ocean Policy seeks to promote industry
development that is sustainable and complements the variety of
development activities already occurring in the ocean, reducing
industrial risk and conflict.
In October 2011, I had the privilege to present testimony to this
committee on President Obama's new National Ocean Policy (NOP), at
which time I was serving as president of OffshoreWindDC, an industry
trade group, which has since been merged with the American Wind Energy
Association. I've reviewed what I said in 2011, appearing as president
of OffshoreWindDC and those comments align with my views in 2016 as CEO
of an offshore wind development company. I'd like to summarize some key
points I made in 2011 and update them with comments on the impressive
progress the Administration has made toward full implementation of the
National Ocean Policy.
the president's national ocean policy
October 2011 Testimony of OffshoreWindDC. Offshore wind resources
can play a vital role in the Nation's effort to restructure its
electrical power sector in a manner that increases employment and
manufacturing opportunities, improves national security, reduces price
volatility, and combats climate change. OffshoreWindDC supports the
Administration's efforts to create a national oceans policy and
implement coastal and marine spatial planning in U.S. waters.

May 2016 Update. Multiple states have already developed plans for
their state waters. The National Ocean Policy seeks to build on these
state-driven initiatives. For example, one of the best examples of a
successful broad-based stakeholder ocean planning process is the
development of Rhode Island's Ocean Special Area Management Plan (Ocean
SAMP). The Ocean SAMP was supported by the U.S. Department of the
Interior, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RI Department of
Environmental Management, RI Coastal Resources Management Council
(CRMC), the Chair of the CRMC's Fisheries Advisory Board (a
lobsterman), and the Conservation Law Foundation--a group whose members
aren't always on the same side of the table with industry.
The Ocean SAMP research and final reports enabled Deepwater Wind to
expedite development of the Block Island Wind Farm without compromising
on the thoroughness of reviews needed to avoid environmental harms,
protect health and safety, and resolve stakeholder conflicts. In a
recent news article celebrating the 5-year anniversary of the
development of the Ocean SAMP, Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director,
stated that, ``People ask why would [the state] want to engage in
marine spatial planning? It comes down to, who do you want to control
your destiny? In terms of the science and uses and what we wanted to
protect, the state took the role in setting forth a plan of where they
wanted to see development go, rather than reacting to proposals.'' We
anticipate that the regional planning underway for the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic will help our industry and others to identify successful
locations. We'll also be able to plan ahead for potential ocean use
conflicts, including taking environmental constraints into
consideration, before a project is fully developed, saving the industry
time and money.

October 2011 Testimony of OffshoreWindDC. One critical goal of the
National Ocean Policy is to create better planning to protect our
oceans in the future, especially as demands on them continue to grow.
Planning requires informed, broad-based data collection and data
integration managed by a vast array of Federal agencies. My earlier
testimony made the point that better plans lead to road maps that can
guide current and future users of the oceans about how to best achieve
their business plans. Thus, these types of planning and data collection
efforts will help industry by providing more certainty about the rules
of the road. Certainty can help to avoid conflict and improve
efficiency.
Comprehensive, science-based management of ocean resources can
supply needed data on existing and potential uses of ocean resources
and a critically needed framework for analyzing those data to
characterize and resolve conflicts.

May 2016 Update. The NOP's planning framework favors multi-sector
participation and decisionmaking, in contrast to the previous
framework's focus on separate, single-sector planning efforts. The
siloed, single-sector approach sometimes resulted in multiple,
conflicting policy recommendations from numerous Federal and state
planning agencies. Multi-sector planning reduces conflicts and improves
the decisionmaking process thereby supporting efficient and coherent
outcomes. The NOP is making great strides to improve offshore
permitting efficiency and Federal agency coordination.

October 2011 Testimony of OffshoreWindDC. Unlike some users of the
oceans and Great Lakes, we don't consider coastal and marine planning
to be an ocean zoning exercise. Rather, we see it as a process to
identify ecologically and socially significant areas that should be
considered whenever any use is proposed for a specific area. While it
is true that these plans could indicate preferences and priorities,
proposed uses for any site will still have to be studied separately. We
also think ocean planning is important to protect marine ecosystems
while ensuring the orderly and sustainable development of ocean
resources in a manner that respects and minimizes conflicts and
existing uses including commercial fishing, recreational boating,
surfing, aesthetic appreciation, wildlife, habitat, shipping, oil and
gas and national defense activities.
Ocean planning is not new to the United States. And it's not a
partisan issue, either. In the past, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and
New Jersey led by governors from both parties have relied upon their
states' ocean planning processes to identify the best sites for
offshore wind farms. None of these processes has resulted in ocean
zoning outcomes; rather, they have identified areas with the least
conflicting uses for the potential development of offshore wind
farms.\1\ In each of these state's processes there was extensive
stakeholder involvement. The National Ocean Policy requires the
Regional Planning Bodies to ensure similar extensive stakeholder
participation, a critical component as ocean planning evolves in the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For more information see: the Massachusetts Ocean Management
Plan, (http://www.mass.gov /
?pageID=eoeeaterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Ocean+%26+Coastal+Management
&L2=Massachusetts+Ocean+Plan&sid=Eoeea&b=terminalcontent&f=eea_oceans_mo
p&csid= Eoeea), the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan (RI
SAMP), http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/oceansamp/, and the New Jersey
Ocean/Wind Power Ecological Baseline Studies, http://www.nj.gov/dep/
dsr/ocean-wind/.

May 2016 Update. The NOP calls for the establishment of Regional
Planning Bodies (RPB), two of which, the Northeast RPB and the Mid-
Atlantic RPB, are expected to publish their draft regional ocean plans
for public comment in the next month or two. Both of these RPBs adopted
processes that engaged a broad set of stakeholders including those from
a range of ocean industries from shipping, ports, offshore energy, tug
and barge operators, commercial and recreational fishing, undersea
cable companies, and recreational boating to name a few, who
contributed industry data, identified future industry trends, and made
recommendations to improve coordination. These efforts prove the value
of collaboration among stakeholders with varied interests working
together to find common ground and to collect data on environmental
resources and human use that can be used to make better management
decisions.
Planning not only promotes better management decisions but also
improves national security. In a policy brief by the Center for
American Security,\2\ authors stated that ``[a]s a primary user of the
coastal ocean, the U.S. military needs dedicated and charted offshore
areas in which to train and conduct exercises to prepare for war,
thwart terrorist activities and prevent other threats against the
United States. For the Navy, Coast Guard and Marine Corps, operating in
the coastal ocean is critical to maintaining operational readiness.
Although the ocean may seem vast, a unified effort is necessary to
balance increased offshore activity with the need to maintain U.S.
military proficiency and national security and ensure the safety and
sustainability of this vital resource . . .. The development of a
national coastal ocean mapping system would benefit all coastal ocean
users and is an integral step toward more effective and thorough ocean
planning. Through comprehensive awareness of major offshore activity,
the United States would simultaneously advance national security,
economic development and ocean conservation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http: / / www.cnas.org / sites / default / files /
publications-pdf / OceanMapping_MedinaSmith Sturgis.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ocean planning has been and should continue to be bi-partisan. I
would like to remind this committee that the National Ocean Policy came
out of recommendations from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the
members of which were appointed by George W. Bush. Additionally, the
Rhode Island Ocean SAMP, referenced above, was actively supported by
former Republican Governor Donald Carcieri during his tenure in the
State House. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick have also supported funding for
state ocean planning processes. In a letter submitted in March 2016 to
this body, the Chamber of Shipping of America, East Coast Shellfish
Growers Association, Northeast Marine Pilots Association, Massachusetts
Lobstermen's Association, Oregon Wave Energy Trust, and Lenape Indian
Tribe of Delaware along with 117 other organizations representing a
huge array of interests from conservation to industry supported ocean
planning for our coastal communities, economies, and ecosystems. I hope
this committee recognizes the value of RPBs, the bi-partisan nature of
ocean planning, and will choose to support additional funding for the
NOP and the important work of states, Federal agencies, industry and
conservation stakeholders, and tribes.

Three other topics addressed in OffshoreWindDC's October 2011 testimony
to the committee also merit re-emphasis in updated form:

Job creation.
The offshore wind industry has the potential to create thousands of
highly skilled jobs in the United States. Offshore wind creates
employment in the manufacture of wind farm components as well as in the
installation and operation of the wind farms. To realize the full job-
creating potential of offshore wind development, however, it will be
necessary to build offshore wind farms at scale, as is occurring today
in Europe and China. Manufacturers will invest in the United States
only if they have the orders needed to justify the investment.
Factories for the manufacture of wind turbines (composed of as many as
8,000 discrete parts), plants that manufacture submarine cable, and
shipbuilding facilities needed to build special purpose vessels for the
offshore wind industries. We hope the committee and the rest of the
Congress will support initiatives to spur development of these
facilities so that U.S. workers can join the world's growing offshore
wind workforce.
Utility-scale offshore wind farms: a new use of the oceans and Great
Lakes.
U.S. coasts and the adjoining exclusive economic zone, along with
the Great Lakes, have historically supported a wide range of
industrial, commercial, national defense, and cultural and recreational
activities. These areas are coming under growing competitive pressure
from a variety of sources. There are calls for expanded oil and gas
drilling and for new and expanded shipping lanes, commercial fishing,
aquaculture, and new defense technologies; increased recreational
demand also contributes to the pressure. Offshore wind power, which has
the potential to generate clean, renewable energy for millions of homes
up and down our coasts, adds another use to the mix.
Lease areas for offshore wind farms can be as large as 200 or 300
square miles. Distances between turbines, which increase with rotor
diameter due to the need to limit turbulence and wake effects, range
from a half mile to almost a mile. This ensures that many other ocean
uses will be feasible at wind farm sites. We recognize, however, that
advancement of the public interest in balanced, sustainable use of
ocean and Great Lakes resources will require better planning, better
cooperation, and better management. Magellan believes that the
President's National Ocean Policy provides an essential framework for
achieving the needed improvements.
DOI's Smart-from-the-Start
Congress, when it enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005, mandated
that regulations related to the use of the Outer Continental Shelf for
offshore wind be adopted within 180 days of the bill becoming law. Five
years later, on April 29, 2009, those regulations were finally adopted
by the Department of the Interior. Interior, in collaboration with the
governors of many East Coast states, announced in November 2010 the
Smart-from-the-Start initiative, a program designed to accelerate the
responsible development of offshore wind resources in Federal waters.
Interior noted that the Smart-from-the-Start process and associated
data collection efforts can inform the Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans
that will be developed by Regional Planning Bodies created pursuant to
the National Ocean Policy. Smart-from-the-Start takes into account
existing information on wildlife and ecosystems and other uses of the
ocean (e.g., fishing and shipping) and thus attempts to ``take into
account the national CMSP (Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning) goals
and principles,'' as recommended in the Final Report of the Ocean
Policy Task Force. Final Report at 63. In important ways, the
development of offshore wind farms can provide a test case for putting
CMSP principles into practice.

conclusion
In summary, we congratulate the Administration for the effective
implementation of the National Ocean Policy. While there is still much
to be done, the progress to date bodes well for ocean management so
that all stakeholders can continue to use and enjoy ocean resources in
balanced, sustainable ways. The National Ocean Policy is helping
conserve marine ecosystems and ensure the orderly and economic
development of ocean resources, in a manner that respects and minimizes
conflicts with existing users while promoting emerging technologies. We
are eager to support our Nation's efforts to create more jobs for U.S.
workers; thoughtful implementation of the National Ocean Policy will
achieve this goal and promote greater certainty for American
businesses.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts with you.

______

Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Lanard.
And finally, Mr. Keppen, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF DAN KEPPEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FAMILY FARM
ALLIANCE, KLAMATH FALLS, OREGON

Mr. Keppen. Good morning, Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member
Huffman, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Dan
Keppen, and on behalf of the Family Farm Alliance, I thank you
for this opportunity to present this testimony on implications
of the Obama administration's National Ocean Policy.
Family Farm Alliance is a grassroots organization of family
farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts, and allied industries
in the 16 Western states. A critical issue that the Western
family farmers and ranchers are confronted with at this time is
the daunting number of Federal administrative policy
initiatives they face.
Nearly 6 years ago, President Obama signed an Executive
Order to implement a National Ocean Policy, or NOP. The policy
sets forth yet another level of Federal management 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.
In early 2012, the White House released its draft NOP
Implementation Plan, which made it clear that activities that
might adversely affect the ocean ecosystems may also be
impacted. Because of this, we are uncertain as to whether the
Administration's ocean policy intends to revise existing
regulations or impose new regulations on activities that are
already permitted by the Federal Government.
We certainly can support the goals of the NOP, which are
intended to guide Federal agencies to, among other things,
ensure the protection, maintenance, and restoration of the
health of oceans, enhance ocean and coastal economies, and
preserve our maritime heritage. We support the NOP's intent to
provide financial assistance to private landowners who want to
apply voluntary conservation practices. NOP's acknowledgment of
the importance of collaborative watershed restoration efforts
is also a good thing.
On the other hand, we fear that the Regional Planning
Bodies with a strong Federal presence proposed under the ocean
policy framework could dramatically increase the role of
Federal agencies on inland areas. We believe NOP will affect
already budget-strapped agencies that interact closely with
Western agricultural irrigators, including the USDA. Despite
USDA's involvement in the National Ocean Policy over the past 3
years, the full extent of the Department's activities and role
in the process are still not clear.
The NOP would also establish a framework for collaboration
and a shared set of goals to promote ecosystem-based
management, which 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 that we know from experience can be used by
critics of irrigated agriculture as a basis for lawsuits to
stop or delay federally permitted activities.
Finally, we believe there is a risk of unintended economic
and societal consequences associated with implementing this
policy. The NOP creates the potential for unforeseen impacts to
inland sectors, 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 our Nation's
citizens enjoy. That is, they spend less of their disposable
income on food than anywhere else in the world.
We must move away from spending Federal funds to support
new bureaucracies and procedures that could lead to further
uncertainty, restrictions, and delays. Instead, taxpayer
dollars should be allocated to existing and proven entities,
programs, and activities that have already been authorized.
Congress should work to delay implementation of this ocean
policy, which would provide more time for oversight and
examination of potential impacts of the NOP. Requiring a report
on the activities that USDA and other Federal entities have
engaged in and the resources expended related to implementation
of this policy could, in fact, lead to better public policy.
The proposed NOP is just one Federal regulatory initiative
of dozens that we have been tracking in recent years. In fact,
the president on my board of directors at this very moment is
participating in another oversight hearing just down the hall,
focusing on the myriad of new regulations he and other farmers
and ranchers currently face.
As is often the case, it is unclear how this new policy and
others will impact watershed planning efforts being conducted
at the state and local levels, some with the assistance of
Federal agencies. Many of these processes and actions will have
very real and yet-to-be-measured negative impacts on Western
irrigated agriculture. Others simply offer the potential for
disruption.
In conclusion, I ask that you put yourself in the shoes of
our family farmers and ranchers as they try to assess the
cumulative effects of all these regulatory measures. It is time
to call time out, and take a look at these impacts before we
add new chapters to what our members already see as a very
large rulebook. We welcome your leadership to help make this
possible. We are pleased that your committee is paying
attention and providing this opportunity to voice our concerns.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide this testimony
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keppen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan Keppen, Executive Director, Family Farm
Alliance
Good morning Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman 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. 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 has a reputation for helping to solve
Western water challenges in a constructive way. There are critical
issues that the Western family farmers and ranchers we represent are
confronted with at this time. At the top of the list is the daunting
number of Federal administrative policy initiatives that are facing
Western agricultural producers.
In this instance, we are uncertain how the Administration's ocean
policy will be implemented. What will the role of states and
stakeholder user groups be? Have potential impacts to the economy, the
Federal budget, and existing statutes and regulatory processes been
assessed? How will this complement or conflict with the authority of
states? For these reasons, we are concerned that this policy could
dramatically increase the role of Federal agencies on inland rivers and
adjacent lands as they might pertain to the much larger problem of
ocean health, as further outlined in this testimony.
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 National Ocean Policy (NOP). 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--across a spectrum of sectors, including the Western
agricultural producers and irrigation organizations we represent.
In early 2012, the White House released its draft National Ocean
Policy Implementation Plan, which made it clear that activities that
might adversely affect the ocean ecosystems may also be impacted--no
matter how far inland they may occur. While the NOP states that
National Ocean Policy nor marine planning ``creates or changes
regulations or authorities,'' it also proposes that agencies will
``coordinate to use and provide scientifically sound, ecosystem-based
approaches to achieving healthy coastal and ocean habitats.'' From our
standpoint, this presents significant uncertainty as to whether the
Administration intends to revise existing regulations or impose new
regulations on activities that are already permitted by the Federal
Government.
support for the nop's voluntary incentive-driven provisions
The Family Farm Alliance has long advocated a voluntary, incentive-
driven philosophy to advance conservation, and thus we support the
NOP's intent to provide financial assistance to private landowners
seeking to apply voluntary conservation practices. 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.
However, the NOP then points to restoration efforts for Pacific
Northwest salmon as an ``excellent example of collaborative, voluntary
upland watershed conservation and restoration.'' Unfortunately, the
courts do not always agree, as underscored by the recent decision by
U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon, who ruled the Federal Government
hasn't done nearly enough to improve Northwest salmon runs. ``These
efforts have already cost billions of dollars, yet they are failing,''
he wrote earlier this month.
Now, certain environmental groups say the Snake River Dams--which
fuel much of the Northwest's baseload power supply (backing up wind
energy and other renewables) and make possible irrigation and
navigation for moving agricultural commodities to market--are seen as
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 land uses, including
all uses (Ag, irrigation, ports, etc.), at a time when other hydropower
dams are under ongoing litigation by certain environmental groups.
concerns of western family farmers and ranchers
The Family Farm Alliance certainly can support 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 several 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 (Corps). Despite USDA's involvement in the National Ocean
Policy over the past 3 years, the full extent of the Department's
activities and role in the process is not clear. As Federal budgets are
further reduced, it is unclear how much funding the agencies will be
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' objective created by this
Executive Order would allow federally dominated Regional Planning
Bodies to reach as far inland as deemed 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 is portrayed by the
Administration as primarily targeting ocean-related activities, the
draft implementation plan specifically states that the policy plans to
address ``the major impacts of urban and suburban development and
agriculture--including forestry and animal feedlots.''
The `ecosystem-based management' objective involves vague and
undefined goals and policies that we know from experience can be used
by critics of irrigated agriculture as the basis for 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 ruling, NMFS concluded
that the southern resident population of killer whales may go extinct
because its primary food--salmon--is imperiled by California's network
of dams and canals. Similar sinister linkages between 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. In addition to opening up the possibility
of further such `ecosystem-based' relationships, the NOP sets up `pre-
application consultations' where requested Federal permits would be
subject to additional consultation processes prior to any formal
consideration, adding yet another layer of Federal oversight and
bureaucratic controls.
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 currently 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 contribution the ``Irrigated Agriculture Industry''--made
up of direct irrigated crop production, agricultural services and the
food processing and packaging sectors--makes to our economy every year.
Our producers also contribute to a luxury our Nation's citizens enjoy:
spending less of their disposable income on food than anywhere else in
the world.
recommendations
Rather than expend Federal funds to support 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 already been
authorized by Congress and are necessary for businesses and the economy
to properly function. Given these concerns, Congress should work to
delay implementation of the National Ocean Policy. This would provide
more time for oversight and examination of potential impacts of the
NOP, and help ensure an ocean policy that appropriately reflects and
enhances the role that our oceans, coastal areas and marine ecosystems
play in our Nation's economy, national security, culture, health, and
well-being.
USDA is a member of the National Ocean Council, and USDA
representatives have been identified to serve on ``Regional Planning
Bodies'' charged with developing ``Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans''
in regions including the Northeast and Gulf of Mexico. Since the
National Ocean Policy was established pursuant to Executive Order 13547
in July 2010, entities across the Federal Government, including USDA,
have been committing unknown amounts of resources and personnel toward
the development of an initiative that has not been authorized by
Congress. Requiring a report on the activities that USDA and other
entities across the Federal Government have engaged in and the
resources expended in furtherance of National Ocean Policy
implementation could lead to better public policy and would ensure the
kind of transparency that the American taxpayer deserves and expects.
cumulative impact of new regulations in the west
The proposed National Ocean Policy is just one Federal regulatory
initiative of dozens that we have been tracking in recent years. As
with many of these administrative proposals, the related implications
and estimated impacts on our members are often difficult to ascertain.
However, our members are wary of how these plans may impact existing
and ongoing watershed planning efforts being conducted at the state and
local levels, some with the assistance of these Federal agencies
themselves.
Thousands of watershed councils exist throughout the West and they
are engaged in a variety of conservation and restoration projects which
could be derailed or delayed by the imposition of new Federal planning
requirements. Water users are often active participants in these
efforts and have a large stake in ensuring that these projects
continue. We need to be sure that new overarching planning groups and
programs are really necessary or are wasteful expenditures of public
resources. In addition, the Obama administration needs to be cognizant
of the difference between water resource regulation under Federal
environmental laws and water resource management which is conducted
pursuant to state law.
At a time when our Nation is struggling to return to the path of
economic prosperity, we cannot support the creation of a new Federal
watershed planning program linked to ocean health, particularly for
those states that already have existing, productive watershed programs
in place. Federal participation should be channeled through these
existing state programs, rather than creating uncertainty through
potentially cumbersome, overarching new Federal requirements which
threaten to derail important water quality and water conservation
projects already underway.
We have yet to see if many of the administrative policy initiatives
proposed by the Obama administration in the past 7 years have been
successful in their intent. More importantly, we still are trying to
determine what their cumulative impacts will be on Western irrigated
agriculture. These types of Federal water resources actions and
regulatory practices could potentially undermine the economic
foundations of rural communities in the arid West by making farming and
ranching increasingly difficult.
At multiple times over the past 7 years, we have updated a growing
list of these and other newly proposed actions. While we are not yet
sounding the alarm of imminent destruction of irrigated agriculture as
we know it, we do believe many of these processes and actions will have
very real and yet-to-be measured negative impacts on Western irrigated
agriculture. Others simply offer the potential for disruption.
We ask that you, the members of this subcommittee, put yourself in
the shoes of our family farmers and ranchers as they view these
daunting administrative initiatives in the course of growing food and
fiber for our Nation and the world in an already daunting environment
of risks beyond their control. It is difficult to assess the cumulative
effects of these regulatory measures, which really should be assessed
and calculated before adding additional chapters to what our members
already see as a very large rulebook.
conclusions
American family farmers and ranchers for generations have grown
food and fiber for the world, and we will have to become more
innovative than ever before to meet the critical challenges ahead,
including feeding a growing world population on less land and with less
resources. That innovation must be encouraged rather than stifled with
new layers of Federal regulations and uncertainty. Unfortunately, many
existing and proposed Federal water resource policies make it even more
difficult for farmers in an arena where agricultural values are at a
disadvantage to Federal ecological and environmental priorities.
Many of these administrative changes are drawing praise from
environmental organizations that have been advocating for them for some
time, but ultimately the huge negative impacts of such destructive
policies will be aimed at the heart of the economy in rural America. We
can only hope that the Federal Government will give equal consideration
to the concerns of our farmers, ranchers and agricultural
organizations.
We welcome your leadership to help make that possible. We are
pleased that your committee is paying attention and providing this
opportunity to voice our concerns. We look forward to working with you
and other Members of Congress toward this end.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide this testimony today.

______

Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Keppen.
Thank you all for your valuable testimony. At this point,
we would begin our questions for our witnesses. We may not
finish our questions in the first round, we may have a second
round. I see a lot of interest around the dais. I yield myself
5 minutes to begin questions.
First of all, just a commentary. We have heard it said that
this is, at worst, benign but could actually be helpful. Mr.
Lanard talked about that. Mr. Huffman talks about how this is
sort of a new kind of air control system that would be in the
water.
I understand all of that, but let's look at what has
actually been happening. Today the regulatory system of the
Obama administration has become the fourth branch of
government, writing laws and enforcing them by unelected
bureaucrats who have absolutely no accountability. And what
gives us even more pause for concern is the lack of
transparency in this entire process. That is another danger
sign that we are going to have a continued growth of this
unaccountable new form of government.
Captain Zales, Mr. Lanard testified that this is necessary
to eliminate conflicts between industries, such as offshore
development, and commercial and recreational fishing. You have
been fishing in the Gulf for some time now. What is your
understanding of the relationship between our offshore oil rigs
and commercial and recreational fisheries?
Mr. Zales. It is an excellent relationship. I mean,
clearly--and I was told red snapper is not to be discussed, but
in the Gulf of Mexico, according to some key scientists such as
Dr. Bob Shipp, without the oil rig situation and the energy
production in the Gulf of Mexico, red snapper probably would
not be rebuilt and expanding the way that it is today. Because
of the platforms and the artificial structure that they create,
they have enhanced the resource in areas of the Gulf to where,
traditionally and historically, those areas did not produce.
Dr. Fleming. Red snapper is a reef fish and it loves oil
rigs.
Mr. Zales. Exactly. And a lot of other artificial
structures.
Corals have formed up on some of these platforms in the
Northern Gulf that previously were non-existent. So it is clear
that the impact is a healthy impact. The relationship is good.
There are a lot of fish. People fish around those rigs where
they are located every day.
Dr. Fleming. Well, by the same token, if we had this
coastal and marine spatial planning, could it disrupt or
possibly destroy the harmony that is currently in place?
Mr. Zales. It very well could. I mean, in existence today
because of the BOEM situation and the mine-utilized rigs that
they have taken out, and places in offshore Texas where they
have taken out a lot of rigs that were non-productive, fishing
is not near as good as what it once was because those rigs have
been removed.
Dr. Fleming. OK.
Mr. Zales. Whenever you take that habitat out of the water,
fish have to have a place to live.
Dr. Fleming. OK.
Mr. Zales. It destroys the situation.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Captain.
Ms. Lapp, you are very involved in the Regional Planning
Body. Talk to me about transparency. What kind of transparency
in this process are you seeing?
Ms. Lapp. At that Northeast Regional Planning Body meeting
that I did attend, one of the members acknowledged that they
were lacking in transparency, and that it was undermining the
credibility of the whole process. Stakeholders are not
involved.
Dr. Fleming. And as a stakeholder and industry
representative, what sort of message does this send?
Ms. Lapp. That they are going to get an agenda pushed
through at all costs by the end of this year.
Dr. Fleming. OK. So, it is a determined bureaucratic body,
unelected officials who are accountable to no one, including
Congress, that push through their agenda, whatever it is,
regardless of what industries are affected, what citizens
believe, what voters think, and what Americans in general would
believe and would clearly understand.
Mr. Keppen, do you have any comments about any of the
issues we have brought up here?
Mr. Keppen. Well, again, I like the comment I heard earlier
by one of the Members, death by a thousand cuts. In the last 7
years, a good portion of my time and my organization's time has
been spent just trying to weigh in on all these various
rulemakings that are occurring; and cumulatively, what does it
mean?
Dr. Fleming. Do you think this suppresses the economy of
your industry and others around you?
Mr. Keppen. Well, it definitely creates uncertainty, and I
think it opens the potential for actions that could be taken
that could definitely have an impact on producers in the
Western United States.
Dr. Fleming. Well, you heard Mr. Huffman say that the ocean
industry has outstripped our economy. But what kind of affects
me about that is the fact that our economy in the last 10 years
has had the worst growth in history. It does not take much to
outstrip our general economy today.
Thank you, and I yield to Mr. Huffman.
Mr. Huffman. I would like to start with Mr. Lanard.
Mr. Lanard, I guess about 5 years ago, there was a series
of hearings by the Majority on this National Ocean Policy. I
believe you may have participated and testified in at least one
of them. And, instead of supporting the plan for our oceans
that had been recommended on a bipartisan basis, and supported
by President George W. Bush, the Republican Majority pursued
some of the same things we are hearing today, a lot of
speculative scare tactics about things that might happen, about
additional regulations that could come into play and hurt
American jobs.
But we now have the benefit of a few years of actual
practice. I wanted to ask you about that, because it seems to
me that we are seeing real results. Better coordination between
agencies and stakeholders, I am told has helped spur the first
aquaculture permits in both the Atlantic and Pacific waters,
and generated more than $100 million for our states in multi-
use Rigs-to-Reefs projects.
I am told that the National Ocean Policy has actually
facilitated extension of Rigs-to-Reefs into Federal waters in
places like the Gulf of Mexico, which should be a good thing
for fishing, going forward, to Mr. Zales's point; supported the
growing offshore wind industry; and encouraged job growth and
independence from foreign energy pressures.
I want to ask you, Mr. Lanard, having heard from other
witnesses and my colleagues across the aisle, do you agree that
the National Ocean Policy causes more uncertainty and confusion
for stakeholders? You certainly heard all these arguments back
in 2011, when you testified at a similar hearing. But in your
experience, has the policy helped increase or reduce
stakeholder participation and certainty?
Mr. Lanard. We have worked with the Department of the
Interior, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and many of
the other departments to find out how to move offshore wind
into the commerce sector of the ocean, which has so many other
competing uses. And the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has
been remarkably efficient. They have created state and Federal
task forces that bring in all the different interests so that
people can comment and weigh in, and then de-conflict those
uses. It is a really good process, and it is efficient.
I think one of the things that is very important for this
committee to fully appreciate is that these are voluntary ocean
plans. There is no Regional Planning Body that has to adopt a
plan. And when it does, as the Northeast plan is coming up, it
is going to be open to public comment again for the public to
weigh in.
The majority of members of these planning bodies are state
officials and representatives, not Federal officials. So, we
are not creating a Federal bureaucracy, we are helping the
states inform the Federal Government how all of us can do a
more efficient job to manage these different uses.
And Mr. Huffman, directly personal to you, I want to tell
you that the northern part of your congressional district has
some of the best winds for offshore wind in the United States,
and we will be looking forward to putting a lot of your
constituents to work out there, building these wind farms.
Mr. Huffman. I appreciate the reference to the beautiful
Second Congressional District.
I want to ask you, though, about marine spatial planning,
which is not fully implemented at this point. Many ocean
decisions are single sector, single agency. You referred to
that in your testimony. Mr. Lanard, are there times right now
where you have seen the wind industry struggle to have its
interests represented by other Federal agencies because of that
single sector, single agency process?
Mr. Lanard. No, and let me bring up the Department of
Defense, which is going to be the most resistant to any effort
to cede its territory. We have a great working relationship
with the Department of Defense. We go to the Pentagon, we meet
with the Regional Clearinghouse on Renewable Energy. We meet
with the Department of Navy, of course, which is the most
important of those agencies for surface water use and
subsurface water use. And they are working really hard with us
to de-conflict this and find ways of working together.
I think the biggest issue with the Navy might be a radar
issue, because our towers 15 or 20 miles off the coast might
have some radar issues. We will resolve that, just like they
have on land.
Mr. Huffman. Well, let me just say, back to the second
district, it is going to be a real regulatory challenge for you
or anyone else to do a project in an area that has such an
overlay of coastal act, coastal commission, marine-protected
areas, sanctuaries, et cetera. I am not sure that needle can be
threaded. But if there is a spot that is suitable for offshore
wind--and I don't know, you would know better than me--it is
inconceivable to imagine you ever navigating all of those
layers of law and regulation and permitting without agencies
talking to each other.
So, it seems to me a pretty good example of a case study of
why this sort of coordination and communication is needed, and
I appreciate your testimony.
Dr. Fleming. Chairman Bishop is recognized.
The Chairman. Thank you. And I am making an assumption here
that when you said California, the Second District of
California had great opportunity for wind farms, I am assuming
you are talking about natural occurrence and not the rhetoric
of the Representative from California.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lanard. Talking far off the coast.
The Chairman. All right. I guess it is both. OK, fine.
One of the issues for which we are here is because when
Congress does something, as slow as it is, our attempt is to do
it correctly. When the Administration tries to do something,
they just want to do it, and not necessarily do it right. We
have a perfect example here with the National Ocean Policy.
This National Ocean Council was done, what, 6 years ago?
And there still is, at least if I listen to the testimony here,
some confusion about what it was. And I thank the Subcommittee
Chair, because his purpose was to try and bring together the
National Ocean Council and the Council of Environmental Quality
and have a discussion here. Unfortunately, they refused to show
up because 6 years later they are still not quite sure what
they are really doing with this policy. That is a long time to
get ready for a hearing. I suppose in another 6 years they
might be ready for a hearing again.
So, Captain, I appreciate what you said, especially on the
fact that legislation tried to put this into place and it
failed. There was a reason why it did not work. But the
National Ocean Council, have they provided any clarity on any
of the outstanding questions regarding how this policy is going
to be implemented, how it is going to directly impact your
industry?
Mr. Zales. No, sir, they have not responded to anything
from me, as a stakeholder, or fellow stakeholders.
The Chairman. All right, you got it. Thank you.
Ms. Lapp, let me ask you the same question. Have they
provided clarity to you? Do you know how this is going to
impact your industry yet?
Ms. Lapp. No, except that we might get a marine monument on
top of our fishing grounds.
The Chairman. Well, we will talk about that in a second.
How about you, Mr. Keppen? Do you have clarity?
Mr. Keppen. Well, I get notifications from just about every
agency out there every day, and I still have no sense really of
what is happening, process-wise, or where they are at on the
West Coast.
The Chairman. Well, 6 years is a very short time. I am sure
they will get it down eventually.
Ms. Lapp, when the comment was made here about voluntary
actions, you were shaking your head. Why were you shaking your
head on that one?
Ms. Lapp. Because there are already regulations being
created in conjunction with this National Ocean Policy. The
Fishery Management Councils are moving on this policy. We are
going to get regs handed down to us, and it is not voluntary.
The Chairman. While I have you there, let's talk about the
potential monument because, obviously, the Antiquities Act is
one of the fun things that we get to talk about all the time.
The Act itself has three criteria that should be done, but
recent administrations--not just this one, but recent
administrations--have refused to go through that criteria.
Instead they are saying that they have had local input to it.
I understand the fishery managers from Maine to Florida
have all written to the President this last week, asking them
not to designate a monument. I know the entire delegation of
Massachusetts--not necessarily a bastion of Republicanism--has
written to the President, asking for at least more input,
which, unfortunately, under the Antiquities Act, they can't
do--otherwise, it triggers NEPA.
Does your experience with a potential New England marine
monument reassure you that this is not going to be a top-down
Federal approach that will afford adequate public
participation, and you will get your say in how it will
actually be managed if, indeed, it takes place?
Ms. Lapp. Not at all.
The Chairman. Your answers are all very simple and very
direct. I am sorry it comes back to the same thing, that this
is an institution that has not provided clarity, which they
were supposed to do. They have had a long time to do it. They
are still piddling around with where they are coming from, and
it is creating more uncertainty, and it certainly is not
helping the industry, and it is not helping the environment.
What we are doing is just plain wrong and we have to change it
somehow.
I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The Chairman yields back. Mr. Costa is
recognized.
Mr. Costa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
Mr. Keppen, according to your testimony, the National Ocean
Policy could have significant impacts on agricultural producers
and farmers that are adjacent to inland waterways as it relates
to both direct and indirect, non-point source discharges.
We have had, as a result of the drought--and you have
testified here before--devastating impacts as it relates to not
only the lack of water, but the regulatory impacts that have
compounded the lack of our ability to move water.
In your opinion, could the National Ocean Policy result in
further harm, as it relates to these inland waterways? And if
so, how?
Mr. Keppen. I think so. Again, it is unclear because it is
sort of vague; but based on the experience that I have had,
both with the Central Valley Project and I would say the
Klamath project in Oregon where I live, when you start tying
inland areas to the ocean and you use the ecosystem approach,
it is easier for critics of agriculture to make links and
provide other stresses to reliability of water supplies.
For both the CVP and Klamath, I know orcas, for example--
there is talk about possibly doing consultation on orcas,
killer whales. And some folks have even suggested that farmers
in the Klamath Basin hundreds of miles from the ocean, because
of potential impacts to salmon downstream, could be having an
impact on orcas. So, folks are actually talking about--guys I
represent, driving a tractor around a potato field in
California--having an impact on orca whales in the Pacific
Ocean. It is that sort of linkage that definitely causes
concern.
Mr. Costa. Do you think the National Ocean Policy, if it
was clearer, more concise and focused, could have an
opportunity that it would increase the recovery of species?
Too often we see contradictions, it seems to me, anyway, of
this stovepipe mentality. We are treating smelt separately from
striped bass. We have policies that are in contradiction of one
another while we are propagating striped bass. On the other
hand, salmon are impacted as a result of that. Do you have any
thoughts about that?
Mr. Keppen. Well, it is hard to say what they have
accomplished so far. I think having a report or something, and
I have mentioned USDA putting together a report that describes
their involvement. Maybe NOAA Fisheries could do the same
thing, so we could kind of assess how effective some of this
coordination could be, and what those opportunities are. But
right now I just don't see what is out there. It is uncertain.
Mr. Costa. Yes. How about for you and Mr. Lanard, the whole
notion with this policy of just trying to prioritize--I think
Chairman Bishop's comments are well taken, there just seems to
be a lack of clarity. Not only clarity, but a lack of
prioritization in terms of how you deal with policies that can
actually be coordinated with all the other agencies, both
Federal and state. There seems to be no prioritization in this
process. Do you care to comment, Mr. Keppen?
Mr. Keppen. I would agree.
Mr. Costa. Mr. Lanard?
Mr. Lanard. Thank you. The regulatory authorities were
created long ago. They exist. There are no new regulatory
authorities created.
Mr. Costa. That is not my question, though. In terms of
coordinating a policy and developing priorities, do you think
that is occurring?
Mr. Lanard. Absolutely, it is occurring. With a new
industry, we can point to the offshore wind industry as a
perfect example of how that is working. Twenty-nine different
Federal laws and regulations are going to apply to our
industry. Those folks have never worked on this before. They
are now coming together and coordinating it, and making sure
that it does not contradict regulations that they have to
impose and apply to other ocean users. It is working very well.
Mr. Costa. Well, let me just make a comment here, for what
it is worth.
I am a supporter of wind power, both onshore and offshore,
as well as all the other energy tools in the energy toolbox.
But I would not waste a lot of your time trying to deal with
proposing wind sites either in the Second Congressional
District in California or many of the other sites there,
frankly. If you cannot get it in Massachusetts, there are a
whole lot of folks who feel, notwithstanding the merit, that
that is not something that they want to live with for, I think,
personal reasons more often than policy reasons for energy for
the Nation.
Focus elsewhere. That would be my advice. Thank you. My
time has expired.
Mr. Lanard. Can I respond, or should I----
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields. Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Well, I don't know about that, Mr.
Chairman. These wind farms are such an attractive addition to
our coast. I am sure the people in the second district will
enjoy looking out at this sea of windmills on what was once
pristine coastline.
Mr. Lanard. Congressman, they will not see them, they will
be 20 miles off the coast.
Mr. McClintock. Let me go to Ms. Lapp. Mr. Lanard tells us
there is no regulatory authority in the NOP, it is only for
data collections to get various agencies talking to one another
and coordinating information.
What is the beef if the NOP is simply collecting
information?
Ms. Lapp. They are collecting information that they are
going to use in regulations.
Mr. McClintock. I am sorry?
Ms. Lapp. They are collecting information that they are
going to use in regulations, at least on the fishing industry.
I know that.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Zales, what is your view point?
Mr. Zales. In the whole plan with the ocean policy, it is
clear that when people say that there is no regulatory impact
here, it is clear it states in there that the National Ocean
Policy and the Federal people that are on these RPBs, if states
refuse to comply, they over-ride the state and they take over
and it will essentially take states' rights away. They are
going to do whatever they want to do.
Mr. McClintock. Well, that gets me to my next question. Can
you give us a wiring diagram of how the NOP will produce a much
more restrictive regulatory environment for commerce?
Mr. Zales. Essentially, they take over what has already
been out there--the Fishery Management Plans, the Coast Guard,
EPA, there is a Clean Water Act, there are a host of regulatory
issues out there already that, apparently, the National Ocean
Policy can over-rule. And if things aren't going the way they
want to do it, they come back and create a new regulation and
say, ``This is the way it is going to be,'' because of what
they see, and they say, ``OK, well, this hasn't worked, we are
going to do something else.''
The big problem with it is that, even though they can have
a Mexican official or a Canadian official on a Regional
Planning Body, me, as an industry person who has been fishing
in the Gulf of Mexico for 51 years--I started fishing in the
Gulf when I was 12 years old--I have no say. I cannot provide
information, except from the outside. And maybe I can do like I
did in New Orleans a few weeks after the President signed this
order. I drove from Panama City, Florida to New Orleans and
back in 1 day to give 1 minute of information to a panel that
they came telling everybody, ``Here is this great and wonderful
National Ocean Policy.''
Mr. McClintock. Well, let's----
Mr. Zales. That 1 minute does nothing.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Lanard just said the regulatory
authority already exists. Is that the implementing function,
then, of the NOP, that basically the NOP will be driving a new
range of regulatory restrictions through a process that is
already in place?
Mr. Zales. Pretty much, from what I can tell. I mean, when
you talk about ecosystem-based management, the South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council has been working on ecosystem-based
management for the past 10 to 12 years, way before the National
Ocean Policy was even thought of.
Mr. McClintock. Well, we are told that this is simply going
to provide a framework for stakeholders to provide input. Yet,
in response to Mr. Bishop, you said you have not felt that they
have received your input. Is that correct?
Mr. Zales. Yes, that is pretty much correct.
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Lapp, what has been your experience?
Ms. Lapp. They will listen to your comments, but they do
not do anything with them. They do not incorporate it into
whatever they are doing.
Mr. McClintock. Is it your impression that this is
basically a conclusion-driven process? They have already made
their conclusions and are simply listening to those who agree
with them?
Ms. Lapp. Absolutely. When I was at the RPB meeting where I
raised my concerns and I sat down, one of the members said,
``Hey, look. We are implementing a policy just because of a
timeline. I think we need to slow it down.'' And the co-
chairman and the NOC chair were like, ``We are going to produce
a plan by the end of this year,'' so, regardless----
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Kenard?
Mr. Lanard. No, it is not my experience. In fact, at the
regional----
Mr. McClintock. I said Mr. Kenard, but I will take you, Mr.
Lanard. You have had a positive experience. They have listened
to you. So, I have to wonder if perhaps some stakeholders are
more equal than others.
Ms. Lapp, is that what you are picking up out there?
Ms. Lapp. I would agree with that, from a fisheries
standpoint, yes.
Mr. McClintock. I do want to push back briefly on one thing
the Chairman said. He called this a fourth branch. It is not a
fourth branch, it is the combination of the three branches of
government that the American founders meticulously separated
through our Constitution. That is what keeps us free.
Combining all of the powers in the same hands is the very
definition of tyranny, and yet we are seeing these regulatory
agencies now writing rules--that is, legislating--enforcing
those rules--that is executive--and then adjudicating those
rules--that is judicial. And then, when they fine people,
keeping the money for their agencies. That is recombining all
the powers of government the Constitution sought to separate.
That is a very dangerous development. I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman. And you say tomatoes, I
say tomatoes. It is all the same to me. Thank you.
Mr. Lowenthal, you are recognized.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A little background, I
represent a coastal district in Southern California. I know
firsthand that we can have both a thriving ocean economy and at
the same time protect and conserve our precious ocean
resources. Off the coast of my district, you see many, many
things: there are marine protected areas; there are state
waters, Federal waters; we have a coastal zone; we have
Department of Defense installations; we are a marine hotspot,
some of the best blue whale watching occurs in my district; we
now have the large shellfish aquaculture ranch being installed;
we have beautiful beaches; we have oil and gas activity with
some rigs right off the shores of Long Beach; it is also the
home of the Nation's second-largest port, and combined with the
Port of Los Angeles, which is part of that district, it is the
largest port complex in North America.
When we are having so much activity going on, it makes
sense if NOAA is trying to cite a new aquaculture installation,
that the Navy is at the table; that Fishery Management Councils
weigh in when oil rigs are to be decommissioned; and when we
are talking about bringing in massive ships, it is a no-brainer
that NOAA, the Coast Guard, and the ports all work together
when we collaborate.
I am getting very confused. My first question is to Mr.
Lanard. When I see Executive Order 13547--when the President in
2010, 6 years ago, not 10 years ago as has been stated, just
adopted the regulations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task
Force, and set up in the Executive Order, what will this
National Ocean Policy attempt?
I keep hearing that they are a regulatory agency. Will you
please describe? Is this a regulatory agency? I have looked
through the Executive Order and see nothing about the setting
of regulations. I would like to ask. Tell us what is a
regulatory agency, and is this a regulatory agency?
Mr. Lanard. The National Ocean Policy is not authorized to
mandate any new regulations.
Dr. Lowenthal. It is not authorized to develop regulations.
Is that not true?
Mr. Lanard. It is a planning process to work exactly,
Congressman, with the challenges that you face in your district
off your coast, all these different competing and conflicting
uses, and how do we make sense of them, and that is what the
policy does.
Dr. Lowenthal. We are hearing that this is kind of an
underhanded way of regulating. I would like to know about the
National Ocean Policy. Is the idea of multi-stakeholder
collaboration, for example in the Northeast, is this a new
idea? Or have we been trying to do this for a long time and
this brings us together?
Mr. Lanard. We have been doing it for a long time, but now
in a more coordinated way.
The Regional Planning Bodies that are getting sort of
disparaged today, painfully listening to this, have included
very active processes with a broad set of stakeholders.
Commercial and recreational fishing were involved. Recreational
boating, shipping, ports, offshore energy, undersea cable
companies, tow and barge companies have all participated in a
plan that is about to be proposed for another round of public
comment.
This is democracy and it is working. People are going to
weigh in, and then the plan will be considered by the
regulatory agencies which Congress has empowered to act, and
then implemented if the laws that Congress has created gives
them that authority.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. We have spent a lot of time--I am
going to go back--Congressman Graves has introduced and brought
to our attention some of the issues about the decommissioning
of oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Last year, I offered an
amendment to kind of deal with this. It was not accepted, but
it was an attempt in good faith to kind of deal with oil rigs.
I offered an amendment to bring all the stakeholders to the
table to use the National Ocean Policy, as a way of trying to
conserve snapper habitat and to decommission these rigs.
To me, it sounds like--and to Mr. Zales--that the National
Ocean Policy is a solution to bringing people together, not a
problem. Can you respond to that?
Mr. Zales. Yes, sir, and I appreciate you asking me that
question.
Rigs-to-Reefs was established years before the National
Ocean Policy was ever thought of. The reason why Rigs-to-Reefs
is a success today is because stakeholders like me worked with
the oil companies, worked with the Fisheries Service, worked
with EPA, worked with a whole host of agencies to continue
Rigs-to-Reefs so that we could have them there. The National
Ocean Policy had nothing to do with that. That was a
cooperative effort from the stakeholders in the Gulf of Mexico
that saw the benefit of leaving platforms in the water; and if
you couldn't leave it where it was, to move it someplace else
so that you could enhance the habitat to create places for fish
and corals to live.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't really have a
lot of questions. I am interested in possibly learning why some
states are left out of some of the regional planning efforts.
For example, Washington State, when they have a huge watershed,
but yet they are left out, and that is curious to me.
Just two things. We, as a Nation, are gifted with abundant
natural resources. And when we have ocean policies that begin
furthering the restriction of access to those natural
resources, we limit ourselves in the future of being able to
meet our energy needs.
We see ocean policies not necessarily exactly tied in with
this, but we see ocean policies that limit seismic activity in
areas like the South Atlantic, where we, as a Nation, can just
discover what resources might be there. When we allow groups to
use fear-mongering tactics that are not based on fact, such as
Oceana, who claim that mammals are harmed by seismic, when
there is not a single verifiable instance, and you go to BOEM's
Web site and see they say that as well, even BOEM's experts.
But yet the Administration will restrict the use of seismic in
places like the South Atlantic, just so that we can find out
what resources might be available for future exploration. I
think it is very short-sighted as a Nation.
The second thing is management. If we are talking about the
health of the oceans with regard to nutrients, fertilizers, and
what not that have washed in the ocean, places like the
Louisiana Delta and Mississippi Delta that experience huge
plumes in the ocean because there are a lot of nutrients out
there now that flow down the Mississippi, we need to step back
and ask why.
Why that plume is further out in the ocean and why we see
those nutrients further out in the ocean is because of past
practices by the Corps of Engineers to levee, drain, and dredge
certain areas along the Mississippi River. We need to realize
that maybe mistakes were made in the past because the natural
delta would allow that water to flow out and those nutrients
that come down the river, whether they are natural nutrients or
whether they are man-produced and applied, there is a natural
filtration system in the marsh that takes those nutrients out
before they reach the ocean. It creates a healthy marsh
situation. Actually, it creates barrier islands and a marsh
that helps lessen the impact of storms.
But what we see is this huge plume out in the ocean of
nutrients that have flowed down the Mississippi River and now
travel further out to sea because of past mistakes by the Corps
of Engineers. We need to make sure that we acknowledge that
some of those practices we did in the past of leveeing up and
dredging certain areas were wrong, and possibly step back and
see what we can do.
We have resources now, because of Deepwater Horizon, when
Steve Scalise, the whip here, is focused on using some of that
money to rebuild the barrier islands and address some of the
canals and waterways that have been dredged in that area that
have allowed this unencumbered flow of water directly out into
the ocean. I don't know if that is what Mr. Graves is going to
talk about when he gets on this subject, but it is something
that I am aware of.
And the point I wanted to make is maybe we should
acknowledge past mistakes, and figure out how we can rectify
the situation before we start imposing stricter and more
stringent regulations on farming and the oceans themselves and
what we do there.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back.
Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lanard, many of my colleagues seem to prefer the use of
the term ``ocean zoning'' to ``marine spatial planning.'' As
someone who has participated in this process, can you explain
the difference between zoning, as they would have us understand
it, and spatial planning, as it was intended by the National
Ocean Policy?
Mr. Lanard. Sure. Zoning would be more of a regulatory
requirement that would either allow certain activities or would
restrict certain activities. Coastal marine spatial planning
would suggest the best areas for the best uses, and it would
come after a very deliberative process with all the different
users in a region so that we can get to an area of common
ground. That is the process.
And Congresswoman, if I could just mention one thing about
seismic to the Congressman who was concerned about seismic
impact on marine mammals. We are an industry that will be
creating noise in the ocean when we use fixed foundations into
the sea bed and we do drilling. Our drilling does have the
potential to impact marine mammals, particularly the North
Atlantic right whale. So, we are willing to be carefully
regulated, carefully monitored. We will have four or five
protected species observers on every vessel we take out there
to do any type of work during whale migration season. We are
prepared to live by those regulations, because we think we make
a greater contribution to the environment by reducing climate-
threatening carbon dioxide emissions.
Mrs. Torres. As you stated, sir, in your testimony, the
Department of the Interior now has a process for Federal waters
called Smart-from-the-Start that incorporates principles of
coastal and marine spatial planning in bringing stakeholders to
the table to identify areas suitable for development of this
resource.
Is this type of planning component of the policies needed
to make U.S. offshore wind competitive, globally?
Mr. Lanard. Absolutely. There are 50,000 or so workers in
the offshore wind industry in Europe, and we have almost none.
Smart-from-the-Start, under Secretary Salazar, has really
started to jumpstart this industry. You are going to see this
summer five turbines spinning off the coast of Block Island,
Rhode Island, and it is going to be a very national and
newsworthy event. It is going to be a great visual, people are
going to really be excited about this, and it is going to spur
the interest in governors and states up and down the East and
West Coast to look at this.
Remember, other than pilot and demonstration projects,
these facilities will be 15 to 20 miles offshore. So, you might
see the very little tip of the blade, but you are not going to
see the structures; and they are going to be spread out enough
so that other uses can be applied.
And to Captain Zales, we are also creating artificial reefs
out there with our foundations that will serve as places for
habitat.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you. As an ocean user, can you please
list the regulations and policies that have been forced upon
your business because of the National Ocean Policy?
Mr. Lanard. I can't.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Keppen, you were talking about the far-reaching effects
here. Does that mean we won't be seeing any land sharks doing
candygrams for horseradish growers in Newell, California any
time soon, then?
Mr. Keppen. Good one, Congressman LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Playing off your orca comments, you know.
Mr. Keppen. Yes, that was a good one.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, but seriously, folks, does this start
reminding you of this policy, when you get to orcas or land
sharks, of the Waters of the United States over-reach with the
regulating down to a horseradish field or what have you, 200
miles from the ocean? This is something we have had great
concern about in this committee and my district, as well, that
this NOP is starting to resemble the Waters of the United
States ruling a little bit. Do you see parallels there?
Mr. Keppen. Yes. Well, this one is a little more troubling,
just from the standpoint that it is uncertain. The Clean Water
Rule that the Administration put out was pretty detailed. We
kind of knew what the impacts might be there.
But I would say, generally, that is a concern that we have
with a lot of these regulations, is just how is it going to
impact--you have to kind of assume the worst, hope for the
best.
But with a lot of them, there is uncertainty. And just the
cumulative impact and how it can affect the farmers, ranchers,
and water users in so many different ways, that is the big
concern. But I would say, in general, your observation is good.
There are somewhat similar concerns that we have.
Mr. LaMalfa. In the ballpark? So, the issue is--you have
mentioned a couple of times--uncertainty. There is a lot of
uncertainty with WOTUS, too. Like some of my ranchers, they
can't plow, for example, without somebody coming down on them,
thinking this is going to somehow change the hydrology, Clean
Water Act, or what have you.
When their own counsel says they will address questions or
specifics as implementation progresses, this sounds like a
make-it-up-as-you-go type thing, that we are going to put that
out there and then figure out how to fill in the blanks later,
as it affects people. Is that what you are picking up on this,
as well?
Mr. Keppen. That is a concern. And again, like with the
Clean Water Act, I still think there is a lot of uncertainty
associated with how tributaries are defined, and those sort of
things. We were able to get some certainty on how ditches and
O&M issues will be handled by irrigation districts, but there
is a lot of uncertainty and we are not talking about just the
Clean Water Act.
There are land management issues. They talk about best
management practices with this particular policy that bring to
my mind what is going on with the Forest Service and their
groundwater management proposal, their directive they put out
here a year or two ago. It is pretty wide-ranging and
uncertain.
Mr. LaMalfa. So, to clarify for my own purposes here, we
hear a lot about stakeholders. Has anyone from the National
Ocean Council contacted the Family Farm Alliance to be part of
a discussion or a stakeholder in this?
Mr. Keppen. No.
Mr. LaMalfa. Not yet. I mean if they are still talking
about orcas in horseradish fields, basically, so to speak.
All right. So, it is kind of the deal--again, coming back
to the uncertainty, let's vote for it and then we can read it
later? Yes. And it also reminds me of the parallels of the
high-speed rail system in California. We have already spent
billions, and they do not even have the route settled yet, or
whether it is going to go through the mountains, heading into
Southern California. You have billions of dollars on the line.
And it looks like another example of government jumping out
there, making a goal without talking to the people involved or
without knowing what the effects are going to be.
So, what message do you want us to hear from your growers,
from your constituents? Bottom line for me, please, on what you
all need.
Mr. Keppen. Again, it is just this overwhelming sort of
deluge of a lot of rulemaking that has happened in the last
several years. We are still trying to process the impacts. We
have not gotten answers back on some of the concerns that we
have raised on many of these rulemaking efforts.
And I think, as far as this particular policy goes, it is
like what I said in our testimony, it would be nice to get a
report, perhaps, from the individual agencies that are involved
to say, ``Here is what has happened, here is what we see coming
out of this.'' Until we get something like that, we ought to
put a little bit of a pause on this program, which is something
that we have asked for on other rulemaking processes that have
happened over the last couple of years.
Mr. LaMalfa. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Lanard, will they be able to see any of the windmills
from the Kennedy compound?
Mr. Lanard. I guess it depends when Massachusetts decides
to move forward with revenue streams for the different
developers. There is going to be a very aggressive competition
between four or five or six developers over the next year or
two, and then we will see where they get located.
Mr. LaMalfa. Awesome answer. Thank you.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields. We have been joined by
Mr. Beyer, and I ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. Beyer to
participate.
[No response.]
Dr. Fleming. Hearing no objection, I recognize Mr. Beyer
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I just
want to be here today to speak and strongly defend our National
Ocean Policy. Plain and simple, coordinated ocean planning is
common sense and good economic policy for our coastal
communities. It allows for a comprehensive mapping of existing
ocean uses. It helps to identify and resolve conflicts between
stakeholders before they play out in specific permitting
processes.
In Virginia, this process has been crucial to preserve
public access to the ocean, to sustain economic growth, address
marine debris, create migration corridors for marine mammals,
and support promising new ocean industries such as wind power
and marine aquaculture.
I am proud to note that Virginia was selected by BOEM to be
the first state in the Nation to receive a wind energy research
lease in Federal waters.
Ocean planning has a demonstrated record of reducing
conflict for assisting wind developers, especially with the
commercial fishing community, where prime fishing habitat is
often an ideal location for wind turbines. Eliminating the
National Ocean Policy would undermine regional collaborative
efforts to manage existing and future ocean policy challenges.
Let's not roll back the valuable work and resources that
many states, industries, and communities have already devoted
to implement this policy.
The National Ocean Policy makes Federal agencies talk to
each other and to the states about their ocean-related
responsibilities, and requires them to work together to improve
their job performance. We should be working with the National
Ocean Policy to streamline Federal permitting, cut through
bureaucratic red tape, and maximize the safety and economic
productivity of our oceans and coasts.
The National Ocean Policy is not a law. It is not a new
regulation, and does not supercede state or local authority.
All it does is coordinate ongoing Federal activities. The
alternative is less coordination and less efficiency.
If we want to run our government like a business, we should
ask ourselves: Would you invest in a business where different
departments don't talk to each other? Would you invest in a
business that is not responsive to its shareholders? Would you
invest in a business with no business plan? This is,
essentially, what the National Ocean Policy is, a business plan
for the ocean that seeks to maximize the benefits to the
shareholders, the American people. The policy is a win-win-win
for economic growth, public safety, and environmental
protection.
I do have one question, though, for Mr. Lanard. The
opponents of coastal marine spatial planning claim that it is a
threat to business and business interests. But in a letter sent
to House leaders in March of this year, nearly 120 national,
regional, and state conservation, recreation, and business
groups expressed their support for regional ocean planning
efforts that ``have emerged from the ground up with the roots
in state-sponsored partnerships.''
So, Mr. Lanard, should fishermen, farmers, and businessmen
consider the National Ocean Policy and marine spatial planning
a threat? Or should they consider it an opportunity to protect
their interests and livelihoods?
Mr. Lanard. Thank you for the question, Mr. Beyer. For the
record, you and I have not met before, but I would like, with
the Chairman's permission, to revise and extend my remarks and
attach your statement to part of my testimony, because I agree
with it verbatim. It was really well said, thank you.
We have to work together. You said it in your comments.
There are growing uses and growing demands on the ocean:
military, commercial fishing, recreational fishing, energy,
sand mining, oil and gas, offshore wind. We need to work
together, or else we are not going to find common ground, and
we are going to then pit developer against developer, industry
against industry, and slow down everything. Nobody wins. You
nailed it. It is a win-win-win.
Mr. Beyer. Great. Thank you, Mr. Lanard.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Graves is
recognized.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lanard, I am curious. Have you had conversations with
anyone from CEQ, or National Ocean Council in the past week and
a half?
Mr. Lanard. I have not spoken to CEQ or the National Ocean
Council in about 4 years.
Mr. Graves. In 4 years? No Federal officials?
Mr. Lanard. Oh, yes, plenty of Federal officials.
Mr. Graves. In the last week and a half, 2 weeks?
Mr. Lanard. No oral communications with them. About this
issue?
Mr. Graves. Yes.
Mr. Lanard. None. I talk regularly with the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management. I let them know I was testifying, but we
have not spoken about it.
Mr. Graves. Thank you. I want to follow up on Congressman
Duncan's statement earlier. The Federal Government, through the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--their actions in regard to the
management of the river system in south Louisiana has largely
resulted in the loss of about 1,900 square miles of coastal
wetlands. That is some of the most productive ecosystem or
habitat on the North American continent.
As Congressman Duncan mentioned, the largest dead zone in
North America is off the coast of Louisiana. Again, another
issue where the Federal Government has a role and has a task
force set up, and we have actually had a worsening dead zone,
not an improvement. As Mr. Zales noted earlier, the Federal
Government is also in charge of management of the red snapper
fisheries, which has become a complete debacle--not de-
conflicted, but actually increased tension, conflict, and using
poorer science than the states have.
I am just curious. Why in the world would we want to bring
the Federal Government and their record of success into an area
that actually has an excellent record of managing resources for
energy development, commercial and recreational fishing, and
multiple other uses in the Gulf of Mexico? What benefit are we
introducing by bringing them into this? Mr. Lanard?
Mr. Lanard. They are already in. The regulations----
Mr. Graves. Well, that is the problem, though. That is my
point, that is the problem. The Federal Government is causing
the problems, from an economic and from an environmental
perspective. They are not improving it. So, why you would
expand upon those failures. I have no idea.
If someone in office or in business is not doing well, you
do not give them additional responsibility, you get rid of
them. That is what we are trying to do here.
Mr. Zales, would you like to comment on that?
Mr. Zales. [No response.]
Mr. Graves. Would you like to comment?
Mr. Zales. On why we would continue that?
Mr. Graves. Yes.
Mr. Zales. To be honest, like you, I don't know why. In the
Gulf of Mexico, and my organization, we represent charterboat
owners and operators across the country. But in the Gulf of
Mexico, from my personal experience, there is coordination
amongst agencies. There is involvement with stakeholders.
I mean in my 25-plus years of involvement in the fishery
management--what I call a game because it is kind of like it is
played--I have been actively involved. A lot of my fellow
fishermen have been actively involved. And things do not always
turn out the way we necessarily want them, but we have impact,
so we are able to mitigate some of the things that are there.
In this current situation, I was one of 30 people who were
first appointed to the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory
Committee, which was created by an Executive Order, I think, in
2000. That Executive Order was similar to this one, no
regulatory impacts. Today, the marine protected area has a
division within the National Marine Fisheries Service so they
could set up marine protected areas. I was one of the 30 people
who developed that plan.
That unfunded mandate has evolved into a division of the
National Marine Fisheries Service that regulates us, creates
marine protected areas, and does everything that people are
saying this National Ocean Policy will not do. Well, I am
sorry, it is headed there.
Mr. Graves. Yes. And I want to make one other note. Mr.
Chairman, I am very disappointed the Administration has chosen
to not respond to an invitation to come testify today. This
entire effort in regard to the National Ocean Policy and
coastal marine spatial planning initiative was billed as being
a voluntary initiative. The Gulf of Mexico chose not to
participate.
And I will say again, we have some of the most robust
commercial and recreational fishing in the Nation. We have the
most robust offshore energy production in the Nation. We have
the most robust maritime industry in the Nation, in the Gulf
Coast. And we do not need to bring in the Federal Government's
expertise in this case, because all they are doing is screwing
things up, not improving upon it.
Now, why would the Federal Government be naming officials
to a Gulf Coast marine and spatial planning panel when the Gulf
Coast chose to not participate in this ``voluntary effort'' ? I
am really struggling. That does not sound like anything that is
voluntary to me.
Last, Mr. Zales, I just want to make note that the five
Gulf states have come to an agreement on a management regime
for the red snapper fishery. I know you have been in this
committee before on this. Do you believe that that is a
superior approach to continuing this trajectory we are on now
with Federal management?
Mr. Zales. No, sir. I fully support your bill that is there
to give it over to the states, because it is clear to me the
National Marine Fisheries Service is incapable of managing
recreational fisheries.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Zales.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Mr. Newhouse is recognized.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all of
the panel members here this morning, on both sides of the
issue. It is very informative and enlightening. I just wanted
to make one comment about some of the things that I have heard
from the dais today, about uncertainty as a Majority party
tactic. I would just say, as a production farmer myself, and
having had to live under an environment where there is
uncertainty when it comes to expectations from government
entities, there certainly is a cost to that. People are less
likely to make investments to solve any particular problem when
you don't know what policy or what regulation you are supposed
to adhere to. When you serve more than one master, the result
is nothing gets done. So, I think this uncertainty issue is
real and is something that needs to be addressed.
A question for you, Mr. Keppen, and thank you for being
here. One of the core principles of the NOP, the ocean policy,
is a government-wide fundamental shift to ecosystem-based
management, at least as I understand it. While many questions
on this implementation need to be answered of this policy, in
your estimation how could this shift in resource management
policy affect farmers such as in my state of Washington, but
also across the United States?
Mr. Keppen. Well, again, I kind of elaborated on it in my
written testimony. The focus of these activities on the coast
and in the ocean move inland using an ecosystem approach.
For example, in the appendix there are at least two or
three things that caught my eye in this plan that show that
forest actions or farming actions are going to be looked at, as
far as impacts on the ocean. Again, the national forest best
management practices are listed in the appendix. Restoring
wetlands and upland areas is another action that is listed. And
then, studying impacts from land-based sources of pollution,
those three things caught my attention and suggest that because
you have this ecosystem-based approach, you can make those sort
of ties to the ocean. So, folks far inland may not think that
this will have an impact, but it could.
Mr. Newhouse. Yes, but it will. Certainly those of us that
depend on river systems, which, in my neck of the woods, we
certainly do.
Just last month, as you probably know, being a
Northwesterner yourself, in an act of judicial over-reach, a
U.S. district court judge handed down a ruling that upended
salmon recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest, which really
put at risk hundreds of millions of dollars in investments by
ratepayers on dam mitigation.
This ruling already creates great uncertainty in the
region. Coupled with the NOP, how might the planning bodies
proposed under this NOP framework impact efforts in states like
Washington and Oregon to ensure access to predictable and
sufficient water supplies for irrigation, affordable energy
through hydropower, and also for flood control?
Mr. Keppen. As I recall, I think that the Pacific Northwest
salmon recovery efforts were actually identified in the NOP as
an example of sort of a collaborative success; but this recent
court decision kind of shows it necessarily was not all
collaborative and voluntary. There was a huge dollar impact
associated with what is going on there.
Like you said, the ratepayers have paid a lot. There have
been biological opinions that drive how those dams in the
Columbia operate, which has caused a huge impact, both to power
generation and the ability to use water.
But what has happened with this recent court decision that
you talked about, the judge has said those actions apparently
are not good enough, all those activities that have been
undertaken are not good enough. So now, that is kind of
providing fuel for the critics of the dams on the Snake River,
in particular, to go after the dams as a possible solution to
take care of the problem.
The sort of things that are laid out in this NOP, again,
may be providing the potential for more of those sorts of
actions to occur in the future, which creates tremendous
uncertainty for irrigators in the Northwest, in particular.
Mr. Newhouse. Right. I see my time is just about to expire,
so not enough time to ask a question. But thank you very much,
all of you.
Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields. I want to thank the
panel. You have been very patient with us. We have had a lot of
questions today, and I think it has been very productive. I
want to thank you for your valuable testimony.
Members of the subcommittee may have additional questions
for the witnesses, and we would ask you to respond to these in
writing. The hearing record will be open for 10 business days
to receive these questions.
If there is no further business, without objection the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Prepared Statement of the Hon. Sam Farr, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, in Support of the National Ocean Policy
Our ocean economy generates $360 billion a year, and puts 3 million
Americans to work in ocean-related industries such as shipping, marine
construction, energy development, defense operations, commercial
fishing, boating, aquaculture, and tourism. These jobs and the economic
wealth the ocean generates are spread out all across the Nation, not
just in coastal communities. With so many livelihoods dependent on the
success of these numerous and disparate ocean-related industries, we
should be embracing the National Ocean Policy, which is no more than a
planning tool to reconcile and coordinate these activities.
Let me set the record straight about several NOP ``myths.'' First
of all, we spend absolutely no money on ocean planning. NOP does not
cost the government anything and it does not alter any Federal, state,
or local government authorities. What it does is spur economic growth
and helps create jobs. In the Northeast, stakeholders in offshore wind
development, infrastructure projects, and the first-ever offshore
mussel aquaculture facility utilized the tools of the NOP to leverage
millions of dollars of private investment and create jobs.
Secondly, I want to emphasize that the NOP does not supersede any
local or state regulations, or create any new Federal regulations,
despite what its critics suggest. The fundamental role of the NOP is to
create a mechanism by which the 41 ocean agencies, departments, working
groups and committees can coordinate and communicate to manage more
efficiently.
This results in ``ground up''--not ``top down''--opportunities for
locals to have input to local and regional resource management
policies. In so doing, not only does the NOP provide greater local say
in management, but it also results in a stronger return on investment
of taxpayer resources by reducing duplication between agencies,
increasing coordination, and streamlining the data collection and
public involvement that informs decisionmaking.
I urge the subcommittee to step away from the anti-NOP generated
talking points and actually read the Executive Order. Without our
inherent biases, each of you should come to the same conclusion that I
know to be true: the National Ocean Policy is a tool for planning, not
a mandate that strips local and stakeholder control of our ocean's
resources.

Thank you for allowing me to submit testimony.

______

National Ocean Policy Coalition

May 31, 2016

Hon. John Fleming, Chairman,
House Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.

Re: May 17, 2016 Oversight Hearing on ``Implications of President
Obama's National Ocean Policy''

Dear Chairman Fleming:

On behalf of the National Ocean Policy Coalition (Coalition), thank
you for convening an oversight hearing to address implementation of the
National Ocean Policy (NOP).
Established in 2010, the Coalition is an organization of diverse
interests representing sectors and entities that support tens of
millions of jobs, contribute trillions of dollars to the U.S. economy,
and seek to ensure that actions under the NOP are implemented in a
manner that best benefits the National interest, including protection
of the commercial and recreational value of the oceans, marine-related
natural resources, and terrestrial lands of the United States.
Since its creation by Executive Order in July 2010, uncertainty and
the potential for negative impacts to result from NOP implementation
have continued to increase, and have already resulted in new burdens,
regulatory overlays, and governmental bodies such as the National Ocean
Council and Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) with which regulated
entities must contend. Just months after its issuance, the NOP
Executive Order was cited in an Interior Department statement
announcing the prohibition of potential conventional energy leasing in
new areas through 2017.
Two of the policy's most troubling aspects, both of which could
also impact inland activities, are its coastal and marine spatial
planning (CMSP) initiative--likened by several federal agencies to
ocean zoning--and its ecosystem-based management (EBM) component, which
requires the federal government to make a ``fundamental shift'' in how
it manages ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources.
CMSP has been portrayed as voluntary and as simply a means to
improve communication and coordination across agencies. In reality, the
NOP and documents developed in support of regional marine plans clearly
indicate otherwise.
Regulatory impacts are certain to result from CMSP implementation
by virtue of the requirement that federal agencies comply with regional
marine plans to the maximum extent (including through regulations where
necessary), which also introduces the potential for conflicts between
unauthorized marine plans and plans and decisions made under
statutorily-authorized and mandated processes. Actions expected to be
included in the final Northeast and Mid-Atlantic marine plans include
federal commitments to use and apply newly-developed maps of ``core
areas'' and ``hot spots'' in agency decision-making activities.
Concerns over CMSP are underscored by the promotion of certain uses and
resources over others, and the fact that critical details on how
agencies specifically intend to implement regional marine plans in
their decision-making activities remain unknown and may not be
disclosed until after public review periods conclude.
In addition, the NOP Implementation Plan makes clear that federal
agencies are to engage in marine planning even if all states in a
region decide not to participate. Yet, six years after the Executive
Order was issued, scant information exists about what actions federal
agencies have taken over the last six years to implement marine
planning in such regions, which include the Gulf of Mexico, South
Atlantic, Alaska, and the Great Lakes.
Significant concerns also exist regarding the NOP requirement that
federal agencies implement EBM, including through the incorporation of
EBM into environmental review and planning processes by 2016. In
addition to creating unknown impacts on well-known and statutorily-
guided processes and the economic activities that they govern, given
the current state of EBM science and technology, imposition of such an
artificial deadline increases the risk that this requirement will lead
to decisions that lack a proper scientific foundation.
Moreover, although Congress has not authorized or appropriated
funds for this initiative, entities across the federal government have
devoted significant time and undetermined amounts of resources toward
NOP implementation, with unknown impacts on agency budgets and
missions. This raises important questions about how regulated
industries are being affected by potential diversions of funds and
resources away from authorized and mandated activities.
Finally, concerns about the impact of NOP implementation on
economic and societal interests have been heightened by deficiencies in
transparency and user group engagement, highlighted in part by
inadequate review opportunities and the imposition of deadlines that
are limiting the ability to provide informed input on the development
of the first regional marine plans. All the while, in addition to being
excluded from directly participating on RPBs tasked with developing
marine plans, the RPBs established so far have declined requests to
establish formal advisory committees for user groups to provide advice
and guidance, even though such committees are explicitly authorized
under the NOP Executive Order.
For all these reasons, the Coalition appreciates your efforts to
shine more light on NOP implementation and address the many questions
that remain unresolved.

Sincerely,

John M. Belcher,
Managing Director.

______

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL,
Anchorage, Alaska

May 13, 2016

Hon. John Fleming, Chairman,
House Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.

Re: Oversight Hearing on National Ocean Policy

Dear Chairman Fleming:

The Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. (RDC) is writing
to thank the Subcommittee for holding an oversight hearing on National
Ocean Policy and to provide our member's perspective on the policy.
RDC is an Alaskan non-profit, membership-funded organization
founded in 1975. Our membership is comprised of individuals and
companies from Alaska's oil and gas, mining, timber, tourism, and
fisheries industries, as well as Alaska Native corporations, local
communities, organized labor, and industry support firms. RDC's purpose
is to link these diverse interests together to encourage a strong,
diversified private sector in Alaska and expand the state's economic
base through the responsible development of our natural resources.
With 34,000 miles of coastline, 3,000 miles of rivers, and over
three million lakes, Alaska has a significant stake in National Ocean
Policy, and will be impacted more than other states by it.
Alaska has seen significant federal overreach that RDC has long
opposed, including the introduction of a National Ocean Policy (NOP).
Alaska has been under assault from numerous regulatory headwinds that
have negatively impacted our resource development industries, and our
energy sector in particular.
RDC is very concerned NOP is another layer of unnecessary
bureaucracy and a potential obstacle our private sector will be forced
to face at a time when strengthening our economy through responsible
resource development is our top priority.
Federal agencies have already begun taking steps to implement
actions tied to this policy that could negatively impact the Alaskan
economy, such as Integrated Arctic Management and Ecosystem-Based
Management requirements.
While marine planning is required in every region, including
Alaska, Alaskans have no information as to what marine planning actions
federal agencies have taken or plan to carry out in our state.
Additionally, the geographic coverage of Coastal and Marine Spatial
Planning will include inland bays and estuaries, and upland areas as
deemed appropriate by Regional Planning Bodies established to create
these plans. There are additional concerns with federal entities
setting ocean management priorities associated with marine planning,
especially in regions like Alaska that choose not to participate.
This policy, and its marine planning and ecosystem-based management
components in particular, is not something Alaska wants or needs, and
it should not be forced upon us. These federal efforts cause further
uncertainty, especially in Alaska where geographical and harsh climate
conditions already result in higher costs for projects.
Further, RDC is concerned coastal and rural Alaskan communities may
become financially devastated by National Ocean Policy implementation.
The devastation of rural communities will likely result in outmigration
of indigenous people, and the loss of culture and traditional
lifestyles.
Thank you for your consideration of RDC's perspective.

Respectfully,

Marleanna Hall,
Executive Director.

[all]