<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:42369.wais]
THE NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE
PROGRAM ACT: H.R. 5618
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 21, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-103
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-369 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California JO BONNER, Alabama
LAURA RICHARDSON, California TOM FEENEY, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. NICK LAMPSON, Texas, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MARK UDALL, Colorado MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JEAN FRUCI Democratic Staff Director
CHRIS KING Democratic Professional Staff Member
MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member
ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELIZABETH STACK Republican Professional Staff Member
TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member
STACEY STEEP Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
May 21, 2008
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Nick Lampson, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 7
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 8
Witnesses:
Mr. Craig N. McLean, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Programs
and Administration, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 11
Biography.................................................... 17
Mr. Paul S. Anderson, President, Sea Grant Association; Director,
Maine Sea Grant College Program
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Written Statement............................................ 19
Biography.................................................... 27
Mr. M. Richard DeVoe, Executive Director, South Carolina Sea
Grant Consortium
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 29
Biography.................................................... 37
Mr. Patrick F. Riley, General Manager, Western Seafood Company,
Inc., Freeport, Texas
Oral Statement............................................... 38
Written Statement............................................ 41
Biography.................................................... 43
Discussion
Expanding H.R. 5618's Mandate.................................. 43
Technology Transfer............................................ 45
Aquaculture.................................................... 46
Offshore Wind Farms............................................ 47
Conservation and Stewardship................................... 48
Diversity of Participation..................................... 49
Matching Funds Requirement..................................... 50
Collaboration With NMFS........................................ 50
Fishing Industry Challenges.................................... 51
More on Offshore Wind Farms.................................... 52
Cooperation Between Sea and Land-based Programs................ 54
Rainwater as a Drinking Source................................. 56
Appendix: Additional Material for the Record
H.R. 5618, the National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act
of 2008........................................................ 60
Statement to the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans, Committee
on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives on April 3,
2008 by John T. Woeste, Vice Chair, National Sea Grant Review
Panel, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce....................................................... 71
THE NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM ACT: H.R. 5618
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2325 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick
Lampson [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The National Sea Grant College
Program Act: H.R. 5618
wednesday, may 21, 2008
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2325 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Wednesday, May 21, 2008 the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment of the Committee on Science and Technology will hold a
hearing to receive testimony on H.R. 5618, the National Sea Grant
College Program Amendments Act of 2008.
H.R. 5618, introduced by Representative Bordallo (D-GU) Chair of
the Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife,
and Oceans, reauthorizes and amends the National Sea Grant College
Program Act. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on H.R.
5618, the National Sea Grant College Program Act of 2008.
The hearing will focus on the legislation to reauthorize the
National Sea Grant Program through fiscal year 2014. The hearing will
also examine the program's major accomplishments, program activities,
and the effectiveness of the extension and outreach aspects of the
program.
Witnesses
<bullet> Mr. Paul Anderson, President, Sea Grant Association
and Director, Maine Sea Grant College Program, will represent
the institutions through the association of the 32 Sea Grant
Programs from around the Nation. He will discuss the importance
of supporting the National Sea Grant College Program, as well
as the program's activities, accomplishments, contribution to
NOAA's mission, and offer recommendations on how to strengthen
the research, education and training components of the program.
<bullet> Mr. Patrick Riley, General Manager of Western
Seafood, Freeport, TX, will represent the partners and
stakeholders of the National Sea Grant College Program and the
use of information generated through the programs extension and
outreach efforts.
<bullet> Mr. Craig McLean, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Programs & Administration, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), will discuss the mission and importance of the Sea
Grant Program, future plans for the program, programmatic
issues, and issues the agency would like to see addressed in
the bill.
<bullet> Mr. M. Richard DeVoe, Executive Director, South
Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, will discuss the South Carolina
Sea Grant program and its relationship to the overall Sea Grant
program and summarize key recommendations.
Background
The National Sea Grant College Program (Sea Grant) was established
in 1966 by the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C.
1121-1131). It was last reauthorized in 2002. The Sea Grant Program is
intended to be the marine, coastal, and Great Lakes counterpart to the
Land Grant College system which serves the agricultural research and
extension needs of each state. Each of the 32 Sea Grant programs works
with the National Sea Grant office in the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the coastal community in their
state or territory to develop research priorities to promote
sustainable use and management of coastal or Great Lakes resources. The
Sea Grant program is supported through a combination of federal
appropriations and through State appropriations and in-kind
contributions.
The Sea Grant program is comprised of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Sea Grant Office (NSGO), 32
university-based State programs, the National Sea Grant Review Panel, a
National Law Center, a National Sea Grant Library and hundreds of
participating institutions.
The Sea Grant network addresses key issues and opportunities in
areas such as aquaculture, aquatic nuisance species, marine
biotechnology, seafood safety, fisheries management, coastal business
and development, coastal habitat, water quality, and coastal hazards.
Sea Grant conducts priority-driven research, transfers scientific
results to the public, provides educational opportunities from K-12 to
graduate degrees, and conducts successful outreach programs. Sea Grant
is a partnership among academia, government, and the private sector and
uses a combination of research, education and outreach to improve
management of the coastal, marine, and Great Lakes environment.
The National Ocean Research Priorities Plan (ORPP)
The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) established a
Joint Subcommittee on Oceans in 2003. At the direction of the
President's Ocean Action Plan, this group was expanded in 2005 to
include Science and Technology (JSOST). The JSOST reports to the
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources in addition to the
Interagency Committee on Ocean Science and Resource Management
Integration (ICOSRMI). JSOST developed the National Ocean Research
Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy and released it in January
2007. The ORPP was designed to establish priorities for ocean science
and technology for the next decade. Using this new interagency
priorities plan for ocean science, the National Sea Grant Office in
NOAA and the Sea Grant colleges nationwide have developed a new
strategic plan that links Sea Grant's priorities with the larger
interagency effort.
The ORPP provides guidance on how the various ocean science sectors
(government, academia, industry, and non-government entities) can and
should be engaged, individually or through partnerships, to address the
areas of greatest research need and opportunity. Given the magnitude of
the task, the report established priorities at a relatively high level
and the implementation strategies were not detailed. Of specific
interest to Sea Grant is that one of the actions identified in the
Subcommittee on Integrated Management of Ocean Resources' (SIMOR) 2006
work plan is for Sea Grant's university network to facilitate the
development of Regional Research and Information Plans. These Regional
Plans will outline one mechanism for regional ORPP implementation and
identify the top research and information priorities.
National Academy of Sciences Evaluation
The National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2002
directed NOAA to contract with the National Research Council to
evaluate Sea Grant's process of reviewing individual programs and
recommend ways to improve the overall effectiveness of the evaluation
process to ensure fairness, consistency, and enhancement of
performance. The National Academy of Sciences completed its review in
2006 and issued its report, Evaluation of the Sea Grant Program Review
Process.
The 2006 report recommended:
<bullet> strengthening the strategic planning process for the
individual programs,
<bullet> increasing the interaction between the National Sea
Grant Office and the individual programs, and
<bullet> improving the program rating and ranking process
through annual assessments by the national office.
The Report commented on the importance of improving strategic
planning. Some individual Sea Grant programs have developed strategic
plans that reflect active collaboration with the National Sea Grant
Office (NSGO) as well as its local constituents. However, other
individual Sea Grant programs have been slow to develop strategic plans
or have strategic plans that are poorly designed, poorly integrated
with the national strategic plan, or lack specificity for addressing
local and regional needs.
The peer review and assessment process of the Sea Grant program
evolved significantly since its inception. The National Academy Report
discusses the evolution of the evaluation process and makes
recommendations to bring balance to the process with regards to
appropriately directed competition and development of a robust national
program whose foundation is the network of local programs created and
maintained by individual Sea Grant colleges and institutions and
administered by the NSGO.
The NAS report suggests there should be a balance in the assessment
process with regard to producing improvement in the individual Sea
Grant programs while also encouraging its strengths. The panel
questions the benchmarks used in the evaluations and whether they are
sufficiently ambitious. If the benchmarks are designed to reflect
annually updated, quantitative measures of the significance and impact
of research, outreach, and education activities, it would be easier to
contrast program performance relative to other programs and to the
program's past performance. The report also states that the evaluation
criteria currently used do not adequately emphasize the importance of
network building among individual programs and how such activities help
to link the local and regional efforts into an effective nationwide
program.
Some aspects of the current program evaluation process and ranking
appear to have fostered an increase in competition and lowered the
level of cooperation between individual Sea Grant programs. The Academy
panel concluded that this tendency was not consistent with efforts to
build a cooperative nationwide effort.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.
Evaluation of the Sea Grant Program Review Process (2006). http://
www.nap.edu/catalog/11670.html
Changes to the Sea Grant Program in H.R. 5618
H.R. 5618 reauthorizes the National Sea Grant College Program and
amends several sections of the law including sections related to the
interaction between the National Sea Grant Office and the individual
programs; programmatic performance reviews; and strategic planning. A
number of the changes are technical or clarifying in nature or alter
specific cost-sharing or cost allocation formulas. A Section-by-Section
of the bill is included below.
The Findings are amended by including reference to the National
Ocean Research Priorities Plan and pointing to the Sea Grant program as
the most appropriate program for carrying out the priorities listed in
the Plan.
The bill would amend the law by adding two new definitions. The
first is a ``regional research and information plan'' which expands Sea
Grant's role to include regional and national projects conducted by two
or more Sea Grant institutions. The second is the ``National Ocean
Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy'' which is a plan
issued by the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology
(JSOST).
In the 2002 authorization, our committee amended the Sea Grant
review process to require the Director to evaluate each Sea Grant
institute's performance and then to place the institutes into one of
five categories based on their performance rating. This ranking was
then to be used as the basis for allocating funding among the
institutes with the best performing being rewarded with any increased
appropriations made available. H.R. 5618 repeals this provision. The
Director is still required to evaluate and assess the institutes.
H.R. 5618 designates the Sea Grant Review Panel as the National Sea
Grant Advisory Board. The duties of the Board are to advise the
Secretary and the Director on strategies for utilizing Sea Grant
institutes to address ocean, coastal and Great Lakes issues; on the
designation of new Sea Grant institutes; and any other matter the
Secretary refers to the Board.
H.R. 5618 authorizes increases in funding levels from $66 million
in fiscal year 2009 to $100 million in fiscal year 2014. This is a
significant yet measured improvement over the approximately $57 million
that the program has been allocated over recent years.
H.R. 5618 SECTION-BY-SECTION
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
Section 1 entitles the legislation as the ``National Sea Grant
College Program Amendments Act of 2008.''
SECTION 2. REFERENCES
Section 2 clarifies that all amendment references in the
legislation are made to the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33
U.S.C. 1121 et seq.).
SECTION 3. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES
Section 3 amplifies the extension aspects of the Sea Grant program
and cites the relevance of the National Ocean Research Priorities Plan
and Implementation Strategy to the Sea Grant Program.
SECTION 4. DEFINITIONS
Section 4 defines key terms included within the text of the
proposed legislation, including `regional research and information
plan' and `National Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation
Strategy' where they appear in the bill.
SECTION 5. NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM, GENERALLY
Section 5 amends the Program Elements to expand Sea Grant programs
to include regional and national projects among Sea Grant institutions
and to add regional strategic investments in projects undertaken
through Sea grant projects. Section 5 also augments the functions of
the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program to include
encouraging collaborations among Sea Grant colleges and institutions.
This section also strikes the Sea Grant program performance ranking
system for allocating additional resources on the basis of performance.
SECTION 6. PROGRAM OR PROJECT GRANTS AND CONTRACTS
Section 6 exempts the Dean John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship
Program from having to match grant awards in order to achieve parity
between fellows placed in Congressional offices with those fellows
placed in federal agencies.
This section also increases the percentage of funds exempt from the
non-federal match requirement from the current one percent to five
percent.
SECTION 7. EXTENSION SERVICES BY SEA GRANT COLLEGES AND SEA GRANT
INSTITUTES
Section 7 clarifies that one of the requirements for designation
includes an extension program (as opposed to an ``advisory service'').
SECTION 8. TECHNICAL CORRECTION RELATING TO FELLOWSHIPS
Section 8 updates the statutory language requiring a report every
two years on efforts to include minority and economically disadvantaged
students.
SECTION 9. NATIONAL SEA GRANT ADVISORY BOARD
Section 9 expands the responsibilities of the National Sea Grant
Review Panel, renaming the panel as the ``National Sea Grant Advisory
Board'' to more appropriately and accurately describe its purpose and
function.
SECTION 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Section 10 increases authorized funding levels from $66 million to
$100 million for the period between Fiscal Year 2009 through Fiscal
Year 2014.
Chairman Lampson. Good morning. I want to welcome everyone
to today's hearing, to the National Sea Grant College Program
Act: H.R. 5618.
H.R. 5618 was introduced by our colleague, Congresswoman
Madeleine Bordallo, Chair of the Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife and Oceans of the Committee on Natural Resources. The
Sea Grant program is a partnership between State and Federal
Government to promote the understanding, conservation and
management of our ocean, coastal and Great Lakes resources.
Growth of the National Sea Grant College Program has been
stunted during the last two years, and over time the flat
funding level has impacted the services delivered on a daily
basis to our coastal communities. With the cost of research and
education rising, programs have been forced to reduce staff and
a number of education and outreach activities as well. H.R.
5618 seeks to amend the Sea Grant Program to implement changes
in the program recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.
Some of these improvements include increasing the interaction
between the National Sea Grant Office and the individual State
programs as well as improving programmatic performance reviews
and authorizing increased funding levels.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here today who
will highlight the activities and accomplishments of this
program and offer their recommendations as to how we can
improve this important research, education and extension
program. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here
today.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lampson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Nick Lampson
Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing on the
National Sea Grant College Program Act: H.R. 5618. H.R. 5618 was
introduced by our colleague, Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo, Chair of
the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans of the Committee on
Natural Resources.
The Sea Grant program is a partnership between State and Federal
Government to promote the understanding, conservation, and management
of our ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources.
Growth of the National Sea Grant College Program has been stunted
during the last few years. Over time the flat funding level has
impacted the services delivered on a daily basis to our coastal
communities.
With the costs of research and education rising, programs have been
forced to reduce staff and a number of education and outreach
activities.
H.R. 5618 seeks to amend the Sea Grant Program to implement changes
in the program recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.
Some of these improvements include increasing the interaction
between the National Sea Grant Office and the individual State
programs; as well as improving programmatic performance reviews and
authorizing increased funding levels.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here today who will
highlight the activities and accomplishments of this program and offer
their recommendations as to how we can improve this important research,
education, and extension program.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. At this
time, I would like to recognize our distinguished Ranking Member, Mr.
Inglis of South Carolina for his opening statement.
Chairman Lampson. At this time I would like to yield to my
distinguished colleague from South Carolina, our Ranking
Member, Mr. Inglis, for an opening statement.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing.
Since its inception in 1966, the National Sea Grant Program
has been a successful collaborative effort of the Federal
Government, State governments and universities. Under the
program, these groups work together to understand, develop and
conserve our coastal and ocean resources. That is particularly
important for us in South Carolina and other coastal states.
Currently, more than half of the U.S. population lives on the
coast and that number is increasing, and coastal and ocean
resources generate more than $1 trillion of the annual gross
domestic product.
This reauthorization should equip the Sea Grant program to
continue to provide sound science and management products to
such a large part of our economy and population.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses and hearing their perspectives on this
legislation and any suggestions they may have as to
improvements.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Since its inception in 1966, the National Sea Grant program has
been a successful collaborative effort of the Federal Government, State
governments, and universities. Under the program, these groups work
together to understand, develop, and conserve our coastal and ocean
resources.
Currently, more than half of the U.S. population lives on the
coasts, and coastal and ocean resources generate more than $1 trillion
of the annual GNP. This reauthorization should equip the Sea Grant
program to continue to provide sound science and management products to
such a large part of our economy and population.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from the
panelists on their perspectives of this legislation and any suggestions
they may have to improve it.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Inglis.
I ask unanimous consent that all additional opening
statements submitted by the Committee Members be included in
the record. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Subcommittee giving attention to
this matter and the reauthorization of H.R. 5618, the National Sea
Grant College Program Act.
The National Sea Grant College Program was established in 1966 and
has since grown in stature and responsibilities since its most recent
reauthorization in 2002. The program is an example of a dynamic
partnership among academia, government and the private sector to
improve the management of the coastal, marine and Great Lakes
environment.
Unfortunately, as with many important federal programs, difficult
economic times have not allowed the Sea Grant Program's budget to grow
to keep up with inflation, much less be granted with a substantial
increase.
I look forward to hearing our witnesses' testimony today and
working with my colleagues on the Committee to improve and strengthen
this important program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Lampson. It is my pleasure to introduce the
witnesses for this morning. Mr. Craig McLean is the Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Programs and Administration for
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. Mr. Paul S. Anderson is the
President of the Sea Grant Association and the Director of the
Maine Sea Grant College Program. Mr. M. Richard DeVoe is the
Executive Director of the South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium,
and Mr. Patrick Riley is the General Manager of Western Seafood
in Freeport, Texas, which is my next-door neighbor. Welcome.
You will each have five minutes for your spoken testimony.
Your written testimony will be included in the record for the
hearing. When you all complete your testimony, we will begin
with questions. Each Member will have five minutes to question
the panel.
Mr. McLean, we will begin with you, and please start.
STATEMENT OF MR. CRAIG N. MCLEAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR PROGRAMS AND ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. McLean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning Ranking
Member Inglis, and Mr. Bartlett, good morning. I am pleased to
be here this morning to discuss the National Sea Grant College
Program. It is a very important program to NOAA.
Sea Grant is an integral part of NOAA's mission to
understand and predict the Earth's environment and to conserve
and manage coastal, marine and Great Lakes resources. Sea Grant
is a national network comprised of the NOAA National Sea Grant
Panel, the Sea Grant Office, 32 university-sponsored programs,
the Sea Grant Law Library and the Sea Grant Law Center,
fellowship programs and hundreds of participating institutions.
Each Sea Grant State program is established through competition
and receives evaluation every four years. By linking university
resources and expertise with local communities and user groups,
Sea Grant promotes the effective transfer of science-based
information in support of decision-making. In short, Sea Grant
takes complex information and shows people how to use it and
how to solve real problems.
Sea Grant also expands the reach and effectiveness of other
NOAA programs and other partners by leveraging additional
funds. Sea Grant Programs are required to match every $2 of
federal funding with $1 of contributory funding and many states
far exceed this match. In 2006, for example, State Sea Grant
programs provided $27 million of matching funds for their NOAA
awards and stimulated contributions of an additional $62
million from a variety of State and federal sources.
Over the past two years, we have aggressively responded to
the recommendations of the 2006 National Research Council
report on Sea Grant. The program is developing a more
coordinated strategic plan for the next five years and will
address issues affecting coastal regions locally and
nationally.
In the future, Sea Grant will also play a critical role in
identifying the coastal and constituent needs for climate
research, climate services and climate-related information.
This will be a very important contribution for Sea Grant.
NOAA is supportive of efforts to reauthorize the National
Sea Grant College Program Act, and in fact, the Administration
is transmitting to Congress the proposed bill that the
Administration has to offer and perhaps it may have even
arrived as early as last night.
The Administration's reauthorizing bill and H.R. 5618, the
National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2008, take
very similar approaches to strengthening this program. Both
bills promote Sea Grant program investments in national
activities by increasing the non-match funding pool. The
Administration bill proposes an increase in the non-match
funding pool from one percent to five percent and includes the
entire Knauss Fellowship Program.
Both bills retain the requirements to evaluate and assess
the performance of State Sea Grant programs but removes the
rigid ranking requirements amongst the states. This change
would remove any disincentive to cooperation in the National
Research Council report as it had identified and thereby
facilitate the development of regional collaborations among the
Sea Grant programs.
Both bills seek to strength Sea Grant programs by elevating
the role and functions of the National Sea Grant Review Panel.
Over the past 30 years, the role of the panel has evolved with
Sea Grant's influence and effectiveness. Consistent with the
recommendations of the National Research Council report, both
bills propose to change the duties of the panel on providing
strategic advice regarding the national program as well as
providing an assessment of the overall effectiveness of the
program.
The Administration's proposed reauthorization bill and H.R.
5618 do have nominal differences, and one of them is the size
of the cap on Administration funding to support the program and
on the matching fund requirements in order to support the
development of regional and national partnerships. The
Administration bill advances Sea Grant's capacity for regional
and national leadership by adjusting the cap of Administration
funding from five to seven percent, which is responsive to the
NRC's report recommendation to allocate resources sufficient to
allow the NOAA National Sea Grant Program Office to accomplish
its mission of oversight, leadership and guidance of the
program.
The National Sea Grant Office today is about half the size
it was 15 years ago in terms of staff, and the seniority of
that staff has diminished as well. The increasing in funding
for the National Sea Grant College Office will strengthen the
core of the Sea Grant network. To promote Sea Grant's
involvement in regional and national partnerships, the
Administration bill proposes exempting these partnership
activities from the matching fund requirements. We recognize
the significance of the matching fund requirement as a means to
leveraging funding. However, the requirement has at times made
it difficult to form regional and national partnerships and
interagency collaborations. The proposed change would allow Sea
Grant programs to collaborate with a broader array of partners
to address issues that are best addressed regionally and
nationally.
In closing, Sea Grant is an effective program and it
addresses the right problems defined by constituents, produces
meaningful science and relates directly to the attainment of
NOAA's mission objectives. Sea Grant's ability to leverage
resources and address issues in partnership and with other
entities is truly unique in government. The reauthorization of
Sea Grant is important to NOAA and we look forward to working
with you as the legislation moves through Congress. Together we
can ensure that the National Sea Grant College Program
continues to generate practical solutions based on sound
science that address real problems in real places.
Thank you, and I look forward to addressing your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McLean follows:]
Prepared Statement of Craig N. McLean
I am Craig McLean, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Programs and
Administration of the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,
within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research conducts and sponsors the
scientific research, environmental studies, and technology development
needed to improve NOAA's operations and applications, and broaden our
understanding of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. NOAA's National Sea
Grant College Program is contained within the Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research. The National Sea Grant College Program is NOAA's
primary university-based program in support of coastal resource use and
conservation. Sea Grant's research, outreach, and education programs
promote better understanding, stewardship, and use of America's coastal
resources.
I am pleased to be here to tell you about the National Sea Grant
College Program. Today, I will discuss Sea Grant's vision and mission,
what lies ahead for the program, the issues we would like to see
addressed in its upcoming reauthorization, and why this program is
important to NOAA.
Sea Grant's Vision and Mission
Sea Grant's legislative charge (33 U.S.C. 1121) is ``to increase
the understanding, assessment, development, utilization, and
conservation of the Nation's ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources
by providing assistance to promote a strong education base, responsive
research and training activities, broad and prompt dissemination of
knowledge and techniques, and multi-disciplinary approaches to
environmental problems.''
The National Sea Grant College Program envisions a future where
people live along our coasts in harmony with the natural resources that
attracted and continue to sustain them. This is a vision of our
nation's coasts in which we use our natural resources in ways that
capture the economic and recreational benefits they offer, while
preserving their quality and abundance for future generations.
Sea Grant is an integral part of NOAA's mission and instrumental in
helping the agency achieve its objectives in coastal communities
throughout the United States and our territories. Sea Grant's research,
outreach and education activities are connected to NOAA's mission,
which is to understand and predict changes in Earth's environment and
conserve and manage coastal and marine resources to meet our nation's
economic, social, and environmental needs.
The National Sea Grant College Program
The National Sea Grant College Program was created 42 years ago to
unite the academic power of the Nation's universities with a wide range
of public and private sector partners. Sea Grant brings together
government, universities and citizens living and working in our
nation's coastal and Great Lakes states and territories to respond to
problems and opportunities in these complex and dynamic environments.
Through these partnerships, Sea Grant provides integrated research, and
outreach and education programs aimed at creating tangible benefits for
ocean, coastal and Great Lakes environments and communities.
Sea Grant is a national network comprised of NOAA's National Sea
Grant Office, 32 university-based State programs, the National Sea
Grant Review Panel, a National Law Center, a National Sea Grant Library
and hundreds of participating institutions. Each Sea Grant program is
established through a competitive process and reviewed every four
years. The Sea Grant network enables NOAA and the Nation to harness the
best science, technology and human expertise to balance human and
environmental needs in coastal regions.
Sea Grant's alliance with major research universities provides
support to more than 3,000 scientists, outreach specialists, educators,
and students every year. Collectively, Sea Grant has formed
partnerships with over 4,000 organizations to help reach its mission
goals. Sea Grant's university-based programs develop future scientists
and managers to conduct research and to guide the responsible
management of our nation's coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes resources.
As a pioneer in what is referred to as ``translational research: from
discovery to application,'' Sea Grant strives for unbiased, science-
based information that is accessible to all. The diverse capabilities
of Sea Grant's network of State programs enable the organization to be
creative and responsive in generating policy-relevant research and in
disseminating scientific and technological discoveries to a wide array
of audiences. Because it is science-based, non-regulatory, and has an
established presence in local communities, Sea Grant is a trusted
broker, working to increase coastal, ocean and Great Lakes literacy
among decision-makers and the public as a whole. Sea Grant's commitment
to these core values is vital to achieving its mission.
With its strong research capabilities, local knowledge and on-the-
ground workforce, Sea Grant is ready to identify and capitalize on
opportunities, and to generate practical solutions. Sea Grant
extension, with its unique relationship with coastal partners, helps
identify key local and regional issues for the university-based
programs whose resources are directed to solve these problems.
Extension is defined as the effective transfer of science-based
information by university specialists and agents to support decision-
making by individuals, groups or institutions. Extension agents link
university resources and expertise with local communities and user
groups. In short, these specialists take complex information and show
people how to use it to solve problems. For example, Sea Grant was
successful in working with the city of Cleveland, Ohio to construct
artificial reefs from the rubble of the old Cleveland Municipal Stadium
in the near-shore zone of Lake Erie. Estimates indicate that these
reefs attract 12 to 66 times as many fish as the surrounding non-reef
areas and produce approximately $1 million of economic benefit
annually. This is just one example of how Sea Grant agents work with
communities in order to share expertise and solve problems.
Sea Grant also expands the reach and effectiveness of NOAA and
other partners in planning for and managing the future of America's
ocean, coastal and Great Lakes resources by leveraging additional
funds. Sea Grant programs are required to match every $2 of federal
funding with $1 of non-federal funds, and many State programs far
exceed this match. The match required for federal funding also ensures
this country receives significant benefit from each dollar invested by
the Federal Government in Sea Grant.
The success of Sea Grant's approach to coastal resource use and
stewardship is being recognized globally. Other countries are using the
Sea Grant model when designing their own programs for engaging
universities in marine research through granting programs, outreach,
and education. With the assistance of Sea Grant, Korea has developed
its own Sea Grant program and Indonesia has created a Sea Partnership
Program with a network that extends country-wide.
Sea Grant's Work
Sea Grant addresses emerging issues at local, regional and national
levels through its integrated national network by bringing decades of
experience and expertise through its scientists, extension agents,
educators and communicators located in every coastal and Great Lakes
state, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Pacific island territories.
By investing in mission-priority research, Sea Grant addresses
issues such as growth in coastal communities, hurricane preparedness
and response, coastal storms and tsunamis, invasive species,
development of drugs and industrial materials from marine resources,
fish and shellfish farming and seafood safety. Each year, Sea Grant
supports some 400 research projects investigating a wide variety of
marine and coastal topics, and produces more than 700 peer-reviewed
journal articles and book chapters.
While research is a crucial component of Sea Grant, transferring
the results of research to the people who can benefit from this
knowledge is equally important. Sea Grant's network of more than 300
extension experts work with coastal communities and decision-makers to
provide informal education and transfer new technologies. These
extension experts work with communities in countless ways, including:
<bullet> helping fish farmers develop environmentally-sound
shellfish farming practices;
<bullet> explaining the impacts of land use on water quality;
and
<bullet> providing technical assistance to communities
planning for and dealing with hurricanes and other natural
hazards.
Education is an integral part of Sea Grant's outreach program. A
network of 30 Sea Grant educators work with K-12 teachers to bring
environmental sciences into the classroom and the classroom out into
the natural environment. Sea Grant's support for higher education over
three decades of service has trained more than 12,000 college and
graduate students, preparing them to be the next generation of coastal
stewards. More than 650 alumni within the Dean John A. Knauss Marine
Policy Fellowship program now hold positions in NOAA, other partner
agencies, the industry sector, and non-governmental organizations. This
strong workforce is needed to solve the major environmental challenges
that face the Nation and the planet.
Each program within the Sea Grant network has a dedicated
communications staff that works to deliver accurate, reliable, science-
based information. Through newsletters, brochures, posters, articles,
web sites, books, radio, videotape, and other media, Sea Grant's
network of more than 100 communicators have earned their reputations as
honest brokers of information about marine and coastal issues. In
recent years, Sea Grant communications experts have created products
ranging from environmental radio podcasts and video documentaries to
informational guides and books about the history and science of the
Nation's coastal regions.
Sea Grant's place-based programs throughout the Nation give the
organization the flexibility to respond to emerging needs. Sea Grant
worked throughout coastal Louisiana following Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita to help coastal communities recover. The recovery of Louisiana's
Plaquemines Parish following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita was an example
of Sea Grant's ability to respond to these disasters. Sea Grant's work
in Louisiana included partnerships with the private sector. Investment
firm Goldman Sachs Group Inc. sent 30 volunteers and donated $50,000 to
the Sea Grant-led volunteer efforts. The funding helped Sea Grant
extension agents organize volunteer workers who came into the city and
put them in touch with people with the greatest needs to help
Plaquemines Parrish recover in time for fishing season. In addition,
Sea Grant worked with energy firm Royal Dutch Shell plc and partners to
facilitate the donation of an industrial ice house to serve Cameron
Parish. The ice house was a critical component of the re-vitalization
of the Louisiana seafood industry.
Sea Grant's research efforts have catalyzed a greater understanding
of our coastal resources. Sea Grant's investment in biotechnology, for
instance, has led to the development of novel marine products and
processes. Impacts from this research extend from the marine and
aquatic realm to dimensions of human health and safety. A Great Lakes
Sea Grant researcher invented two new technologies to mass produce
anti-toxins and gauge infections. One will harvest a human antidote to
counter bioterrorism; the other technology detects deadly pathogens
like salmonella, E. coli, and cholera. This patent-pending biosensor
process can detect the state of more than 50 pathogens within minutes.
Another Sea Grant research project eliminated organic contaminants
from menhaden oil. Fish oil is an important ingredient in pet foods and
aquaculture feeds, but organic contaminants have kept the processed
product from being sold in lucrative international markets. The
research demonstrated a simple refining process to eliminate dioxin and
other impurities from crude fish oil allowing a fish oil producer
operating in the Gulf of Mexico to deliver a product that meets
European Union specifications. A Sea Grant investment of less than
$50,000 saved 200 jobs in Louisiana and helped boost U.S. exports.
Sea Grant conducts socioeconomic research to help coastal managers
formulate policies that minimize the negative ecological impacts of
coastal development and coastal resource use. For example, Sea Grant
worked with the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council to
help them develop an innovative Urban Coastal Greenway Policy that
provides a new level of flexibility to a previously rigid coastal
development regulatory structure--both in terms of environmental
protection and in building and landscape aesthetics. The policy enabled
the partners to collaborate more closely with developers on their plans
during the application process, and to tailor the plans to best benefit
the coastal environment, the developer and the public alike. As a
result, Sea Grant and its partners have been able to secure almost two
miles of new public access along the urban shore, while still
maintaining the economic integrity of development plans and the
environmental quality of a critical portion of northern Narragansett
Bay.
Sea Grant helps the seafood industry increase quality and safety,
add value, lower costs and expand seafood supplies and markets, with
more than 30 years of experience working in every coastal and Great
Lake state and involving every type of seafood product. Since 2001,
training courses led by Sea Grant extension and others with the
National Seafood Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)
Alliance (an intergovernmental partnership with industry and academia)
have reached about 5,000 U.S. processing plants, 6,000 importers and
international suppliers and 14,000 employees and regulators. The U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services estimates that the HACCP
program has prevented between 20,000 and 60,000 seafood-related
illnesses a year, translating into savings of about $155 million
annually. In one survey of seafood businesses, 77 percent reported that
they could not have met FDA regulations without the HACCP training
programs. Sea Grant extension staff have also extended HACCP protocols
to address invasive species, offering training to aquaculturists in the
Great Lakes in order to prevent the spread of highly destructive
aquatic invasive species.
Sea Grant researchers and outreach specialists are uniquely
situated to promote collaborations on subjects critical to decisions
being made by fisheries managers on a variety of topics from stock
assessment, habitat and ecosystem health, environmental contamination
and conflict resolution, among many others. For example, Sea Grant
researchers have developed a revolutionary, rapid and reliable method
of DNA analysis to identify shark species from fins, carcasses and
other body parts. This one-step forensics technique allows for the
identification of U.S. fishing vessels suspected of catching and
selling protected species such as the dusky and the great white shark.
This technology helped federal prosecutors confirm the presence of
prohibited species in four of five investigations, resulting in fines
of more than $100,000 and creating further deterrence for illegal
fishing activities. Thus far, the Sea Grant research team has fully
developed and tested DNA markers for 18 U.S. Atlantic shark species.
Recognizing the demand for fisheries extension services and the
complexity of fisheries issues, the National Sea Grant Office and
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) were asked by Congress
to develop a program to improve communications with and among fisheries
constituents. The partnership between Sea Grant and NMFS was enhanced
by developing a regionally-coordinated, constituent-based fisheries
extension program. The initial Sea Grant investment of $5 million led
to:
<bullet> a partnership between NMFS and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to reduce seabird bycatch in the Bering Sea
and Gulf of Alaska, an activity that led to new fishing
regulations and circumvented potential lawsuits that might have
shut down a $200 million fishery;
<bullet> the Eliminator Trawl designed to catch underutilized
haddock, likely resulting in economic gains of $30 million--a
design for which Rhode Island Sea Grant extension agents were
awarded the grand prize in the 2007 World Wildlife Federation's
International Smart Gear Competition; and
<bullet> a partnership between the National Marine Fisheries
Service Southeast Fisheries Center and Sea Grant extension
agents to deliver training programs and to distribute 1,000
bycatch reduction devices to fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico.
This list of just some examples of accomplishments demonstrates
many of the Sea Grant capabilities that have earned it a reputation as
a highly effective national program.
Future of Sea Grant
National Strategic Planning
Sea Grant is currently completing its national strategic planning
process for 2009 to 2013. This five-year strategic plan establishes
direction for the Sea Grant network to address critical national needs
in coastal, ocean and Great Lakes environments. The plan capitalizes on
Sea Grant's unique capacities and strengths, allows for flexibility and
creativity on the part of State Sea Grant programs, and supports a
broad range of priorities in NOAA's strategic plan, and NOAA's 20-Year
Research Vision and Five-Year Research Plan.
Over the next five years, Sea Grant will concentrate effort in four
focus areas: healthy coastal ecosystems, sustainable coastal
development, a safe and sustainable seafood supply, and hazard
resilience in coastal communities. These four interrelated focus areas
emerged from diverse stakeholder input, including advice from the Sea
Grant Review Panel, during the strategic planning process as areas of
critical importance to the health and vitality of the Nation's coastal
resources and communities. These areas reflect issues of major
importance to NOAA and are areas in which Sea Grant has made
substantial contributions in the past and is positioned to make
contributions in the future. In addition, these focus areas are
consistent with the work of the NOAA coastal program integration effort
which is working to improve coordination in the development and
delivery of services within NOAA's coastal programs.
Sea Grant's new strategic plan will address timely issues affecting
coastal regions, including issues related to climate change, coastal
hazards and coastal development. Sea Grant's extension staff, with
diverse backgrounds and coastal specialties, will play a critical role
in identifying local needs for climate research and information. Sea
Grant extension staff can serve as intermediaries between NOAA's
climate researchers and coastal decision-makers, helping to define and
deliver NOAA's climate tools and products that are needed at the local
level. In this way, Sea Grant's work complements the outreach efforts
of other NOAA programs, such as the National Integrated Drought
Information System and the Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments
program, with Sea Grant maintaining a specific focus on coastal
communities. Sea Grant is committed to support research and outreach to
effectively apply innovative techniques to restore degraded ecosystems.
Also, Sea Grant has recognized the need to invest in research that
evaluates the environmental and socioeconomic trade-offs involved in
coastal planning and decision-making.
Sea Grant is one of many partners working to address these complex
and interrelated issues. Using partnerships to accomplish shared goals
is a strategy inherent to Sea Grant and key to its successes.
Regional Plans
Consistent with the President's U.S. Ocean Action Plan, and the
recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, NOAA has
committed to adopting ecosystem-based approaches to management to
achieve balance among ecological, environmental and social influences
in our nation's coastal, ocean and Great Lakes regions. In order to
advance this effort, regional coordinators of Sea Grant programs are
facilitating planning efforts to aid in the transition toward regional
ecosystem-based management. Sea Grant is engaging a wide array of
stakeholders to develop a ``bottom-up'' needs assessment by identifying
research and information gaps, developing prioritized management-based
regional research and information plans, coordinating technology and
information transfer to appropriate end users, and providing an ongoing
platform for coordination, collaboration, and resource-sharing among
participants.
These regional plans will include clear statements of the major
regional, ocean and coastal management issues, outlines of existing
scientific and informational resources, analyses of the information
necessary to address the critical issues, and a prioritized list of
actions to be taken. Each final plan will include a prioritized list of
forecast products that would aid in the transition toward regional
ecosystem-based management. Eight regions are currently participating
in this planning process (Gulf of Maine, Great Lakes, Insular Pacific,
Alaska, Pacific Northwest, Pacific Southwest, Gulf of Mexico, and the
South Atlantic) and their plans will be completed by the end of FY
2008. The remaining three regions (New York Bight, Mid-Atlantic and the
Caribbean) are beginning the process in FY 2008, with plans scheduled
for completion by the end of FY 2010.
Although the planning process is not complete, every region has
identified climate change impacts as a top priority for research,
including research that refines predictive models to regional and local
scales, and consideration of socioeconomic and ecological effects.
Beyond this issue, priorities are as diverse as the different regions'
geological and ecological signatures. The Insular Pacific region
prioritizes beach and reef restoration research, in the Great Lakes the
priority is aquatic invasive species, in the Northeast the priority is
storm safety, and along the Pacific coast the priority is ocean
observation systems for better assessing the land-sea connection. Each
region must include an outreach component in their plan, ensuring
timely delivery of pertinent technologies and tools to the appropriate
users.
Sea Grant Reauthorization
The National Sea Grant College Program Act (Act) was first enacted
in 1966 and has been amended nine times, most recently in 2002. The
current reauthorization expires at the end of fiscal year 2008. NOAA is
supportive of efforts to reauthorize this Act as the National Sea Grant
College Program has achieved significant accomplishments nationwide in
promoting research, education, training, and advisory service
activities that have increased the understanding, assessment,
development, utilization and conservation of the Nation's ocean,
coastal and Great Lakes resources.
The Administration will shortly transmit to Congress proposed
legislation to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program. In
preparing the proposed legislation, the National Sea Grant Office
reviewed the program's successes and the challenges encountered since
the program's last reauthorization in 2002. The resulting
Administration bill proposes changes to advance Sea Grant's capability
to address regional and national issues, enhance NOAA's ability to
administer and provide guidance to the Sea Grant program, and redefine
the role of the National Sea Grant Review Panel.
The Administration's reauthorization bill and National Sea Grant
College Program Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 5618) in many instances
take similar approaches to strengthening the Sea Grant program.
Both bills promote continued Sea Grant program investment in
national activities by increasing the non-match funding pool.
Specifically, the Administration bill proposes increasing the non-match
funding pool from 1 percent to five percent, including the Knauss
Fellowship Program.
This proposed change will enhance the quality of the Sea Grant
network by allowing the Sea Grant program to enhance its support for
national facilities such as the Sea Grant Law Center, and enhance its
ability to respond rapidly to emerging issues, such as recovery from a
hurricane, at the local and regional level.
Both bills promote greater partnership opportunities among State
Sea Grant programs by adjusting the current requirements for how the
State programs are evaluated. In the last reauthorization (2002) a
requirement was added that State programs be ranked based on their
relative performance and any new funding for existing programs be
awarded based on those rankings. While the intent was to provide a
competitive opportunity for individual programs to receive additional
funding based on merit, the National Research Council's 2006 report,
``Evaluation of the Sea Grant Program Review Process,'' pointed out
that as an unintended consequence the 2002 amendment also created a
financial disincentive for programs to work cooperatively and to form
regional partnerships with each other. The Administration's bill and
H.R. 5618 both remove the requirement to rate programs within five
categories of performance. Both bills retain the requirement to
evaluate and assess the performance of State Sea Grant programs, but
remove the relative ranking requirement in order to facilitate the
development of regional collaborations among the Sea Grant programs.
Both bills seek to strengthen the Sea Grant program by elevating
the role and functions of the National Sea Grant Review Panel. The
National Sea Grant Review Panel (Panel) was established in 1976 to
provide advice on all applications submitted to Sea Grant for funding,
on the Sea Grant fellowship program, on the designation and operation
of Sea Grant colleges and on the development and application of
planning guidelines and priorities. Over the past 30 years, the role of
the Panel has evolved in consonance with the evolution of Sea Grant's
influence and effectiveness. The Panel no longer reviews funding or
fellowship applications and the designation of new Sea Grant colleges
happens rarely as the Sea Grant network of colleges in our coastal and
Great Lakes states is virtually complete. The 2006 National Research
Council report called for the Panel to be ``better positioned to
comment on issues of broader significance to the overall program,'' and
stated the Panel's sole function should be ``to promote the
effectiveness of the program as a whole.'' Both bills propose changes
that focus the duties of the Panel on providing strategic advice
regarding the national program, as well as providing assessment of the
overall effectiveness of the program. These proposed changes will
better enable the Panel to address the needs of the program as it has
evolved since 1976.
The Administration's proposed reauthorization bill and H.R. 5618 do
differ on the issue of the size of the cap on administrative funding
and on the matching funding requirement with regards to regional and
national partnerships.
The Administration bill advances Sea Grant's capacity for regional
and national leadership by adjusting the cap on administrative funding,
while H.R. 5618 does not make any adjustments to the cap. Specifically,
the Administration bill proposes increasing the administrative cap from
five percent to seven percent. Staffing in NOAA's National Sea Grant
Office (NSGO) is about half what it was 15 years ago despite the
expansion of the network of Sea Grant Programs. The 2006 National
Research Council report found that ``the NSGO does not currently play a
sufficient role in ongoing program assistance, monitoring,
communication, and assessment'' and recommended that the Secretary of
Commerce ``take steps to ensure that sufficient human and fiscal
resources are available to allow robust, ongoing and meaningful
interaction'' among the NSGO, the State programs, and their home
institutions. By increasing the resources available to NOAA for
administration of the Sea Grant Program, the Administration's bill
would allow for approximately eight to ten additional full time
employees to be hired at the NSGO. The increase in staffing for the
NSGO would strengthen the core of the entire Sea Grant network by
allowing us to: more quickly process, review and approve programs'
omnibus and other program grant applications; increase NOAA's
participation in State program strategic and annual planning processes;
enhance program oversight and evaluation; and improve communication and
collaboration among Sea Grant, other NOAA programs, and other federal
agencies and non-governmental organizations.
Both the Administration's bill and H.R. 5618 seek to promote Sea
Grant's involvement in regional and national partnerships. However, the
Administration's bill specifically proposes exempting regional and
national partnerships, as well as interagency cooperation, from the
matching funding requirement as a means to achieve the goal of greater
Sea Grant involvement in these activities. Sea Grant programs currently
form regional and national partnerships in a limited capacity due to
constraints of the matching requirement. We recognize the significance
of the matching requirement, as it ensures we leverage significant
funds from each federal dollar that is invested; however, the
requirement has, at times, made it difficult to form regional and
national partnerships and interagency collaborations. This change would
enhance the ability of the State programs to form effective and lasting
strategic partnerships. Currently, Sea Grant cannot provide significant
funding to potential partners without match. This becomes an obstacle
to forming partnerships when potential partners (i.e., local and State
agencies, private partners) do not have matching funds available. By
exempting these activities from the matching requirement, Sea Grant
programs would be able to collaborate with a broader array of partners
to address issues such climate change impacts on coastal communities
and ecosystems, sustainable development, fisheries, hazard resilience,
and invasive species--issues that are best addressed regionally and
nationally.
In general, the Administration's proposed reauthorization bill and
H.R. 5618 have more similarities than differences. The reauthorization
of Sea Grant is important to NOAA as we continue to understand, assess,
develop, utilize and conserve our coastal and Great Lakes resources. We
look forward to working with the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
as the legislation moves through Congress.
Conclusion
In summary, Sea Grant is working to realize its vision for a future
where people live along our coasts in harmony with the natural
resources that attracted and continue to sustain them. This is a vision
of our nation's coasts in which we use our natural resources in ways
that capture the economic and recreational benefits they offer, while
preserving their quality and abundance for future generations. This
work allows Sea Grant to serve NOAA's mission goal to protect, restore
and manage the use of coastal and ocean resources effectively.
Sea Grant has demonstrated an ability to leverage resources and
engage issues in partnership with other entities; this program has
proven itself to be an effective investment of taxpayer dollars.
Looking ahead, the Sea Grant network of universities provides a
national infrastructure with the ability to adapt and respond to
emerging issues. I look forward to working with you to ensure that the
National Sea Grant College Program continues to generate practical
solutions to real problems in real places.
Thank you for inviting me to testify on the National Sea Grant
College Program. I thank you also for your interest in and support of
NOAA's National Sea Grant College Program.
Biography for Craig N. McLean
Craig McLean is the Deputy for NOAA's Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research Programs and Administration. He is responsible for daily
operations and administration of NOAA's research enterprise, and the
execution of NOAA programs including the Climate program, National Sea
Grant, and Ocean Exploration.
He has previously served in NOAA as Executive Officer of the
National Ocean Service, and was the founding Director of NOAA's Office
of Ocean Exploration. McLean served in uniform for nearly 25 years,
retiring from NOAA's Commissioned Corps in the grade of Captain after
service at sea, underwater, and in operational, legal, and marine
resource management positions. McLean served aboard hydrographic,
oceanographic, and fisheries research ships and was the first
commanding officer of NOAA's largest fisheries research vessel, the
224-foot Gordon Gunter.
A life-long diver, he began exploring deep shipwrecks through
decompression diving while in junior high school. These experiences
have taken him to the Amazon River searching for freshwater dolphins,
and to the RMS Titanic searching for solutions in shipwreck management.
Craig McLean is also an attorney and has practiced marine resource
law for NOAA. He has been awarded the Departmental Silver and Bronze
Medals, the NOAA Corps Commendation Medal, Special Achievement Medal,
and recognized as the NOAA 2005 Senior Leader of the Year. He is a
Fellow in the Explorers Club, Chairman of the Marine Law and Policy
Committee of the Marine Technology Society, and is Chairman of the
Board of the Sea-Space Symposium.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. McLean.
Mr. Anderson, five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. PAUL S. ANDERSON, PRESIDENT, SEA GRANT
ASSOCIATION; DIRECTOR, MAINE SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM
Mr. Anderson. Good morning, Chairman Lampson, Ranking
Member Inglis and Committee Members. My name is Paul Anderson.
I am the Director of the Maine Sea Grant College Program at the
University of Maine and I appear today on behalf of the Sea
Grant Association in my capacity as president to offer our
perspective on H.R. 5618.
It is an honor to represent the nationwide network of Sea
Grant colleges at this hearing, and it is with great
appreciation that we acknowledge your leadership and the
Subcommittee's long history of support for the National Sea
Grant College Program.
I have a formal statement that I ask to be included in the
record for this hearing. The SGA, Sea Grant Association,
represents the combined capabilities of over 300 university and
research institutions nationwide in the National Sea Grant
College Program. The SGA enables these institutions to
coordinate their activities and to prioritize action at the
regional and national levels and offers a unified voice on
critical coastal ocean and Great Lakes issues.
Just as our nation's land grant institutions have
revolutionized agriculture, so too are the Sea Grant colleges
steering our nation toward the productive and sustainable use
of our coastal ocean and Great Lakes resources through
integrated and competitive programs of scientific research,
education, training and technical assistance.
I want to start by providing an example, if I might, from
my home State of Maine on how the Sea Grant program has
significantly contributed towards a sustainable environment and
economy. I think you might find this story interesting. Like
many of our coastal states, Maine is a seafood producing state,
and with both wild capture and cultured fish and shellfish.
Also like many coastal states, Maine is a popular destination
for visitors with a significant tourism industry. The Sea Grant
program has been working nationally with these two very large
economic sectors to ensure compatibility and economic success
for both.
There are, however, challenges between these sectors and
conflicts between them, and I would like to tell you about an
innovative solution to a conflict between the recreational
boating or sailing community, and part of the Maine industry
that wants to grow blue mussels. You have all enjoyed blue
mussels perhaps on your dinner plate. When this grower proposed
to put his growing operation, a floating raft structure, in the
vicinity of where the boating community does much of their
sailing, they called Sea Grant because it was an issue. We
brought the conflicting parties together along with a
mechanical engineer from the University and we helped to
develop a device that allows the raft structure to sink below
the water level on demand and then, with the push of a button,
to return the structure to the surface and harvest and maintain
the operation, out of sight, out of mind, so to speak. Much
like your garage door opener, the device now has a patent
pending and the periodic regattas in that area continue. This
is just one example of how Sea Grant operates as an honest
broker, bringing together varying needs and perspectives and
applying science and creativity to identify collaborative
solutions to complex problems.
It is an unrealized potential of Sea Grant, as illustrated
by this example, that provides the context for our comments on
H.R. 5618. The SGA strongly endorses the intent and many of the
proposed changes contained in H.R. 5618, and we pledge to do
our part to help towards the bill's enactment.
First, we support the adjustments offered in H.R. 5618
regarding program ranking and performance assessment and
response to the NRC, the National Research Council's report
that you just heard about. We are also pleased with the bill's
emphasis on regional collaboration. We are particularly pleased
to see that the bill provides enhanced flexibility in the
allocation and overall management of resources within the
program and which will allow for both program stability and our
responsiveness. I think it is the responsiveness that is really
something that is particularly keen with the Sea Grant program.
And we strongly support the language of the Sea Grant planning
and priority-setting process to the interagency Ocean Research
Priorities Plan, as was also just described.
However, we do have one concern and that is the
authorization level that is contained in H.R. 5618. It
represents a significant reduction, perhaps up to 33 percent
compared to Sea Grant's fiscal year 2008, or current,
authorization levels. Funding for the Sea Grant program has not
kept pace, as you mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, with the
extraordinary growth in coastal population and development and
the resulting increasing demands on our programming. At the
current fiscal year 2009 level proposed by the Administration
for the Sea Grant program, we would be asked to operate at its
lowest level in a 42-year history. So I said all that to say
that we do feel that these declining trends in appropriations
would be exacerbated by a parallel reduction in our
authorization levels and we hope the Committee will consider
that.
We recommend--the SGA recommends that the National Sea
Grant College Program be reauthorized at levels that would grow
to $125 million by the year 2014. With this, Sea Grant would be
better positioned to address a number of critical coastal
issues including coastal hazard resiliency, sustainable coastal
development, the health of our coastal ecosystems and
sustainable seafood. These are the four focus areas of our
current and future strategic plan.
To conclude, Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the
Sea Grant Association has a vision for the Sea Grant College
Program to become NOAA's primary university-based research,
education and technical assistance program in support of marine
resource management and conservation. We believe that H.R. 5618
moves Sea Grant in that direction and we are supportive of the
bill in many ways and will work to support its enactment.
Thank you for your time today, and I would be glad to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul S. Anderson
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Paul Anderson. I am the Director of the Maine Sea Grant
College Program in Orono, Maine; but I appear today as President of the
Sea Grant Association (SGA).
It is an honor to represent the nationwide network of Sea Grant
professionals at this hearing, and it is with great appreciation that
we--all of us in the Sea Grant Association--acknowledge this
subcommittee's long history of support for the National Sea Grant
College Program. Thank you for the opportunity to express these views
regarding to the reauthorization of the National Sea Grant College
Program.
The Sea Grant Association (SGA) represents the combined
capabilities of over 300 university and research institutions
nationwide that participate in the National Sea Grant College Program.
The SGA enables these institutions to coordinate their activities, to
prioritize action at the regional and national levels, and to offer a
unified voice on critical coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes issues. Just
as our nation's Land Grant institutions have revolutionized
agriculture, so too are the Sea Grant Colleges steering our nation
toward the productive and sustainable use of our coastal, oceanic, and
Great Lakes resources through integrated and competitive programs of
scientific research, education, training, and technical assistance.
The National Sea Grant College Program (Sea Grant) was last
reauthorized six years ago, after extensive review and with
overwhelming support by both Houses of Congress, through the National
Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-299).
The SGA strongly endorses the intent and many of the proposed
changes contained within the Sea Grant reauthorization bill that is
currently being considered before this subcommittee, the National Sea
Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 5618). Over the last
several months, the SGA and members of the National Sea Grant Review
Panel have discussed many of the issues associated with
reauthorization. As a result of that process, we reached a substantial
amount of consensus and we are pleased that much of that consensus is
reflected in H.R. 5618.
We specifically support the way the bill addresses the following
issues:
<bullet> Adjustments in the rating and ranking process which
were part of the last reauthorization bill;
<bullet> Additional emphasis on regional collaboration;
<bullet> Enhanced flexibility in the management and resource
allocations within the program;
<bullet> Strengthening of the review process consistent with
the recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences;
and
<bullet> Linkage of the Sea Grant strategic planning and
priority setting process to the overarching interagency ocean
research priorities and implementation plan\1\ released in
January 2007 by the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and
Technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States for
the Next Decade: An Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation
Strategy, NSTC Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology,
January, 2007.
However, we are concerned that the authorization levels contained
in H.R. 5618 represent a significant reduction (of more than 33
percent) compared to the authorization levels included in current law
for fiscal year 2008 (P.L. 107-299), and fall short of what is needed
to address the ever-increasing needs and opportunities that our
nation's coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes resources present. Several
coastal regions under U.S. jurisdiction have limited or no Sea Grant
program coverage at present, and there are significant stretches of the
U.S. coastline that receive little or no attention from our on-the-
ground Sea Grant Extension network of agents and specialists.
Additionally, existing coastal and Great Lakes Sea Grant programs
receive many more high quality and user-driven projects than they can
fund.
Therefore, we would like to offer our perspective on the funding
needs for this important national program. The SGA recommends that the
National Sea Grant College Program be reauthorized at a level of
funding that grows to $125 million by FY 2014. This will enable Sea
Grant to support a robust, competitive, merit-based research program
tied to extension, communication, and education in which science-based
information is used to address societal problems and opportunities as
they relate to management, conservation, and sustainable use of our
coastal, marine, and Great Lakes resources.
The Public Policy Context for Ocean and Coastal Issues
The interface between science and policy is precisely where the Sea
Grant program applies its precious resources. As the program makes
decisions on funding of research and outreach projects, issues that are
acutely important to Sea Grant's local, regional, and national
constituencies receive priority attention. Extension and educational
resources are deployed in ways that enhance the relevance and impact of
the science and discoveries that result from Sea Grant-funded research.
There is a growing demand from our diverse network of stakeholders,
resource managers, and decision-makers for scientifically-sound
information upon which sound decisions addressing many of today's
complex problems can be made. Sea Grant's integrated science and
outreach approach incorporates up-to-date and ongoing dialogue with its
constituencies to identify the most important and timely issues of
national importance facing our communities, states and regions.
Technological and scientific approaches, though desirable, cannot solve
all of society's problems, and Sea Grant's ability to embed itself
within the communities it serves enables the program to interact
directly with people who live, work, and play along our nation's
coastal regions, thereby ensuring that the utility and impact of
investments made by the Sea Grant program are relevant and significant.
Sea Grant's work is always fresh. Although the program has been in
place for more than 40 years, Sea Grant's constant attention to
societal needs through stakeholder interactions allows it to be nimble
and responsive, while also maintaining the rigor and reliability of a
strategic enterprise.
An increased investment in Sea Grant is an investment in America's
economic future. Attempts to balance our booming coastal economy with
its associated impacts on the coastal and marine environment upon which
it depends have raised the stakes for effective government action. The
coastal regions of the United States contribute more than 50 percent of
the Nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), according to a recent study
by the Federal Reserve. The oceans, in one way or another, account for
one out of every six jobs nationwide. Tax revenues in coastal areas are
among the fastest growing revenue sources for State and local
governments. In fact, the collective economic impact of the coastal
economy far exceeds U.S. agriculture, and yet federal investments in
Sea Grant colleges and universities are an order of magnitude smaller
than investments in the Land Grant college and university system funded
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for land-based activities, the
program on which Sea Grant was modeled.
In more recent years, the work of two major national commissions\2\
have brought into focus the importance of our oceans and coasts to our
nation's natural heritage, security, and economy. With an offshore
ocean jurisdiction larger than the total land mass of the United
States, U.S. waters support rich and diverse systems of ocean life,
provide a protective buffer, and support important commerce, trade,
energy, and mineral resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy, April 20, 2004; America's Living Oceans: Charting a
Course for Sea Change, Pew Oceans Commission, June 2, 2003.
<bullet> More than $1 trillion, or one-tenth, of the Nation's
annual GDP is generated within near-shore areas, the relatively
narrow strip of land immediately adjacent to the coast. Looking
at all coastal watershed counties, the contribution swells to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
over $6.1 trillion, more than half of the Nation's GDP;
<bullet> In 2003, ocean-related economic activity contributed
more than $119 billion to American prosperity and supported
over 2.2 million jobs. Roughly three-quarters of the jobs and
half the economic value were produced by ocean-related tourism
and recreation. More than 13 million jobs are related to trade
transported by the network of inland waterways and ports that
support U.S. waterborne commerce;
<bullet> Annually, the Nation's ports handle more than $700
billion in goods, and the cruise industry and its passengers
account for $11 billion in spending;
<bullet> The commercial fishing industry's total value exceeds
$28 billion annually, with the recreational saltwater fishing
industry valued at around $20 billion, and the annual U.S.
retail trade in ornamental fish worth another $3 billion; and
<bullet> Nationwide retail expenditures on recreational
boating exceeded $30 billion in 2002.
Sea Grant's Place in the Public Policy Context
Sea Grant is an important federal program that assists decision-
makers in addressing these increasingly pressing issues. Sea Grant is a
productive and effective federal-State-university partnership which
supports competitive, merit-based, and integrated research, education,
and extension programs at many of our nation's outstanding university
and research institutions. Over 300 institutions and more than 3,000
scientists, engineers, educators, students, and outreach experts
participate in the program each year. Sea Grant provides its
constituents with relevant science-based information and technical
assistance that addresses ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resource
issues and opportunities of national significance at the national,
regional, State, and local levels. Sea Grant thus supports the mission
of its parent agency--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)--as well as the needs of ocean, coastal and Great
Lakes communities, with an overall goal of fostering economic and
environmental sustainability on a national level.
This successful partnership program, in which the federal
contribution is matched with non-federal resources on a two to one
basis, relies on stakeholder engagement to ensure that Sea Grant
resources are deployed strategically and that outcomes are relevant.
Sea Grant emphasizes the application of objective, science-based
information and collaborative problem-solving to address complex
societal issues. I have attached a list of users, stakeholders, and
beneficiaries that attest to the value of the products and services
produced via the Sea Grant program.
Sea Grant Is Under Budgetary Stress
The growth of the National Sea Grant College Program has not been
commensurate with the extraordinary growth in coastal population and
development, and the concomitant increase in demands for Sea Grant
program services by our coastal constituents. In fact, the Sea Grant
budget has not kept pace with inflation over the last two decades, much
less expanded to meet the wealth of new challenges and opportunities
that face our country.
The FY 2008 budget for the Sea Grant program is $57.1 million. The
Administration's budget request for FY 2009 would reduce this national
program to $54.997 million--a four percent reduction at a time when the
NOAA budget as a whole is proposed to grow by five percent. At the
level proposed by the Administration, the Sea Grant program would be
asked to operate at its lowest level in its 42-year history in real
terms (see the following chart). Sea Grant's appropriations are over 20
percent below the buying power of its 1980 level and we have seen staff
reductions on the order of 25 percent.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This decline in federal support has had serious ramifications for
the Sea Grant program. At present, only about 12 percent of the
proposals submitted to the Sea Grant program can be funded due to
resource constraints. In contrast, the success rate for proposal
support at the National Science Foundation is just over 20 percent. Sea
Grant directors estimate that they have enough high quality meritorious
proposals--of importance to the program's mission and relevant to
stakeholder needs--to fund 25 percent of the proposals submitted.
Currently, about $30 million of Sea Grant's $57.1 million budget is
used to support research. The research portion of the Sea Grant program
budget could easily and justifiably be doubled to between $60 million
to $80 million annually to support important research efforts that
currently go unfunded to generate answers to the many questions and
provide new knowledge and technologies needed by ocean and coastal
resource decision-makers, business and industry, and coastal
communities.
The balance of the Sea Grant budget supports the program's
extension, education, and outreach efforts. The uniqueness and success
of the Sea Grant program is based on its ability to integrate its
research, education, and extension efforts, ensuring that research
results are intimately tied to the needs of our citizens. The current
level of expenditure for extension, communication, and education in the
Sea Grant program is approximately $25 million. A recent report of the
NOAA Science Advisory Board\3\ called on NOAA to substantially expand
its extension, outreach, and education activities. Sea Grant has the
experience and the ``on-the-ground'' network to fulfill that policy
recommendation immediately if sufficient additional budget support from
NOAA was forthcoming. As Sea Grant's research program expands to meet
increasing demands, so too must the tools that put these research
results in the hands of stakeholders so that they can be utilized. The
Sea Grant extension, communication, and education function should
therefore likewise be increased commensurate with increased research
funding to between $40 million to $50 million to maintain this critical
balance of Sea Grant program support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Engaging NOAA's Constituents: A Report from the NOAA Science
Advisory Board, March 2008.
Sea Grant's Alignment with Federal Interagency Ocean Research
Priorities
Another justification for increased federal support for Sea Grant's
core functions relate to the recommendations put forth in recent ocean,
coastal, and Great Lakes policy and planning activities in NOAA and
other federal agencies. In January 2007, the Federal Government
released its interagency ocean research priorities plan, titled
Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States for the Next
Decade: An Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy.
That document lays out the key priorities for interagency ocean
research over the next ten years. Priorities identified in that report
include:
<bullet> Stewardship of Natural and Cultural Ocean Resources--
which includes efforts involving sustainable resources, such as
fisheries and alternative energy sources, and non-renewable
resources, such as fossil fuels and minerals;
<bullet> Increasing Coastal Community Resilience to Natural
Hazards--including research and education into causes, impacts,
and the adaptation and mitigation from natural physical
hazards, such as hurricanes and tsunamis, community and
ecosystem vulnerability, and hazard mitigation;
<bullet> Enabling Marine Operations--which includes efforts to
determine the impacts of marine operations, including
transportation, energy exploration and development, and
aquaculture, on the environment; and the impacts of the
environment on marine operations;
<bullet> The Ocean's Role in Climate--to examine the impact of
climate change on our ocean and coastal regions, understanding
changes and impacts on ecosystems particularly on a regional
basis so as to better prepare national, State, local, and
regional decision-makers to adapt and mitigate to regional
climate change challenges;
<bullet> Improving Ecosystem Health--which examines natural
and human-induced changes and impacts to ecosystems and methods
to monitor and address impacts; and
<bullet> Enhancing Human Health--which is a focus on efforts
to identify and assess ocean-related risks to human health and
identify and develop ocean products for human well-being.
Common among these themes is the need to develop tools necessary to
pursue research and to effectively translate the results of that
research in ways that are useful to resource managers, policy-makers,
and the general public. Society's ability to fully develop the
understanding needed to address key ocean and coastal-related issues
and to apply existing understanding to support meaningful decision-
making and ocean literacy depends on the generation of science-based
information, development of technology, and continued intellectual
innovation--three key functions of the Sea Grant program.
Consistent with the overarching interagency ocean research
priorities report and as a result of its on-going strategic planning
process, Sea Grant has honed its strategic programmatic efforts to
emphasize the following focus areas in the coming years:
<bullet> Sustainable Coastal Development--Decades of
population migration to the coast have transformed our coastal
landscapes and greatly intensified demand on finite coastal
resources. New housing developments, recreation facilities,
energy development activities, port expansions and other
business activities are bringing more people, jobs and
recreational opportunities to coastal communities. They are
also increasing the pressure on coastal lands, water supply,
traditional coastal businesses, and on the coastal culture and
way of life. To accommodate more people and activity and
resolve the growing number of conflicts, we must develop new
policies and management approaches to balance the conservation
and use of coastal, ocean and Great Lakes resources. Sea
Grant's well-established role as an honest broker and source of
unbiased information make it a key player in responding to the
needs for sound information identified by decision-makers, for
convening stakeholders to seek common ground, and for
facilitating the development and implementation of new coastal
policies, plans, management approaches, and conflict resolution
strategies related to sustainable coastal and economic
development.
<bullet> Healthy Coastal Ecosystems--Intensified development
along the coast and related human activities are leading to
water quality degradation, wetlands loss, invasive species, and
a host of other challenges that need to be understood and
addressed in order to restore and maintain healthy ecosystems
that are the foundation for quality-of-life of our citizens and
for economic development along the Nation's coasts. Ecosystem-
based management, reduction and mitigation of anthropogenic
impacts, protection of critical areas, and regional habitat
restoration are some of the avenues that must be addressed to
meet these challenges. Sea Grant's research, education and
outreach initiatives can continue to play a major role in
building our understanding of how these natural systems
function, in advancing regional problem solving, and in
supporting resource managers and decision-makers at all levels
of government in moving toward an ecosystem-based approach to
managing coastal, ocean and Great Lakes resources.
<bullet> Coastal Hazard Resiliency--Global warming, sea level
rise, increased number and intensity of coastal storms, and
other climate- and weather-related phenomena are putting more
people and property at risk along the Nation's coasts with
major implications for human safety, ecosystem health, and the
economic vitality of our coastal communities. It is essential
that residents and leaders in coastal communities understand
these risks, learn what they can do to reduce their
vulnerability, and respond quickly and effectively to these
events. Sea Grant--with its strong research, education, and
outreach capacity--can play a major role in developing tools
and technologies for disaster resiliency and in assisting local
citizens, decision-makers, and businesses plan, prepare,
respond, and rebuild in the face of these short- and long-term
hazards events.
<bullet> Sustainable Safe Seafood Supply--The U.S. has
witnessed the decline of many of its major fisheries at the
same time that seafood consumption is on the rise, resulting in
a seafood trade deficit of about $9 billion a year. Over-
fishing, habitat degradation, and increasing competition among
coastal users have put our nation's fishing industry in great
jeopardy. Seafood safety is a growing concern as international
trade increases and fish diseases and contamination become
bigger problems. Aquaculture is opening up new opportunities to
meet the growing domestic seafood demand, but it must be
conducted in a sustainable and economically viable manner in
order for its full potential to be realized. Sea Grant
continues to play a key role in advancing our understanding of
the nature of these problems and opportunities and in employing
its research, education, and extension capabilities to support
informed public and private decision-making and resource
management activities that will lead to an enhanced,
sustainable supply of safe seafood into the future.
Conclusion--Enhanced Federal Funding for Sea Grant is Justified
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the Sea Grant
Association has a vision for the National Sea Grant College Program, to
become NOAA's primary university-based research, education, extension
and outreach, and technical assistance program for coastal, marine, and
Great Lakes resources.
The Sea Grant program--with its excellent track record, its
distributed network, its objective approach to problem-solving, its
strong integrity-backed ties to hundreds of stakeholders all across the
country, its integrated approach that ensures its research efforts are
tied to serving the needs of national, State, regional, and local
decision-makers, and a revamped strategic planning and programmatic
review process--is uniquely positioned to meet the growing needs of the
Nation in implementing its ocean, coast, and Great Lakes agenda. To do
so, based on current and emerging requirements we believe it is in the
national interest to enhance the National Sea Grant College Program to
a level of $125 million by fiscal year 2014.
Sea Grant's strategic planning efforts and rigorous program
evaluation processes foster excellence and accountability. Coupled with
an updated authorization that reflects and supports the real needs of
the program, Sea Grant can continue and expand its efforts to address
an ever-increasing suite of resource issues facing the Nation's coastal
areas, foster innovative economic development efforts, and educate and
train the Nation's future coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes workforce.
We believe that H.R. 5618 moves the Sea Grant program in that
direction and we are supportive of the bill in many ways and will work
in support of its enactment. We believe it is important, however, for
the Congress to provide the National Sea Grant College Program with
resources necessary to build on the program's record of success and
promise with a reauthorization of appropriations that matches both the
immediate and long-term needs of all who live and work along the
Nation's coastlines, and one that represents the initial step in
achieving a broader vision for the program as proposed in this
testimony.
The SGA looks forward to working with you this year on Sea Grant
reauthorization. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on
behalf of all of the Sea Grant Colleges nationwide. I would be glad to
address any questions the Subcommittee may have.
The Sea Grant Association is a non-profit organization dedicated to
furthering the Sea Grant program concept. The SGA's regular membership
consists of the institutions that participate in the National Sea Grant
College Program, located within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). SGA provides the mechanism for these
institutions to coordinate their activities, to set program priorities
at both the regional and national level, and to provide a unified voice
for these institutions on issues of importance to the oceans, coasts
and Great Lakes. The SGA advocates for greater understanding, use, and
conservation of marine, coastal and Great Lakes resources.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Biography for Paul S. Anderson
Paul Anderson is currently the Director and Extension Program
Leader of the Maine Sea Grant College Program. At Sea Grant, Mr.
Anderson is both the Director of the Program and leader of the Marine
Extension Team, a group of 10 Sea Grant and University of Maine
Cooperative Extension staff members who are based all along the Maine
coast. Maine Sea Grant's administrative unit is based at the University
of Maine in Orono, Maine but the extension staff members that Paul
supervises are located along Maine's coast in various locations.
Before Paul joined Sea Grant in 1999, he spent 10 years working for
the Maine Department of Marine Resources, first as the chief
microbiologist and then as the Director of the Public Health Division.
He has been involved in all aspects of seafood safety and environmental
monitoring in both the United States and abroad. In this capacity, he
has traveled to the Philippines, China and most recently in South
Africa, Namibia and Angola.
Paul has had the privilege of holding leadership positions in his
work in Maine as well as nationally. In 2006, he chaired the Governor's
Task Force on Marine Aquaculture, and is serving his 5th term as
President of the Maine Fisherman's Forum. He has participated on many
other similar activities in Maine with both the public and private
sector as Chair, convener and facilitator. Mr. Anderson is currently
serving a two-year term as President of the Sea Grant Association.
Mr. Anderson holds both B.S. and M.S. degrees in Microbiology from
the University of Maine. In his free time, Paul enjoys his family
including his three sons and his wife's three children. When not
working, Paul enjoys organic gardening, and playing music with his
friends in Maine.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
Mr. DeVoe.
STATEMENT OF MR. M. RICHARD DEVOE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH
CAROLINA SEA GRANT CONSORTIUM
Mr. DeVoe. Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member Inglis, Members
of the Subcommittee and staff, it is my pleasure to be here
with you this morning. Good morning. My name is Rick DeVoe. I
am Executive Director of the South Carolina Sea Grant
Consortium. I also want to offer my great appreciation to this
subcommittee and to the Committee in general for the support of
the Committee for Sea Grant and the National Sea Grant College
Program. Thank you for the opportunity to be here and express
my views from a State and regional perspective regarding H.R.
5618, the reauthorization of the National Sea Grant College
Program.
The South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium is one of 31
university-based Sea Grant programs that work with coastal
communities, business and industry, educational institutions,
nonprofits and others to generate and deliver user-driven,
science-based information on coastal and marine resource
development, management and conservation throughout the Nation.
The Consortium in South Carolina consists of eight member
institutions: The Citadel, Clemson University, Coastal Carolina
University, the College of Charleston, the Medical University
of South Carolina, South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources, the South Carolina State University, which is our
MSI university in the state, and the University of South
Carolina. They all provide the scientific and technical
expertise, facilities and training to address coastal and
marine resource issues and opportunities in my state and indeed
region-wide. The Sea Grant program nationally does represent
more than 300 universities at any one time in engaging them in
dealing with issues that we face on a day-to-day basis along
our coasts, oceans and Great Lakes.
I have been the Consortium's director since 1997. However,
I have been with South Carolina Sea Grant since 1980 upon
graduation from the University of Rhode Island. My comments
today reflect my experience from insights gained through my
work at the national, regional and State levels. I want to
start by giving one example of many that I have included in my
written testimony of Sea Grant's effectiveness in South
Carolina and in the region and focus on an example from the
upstate of South Carolina, if I may.
Recognizing that the influence of the oceans extends well
inland from the coast and that activities in upland areas can
have impacts on the coast, the Consortium awarded a small grant
to the Roper Mountain Science Center in Greenville, South
Carolina, in the mid-1980s to assemble a touch tank so that
children in the upstate could become more familiar with sea
life. According to the Center, this modest investment by Sea
Grant led ultimately to the development of the marine and
ecology labs at the Center. In 2006, Roper Mountain Science
Center had over 90,000 students and over 20,000 attended
lessons in the natural science building, which houses the two
labs. And last year, the Consortium supported a grant for
education presentation equipment needed for lessons in the new
marine lab. I have attached a letter from the Center to my
written testimony, that provides additional details about this
partnership. So my message here is that Sea Grant is a coastal
and marine program but it certainly does extend its reach well
inland from the coast and affects a lot of lives and
activities.
As a Sea Grant Program Director, I want to state that I
strongly support the intent and many of the proposed changes
contained within the National Sea Grant College Program
Amendments Act of 2008 in H.R. 5618. I am not going to be
redundant with my colleague to my right but we, again from a
State and regional perspective, endorse provisions of the bill
that do make significant modifications to the rating and
ranking program. This has constrained competition--excuse me--
it has created competition among our programs as opposed to
fostering program excellence throughout the country. It
includes provisions that would actually enhance Sea Grant's
ability to work at a regional level. We do have our footprints
at the State level but this provides an opportunity for us to
further formalize regional partnerships in line, for instance,
with various alliances that have been created around the
country with governors and the states, in the West Coast, for
instance, in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere.
It provides an authorization of overall base funding for
Sea Grant which allows for program flexibility, as Paul
Anderson had mentioned, and we are now better tied with this
bill to the priorities of the national level in terms of
research and outreach for coastal ocean and Great Lakes
resources.
I indeed, again from the State level, want to echo our
concerns about the authorization levels in the bill. They are
much lower than they are currently and there could be a
perception that with that reduction in authorization levels
that there may be less confidence in the program. I would hope
that we don't think that way and we would like to be able to
feel that we could obtain those levels actually under the
current situation, that we might be able to obtain those levels
in the future.
I would like to end my presentation with my thoughts on why
I feel the National Sea Grant College Program is uniquely
positioned to address many coastal marine challenges and
opportunities that we face. Sea Grant is by definition a
federal-State-university partnership. Sea Grant employs
integrated research, education and extension program that makes
us unique in the Federal Government. Sea Grant addresses real
problems and opportunities for real people. We work in response
to the needs and opportunities that are presented to us. Sea
Grant works at many geographic scales, and we can do that now
and we can do that within enhanced support. Sea Grant is seen
by its constituencies as an honest broker, which allows us to
get into discussions that otherwise we may not be there and
help foster decisions and outcomes, and Sea Grant leverages
significant resources.
To conclude, I believe that H.R. 5618 moves Sea Grant in
the right direction. It is important, however, that Sea Grant
be provided with the resources it needs to meet the ever-
increasing challenges ahead.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I will
be glad to address any questions the Subcommittee may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeVoe follows:]
Prepared Statement of M. Richard DeVoe
Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member Inglis, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
My name is M. Richard DeVoe. I am the Executive Director of the
South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium. It is an honor to be with you this
morning, and it is with great appreciation that I and my Sea Grant
colleagues acknowledge your leadership and this subcommittee's support
for the National Sea Grant College Program. Thank you for the
opportunity to express my views, from a State and regional perspective,
regarding H.R. 5618, the reauthorization of the National Sea Grant
College Program.
The S.C. Sea Grant Consortium is one of 31 university-based Sea
Grant programs that work with coastal communities, business and
industry, educational institutions, non-profits, and others to generate
and deliver user-driven, science-based information on coastal and
marine resource development, management, and conservation to our
diverse and ever-growing constituencies throughout the Nation. The
Consortium consists of eight member institutions--The Citadel, Clemson
University, Coastal Carolina University, College of Charleston, Medical
University of South Carolina, South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources, South Carolina State University, and University of South
Carolina--which provide the scientific and technical expertise,
facilities, and training to address coastal and marine resource issues
and opportunities in our state and region.
I have been the Consortium's Director since 1997; however, I have
been with S.C. Sea Grant since 1980 upon graduation from the University
of Rhode Island. I have also been actively involved with the Sea Grant
network through the Sea Grant Association, having served as its
President in 2001 and 2002, and as chair of its External Relations
Committee since 2002. In addition, I currently serve as chair of the
Board of Directors for the SouthEast Coastal Ocean Observing Regional
Association (SECOORA), Executive Committee member of the Board on
Oceans and Atmosphere of the National Association of State Universities
and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), and South Carolina representative on
the Consortium for Ocean Leadership. At the State level, I am a member
of the Board of Directors for The Noisette Foundation (Charleston, SC),
the Slocum-Lunz Foundation, and the Lowcountry Institute (Spring
Island, SC), and serve as Chair of the S.C. Task Group on Harmful
Algae. Thus, my comments today reflect my experiences and insights
gained through my work at the national, regional, and State levels.
Views on H.R. 5618
As a Sea Grant Program Director, I wish to state that I strongly
support the intent and many of the proposed changes contained within
the National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R.
5618). I offer the following comments on five provisions of the bill;
four of which are favorable and one expressing some concern:
1. Program Evaluation and Assessment
H.R. 5618 makes significant modifications to the rating and ranking
process which were added to the Sea Grant statute during the last
reauthorization in 2002. The requirements in Section 3(B)(1)(A)(ii) of
the National Sea Grant College Program Act Amendments of 2002 (P.L.
107-299) have inadvertently resulted in the discouragement of
collaboration and reduction in sharing of ``best practices'' among and
between State Sea Grant College programs. These requirements were
initially developed to further the competitive process, but in
practice, they have placed the State Sea Grant programs at odds with
one another at a time when collaboration and partnering, particularly
on a regional scale, is ever more important and necessary. Stipulating
that no more than 25 percent of the programs can be ranked within the
top two performance categories is counter-productive to Sea Grant's
goal of maintaining highest performance for all Sea Grant College
programs, as well as to enhance the sharing of ``best practices.''
H.R. 5618 replaces these requirements. It is important that the Sea
Grant Colleges function as a nationwide network--with strong
encouragement for sharing best practices, research and management
results, and outreach and extension activities. I support the intent of
this bill in its endorsement of the recommendations made by the
National Academy of Sciences to strengthen and link the strategic
planning process of Sea Grant College programs and the Sea Grant
program evaluation process. I believe the new evaluation system under
development by NOAA with the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
and the National Sea Grant Office, which will rate the Sea Grant
College programs against a set of standard metrics and not against one
another, will result in improved individual Sea Grant College program
performance and regional collaboration and enhanced information sharing
among programs. This will translate into more effective and efficient
delivery of services and products to Sea Grant's stakeholders and the
Nation's citizenry.
2. Enhancement of Regional Efforts
H.R. 5618 includes provisions that would complement Sea Grant's
traditional role at the State and local levels with regional efforts.
While many of the issues facing our coastal communities can only be
addressed with grass-roots efforts, emerging issues related to climate
change, sea level rise, ecosystem-based management of living marine
resources, alternative ocean energy development (wind, wave, and
currents), among others cry out for a significant investment in
integrated regional programs to develop the information base necessary
to inform decision-making, enhance economic growth, conserve living and
non-living resources, and enhance public awareness. Sea Grant is well-
positioned and organized to assume this challenge. It has already
invested in the development of regional ocean and coastal research
plans across the country, bringing stakeholders to the table to
identify priority needs, and using the interagency Ocean Research
Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy (National Science and
Technology Council, January 2007) as the foundation for these
discussions. Further, Sea Grant can play a significant role in
implementing these plans with an additional investment of resources and
talent; an investment that is matched with contributions from the
states and universities. I applaud H.R. 5618 for recognizing the
importance of regional collaboration as a key component to the success
of the National Sea Grant College Program.
3. Flexibility in Resource Allocation
The current Sea Grant statute (P.L. 107-299) includes within its
authorization of appropriations a line for base funding along with a
number of ``Congressional mandates'' for research on zebra mussels,
oyster disease and restoration, and harmful algal blooms, as well as
provides for fisheries extension. The purpose of these mandates in 2002
was to ensure that Sea Grant dollars were being explicitly used to
address these topics. While I cannot and will not deny the importance
of addressing the issues identified by these mandates, I support the
changes in H.R. 5618 to remove these explicit mandates and instead
provide an authorization for overall base funding for Sea Grant.
Providing one authorization for the program as opposed to a myriad of
authorizations gives the National Sea Grant Office enhanced flexibility
for the management of Sea Grant resources to ensure that the most
critical and timely issues are subjected to the very best science,
education, and outreach given limited federal dollars. It also provides
Sea Grant with the ability and agility to address emerging needs and
issues much more effectively and efficiently.
4. Linking Sea Grant Priorities to Federal Priorities
H.R. 5618 links the Sea Grant strategic planning and priority
setting process to the federal interagency Ocean Research Priorities
Plan and Implementation Strategy\1\ released in January 2007 by the
Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology. The interagency
ocean research priorities plan was greatly informed and strengthened by
State and regional input provided by the Federal-State Task Force
organized by the Subcommittee on Integrated Management of Ocean
Resources (SIMOR) of the U.S. Committee on Ocean Policy, on which I was
a member. Linking Sea Grant priorities to this interagency effort is a
significant change; one that will enhance Sea Grant efforts to leverage
federal resources to develop and implement joint multi-agency efforts.
I submit that Sea Grant, as a proven resource and a successful federal-
State-university partnership, should be utilized whenever possible by
the Federal Government to address its national ocean research and
outreach priorities; however, for this to become a reality, enhanced
federal investment in Sea Grant is crucial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States for
the Next Decade: An Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation
Strategy, NSTC Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology,
January, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Authorization of Appropriations
While up to this point I have shared nothing but support for the
provisions of H.R. 5618, I would like to register my concern about
Section 10, Authorization of Appropriations. The authorization levels
contained in H.R. 5618, particularly for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009,
represent a significant reduction (of more than 33 percent) from Sea
Grant's current (FY 2008) authorization level. While over the last six
years the National Sea Grant College Program has not received
appropriations that have come close to its authorization levels, such a
significant reduction could be interpreted to say that Sea Grant will
never reach such levels of appropriations, and falls short of what is
truly needed to address the ever-increasing needs and opportunities
that our nation's coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes resources present, as
articulated in the report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
(2004), in other recent analyses, and indeed in H.R. 5618. For these
reasons, I ask that the Committee consider including in H.R. 5618
authorization of appropriations levels that grow to $125 million by FY
2014.
The budgets of both the National Sea Grant Office and the State Sea
Grant programs were directly impacted by the dramatic reduction of Sea
Grant appropriations (by about 13 percent) starting in FY 2006. Indeed,
each of the State Sea Grant programs absorbed a budget reduction of
about three (3) percent during the FY 2007 cycle. The National Sea
Grant Office, from what we understand, had to divert funding from
national investments to core Sea Grant support to help offset what
could have been much more significant reductions in State Sea Grant
program support. Exacerbating this situation is the fact that a portion
of each State Sea Grant program budget is devoted to core salaries and
wages which, just as with federal staff salaries, rise each year due to
cost-of-living increases; these also have cut into the programmatic
``buying power'' of the State Sea Grant programs.
These impacts have begun to directly affect our ability to deliver
services to our coastal constituencies on a regular basis. Stakeholders
all over the country have grown to rely on the high level of service
and expertise coming out of the Sea Grant program. However, the level
of Sea Grant support has not kept pace with the increasing pressures
and needs of our coastal communities. In addition, the costs of
research and education are rising, which under a flat funding
environment means that programs are forced to reduce staff and leave
numerous high-quality research and outreach projects unfunded. To put
it into perspective, Sea Grant's appropriations are more than 20
percent below the buying power of its 1980 level.
The implications for Sea Grant are significant with respect to its
ability to significantly contribute to the economic, environmental, and
social well-being and health of our coastal regions. Currently, the Sea
Grant network is severely strained and challenged to support its
current activities, staff, and operations with its current budget, and
has not been able to invest in new research, education, and outreach
efforts to address emerging challenges in such areas as regional
climate change, coastal community resiliency, and ecosystem-based
management. At present, only about 12 percent of the research proposals
submitted for funding to the Sea Grant program are funded due to
resource constraints. In addition, Sea Grant's extension,
communication, and education activities are in jeopardy. A recent
report of the NOAA Science Advisory Board recognized the value of
extension, education, and outreach endeavors by NOAA and called for the
expansion of these activities. Sea Grant is the model program for
implementing such a request with its broad on-the-ground and highly
credible network. However, it will be impossible to fulfill that policy
recommendation without additional funding support for the program.
Research, education, and outreach are at the heart of what Sea Grant is
all about. Each component must be supported in order to meet increasing
research demands and to turn that research into sound policy that keeps
our citizens safe and prosperous.
Again, I urge you to include in H.R. 5618 authorization of
appropriations levels that recognize the current and future needs of
the program and allow the program to grow to $125 million by FY 2014.
What Makes Sea Grant Unique?
Sea Grant was created by Congress in the mid-1960s as an analog to
the successful Land Grant College Program administered by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. This ``College of the Seas'' was created to
harvest the many talents, diverse expertise, and ability to respond
rapidly to issues and opportunities embodied in the Nation's top
universities, to ensure the wise use and conservation of the Nation's
coastal, marine, and Great Lakes resources. I would submit to you that
over the past 42 years, Sea Grant has done just that, albeit with
support at more than an order of magnitude less than its sister Land
Grant program.
Sea Grant is unique among federal research and outreach programs
for a number of reasons:
Sea Grant is by definition a federal-State-university partnership. Sea
Grant provides planning, implementation, and administrative mechanisms
by which the Federal Government can engage the U.S. universities in
addressing critical national coastal and marine issues. Because it is a
matching fund program, the states and universities have a vested role
and responsibility in ensuring that Sea Grant programs and activities
are conducted in an efficient and effective manner. Indeed, a great
number of State Sea Grant programs actually provide more matching
support than is required by law (i.e., two federal dollars to one non-
federal).
Sea Grant employs an integrated research, education, and extension
approach. While many federal science agencies focus their attention
primarily on supporting research, Sea Grant is unique in that it
couples research and outreach together to ensure that the scientific
information generated is made available to constituencies in forms that
they can understand and use.
Sea Grant addresses ``real'' problems and opportunities for ``real''
people. The research that Sea Grant supports is based on user needs,
which are solicited by the State Sea Grant programs through planning
workshops, on-line surveys, constituent interactions, and information
received by agents and specialists with the State Sea Grant Extension
Service programs, and is reflected in State Sea Grant strategic plans.
These feedback mechanisms ensure that Sea Grant efforts are relevant,
timely, focused, and stakeholder-driven, and directly address the needs
of government, business, industry, communities, education, and
workforce development.
Sea Grant works at many geographic scales. The complexity of issues and
opportunities affecting our nation's coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes
resources underscore the fact that one cannot apply a ``one size fits
all'' approach to them--they need to be addressed at the appropriate
geographic scales. For example, fisheries management for the snapper-
grouper complex in the South Atlantic Bight may require a strong
regional approach, whereas addressing the effects of land use on
ecosystems may be better addressed at the local level, where 80 percent
of all land-use decisions are made. The point is that Sea Grant has the
built-in flexibility to be able to serve the information needs of a
diversity of users at the national, regional, State, and local levels.
There are many examples of such efforts in the southeastern U.S. and in
South Carolina; several are provided in the next section of my
testimony.
Sea Grant is seen by its constituencies as an honest broker. Because
Sea Grant programs focus on the generation and delivery of science-
based information, and have no resource management or regulatory
responsibilities, their staff are able to engage a wide diversity of
coastal and marine interests to develop consensus or resolve resource
conflicts. Sea Grant's Extension Program staff typically live in the
locations where their clientele reside; they are members of the
communities in which they work and have built a wealth of credibility
with their audiences.
Sea Grant leverages significant resources. Since Sea Grant funding
support has fallen far short of the resources the program needs to
address the ever-increasing demand for its information, products, and
services, State Sea Grant programs have been able to leverage their
funding with other sources of support, both human and financial. In
South Carolina, for example, the Sea Grant Consortium has been able to
competitively secure more than $4 million in grants to complement its
Sea Grant efforts last year. Increased funding for Sea Grant will
enable State Sea Grant programs to leverage even more. Also, we have
been able to develop partnerships with representatives from State and
federal agencies, universities, and the private sector to organize
initiatives to address key resource issues. For example, the S.C. Sea
Grant Consortium organized a S.C. Task Group on Harmful Algae in 1996,
which has collectively developed a multi-institutional protocols for
HAB monitoring and surveillance, rapid response to events, and post-
event triage.
Resource Challenges in South Carolina and the Region
Sea Grant is thus in a unique position to meet current and future
challenges that confront resource managers, coastal communities,
business and industry, and interested citizen groups throughout the
United States through the generation and provision of science-based
information. I have worked with my colleagues at S.C. Department of
Health and Environmental Control-Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (S.C. DHEC-OCRM), S.C. Department of Natural Resources-
Marine Resources Division (S.C. DNR-MRD) and our counterparts in the
southeastern U.S. to identify a number of these issues.
Coastal Development. While the southeastern region of the United States
is one of the least developed in the Nation, it is now the fastest
growing. Four of the eight states with the highest rate of population
growth from 1960-1990 were the four southeastern states. According to
the Census Bureau, the four southeastern U.S. states have been recently
ranked as the top thirteen fastest growing states in the Nation, and
one-third of the Nation's 100 fastest-growing counties are in Georgia
(16), Florida (14), North Carolina (3), and South Carolina (1). This
growth is concentrated in coastal counties, and is out-pacing our
ability to understand, react, and plan for changes in environmental,
social, and economic conditions. Significant impacts to the landscape,
estuarine water quality, and coastal ecosystem integrity are predicted
as a result of increasing coastal urbanization due to population
growth. Growth and development are already placing enormous pressure on
coastal resources, watersheds, and the adjacent coastal ocean. Sea
Grant is well-positioned, with an expansion of its coastal community
development initiative, to enhance its role in addressing the issues
that have emerged from these development pressures.
Mapping Marine Resources. Proper management and use of the region's
living and non-living marine resources requires that that region
undertake a comprehensive mapping and research program. Presently, less
than five percent (five percent) of the coastal ocean region of the
southeastern U.S. has been mapped. A comprehensive assessment of (1)
existing ocean infrastructure (e.g., pipelines, cables, channels,
etc.), (2) sources and quality of sand resources for beach nourishment
projects, (3) critical fisheries habitat, including documentation of
hard bottom areas and other important habitats, and (4) potential
offshore energy sources, including natural gas, is necessary to
identify the potential for multiple use conflicts and allow for
comprehensive planning for an expanding range of ocean activities.
Therefore, a significant need exists for standardized, integrated, and
accessible spatial data for the management of marine resources in our
region. Management of the region's ocean and coastal resources is
dependent on developing the scientific understanding of the processes
that control resource behavior, and their fate is essential to
maintaining healthy ecosystems and providing renewable, enjoyable, and
safe resources to the public. Sea Grant has the capacity in its
universities to generate and disseminate such information to the
resource management community.
Healthy Fisheries and Habitat. The South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council, through a partnership of State agencies, federal agencies,
universities, and conservation organizations, is developing a Fishery
Ecosystem Plan and Comprehensive Ecosystem Amendment for the South
Atlantic region. This effort will meet existing and anticipated
mandates in the Magnuson-Steven Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, the Ecosystem Principals Report to Congress, and the President's
Ocean Action Plan developed in response to the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy. Goals include maintaining and improving (1) ecosystem structure
and function, (2) economic, social, and cultural benefits from
resources, and (3) biological, economic, and cultural diversity in the
South Atlantic Region. Ecosystem-based management has been embraced by
the Regional Council, but will require a significant investment in
research and outreach to implement it. Again, this is an effort to
which Sea Grant can greatly contribute.
Watershed-Coastal Ocean Linkages. From the interior basins to the
coastal margins, natural processes and human activities in the
southeastern U.S. are affected by water flow, and its role in
determining the transport and fate of materials and the structure of
ecosystems. Inputs of freshwater from rivers, ground water, and
rainfall vary spatially and temporally. Associated with the volumes of
water delivered to the coastal ocean are variable loads of sediment,
nutrients, and pollutants. The inputs of freshwater and materials
interact with the coastal ocean to influence processes such as local
circulation patterns, sediment accumulation and transport, shoreline
dynamics, and habitat quality and stability for marine and estuarine
species.
Disaster-Resilient Communities. Hurricanes and other coastal hazards
are a major concern in the southeastern U.S., threatening hundreds of
coastal communities, a multi-billion dollar tourism industry, coastal
and watershed development and infrastructure, the fishing industry, and
traditional coastal enterprises. In the wake of Hurricane Hugo, which
struck the South Carolina coast in 1989, over $5 billion in damages to
coastal residences and industry underscored the vulnerability of
coastal development to natural processes. The more significant impacts,
both human and structural, that occurred as a result of Hurricanes
Andrew, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma have since underscored the need for
the southeast region to greatly enhance its understanding of ocean and
weather dynamics and improve its prediction and forecasting
capabilities. Longer-term phenomena, such as climate change and sea
level rise, have also emerged as critical issues for coastal resource
managers and coastal communities. Each of the southeastern states has
initiated activities that focus on the needs of the states in light of
emerging concerns about these long-term coastal hazards.
Prospects for Near-shore and Offshore Energy Development. In 2006, the
U.S. Congress passed an energy bill to increase the ability of the
Nation to become more energy self-sufficient. Strategies include
opening additional coastal ocean and offshore areas to further oil and
gas development, as well as pursuing alternative energy solutions
through wind, wave, current, biofuels, and others. For example, off the
southeastern U.S. coast, there is industry interest in natural gas
deposits, companies are exploring the feasibility of siting offshore
wind energy facilities, and the potential for wave and current energy
is now being discussed.
Environmental Education and Public Awareness. Population trends for the
southeast U.S. region, and the limited information that exists on its
coastal ocean resources, suggests that there are many more people
living in the southeastern United States that have little knowledge of
or experience with the dynamic nature of our region's ecosystems,
hurricane and storm patterns, shoreline and beaches, and other coastal
ocean-related phenomena. A regional partnership is needed to foster a
``sense of place'' among southeastern coastal residents, and to clarify
links between the health of the coastal and ocean ecosystem and their
quality of life; an effort that Sea Grant can foster. An informed
population is a prepared population.
Selected Sea Grant Highlights in South Carolina and the Region
There is great potential and inertia with the Sea Grant College
program network to play a much more significant role in addressing
critical coastal, marine, and Great Lakes issues and opportunities
throughout the Nation with an increase in program support.
Nevertheless, Sea Grant continues to produce significant results for
its extremely diverse and varied constituencies at the regional, State,
and local levels on behalf of the Federal and State governments and the
over 300 universities it engages.
The Sea Grant program has significantly contributed towards a
sustainable environment and economy through integrated programs of
research, education, and outreach in my own State of South Carolina, as
the following regional and State-level examples illustrate.
Regional Sea Grant Highlights
Establishing the Southeast Regional Association for Ocean
Observing. The S.C. Sea Grant Consortium is serving as the lead
organization, under the terms of a grant awarded by the NOAA
Coastal Services Center, to foster the establishment of a
``Regional Association'' for the coastal ocean observing system
network in the Southeastern coastal ocean region of the United
States to integrate coastal ocean observing capabilities and
provide regional data and information. The Southeast Coastal
Ocean Observations Regional Association, (SECOORA: see http://
secoora.org), with Consortium leadership and assistance, is
providing administrative, operational, and budgetary support
for SECOORA, which has been incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-
profit corporation with 42 dues-paying member organizations
from NC, SC, GA, and FL.
Improving Flood Detection and Warning Capabilities. Riverine
and coastal flooding associated with hurricanes, tropical
storms, and other forces of nature cause significant loss of
property and economic hardship each year. To help communities
in South Carolina, North Carolina and beyond, the S.C. Sea
Grant Consortium and its partners, the National Sea Grant
Office, North Carolina Sea Grant, and the NOAA National Severe
Storms Laboratory (NSSL), are leading a regional project, CI-
FLOW (Coastal/Inland Flood Observation and Warning), to pilot a
new flood detection and monitoring system. Test results are
being used in conjunction with NOAA National Weather Service
flood tools to improve flash flood detection and warning
capabilities. CI-FLOW is also being integrated by N.C. State
University researchers into a hurricane storm surge model to
provide more accurate inputs from riverine flooding, as well as
being transferred to Sea Grant programs in the Gulf of Mexico
for flood applications there.
Multi-disciplinary Team's Findings Published in Book by
Springer-Verlag. Understanding how coastal growth and
development impacts natural resources helps decision-makers
guide development for both economic benefit and conservation of
our natural resource heritage. Results of the South Atlantic
Bight Land Use--Coastal Ecosystem Study (LU-CES), a multi-
disciplinary research program initiated by the S.C. Sea Grant
Consortium with funding from the NOAA Coastal Ocean Program,
have formed the basis for a recently published book by
Springer-Verlag titled Changing Land-Use Patterns in the
Coastal Zone: Managing Environmental Quality in Rapidly Growing
Regions, edited by Gary S. Kleppel, M. Richard DeVoe, and Mac
V. Rawson. South Carolina and Georgia Sea Grant extension and
communications staff wrote the chapter introductions, which
provide the reader with a summary of each chapter written in
layman's terms. The book is part of the Springer Series on
Environmental Management, and up to two dozen investigators
from a range of marine-related science disciplines contributed
to the text by writing chapters. Due to its multi-disciplinary
and collaborative nature, the book should become a landmark in
the area of understanding coastal estuarine ecosystem dynamics
and the nature of anthropogenic inputs. To date, almost 1,000
copies of the book have been sold.
SouthEast Center for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence. The
SouthEast Center for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence
(COSEE-SE), one of 10 regional centers supported by the
National Science Foundation nation-wide, has been established
at the S.C. Sea Grant Consortium through a multi-year grant
from the NSF, with additional funding from NOAA Office of Ocean
Exploration and the NOAA Coastal Services Center. The role of
COSEE-SE is to foster educator-scientist interactions, increase
access and preparation of culturally diverse populations,
promote regional networking and collaboration, and improve
science education and ocean literacy for all citizens. To date,
COSEE-SE has partnered with more than 75 organizations to
engage more than 2,500 teachers from NC, SC, and GA in
enhancing their capabilities in incorporating ocean sciences in
the classroom.
South Carolina Sea Grant Highlights
Bringing Marine Science to the Upstate. Recognizing that the
influence of the oceans extends well inland from the coast, and
that activities in upland areas can have impacts on coastal,
the Roper Mountain Science Center (RMSC) in Greenville, SC
secured a small grant of just $1,500 from the Consortium in the
mid-1980s to assemble a ``touch-tank'' so that children in the
upstate could become more familiar with sea life. According to
the center, this modest investment by Sea Grant led to the
development of the Marine Lab and the Ecology Lab at the
Center. The Center is now in the process of developing
education exhibits in the labs, and in the coming year 8,000
students and teachers will attend formal lessons in the Marine
Lab. Each lesson will focus on the South Carolina Science
Curriculum Standards. Students from 29 school districts in 14
counties visit the Roper Center, and 11,000 other children will
see the Marine Lab at designated public times. The Consortium
continues to support the Roper Mountain Science Center and
assist with new exhibits to enhance teaching skills and
experiences. Last year, the Consortium supported a grant for
education presentation equipment needed for lessons in the new
Marine Lab. I have attached to this testimony a letter from Dr.
Brandis Hartsell, Curator, Marine and Earth Sciences at RMSC,
which provides more detail about this exciting partnership.
Securing Residential Structures in the Face of Coastal
Hazards. With Sea Grant support, Dr. Ed Sutt, while a graduate
student at Clemson University, studied better ways to secure
residential home structures under threat from hurricanes and
earthquakes. He discovered that house failures often start with
a broken window. High winds then inflate the house and cause
the roof to lift from its frame. In response, and based on
initial Sea Grant support, Dr. Sutt, now with Stanley Works,
invented a nail made of carbon-steel alloy, with a wider head
than other nails, barbs that hold the shaft firmly in the frame
to prevent pullout, and a twist below the nail head to fill the
space that the barbs open to hold the nail in place. Tests,
during which the new nail was subjected to hurricane force
winds, revealed the nail held at 20,000 pounds: at 9,000
pounds, regular nails begin to pull out of the framework. Dr.
Sutt's invention, known as the Hurri-Quake nail, was voted the
2006 Grand Award Winner for the ``Innovation of the Year'' by
the national magazine, Popular Science.
Enhancing Red Drum Stocks. Sea Grant-supported stock
enhancement research on the state's top gamefish, red drum, has
demonstrated that red drum can be spawned in captivity,
released into coastal estuaries, and make significant
contributions to natural coastal populations. This research is
being conducted in South Carolina by S.C. Department of Natural
Resources-Marine Resources Division scientists. As a result of
Sea Grant support, stock enhancement is now a recognized
management tool for red drum in South Carolina. In addition,
methodologies developed during the research--utilizing state-
of-the-art chemical and genetic marking techniques--are now
being implemented as the primary marking and detection
technique by S.C. DNR for all fish stocked in South Carolina
waters.
Conservation Plan Helps Jasper County Prepare for Growth.
Jasper County, like many South Carolina communities, is growing
at a rapid pace. Planning and managing that growth is important
to support and conserve the natural resources that enhance
economic development. In August of 2004, the S.C. Sea Grant
Consortium, in conjunction with the Jasper Soil and Water
Conservation District (JSWCD), the USDA-Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), and the S.C. Department of Natural
Resources, began a countywide conservation planning effort. In
November 2006, the plan was submitted to the County for
incorporation into the Natural Resource Element of their
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. A print version was published in
June 2007 and is also available on CD-ROM and on the S.C. Sea
Grant Consortium web site.
Summary--Enhanced Federal Support for Sea Grant is Critical
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I join with my Sea
Grant colleagues around the country to suggest that the National Sea
Grant College Program should become NOAA's primary university-based
research, education, extension and outreach, and technical assistance
program for coastal, marine, and Great Lakes resources. However, to
achieve this end will require a significant infusion of federal (and
thus non-federal matching) support to enhance the National Sea Grant
College Program to a level of $125 million by fiscal year 2014.
I believe it is critical for the Congress to provide the National
Sea Grant College Program with the resources necessary to build on the
program's record of success and promise with a reauthorization of
appropriations that matches both the immediate and long-term needs of
all who live and work along the Nation's coastlines, and one that
represents the initial step in achieving a broader vision for the
program as proposed in this testimony.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
S.C. Sea Grant Consortium. I will be glad to address any questions the
Subcommittee may have.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Biography for M. Richard DeVoe
Rick DeVoe joined the S.C. Sea Grant Consortium in 1980, and has
served as its Executive Director since 1997. Rick is also a Research
Associate of the Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biology and
Coastal Research at the University of South Carolina, and Associate
Faculty Member of the Graduate Program in Marine Biology and Adjunct
Faculty Member with the Marine Environmental Studies Graduate Program
at the College of Charleston. In addition to managing Sea Grant efforts
in South Carolina, Rick's professional interests focus on coastal and
marine resource policy, science-to-management linkages, science
communication and education, and State and regional coastal ocean
planning and policy.
At the national level, Rick currently chairs the External Relations
Committee of the Sea Grant Association (SGA), and previously served
SGA's President. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the Board
on Oceans and Atmosphere of the National Association of State
Universities and Land Grant Colleges, the Federal-State Task Team of
the National Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee on
Integrated Management of Ocean Resources (SIMOR), the External Linkages
Advisory Committee of the Oceans and Human Health Center at NOAA
Hollings Marine Laboratory (Charleston, SC), and the Board of The
Coastal Society. He also is an Executive Committee member of the
National Federation of Regional Associations (for Ocean Observing;
NFRA), chairs the Board of Directors of the SouthEast Coastal Ocean
Observing Regional Association (SECOORA) and is a member of the Board
of Advisors for the Southeast Center for Ocean Sciences Education
Excellence (COSEE-Southeast). Rick also represents South Carolina as a
member of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership. He has had the pleasure
of serving in the past as President of the U.S. Chapter of the World
Aquaculture Association (now the U.S. Aquaculture Society) and the
National Shellfisheries Association.
Rick is co-editor of two books, and has authored seven book
chapters and six peer-reviewed publications. He earned degrees from
Fairleigh Dickinson University (B.S., marine biology), CUNY/City
College of New York (M.A., biological oceanography), and the University
of Rhode Island (M.M.A., marine policy).
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. DeVoe.
And Mr. Riley, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. PATRICK F. RILEY, GENERAL MANAGER, WESTERN
SEAFOOD COMPANY, INC., FREEPORT, TEXAS
Mr. Riley. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inglis, Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to
address this body in reference to H.R. 5618, National Sea Grant
College Program.
First, let me say that my testimony here today is
reflective of the experiences that I have encountered while
engaged in the Gulf and South Atlantic shrimp fisheries. I
would be remiss if I did not point out this interaction only
offers a small sampling of the activities the Sea Grant College
program is involved in across this great nation as a whole.
My first encounter with Sea Grant came in an educational
setting. When I was in elementary school, I was in the fifth
grade and was attending a career fair that the school was
hosting to get youth to think about their future. This is where
I first met Charlie Moss with Texas Sea Grant. He was a
Brazoria County Extension agent and had a booth highlighting
commercial fishing. This was of great interest to me since my
father was an owner-operator of a Gulf shrimp trawler for
decades. While I must have been a certain pest to Mr. Moss, he
diligently answered the myriad of questions that I and others
threw at him. This type of educational work continues today and
was highlighted with a field trip on May 8 of this year of the
kindergarten students from O.M. Roberts that participated in an
annual field trip to the beach. I was there and participated as
a volunteer father helping pull the biological sampling seine
to collect specimens for the students to look at. For the vast
majority of these students, this is the first and perhaps the
only interaction they will have with aquatic life in living
form that is literally at their doorsteps on the beaches of
coastal Texas. The field trip has become a much-anticipated
rite of passage for the students of OMR and its success is in
great part due to the participation of Sea Grant and the
current Brazoria County Extension agent, Mr. Rich Tillman.
In much the same vein, the research vessel Karma, better
known as the Floating Classroom, has helped tens of thousands
of Texans, most of whom are students from the fourth through
the 12th grade, who come to gain a higher appreciation of the
vast ecological significance of our coastal estuaries and near-
shore waters since its arrival in 2002.
My professional interaction with Sea Grant has been both
immense and rewarding. At Western Seafood, we have been
actively involved with different Sea Grant-led or -sponsored
initiatives since the mid-1970s. Almost all of these
initiatives and projects involve two common themes. The first
of these becoming more efficient with our time, our production
and resources we are harvesting. The second theme is helping us
use our innate knowledge as fisherman to become better stewards
of our marine environment.
In its early years, Sea Grant worked with fisherman such as
my father to develop a very successful hang log trawl
obstruction book. Through cooperative effort with the shrimp
industry, over 12,000 hangs were identified from the Rio Grande
River to the mouth of the Mississippi. It should be stressed
that this information was usually kept confidential among
fisherman but the cooperative spirit of Sea Grant convinced
captains to share their personal information so that every
producer would have access to the collective industry wisdom.
This hang book has become a bible aboard trawlers until the
introduction of more sophisticated navigation systems. It is
credited with significantly reducing gear loss or damage from
bottom obstructions and has literally saved the industry
hundreds of millions of dollars.
One of the first major breakthroughs that dealt with
production efficiency was introduced at the quad rig trawl.
Prior to that time, shrimp trawlers typically pulled one net on
each side of the vessel. With the advent of the quad rig, it
allowed operators to pull four smaller nets, reducing drag and
fuel consumption while increasing the amount of area covered
due to overall increase of head rope sweep of the nets
involved. Production could be increased while costs of inputs
actually went down. This work was pioneered by Sea Grant
fishery specialist Gary Graham working closely with industry.
In the mid to late 1980s, another hurdle was jumped with
the help of Sea Grant. Implementation of turtle excluder
devices, or TEDs, was a very controversial issue. The vast
majority of industry participants did not want anything to do
with these devices and the National Marine Fisheries Service,
or NMFS, was having a very difficult time implementing their
use. At this time Sea Grant stepped in to diffuse a very
volatile situation. Using the goodwill built up over the last
two decades of successful interaction with industry, fishery
specialists worked to calm fears of the fisherman and worked
with a few ``high liners'' to show the gear would not be as
adverse to the operation as it once feared. Once these trials
showed success, the fleet started to adopt these devices, and
within a very short period of time came into compliance with
NMFS regulations.
When bycatch became a major issue in the mid-1990s in the
industry, Sea Grant was there to help the industry not only
become compliant with new federal mandates but also encouraged
development of industry-based solutions to the problem. As a
result, the most efficient device that is legal today, Jones-
Davis, was developed by two fishermen. At the same time, Sea
Grant specialists in the Gulf of Mexico spearheaded a massive
effort that resulted in the shrimp fishery have what some have
called the greatest data set of catch characterization of any
fishery in the United States.
Sea Grant remains in the forefront regarding efforts to
make our fishery more economically sustainable and efficient.
During 1990, the Texas Sea Grant Program pioneered with Allied
Chemical Company to evaluate the use of technologically
advanced trawl fibers. As a result, over 500 trawlers converted
to the use of Spectra netting, which significantly increased
trawl strength while creating less drag in the water. This
transferred to better fuel efficiency and its application is
now being used worldwide. Today Sea Grant is demonstrating less
expensive high-technological fiber, Sapphire, which has been
rapidly adopted by shrimp vessels for its strength and
contributions to energy efficiency.
During a 2001 trip to Iceland to visit vendors of
processing equipment that we utilize in our shore-side
operations, I became introduced to the hydrodynamic trawl door.
I was intrigued by the concept, and in 2004 started to seek out
partnering manufacturers around the world so we could introduce
these new trawl doors in the Gulf shrimp fishery. When I found
no interest in doing so, I purchased an off-the-shelf model
from an Icelandic company. When I was planning the sea trial, I
contacted fishery specialist Gary Graham to see if he was
interested in going along. He did, and what he witnessed was
pure failure, but he was supportive and urged me to continue.
Two months later, we regrouped with another size door and went
on a second sea trial. Gary accompanied us then and we came
back successful in most regards. We still had a production
equivalency program to deal with but overcame this in short
order. After numerous trials and modifications to these new
doors, we were able to show catch rates that were equal to that
of traditional gear but with a fuel savings of 30 percent. At
this time, Sea Grant stepped in with technology transfer in
mind.
Gary Graham and Sea Grant economist Mike Haby were able to
secure funding from USDA and the Texas governor's energy office
to fund two pilot demonstration programs. These projects funded
the purchase of new high-efficiency trawl doors, high-strength
netting for cooperative research and demonstrations within the
shrimp industry for a scientifically based and statistically
reviewed study to document the potential fuel savings the gear
would produce. This effort alone introduced the gear to
fisheries as a whole and lended it credibility. It is through
this effort this gear is being adopted rapidly by industry.
Today in the ports of Brownsville and Port Isabel in south
Texas, 50 percent of the 180 to 190 active vessels in the
fishery will have converted to this gear prior to opening of
our Texas shrimp season on July 15. One could extrapolate this
savings could approach two million gallons of fuel in just
these two ports based on historical consumption averages of the
fleet. At $4 a gallon, this will have a significant impact on
the continued viability of fishing in south Texas.
In conclusion, I would like to stress Sea Grant is a unique
program that has provided a vital research and outreach link
for the fishery. The savings to the fishery in the Texas
program has consistently contributed through its research and
educational efforts that far exceeded the costs for funding
this worthwhile organization. I would ask that you continue to
endorse Sea Grant and that serious support be directed towards
its continued existence. Thank you for your time and
consideration regarding my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Riley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick F. Riley
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me here today to address this body in reference to H.R. 5618,
National Sea Grant College Program Act.
First, let me say that my testimony here today is reflective of the
experiences that I have encountered while engaged in the Gulf and South
Atlantic Shrimp fisheries and I would be remiss if I did not point out
that this interaction only offers a small sampling of activities that
the Sea Grant College program is involved in across this great nation
as a whole.
My first encounter with Sea Grant came in the educational setting
while I was in elementary school. I was in the 5th grade and was
attending a Career Fair that the school was hosting to get youth
thinking about their future. This is where I first met Charlie Moss
with Texas Sea Grant. He was the Brazoria County Extension Agent and
had a booth highlighting commercial fishing. This was of great interest
to me since my father was an owner/operator of a gulf shrimp trawler
for decades. While I must have been a certain pest to Mr. Moss, he
diligently answered the myriad of questions that I and others threw at
him. This type of educational work continues today and was highlighted
with a field trip on May 8th of this year when kindergarten students
from O.M. Roberts participated in an annual Field trip to the beach. I
was there and participated as a volunteer father helping pull a
biological sampling seine to collect specimens for the students to look
at. For the vast majority of these students, this is the first and
perhaps the only interaction that they will have with aquatic life in a
living form that is literally at their doorstep on the beaches of
coastal Texas. This field trip has become a much anticipated right of
passage for the students of O.M.R. and it's success is in great part
due to the participation of Sea Grant and the current Brazoria County
Extension Agent, Mr. Rich Tillman.
In much the same vane, the R/V Karma, better known as the Floating
Classroom, has helped tens of thousands of Texans, most of whom are
students from the 4th through 12th grade, who come to gain a higher
appreciation of the vast ecological significance of our coastal
estuaries and near-shore waters since its arrival in 2002.
My professional interaction with Sea Grant has been both immense
and rewarding. At Western Seafood, we have been actively involved with
different Sea Grant led or sponsored initiatives since the mid 1970's.
Almost all of these initiatives and projects involved two common
themes. The first of these is becoming more efficient with our time,
our production costs, and the resources we are harvesting. The second
theme is helping us use our innate knowledge as fishermen to become
better stewards of our marine environment.
In its early years, Sea Grant worked with fishermen such as my
father to develop a very successful hang log of trawl obstructions.
Through cooperative efforts with the shrimp industry over 12,000 hangs
were identified from the Rio Grande River to the Mouth of the
Mississippi. It should be stressed that this information was usually
kept confidential among fishermen, but the cooperative spirit of Sea
Grant convinced captains to share their personal information so that
every producer would have access to this collective industry wisdom.
This hang log became a ``Bible'' aboard trawlers until the introduction
of more sophisticated navigation systems. It is credited with
significantly reducing gear lost or damaged from bottom obstructions,
and has literally saved the industry hundreds of millions of dollars.
One of the first major breakthroughs that dealt with production
efficiency was the introduction of the Quad-Rig trawl. Prior to that
time, shrimp trawlers typically pulled one large net on each side of
the vessel. With the advent of the Quad rig, it allowed operators to
pull four smaller nets, reducing drag and fuel consumption, while
increasing the amount of area covered due to an overall increase of
head rope sweep of the nets involved. Production could be increased
while costs of inputs actually went down. This work was pioneered by
Sea Grant Fisheries Specialist Gary Graham working closely with
industry.
In the mid to late 1980's another hurdle was jumped with the help
of Sea Grant. The implementation of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) was
a controversial issue. The vast majority of industry participants did
not want anything to do with these devices, and the National Marine
Fisheries Services (NMFS) was having a very difficult time implementing
their use. At this time, Sea Grant stepped in to diffuse a very
volatile situation. Using the goodwill built up over the last two
decades of successful interaction with the industry, Fishery
Specialists worked to calm fears of the fisherman and worked with a few
``High Liners'' to show that the gear would not be as adverse to their
operations as once feared. Once these trials showed success, the fleet
started to adopt the devices and within a very short period of time
came into full compliance of NMFS regulations.
When bycatch became a major issue in the mid 1990's in the
industry, Sea Grant was there to help industry not only become
compliant with new Federal Mandates, but also encouraged development of
industry based solutions to the problem. As a result, the most
efficient device that is legal today, the Jones-Davis, was developed by
two fishermen. At this same time Sea Grant Fisheries Specialist in the
Gulf of Mexico spearheaded a massive effort that resulted in the shrimp
fishery having what some have called the greatest data set of catch
characterization of any fishery in the United States.
Sea Grant remains in the forefront regarding efforts to make our
fishery more economically sustainable and efficient. During 1990 the
Texas Sea Grant Program pioneered with Allied Chemical Company to
evaluate the use of technologically advanced trawl fibers. As a result,
over 500 trawlers converted to the use of Spectra netting which
significantly increased trawl strength while creating less drag in the
water. This transferred to better fuel efficiency and its application
is now being used worldwide. Today, Sea Grant is demonstrating a less
expensive high-technological fiber, Sapphire, which is being rapidly
adopted by shrimp vessels for its strength and contributions to energy
efficiency.
During a 2001 trip to Iceland to visit vendors of processing
equipment that we utilize in our shore-side operations, I became
introduced to the Hydro Dynamic trawl door. I was intrigued by the
concept and in 2004 started to seek out partnering manufacturers around
the world so we could introduce these new trawl doors in the Gulf
shrimp fishery. When I found none interested in doing so, I purchased
an off the shelf model from an Icelandic company. When I was planning
the sea trial I contacted Fisheries Specialist Gary Graham to see if he
was interested in going along. He did and what he witnessed was pure
failure, but he was supportive and urged me to continue. Two months
later we regrouped with another size door and went on a second sea
trial. Gary accompanied us and we came back successful, in most
regards. We still had a production equivalency problem to deal with,
but we overcame this in short order. After numerous trials and
modifications to these new trawl doors, we where able to show catch
rates that were equal to that of traditional gear, but with a fuel
savings of 30 percent. At this time, Sea Grant stepped in with
technology transfer in mind.
Gary Graham and Sea Grant Economist Mike Haby were able to secure
funding from USDA and the Texas Governor's Energy office to fund two
pilot demonstration programs. These projects funded the purchase of new
high efficiency trawl doors and high strength netting for cooperative
research and demonstrations within the shrimp industry for a
scientifically based and statistically reviewed study to document the
potential savings the gear would produce. This effort alone introduced
the gear to the fishery as a whole and lended it credibility. It is
through this effort that the gear is being adopted rapidly by industry.
Today in the ports of Brownsville and Port Isabel in south Texas, 50
percent of the 180-190 active vessels in the fishery will have
converted to this gear prior to the opening of our Texas Shrimp Season
on July 15th. One could extrapolate that the savings could approach two
million gallons of fuel in just these two ports based on historical
consumption averages of the fleet. At $4.00 per gallon, this will have
a significant impact of the continued viability of fishing in south
Texas.
In conclusion, I would like to stress that Sea Grant is a unique
program that has provided a vital research and outreach link for the
fishery. The savings to the fishery that the Texas program has
consistently contributed through its research and educational efforts
have far exceeded the costs for funding this worthwhile organization. I
would ask that you continue to endorse Sea Grant and that serious
support be directed toward its continued existence. Thank you for your
time and consideration regarding my testimony.
Biography for Patrick F. Riley
Personal:
I am a life-long resident of Southern Brazoria County. I was raised
in Clute, Texas by Mike and Lynda Riley. Currently live in Lake
Jackson, Texas with wife Marlena and children Michael (5) and Macie
(2).
Education:
1993--Graduated Brazoswood High School, Clute, Texas
1993-1994--Attended Brazosport College, Lake Jackson, Texas
1994-1997--Attended Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
Professional Experience:
<bullet> General Manager of large family owned vertically integrated
shrimp producing/processing company.
<bullet> Manage day to day operations of company owned/operated
vessels.
<bullet> Manage day to day operations of unloading facility in
Freeport, Texas.
<bullet> Over see operations of Marine & Industrial Specialties, our
marine hardware business.
<bullet> Over see operation of Freeport Diesel, our Caterpillar, Twin
Disc, and Isuzu Marine engines dealership.
<bullet> Manage day to day operations of Ice Dock Inc. Our marine
fuel, lube, and ice terminal.
<bullet> Manage State and federally mandated spill response/avoidance
program for Ice Dock Inc.
<bullet> Work with management team on marketing strategies to maximize
product value.
<bullet> Collaborated with researchers and resource managers on State
and federal level to gather best available science.
<bullet> Collaborated with researchers and NMFS to evaluate and gather
data on alternative gear such as, but not limited to, BRD's, TED's, Net
and Cod end configurations, etc.
<bullet> Implemented and directed Company funded research and
development of new fishing gear and techniques to enhance harvesting
efficiency.
<bullet> Work with Sea Grant Institutions in the Gulf and South
Atlantic regions to disseminate data from company research and expand
the use of technologically advanced gear and techniques into the
industry.
<bullet> Work with manufactures globally to adapt and introduce gear
and technological advances into the industry.
<bullet> Member of Ad Hoc Shrimp Effort Management AP.
<bullet> Winner of the 2008 NOAA NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Leadership
Award in the Stewardship & Sustainability Category.
<bullet> Prior to full-time employment with Western in 1997, I worked
for the company during summer and holiday breaks throughout College and
High School. I also worked for my father as a deckhand on the F/V Lynda
Riley during summers prior to that starting at the age of eight. One
could say I have seen and done all as it relates to the shrimping
business.
Discussion
Chairman Lampson. Thank you very much.
At this time we will go into our first round of
questioning, and the Chair will recognize himself for five
minutes for that first set of questions.
Expanding H.R. 5618's Mandate
I have a question for the whole panel, if some of you would
comment, anyone who cares to. H.R. 5618 expands the Sea Grant
program's mandate beyond its State and local focus to include
regional and national issues. What is the benefit of expanding
the mandate and how will the Sea Grant programs maintain their
connections to the current State and local constituents, and
aren't you already undertaking some regionally and nationally
research and extension projects now? Go ahead, Mr. McLean, if
you would like.
Mr. McLean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that as the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recognized in terms of
listening to a great number of citizens, a great number of
constituents and encapsulating the challenges that are ahead of
us in the marine and coastal environment, the regional approach
to the solutions that arise within localized communities,
coastal communities, these challenges and tasks are best
approached regionally. The challenges don't know geopolitical
lines, they don't know State borders and the like, and for us
to be approaching them regionally is a very logical approach.
The work that we have ongoing today in more broad-based
application of science is not quite bringing home the value of
the Sea Grant program. I think by relying on Sea Grant to be
the leader in a regional solution to the scientific and
technical challenges that we have today, we have a well-
practiced methodology that you have heard from the witnesses in
terms of its effectiveness and its efficiency.
I would also like to highlight the leadership that the Sea
Grant program and each of the member institutions is showing by
helping to lead a regional interpretation and a regional
prioritization of what is now a national ocean research
priority plan that was finally developed after many years of
the ocean and coastal community wanting many different things.
We now have a priority that we can come to you with, and
identify what is the most important and we can concentrate our
efforts in that regard. Sea Grant is leading the development of
regional prioritization of these challenges so that we as a
nation can have an agreed-upon path forward. I think the
institution is very important to the success of that effort.
Chairman Lampson. Okay.
Mr. Anderson. Just on your second point, Mr. Chairman, yes,
the regional planning approach that the Sea Grant College
Program has undertaken over the last couple of years is
yielding regionally specific prioritization of issues and
research approaches to the national Ocean Research Plan and by
doing so, we are able to bring each of the states in a region,
for instance, my region, the Northeast, several states are
involved and the Sea Grant programs bring to that discussion
the varying complexions of those issues from each of the
state's perspectives, but as soon as we get into that room and
around that table and talk about these, we realize that there
is more commonality with the challenges than there are
differences and by me speaking for the University of Maine, for
example, and sitting down with the director from MIT, you know,
we are able to bring skill sets from all these different
research institutions and universities from around our region
to contemplate more innovative and interdisciplinary approaches
to what these problems are, and as was just stated, those
problem transcend geographic boundaries. So the regional
approach really has been somewhat common in the Sea Grant
enterprise, and now by formalizing this and making some
explicit steps in that direction, I think we can really get
some work done.
Chairman Lampson. Okay. Mr. DeVoe.
Mr. DeVoe. Just a quick comment. The need to look at issues
and opportunities and resources on a regional basis is
profound, as the Ocean Commission has pointed out. However, the
reason Sea Grant will maintain its legs on the ground in the
State and local levels is because a lot of decision-making
occurs at that level. Eighty percent of all land use decisions
are made at a municipal or local level. So we have to
understand these issues from a broader perspective and the
research needs to focus on climate change or sea level rise in
a broader perspective. But there are nuances at a State and
local level that need to be dealt with. The management
structures and the policy structures are really at the State
level. We don't manage regionally, we manage state by state. So
what we are trying to do is add to the mix of tools and
information to allow this decision-making to occur at a variety
of scales.
Technology Transfer
Chairman Lampson. Mr. Riley, I want to get you to talk a
little differently than that, if I may. Give me your
perspective on Sea Grant from, I guess, for the role that it
plays in providing technical assistance and information to your
industry. I know you gave a little bit of comments on that
during your prepared remarks. What specific examples can you
provide regarding tangible benefits that your community has
received over the years from the Sea Grant activities?
Mr. Riley. Well, of late it has been technology transfer,
but there are too numerous to really mention in this forum. I
would like to get back to you in writing on that. But take, for
instance, as you all well know, the business I am in, the
shrimp business is pretty tough these days, and going back into
2003, when Sea Grant became aware of USDA money being available
to commercial fisherman through the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Program, there were some qualifications to that, being that to
receive that funding, these fisherman had to be trained, and
Texas Sea Grant along with that of all the others along the
Gulf Coast and up the East Coast involved with shrimp fishery,
Texas in particular set out a program, held 28 workshops from
Port Arthur to Brownsville, trained 2,300 or so--this is by
memory--2,300 or so eligible fishermen and were able to get
them over 11, or close to $11 million in direct assistance, and
that is pretty significant. And these are individual fishermen,
not boat owners and things like that, because there was income
qualifications to that. A lot of ownership did not qualify for
this, you know, assistance, so this was directly to crews and
captains and things of that nature. And without that training
and without even, you know, getting the knowledge out or
getting the word out, you know, a lot of this would have gone
unrealized.
And then you have today in our effort throughout the
industry to become more efficient, and what we have kind of
started in-house at Western has really ballooned into
something, you know, pretty big with the numbers I have given
you on fuel cost reduction. Sea Grant is working together on a
regional basis and you have got guys from Texas going to North
Carolina, which I accompanied them on that trip for a week of
workshops for fishermen there, and the same thing is happening
in Mississippi and there is, you know, all kind of feelers
coming out from Louisiana and other Gulf states to get that
kind of program running. So I mean, they do work well together
in the extension end of it, and far as technology transfer, it
is a good thing.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you very much.
I will now recognize Mr. Inglis for five minutes.
Aquaculture
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am interested in a number of things that I have heard in
the testimony and seen in our charter. One is aquaculture,
which I guess is something that we have begun in Sea Grant,
right? I guess, Mr. DeVoe, we are pursuing that in South
Carolina in various places.
Mr. DeVoe. We are, yes, sir. And Sea Grant has supported a
lot of research in aquaculture in the Southeast and in South
Carolina. We still have a viable but small marine shrimp
aquaculture industry. Back in the 1980s, crawfish farming came
to South Carolina and actually it was some interaction between
our Sea Grant extension specialist in aquaculture, Jack
Whetstone, who met up with a fellow who has passed away since,
but Larry Delabratante from Louisiana, and brought the ability
to culture--brought the technology to culture, to grow crawfish
in ponds to South Carolina. In South Carolina, though, the
primary type of aquaculture that goes on is shellfish
aquaculture so we have strong clam aquaculture, and there is
work looking at trying to develop a single oyster aquaculture
industry. As you know, our oysters are clusters naturally, but
for single oyster aquaculture, which gets a premium price, that
is being pursued. So there are a lot of opportunities there.
Mr. Inglis. And some of those opportunities may involve
things that Mr. McLean mentioned, the pretty nifty idea of
submerging the barge and growing things there, especially with
the pond-grown shrimp, Mr. Riley might hop in here because my
brother also has a shrimp boat and he tells us, you know, you
got to watch what you are eating when you are eating shrimp
because the shrimp that you are eating may be absolutely chock
full of antibiotics from wherever it has come from if it is
grown in a pond. And so I suppose I am a little bit concerned
about that, you know, and I wonder, do we do research on that
at Sea Grant or does Sea Grant look at more the ocean-based
shrimping rather than, say, pond-raised shrimp?
Mr. DeVoe. I will say that Sea Grant's investment in
aquaculture in the last decade has focused on sustainable
shrimp culture and sustainable aquaculture in general. The
issues with respect to, you know, what is in the shrimp that we
eat that is cultured I think really plays out in the
international scene and the importation of shrimp from
overseas, which most consumers are buying because they are so
cheap and it has affected the ability of the United States
culture industry, and I am not--I mean, I am just saying. But
it certainly has affected the viability, the economic viability
of our domestic shrimp industry as well. So I think the focus
has been in the last decade or so is trying to--they call it
biosecurity to try to maintain a crop, if I could use that
term, for the shrimp that does not contain the kinds of
constituents that we might see coming in from overseas.
Mr. Inglis. And maintaining that crop in the ocean, I
guess, has another--speaking of antibiotics and
pharmaceuticals, I take it we are doing some research on that
sort of thing too through Sea Grant on whether sewage effluent
is actually affecting the reproduction of shrimp and other
kinds of species. Is that something that Sea Grant does or, do
you have any research going on in that?
Mr. DeVoe. I think that varies, depending on what region of
the country you look. I know I can only speak for South
Carolina, my region. The issues of stormwater runoff are
extremely important, even though we are a relatively flat
state, I mean, in terms of slope. There is still, during
rainfall events, we will get a lot of runoff, and there are a
lot of materials that do run off into our systems. We are
concerned about that because the species that inhabit our
estuaries and our tidal creeks tend to spend their youngest
portions of their lives up in the upper headwaters of those
creeks and that is where the connections are between the land
and what is running off in the water.
Coliform bacteria is of particular concern in terms of
water quality and so there have been a number of programs
throughout the country through Sea Grant's coastal community
program to look at ways to manage stormwater on site or on land
through various low-impact development scenarios and other
things to try to minimize the flow of that water off land into
our fragile estuaries.
Offshore Wind Farms
Mr. Inglis. I grew up on one of those estuaries actually in
Bluffton, South Carolina.
One last question if I got time. Wind farms, Sea Grant does
work on how those may work offshore?
Mr. Anderson. Ocean-based wind farms?
Mr. Inglis. Right
Mr. Anderson. I think again, like Mr. DeVoe said, that
depends on the region and the states that are involved. Some of
our parts of our country are way ahead of others in terms of
harvesting wind. Speaking for my region, there are engineers
who have said that the Gulf of Maine is the Middle East of wind
and that we have to start harvesting wind up there. There is a
lot of wind. So there are indeed some explorations going on to
do this kind of thing that may or may not be in State waters
but certainly in federal waters, and some of the technologies
that we will need to come to bear on that, the water is too
deep up there. They will have to be tethered and floating
structures, which requires a tremendous amount of new thinking
around engineering, and I expect my program to be approached by
that class of scientists in the coming years and we will
entertain research proposals and try to feed some money into
that important issue if we have the money to feed.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. I was thinking but
I will hold my tongue for a bit.
Mr. Bartlett, you are recognized.
Conservation and Stewardship
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much for your testimony. I
received both my master's and my doctorate from a university
that had a land grant college, and I don't know all the reasons
why the College of Agriculture was one of the better schools in
the university, and although my degree was from the College of
Arts and Sciences, I took many of my courses in the School of
Agriculture because they had better teachers and better
courses. My course in advanced embryology was reproduction in
poultry, for instance. Well, as a result of this focus, more
than 50 years ago our university, the School of Agriculture,
had an enormous focus on conservation and stewardship of our
land.
My perception is that we have related to our waters, both
the lakes and the oceans, as if they were endless opportunities
for exploitation rather than resources that require
conservation and stewardship, and I am wondering if you believe
the Sea Grant program will eventually have the same kind of
focus on our waters for conservation and stewardship that the
land grant colleges have brought to our land masses. I think
there is increasing evidence that if we don't have that kind of
focus, the opportunities for exploitation are going to be
diminished in the future. What do you see?
Mr. McLean. Mr. Bartlett, if I may, I think that the
direction that the Sea Grant program is going in, and to a
certain demonstrated extent has been, is to achieve a balance
between the productivity of oceans and coastal environments and
then to make sure that that productivity is in fact
sustainable. It can only be sustainable by having an
appropriately targeted conservation ethic and I think the
research that Sea Grant undertakes is targeted to be community
responsive and constituent responsive. Most of our coastal
constituents are very aware of the facts around us regarding
water quality and the availability of healthful seafood
resources or other harvestable resources that come from the
sea. I think conservation and productivity are very closely
tied. The science that Sea Grant does reinforces this message
and I think the new direction, or I should say, the enhanced
direction of our strategic plan from Sea Grant and the
individual Sea Grant institutes, the 32 institutes that
comprise the program, are really targeting that direction that
we need to be sustainable, we need to be conservation-minded
but we also need to balance that with the productivity of the
coastal communities and even the products that are shipped
inland to other parts that are away from the coast. But our
coast is our engine and we need to protect it. We need to
protect it in terms of the resources, its sustainability and
the coastal communities that rely on it. I appreciate your
acknowledgement of that area.
Mr. DeVoe. I would like to, if I may, offer a perspective.
Sea Grant was created in the 1960s and it was to foster wise
use and conservation of coastal, marine and Great Lakes
resources. So I think the ethic that you describe is embodied
in the program and it has been since the beginning. I think
what we are dealing with today is--not today but over the last
few decades--is the fact that the coast and the oceans and the
Great Lakes have become much more--more and more attractive for
people to come live, work and play along, and the challenge
that we have as the Sea Grant program but also all of us have,
you know, as stewards of these areas is to try to deal with
that emerging pressure, those emerging pressures to try to
maintain that balance as we move forward. It is not that we
don't have a philosophy, but the challenges for us as a
relatively modest program relative to the land grant system,
which is more than order of magnitude higher in funding that
the Sea Grant program is, does provide those challenges for us
and may be one of the reasons why we would really like to see
some more support for the program at the federal level and
which we can then leverage that support at the State and local
level.
Mr. Riley. I can say that with the work that Sea Grant has
done, especially in Texas and those involved in it, that they
have shepherded the fishing community, which I am involved in,
into becoming more sustainable and ecologically friendly. We
are a little bit unique in the company I am managing in that we
are diversified and have the funds available to do a little bit
of research and become more efficient in our own harvesting,
and at times some of that research has paved the way for Sea
Grant to get out into industry as, you know, a greater whole
and they have done an excellent job of trying to foster an
attitude amongst commercial shrimpers in the Gulf to become
more aware, become more sustainable. Of course, the key word
these days in any fishing enterprise is sustainability but they
have done an excellent job of, you know, fostering that line of
thought and getting it out into industry.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Diversity of Participation
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett.
Our second round, and I will recognize myself for five
minutes.
Mr. McLean, in the last reauthorization, the language was
added to the provision on fellowships to ensure equal access
for minority and economically disadvantaged students. How
successful was the Sea Grant program or has it been in their
efforts to involve minority-serving institutions and in the
efforts to increase the diversity of students participating in
the Sea Grant program?
Mr. McLean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The addition of that
language is a very important opportunity for us. We recognize
in our workforce that we do not have currently in the ocean and
coastal professions the construct of full representation
throughout the image of America in our own workforce and we are
working very hard to change the distribution, the appeal and
the availability of opportunities to students from all
universities and all areas. We have linkages with minority-
serving institutions in the Sea Grant program, in particularly
in the southern end in the southeast area of South Carolina
State, which was mentioned earlier, is a minority-serving
institute and is part of the South Carolina Sea Grant Institute
and also we have Jackson State in Mississippi and I have worked
personally very closely with Jackson State in bringing
scientists aboard our NOAA ships and throughout our science
programs. I don't have a statistic or a number that I could
report to you but I can assure you that our efforts are
ongoing. I appreciate the opportunity that that language has
given us in order to sustain our efforts to recruit a broad
spectrum of students, and we even go further. We note that a
few short years ago the distribution of women, for example, in
the Sea Grant fellowship, in the Knauss Fellowship Program was
approaching 50/50 in its distribution and I am happy to
recognize now that the responsiveness in the students that we
are placing in the Knauss fellowship are now 75 percent female,
and we are trying to attain the same sort of positive growth in
the direction of under-represented communities of students in
our workforce and we think that the Sea Grant fellowships are a
marvelous way to accomplish that.
We have additional programs in NOAA that the Congress has
supported routinely, and they represent educational partnership
programs where we directly tie with additional minority-serving
institutes. We have created Centers of Excellence in schools
that are developing their programs in particular academic
disciplines that reach NOAA sciences and NOAA-related sciences
atmospherically and oceanically. We are working hard in that
direction, and I think you can appreciate the change, the size
of the rudder that we need to be turning is quite significant
but we are working earnestly at it.
Matching Funds Requirement
Chairman Lampson. Thank you. One of the provisions of the
Administration's proposal is the matching fund requirements for
the regional and national partnerships. The Administration is
proposing that the partnerships as well as the interagency
cooperation be exempt from the matching fund requirement. The
matching fund requirement has provided leverage for the State
programs to achieve all that they have thus far. So without
these matching funds, where is the funding going to come from
to do these collaborative projects? Anyone?
Mr. Anderson. Well, I will speak to that. The matching
component of the Sea Grant program has long been a hallmark of
its construct and it is an important way for bringing our
universities and our states to the issues. Some of the
challenges of doing institutional arrangements and regional
approaches that we have talked about earlier in the hearing
have been encumbered by this matching requirement because
administratively we end up with negotiations and some
delicacies between institutions and between states about trying
to meet these administrative obligations of matching and the
fiscal arrangements that have to be set up to accommodate for
that. Sometimes they become a distraction to the real science
and the real approach that we ought to be taking so I think
that there is value to considering this exemption so that we
are able to focus on the work to be done and be able to bring
the right players to the table and we still have the
opportunity through our institutional arrangements to bring
other resources to bear and make sure that it is an efficient
arrangement. But I think that that is some of the motive behind
this change.
Collaboration With NMFS
Chairman Lampson. How close do you all work with the
National Marine Fisheries Service?
Mr. Anderson. I think that varies around the country but in
some cases very, very closely, helping them with training and
education of their council members. There has been many
collaborative research science projects with some of the
fisheries' management councils. I think that that relationship
varies around the regions and based on some particularly
challenging issues that some of our regions have had. Sea Grant
is a science, unbiased--science-based, unbiased broker and a
convener and I think the fisheries' councils have recognized
that and brought us in when they can to help us.
Chairman Lampson. Do we need to work on that more so? There
is concern, and I would like for you to comment, if you don't
mind, Mr. Riley, on some of this because I know that there are
a lot of fishermen, particularly in the western Gulf of Mexico,
who are concerned about some of the work that NMFS has done as
far as snapper and snapper seasons and I know that that is the
case in other places, and I know that your industry gets some
of the brunt of some of the problem. But is there a way that--
some say that NMFS has too many folks that sit at desks and
laboratories and don't know enough about what is happening on
the water and it sounds like you guys know more about what is
going on in the water. Is there a way to build that
collaboration to a greater extent?
Mr. Riley. I think in our case, especially with Texas Sea
Grant and others around the Gulf, they have collaborated well
with National Marine Fisheries Service, especially out of
Pascagoula with the harvesting lab there. They have done so
much on development of better TEDs, more efficient, you know,
BRDs, or Bycatch Reduction Devices, which speaks to that
snapper problem. But the problem is twofold in that snapper
issue, and we would be here all day talking about that, but
National Marine Fisheries Service I think bears too much of the
brunt for what the Gulf Council in that particular setting has
done. The National Marine Fisheries Service has used some sound
science, at the time it was the best available science, which
has changed, to make recommendations, and in that particular
situation, the Gulf Council has not always heeded those
recommendations and have set harvest levels above what even
National Marine Fisheries Service was recommending. So, you
know, they have become a scapegoat on that issue. But I do know
that there is great collaboration right now of getting new BRDs
out in the industry and the harvesting lab, which has purchased
several thousand of three different types of devices, it is
using the Sea Grant college program and the Gulf and South
Atlantic Fisheries Foundation to get those out to the
individual fishermen in different ports and that is a pretty
good program to introduce them to some of these more efficient
BRDs. Otherwise they would not be doing on their own just due
to the cost constraints involved.
Fishing Industry Challenges
Chairman Lampson. I am way over my time, but if you would
just comment briefly as you can for me on the challenges that
you face in this industry that you are involved with, and
whether or not Sea Grant is well positioned to help address
some of those issues in the future.
Mr. Riley. Well, the biggest two challenges we face are
high cost of inputs and low cost of product that we are putting
on the market due to, you know, global competition. Nobody in
this room is doing very well with $4-a-gallon diesel, and Sea
Grant has been doing a great job of getting some of this gear
that we kind of developed in-house but getting it out to the
fishery as a whole to keep them, you know, fishing at a
sustainable level. If you take the 30 percent mark at $4 a
gallon, that boat can operate as if it is using fuel at $2.80 a
gallon, and that is pretty significant.
And also in the development and research we are doing on
these BRDs, we are starting to have an issue now of crewing
issues. We can't find willing participants to get on these
boats for the lengths of time we are asking them to do it, and
we are understaffed at times during high-volume periods, and it
would behoove us to become more efficient with what we bring
up, basically bring more of the target species up and eliminate
anything else before it gets on the back deck to make it easier
on the crews, and that is one aspect we have kind of taken in-
house at Western, and Sea Grant has done an excellent job
through their Fishery Extension Service to, you know, foster
that kind of thinking too amongst others.
More on Offshore Wind Farms
Chairman Lampson. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Inglis.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Back to the offshore wind farm concept, I understand that
Minerals Management Service very recently, May 19, closed
public comment and competing nominations for interim leases for
data collection and research for some five-year leases. It is
pretty exciting to be moving forward in that. And one of the
challenges, as I understand it, is transmitting the power--if
you do it offshore, transmitting the power back to shore is
pretty expensive and you lose some energy that way. Any
research you know that is going on in that regard or perhaps
somehow storing the energy some other way or turning it into
something else out there and then bringing it in some way
besides a power line?
Mr. McLean. It is not an area that NOAA is actively working
in although I think the nature of the assessments that Sea
Grant science has supported is to identify where are the most
wind-prone areas that could be reliable generators of wind, and
I believe that also in Oregon Sea Grant there are projects that
are looking at wave-generated energies. But in terms of the
actual electrical engineering component of that challenge, that
would exceed our expertise.
Mr. Anderson. I am sorry to say that I am not familiar with
any particular institutions, certainly not mine, that are
working in that world, it is probably superconductivity kinds
of research, but I am sure somewhere there is.
Mr. DeVoe. No, I am not familiar with that either, sir.
Mr. Anderson. I could look into that for you and get back
to you if you would like.
Mr. Inglis. I guess probably a place that you all may get
more involved is, there are issues involving species, impact on
species about having the wind farms out there and that sort of
thing. Of course, I suppose if you are looking at fisheries, it
is a great opportunity because suddenly they got a place to
live. But I guess for birds and that sort of thing, there is a
little bit of a challenge. Anybody know of any research that
you all are doing in that regard?
Mr. Anderson. I will just say that you are certainly
correct that that is an avenue that Sea Grant programs can help
to bring some researchers and other science capacity to those
issues around the conflict, the conflicting use, and certainly
in the Northeast there have been some issues around a wind farm
offshore near Cape Cod. I believe our colleagues in
Massachusetts, the Sea Grant community and others, have been
helping to bring those perspectives to the table and try to
help these people sort out, yes, the science and what are the
technical challenges that we have to address but also the other
social science conflicts and Sea Grant's deep experience of
bringing people together to help them understand and work
through perspectives, so that we can learn to understand why
other people have a differing perspective. Because in some
ways, I think you are quite right, that is going to be one of
the big challenges of getting these kinds of new innovative
energy generation systems up and running, whether they are on
the ocean or terrestrial.
Mr. DeVoe. If I may, just one brief comment on that. One
thing is that--two things. One is that the kind of research
that would be needed to, you know, enhance transfer of energy
from offshore to onshore probably would exceed the capacity of
the Sea Grant program as a whole. I just think it is very high-
level and very expensive, very important, you know, type of
research and I support what Paul and Craig have said about
that. It is traditionally not an area that Sea Grant has
engaged. However, a play on a little bit of what Paul mentioned
is the fact that what--any kind of offshore energy development
will require an onshore base of operation. So we will be
dealing with these issues if they emerge, if this potential is
actually realized, whether it is wind or waves or currents or
maybe even back to traditional, you know, gas exploration, that
sort of thing. It is going to have some effect on the coasts,
and that is not a qualitative comment. It is just, it is going
to have some effect on the coasts because they are going to
need an on-land coastal base of operation. I think that is
where we are going to be able to play a much more significant
role in working with communities to help them think about how
they want to shape that development. One of the provisions of
the energy bill, if I am not mistaken, and I might be really
off on this because I am not that familiar with it, was that
there--and I don't think this component passed, was a
requirement that an onshore base of operation could be
identified but couldn't sway more than 50 miles one direction
or another, and that puts a huge, sort of a huge challenge to
that community or those communities that are within that zone
to try to accommodate that kind of development. So the onshore
connection is, in my mind, in my opinion, and we have
acknowledged it in our strategic plan, is something that we
will probably have to do as a state or have to deal with as a
state and the best way to do that, as has been mentioned, is to
bring the partners to the table and try to work through these
challenges.
Mr. Inglis. If you could work through as you did the turtle
extruder question and bring those parties together, then there
is hope.
Mr. DeVoe. That might be easier.
Mr. Inglis. Yes, that would be easier, I think.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lampson. Mr. Bartlett, further questions?
Cooperation Between Sea and Land-based Programs
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much.
There is an old adage that says what is everybody's
responsibility is nobody's responsibility, and this reality
impacts you in two different venues. On the land side, you
quite literally get dumped on. Most of my district, the water
flows into the Chesapeake Bay. I have no land bordering the
Chesapeake Bay but we are acutely aware of what we do on our
land really impacts the health of the bay. Then when you get
out into the oceans, our territorial waters run, depending upon
where you sit, three miles or 20 miles, I guess, and that is
only a tiny percent of the whole oceans out there and so the
health of our national waters depends a great deal on
internationally what is going on in the rest of the ocean. What
kind of success are you having at forging partnerships on the
land side so that you don't get dumped on and on the ocean side
so that we don't get depleted because of excess harvesting by
others?
Mr. Anderson. I will speak to one particular partnership
that the National Sea Grant Program was able to cultivate with
the EPA over the last couple of years, and more speaking to how
coastal communities or even communities up in the watershed
such as yours are planning their development, planning their
futures around honoring ecosystem principles. We call this
smart growth, and that is the jargon that is being kicked
around, but nationally, Sea Grant created a partnership program
with EPA and both institutions with some NOAA money and EPA
money were able to get going some competitive programs around
the country to start bringing communities together and say all
right, where are we going to have these kinds of activities,
you know, thinking about things like impervious surfaces and
agricultural development and other kinds of stormwater
treatment, stormwater management, and try to do that in a
collaborative, interdisciplinary way because oftentimes, as Mr.
DeVoe referred to earlier, whereas a lot of our really
important coastal decisions around ecological health are
happening in a town and a municipality. We need to bring
municipalities together and get them to think about these
issues because they are living in a watershed together and so
the smart growth program is just one example of trying to bring
those towns together and learn some science principles and
learn some best management practices, and Sea Grant has been--
we really--our role in that was bringing all the players
together. You have heard that in all of our little stories here
this morning, that our role is convening and getting people to
understand one another's perspectives. So that is perhaps an
example of something that we are trying to do to effect what
you are talking about.
Mr. Bartlett. Let me give you just one example of something
that we do on the land which I think is really dumb, which
impacts the quality of our waters. If you are not near a
municipality so that you have public water and sewer, the only
land that you can develop is by definition farmland because it
can't slope more than 25 percent or they won't perk it, and it
has to perk or they won't let you build on it. Land that slopes
less than 25 percent and perks is by definition farmland, isn't
it? And then when you put in a septic system, by law, they
require you to take the effluent and inject it into the ground
under the root zone of plants, and then they are distressed
that there is an increase in nitrogen level because this
nutrient which the plants would happily take up is now by law
injected into the ground. It is not a recycling system. It is a
disposal system and it is spawned of ignorance. What can you
all do to change that? And by the way, you don't need either a
well or ground which perks to build a house. More than enough
water falls on the roof of your house to meet all of your needs
for the year if you husband it. You don't have to be really
rationing very much. And we now have composting toilets so that
you could build your house out on the middle of the freeway
when that gets abandoned because gas is too expensive. You
could live very happily there. You know, what can you all do to
bring some sanity to our land-based programs so that we aren't
polluting the groundwater?
Mr. McLean. Mr. Bartlett, thank you for that question. I
can't promise you an exact solution but I could demonstrate the
methodology that the Sea Grant program has taken in order to
unite the heartland of the country with the coastal community
and how what happens in the heart of the country or in the
center of the country is being deposited, for example, in the
Gulf of Mexico and where we have certain introductions of
materials that aren't naturally occurring and they are having
an environmental consequence in the Gulf of Mexico. In
Oklahoma, in Norman, Oklahoma, we have established a position
for a Sea Grant extension agent, and although Oklahoma's time
as a maritime state is quite dated, geological epochs ago, and
the fossil evidence is of course there, we are very proud to
see that Sea Grant had the leadership and the forward thinking
to be bringing a representative, an outreach representative who
can communicate the challenges of the farming community to the
coastal community and the coastal community back to the farming
community. We are also looking there, and the purpose for this
person's arrival was to build understanding for coastal
resiliency, hazard resiliency, but certainly one of the threats
to the coastal community are depositions, dumping and the like
that takes place in other locations.
But my point is to impress upon you the flexibility of the
Sea Grant program and how we can bring various fields of
knowledge to communities that aren't normally running into that
conversation and I am hopeful that we could be doing more of
this in the future.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett.
Mr. Akin, would you like to be recognized?
Mr. Akin. I didn't have any questions for the moment,
especially after Roscoe's eloquence here.
Rainwater as a Drinking Source
Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, if I could have just a moment
to note something. I wanted to do a development where we were
using rainwater from your house and it went into a cistern and
the State people told me oh, you can't do that, you can't use
rainwater. I said help me understand this. The rain falls on
the hog lot and then the water goes from the hog lot into the
creek and the creek goes into the reservoir and you pull it out
of the reservoir and treat it a little and tell me that is
drinking water. I said can I please have the water before it
goes through the hog lot.
Now, we really have some really silly regulations, and I
hope that through your interest in maintaining the quality of
our waters that you can counsel with our land people that they
get some sanity into their regulations.
Chairman Lampson. Mr. DeVoe, you wanted to make a comment?
Mr. DeVoe. Thank you, just to comment on that, just to
follow on with Mr. McLean's comment about Norman, Oklahoma. The
Sea Grant program has established recently, formally
established, a coastal communities program, and what the
national office has done is, provided some limited resources,
which I think a lot of our programs have leveraged, to develop
capacity to have a special extension person but not in
fisheries but in coastal development, and every state is
addressing their issues, you know, in the way that is most
appropriate for their states. But we have mechanisms in place
throughout the Sea Grant network now where these are folks who
are planners or they may have expertise in stormwater
management or some aspect of development. Paul mentioned the
smart growth thing, low-impact developments, some of these new
ways of trying to deal with both existing developments and
trying to minimize runoff or new developments, to try to
incorporate technology into the development of those.
But I would submit to you that as frustrating as this is to
me and a lot of us, is that science only goes so far. We can
provide as much of the best information with the best rationale
that we could ever come up with and these decisions are not
just science decisions. There are other considerations that
decision-makers have to take into account when they make those.
So I think we try as best we can to present the best
information that we can generate through our universities and
get it to you and other decision-makers in a fashion that is
usable and understandable and then we sort of have to sit back
and see what happens and see how the process works out.
Our engagement with citizens and schools is a way to build
that public awareness and it may be through a public
perspective, there may be ways to change perceptions and also
decision-making. But it is one of the challenges that we face
as a science and information organization.
Chairman Lampson. And I guess Mr. Bartlett would look for
common sense in some of these things.
Mr. Bartlett. I would. There is not a whole lot of that out
there.
Chairman Lampson. Mr. Akin.
Mr. Akin. Just a comment for the benefit of Mr. Bartlett,
we lived 25 years in a house where our water supply was off the
roof in a big cistern. The only thing we got wrong was, it was
an asbestos roof.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you all for appearing here today.
We very much appreciate the time that you have taken with us.
Under the rules of the Committee, the record will be held
open for two weeks for Members to submit additional statements
and any additional questions that they might have for the
witnesses. This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statement of John T. Woeste
Vice Chair, National Sea Grant Review Panel,
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce
Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
April 3, 2008
I am Dr. John T. Woeste, Professor Emeritus and retired Dean of the
University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences. I
serve as Vice Chair of the National Sea Grant Review Panel, a Federal
Advisory Committee comprised of 15 individuals who advise the Secretary
of Commerce through the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere, and the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program
on scientific and administrative policy. The Panel functions as an
advisory body in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA). The National Sea Grant College Program is NOAA's primary
university-based program in support of coastal resource use and
conservation. Sea Grant's research, outreach and education programs
promote better understanding, conservation and use of America's marine
and coastal resources.
I am pleased to be here today to tell you about the National Sea
Grant College Program. Specifically, I will discuss the role of the
National Sea Grant Review Panel (Panel), Sea Grant's leadership and the
program's return on investment, enhancements to Sea Grant's evaluation
process, the importance of continuing this vibrant program, and the
Panel's role in the future.
The Panel recognizes the vision and important role that past
Congresses have played in enacting the Sea Grant Act and its subsequent
reauthorizations. Thank you for your support of this program, for your
recognition of the importance of sustainable coasts to the U.S., and
for your confidence in Sea Grant as part of achieving that vision.
Establishment of the Sea Grant Review Panel
The Sea Grant Review Panel was established by the Secretary of
Commerce as directed by Section 209 of the National Sea Grant Program
Act of 1976. The Panel advises the Secretary of Commerce acting through
the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and the
Director of the National Sea Grant College Program with respect to:
Applications or proposals for, and performance under, grants and
contracts awarded; the Sea Grant fellowship program; the designation
and operation of Sea Grant Colleges and Sea Grant institutes, and the
operation of Sea Grant programs; the formulation and application of the
planning guidelines and priorities established by the Secretary; and
other matters as the Secretary, Under Secretary, or Director refer to
the Panel for review and advice. The body consists of fifteen voting
members appointed by the Secretary.
The Panel, in its advisory role, worked closely with the National
Sea Grant Office and the Sea Grant Directors, through the Sea Grant
Association (SGA), to address areas of concern related to this
reauthorization, and to seek consensus on the issues. A series of joint
meetings and conversations helped to philosophically align Sea Grant's
three leadership bodies and generate widespread consensus on proposed
positions. The Panel also considered several reports relevant to the
legislation: ``Building Sea Grant: The Role of the National Sea Grant
Office,'' a 2002 Panel report providing a review and analysis of the
organization, administration, and management of the NSGO; and, the
National Research Council (NRC) report, ``Evaluation of the Sea Grant
Review Process'' (2006), which assessed the impact of Sea Grant's
evaluation process and procedures on the organization as a whole. As
the National Sea Grant College Program implements the NRC report and
realizes its new national strategic plan, ``NOAA National Sea Grant
College Program, Strategic Action Agenda 2009-2013: Meeting the
Challenge,'' collaboration among the three leadership bodies will be
further enhanced, better positioning the program as a powerful and
coordinated national leader in research and education for the
sustainable development of Great Lakes, marine and coastal resources.
Sea Grant Leadership
The National Sea Grant College Program has become a leader in
advancing the science and practice of managing our coastal and marine
resources. The program last had its legislation reauthorized
unanimously by Congress in November 2002 with a virtual doubling of its
authorized appropriation.
In order to meet some of the greatest challenges confronting our
nation--namely, urbanization and coastal development--Sea Grant has
become strategically flexible, creating organizational adaptability and
responsiveness through an open, empowered, distributed management
structure focused on results and service to constituents. These
management changes, implemented over the past decade, have enhanced Sea
Grant's efficiency, effectiveness, overall performance and user input.
There is now a mind set of accountability against exacting performance
criteria. As a result, Sea Grant's reputation has grown accordingly.
The organization's performance scores have demonstrably improved,
indicating that Sea Grant is effectively getting resources to
problems--the right problems as defined by both NOAA's mission and
constituent input.
A major report from the Pew Oceans Commission (2003) noted, ``. . .
a growing crisis in America's oceans and along our coasts,'' and
identified nine major threats to oceans--several of which Sea Grant is
well-positioned to address. The National Sea Grant Law Center
contributed its legal expertise to the Commission, and several Sea
Grant studies are also cited in the report.
The environmental challenges and Sea Grant's role in the emerging
U.S. ocean agenda were also well defined in the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy (USCOP) report published in late summer of 2004. Sea Grant
received almost 50 citations in the USCOP report, including a specific
call for increases in budget and high praise for Sea Grant's
educational activities. Sea Grant was also one of the few programs
named in the President's 2005 Ocean Action Plan in response to that
report. This recognition is eloquent testimony to Sea Grant's growing
impact on national ocean policy and research.
As you are well aware, the National Ocean Research Priorities Plan
(ORPP) and Implementation Strategy issued by the National Science and
Technology Council's Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology
on January 26, 2007, identifies research priorities and calls for the
engagement of a broad array of ocean science sectors to address high
priority research needs and opportunities. Sea Grant is ideally suited
to implement regional ORPP and national priorities. Presently, Sea
Grant is developing regional research plans to support these
priorities. These regional research and information planning efforts
will consider the full scope of issues outlined in the U.S. Ocean
Commission Report and Ocean Research Priorities Plan and will include
other local, State, regional, federal, and non-governmental agencies.
As further testament to Sea Grant's strong leadership, Dr. Ronald
C. Baird, former Director of the National Sea Grant College Program,
was awarded two Presidential Rank Awards for Meritorious Executives
(2000 and 2006) for his work in helping to position the United States
as a world leader in marine research and the sustainable development of
coastal resources. Dr. Baird would be the first to assert that the
great achievements of the National Sea Grant College Program
contributed to his successful nominations.
Sea Grant's scientific capabilities and forward-thinking,
innovative, stakeholder-focused organizational culture, coupled with
performance-based accountability, have earned it a reputation as a
highly effective national program. Strong leadership and an ability to
develop partnerships and coalitions among federal, academic and private
sector organizations to address critical, complex issues, characterizes
the Sea Grant program, and resides at the core of this nation's ability
to manage our coastal resources as we confront unprecedented population
growth and development.
Sea Grant's Program Evaluation Process and Return on Investment
In 1994, the National Research Council (NRC), which functions under
the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, reviewed the National
Sea Grant College Program. The NRC recommended several actions,
including carrying out systematic, periodic reviews of the individual
programs. In response, Sea Grant developed an evaluation process that
relied heavily on detailed site reviews carried out by an external
Program Assessment Team every four years, beginning in 1998.
The NSGO, in consultation with the National Sea Grant Review Panel
and the Sea Grant programs, implemented this new program evaluation
protocol. From 1998 through 2007, the Panel conducted 59 program
reviews and provided over 500 review recommendations designed to
enhance and improve the performance of each Sea Grant program. At
present, the Panel is pleased to report that approximately 95 percent
of the program review recommendations have been implemented, resulting
in a healthy, relevant, rigorously assessed and highly productive
National Sea Grant College Program.
This program evaluation process, together with the successful
implementation of program review recommendations, has produced, and
continues to produce, substantial improvements in the design,
direction, operation and management of the individual State Sea Grant
programs that comprise the National Sea Grant College Program. The
Panel's intensive, on-site reviews of every program have affirmed our
belief in the quality of the Sea Grant programs, and formed a solid
basis for our conviction that Sea Grant's work is relevant and
indispensable to achieving the Nation's vision for the future.
As a result of Sea Grant's performance-based evaluation protocol,
linking performance to merit-based resource incentives, there is now
greatly increased accountability, and a strong commitment to continuous
program improvement. The organization's capacity to produce quality
science and to support informed decision-making with research
information is formidable and demonstrative of Sea Grant's commitment
to relevant service in the interest of our nation.
Performance metrics based on impacts provide accountability for Sea
Grant's research, education and outreach programs. Sea Grant's
commitment to engaging the best scientific expertise within coastal and
Great Lakes states and regions has resulted in exemplary performance
and results. As a result, Sea Grant impacts have brought meaningful
benefits to the Nation, and they have demonstrated a significant return
on the federal dollar. One recent example, among many, makes the point.
A protective mesh for clams developed by Sea Grant researchers and
applied by the industry has resulted in an increased yield valued at
almost $40 million per year to the New England clam industry.
Most impressive, however, is Sea Grant's return on investment to
U.S. taxpayers. Sea Grant has long been known for its economic
contributions and positive return on investment. The organization's
non-federal matching requirement results in substantial leveraging of
additional effort. Each Sea Grant program must generate matching funds
equal to at least 50 percent of the federal investment. The Sea Grant
programs' ability to consistently produce match funding is a testament
to their responsiveness as well as to their relevance to the needs of
stakeholder and interest groups. Additional financial leverage is
achieved through cooperative partnerships with federal and State
agencies. This ability to leverage resources and engage issues in
partnership with other entities, is, we believe, unparalleled in
government.
Sea Grant also mobilizes volunteers to participate in efforts such
as beach clean-ups, aquatic invasive species awareness programs and
water quality monitoring efforts. In one state alone, Sea Grant saved
taxpayers $120,000 in the annual Beach Sweep/River Sweep litter cleanup
program. Over the past 14 years, more than 75,000 volunteers have
collected 728 tons of trash and have saved State taxpayers more than
$1.6 million as part of that effort. Collectively, thanks to Sea Grant
extension efforts in 2007, 15 Sea Grant programs worked with citizens
in their communities who generated a total of 32,205 volunteer hours.
The Panel is proud that the National Sea Grant College Program is
one of few federal programs to have implemented such a rigorous and
progressive evaluation protocol--a protocol that both promotes
accountability and ensures ongoing and continuing improvement--and a
protocol so esteemed that it has significantly influenced internal
evaluation procedures currently utilized by several other federal
programs. Through this evaluation process and its advisory oversight,
the Panel has sought to ensure that Sea Grant investments address the
ever-emerging needs of the United States public and of the ecosystems
in which they reside.
National Research Council Review (2006)
The National Sea Grant College Program Act Amendments of 2002 (P.L.
107-299) directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) to contract with the NRC a second time, ten years after its 1994
report, to conduct a review of the evaluation process and make
appropriate recommendations to improve its overall effectiveness.
The subsequent NRC report, ``Evaluation of the Sea Grant Review
Process'' (2006), assessed the impact of the new procedures and
evaluation process on Sea Grant as a whole. Among the areas considered
were: the quality of work produced by the program; its responsiveness
to national, regional and local needs; and, the quality of its
leadership, management and reputation. The NRC committee was also asked
to make recommendations for improving the overall effectiveness of the
evaluation process to ensure fairness, consistency and enhancement of
performance. The NRC report includes recommendations that guide the
improvement of an already successful evaluation program.
The NRC concluded ``real improvements have occurred'' in the
National Sea Grant College Program since changes instituted after the
last NRC evaluation in 1994. The NRC further stated that the program
evaluation process established in 1998 ``has led to improvements to the
overall program.''
Sea Grant's Response to the NRC
In response to the set of 24 NRC recommendations, Sea Grant is
developing a five-year national strategic plan and an Integrated
Planning, Implementation and Evaluation (PIE) System. The PIE system
reflects substantial input from the Panel and the Sea Grant network
through a variety of formal and informal processes.
The new integrated planning and assessment system is strongly
endorsed by the Panel, in large part because it not only builds upon
the former program assessment process, but it introduces several new
concepts designed to better integrate Sea Grant planning and management
to produce significant outcomes, fulfill program accountability
expectations and retain the initiative for continued program
improvement. In keeping with the NRC's intent, the Panel strongly
agrees that a rigorous and competitive program evaluation process is
critical to Sea Grant's success as a strong, vibrant and accountable
program.
The National Sea Grant College Program has long placed a premium on
careful planning and rigorous evaluation at the State program level to
ensure that Sea Grant would have the greatest impact at the constituent
level. By developing a system that capitalizes on these capabilities at
the national level, Sea Grant will be able to enhance its impact as a
national program. The Panel also feels that better integration of
planning, implementation and evaluation activities will maximize Sea
Grant's efficiency at all levels, making the best use of limited
resources and providing increased benefits to the public. More
specifically, the new system is intended to separate aspects of the
evaluation process focused on program improvement from those designed
to rate performance, to encourage collaboration, to reward performance,
to provide accountability, to retain program flexibility to address
local issues, and to increase efficiency.
Ranking Sea Grant Programs
The NRC expressed concern about the narrow focus on ranking
programs and distributing competitive funds as impediments to the
NSGO's oversight role in improving individual programs. The Panel
agrees with the NRC's conclusions and invites Congress to consider
removing the statutory provisions for ``ranking'' programs as directed
in Section 1123, National Sea Grant College Act Amendments of 2002
(P.L. 107-299) (``rate the programs according to their relative
performance into no less than five categories, with each of the two
best-performing categories containing no more than 25 percent of the
programs.'').
The ranking component included in the current legislation needs to
be eliminated because it has had the unintended consequence of
providing a powerful disincentive for collaboration within the Sea
Grant network. We are also concerned that the requirement could impede
desired regional and national cooperation.
Sea Grant's Buying Power
The Panel also wishes to express concern over another impediment to
Sea Grant's success. Despite rigorous reviews and accountability
measures, and a strong, proven program that represents a sound
investment of public funds, Sea Grant's buying power continues to
erode. If this trend continues, the promise and potential of Sea
Grant's contributions and impacts to our nation will all but diminish.
The Panel believes that Congress got it right in 2002 when it last
authorized the Sea Grant program at its 2008 authorized amount, which
totals $103,000,000 (Section 1131(a) ). The Panel believes that this
amount is necessary to meet our nation's ever growing marine and
coastal needs, and to realize Sea Grant's promise as a leader in
helping our citizens address the issues with science-based information
and useful technologies. We note, Madam Chairwoman that the current
appropriation is $57,100,000, and that the appropriation has been no
greater than $61,889,000 since the 2002 Reauthorization.
To illustrate the long-term erosion of Sea Grant's buying power, I
refer you to three charts at the end of this document that show Sea
Grant's funding history since 1970. Chart 1 shows Sea Grant's
appropriated funds per year, and except for the past three years the
data depicts a modest rise in Sea Grant's appropriations over this 38-
year period. Chart 2 shows Sea Grant's annual appropriations in 2007
dollars after adjusting for inflation by applying the Consumer Price
Index (CPI). By adjusting for inflation, Chart 2 shows a modest but
steady decline in Sea Grant's buying power since 1980. Most analysts
agree that the deflator for research and development has risen faster
than the CPI. Chart 3 shows Sea Grant's appropriations in 2007 dollars
by using a CPI plus 2% deflator, which represents a hypothetical but
realistic deflator for research and development expenditures. Chart 3
more clearly illustrates the serious and significant decline in Sea
Grant buying power since 1980. Currently, Sea Grant would require a
$190,000,000 appropriation to have the level of buying power it had in
1972, its peak year when adjusted for inflation. As a result of recent
in-depth analysis, the Panel has become very concerned about the
trends, contributing factors and appropriate measures to reverse these
declines in the face of mounting concerns for our nation's coastal and
marine resources.
Strong National Leadership
This disappointing fiscal trend has limited Sea Grant's ability to
apply its unique combination of resources to address the ever-growing
challenges facing the marine and coastal environment and the coastal
economies dependent on this environment. Additionally, because of the
five percent legislative cap on the administration of programs imposed
by current legislation, the National Sea Grant Office currently has 40
percent fewer staff than it had in 1991 (29.0 vs. 17.4 Full-Time
Equivalents).
The Panel reviewed the role of the National Sea Grant Office twice
since 2002, (Duce, 2002; and, Heath, in preparation for implementation
of the national strategic plan and PIE system). Both reviews concluded
that staff erosion has seriously diminished the NSGO's ability to
provide the national leadership necessary to adequately support the Sea
Grant network, and to represent the network within NOAA and at the
national level. The Panel's analysis shows that an increase in the cap
on the administration of programs from the current level of five
percent to the higher level of seven percent is necessary to enable the
NSGO to effectively fulfill its program leadership and inter-agency
coordination roles. Shorting those roles, we fear, misses opportunities
for the meaningful linkage of federal agency resources with optimum
program integration and partnership efforts and opportunities
addressing pressing national concerns.
Sea Grant must increase its participation and leadership for ocean
and coastal issues at the national level--a fundamental responsibility
of the NSGO. Over the past several years, the NSGO has been unable to
initiate and maintain the same level of strategic partnerships with
other federal agencies and NGOs as in years past. If Sea Grant's
``beltway'' presence continues to diminish, the Panel is concerned that
significant opportunities to leverage resources will be lost, and that
in the long-term, Sea Grant's visibility, reputation and capacity will
suffer.
Enhancing the NSGO's capabilities is not possible with the current
five percent cap. In order to provide strategic leadership and
effective program administration and support, Sea Grant's stature and
participation at the national level must be enhanced significantly. As
Sea Grant implements its new national strategic plan and the
recommendations of the NRC, there will be strategic focus areas that
require national leadership and coordination, and a rigorous evaluation
process to oversee and manage--roles that will require attention by
specialized NSGO staff, often on a daily basis, and with appropriate
level of expertise.
The Panel's Role in the Future
The Panel is currently revisiting its operational focus and mission
in order to evaluate relevant, appropriate and emerging challenges, and
to determine how to position Sea Grant to meet these challenges. As
part of this process, the Panel will transition into an even stronger
advisory role, bringing the significant knowledge and prominent
expertise of its members to bear on issues critical to Sea Grant's
success. We are particularly interested in examining how Sea Grant can
use its unique capabilities to further the national interest. To answer
this question, the Panel is examining several issues of importance to
Sea Grant as part of its portfolio. These issues include: how to
strengthen Sea Grant's research capabilities, how to couple Sea Grant's
outreach capabilities with NOAA's climate applications programs and how
to further the use of social sciences to solve coastal problems. Over
the coming year, as Sea Grant begins implementation of its national
strategic plan and enhances its robust program evaluation system, the
Panel will be involved in an advisory capacity--serving on strategic
plan focus area teams, participating in program site reviews, and
offering high-level guidance and expertise in areas critical to Sea
Grant's mission. Integral to this process, is sufficient ``hands on''
Panel engagement to facilitate a well-informed understanding of the
goals, operations, issues and accomplishments of the network programs.
Conclusion
In closing, we believe that Sea Grant is vital to NOAA's mission,
to U.S. ocean science and to our nation's vision. This is an efficient
and effective program, offering a proven place-based infrastructure,
and engaging the academic capacity of our universities and colleges in
generating products and science-based solutions needed by our nation's
citizenry. Sea Grant engages our youth in exploration of the marine
sciences, supports advanced academic training for a cadre of future
professionals, and provides exceptional opportunities for early career
leadership development. The Panel would like to thank the House for
holding this hearing. We are grateful for your support of and
confidence in the National Sea Grant College Program. We urge you to
consider raising the administrative cap. This concludes my remarks,
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here today. I would be pleased to provide additional
information and to answer any questions you may have.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]