Order Code RL33603
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Ocean Commissions:
Ocean Policy Review and Outlook
August 9, 2006
John R. Justus and Eugene H. Buck
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Ocean Commissions:
Ocean Policy Review and Outlook
Summary
The Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-454)
stated U.S. marine policy objectives, created a National Council on Marine
Resources and Engineering Development, and set up a presidential Commission on
Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources (called the Stratton Commission after
its chairman, Dr. Julius Stratton). The commission’s 1969 final report, Our Nation
and the Sea: A Plan for National Action, contained recommendations that led to
reorganizing federal ocean programs by establishing the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), beginning new ocean programs, and
strengthening existing ones. By the late 1980s, however, a number of influential
voices among the executive, congressional, and public sectors had concluded that
ocean management by the United States remained fragmented and characterized by
a confusing array of laws, regulations, and practices at the federal, state, and local
levels. Moreover, it seemed that various agencies charged with implementing and
enforcing legal regimes had mandates that often conflicted, with no mechanism for
coordinating a common vision and objectives. Support coalesced around the need
for a congressional mandate to establish a National Oceans Policy Commission,
sometimes called a Stratton II Commission, guided by four principles: sustaining the
economic benefits of the oceans; strengthening global security; exploring and
understanding the oceans; and preserving and protecting ocean resources while
encouraging their enlightened use. Legislation to create such a commission was
considered in the 98th, 99th, 100th, and 105th Congresses, but it was not until the 106th
Congress in 2000 that legislation was finally enacted to establish a U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy (P.L. 106-256). Earlier in 2000, the Pew Oceans Commission, an
independent group, was established and funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts to
conduct a national dialogue on the policies needed to restore and protect living
marine resources in U.S. waters.
The Pew Commission released its final report in June 2003, America’s Living
Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change, outlining a national agenda for
protecting and restoring our oceans. Meanwhile, after hearing from 440 presenters
in 10 cities over 11 months, the U.S. Commission published its report in two stages.
First, in April 2004, the commission released a Preliminary Report for review and
comment by the nation’s governors and interested stakeholders. After considering
and incorporating reviewers’ comments, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century,
the final report with 212 recommendations on a coordinated and comprehensive
national ocean policy, was delivered to the President and Congress on September 20,
2004. On December 17, 2004, the President submitted to Congress the U.S. Ocean
Action Plan, his formal response to the recommendations of the U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy. In considering legislative responses to the findings and
recommendations of those two ocean policy reports, and the President’s response, the
Congress is addressing specific legislation relating to ocean exploration; ocean and
coastal observing systems; marine debris research, prevention, and reduction; federal
organization and administrative structure; and ocean and coastal mapping integration.
Comprehensive bills encompassing a broad array of crosscutting concerns also are
under consideration. This report replaces CRS Issue Brief IB10132.

---

Contents
Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Reports and Working Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Delivery of the Commission Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Summary of Commission Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Changes Contained in the Final Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Comments on the U.S. Commission’s Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Administration Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
The Pew Oceans Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Summary of Pew Commission Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Comments on the Pew Commission’s Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

---

Ocean Commissions:
Ocean Policy Review and Outlook
Recent Developments

A year and a half after the release of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s
historic report and nearly three years after the release of the Pew Oceans Commission
report, some progress on ocean policy reform has been made. However, hundreds of
recommendations suggested by the two commissions have not been addressed.
An assessment released in 2006, U.S. Ocean Policy Report Card, points to a
lack of progress in implementing new ocean recommendations, though recognizing
that efforts are being made at many levels. The Report Card was produced by the
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, a collaborative effort involving former members
of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and Pew Oceans Commission to catalyze
ocean policy reform. The initiative is guided by a ten-member task force, five who
served on each commission, and is led by Admiral James D. Watkins and the
Honorable Leon E. Panetta, former chairs of the U.S. Commission and Pew
Commission, respectively. The Report Card assesses the initial reaction to the
commissions’ reports and also assigns grades for actions taken (or not) in 2005. The
results were a grade point average (GPA) of a little over 1.6, or a letter grade D+.
The Report Card also highlights where additional efforts by Congress, the
Administration, states, and nongovernmental stakeholders are necessary and where
opportunities for improvements exist in each of the following areas: national ocean
governance reform; regional and state ocean governance reform; international
leadership; research, science, and education; fisheries management reform; and new
funding for ocean policy and programs. More information about the Joint Ocean
Commission Initiative, and the complete U.S. Ocean Policy Report Card, may be
found at [http://www.jointoceancommission.org].
On a related note, a bipartisan group of ten Senators agreed on June 13, 2006,
to take action on comprehensive reform of the nation’s ocean policy. A national
ocean policy action plan for Congress, From Sea to Shining Sea: Priorities for Ocean
Policy Reform — A Report to the United States Senate, developed at the Senators’
request, was delivered to Capitol Hill that day by the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative and is intended to serve as a guide for developing legislation and funding
high-priority programs. The action plan responded to the Senators’ request to
identify the most urgent priorities for congressional action to protect, restore, and
maintain the marine ecosystem. The plan included the top ten steps Congress should
take to address the most pressing challenges, the highest funding priorities, and the
most important changes to federal laws and the budget process to establish a more
effective and integrated ocean policy. The full action plan may be found at
[http://jointoceancommission.org/press/press/release0613_assets/seareport.pdf].

---

CRS-2
Background and Analysis
Congress has shown particular interest in ocean affairs in recent decades,
examining in detail components of the federal ocean programs, enacting legislation
creating new ocean programs, and taking steps to define a national ocean policy. The
Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-454) set up
a National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development in the White
House and initiated work by a presidential bipartisan Commission on Marine
Science, Engineering, and Resources. Dr. Julius Stratton, then recently retired
president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and, at the time, Chairman of
the Board of the Ford Foundation, was appointed chairman of the commission by
President Lyndon Johnson. The commission, composed of 15 members, was often
referred to as the Stratton Commission. In 1969, the commission completed its final
report, Our Nation and the Sea: A Plan for National Action, and its more than 120
formal recommendations provided what many consider to be the most comprehensive
statement of federal policy for exploration and development of ocean resources. The
study was instrumental in defining the structure, if not all the substance, of what a
national ocean policy could or should look like. Furthermore, new ocean-oriented
programs were initiated and existing ones were strengthened in the years following
the commission’s report, through a number of new laws enacted by Congress.
Recommendations of the Stratton Commission led directly, within the following
decade, to forming the National Sea Grant College Program and creating the National
Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) and to reorganizing
federal ocean programs under the newly established National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Subsequent legislation on estuarine reserves,
national marine sanctuaries, marine mammal protection, coastal zone management,
fishery conservation and management, ocean pollution, and seabed mining also
reflected commission recommendations. Efforts sprang up within the federal
government and among various interagency and federal advisory committees to flesh
out how best to implement a truly comprehensive and forward-looking national ocean
policy, most notably articulated in the 1978 Department of Commerce report U.S.
Ocean Policy in the 1970s: Status and Issues.1
Since 1980, with concerns about limiting federal expenditures and streamlining
of government, there have been fewer ocean initiatives, and a number of ocean
programs, particularly those of NOAA, have been consolidated and reduced;
however, the programs begun in the 1970s generally have been reauthorized and have
been able to mature. By the late 1980s, some 20 years after the Stratton Commission
and in a climate created by those successive periods of expansion and relative
stability, there appeared to be a broad consensus among those conversant in ocean
affairs that a need existed to redefine or, at the very least, better define national ocean
policy. Two stimuli for this renewed interest were the 1983 proclamation by
President Reagan establishing a 200-nautical-mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ) and the 1988 extension of the U.S. territorial sea from 3 to 12 nautical miles,
1 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Ocean Policy in the 1970s: Status and Issues (Washington,
DC: GPO, 1978), 334 pp.

---

CRS-3
both of which came in the aftermath of the President’s decision that the United States
would not sign the Convention on the Law of the Sea.2
Legislation creating an oceans commission and/or a national ocean council to
review U.S. ocean policy was introduced and hearings were held in the 98th, 99th,
100th, and 105th Congresses. In fact, legislation did pass the House in October 1983,
September 1987, and again in October 1988, but was not acted on by the Senate in
any of those instances. In the 105th Congress, legislation creating both a national
ocean council and a commission on ocean policy passed the Senate in November of
1997, and in 1998 the House passed a bill creating just a commission on ocean
policy. Congress adjourned in 1998, however, before differences could be reconciled
and a bill enacted. It was not until the 106th Congress in 2000 that legislation was
finally enacted to establish a 16-member U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (P.L.
106-256). That enactment rode a crest of interest generated largely by a National
Ocean Conference convened by the White House in June 1998, in Monterey, CA, and
attended by President Clinton and Vice President Gore,3 against a background of
media and public attention surrounding the declaration by the United Nations of 1998
as the International Year of the Ocean.4 Momentum was added by the September
1999 release of a post-Monterey conference report, ordered by the President and
prepared by members of his Cabinet, entitled Turning to the Sea: America’s Ocean
Future, in which recommendations were offered for a coordinated, disciplined, long-
term federal ocean policy.5
Also in 2000, partially in response to that rekindled interest, and partially in
response to congressional legislation having failed final passage in 1998, the Pew
Charitable Trusts established the Pew Oceans Commission, an independent group of
18 American experts in their respective fields. The Pew Commission’s charge was
to conduct a national dialogue on the policies needed to restore and protect living
marine resources in U.S. waters. Pew interests proceeded with their effort after
failure to persuade key Members of Congress to introduce legislation to establish a
public/private, non-governmental oceans commission.
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
The Oceans Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-256) mandated a U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy. Appointed by the President, the commission was required to issue findings
2 For more information on law of the sea, see the following CRS Issue Brief IB95010, The
Law of the Sea Convention and U.S. Policy, by Marjorie Ann Browne.
3 U.S. Dept. of Commerce and Dept. of the Navy, Oceans of Commerce ... Oceans of Life,
Proceedings of the National Ocean Conference, June 11-12, 1998, Monterey, CA
(Washington, DC: NOAA, 1998), vi + 241 pp.
4 The International Year of the Ocean was proclaimed by the U.N. General Assembly on
Dec. 19, 1994, in resolution A/RES/49/131, Question of Declaring 1998 International Year
of the Ocean, at the initiative of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC)
of the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
5 U.S. Dept. of Commerce and Dept. of the Navy, Turning to the Sea: America’s Ocean
Future (Washington, DC: NOAA, 1999), 64 p.

---

CRS-4
and make recommendations to the President and Congress for a coordinated and
comprehensive national ocean policy. The new policy was to address a broad range
of issues, from the stewardship of marine resources and pollution prevention to
enhancement and support of marine science, commerce, and transportation. The full
scope, stated in §3(f)(2) of the Oceans Act, is:
(A) An assessment of existing and planned facilities associated with ocean and
coastal activities, including human resources, vessels, computers, satellites,
and other appropriate platforms and technologies;
(B) A review of existing and planned ocean and coastal activities of federal
entities, recommendations for changes in such activities to improve
efficiency and effectiveness and to reduce duplication of federal efforts;
(C) A review of the cumulative effect of federal laws and regulations on U.S.
ocean and coastal activities and resources, an examination of those laws
and regulations for inconsistencies and contradictions that might harm
those ocean and coastal activities and resources, a review of conflicts with
state ocean and coastal management regimes, and recommendations for
resolving such inconsistencies to the extent practicable;
(D) A review of the known and anticipated supply of, and demand for, ocean
and coastal resources of the United States;
(E) A review of and recommendations concerning the relationship between
federal, state, and local governments and the private sector in planning and
carrying out ocean and coastal activities;
(F) A review of opportunities for developing or investing in new products,
technologies, or markets related to ocean and coastal activities;
(G) A review of previous and ongoing state and federal efforts to enhance the
effectiveness and integration of ocean and coastal activities;
(H) Recommendations for any modifications to U.S. laws, regulations, and the
administrative structure of Executive agencies necessary to improve the
understanding, management, conservation, use of, and access to ocean and
coastal resources; and
(I)
A review of the effectiveness and adequacy of existing federal interagency
ocean policy coordination mechanisms, and recommendations for changing
or improving the effectiveness of such mechanisms necessary to respond
to or implement the recommendations of the commission.
The 16 appointments to the commission by President Bush were finalized on
July 3, 2001. Those appointments were based on a process that included nominations
by the Congress and appointment by the President.
The commission convened its inaugural meeting on September 17-18, 2001, in
Washington, DC, and commissioners selected Admiral James D. Watkins, U.S. Navy
(Retired) as chairman. Through several sessions the commission established four
working groups to address issues in the areas of governance; research, education, and
marine operations; stewardship; and investment and implementation. The working
groups were charged with reviewing and analyzing issues within their specific areas
of focus and reporting their findings to the full commission.
The Oceans Act of 2000 specifically directed the commission to establish a
Science Advisory Panel to assist in preparing the report and to ensure that the
scientific information considered by the commission and each of the working groups
was based on the best scientific information available. The composition of the

---

CRS-5
Science Advisory Panel was determined by the commissioners; members were
recruited in consultation with the Ocean Studies Board of the National Research
Council at the National Academy of Sciences and reflected the breadth of issues
before the commission. The commission agreed that the Science Advisory Panel
members would be divided into four working groups consistent with the full
commission’s working group structure.
The commission began its work by launching a series of public meetings to
gather information about the most pressing issues that the Nation faced regarding the
use and stewardship of the oceans. The working groups played an important role in
maximizing the effectiveness of the regional public meetings and identifying key
issues to be addressed by the commission. In each region visited, the commission
heard presentations on a balanced and wide-ranging set of topics necessary to
ultimately address the requirements in the Oceans Act of 2000. Based on the
information gathered at the public meetings, the working groups identified and
reviewed key issues, outlined options for addressing those issues, and determined
the need for white papers with more detailed information on specific topics. The
deliberations of each working group were shared with the other groups throughout
the process to help provide coordination in developing the final commission report
and recommendations.
After hearing 440 presenters at 15 public meetings in 10 cities over 11 months
and conducting 17 additional site visits around the country, the commission
completed its information-gathering phase in October 2002. The commission began
deliberations in November 2002, and the last meeting dedicated to open public
discussion of policy options — the sixteenth public commission meeting — was held
April 2-3, 2003, in Washington, DC.
Reports and Working Documents. Supporting documents, working
papers, and publications either produced for or generated by the commission
included:
! Draft Policy Option Documents. At its meeting on November 22,
2002, the commission made the transition from fact-finding to
deliberation with its first public discussion of a document entitled
Draft Policy Options. The issues were organized and presented
within the framework of the commission’s new Draft Table of
Contents Document, which also was made available at the meeting.
Progressive and revised versions of both the Draft Policy Options
Documents and the Draft Table of Contents Document were
prepared and distributed at successive commission meetings on
January 24, 2003, and on April 2-3, 2003.
! Working Table of Contents. In May 2003, the commission posted
the initial framework for its draft final report in a Working Table of
Contents. This document evolved based on ongoing analyses,
discussions, deliberations, writing, and editing.
! Synthesis and Summary of Testimony. Two documents were
completed in June 2003. A Synthesis of Testimony Organized by

---

CRS-6
Policy Topic highlights the presentations made to the commission at
its public meetings held from September 2001 through November
2002. A Summary of Testimony Indexed by Presenter included
overviews of invited testimony and public comment before the
commission at those same public meetings.
! Governing the Oceans. This document was prepared by the Sea
Grant Law Center, University of Mississippi, for use by the
commission members and staff as a reference during their work
collecting and analyzing information about the nation’s oceans and
coasts. It contained a Cumulative List of Statutes, Summaries of
Other Relevant Laws, International Materials, and Resources
(including acronyms and internet sites).
! Developing a National Ocean Policy: Midterm Report of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy. This September 2002 report
described the commission’s activities, plans, and some preliminary
observations as the commission moved to complete its fact-finding
phase.
! Toward a National Ocean Policy: Ocean Policy Topics and Related
Issues Document (Working Draft for Public Comment). This July
2002 paper was designed to present both the scope and the content
of a potential national ocean policy. Specifically, the commission
was interested in whether or not the topics and questions outlined in
this document captured the key issue areas for policy options that
should be addressed by the commission, as required by the Oceans
Act of 2000.
! Elements Document. Entitled Developing a National Policy for Our
Ocean Future and released in April 2002, the Elements Document,
as it came to be known, contained the broad ocean policy elements
that the commission identified as essential to a sound national ocean
policy. This document would serve as a framework for the
commission’s inquiry and eventual development of
recommendations.
! Law of the Sea Resolution. Passed unanimously by the members of
the commission at their meeting in Washington, D.C., on November
14, 2001, the resolution recommended that the United States
immediately accede to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
All of the documents listed above are available in pdf format on the commission’s
website at [http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/welcome.html].
Delivery of the Commission Report. The commission published its final
report in two stages. First, on April 20, 2004, the commission released a Preliminary
Report, which was available for a 30-day period of review and comment by the
nation’s governors and interested stakeholders. That Preliminary Report was built
on information presented at the public meetings and site visits, combined with the

---

CRS-7
latest scientific and technical information on oceans and coasts and input from
hundreds of experts. Although the Preliminary Report was a work in progress, its
findings and policy recommendations reflected a consensus of commission members
and presented what the commissioners believed to be a balanced approach to
protecting the ocean environment while sustaining the vital role oceans and coasts
play in the national economy.6 On May 14, 2004, the commission announced that it
had extended the closing date for public comment on the Preliminary Report to June
4, 2004. The extension applied to governors and all other stakeholders.
Stage two commenced when the public comment period closed on June 4 and
the commission began reviewing the comments and modifying the report in response
to gubernatorial or other stakeholder input. At its 17th public meeting on July 22,
2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy approved changes to its Preliminary
Report and directed staff to prepare the final report, bearing the official title An
Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. That report, with its recommendations on a
coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy, was delivered to the President
and Congress on September 20, 2004, in ceremonies at the White House and on
Capitol Hill.
Summary of Commission Recommendations. The commission
presented 212 recommendations throughout An Ocean Blueprint; however, thirteen
“critical” actions recommended by the commission can be summarized as follows:
1.
Establish a National Ocean Council in the Executive Office of the
President, chaired by an Assistant to the President.
2.
Create a President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy.
3.
Strengthen NOAA and improve the federal agency structure.
4.
Develop a flexible and voluntary process for creating regional ocean
councils, facilitated and supported by the National Ocean Council.
5.
Double the nation’s investment in ocean research.
6.
Implement the national Integrated Ocean Observing System.7
7.
Increase attention to ocean education through coordinated and effective
formal and informal programs.
8.
Strengthen the link between coastal and watershed management.
9.
Create a coordinated management regime for federal waters.
10. Create measurable water pollution reduction goals, particularly for
nonpoint sources, and strengthen incentives, technical assistance, and other
management tools to reach those goals.
11. Reform fisheries management by separating assessment and allocation,
improving the Regional Fishery Management Council system, and
exploring the use of dedicated access privileges.
12. Accede to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
6 The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s preliminary report, Preliminary Report of the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, became available April 27, 2004, at [http://
oceancommission.gov/documents/prelimreport/welcome.html] .
7 An integrated regional system including (1) raw measurements of oceanographic
parameters, with data assembled and checked for quality; (2) data management and
communications involving a system of standards and protocols to allow a wide variety of
data to be located, integrated, and archived; and (3) data analysis and incorporation into
models of environmental behavior.

---

CRS-8
13. Establish an Ocean Policy Trust Fund based on revenue from offshore oil
and gas development and other new and emerging offshore uses to pay for
implementing the recommendations.
Changes Contained in the Final Report. At its meeting on July 22,
2004, the commission unanimously approved a number of modifications to
recommendations and text in the commission’s Preliminary Report, which were
included in the final report, An Ocean Blueprint. Those modifications were based
on more than 600 pages of comments from 37 governors and five tribal leaders, over
800 public commenters, stakeholders and other experts and advisers, as well as
technical corrections provided from federal agencies. There is, however, no change
in the thirteen critical actions listed above. A detailed summary of specific changes
appearing in An Ocean Blueprint are available on the commission’s website.8
Changes of an overall general nature in the final report include the following:
! The report was revised to further emphasize the important role of
states, and to clarify that the Commission favors a balanced, not a
“top down” approach of shared responsibility to ocean and coastal
issues.
! The report clarified the Commission’s intent to embrace all coastal
areas and decision makers, including the Great Lakes, U.S.
territories, and tribes.
! Many sections of the report were revised to address the issue of
climate change and its impacts on the oceans and coasts.
! The importance of cultural heritage in connection with the ocean
was more fully recognized and addressed.
! Discussions about the funding needed to implement
recommendations were consolidated into an expanded Chapter 30
(“Funding Needs and Possible Sources”).
Comments on the U.S. Commission’s Work. The governors’ and tribal
leaders’ comments on the Commission’s Preliminary Report were generally
favorable. Most of the 37 governors and 5 tribal leaders highlighted the report’s
comprehensive treatment of ocean and coastal issues, the economic importance of
oceans and coasts, and the need to take immediate action to protect and enhance the
health of these resources. Their primary concerns related to funding issues; the
participation of states, territories, and tribes in national policy development; and the
need for flexibility in the implementation of such policies.9
Public comments were received from private citizens (including school
children), non-governmental organizations, trade associations, governmental and
quasi-governmental organizations (e.g., regional fishery management councils),
8 [http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/prelim_report_changes.pdf].
9 A general summary of comments submitted by the governors and tribal leaders on the
Preliminary Report is available online at the Commission’s website, [http://www.
oceancommission.gov/newsnotices/summary_govcomments.pdf]. The full text of their
comments is also available online at [http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/gov_
comments/welcome.html].

---

CRS-9
academicians, scientists, and lawyers. The vast majority of public commenters
praised the report as comprehensive and balanced, and voiced their support for
implementation of the recommendations. Although many supported the report’s
major themes and recommendations, a significant number of commenters highlighted
areas of particular concern, including national and regional governance, federal
organization, offshore management regimes, funding for science and research and for
implementation of Commission recommendations, ecosystem-based management,
regulation and enforcement, and living marine resources. Furthermore, there were
numerous additional comments on a suite of issues, including cruise ships, climate
change, atmospheric deposition, invasive species, bottom-trawling, bycatch, wind
energy, coastal development, international ocean policy, and seafood safety.10
Soon after the release of the commission’s preliminary report, individual
Members of Congress commented on the report and its recommendations. For
example, some Members identified recommendations, such as the transfer of NASA
earth satellites to NOAA,11 for specific criticism. Meanwhile, members of the
commission and participants in its advisory process generally spoke favorably of its
recommendations.12 Articles and editorials in regional media generally focused on
selected local issues,13 and interest groups highlighted specific issues.14 Some states
made their comments publically available.15 Some criticism focused on the report
and its recommendations as further contributing to excessive government control.16
Administration Response. Within 120 days after receiving and considering
the commission’s report, the President was required to submit to Congress a
statement of proposals to implement or respond to the commission’s
recommendations for a national policy on ocean and coastal resources (§4(a) of P.L.
106-256). In doing so, the President was directed to consult with state and local
governments and non-federal organizations and individuals involved in ocean and
coastal activities (§4(b) of P.L. 106-256).
On December 17, 2004, the President submitted to Congress the U.S. Ocean
Action Plan, his formal response to the recommendations of the U.S. Commission.
The content and text of the 39-page Action Plan may be viewed in pdf format at
[http://ocean.ceq.gov/actionplan.pdf]. Also on December 17, President Bush signed
an executive order establishing, as a part of the Council on Environmental Quality
10 A two-page summary of the public comments is available online at the Commission’s
website [http://www.oceancommission.gov/newsnotices/summary_publiccomments.pdf].
11 For example, see [http://www.seaflow.org/article.php?id=179].
12 For example, see [http://www.ocean.udel.edu/newscenter/OceanQA.html].
13 Greg C. Bruno, “Sea Change for State: National Ocean Report Could Have Big Impact
on Florida,” Gainesville Sun, Apr. 21, 2004; Wesley Loy, “Commission Gives Props to
Alaska Fisheries,” Anchorage Daily News, Apr. 20, 2004.
14 For example, see [http://www.boatus.com/gov/oceanpolicy/].
15 For example, see those of Texas posted at [http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/
bpp/files/ocean_policy.pdf].
16 For example, see [http://www.seaflow.org/article.php?id=179].

---

CRS-10
a Committee on Ocean Policy. That committee is led by the chairman of the Council
on Environmental Quality. The details of the executive order may be found on the
White House website at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/12/
20041217-5.html]. As part of that process, the White House National Science and
Technology Council (NSTC) established a Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science
and Technology (JSOST) and assigned it the task of developing, by December 2006,
an interagency planning document and implementation strategy on priorities for
ocean science and technology for the next 5 to10 years. There is a framework that
identifies the sections of the planning document and briefly describes the nature of
the items to be included in each section that may be viewed at [http://ocean.ceq.
gov/about/sup_jsost_prioritiesplan.html]. That framework will guide how the JSOST
proceeds in developing the full planning document.
The Pew Oceans Commission
The Pew Oceans Commission, an independent group of 18 American leaders,
was established in April 2000 and funded by a $5.5 million grant from the Pew
Charitable Trusts to conduct a national dialogue on the policies needed to restore and
protect living marine resources in U.S. waters. This commission released its final
report, America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change, on June 4,
2003, outlining a national agenda for protecting and restoring our oceans.17 In
addition, during this process, nine “science reports” were also prepared and
released.18
Summary of Pew Commission Recommendations. The commission’s
26 recommendations, organized within six categories, can be summarized as follows:
A. Governance for Sustainable Seas
1. Enact a National Ocean Policy Act to protect, maintain, and restore the health,
integrity, resilience, and productivity of the ocean.
2. Establish regional ocean ecosystem councils to develop and implement
enforceable regional ocean governance plans.
3. Establish a national system of fully protected marine reserves.
4. Establish an independent national oceans agency.
5. Establish a permanent federal interagency oceans council.
B. Restoring America’s Fisheries
6. Redefine the principal objective of American marine fishery policy to protect
marine ecosystems.
7. Separate conservation and allocation decisions.
17 The full report was available at [http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/env_pew_oceans_final_
report.pdf] on Feb. 19, 2004.
18 The topics of the nine science reports were (1) Managing Marine Fisheries in the United
States; (2) A Dialogue on America’s Fisheries; (3) Socioeconomic Perspectives on Marine
Fisheries in the United States; (4) Marine Reserves: A Tool for Ecosystem Management and
Conservation; (5) Ecological Effects of Fishing; (6) Coastal Sprawl; (7) Marine Pollution;
(8) Marine Aquaculture; and (9) Introduced Species.

---

CRS-11
8. Implement ecosystem-based planning and marine zoning.
9. Regulate the use of fishing gear that is destructive to marine habitats.
10. Require bycatch monitoring and management plans as a condition of fishing.
11. Require comprehensive access and allocation planning as a condition of
fishing.
12. Establish a permanent fishery conservation and management trust fund.
C. Preserving Our Coasts
13. Develop an action plan to address non-point source pollution and protect
water quality on a watershed basis.
14. Identify and protect from development habitat critical for the functioning of
coastal ecosystems.
15. Institute effective mechanisms at all levels of government to manage
development and minimize its impact on coastal ecosystems.
16. Redirect government programs and subsidies away from harmful coastal
development and toward beneficial activities, including restoration.
D. Cleaning Coastal Waters
17. Revise, strengthen, and expand pollution laws to focus on non-point source
pollution.
18. Address unabated point sources of pollution, such as concentrated animal
feeding operations and cruise ships.
19. Create a flexible framework to address emerging and nontraditional sources
of pollution, such as invasive species and noise.
20. Strengthen control over toxic pollution.
E. Guiding Sustainable Marine Aquaculture
21. Implement a new national marine aquaculture policy based on sound
conservation principles and standards.
22. Set a standard, and provide international leadership, for ecologically sound
marine aquaculture practices.
F. Science, Education, and Funding
23. Develop and implement a comprehensive national ocean research and
monitoring strategy.
24. Double funding for basic ocean science and research.
25. Improve the use of existing scientific information by creating a mechanism or
institution that regularly provides independent scientific oversight of ocean and
coastal management.
26. Broaden ocean education and awareness through a commitment to teach and
learn about the world ocean, at all levels of society.
Comments on the Pew Commission’s Work. As anticipated, comments
on the commission’s work ranged the full gamut from dismissive to laudatory. Some
were concerned that the commission’s work was not objective, being overly
influenced by the “environmental agenda” of the Pew Charitable Trusts as an attack
on commercial seafood harvesting, while ignoring other significant issues such as the

---

CRS-12
damaging effects of oil spills in the marine environment.19 Representative Richard
Pombo, Chairman of the House Committee on Resources, issued a press release
critical of the Pew Commission report, concluding “we cannot expect such a group
to issue non-biased recommendations.”20 Praise for the report came primarily from
commission members, who saw the report as a long overdue update of antiquated
U.S. ocean policy, offering practical solutions to reverse declining trends.21 John
Flicker, the President of the Audubon Society, referred to this report as a wake-up
call to all Americans that our oceans and coastal areas are in real trouble, and
providing a blueprint for action to protect ecosystems at risk.22 It is important,
however, to recognize that the Pew Commission report covered only a limited
portion of the topics comprising the universe of ocean issues, compared with the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy, which covered a much broader cross-section of issues
within that universe.
Other than the House Resources Committee press release, others in Congress
did not immediately react to the release of the Pew Oceans Commission report.
Although the Pew report was subsequently mentioned in several congressional fora,
Congress postponed any action until the completion of the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy’s report and recommendations. It is not entirely clear exactly what
immediate influence the Pew report had either on Congress or, for that matter, on the
deliberations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, although Pew
commissioners, including chairman Leon Panetta, did testify before the U.S.
Commission on several occasions.
Issues for Congress
The 109th Congress is considering legislative responses to the findings and
recommendations of the Pew Oceans Commission report, America’s Living Oceans:
Charting a Course for Sea Change, and the report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century.
Those reports covered an array of issues, such as the Law of the Sea; national
and regional governance; federal organization, regulation, and enforcement; offshore
management regimes; funding for sound science and research and for implementing
commission recommendations; oceanic education; coastal and watershed
management; and ecosystem-based management. Ancillary issues relate to questions
about the timing and level of the response and the fiscal implications and out-year
budgetary impacts on current and future ocean programs.
19 Nils E. Stolpe, The Pew Commission — A Basis for National Ocean Policy? Available
at [http://www.fishingnj.org/netusa23.htm].
20 [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/Press/releases/2003/0604Pews.htm].
21 Pat White and Jane Lubchenco, “New Policies on Ocean Fishing Overdue,” The Boston
Globe, June 5, 2003, p. A19.
22 John Flicker, “Save the Coasts, Even if Only for Our Sake,” Sun Sentinel, June 19, 2003,
p. 25A.

---

CRS-13
P.L. 106-256 not only created the U.S. Commission but also required the
President to submit to Congress a response to the commission’s recommendations.
The President’s statement, U.S. Ocean Action Plan, was delivered on December 17,
2004. It was confined largely to documenting current efforts. Many in the ocean
community viewed the Administration’s response as limited and are lobbying for
extensive congressional action. In the 109th Congress, committees of relevant
jurisdiction have followed their own ocean action agendas, guided, in large part, by
the Pew and U.S. Commission reports, rather than holding hearings to assess the
Administration’s statement.
The 109th Congress also is considering other ocean matters, including ocean
exploration; ocean and coastal observing systems; marine debris research, prevention,
and reduction; and ocean and coastal mapping integration. Related issues have
arisen, such as whether to (1) provide additional funds for ocean-related research;
(2) replace a fragmented administrative structure with a more overall, coherent
federal organization; or (3) adopt new approaches for managing marine resources,
such as setting aside large reserves from selected or all uses. Two omnibus bills were
introduced in June 2005, H.R. 2939 and S. 1224, whose contents encompass that
broad array of crosscutting concerns.
On a related note, a bipartisan group of ten Senators agreed on June 13, 2006,
to take action on comprehensive reform of the Nation’s ocean policy. A national
ocean policy action plan for Congress, From Sea to Shining Sea: Priorities for Ocean
Policy Reform — A Report to the United States Senate, developed at the Senators’
request, was delivered to Capitol Hill that day by the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative and is intended to serve as a guide for developing legislation and funding
high-priority programs. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative was established in
September 2005 and is comprised of former members of both the Pew Commission
and the U.S. Commission The action plan responded to the Senators’ request to
identify the most urgent priorities for congressional action to protect, restore, and
maintain the marine ecosystem. The plan included the top 10 steps Congress should
take to address the most pressing challenges, the highest funding priorities, and the
most important changes to federal laws and the budget process to establish a more
effective and integrated ocean policy. According to the plan, those ten steps are: (1)
adopt a statement of national ocean policy, (2) pass an organic act to establish the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in law and work with
the Administration to identify and act upon opportunities to improve federal agency
coordination on ocean and coastal issues, (3) foster ecosystem-based regional
governance, (4) reauthorize an improved Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act, (5) enact legislation to support innovation and competition in
ocean-related research and education consistent with key initiatives in the Bush
Administration’s Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy,23 (6)
23 By December 2006, the White House National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) is to develop an
interagency planning document and implementation strategy on priorities for ocean science
and technology for the next 5 to10 years. For a framework identifying the sections of the
planning document and briefly describing the items in each section, see
[http://ocean.ceq.gov/about/sup_jsost_prioritiesplan.html]. That framework will guide the
(continued...)

---

CRS-14
enact legislation to authorize and fund the Integrated Ocean Observing System
(IOOS), (7) accede to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, (8)
establish an Ocean Trust Fund in the U.S. Treasury as a dedicated source of funds for
improved management and understanding of ocean and coastal resources by federal
and state governments, (9) increase base funding for core ocean and coastal programs
and direct development of an integrated ocean budget, and (10) enact ocean and
coastal legislation that has already progressed significantly in the 109th Congress.
A pdf version of the full action plan may be found at [http://
jointoceancommission.org/press/press/release0613_assets/seareport.pdf].
Legislation
H.R. 50 (Ehlers). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Organic
Act. Reestablishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
in the Department of Commerce (DOC), headed by an Under Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere who shall serve as the Administrator of NOAA. The bill
would create a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for science and technology
to coordinate science activities across the agency. NOAA would be restructured
around four areas: the National Weather Service, Research and Education,
Operations and Services, and Resources Management. The bill also would create a
chief operating officer to manage the agency’s day-to-day operations. The House
Science Committee adopted a substitute amendment that would emphasize NOAA’s
role in forecasting tsunamis, require NOAA to notify Congress when it starts new
satellite programs, and clarify that nothing in the bill would affect the authority of
other federal agencies. Introduced January 4, 2005, and referred to House Committee
on Science and House Committee on Resources. House Science Subcommittee on
Environment, Technology, and Standards voted March 15, 2005, to approve, with
amendments, for full committee consideration. House Science Committee markup
session held May 17, 2005, and H.R. 50 ordered to be reported (amended). House
Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans held a
hearing May 19, 2005; subcommittee consideration and markup session held May 19,
2005. For further action, see entry for H.R. 5450, which supersedes H.R. 50.
H.R. 2939 (C. Weldon). Oceans Conservation, Education, and National
Strategy for the 21st Century Act. A bill to establish a national policy for our oceans,
to strengthen the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and to establish
a Committee on Ocean Policy. The purpose of this act is to secure, for present and
future generations of people of the United States, the full range of ecological,
economic, educational, social, cultural, nutritional, and recreational benefits of
healthy marine ecosystems, by (1) establishing a comprehensive national oceans
policy that is binding on all covered actions that may significantly affect U.S. ocean
waters and ocean resources; (2) requiring covered actions to be consistent with the
purposes and policies of this act; (3) mandating that clear standards be set against
which compliance with the national oceans policy can be measured; (4) providing a
mechanism through which compliance with this act can be assured; (5) consolidating
23 (...continued)
JSOST in developing the full planning document.

---

CRS-15
and restructuring federal ocean programs to support this act; (6) promoting
ecologically sustainable ocean resource use and management by strengthening and
empowering ocean governance; and (7) enhancing responsible ocean stewardship.
Introduced June 16, 2005, and referred to the House Committee on Resources, and
in addition to the House Committee on Science.
H.R. 3835 (Saxton). National Ocean Exploration Program Act. Title I —
National Ocean Exploration Program — calls for the Secretary of Commerce,
through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), and, in consultation with the National Science Foundation and other
appropriate federal agencies, to establish a coordinated national ocean exploration
program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that promotes
collaboration with existing programs of the Administration, including those
authorized in title II of this bill. NOAA, in coordination with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the United States Geological Survey, Office
of Naval Research, and relevant governmental, non-governmental, academic, and
other experts, shall convene an ocean exploration technology and infrastructure task
force to develop and implement such a national ocean exploration strategy.
Authorizes NOAA, the National Science Foundation, and other federal agencies to
participate in interagency financing in carrying out program activities. Title II —
Undersea Research Program — calls for the Administrator of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration to establish and maintain an undersea research
program to increase scientific knowledge essential for the informed management, use
and preservation of oceanic, coastal, and large lake resources through undersea
research, exploration, education, and technology development. The program shall be
part of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s undersea research,
education, and technology development efforts and be conducted through a national
headquarters office, a network of regional undersea research centers, and a national
technology institute. Introduced September 20, 2005, and referred to the Committee
on Science and the Committee on Resources. House Resources Subcommittee on
Fisheries and Oceans held hearings May, 4, 2006. House Science Subcommittee on
Environment, Technology, and Standards held hearings July 27, 2006.
H.R. 5450 (Ehlers). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act.
An organic act that would reestablish the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce (DOC), headed by an
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere who shall serve as the
Administrator of NOAA, and would restructure NOAA into four areas: National
Weather Service, Research and Education, Operations and Services, and Resources
Management. The legislation would generally maintain the existing programs, rules,
regulations and leadership structure of NOAA, but would create a position for a
deputy assistant secretary of Commerce for science and technology to coordinate
science activities across the agency and a chief operating officer to manage the
agency’s day-to-day operations. The bill would require NOAA to communicate
weather emergency information to other federal agencies, to report to Congress
annually on contracts and subcontracts with overseas companies and on the
off-shoring of agency jobs, and to report to Congress when major programs
experience budget overruns or delays. Introduced May 22, 2006, and referred to the
Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committee on Resources. On May 31,
2006, House Resources Committee requested Executive Comment from U.S.

---

CRS-16
Department of Commerce. House Science Committee markup session held June 14,
2006, and H.R. 5450 ordered to be reported, with amendments, H.Rept. 109-545,
Part I.
S. 39 (Stevens). National Ocean Exploration Program Act. A bill to establish
a coordinated national ocean exploration program within the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Introduced January 25, 2005, and referred to the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation ordered reported favorably, without
amendment, March 10, 2005. Reported April 13, 2005, by Senator Stevens without
amendment, S.Rept. 109-57. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General
Orders, April 13, 2005, Calendar No. 71. Passed Senate, July 1, 2005, with an
amendment by Unanimous Consent. Referred July 11, 2005, to the House Committee
on Science, and in addition to the House Committee on Resources Subcommittee on
Fisheries and Oceans.
S. 361 (Snowe). Ocean and Coastal Observation System Act of 2005. A bill
to develop and maintain an integrated system of ocean and coastal observations for
the nation’s coasts, oceans, and Great Lakes, improve warnings of tsunamis and other
natural hazards, enhance homeland security, support maritime operations, and for
other purposes. Introduced February 10, 2005, and referred to the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation ordered reported favorably, without amendment, March 10, 2005.
Reported April 19, 2005, by Senator Stevens without amendment, S.Rept. 109-60.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, April 19, 2005,
Calendar No. 76. Passed Senate July 1, 2005, with an amendment and an amendment
to the Title by Unanimous Consent. Referred July 11, 2005, to the House Committee
on Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans, and in addition to the
Committee on Science.
S. 362 (Inouye). Marine Debris Research Prevention and Reduction Act. A
bill to establish a program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the U. S. Coast Guard to help identify, determine sources of,
assess, reduce, and prevent marine debris and its adverse impacts on the marine
environment and navigation safety, in coordination with non-federal entities, and for
other purposes. Introduced February 10, 2005, and referred to the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation ordered reported favorably, with an amendment, March 10, 2005.
Reported April 13, 2005, by Senator Stevens with an amendment, S.Rept. 109-56.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, April 13, 2005,
Calendar No. 70. Passed Senate July 1, 2005, with amendments by Unanimous
Consent. Referred July 11, 2005, to the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and in addition to the House Committee on Resources. House
Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans held hearings September 29, 2005.
On November 16, 2005, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans discharged; Full
Committee consideration and mark-up held; ordered reported (amended) by
unanimous consent, H.Rept. 109-332, Part I. House Transportation and
Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
discharged on June 28, 2006; full Transportation Committee consideration and
mark-up held June 28, 2006, and ordered reported in the nature of a substitute

---

CRS-17
(amended) by voice vote, H.Rept. 109-332, Part II. Placed on the union calendar,
calendar No. 345, on July 25, 2006.

S. 364 (Inouye). Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act. A bill to
establish a program within the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration to
integrate federal coastal and ocean mapping activities. Introduced February 10, 2005,
and referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Full
committee consideration and markup held March 10, 2005, by Senate Commerce,
Science and Transportation. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
ordered reported favorably, with amendments, April 14, 2005. Reported July 13,
2005, by Senator Stevens with amendments, S.Rept. 109-102, and placed on Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders, Calendar No. 161.
S. 1224 (Boxer). National Oceans Protection Act of 2005. The purpose of this
act is to secure, for present and future generations of people of the United States, the
full range of environmental, economic, educational, social, cultural, nutritional, and
recreational benefits of healthy marine ecosystems. Includes titles cited as the Ballast
Water Management Act of 2005; the Cetacean and Sea Turtle Conservation Act of
2005; the Deep Sea Coral Protection Act; the Ernest “Fritz” Hollings National Ocean
Policy and Leadership Act; and the Fisheries Science and Management Enhancement
Act of 2005. Introduced June 9, 2005, and referred to Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S.Amdt. 259 to S.Con.Res. 18 (Boxer). To express the sense of the Senate
regarding the need for a comprehensive, coordinated, and integrated national ocean
policy. Introduced March 17, 2005. S.Amdt. 259 agreed to March 17, 2005, in the
Senate by unanimous consent. S.Con.Res. 18 agreed to in Senate with amendments
by yea-nay vote, 51-49, March 17, 2005. Senate incorporated S.Con.Res. 18 into
H.Con.Res. 95 as an amendment and agreed to H.Con.Res. 95 on April 4, 2005.
Conference report on H.Con.Res. 95 filed April 28, 2005, H.Rept. 109-62.
Conference report agreed to in the House (214-211), April 28, 2005. Conference
report agreed to in Senate (52-47), April 28, 2005.
Additional Reading
Buck, Eugene H. Ocean Commission Reports: Side-by-Side Comparison of
Provisions on Living Resources, Excluding Fisheries. CRS Congressional
Distribution Memorandum. September 30, 2004 (updated), 22 pp.
Buck, Eugene H. Ocean Commission Reports: Side-by-Side Comparison of Fishery
Provisions. CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum. October 4, 2004
(updated). 18 pp.
Gish, Ken and Eric Laschever. “The President’s Ocean Commission: Progress
Toward a New Ocean Policy.” N R & E. Summer 2004. p. 17-19, 79.
National Marine Sanctuary Foundation. Capital Hill Oceans Week 2006, Summary
Report. June 13-14, 2006. [http://www.nmsfocean.org/chow2006/index.html#1]

---

CRS-18
Paul, Linda M. B. “The 2003 Pew Oceans Commission Report: Law, Policy, and
Governance.” N R & E. Summer 2004. p. 10-16.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce. President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration. Discovering
Earth’s Final Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration (Washington,
DC: NOAA, October 10, 2000). 64 pp.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce and Dept. of the Navy. Oceans of Commerce, Oceans of
Life. Proceedings of the National Ocean Conference, June 11-12, 1998,
Monterey, CA (Washington, DC: NOAA, 1998). vi + 241 pp.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Office
of the Chief Scientist. Year of the Ocean Discussion Papers. March 1998.
Prepared by the U.S. Federal Agencies with Ocean-Related Programs for the
International Year of the Ocean (Washington, DC: GPO, 1998). 1 v. (various
pagings).

---