Order Code RL33603
Ocean Commissions:
Ocean Policy Review and Outlook
Updated February 1, 2007
Harold F. Upton, John R. Justus, and Eugene H. Buck
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Ocean Commissions:
Ocean Policy Review and Outlook
Summary
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission made
numerous recommendations for changing U.S. ocean policy and management. The
109th Congress reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, incorporating provisions recommended by both commissions, and
authorized a new program to assess, reduce, and prevent marine debris. Several bills
encompassing a broad array of cross-cutting concerns such as ocean exploration;
ocean and coastal observing systems; federal organization and administrative
structure; and ocean and coastal mapping integration were considered but not acted
on.
Recognition of the need for a comprehensive national ocean policy can be traced
back to 1966, when a presidential Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and
Resources was established (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). By the late 1980s, a number of influential voices had
concluded that U.S. ocean management remained fragmented and characterized by
a confusing array of laws, regulations, and practices. After repeated attempts, the
106th Congress enacted legislation 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 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.
In June 2003, the Pew Commission released its final report, America’s Living
Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change, outlining a national agenda for
protecting and restoring the oceans. The U.S. Commission published its report in
two stages. First, in April 2004, the U.S. Commission released a Preliminary Report
for review and comment by the nation’s governors and interested stakeholders. After
reviewers’ comments were considered and incorporated, 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.
The 110th Congress may continue to consider ocean policy and management
recommendations of the two commission reports and the President’s response.
Concerns may range from the general, such as extensive changes in organization and
administrative structure of ocean research and governance, to more specific topics,
such as ocean and coastal mapping. Whether comprehensive approaches will be
acted on or whether, as in the 109th Congress, actions will be issue-specific remains
an open question.

---

Contents
Background and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Reports and Working Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Delivery of the Commission Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Summary of Commission Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Changes Contained in the Final Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Comments on the U.S. Commission’s Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Pew Oceans Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Summary of Pew Commission Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Comments on the Pew Commission’s Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Administration Response and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

---

Ocean Commissions:
Ocean Policy Review and Outlook
Background and Analysis
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission have
made numerous recommendations for changing U.S. ocean policy and management.
In considering legislative responses to the findings and recommendations of the
ocean commissions and the President’s response, Congress may consider compre-
hensive bills encompassing a broad array of cross-cutting concerns, including ocean
exploration; ocean and coastal observing systems; federal organization and
administrative structure; and ocean and coastal mapping integration.
Congress has shown interest in ocean affairs in recent decades, examining
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) established 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 considered 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 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

---

CRS-2
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
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
matured. 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, both of which came
in the aftermath of the President’s decision that the United States would not sign the
U.N. 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
1997, and in 1998 the House passed a bill creating a commission on ocean policy.
However, Congress adjourned in 1998 before differences between these two
measures could be reconciled. 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). The commission’s charge was to make recommendations for
a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy for a broad range of ocean
issues. The enactment rode a crest of interest generated largely by a National Ocean
Conference convened by the White House in June 1998, in Monterey, CA,3 and
attended by President Clinton and Vice President Gore, 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
1 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Ocean Policy in the 1970s: Status and Issues (Washington,
DC: GPO, 1978), 334 pp.
2 For more information, see CRS Report RS21890, The U.N. Law of the Sea Convention and
the United States: Developments Since October 2003, 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).

---

CRS-3
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
failing to persuade key Members of Congress to introduce legislation to establish a
public/private, nongovernmental 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
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 16 members of the commission were appointed by President Bush on July
3, 2001. Those appointments were based on a process that included nominations by
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 chair. 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 its working groups
was based on the best scientific information available. The composition of the
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 membership of the Science
Advisory Panel would be divided into four working groups, consistent with the full
commission’s 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
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
use and stewardship of the oceans. The working groups played an important role in
maximizing the effectiveness of the regional public meetings and in 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 providing more detailed information on specific topics. The
deliberations of each working group were shared with the other groups throughout
the process to better coordinate development of the final commission report and
recommendations.
After hearing 440 presenters at 15 public meetings in 10 cities during 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. Examples of supporting documents,
working papers, and publications either produced for or generated by the commission
include Draft Policy Option Documents, Working Table of Contents, Governing the
Oceans, Elements Document, and Law of the Sea Resolution. These documents 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.6 That Preliminary Report was built
on information presented at the public meetings and site visits, combined with the
latest scientific and technical information on oceans and coasts and input from
hundreds of experts. The findings and policy recommendations in the Preliminary
Report 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.7
After the public comment period closed, stage two of the process commenced
when 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
6 On May 14, 2004, the commission extended the closing date for public comment on the
Preliminary Report to June 4, 2004. This extension applied to governors and all other
stakeholders.
7 The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s preliminary report, Preliminary Report of the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, is available at [http://oceancommission.gov/documents/
prelimreport/welcome.html] .

---

CRS-5
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; of these
recommendations, 13 “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.8
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 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
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 numerous changes to the 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 5 tribal leaders, responses from more than
800 public commenters, stakeholders, and other experts and advisers, as well as
technical corrections provided by federal agencies. There were, however, no changes
to the 13 critical actions listed above. A detailed summary of specific changes
appearing in An Ocean Blueprint is available on the commission’s website.9 Changes
of an overall general nature in the final report include the following:
8 An integrated regional system could provide (1) raw data on 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.
9 [http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/prelim_report_changes.pdf].

---

CRS-6
! 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 for 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.10
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),
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.11
Soon after the release of the commission’s preliminary report, some individual
Members of Congress commented on the report and its recommendations. For
example, some Members identified recommendations, such as the transfer of NASA
10 A summary of comments submitted by the governors and tribal leaders on the Preliminary
Report is available on the commission’s website, at [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].
11 A two-page summary of the public comments is available on the commission’s website
at [http://www.oceancommission.gov/newsnotices/summary_publiccomments.pdf].

---

CRS-7
earth satellites to NOAA,12 for specific criticism. Meanwhile, members of the
commission and participants in its advisory process generally spoke favorably of its
recommendations.13 Articles and editorials in regional media generally focused on
selected local issues,14 while interest groups highlighted specific issues.15 Some
states made their comments publically available.16 Some commenters criticized the
report and its recommendations as further contributing to excessive government
control.17
The Pew Oceans Commission
The Pew Oceans Commission, an independent group of 18 authorities in ocean-
related issues and government, 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 the oceans.18 In addition, during this process, nine “science reports” were
prepared and released.19
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.
12 For example, see [http://www.seaflow.org/article.php?id=179].
13 For example, see [http://www.ocean.udel.edu/newscenter/OceanQA.html].
14 For example, see Greg C. Bruno, “Sea Change for State: National Ocean Report Could
Have Big Impact on Florida,” Gainesville Sun, Apr. 21, 2004; and Wesley Loy,
“Commission Gives Props to Alaska Fisheries,” Anchorage Daily News, Apr. 20, 2004.
15 For example, see [http://www.boatus.com/gov/oceanpolicy/].
16 For example, see those of Texas posted at [http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/bpp/
files/ocean_policy.pdf].
17 For example, see [http://www.seaflow.org/article.php?id=179].
18 The full report was available at [http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/env_pew_oceans_final_
report.pdf].
19 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. Copies of these reports are available
at [http://www.pewtrusts.org/ideas/ideas_item.cfm?content_item_id=1635&content_type_
id=8&issue_name=Protecting%20ocean%20life&issue=16&page=8&name=Grantee%20
Reports].

---

CRS-8
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.
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.

---

CRS-9
Comments on the Pew Commission’s Work. 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 damaging
effects of oil spills in the marine environment.20 Representative Richard Pombo, then
Chair of the House Committee on Resources, issued a press release on June 4, 2003,
critical of the Pew Commission report, concluding “we cannot expect such a group
to issue non-biased recommendations.” Praise for the report came 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 the oceans and coastal areas are in real trouble, offering 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 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. Pew
commissioners, including chairman Leon E. Panetta, testified before the U.S.
Commission on several occasions. Elements of the Pew Oceans Commission report
are reflected in actions taken by the 109th Congress such as passage of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (P.L. 109-479)
and the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act (P.L. 109-449).
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission
identified complementary recommendations for a number of key areas in their
respective reports. A collaborative Joint Ocean Commission Initiative was initiated
in early 2005 to maintain the momentum generated by the two commissions. This
initiative is guided by a ten-member task force, five of whom served on each
commission, and is led by former commission chairs Admiral James D. Watkins and
the Honorable Leon E. Panetta. The main objective of the initiative is to maintain
progress on ocean policy reform with core priorities that include the need for
ecosystem management, ocean governance reforms, improved fisheries management,
increased reliance on science in management decisions, and more funding for ocean
and coastal programs.
20 Nils E. Stolpe, The Pew Commission — A Basis for National Ocean Policy? Available
at [http://www.fishingnj.org/netusa23.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-10
On March 16, 2006, a bipartisan group of ten Senators requested that the Joint
Ocean Commission Initiative report on 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. On June 13, 2006, 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, was delivered to Congress by the
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative and was intended to serve as a guide for
developing legislation and funding high-priority programs.23
This action plan responded to the Senators’ request to identify the most urgent
priorities for congressional action to protect, restore, and maintain the marine
ecosystem. According to the plan, those ten steps are:
! adopt a statement of national ocean policy;
! pass an organic act to establish NOAA in law and work with the
Administration to identify and act upon opportunities to improve
federal agency coordination on ocean and coastal issues;
! foster ecosystem-based regional governance;
! reauthorize an improved Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act;
! 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 (discussed in the following section on
“Administration Response and Implementation”);
! enact legislation to authorize and fund the Integrated Ocean
Observing System (IOOS);
! accede to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea;
! 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;
! increase base funding for core ocean and coastal programs and direct
development of an integrated ocean budget; and
! enact ocean and coastal legislation that progressed significantly in
the 109th Congress.
An updated U.S. Ocean Policy Report Card for 2006 was released by the Joint
Ocean Commission Initiative on January 30, 2007.24 As in 2005, the Joint Ocean
Commission Initiative assigned grades for actions taken (or not) in 2006. The Report
Card pointed to uneven progress in implementing recommendations of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission, with an overall
grade for national ocean governance reform of C-, a slight improvement from the
2005 grade of D+. The Report Card also highlighted the need for funding increases
in the general areas of research, science, and education and for establishing an Ocean
23 The full action plan is available at [http://jointoceancommission.org/press/press/release
0613_assets/seareport.pdf].
24 Available at [http://www.jointoceancommission.org/images/report-card-06.pdf].

---

CRS-11
Trust Fund that would be supported by revenue from activities in federal offshore
waters. It also emphasized the need to improve our understanding of the role that
oceans play in climate change. Grades were provided for each of the following areas:
national ocean governance reform (C-); regional and state ocean governance reform
(A-); international leadership (D-); research, science, and education (D+); fisheries
management reform (B+); and new funding for ocean policy and programs (F).
The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative remains active in promoting ocean
policy reform through press releases, letters to and testimony before Congress, and
public speaking engagements. Additional information about the Joint Ocean
Commission Initiative may be found at [http://www.jointoceancommission.org].
Administration Response and Implementation
Within 120 days after receiving the U.S. Ocean 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.25 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.26
On December 17, 2004, the President submitted to Congress a U.S. Ocean
Action Plan, his formal response to the recommendations of the U.S. Commission.27
Also on December 17, President Bush signed an executive order establishing, as part
of the Council on Environmental Quality, a Committee on Ocean Policy, to be led
by the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality.28 On January 26, 2007, the
Committee on Ocean Policy released the U.S. Ocean Action Plan Implementation
Update.29 The original action plan and the update cover progress in six general
subject areas:
! enhancing ocean leadership and coordination;
! advancing our understanding of the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes;
! enhancing the use and conservation of ocean, coastal, and Great
Lakes resources;
! managing coasts and their watersheds;
! supporting marine transportation; and
! advancing international ocean policy and science.
25 P.L. 106-256, § 4(a).
26 P.L. 106-256, § 4(b).
27 The 39-page Action Plan is available at [http://ocean.ceq.gov/actionplan.pdf].
28 The text of this executive order is available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/
2004/12/20041217-5.html].
29 The 57-page Action Plan Update is available at [http://ocean.ceq.gov/oap_update012207.
pdf].

---

CRS-12
To support this effort, the committee established an ocean governance structure
composed of subsidiary bodies to coordinate existing management — the Interagency
Committee on Ocean Science and Resource Management Integration (ICOSRMI) and
two subcommittees, established by the National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC) as the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) and
the Subcommittee on Integrated Management of Ocean Resources (SIMOR).
JSOST was assigned the task of developing an interagency planning document
and implementation strategy for ocean science and technology priorities. On January
26, 2007, the National Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy
was released by JSOST.30 The plan presents research priorities and guidance on how
various ocean science sectors should be engaged to address areas of greatest research
opportunity. JSOST also is to coordinate six working groups on (1) ocean education,
(2) ocean infrastructure, (3) ocean observation, (4) harmful algal blooms, hypoxia,
and human health, (5) ocean and coastal mapping, and (6) ocean partnership.
SIMOR seeks to facilitate collaboration and cooperation among federal agencies
and to build partnerships among federal, state, tribal, and local authorities.
According to the SIMOR work plan, subcommittee priority areas include:
! supporting regional and local collaboration;
! facilitating use of ocean science and technology in ocean
management;
! enhancing ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resource management to
improve use and conservation; and
! enhancing ocean education.31
The National Park Service Ocean Park Stewardship Action Plan is an example
of a collaborative effort envisioned in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan32 and summarized
in the action plan update. The stewardship action plan highlights the establishment,
in partnership with NOAA, other relevant agencies, and public and private entities,
of a seamless system of ocean parks, sanctuaries, refuges, and reserves. This plan
also identifies actions related to mapping, enhancing protection, educating and
engaging the public, and increasing the technical capacity for exploration and
stewardship. These efforts are supported by a general agreement among the
Department of Commerce (National Marine Sanctuary Program and Estuarine
Reserves Division) and the Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Park Service) to collaborate on efforts to improve management efficiencies,
increase joint planning efforts, enhance public education, and improve law
enforcement and rescue capabilities.
30 The National Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy is available at
[http://ocean.ceq.gov/about/docs/orpp12607.pdf].
31 SIMOR priorities are discussed in Priorities for the Subcommittee on Integrated
Management of Ocean Resources, available at [http://www.ocean.ceq.gov/about/docs/
SIMOR_WorkPlan_Final.pdf].
32 The Ocean Park Stewardship 2006-2008 Action Plan is available at [http://www.nps.gov/
pub_aff/oceans/Ocean_Park_ActionPlan.pdf].

---

CRS-13
Issues for Congress
More than two years after the release of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s
historic report and more than 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. The 110th Congress may consider whether and how to respond 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 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.
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 U.S. Ocean Action Plan and its update primarily document 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 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.
Legislation
Legislation introduced during the 109th Congress included several attempts to
comprehensively approach ocean policy and organization. A NOAA organic act,
which would have officially established NOAA in the Department of Commerce
headed by an Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, passed in
the House, but no companion measure was introduced in the Senate. Although two
omnibus bills were introduced encompassing a broad array of cross-cutting ocean
issues, neither received action.
The 109th Congress also considered specific ocean topics, including ocean
exploration; ocean and coastal observing systems; marine debris research, prevention,
and reduction; ocean and coastal mapping integration; and fisheries management.
Related issues considered whether to (1) provide additional funds for ocean-related
research; (2) replace a fragmented administrative structure with a more coherent
federal organization; or (3) adopt new approaches for managing marine resources,
such as setting aside large reserves from selected or all uses. Several bills were
introduced, and one, the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act
(P.L. 109-449), was enacted. This legislation established a program within NOAA
and the U.S. Coast Guard to help identify, determine sources of, assess, reduce, and

---

CRS-14
prevent marine debris and its damage to the marine environment and navigation
safety, in coordination with non-federal entities.
In the final hours of the 109th Congress, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) was reauthorized (P.L. 109-479),
incorporating provisions reflecting many recommendations made by both
commissions. These provisions addressed a broad array of topics, including
dedicated access privileges, overfishing, and fish stock rebuilding as well as issues
of concern to specific fisheries and regions. After passage, the Joint Ocean
Commission Initiative highlighted amendments related to enhancing the role of
science, establishing sustainable harvest levels, authorizing the use of market-based
approaches, and setting a clear deadline for ending overfishing. The Administration
also emphasized provisions authorizing market-based limited access privilege
programs, as well as language strengthening fisheries enforcement, developing
ecosystem pilot programs, establishing community-based restoration programs, and
creating a regionally based registry for recreational fishermen.
Many ocean issues discussed in the 109th Congress were not acted upon.
Concerns ranged from the general, such as extensive changes in organization and
administrative structure of ocean research and governance, to more specific topics,
such as ocean and coastal mapping. Early in the 110th Congress, a comprehensive
approach to many ocean issues, H.R. 21, the Oceans, Conservation, Education, and
National Strategy for the 21st Century Act was introduced. The bill would implement
many recommendations of the Pew and U.S. Commission reports such as
establishing a national policy for oceans, strengthening the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, establishing a national and regional governance
structure, and creating an ocean and Great Lakes conservation trust fund.
Yet it remains an open question whether comprehensive approaches will be
acted on or whether, as in the 109th Congress, actions will concentrate on specific
subjects or issues. Furthermore, areas of Administration action, or inaction, may
receive congressional oversight during the 110th Congress.

---

CRS-15
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), 22 pp.
Buck, Eugene H., Ocean Commission Reports: Side-by-Side Comparison of Fishery
Provisions, CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum (October 4, 2004),
18 pp.
Gish, Ken, and Eric Laschever, “The President’s Ocean Commission: Progress
Toward a New Ocean Policy,” N R & E (Summer 2004): 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]
Paul, Linda M. B., “The 2003 Pew Oceans Commission Report: Law, Policy, and
Governance,” N R & E (Summer 2004): 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), 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 vol.

---