[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE THREATS TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, OCEANS, AND WILDLIFE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, March 7, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-7
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-462 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).E-mail,
[email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member
Grace F. Napolitano, CA Don Young, AK
Jim Costa, CA Louie Gohmert, TX
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Doug Lamborn, CO
CNMI Robert J. Wittman, VA
Jared Huffman, CA Tom McClintock, CA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Paul A. Gosar, AZ
Ruben Gallego, AZ Paul Cook, CA
TJ Cox, CA Bruce Westerman, AR
Joe Neguse, CO Garret Graves, LA
Mike Levin, CA Jody B. Hice, GA
Debra A. Haaland, NM Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Jefferson Van Drew, NJ Daniel Webster, FL
Joe Cunningham, SC Liz Cheney, WY
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Mike Johnson, LA
Diana DeGette, CO Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Wm. Lacy Clay, MO John R. Curtis, UT
Debbie Dingell, MI Kevin Hern, OK
Anthony G. Brown, MD Russ Fulcher, ID
A. Donald McEachin, VA
Darren Soto, FL
Ed Case, HI
Steven Horsford, NV
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU
Matt Cartwright, PA
Paul Tonko, NY
Vacancy
David Watkins, Chief of Staff
Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, OCEANS, AND WILDLIFE
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Chair
TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Ranking Republican Member
Grace F. Napolitano, CA Doug Lamborn, CO
Jim Costa, CA Robert J. Wittman, VA
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Garret Graves, LA
CNMI Jody B. Hice, GA
Jefferson Van Drew, NJ Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Daniel Webster, FL
Anthony G. Brown, MD Mike Johnson, LA
Ed Case, HI Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Russ Fulcher, ID
TJ Cox, CA Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
Joe Neguse, CO
Mike Levin, CA
Joe Cunningham, SC
Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
----------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, March 7, 2019.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Burnett, Dr. H. Sterling, Senior Fellow and Managing Editor,
Environment & Climate News, The Heartland Institute,
Rowlett, Texas............................................. 50
Prepared statement of.................................... 51
Clark, Dr. Chris, Senior Scientist, Research Professor,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York....................... 54
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Kraus, Dr. Scott, Vice President and Senior Science Advisor,
Chief Scientist, Marine Mammal Conservation, Anderson Cabot
Center for Ocean Life at the New England Aquarium, Boston,
Massachusetts.............................................. 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
Questions submitted for the record....................... 50
Oliver, Chris, Assistant ASMRR, NOAA Fisheries, Silver
Spring, Maryland........................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Questions submitted for the record....................... 11
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 80
Submission for the Record by Representative Lamborn
List of Issued Incidental Harassment Authorizations for
Seismic Activity in the U.S. Atlantic, dated 2014-2018. 23
Submissions for the Record by Representative Lowenthal
H.R. 3682, Bill from 115th Congress...................... 66
Partners in the Vessel Speed Reduction (VSR) Incentive
Program, Letter dated June 19, 2018, re: 2018 voluntary
vessel speed reduction incentive program for the Santa
Barbara Channel and San Francisco Bay Area regions of
California............................................. 68
Submissions for the Record by Representative McClintock
International Whaling Commission, ``Whale Population
Estimates,'' Report, March 6, 2019..................... 69
Offshore Fossil Fuel Exploration and Developments: A
Review of Some Concerns, Scientific Review by John
Droz, Jr., April 28, 2018.............................. 72
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE THREATS TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT
WHALE
----------
Thursday, March 7, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jared Huffman
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Huffman, Sablan, Van Drew,
Lowenthal, Cox, Neguse, Levin, Cunningham, Grijalva (ex
officio); McClintock, Lamborn, Hice, Webster, Johnson,
Gonzalez-Colon, and Fulcher.
Also present: Representatives Beyer, Moulton, and Keating.
Mr. Huffman. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this
hearing of the Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife. We
will now come to order. Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral
opening statements in this hearing are limited to the Chairman,
the Ranking Member, the Vice Chair, and the Vice Ranking
Member. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner
and help Members keep their schedules.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members'
opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they
are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today, or the close of the
hearing, whichever comes first.
Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thanks, everyone, for joining us for this
important hearing to examine the many threats facing one of the
most endangered marine mammals in the world, the North Atlantic
right whale.
There are less than 420 right whales remaining. That is
fewer right whales in existence than Members of Congress. If
more is not done to save this iconic species, scientists
predict it will go extinct in the next few decades.
According to NOAA Fisheries, in order to maintain a
sustainable right whale population, no more than one right
whale per year can be killed by human causes. And as Dr. Kraus
has pointed out in his written testimony, that number has been
exceeded every single year for the last 20 years. No wonder
these whales are in such dire straits.
In 2017, they had a particularly bad year. There were 17
deaths and no new calves. While we have seen positive news
recently, including seven new calves spotted this year, there
are ongoing threats, including fishing gear entanglements and
accidental ship strikes. And additionally, the science shows
that climate change may be shifting their food source
northward, which means the whales would be moving further into
areas with shipping lanes and lobster traps.
Today, we will be talking about several promising solutions
that we can act on quickly, including ropeless technology for
lobster traps, vessel speed reductions, zooplankton monitoring,
coordination with Canada, and more. In addition to this
technological innovation and coordination, it is critical to
move legislation like the bipartisan SAVE Right Whales Act,
which was just reintroduced by my colleague Seth Moulton from
Massachusetts. This bill would provide financial resources for
research to develop and test technologies to reduce
entanglements and vessel collisions to help the right whale.
However, in addition to entanglements and ship strikes, a
new issue further endangers the North Atlantic right whale. In
yet another handout to the oil and gas industry, the Trump
administration is now actively threatening the long-term
survival of these whales by opening up the Atlantic Coast to
seismic air gun blasting and oil and gas exploration
activities.
As we have consistently seen with other decisions from the
Administration, this completely undermines our foundational
environmental laws, like the Marine Mammal Protection Act and
the ESA.
Seismic air guns are harmful to many forms of marine life,
ranging from plankton, the base of the ocean food web, to fish
and right whales. For right whales and other marine mammals,
sound is critical for communication, feeding, navigation, and
survival.
But just last year, NOAA Fisheries issued Incident
Harassment Authorizations under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act to allow five companies to use seismic air gun blasting to
survey the Atlantic continental shelf for oil and gas. These
air gun blasts occur as often as every 10 seconds for months at
a time, creating noise that is louder than all but military-
grade explosives. Thanks to NOAA issuing these authorizations,
seismic companies plan to fire air guns a combined 5 million
times over the course of their testing.
I also want to point out several major problems with these
authorizations, considering the near-extinct status of this
species.
First, even though five different companies requested
permits to conduct surveys within similar time frames in
similar locations, NOAA Fisheries did not consider the
cumulative impacts here, the fact that when combined with each
other and other activities, there is a vast increase in ocean
noise. Instead, the agency analyzed the impacts of each survey
in isolation, ignoring the fact that the ocean is already a
very loud place and set to become 5 million blasts louder under
these authorizations.
Second, NOAA Fisheries' proposed mitigation is to prohibit
blasting within 90 kilometers of the coast between November and
April. But we know that right whales, including mothers and
calves--the most vulnerable of the species--are present in this
area nearly year-round, not just between November and April. We
also know that sound travels great distances underwater, and a
small buffer like this is unlikely to shield these whales
completely from the negative impacts of that seismic testing.
Third, under the Obama administration, BOEM rejected the
seismic permit applications for testing in the Atlantic because
of the impacts on marine life, including the right whale. They
stated, ``The value of obtaining the geophysical information
from the new seismic air gun surveys in the Atlantic does not
outweigh the potential risks of those surveys' acoustic pulse
impacts on marine life.'' I have not seen any new science that
suggests that these risks have changed.
Finally, this activity could start imminently. The company
can begin air blasts within 30 days of BOEM's issuing of the
permits. But seismic blasts could make the difference between
recovery and extinction for right whales.
Given the many threats facing this species and the efforts
underway to save them, it makes no sense for NOAA Fisheries to
allow seismic blasting to occur.
There are some truly useful technologies and innovations
that we can look at to help the right whale. I look forward to
hearing more about that today. But it is also critical that we
don't add new threats just to make the oil industry a few more
bucks.
With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, Chair, Subcommittee on
Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
Good morning. Thank you for joining us today for an important
hearing examining the many threats facing one of the most endangered
marine mammals: the North Atlantic right whale.
There are less than 420 right whales remaining--that's fewer right
whales in existence than Members of Congress. If more is not done to
save this iconic species, scientists predict that the they could go
extinct in the next few decades.
According to NOAA Fisheries, in order to maintain a sustainable
right whale population, no more than one right whale per year can be
killed by human causes. And as Dr. Kraus has pointed out in his written
testimony, that number has been exceeded every single year for the last
20 years. No wonder these whales are in such a dire situation.
In 2017, they had a particularly bad year: there were 17 deaths and
no new calves. While we have seen positive news recently, including
seven right whale calves spotted this year, there are still ongoing
threats, including fishing gear entanglement and accidental ship
strikes. Additionally, science shows that climate change may be
shifting their food source northward. This means right whales will be
moving further into areas with shipping lanes and lobster traps.
Today, we will talk about several promising solutions we can act on
now, including ropeless technology for lobster traps, vessel speed
reductions, zooplankton monitoring, coordination with Canada, and more.
In addition to technology innovation and coordinated management, it's
critical to move legislation, like the bipartisan SAVE Right Whales
Act, introduced by my colleague Congressman Moulton from Massachusetts
last Congress. This bill would provide financial resources for research
to develop and test technologies to reduce entanglements and vessel
collisions to help the survival of the right whale.
However, in addition to entanglements and ship strikes, a new issue
further endangers the North Atlantic right whale. In yet another
handout to the oil and gas industry, the Trump administration is now
actively threatening the long-term survival of the North Atlantic right
whale by opening the Atlantic Coast to seismic air gun blasting and oil
and gas exploration activities.
As we've consistently seen with other decisions from the Trump
administration, this completely undermines our foundational
environmental laws, like the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
Endangered Species Act.
Seismic air guns are harmful to many forms of marine life ranging
from plankton, the base of the ocean food web, to fish and whales. For
right whales and other marine mammals, sound is critical for
communication, feeding, and navigation.
But just last year, NOAA Fisheries issued Incidental Harassment
Authorizations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act to allow five
companies to use seismic air gun blasting to survey the Atlantic
Continental Shelf for oil and gas. These air gun blasts occur as often
as every 10 seconds for months at a time, creating a noise that is
louder than all but military-grade explosives. Thanks to NOAA issuing
these authorizations, seismic companies plan to fire air guns a
combined 5 million times over the course of their testing. I have my
air horn here with me today, if anyone wants to know what it's like to
be subjected to that kind of noise.
I also want to point out several major problems with these
authorizations, considering the near-extinct status of the North
Atlantic right whale:
First, even though five different companies requested permits to
conduct surveys within similar time frames and in similar locations,
NOAA Fisheries did not consider the effects of the five seismic surveys
when combined with each other or with other activities that cause ocean
noise. Instead, the agency analyzed the impacts of each survey in
isolation, ignoring the fact that the ocean is already a very loud
place and set to become 5 million blasts louder under these
authorizations.
Second, NOAA Fisheries' proposed mitigation is to prohibit seismic
blasting within 90 kilometers of the coast between November and April.
But we know that right whales, including mothers and calves--the most
vulnerable of the species--are present in this area nearly year-round--
not just between November and April. We also know that sound travels
great distances underwater, and a small buffer is unlikely to shield
these whales completely from the negative impacts of seismic testing.
Third, under the Obama administration, BOEM rejected the seismic
permit applications for seismic testing in the Atlantic because of the
impacts on marine life, including the right whale. They stated that the
``value of obtaining the geophysical information from the new seismic
airgun surveys in the Atlantic does not outweigh the potential risks of
those surveys' acoustic pulse impacts on marine life.'' I haven't seen
any new scientific information showing that the potential risks have
changed.
Finally, this activity could start imminently--the companies can
begin air gun blasts within 30 days of the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM) issuing the permits for exploration. But seismic
blasts could make the difference between recovery and extinction for
right whales.
Given the many threats facing this species and the efforts underway
to save each and every whale, it makes no sense that NOAA Fisheries
would allow seismic blasting to occur.
There are some truly useful technologies and policies that we
should expand and implement to protect right whales, and I look forward
to hearing more about what can be done. But it's also critical that we
don't add any new threats just to make the oil industry a few bucks.
With that, I look forward to hearing from NOAA and our panel of
scientific experts today. I now invite the Ranking Member for his
remarks.
______
Mr. Huffman. I now invite the Ranking Member to give his
remarks.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The problem with
visions of impending apocalypse is that after the initial
hysteria passes, life goes on and the world does not end. I
cannot imagine how disappointing that is to the prophets of
doom. Chicken Little found that out to her embarrassment and I
think many today could learn from her example.
For example, at our hearing on rising oceans recently, the
only climatologist on the panel confirmed that sea level rise
has been steady throughout the 20th century and shows no
correlation with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Indeed, he
noted the oceans have been rising about 400 feet since the last
Ice Age, and could be expected to continue to do so very
gradually until temperature equilibrium is achieved.
In the 1980s, climate change was blamed for the impending
extinction of the polar bear. You may have noticed we don't
hear much about polar bear extinction these days because it
turns out their populations are doing very well, thank you, and
have actually been increasing nicely since 2005, along with
carbon dioxide levels.
Today, we adopt a new mascot, the right whale. The right
whale got its name from the whalers who drove it nearly to
extinction in the days when whale oil was in high demand. It
was the ``right'' whale to hunt to supply the lucrative whale
oil market. Ironically, it may have been saved from outright
extinction by--wait for it--fossil fuels, which made whale oil
obsolete.
Now, however, the right whale is being repurposed as an
excuse to discourage fossil fuel use and to impede offshore
exploration. We hear voices accusing the dreaded Donald Trump
of decimating marine animals by his administration's support of
Incidental Harassment Authorizations which allow for limited
seismic testing in the Atlantic outer continental shelf.
Before we all set our hair on fire, let's confront a few
inconvenient truths. It was the Obama administration's 2015 5-
year oil and gas leasing program that initially proposed
opening the Atlantic to offshore energy exploration, and it was
the Obama administration that approved multiple permits
supporting seismic testing. From 2015 through 2017, Columbia
University received four permits for seismic activity to gather
scientific data, including two permits for seismic testing in
the Atlantic. Furthermore, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted
seismic surveys in the Atlantic Ocean between 2014 and 2015.
Seismic testing is not unique to offshore oil and gas
exploration, nor has it been found to be detrimental to marine
mammal stocks. Under the Obama administration, the National
Marine Fisheries Service and the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management both determined that there is no documented evidence
of anything more than a negligible impact to marine mammals
resulting from exposure to seismic testing on the ocean floor.
It may be annoying, but it is far from dangerous.
We may hear much about the ``taking'' of marine mammals
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. To most people,
``taking'' sounds like a euphemism for killing. In fact, I
think it is meant to convey this false impression. But as
actually used in the Act, it means anything that disturbs
marine animals, irrespective of the health of the marine mammal
stock.
Whaling excesses in the pre-fossil fuels period almost
destroyed the right whales in the North Atlantic and the
Northern Pacific. Their populations were driven so low that
they are barely measurable today, particularly in the Northern
Pacific. And sadly, they have shown little sign of recovery.
Fortunately, they are doing very well in the Southern Atlantic
and Pacific. According to the Marine Mammal Center, ``the
breeding populations of Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, and
Australia have shown evidence of strong recovery, with annual
increase rates of 7-8 percent, and together may now total over
16,000.''
And there is more good news. In the North Pacific and
Atlantic, other species of whales hunted in the last century
are recovering, including blue whales, growing about 3 percent
per year, humpback whales, which have already recovered their
pre-whaling populations, fin whales, growing 4 to 5 percent per
year in the North Pacific, with their populations in the North
Atlantic described as ``healthy''--all of this according to the
Marine Mammal Center.
So, there is a lot here to celebrate. Most whale species
are recovering in the Northern Hemisphere, and the right whale
population is making a strong recovery in the Southern
Hemisphere, all under current conditions. Happily, so too is
American energy independence and the American economy, with
great promise for future prosperity and growth from our
offshore reserves.
So, Mr. Chairman, let's try not to screw all that up today,
please.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Tom McClintock, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
The problem with visions of impending apocalypse is that after the
initial hysteria passes, life goes on and the world doesn't end. How
disappointing that must be to the prophets of doom! Chicken Little
found this out to her embarrassment and many today could learn from her
example.
At our hearing on rising oceans, the only climatologist on the
panel confirmed that sea level rise has been steady throughout the 20th
century and shows no correlation to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
Indeed, the oceans have risen about 400 feet from the last ice age and
can be expected to continue to do so very gradually until temperature
equilibrium is achieved.
In the 1980s, climate change was blamed for the impending
extinction of the polar bear. You may have noticed we don't hear about
polar bear extinction anymore because it turns out their populations
are doing very well and have been increasing nicely along with carbon
dioxide levels. So today we adopt a new mascot, the right whale.
The right whale got its name from the whalers who drove it nearly
to extinction in the 19th century. It was the ``right'' whale to hunt
to supply the lucrative whale oil market. Ironically, it may well have
been saved from outright extinction by--wait for it--fossil fuels,
which made whale oil obsolete.
Now, however, the right whale is being repurposed as an excuse to
discourage fossil fuel use and to impede offshore exploration. We hear
voices accusing the dreaded Donald Trump of decimating marine mammals
by his administration's support of Incidental Harassment Authorizations
which allow for limited seismic testing in the Atlantic Outer
Continental Shelf.
Before we light our hair on fire, let's confront a few inconvenient
truths.
It was the Obama administration's 2015 5-year oil and gas leasing
program that initially proposed opening the Atlantic to offshore energy
exploration, and it was the Obama administration that approved multiple
permits supporting seismic testing. From 2015 through 2017, Columbia
University received four permits for seismic activity to gather
scientific data, including two permits for seismic testing in the
Atlantic. Furthermore, the United States Geological Survey conducted
seismic surveys in the Atlantic Ocean between 2014-2015.
Seismic testing is NOT synonymous with offshore oil and gas
extraction, nor has it been found to be detrimental to marine mammal
stocks. Under the Obama administration, the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management both determined that
there is no documented evidence of any more than a ``negligible
impact'' to marine mammals resulting from exposure to seismic testing
of the ocean floor. It may be annoying, but it is far from dangerous.
We will hear much about the ``taking'' of marine mammals under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act. To most people, a ``taking'' sounds like
a euphemism for ``killing.'' I think it is meant to convey this false
impression. But as actually used in the Act, it actually means anything
that disturbs marine mammals, irrespective of the health of the marine
mammal stock.
Whaling excesses in the pre-fossil fuels period almost destroyed
the right whales in the Northern Atlantic and Pacific. Their
populations were driven so low that they are barely measurable and have
shown little sign of recovery. Fortunately, according to the
International Whaling Commission, ``the breeding populations of
Argentina/Brazil, South Africa and Australia have shown evidence of
strong recovery with annual increase rates of 7-8 percent and together
may now total over 16,000 . . .'' More good news: in the North Pacific
and Atlantic, other species of whales hunted in the last century are
recovering, including blue whales, (growing about 3 percent per year),
humpback whales (which have recovered their pre-whaling populations),
fin whales (growing 4 to 5 percent per year in the North Pacific with
their populations in the North Atlantic described as ``healthy.'' All
this according to the International Whaling Commission.
So there's a lot to celebrate. Most whale species are recovering in
the Northern Hemisphere and the right whale population is making a
strong recovery in the Southern Hemisphere--all under current
conditions. Happily, so too is American energy independence and the
American economy, with great promise of future prosperity and growth
from our offshore reserves.
Let's not screw that up today, please.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. McClintock. I feel so much
better hearing that this is all a hoax and hysteria. Perhaps
the experts and scientists we will hear from will confirm that,
and then we can all just go home. Let's find out.
Right now, before we move to the witnesses, I ask unanimous
consent that the gentleperson from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, and
also the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Moulton, be allowed
to sit on the dais and participate in today's proceeding.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Now, I will introduce our first witness. Welcome to Chris
Oliver, the Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries.
Welcome, Mr. Oliver. Mr. Oliver, under the Committee Rules, you
must limit your oral statements to 5 minutes. But your entire
statement will appear in the record.
When you begin, the lights on the witness table will turn
green. After 4 minutes, the yellow light will come on, and your
time will have expired when you see the red light. I will ask
you at that point to wrap up.
The Chair now recognizes you to testify.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS OLIVER, ASSISTANT ASMRR, NOAA FISHERIES,
SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND
Mr. Oliver. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
the opportunity to testify. Chris Oliver with NOAA Fisheries.
North Atlantic right whale is one of the world's most
endangered large whale species, with an estimated, as you
mentioned, 411 individuals. In the early 1990s, the successful
implementation of measures aimed at reducing primary threats
resulted in some encouraging population growth.
However, since 2010, the whales have experienced another
period of decline; because the population is very small, its
status can change quickly. Right whales have also made recent
large-scale changes in habitat use, spending more time farther
offshore and to the north, likely in pursuit of better foraging
opportunities.
They are protected under both the Endangered Species Act
and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and have been listed as
endangered since 1970. We are currently implementing a North
Atlantic right whale recovery plan, with the ultimate goal of
recovering this species.
We are working to protect and recover this species on
multiple fronts. Human interaction, such an entanglement in
fishing gear and vessel strikes, currently present the greatest
threat. Collisions between whales and vessels often go
unnoticed and unreported. Research demonstrates that the
probability of large whale mortality and serious injury from
vessel strikes increases with vessel speed.
NOAA Fisheries has taken several steps to reduce this
threat, including requiring vessels to slow down in areas where
whales may be present, encouraging voluntary speed reductions,
recommended alternative shipping routes and international
shipping lanes, developing right whale alert systems and vessel
reporting systems, and improving our stranding response.
Since 2008, we have limited vessel speeds to 10 knots for
vessels greater than 65 feet in seasonal management areas along
the U.S. East Coast. The purpose of this regulation is to
reduce the likelihood of deaths and serious injuries to
endangered whales resulting from collisions with ships. In the
10 years prior to implementation of that regulation, there were
11 confirmed right whale mortalities due to vessel strikes in
U.S. waters. In the 10 years since, only three ship strike
mortalities have been confirmed. Entanglements in fishing gear
is the other primary cause of serious injury and death for many
whales, including right whales. We require fishermen to use
certain gear modifications to reduce entanglement risk such as
sinking ground lines, weak link connections, pot limits, and
closed areas.
However, entanglements continue to be a source of injury
and mortality, with at least seven mortalities occurring during
the 2017 unusual mortality event. In addition, we are working
with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to develop
management measures to further reduce the risk of entanglements
in gear.
On the international front, we recognize the transboundary
range of this species requires international collaboration. We
are actively working with Canada on the gaps in both science
and management impeding the recovery of North Atlantic right
whales. In March of last year, Canada adopted regulations on
its commercial fishing and maritime shipping industries to
minimize both gear entanglements and ship strikes in advance of
the North Atlantic right whale migrations, which is now into
the Gulf of Saint Lawrence.
Continuing bilateral engagement and implementation of our
respective regulatory regimes will ensure that the United
States and Canada are fully complying with the Marine Mammal
Protection Act and eliminating the risks to North Atlantic
right whales while ensuring sustainable fisheries and trade.
As we move forward, NOAA Fisheries and our partners will
strive to make progress in rebuilding the North Atlantic right
whale population. This year we anticipate the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission to consider developing an addendum
to its lobster management plan to consider measures to reduce
the number of buoy lines used by American lobster fishermen by
up to 40 percent. This would represent a substantial reduction
in gear and significantly reduce the probability of
entanglements.
Further, the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team will
meet the week of April 22 to develop additional recommended
changes to the take reduction plan. These include additional
closure areas as well as reporting, monitoring, and expanded
gear marking requirements.
Finally, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, NOAA Fisheries is
pleased to report the births of several right whale calves this
season, seven as of February 20, which is good news, given that
it comes on the heels of virtually no calf production.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our conservation
measures today, and I would be happy to try to answer any
questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Oliver follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
Chair and members of the Subcommittee, I am Chris Oliver, Assistant
Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the Department of
Commerce. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on North Atlantic
right whales. NMFS is responsible for the stewardship of the Nation's
ocean resources and their habitat. We provide vital services for the
Nation: productive and sustainable fisheries, safe sources of seafood,
the recovery and conservation of protected resources, and healthy
ecosystems--all backed by sound science and an ecosystem-based approach
to management.
about the species and our role
The North Atlantic right whale is one of the world's most
endangered large whale species, with an estimated 411 individuals
remaining. By the early 1890s, commercial whalers had hunted right
whales in the Atlantic to the brink of extinction. After commercial
whaling stopped, right whales had several decades of slow recovery and
by 1992, there was an estimated minimum population of 295 individuals.
In the early 1990s, the successful implementation of measures aimed at
reducing the primary threats, identified through extensive
collaboration among stakeholders, resulted in further growth of the
population to approximately 481 individuals in 2010. However, since
2010, North Atlantic right whales have experienced another period of
decline. Because the population is very small, its status can change
quickly. In addition, North Atlantic right whales have made recent,
large-scale changes in their habitat use, spending more time farther
offshore and to the north, likely in pursuit of better zooplankton
foraging opportunities.
North Atlantic right whales are protected under both the Endangered
Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. They have been listed
as endangered under the ESA since 1970 and as such, NMFS developed and
is implementing a North Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Plan. The
ultimate goal of the Recovery Plan is to recover the North Atlantic
right whale, with an interim goal of down-listing its status from
endangered to threatened. The major actions recommended in the Recovery
Plan include reducing or eliminating injury and mortality caused by
vessel collisions or by fishing gear, protecting habitats essential to
the survival and recovery of the species, and minimizing the effects of
vessel disturbance.
NMFS and our partners are committed to conserving and rebuilding
the North Atlantic right whale population using a variety of innovative
techniques to study, protect, and rescue these endangered whales. We
also engage our partners as we develop regulations and management plans
that foster healthy fisheries and reduce the risk of entanglements,
create whale-safe shipping practices, and reduce impacts from ocean
noise.
efforts underway
NMFS is working to protect this species on multiple fronts, with
the goal that its population will increase. The leading causes of known
mortality for North Atlantic right whales are vessel strikes and
entanglement in fishing gear.
vessel strikes
Collisions between whales and vessels often go unnoticed and
unreported. However, research demonstrates that the probability of
large whale mortality and serious injury from vessel strikes increases
with increasing vessel speed. Thus, NMFS has taken several steps to
reduce the threat of vessel collisions with North Atlantic right
whales, including requiring vessels to slow down in certain areas and
during seasons when whales may be present, encouraging voluntary speed
reductions in Dynamic Management Areas, recommending alternative
shipping routes and areas to be avoided, modifying international
shipping lanes, developing right whale alert systems and mandatory
vessel reporting systems, increasing outreach and education, and
improving our stranding response.
Since 2008, NMFS has limited vessel speeds to 10 knots for vessels
65 feet or greater in overall length in Seasonal Management Areas along
the U.S. East Coast at certain times of the year. In the 10 years prior
to implementation of the vessel speed regulation, there were 11
confirmed U.S. right whale mortalities due to vessel strikes, but in
the 10 years since the regulation has been active, only 3 were
documented in U.S. waters.
NMFS is currently conducting a review of its vessel speed
restriction rule (pursuant to 50 CFR 224.105). The review will
culminate in a report that will assess: economic impacts to the
maritime community, vessel traffic compliance with the rule, impacts to
navigational safety, conservation benefits to right whales, and
outreach activities conducted to date. Staff and contractors are
analyzing the latest relevant data in collaboration with other agencies
and scientists. The review is well underway, and we hope to have a
final report issued by the end of FY 19.
entanglements
Over more than two decades, NMFS has implemented management
measures to reduce whale entanglements with the help of the Atlantic
Large Whale Take Reduction Team--a group of stakeholders consisting of
fishermen, scientists, and state and Federal officials. Entanglement in
fishing gear is a primary cause of serious injury and death for many
whale species, including the North Atlantic right whale. We require
commercial fishermen to use certain gear modifications that are meant
to reduce entanglement risk to North Atlantic right whales and have
established areas where fishing cannot take place during certain times
when North Atlantic right whales are present.
However, entanglement in fishing gear continues to be a source of
serious injury and mortality for this species; therefore, we are
currently working with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
and the Take Reduction Team to develop management measures to further
reduce the risk of entanglement in fishing gear. Specifically, the
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team will be meeting during the
week of April 22 to develop recommended changes to the Take Reduction
Plan that would reduce the effects of fixed gear fisheries on North
Atlantic right whales. NMFS expects the Take Reduction Team to consider
recommendations for line reduction measures and additions or
modifications to seasonal closure areas to reduce impacts of these
fisheries on large whales as well as revised or expanded reporting,
monitoring, and gear marking requirements which would allow NMFS to
better evaluate the impacts of these fisheries to North Atlantic right
whales.
international collaboration
NOAA is actively collaborating with Canada on the science and
management gaps that are impeding the recovery of North Atlantic right
whales in both Canadian and U.S. waters through ongoing bilateral
negotiations. In March 2018, Canada adopted regulations applicable to
its commercial fishing and maritime shipping industries to minimize
gear entanglements and ship strikes in advance of North Atlantic right
whales migrating into Canadian waters. In early February, these
measures were further refined as Canada identified how it intends to
protect North Atlantic right whales during the 2019 Canadian snow crab
season in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
In 2016, NMFS issued final regulations to implement the import
provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Pursuant to these
provisions, NMFS will evaluate Canadian fisheries from which fish and
fish products are exported to the United States to assess the
effectiveness of Canada's regulatory program in mitigating bycatch of
marine mammals. Consultations on the applicable Canadian commercial
fisheries will continue through March 2021 per the existing regulatory
timeline for making comparability determinations. To date, NOAA has
consulted with Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans to identify
priority fisheries and elements of a comparable regulatory program to
meet the required framework of the MMPA import provisions. Continuing
our bilateral engagement and implementation of our respective
regulatory regimes will ensure that the United States and Canada are
fully complying with the MMPA and eliminating the risk of North
Atlantic right whale entanglements in fisheries while ensuring
sustainable fisheries and trade continue.
atlantic ihas
Late last year, NMFS issued final authorizations under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act to incidentally, but not intentionally, harass
marine mammals to companies proposing to conduct geophysical surveys in
support of hydrocarbon exploration in the Atlantic Ocean. The
authorizations require the companies to implement mitigation measures
to reduce the impacts of survey activities on marine mammals and set
forth monitoring and reporting requirements. Our actions only address
the taking or harassment of marine mammals incidental to the planned
surveys. The Department of the Interior has jurisdiction over decisions
to allow the surveys and any future drilling, pursuant to its authority
under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. NMFS can only issue an
authorization for the incidental take (harassment) of small numbers of
marine mammals if it finds that the taking associated with a specified
activity will have a negligible impact on the affected species or
stock(s); and prescribes appropriate mitigation, as well as
requirements for monitoring and reporting of such takings. After
extensive analysis, NMFS developed rigorous mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements for the proposed Atlantic geophysical surveys.
For North Atlantic right whales, we specified measures that limit
activities in areas where they are expected to be present, including
all designated critical habitat and additional seasonal management
areas throughout the survey area. Specifically, the mitigation area
restricts seismic operation within 90 km of the coast from November
through April. Seismic operations are also required to be suspended if
North Atlantic right whales are detected at an extended shutdown
distance within 1.5 km of the vessel.
next steps
As stated above, NMFS and our partners are committed to continuing
the progress made in rebuilding the North Atlantic right whale
population. At its February meeting, the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission voted to develop an addendum to the Lobster
Management Plan to consider measures to reduce the number of buoy lines
used by American lobster fishermen by up to 40 percent. Since more than
90 percent of the buoy lines in the areas frequented by right whales
are associated with the lobster fishery, this would represent
substantial line reduction. A vote on whether to send the Addendum out
for public comment could occur as early as the Commission's April 30
spring meeting, allowing final decision making in August 2019.
In addition, NMFS will continue to conduct science related to
assessing the current status of whales, including monitoring calf
production, and decreasing the risk of entanglements and vessel
strikes. This work occurs from the Southeast to the Northeast and
extends into Canadian waters, working in collaboration with colleagues
at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. On the topic of calves,
despite unusually low recruitment to the population between 2012 and
2018, there has been some encouraging news lately with several births
documented this calving season (7 calves as of February 20, 2019).
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss North Atlantic right
whales. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Chris Oliver, Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Questions Submitted by Rep. Cunningham
Question 1. Mr. Oliver, 10 Atlantic states along with several NGOs
have filed lawsuits against the issuance of these Incidental Harassment
Authorizations. With all of this opposition, why would the Trump
administration move forward with offshore oil exploration?
Answer. Executive Order 13795, Implementing an America-First
Offshore Energy Strategy, established it as the policy of the United
States to encourage energy exploration and production in order to
maintain our Nation's position as a global energy leader while ensuring
that any such activity is safe and environmentally responsible. E.O.
13795 finds that energy and minerals produced from Federal lands and
waters are important to a vibrant economy as well as national security,
while also reducing our reliance on imported energy. As a result of
these and other policies, in November 2018 the United States was a net
exporter of energy for the first time in over three decades.
Jurisdiction over decisions to allow geophysical surveys and any
future drilling rests with the Department of the Interior pursuant to
their authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. It is the
role of the Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), administered through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), to ensure that such activity is consistent with
applicable statutory authorities for which NMFS is responsible.
Considerable analysis, using the best available science, was utilized
in making the decision to approve incidental harassment authorizations
(IHAs) that fully comply with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA),
Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). NMFS made the necessary statutory findings and prescribed
appropriate mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. The
approved IHAs are designed to ensure that the geophysical activity will
have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or
stocks, as required by the MMPA. Moreover, NMFS believes that the
prescribed and extensive mitigation requirements meet the MMPA legal
standard of having the least practicable adverse impact on the affected
species or stocks and their habitat.
Question 2. Mr. Oliver, as of 2016, South Carolina valued coastal
tourism at $8.96 billion, and commercial fisheries at $42.4 million. A
report from the American Petroleum Institute says that opening the
Atlantic to oil and gas exploration would bring only $1.5 billion in
state and local tax revenues over 20 years. Do you believe that the
$1.5 billion revenue exceeds the risk of an oil spill devastating the
nearly $9 billion tourism industry?
Answer. The Department of the Interior (DOI) has jurisdiction over
decisions to allow the surveys and any future drilling, pursuant to its
authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. NMFS's role is
to ensure that such activity is consistent with applicable statutory
authorities for which NMFS is responsible (e.g., MMPA and ESA). Thus,
DOI is best suited to address your question.
Question Submitted by Rep. Levin
Question 1. Mr. Oliver, can you provide the Subcommittee with any
internal documents held by NMFS that express scientific concern over
the cumulative impacts of the five issued Incidental Harassment
Authorizations on North Atlantic right whales or other marine mammals?
Can you provide any internal documents from NMFS that voice scientific
concern for marine mammals in regards to the 160-decibel level
authorized in the Atlantic for seismic testing, which is much higher
than the 120-decibel level previously authorized in the Gulf of Mexico?
Can you provide any documents that explain the difference in these
policies? Please provide any scientific information used in making
these determinations.
Answer. The Administrative Record for Incidental Harassment
Authorizations will be made available to the Committee.
Question Submitted by Rep. Sablan
Question 1. Mr. Oliver, at the hearing you responded to my question
regarding NOAA Fisheries supervision of WESPAC and the Fishery Councils
by stating that you do not have direct supervision of the Councils.
Section 302 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSFCMA) established the eight Regional Fishery Management
Councils. The objectives of these councils are to develop, monitor and
revise fishery management plans and data collection programs for
domestic and foreign fishing conducted within the 200-mile U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This is done with the approval and
implementation of the Secretary of Commerce, who has stewardship
responsibilities under MSFCMA for living marine resources in the EEZ.
The NOAA Fishery website states that ``We support the councils by
conducting the annual nomination and appointment process, training new
members, and facilitating periodic meetings of the Council Coordination
Committee. We also work with the councils to designate essential fish
habitat for federally managed species. Together we research and
describe habitats essential for each life stage of many species, create
maps, and designate Habitat Areas of Particular Concern.'' And doesn't
NOAA also allocate and track Federal funding to the Councils as well
and receive performance progress and financial reports? And, among
other things, do not Fishery Council members file financial disclosure
reports with NOAA and NOAA attorneys advise Council members and make
determinations regarding recusal for conflicts of interest? Could you
please clarify exactly what role NOAA plays in regards to WESPAC and
the other seven Regional Fishery Management Councils?
Answer. The role the Secretary of Commerce, NOAA, and NMFS in
regard to the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils, is detailed
in the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) and its implementing regulations.
Primarily, the Councils develop and amend fishery management plans for
approval and implementation by NMFS on behalf of the Secretary of
Commerce. NOAA allocates funding to the eight Councils, and Council
activities are governed by grant mechanisms described in 50 CFR
600.125. NOAA partners with the Councils on research priorities and
policy implementation to achieve conservation and management of our
Nation's fisheries.
NMFS and the Councils published Operational Guidelines that provide
guiding principles for the partnership between NMFS and the Councils.
How each Council and NMFS Regional Office pair implements the MSA and
other requirements throughout the fishery management process are set
forth in Regional Operating Agreements. These agreements are found
here: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/partners/operational-
guidelines.
Congress appropriates funding for the eight Regional Fishery
Management Councils (Councils). Funds are allocated to the Councils
according to a historical formula, agreed to by all eight Councils,
that has been in place for well over a decade. Per regulation, at 50
CFR 600.125(a), Council activities and expenditures are managed via
grant and/or cooperative agreement mechanisms, with coordination via a
Federal Program Officer. Such funding is provided consistent with the
stated priorities and objectives of the grant. Funding is subject to 5-
year grant parameters under the OMB Uniform Guidance and NOAA
Administrative Standard Award Conditions. Both the OMB guidance and the
NOAA standard conditions contain reporting requirements. The standard
reporting frequency is semi-annually (every 6 months).
Per Section 302(j) of the MSA, ``affected individuals'' (i.e.,
Council nominees, Council members, and members of SSCs) must file
Statements of Financial Interests. This financial information must be
disclosed on the NOAA Form 88-195, Statement of Financial Interests.
Guidance on reporting and filing procedures for complying with
financial disclosure requirements is found at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/partners/financial-disclosure-
statements and at 50 CFR 600.235.
A Council member required to disclose a financial interest under
302(j)(2) of the MSA may not vote on a Council decision that would have
a ``significant and predictable effect'' on a financial interest
disclosed on his or her Statement of Financial Interests. At the
request of the member, or at the initiative of an appropriate
designated official, the designated official shall make a determination
for the record as to whether a Council decision would have a
``significant and predictable effect'' on a financial interest that
would require that the member be recused from a vote on a Council
decision. The term ``designated official'' is defined in Section
302(j)(1)(B) of the MSA, but typically is an attorney of the NOAA
Office of General Counsel.
Section 302(j)(9) of the MSA requires the Secretary to submit an
annual report to Congress on actions taken by the Secretary and the
Councils to implement the disclosure of financial interest and recusal
requirements of the MSA. More information about the recusal process and
these requirements can be found in that report at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/partners/council-reports-congress.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, Mr. Oliver.
I will begin the questioning for 5 minutes. And again,
thank you for being here. One of the things that I hope to do
in this Subcommittee, with many of these informational
hearings, is to reset the factual and scientific baseline for
these issues that we debate.
Mr. McClintock provides us with colorful quotes from people
like Dickens and Lewis Carroll. But there is no substitute for
actual facts and science. So, I would like to get a few things
on the record with you, if I could. I want to get through
several questions quickly, so if you can, I would like you to
answer yes or no. And when I refer to ``the Agency,'' obviously
I am talking about NOAA Fisheries.
So, true or false: There are about 420 North Atlantic right
whales living today. Now, Dr. Kraus may say that is a bit of an
overcount, but is that the general range, to your
understanding?
Mr. Oliver. Yes.
Mr. Huffman. The Agency is concerned about the survival of
this population. True?
Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huffman. The Potential Biological Removal, or PBR, is a
term that your agency defined to quantify the number of whales
that can be seriously injured or killed without impacting the
population. Right?
Mr. Oliver. I believe that is the generally accepted
definition. yes, sir.
Mr. Huffman. Yes. And for the last two decades, that number
has hovered somewhere between zero and one. Is that right?
Mr. Oliver. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Huffman. But the actual number of right whale deaths
each year has been higher than that, mainly because of ship
strikes and fishing gear entanglements. Correct?
Mr. Oliver. Yes.
Mr. Huffman. Is the Agency proactively trying to address
issues pertaining to entanglements and ship strikes in order to
save the species?
Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huffman. You have put a lot of work into a recovery
plan, as you are required to do under the Endangered Species
Act. Correct?
Mr. Oliver. Correct.
Mr. Huffman. I hope to work with you more on that. But in
the meantime, this year there is a little bit of good news. We
have seven calves sighted so far. Right?
Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huffman. As we will hear from our second panel of
experts, there are fewer than a hundred breeding females in the
population. You agree with that assessment?
Mr. Oliver. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Huffman. And we know that females travel to the
southeast each year to give birth, the breeding females. Is
there scientific evidence that elevated ambient noise can cause
chronic stress in baleen whales, especially breeding females?
Mr. Oliver. There is evidence that the cumulative effects
of acoustics can affect foraging behavior, calving, breeding
behavior--basically sublethal effects relative to whale
energetics, yes.
Mr. Huffman. You agree with the science that says seismic
noise increases the probability that right whale mothers and
calves could get separated?
Mr. Oliver. I am not an expert on acoustics, sir. I don't
know the degree to which acoustics will directly----
Mr. Huffman. Do you have any reason to disagree with that
science?
Mr. Oliver. No, sir.
Mr. Huffman. And would you agree with the claim in Dr.
Kraus' testimony in the second panel that seismic noise can
disrupt behavior of baleen whales at tens to hundreds of
kilometers?
Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huffman. Can it disrupt the plankton that they depend
on for their food?
Mr. Oliver. I don't know the answer to that one, sir.
Mr. Huffman. Would you also agree that right whales may be
present in an area but not visually detected?
Mr. Oliver. That is correct.
Mr. Huffman. But the Agency's mitigation requirements and
the Incidental Harassment Authorizations only require a
shutdown of activity if the whales are visually detected within
1,500 meters of the vessel, even though the science suggests
there could be disruption from noise at tens to hundreds of
kilometers?
Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir. But we have measures in place to
hopefully minimize the likelihood that those whales would be in
the area at the same time those vessels are conducting those
activities.
Mr. Huffman. Understood. Your authorizations also apply
only to 90 kilometers of the coast, even though seismic noise
can travel long distances underwater and still increase the
stress level on these whales within that buffer zone. Correct?
Mr. Oliver. Correct.
Mr. Huffman. It is also true that the Agency's mitigation
requirement in these authorizations prohibit blasting within
this limited buffer only between November and April. Correct?
Even though we know that whales can be present during different
time frames?
Mr. Oliver. A little more than a yes or no response, sir.
The other times of the year, there are still closures in effect
out to 30 nautical miles. But based on the information we have,
and we expanded those original closures between what we
originally proposed at 47 kilometers out to 90, or nearly
doubled it, based on some of the information you cite that the
whales have expanded the areas they occupy seaward and
northward. So, again, the likelihood of them being present in
that area we feel is quite low during that time.
Mr. Huffman. Last question, because you took a little extra
time than I expected there. It seems to me on the one hand you
are working to recover these animals. On the other hand, you
are allowing very limited buffers and limited mitigations in
your authorizations.
Were there internal conversations where some of your
scientists objected to these permits?
Mr. Oliver. No, sir. Our internal conversations focused on
the best available science that we had.
Mr. Huffman. There were no dissenters among the scientists
on your team?
Mr. Oliver. Dissenters to what?
Mr. Huffman. To your decision to allow these activities to
take place within these very limited buffers.
Mr. Oliver. Our role is not to decide on issuing the
permits, sir. It is to decide on the appropriate mitigation
measures----
Mr. Huffman. My question is whether there were scientists
who believed that the mitigation measures were inadequate to
protect the species.
Mr. Oliver. I do not believe that is correct.
Mr. Huffman. All right. Thank you.
I now recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Mr. Oliver, in a hearing
yesterday, Federal officials stated that there was more seismic
testing under the Obama administration than under the Trump
administration. Is that accurate?
Mr. Oliver. I apologize, sir. I do not know the answer to
that question. I am unfamiliar with the degree of seismic
activity across the two administrations.
Mr. McClintock. I am told that was the testimony in a
hearing yesterday. If it is true, I am shocked, just shocked,
that my friends on the left are not shocked.
Can you tell us, what are we observing of other whale
species in the North Atlantic? Are they declining or
increasing?
Mr. Oliver. I don't know the specific statistics. We have
had a couple of unusual mortality events with other whale
species over the past few years in the Atlantic. But those are,
I guess, disassociated in time and space, and it is not clear
that there is a relationship among them.
Mr. McClintock. Populations of many species are increasing,
are they not?
Mr. Oliver. Either stable or increasing.
Mr. McClintock. And increasing by a significant rate, 3 to
5 percent, I read.
Mr. Oliver. I have no reason to disagree with that number.
I don't know the exact rate.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Kraus, I am told, will testify that the
National Marine Fisheries Service's Biological Opinion on
seismic impacts is flawed. Specifically, he mentions the 2017
model used by your agency. It was not adequate. Do you agree
with this statement?
Mr. Oliver. I don't agree with that statement. I would note
that we are in the process of reconsulting and developing a new
biological opinion.
Mr. McClintock. Since he is going to follow you, do you
want to address your concerns with his interpretation of the
science here?
Mr. Oliver. I don't know that I am in a position to do that
at this time here today, sir.
Mr. McClintock. Can you tell me, has this administration,
or the previous, found that there is anything more than a
negligible impact on whales due to seismic activity?
Mr. Oliver. No, sir. I don't believe our agency has ever
not issued or approved a request from an applicant for an
Incidental Harassment Authorization, in either administration.
And I would note that the prevailing scientific information is
that seismic activity does not result in mortality or even
serious injury; rather, the prevailing science is it does not.
I would acknowledge there are other sublethal energetic
effects.
Mr. McClintock. And the whale populations that are
increasing in the North Atlantic, I presume, are also affected
by the same seismic testing.
Mr. Oliver. They would be, yes, sir.
Mr. McClintock. How about the right whale population in the
Southern Hemisphere, which is described as increasing at about
3 percent, I believe?
Mr. Oliver. I believe that is correct, 3 to 5 percent in
the Southern Hemisphere. Correct.
Mr. McClintock. So, they are doing quite well there with
seismic testing. Something in the North Atlantic might have to
do with the fact that the population left in the North Atlantic
was so small to begin with.
As I understand it, seismic testing is already heavily
regulated, including requirements that trained professionals be
present to detect whales, with the power to shut down testing.
Could you elaborate on the safeguards to seismic testing a bit?
Mr. Oliver. Yes. As you have noted and I have noted
earlier, we have to find a negligible impact when we are asked
to review these authorization requests, and include mitigation
monitoring and reporting requirements that result in the least
practical adverse impact.
And if we are able to do so and we think that we have done
so with what we believe are significant mitigation measures,
including the 90 kilometer closure as well as multiple critical
habitat and calving area closures that remain year round, along
with the provision for shutdown if whales are detected within a
mile and a half. So, we believe collectively those satisfy the
standards that we are authorized to evaluate under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act.
Mr. McClintock. Can you tell us what the U.S. fishing
industry has done to prevent interactions with right whales,
and for that matter, any whales?
Mr. Oliver. There is a lot of promising research, actually,
and a lot of incentive upon the fishing industry, and
particularly in the wake of the unusual mortality event we had
in 2017, a renewed and redoubled effort by both our agency and
Canada and the fishing industry to find ways to minimize those
interactions, including sinking lines, reductions in the number
of lines, breakaways, and some promising technology on the use
of ropeless fishing gear.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Huffman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Van Drew for 5
minutes.
Dr. Van Drew. Good morning, Mr. Oliver. Seismic air gun
blasting for oil and gas has ramifications for all manner of
marine life. Scientific studies show that seismic air gun noise
can disturb, injure, or kill marine life, from zooplankton at
the base of the food web, up to the fish and marine mammals at
the top.
In a recent study, a single seismic air gun caused massive
mortality in zooplankton, a viable prey species in the
ecosystem, over a 1.5-mile swath of ocean. Air gun noise can
delay growth and cause body abnormalities in young scallops.
Sounds from seismic air guns can cause physical damage to fish
hearing structures, and lead to hearing loss itself, which
leaves them unable to use sound for communicating, feeding, or
escaping predators.
Catch rates of some commercially and recreationally
important fish species are known to decrease substantially in
the wake of seismic air gun blasting for oil and gas. In fact,
seismic air gun blasting can lead to declines in catch rates by
as much as 80 percent of some fish species.
This is concerning, as healthy fish stocks are critical for
our Nation to continue to thrive. And I believe we all know how
important the fishing industry--just alone in my state of New
Jersey, it is the third largest industry. This is concerning,
as healthy fish stocks are critical for our Nation's fisheries
to continue. How would this play out for Atlantic fisheries?
Mr. Oliver. Congressman Van Drew, I am not certain I
understand your question, whether it was relative to right
whales or fisheries. We evaluate, as does BOEM in their
issuance of permitting activities, through biological opinions,
impacts on fisheries as well as essential fish habitat. So,
that would be evaluated through essentially a separate process.
Dr. Van Drew. How do you propose protecting fishermen and
coastal businesses if catch rates drop in the Atlantic?
Mr. Oliver. I am not aware of any specific evidence that
indicates the proposed seismic activity that we are talking
about would somehow directly affect catch rates. I apologize.
If that information is there, I am not aware of it.
Dr. Van Drew. OK. Regarding seismic surveys for oil and gas
deposits off the Atlantic Coast, I have heard people say, ``Why
do we not just see what is out there?'' They argue that it is
OK to go ahead with seismic air gun surveys so that public and
policy makers can weigh the pros and the cons of drilling for
oil and gas in the Atlantic Ocean off of our coast.
Five companies have received permits from NOAA to conduct
seismic air gun surveys in the Atlantic, and are seeking final
authorizations from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and
the Department of the Interior. If these five companies go
ahead with seismic air gun blasting in the Atlantic, will we be
able to see what is out there?
Mr. Oliver. I presume that if they undertake their seismic
activities, the point of doing so would be to ascertain whether
and to what extent there are resources there that would warrant
actual oil and gas exploration, which would also be permitted
by BOEM.
Dr. Van Drew. Will the public have access to the data
collected by these companies on possible oil and gas deposits
off of our shores?
Mr. Oliver. I believe that much of the information they
collect is proprietary. I think, through the EIS process, the
public will have access to whatever information we have. But I
cannot speak to every bit of information that may be
proprietary to the particular companies involved.
Dr. Van Drew. If that information will be available to the
public, then why are there five different companies seeking
permits to explore the same area?
Mr. Oliver. I am not sure I have a good answer to that,
Congressman. I guess they each needed a permit, so they each
applied for a permit. I suppose it could have been done under a
more programmatic-type single authorization request. But in
this case, there were five separate requests.
Dr. Van Drew. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Gonzalez-Colon for 5 minutes.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
to the witness for being here today with us.
In the past, the National Marine Fisheries Service has
concluded that seismic surveying poses no significant threat to
marine life. In 2014, for example, your agency concluded, and I
want to quote here, ``To date there is no evidence that serious
injury, death, or stranding by marine mammals can occur from
exposure to air gun pulses, even in the case of large air gun
arrays.'' Is that still the case?
Mr. Oliver. Yes. I believe that is still the case. We
recognize there are other sublethal energetic effects, but not
any direct mortality or serious injury effects.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Has the National Marine Fisheries
Service found any new evidence since 2014 to conclude that
seismic surveying significantly threatens the North Atlantic
right whale and other marine species?
Mr. Oliver. No.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Do vessel collisions, entanglement in
lines and nets, and ingestion of plastic pose higher threats?
Mr. Oliver. Yes, Congresswoman. In fact, vessel strikes and
even more so entanglement in fishery gear are the two by far
primary sources of mortality and serious injury.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Mr. Oliver, in 2018, NOAA Fisheries
issued final authorization under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act to incidentally but not intentionally harass marine mammals
to companies proposing to conduct geophysical surveys in
support of the hydrocarbon exploration in the Atlantic Ocean.
Can you discuss the procedures and the analyses that go
into your agency's decision-making process when issuing those
kind of authorizations?
Mr. Oliver. I will try to be brief. It was a lengthy
process that took place over a couple of years. It started
before I came on board in this position, but it involved
publication of proposed permits with attendant mitigation
measures. It went through, I believe, two different public
comment periods, where we received over 120,000 different
public comments, including many very detailed technical and
scientific-based comments from both proponents and opponents of
that seismic activity.
Ultimately, following our proposed rule, we assessed those
comments and made some changes to the proposed rule. In a
couple of changes, we relaxed some protection measures,
particularly with regard to small dolphins. In other cases, we
actually expanded the protection measures from what was
originally proposed--for example, for the right whale
specifically, enlarging the closure area from 47 to 90
kilometers.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. I do understand that the harassment
definition between level A and level B are a little bit
different. Right? And the one in level B is going to be a
little complicated. It is going to be unclear on how it will be
affected.
Can you give us an overview of the National Marine
Fisheries Service effort to conserve and rebuild the North
Atlantic right whale population, and how you understand
Congress can help in that effort as well?
Mr. Oliver. Yes, Congresswoman. From a general perspective,
again, we are looking at taking regulatory and non-regulatory
steps to reduce the threat of vessel collisions. And earlier in
my testimony, I went through some of the details of that--so in
the interest of time, I will not repeat them--where we are also
in the process of reviewing those restrictions to assess both
their effectiveness, the enforcement of compliance with them,
as well as safety in navigation and coastal economic impacts,
in order to assess perhaps changes to those restrictions.
And second, a lot of work going on in the area of
entanglements, and a very heightened focus, including recent
action by Canada in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and increased
attention on the part of our fishermen and our fisheries
management process to look at additional restrictions in U.S.
fishermen waters, including development of ropeless fishing
gear, including requirements for limitations on the number of
traps that can be run, and--I will stop there. Sorry.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.
I yield back the balance of the time.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Grijalva, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, for the courtesy. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you.
The hearings that this Committee has undertaken have been
substantive, empirical information being at the center of the
discussion.
And that sets a very good, I think, tone for how we should
be dealing with a lot of the questions that face the Committee
as a whole, and that is the fact that science needs to guide
us, fact needs to guide us, because we are dealing with
elements in our jurisdiction that demand that. And the fact
that we have ignored it does not make it right. So, I want to
thank you for that, and for the tone.
And thank you, Mr. Oliver, for your testimony and for being
here. Let me just go into some questions on some issues that
perhaps I think also need to be covered relative to your
testimony.
Mr. Oliver, some reports indicate that up to 85 percent of
North Atlantic right whales have scars associated with
interactions with fishing gear. And my question is: What is
NOAA doing, or planning to do, to ensure that such fishing
lines are not deployed in times and places where right whales
are present at the time? Does NOAA have a strong understanding
of where fishing that impacts right whales is occurring? And
what is the process to address that particular question? If I
may, Mr. Oliver.
Mr. Oliver. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. A number of areas
in response to that question.
The most important thing that we can do to minimize these
entanglement occurrences is to better understand where and when
right whales are occurring. And we know that through recent
scientific studies and information they are changing some of
those patterns. For example, part of the reason we had the
large mortality event in 2017 is they apparently moved into the
Gulf of Saint Lawrence in Canadian waters where there was a
concentration of fishing gear, which was a relatively new
migration pattern.
Mr. Grijalva. If I may to that point, Mr. Oliver, so right
whales are migrating to new locations, in part due to climate
change. So, to that point that you made, what is NOAA doing to
address climate change shifts? And as migrating patterns shift
because of the change, what appropriate management tools, new
technologies--what is being used to deal with that ongoing
reality now that we know that?
Mr. Oliver. Well, we are trying to better understand where
these shifts in zooplankton and phytoplankton are occurring so
that we can predict where right whales are more likely to occur
so that we can in turn consider restrictions or fisheries
closures in those areas.
And again, it is a matter of us understanding where those
whales are going to be and taking the necessary measures to
reduce the juxtaposition of those whales and fishing gear. And
we have a lot of research ongoing in that regard.
Mr. Grijalva. Specifically, Mr. Oliver, the regulations to
reduce the fatal ship strikes on right whales have
successfully, in that area, lowered the mortality. I am aware
thought NOAA is currently in the process of analyzing that
particular rule, including its effectiveness and its cost.
First of all, is that a true statement?
Mr. Oliver. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. And where is the status of that review at
this point?
Mr. Oliver. We expect a preliminary report by this summer,
which would then be subject to both peer review and public
comment, and the issuance of a final report later this year.
Mr. Grijalva. And to absolutely put you on the spot, can
you assure us that NOAA will not recommend undermining the
protections currently in place under that rule for right whales
through this review?
Mr. Oliver. I cannot share what the outcome of the review
is going to be. But I am certainly hopeful that, given the
current status of the species, that any relaxation in certain
areas would be for a very, very good reason based on knowledge
of either effects----
Mr. Grijalva. Do you believe during this rule review, given
the urgency of the topic right now and the right whales, do you
believe that there are opportunities that are going to exist to
strengthen that ship strike rule?
Mr. Oliver. I think the opportunity is there, yes, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lamborn for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and the Ranking Member for having this hearing today. This is
an important topic, and so it is good that we are here.
Mr. Oliver, I want to thank you for coming today. As you
know, we appreciate the hard work you do for the American
people, even in the face of sometimes reckless accusations or
radical science deniers and political opportunists. As we all
focus on the right whale today, I wanted to touch on seismic,
and try to put the science back into this hearing. And I am
glad that the Chairman talked about the need for science. That
is always better than emotionalism.
How long have we been conducting geophysical work to find
resources in our oceans?
Mr. Oliver. I don't know the exact answer, sir. But at
least 50 or 60 years.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. I am told 80 years. Does that sound
correct to you?
Mr. Oliver. That is probably more accurate. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you.
Now, I am going to list a few reasons for conducting this
important geophysical research. And I want you to just answer
yes or no on my list of questions.
Whether or not that geophysical research in the Atlantic
Ocean would need an incident harassment authorization, if you
are conducting geophysical work to dredge shipping channels, do
you need an IHA?
Mr. Oliver. I think you probably do, but it might be
situation-specific.
Mr. Lamborn. How about researching sea bottom
characteristics for offshore wind installation?
Mr. Oliver. Yes. I believe so.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Planning and exploring for sand resources
for beach replenishment and rebuilding?
Mr. Oliver. Again, I think that is correct, but I am not
certain on the situation.
Mr. Lamborn. And my understanding is that it is.
Mr. Oliver. I have no reason to believe that it is not.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. And how about unexploded ordnance
surveys?
Mr. Oliver. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you. In fact, we have seen seismic
geophysical work in the Atlantic for nearly all these reasons
in just the last 4 years.
And Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record a
list of these surveys that IHAs have been required for.
Mr. Huffman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Submission for the Record by Rep. Lamborn
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5462.001
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5462.002
.eps__
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Mr. Oliver, knowing that all this work has been done in
just the last 4 years, much less going back 80 years, has it
decimated right whale populations in the Atlantic? Or has the
mitigation, observer requirements, and strong science that lays
at the foundation of NOAA IHA decisions proven successful in
allowing us to do the work we need to do, while at the same
time conserving the species we need to conserve?
Mr. Oliver. I believe it is the latter, sir. Yes.
Mr. Lamborn. And could you explain that, please?
Mr. Oliver. Well, I believe that, again, as far as we know,
the primary source of mortality by far for North Atlantic right
whales particularly is vessel strikes and vessel entanglement.
And, again, there is no evidence whatsoever of any direct
mortality or serious injury to the right whales from seismic
activity.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lowenthal for 5
minutes.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Oliver, I want to follow up on the questions that Chair
Grijalva asked you about the ship strike reduction rule. Maybe
we can discuss your thoughts on how it can be strengthened,
right now, to talk about strengthening the rules.
In 2008, National Marine Fisheries Service published the
ship strike reduction rule, and it imposed a mandatory speed
limit of 10 knots per hour on vessels that were 65 feet in
length or greater along parts of the Atlantic Seaboard at
certain times of the year to prevent these collisions between
the ships and the North Atlantic right whales.
They determined that 65 feet was the appropriate length,
because that was the categorization that was used to
differentiate between motorboats and larger vessels and
commercial vessels, and that larger vessels were subject to
certain regulatory control, where smaller vessels were not.
But we all know that a vessel of 65 feet or smaller can
cause great harm to a North Atlantic right whale. Has the
Agency ever considered putting a speed limit in seasonal
management areas for vessels that are smaller than 65 feet? And
if not, why not? And if you have, where are we in that
discussion?
Mr. Oliver. I honestly don't know, sir, in the original
process of establishing those speed restrictions, whether and
to what extent we considered vessels less than 65 feet. I think
it has something to do with not only vessel size but automated
information system AIS tracking that typically is required of
all the larger vessels, therefore, our ability to track and
monitor compliance with the vessel speed restrictions. So, I
think there is a monitoring and compliance aspect to it.
I would agree with you, though, that it makes sense. If we
did not carefully evaluate that length threshold in the
original rule, it would make sense to me that we should be
looking at that in the current review.
Dr. Lowenthal. I am glad you will be. But another question
is: How successful have you been in terms of actually reducing
speed? I think in studies that were prepared for NOAA December
2012, that voluntary speed limits in what are called ``dynamic
management areas''--they are parts of these areas--have only
had limited success in reducing vehicle speed; they are still
striking these animals.
And in another study, NOAA has previously stated that there
is a high level of noncompliance with these voluntary speed
reductions, and that, for example, 95 percent of the ships that
tracked in the Great South Channel did not slow down even when
it was noted to them that it was a speed advisory due to right
whale sailing--they were not slowing down.
If that is the case, why are these restrictions not
mandatory? And why are we not enforcing them, then?
Mr. Oliver. Mr. Congressman, I do think that that is one of
the important points that will be assessed in this review, and
that is compliance with the rule. I know that we have, in fact,
our Office of Law Enforcement has a great deal of information
on compliance and violations that will be brought forward in
that record.
We have issued a number of very large penalties under this.
But I would agree with you that if we identify areas that we
believe are critical with regard to this issue of speed
restrictions, critical relative to the right whale, that we
should be seriously considering whether to make those areas
mandatory as opposed to voluntary.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. And last, we have had issues on
the West Coast, too, off my coast, the Pacific, on whales. And
we have a voluntary program in place that I would like to
describe to you later or put into the record. But it is based
upon recognition.
That is, if those shipping lines and others reduce their
speed to a significantly slower speed, we provide them with
recognition. And they all agree to do it, and we have lowered
the air pollution significantly, especially in Santa Barbara
and Ventura County, which were out of compliance.
So, there are ways of doing this. I would hope that we
would use this as an opportunity to really slow down ships.
Really. Because that is a major danger to the sea life. Thank
you.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Oliver, for being here.
As you know, the sort of incidental takings that we are
talking about here today under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
have to be authorized by NOAA Fisheries. One requirement for
the taking authorization is that NOAA must find the activity
would ``have no more than a negligible impact on the marine
mammal species,'' in this case, of course, the right whale.
What are some of the primary considerations you look at
when issuing these permits?
Mr. Oliver. Well, there are a number of things that we need
to find. And ``negligible impact,'' I do not have the
definition exactly on the top of my head. But it has to not
result in long-term population or productivity of the species
in question. So, that is a primary consideration.
Mr. Johnson. I am interested to know about ongoing
requirements once a permit-holder obtains a permit. Do they
have to follow requirements, say, if they encounter a protected
species while they are engaging in the activity authorized by
the permit?
Let's say that the seismic study is going on, and one of
the vessels encounters a right whale. What happens then?
Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir. There are shutdown requirements--if a
right whale is detected within 1\1/2\ kilometers of the vessel,
they are required to immediately shut down their air guns.
Mr. Johnson. How long does the shutdown take? What is the
procedure from that point?
Mr. Oliver. I don't know the exact answer of what the
criteria is for when they can go back up. But I suspect if the
right whale subsequently exits the area and is not detectable
within 1\1/2\ kilometers, that at some point the activity could
resume. I apologize, I don't know the exact time interval. That
is something I would be glad to look into and get back to you
on.
Mr. Johnson. I guess the point is that there are some very
reasonable restrictions in place. And some of our friends on
the activist side want to imply that operators are just out
there wreaking havoc in the seas, and that is not the case, I
think.
Let me ask you another question. In your testimony, you
talk about ongoing collaboration with Canada. My understanding
is that in 2017, there were a total of 17 observed right whale
deaths, but 14 of those occurred in Canadian waters. Can you
expand on some of the work you are doing with Canadian
regulators to minimize the harm they are causing to the right
whale population?
Mr. Oliver. Yes, Mr. Congressman, I can. And following that
2017 event, we were very pleased that Canada subsequently last
year actually implemented some measures, both with regard to
shipping and with regard to gear entanglement. It was very good
progress on their part.
We collaborate and meet monthly with representatives from
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as well as Transport
Canada on the shipping side. We established a bilateral right
whale working group to discuss measures that both countries
could consider and increase our coordination. We participate in
aerial surveys with their team in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence.
And they in turn participate on our right whale recovery
implementation team.
And those are just a few of the ways that we interact at
the international front. And I would just add generally that
following that event in 2017, the heat, if you will, has turned
up on that collaboration and on both of our countries' efforts
to particularly seek ways to minimize gear entanglement. So, it
has really redoubled our efforts in that regard.
Mr. Johnson. I was looking into this, and I was struck by
the fact that I was in the second grade the last time there was
a comprehensive geological seismic study for the Atlantic
Coast. It was over 40 years ago. Has that technology advanced
from then to now, so that we can get more accurate information
while being less intrusive to marine life?
Mr. Oliver. I believe it has. And I am not an expert on it,
but that is certainly my understanding, and from the
information that we have received from some of the seismic oil
and gas companies.
Mr. Johnson. I appreciate your being here, and I yield
back.
Mr. Huffman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Neguse for 5
minutes.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr.
Oliver, for appearing before us today. I represent the great
state of Colorado, and although we are a landlocked state, we
certainly care very deeply about our oceans and the species
that call our oceans home.
Also, we have a number of people in my district in
particular, Colorado 2nd Congressional District, who are very
active in this regard. The Inland Oceans Coalition, which has
chapters across the western United States, including at the
University of Colorado Boulder and Colorado State University in
my district, was founded in Colorado and works to build
enthusiasm around marine biology and acknowledgement of the
direct impact on the cycles of life in the oceans that are
downstream from us. Another example is the Oceans First
Institute in Boulder, Colorado, which promotes conservation in
future generations by connecting youth with the wonders of the
ocean.
I want to talk about some of your testimony today, Mr.
Oliver. Just taking a step back, my understanding is that new
births of North Atlantic right whales have slowed compared to
the early 2000s, and only about 100 breeding females remain in
the population.
And the only known calving ground for the North Atlantic
right whale is off the southeast U.S. coast. And, of course, as
we have talked about in this hearing, the Federal Government
has now granted permits for nearly 850 combined days of seismic
surveys for oil exploration in that precise area.
What are the potential impacts of the seismic surveys on
mothers and calves, which are key to the population growth?
Mr. Oliver. There are a number of critical habitat areas,
including that calving area, in which no activity would be
allowed. Those would be closed to seismic activity under the
mitigation measures of the authorization that we have granted.
Mr. Neguse. So, you believe the permits that have been
granted will have no impact on the ability of the right
Atlantic whale?
Mr. Oliver. We believe they will have a negligible impact.
Mr. Neguse. A negligible impact? OK. Well, let me take it
this way. My understanding is that in 2017, these same permits
were denied by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, by the
BOEM. Is that right?
Mr. Oliver. My understanding is they put the process on
hold, and----
Mr. Neguse. Well, I will quote, I have a quote here.
Perhaps this will be educational. ``In early 2017''--this is
according to the BOEM in denying similar permits--concluding
that the ``value of obtaining the geophysical and geological
information from new air gun seismic surveys in the Atlantic
does not outweigh the potential risks of those surveys'
acoustic pulse impacts on marine life.'' Those are not my
words, they are the BOEM.
What has changed since 2017? The science has not changed.
Right?
Mr. Oliver. Well, Congressman, I cannot speak to why BOEM
did or did not deny the permits. Our role in this----
Mr. Neguse. They did deny the permits, just for the record.
But I am happy to provide you with that----
Mr. Oliver. I understand. I don't know why they did that.
Mr. Neguse. Well, I just explained to you. The quote, they
denied the permits because ultimately, the benefits to these
five oil and gas companies were outweighed by the risks to this
endangered species. And since that time, the science certainly
has not changed. The status of the species certainly has not
changed; it is more threatened, not less. It seems that the
only thing that has changed since that time is the politics of
it.
And this is why it is very frustrating, because most of the
issues that we deal with are very partisan. But this happens to
be an issue that has bipartisan support. Let me give you just a
few of the stakeholders in the region who have expressed
concern or outright opposition to the granting of these
permits.
The governor of Florida, Republican. The governor of
Georgia, Republican. The governor of South Carolina,
Republican. The governor of Maryland, a Republican. The
governor of Massachusetts, a Republican. All right? In addition
to a variety, of course, of Democratic governors, 240 East
Coast state municipalities, over 1,500 local, state, and
Federal bipartisan officials.
There are a litany, a plethora, of experts and folks in
these communities who have said that this is not a prudent
thing to do. And I am struggling to understand why NOAA, which
is obligated under the law to consult with the BOEM as it
grants these permits, would be willing to take this risk. I
guess that is my last question for you, Mr. Oliver.
Mr. Oliver. I would answer, Congressman, that our role in
this, under the MMPA, is to not authorize the surveys
themselves, but authorize the marine mammal take that might
occur incidental to these surveys with the necessary
mitigation, reporting, and monitoring requirements that we
believe would be a negligible impact. But that is different
than actually----
Mr. Neguse. Again, you keep on referencing the word
``negligible.'' I think it is important--we can get lost in the
technical language. These air gun blasts happen every 10
seconds for hours on end, for weeks on end, to a species that
calls the ocean home.
There are literally bombs going off for those animals every
10 seconds of every hour of every day for prolonged periods of
time. I do not think that is a negligible impact, and I think
the science makes clear that is not the case. And with that,
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fulcher for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oliver, I represent a region in the state of Idaho,
also a landlocked state, and will just tell you right up front,
my level of expertise on the right whale is quite negligible. I
had to do a little bit of homework on this, and I want to share
with you what I found. I think, for the most part, it tends to
line up with what you were saying.
But it appears to me that the primary habitat for this
species is three locations. There is the Atlantic, North
Atlantic, North Pacific, and the Bering Sea. And at least
according to the information that I am finding, the population
fluctuation, up or down, doesn't seem to be different in any of
those regions. And, by the way, the ocean traffic has been
constant on both, with the highest ocean traffic, actually, in
the Atlantic.
I have been intrigued by the seismic conversation. And most
of that activity takes place in the Gulf of Mexico, which this
is not potentially part of that habitat, but also some in the
Atlantic. Yet, there doesn't appear to be any difference in the
population trend. You did talk about this, but I just need to
hear you re-edify that.
What is the biggest impact negatively on the population of
these animals?
Mr. Oliver. Congressman, certainly in the case of the North
Atlantic right whale--and there may be some differences in the
population trajectories of the different species; as we noted
earlier, other whales on the East Coast are increasing at a
rate of 3 to 5 percent in many cases--by far the primary
sources of mortality are vessel gear entanglement, followed by
vessel strikes. Those are the two sources of right whale direct
mortality and serious injury.
Mr. Fulcher. Just for the record, the data that I see is in
agreement with that. Do you have anything specific in your data
that indicates that the seismic activity is--I just don't see
it where I am looking. And I am wondering if you have any data
on that.
Mr. Oliver. Well, there is certainly information,
Congressman, that seismic activity, acoustic activity, air
guns, however you want to characterize it, does have sublethal
effects on various activities of marine mammals, including the
North Atlantic right whale.
It can affect their behavior, their movements, their
migrations. It can affect their feeding behavior. It can affect
their breeding behavior. And collectively, those sublethal
effects are precisely why we prescribe what we believe are
fairly significant mitigation requirements on that seismic
activity.
Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Oliver, then if that is the case, why
wouldn't there be more of a fluctuation in the population, or
decline in this case, in areas where most of that is happening
today?
Mr. Oliver. I can't answer that question specifically.
Again, we don't believe that seismic activity is a source at
all of direct mortality or serious injury. It is hard to tease
apart what could be longer-term effects on a different species
of whale. But, again, if your question was, does this seismic
activity result in mortalities of whales, the answer, we
believe, is it will not.
Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Oliver, thank you for being here and for
your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Levin for 5
minutes.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Chair Huffman, and thank you, Mr.
Oliver, for joining us today.
I think we all agree how important it is to listen to
scientists when developing public policy, particularly in an
area like this where certain industries may have an outsized
influence. Mr. Oliver, your agency has been inconsistent in its
approach to the rules on sounds in our ocean.
First, in the Gulf, your rules say that some sounds below
160 decibels can negatively impact whales. Yet, in the
Atlantic, you allow all sounds up to 160 decibels, some of
which would not be allowed in the Gulf. A hundred sixty
decibels, as you may know, can rupture human eardrums.
So, my question for you, Mr. Oliver, is: Did any career
scientists or other career staff object to the differences in
these policies? Did they write any memos or e-mails to voice
their concern? Or did they express their concerns orally?
Mr. Oliver. Congressman Levin, if I understand your
question correctly, this relates to the different application
of measures in the Gulf and the Atlantic. While there is some
desire for consistency across regions, there are very
significant differences in both the bathymetric aspects of
those two oceans and very different species involved.
And different whale species, I can't cite the specific
species and the decibel ranges that they are sensitive to, but
different species that exist in those two different oceans are
very sensitive to different bands of decibel and megahertz. So,
what works with some species does not work with others.
Mr. Levin. Mr. Oliver, with respect, I don't think you
answered my question. Again, did any career scientists or other
career staff object to the differences in these policies?
Mr. Oliver. I'm not certain I understand what policies you
are referring to. But the answer is no.
Mr. Levin. I find that hard to believe, seeing as it is
such a significant change in policy, to allow sounds up to 160
decibels in the Atlantic but not in the Gulf. That is the
correct policy. Right?
Mr. Oliver. My understanding is those differences are based
on the scientific expertise of career staff, who recognize the
appropriateness of those different applications.
Mr. Levin. And can the Committee see any evidence of that
disagreement with scientific backup? Can that be provided to
the Committee?
Mr. Oliver. We will certainly provide you all the
scientific information we used in making those determinations.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Levin. That would be helpful. And Mr. Oliver, this was
not the only controversial decision the agency made. You also
decided not to look at the cumulative impacts of the
authorizations you issued. Similar question: Did any career
scientists or other career staff object to the failure to
evaluate cumulative impacts of multiple Incidental Harassment
Authorizations, or IHAs?
Mr. Oliver. No, sir. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Levin. I also find that very hard to believe, given the
significance of the policy.
Were there any other aspects of the decision to issue the
Incidental Harassment Authorizations that caused dissent within
the agency? And if there were, what was the nature of that
dissent?
Mr. Oliver. No, sir. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Levin. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about how the
decision to endanger the right whale was made. I believe the
Committee should insist on the production of any documents held
by the agency that express concerns about the impact of the
decision on the right whales.
We will not be able to know the true basis for the decision
unless we get these documents, and I find it incredibly hard to
believe that there was not significant internal debate.
So, I look forward to the production of those documents to
the Committee, Mr. Oliver, and I will yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. And I believe I heard you, Mr.
Oliver, agree to share those documents with the Committee. Did
I hear you correctly?
Mr. Oliver. Sure. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hice for 5 minutes.
Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oliver, I want to thank you for being here, and
recognize your expertise in so many different groups and
organizations that supported you being appointed to this
position, and the high level of professionalism you bring to
it.
As we are discussing the right whale, I am from Georgia,
and of course this is the official marine mammal of Georgia.
And the right whale has calving grounds in the waters off the
coast of our state. And these are beautiful mammals and draw a
great deal of tourism. People going to Jekyll Island, Tybee
Island, and the like go out looking for dolphins and whatever,
but all the while keeping their fingers crossed that perhaps
they will have an opportunity to see a right whale along the
way.
Why is it that the right whale is only off the coast of
Georgia for certain months, as I understand it, between
November and April?
Mr. Oliver. I have to admit, sir, among my expertises, I am
not a cetacean expert. That is their typical migration pattern.
As far as I know, it has been their pattern for hundreds if not
thousands of years. I don't know exactly why they are there at
that time of year, but they seem to be there pretty much every
year. I would be happy to----
Dr. Hice. Right. Because you said it, it is a migratory
pattern. It is what they do. They come there and they leave.
And it is something they have been doing for hundreds or
thousands or however long number of years. It is the pattern.
It is what they do.
So, when there is a migratory animal such as this, it means
that they are there certain times of the year and they are not
there certain times of the year, as a general rule. Is that
correct?
Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir.
Dr. Hice. All right. So, would this be part of the
explanation why NOAA Fisheries issued an incident authorization
to the company Deepwater Wind to survey off the coast of Rhode
Island in order to build Block Island Wind Farm?
Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir.
Dr. Hice. OK, so the reason, just to be sure, is because it
would be an incidental harassment, which means what? Can you
explain what an Incidental Harassment Authorization is?
Mr. Oliver. What it essentially means is you cannot
intentionally harass. But you can, incidentally to the activity
being proposed, incidentally interact, harass, in this case the
acoustic signals from the air guns, if we can find again that
it has an overall negligible impact on the species, and we
impose appropriate mitigation monitoring and enforcement
standards to minimize that interaction.
Dr. Hice. Right, so you are minimizing the potential
problems because in this case you have a migratory mammal that
is--and so you try to exercise those sounds, more than likely,
when they are not present. Correct?
Mr. Oliver. Yes.
Dr. Hice. OK. That makes sense. Let me land where I am
going here. As I understand it, there is no real unique
difference between the needs of renewable sources and oil and
gas development when you are coming to survey the shore, or the
ocean bottom. Is that correct?
Mr. Oliver. Again, I am not an expert on hydroacoustics.
There may be some differences in the sound, the acoustic
signal, between seismic for oil and gas versus seismic for
siting a wind facility. But I think that essentially, they are
very similar.
Dr. Hice. If you are trying to determine the ocean floor,
it does not matter what you are surveying the ocean floor for,
the purpose, whether it is renewable energy, or oil and gas. If
you are surveying the floor, it is basically the same
technology for either. That is my understanding. Is that your
understanding?
Mr. Oliver. Yes. My understanding is they are very similar.
Some may be shooting for a deeper signal, in the case of oil
and gas, than siting a wind turbine, for example, which may not
have to go down as deep to know what you want to know. But----
Dr. Hice. So, we should be able to pursue all of the above
safely?
Mr. Oliver. I believe we can. And I don't believe our
agency has ever denied an application for that type of
activity.
Dr. Hice. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Hice.
The Chair asks unanimous consent to allow the gentleman
from Massachusetts, Mr. Keating, to sit at the dais during some
of the testimony.
Without objection, it is so ordered. And the Chair now
recognizes Mr. Sablan.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing. And thank you for Mr. Oliver and the other
witnesses for joining us and sharing.
I have one question, Mr. Oliver. NOAA currently protects,
again, critical habitat for right whales, which includes the
feeding areas and calving grounds. However, the whales twice-
yearly migratory routes through the mid-Atlantic, which connect
these two habitats, are not protected.
Does NOAA Fisheries have plans to ensure right whale
migratory routes are officially recognized as critical habitat
and establish the necessary protections for their migratory
routes in the mid-Atlantic?
Mr. Oliver. Congressman, my understanding is that it is
typically the southern region where they calve, which has not
changed much. Some of their activity, on the other hand, up
north has moved northward and seaward. So, there are some
changes occurring in their movement patterns, and that is what
is critical for us to understand.
But my understanding is the migration pattern that you are
referring to, at the time it occurs and at the time they are in
those waters, is why we have the mitigation measure that we put
in place. And there are critical habitat areas within that,
including the calving grounds, that are always closed.
But it is my understanding that the mitigation measures
were intended to address that very issue of where the whales
are and when.
Mr. Sablan. Yes. Let me just ask, Mr. Oliver, a yes or no
answer. Do you have oversight authority over Westpac? This is
not a right whale question. But do you have authority over
Western Pacific Fisheries Council?
Mr. Oliver. I don't know what you mean by ``authority
over.''
Mr. Sablan. I mean do you, do they have supervisory----
Mr. Oliver. We don't have direct supervisory authority over
the councils. They are not employees of----
Mr. Sablan. OK. Just a question. Thank you.
At this time, I yield the remainder of my time to the
Chairman of the Subcommittee.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Sablan. I will not take the
full amount of time.
But, Mr. Oliver, I do want to ask you this. You mention
that you are in the middle of a reconsultation on the existing
biological opinion for the North Atlantic right whale. Correct?
Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huffman. You only do a reconsultation if the existing
biological opinion protections are not working. Is that not
fair to say?
Mr. Oliver. Well, there are a number----
Mr. Huffman. If everything is just fine and the species is
on the path to recovery, you do not have to do a
reconsultation.
Mr. Oliver. This is also the subject, sir--apologies--of
ongoing litigation. So, I am a little bit limited in how I can
respond.
Mr. Huffman. All right. But it is fair to say that there is
strong reason to believe that existing protections that are in
place under the biological opinion are not putting the species
on a path to recovery. Would you not agree?
Mr. Oliver. Well, I would agree that there were perhaps
deficiencies in the biological opinion itself, which may be a
little bit separate issue than the measures that we currently
have in place. I think that based on the results of this
biological opinion, it may well indicate that we need to take
additional measures.
Mr. Huffman. Very good. And the downward trajectory of the
population would also suggest that this is a time for more
protection, not less. Would you not agree?
Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir. Protection from the primary sources
of mortality, certainly.
Mr. Huffman. The mission of the National Marine Fisheries
Service is not to promote fossil fuel energy dominance, is it?
Mr. Oliver. That is correct.
Mr. Huffman. The prior administration under the same facts,
under the same science, at a time when the population was
actually doing better than it is today, found that the risk of
extinction from these five companies doing seismic testing to
make money on oil and gas development was vastly greater,
outweighed the monetary interests of the companies. They said
no to the oil and gas industry.
I am going to ask you a question that I realize is without
any precedent in this administration. But what if you had said
no in this administration to the oil and gas industry, as the
previous administration was prepared to do under the same facts
and the same science? How long would you have kept your job?
Mr. Oliver. I don't know, Mr. Chairman. I never
contemplated that. I contemplated our agency----
Mr. Huffman. Do you think you would be sitting here today?
Do you think you would be sitting here today if you had said no
to the oil and gas industry?
Mr. Oliver. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Huffman. Fair enough.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Cunningham from South
Carolina.
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Joe
Cunningham. I represent South Carolina's 1st District, which is
a coastal area, from Charleston all the way down to Hilton
Head.
It is fair to say that seismic air gun blasting is
extremely disruptive and loud. Correct?
Mr. Oliver. I didn't hear the last----
Mr. Cunningham. It is fair to say that seismic air gun
blasting is extremely loud and disruptive. Is that correct?
Mr. Oliver. I don't know exactly how loud it is. I have
never actually directly experienced it myself. And when you say
``disruptive,'' I cannot answer that question unless you
elaborate on what you mean by--disruptive to what?
Mr. Cunningham. OK. Let's say, do you think the sound of a
washing machine is loud or disruptive?
Mr. Oliver. Not particularly.
Mr. Cunningham. OK. What about an air horn?
Mr. Oliver. You are getting there.
Mr. Cunningham. OK. Mr. Chair, I would ask for unanimous
consent to sound an air horn in Committee.
Mr. Huffman. Is there objection to the gentleman's
demonstration?
[No response.]
Mr. Huffman. Without objection, the gentleman----
Mr. Oliver. Mr. Chairman, I would assume that it will annoy
us, but it will not kill us.
Mr. Huffman. Hearing no objection, the gentleman may
demonstrate.
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you. I would like to give anyone an
opportunity to leave if they would find it bothersome.
Mr. Oliver. Again, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that opportunity
exists for every whale and other little critter in the ocean.
Mr. Huffman. I don't think they receive advance notice of
the seismic testing in cetacean language, but----
Mr. Oliver. That is not correct. You told us that they get
10 seconds' interval between every blast. I think that would be
plenty of time to go to the next room or section of the ocean.
Mr. Huffman. The gentleman may proceed. Thank you.
[Mr. Cunningham sounds air horn.]
Mr. Cunningham. Was that disruptive, Mr. Oliver?
Mr. Oliver. Sir, it was irritating, but I did not find it
particularly disruptive.
Mr. Cunningham. What about, say, every 10 seconds, like
systematic air gun testing goes on for, for days? Weeks?
Months?
Mr. Oliver. If I were that close to it, yes, probably.
Mr. Cunningham. Yes. What if you depended on sound for
hunting your food and for communication? Do you think it would
be disruptive?
Mr. Oliver. At a distance of 20 feet, yes, it would be.
Mr. Cunningham. How much louder do you think seismic air
gun blasting sounds than this air horn you just heard?
Mr. Oliver. I honestly don't know.
Mr. Cunningham. Take a guess. Ten times?
Mr. Oliver. At a distance of how far?
Mr. Cunningham. Well, say you are within a reasonable
distance. Say you are within a quarter of a mile. Is it 10
times? Is it 25 times?
Mr. Oliver. I honestly don't know.
Mr. Cunningham. Can you take a guess?
Mr. Oliver. No.
Mr. Cunningham. A hundred times? Do you think it is a
thousand times louder?
Mr. Oliver. I doubt it.
Mr. Cunningham. You doubt it? What if I were to tell you it
is 16,000 times louder than what you just heard here? Can you
see how that would be impactful on marine species, mammals?
Mr. Oliver. I do, which is why we put mitigation measures
in place to minimize the proximity of that activity with the
whales in question.
Mr. Huffman. Do you think you can cure all of the effects
that come from seismic air gun blasting to these species that
it is impacting?
Mr. Oliver. I don't know what the effects are that we are
curing. Sorry.
Mr. Cunningham. Well, such as the killing of our species?
Mr. Oliver. I guess, Mr. Chairman, if that was a question,
I will repeat what I said earlier. There is absolutely no
evidence that these sounds and activities have ever killed or
seriously injured a marine mammal, or a right whale.
Mr. Cunningham. You have heard earlier testimony how
various states along the Eastern Seaboard, including South
Carolina, are adamantly opposed to offshore drilling. Correct?
Mr. Oliver. Yes.
Mr. Cunningham. OK. How do you feel about imposing seismic
air gun blasting, which is impactful to marine species, in
search for oil and gas and which the residents and citizens of
South Carolina do not even want?
Mr. Oliver. Congressman, our role under the MMPA is to
either authorize the activity or not based on a number of
findings that do not include a popular vote.
Mr. Cunningham. Do you think South Carolina has a right to
determine what happens off its shorelines?
Mr. Oliver. Certainly, within certain distances that
perhaps envelop state waters.
Mr. Cunningham. But outside state waters, you don't think
they have any decision whatsoever as to what happens off their
shorelines and what could ultimately wash up on our beaches?
Mr. Oliver. I don't write the laws that dictate where
states' rights, where states' authorities versus Federal
authorities lie.
Mr. Cunningham. I am not asking for your legal
interpretation. I am just asking your personal opinion about
this.
Mr. Oliver. I don't have an opinion on that.
Mr. Cunningham. You don't have an opinion?
Mr. Oliver. No, sir.
Mr. Cunningham. OK. Would you like to know or have an
opinion about what happens within your neighborhood or your
state?
Mr. Huffman. I think we are going to end with that
rhetorical question. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Cunningham. I appreciate your time, Mr. Oliver. Thank
you.
Mr. Huffman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Beyer of the
great state of Virginia, also on the migratory route of the
North Atlantic right whale, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for including
me and for allowing me some time.
This is a very important issue to me. All of our Virginia
coastal communities are united against the oil and gas and
against the seismic testing. And I am going to be reintroducing
the Atlantic Seismic Air Gun Protection Act today to establish
a moratorium on geological and geophysical activity related to
oil and gas exploration and development in the Atlantic Ocean.
If I can--will my friend from South Carolina yield for a
question?
Mr. Huffman. Without objection.
Mr. Cunningham. No objection.
Mr. Beyer. Could you tell me what the decibel level on the
air horn was?
Mr. Cunningham. On the air horn, it is 120 decibels.
Mr. Beyer. Great. Thank you very much.
And by the way, Mr. Oliver, on this sound traveling, we
know that subsonic sound travels 2,500 miles in the ocean,
which is Washington, DC all the way to San Francisco. So, you
cannot escape, in 10 seconds, that 2,500 miles.
My understanding is that your agency took the position that
the North Atlantic right whales are not harassed by sounds
unless they are episode to a sound at the level of 160 decibels
or higher. And obviously, every 10 decibels, I believe, is a
doubling in the sound volume.
But in the Gulf of Mexico, your same agency did only 120
decibels, which is many, many times. Why the difference?
Mr. Oliver. Again, a similar question came up earlier. I
think, while there is some desire to maintain a consistency in
how we authorize issue authorizations in different bodies of
water, they are very different ocean conditions, bathymetry,
and most importantly, very different species we are talking
about.
And the different whale species have different
vulnerabilities or different typical acoustical patterns that
they operate within. So, different decibels affect different
whale species differently.
Mr. Beyer. But we can establish that 160 decibels is
incredibly loud. In fact, that is twice as loud as what is
necessary to rupture the human eardrum.
The Republican objection to this seems to hang on two
things that happened in the Obama administration. In 2014, NMF
said, ``Today there is no evidence serious injury or death or
stranding by marine mammals can occur from exposure to air gun
pulses.'' And then in 2014, BOEM said, ``To date there has been
no documented scientific evidence to adversely affect marine
animal populations.''
Since you are not on the next panel, let me just quote from
some of the abundance of contrary evidence. For example:
``Right whales as well as many marine animals are highly
dependent on a naturally quiet ocean for basic life
functions.''
``Protecting right whales protects entire ocean
ecosystems.''
``Whales act as incidental farmers of the seafood,
capturing food at depth and releasing nutrients at the
surface.''
``Right whales, the acoustics will increase the likelihood
of mother-calf separations, the likelihood of acoustic
communication between whales,'' on and on and on.
None of these are individual right whales being killed. But
they are all whole-population impacts that affect calving,
migrations, life span.
``This is not about acute physical harm to an individual,
rather, the cost to a marginally surviving population as a
result of aggregate chronic noise.''
``I find the idea that whales are more like us than most
people--cults or dialects, individual voices, family trees,
long-term social structures, that we owe them more than
treating them as collateral damage.''
How do you reconcile this abundance of science--and you
have probably seen the many, many, many references--with the
NMFS and BOEM decisions in 2014?
Mr. Oliver. I am not sure I understand what specific 2014
decisions you are referring to, Congressman. But we have, as I
mentioned earlier, I don't believe our agency has ever, across
any administration, not approved an Incidental Harassment
Authorization.
Depending on the activity and depending on the species,
there are different mitigation conditions attached to those
authorizations. But----
Mr. Beyer. Let me ask you--can you appreciate that there is
a significant difference between a right whale not washing up
on the beach, being killed by a seismic blast, and the
population impacts of chronic noise abuse over time?
Mr. Oliver. Yes, I can, Congressman. And we have some of
the finest marine mammal scientists, experts, in the world that
work on these authorizations, both in the Gulf of Mexico and on
the Atlantic Coast. And they know well more than I what the
different whale species tolerate and what the appropriate
mitigation is for those. And those are the same people that
worked on these authorizations.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. Just a note for the record. My pregnant
committee consultant to my left noted that after Mr. Cunningham
did his seismic air gun demonstration, her baby began kicking.
So, perhaps a data point for you to consider, Mr. Oliver, as we
go forward.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Huffman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Keating for 5
minutes.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and the
Ranking Member for allowing me a few minutes to speak. And I
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for prioritizing this issue so early
in this session, and for your own experience, which I know full
well, even with Massachusetts, the studies you have done in
this regard. And I do want to talk about that.
And I do want to mention that in terms of Mr. Oliver's
comments about minimization, the minimization we are concerned
with is the minimization of the population of the right whale,
the North Atlantic right whale, which is down to approximately
422 whales right now.
This is an existential issue regarding their species. And
it is that critical. So, where is the trade-off? The trade-off
is, Number 1, trying to do something positive, as my colleague
Representative Moulton has, which I am joining him as original
co-sponsor of his bill, SAVE Right Whales Act of 2019, where we
are marshaling resources to try to protect the species.
And the trade-off on the other side is oil and gas
exploration in our oceans, and a product that we are exporting
now around the world, that we have plenty domestically to deal
with. And the trade-off is not even close. And we are just
dealing it through the lens of the right whale. There is a
``canary in the coal mine'' effect possible with the right
whale and their diminishing species, and the effects on the
rest of the ocean.
And representing one of the largest coastal areas in the
United States and an area that has dealt extensively with this
issue, I wish I had in front of me a picture. It is a picture
that I have seen at the Center for Coastal Studies in
Provincetown, Massachusetts. It shows a very brave person
getting in a very small vessel up against a whale, trying to
disentangle that whale, risking their lives to do that. It is
an extraordinary picture.
That is what we should be about. That is what our values,
in terms of our environment and protecting our environment, are
about. And if we are talking about trade-offs in economic
factors, I think I can speak all the way for my colleagues,
Virginia, the West Coast, to here. In my district, if you want
to just put this on economic terms, it is not even close,
either.
Endangering our coastline and its resources would have
devastating impacts economically on my area in particular. This
is not even close. We should not even be discussing this. But
we should be marshaling our resources as SAVE Right Whales Act
of 2019 in terms of protecting them. We should be here in
Congress giving that same heroic effort to preserve the North
Atlantic right whale that those people are doing on those very
small vessels, where they can be overturned in a moment.
So, Mr. Chairman, I don't think I will advance this anymore
by posing questions. I think the answers are altogether too
obvious. And I commend you for having the hearing so that we
will have the opportunity to let Congress and let the American
public realize that we are making these kinds of trade-offs
that are not even close.
I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Webster of Florida.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the
opportunity.
Along that line, the population of great white whale, there
is also an increase in the population of sharks. Administrator
Oliver, there is a movement that has been tracked, and that is
headed from the Massachusetts area, down to Florida. And there
are a lot of predators that are moving in, and prey on white
whale calves, which are in that area.
And I am just wondering if these sharks, who are preying on
these calves, are any concern. And is there anything being done
about that, or is there anything we could do about that?
Mr. Oliver. Congressman, thank you for the question. That
is a good question, one that I don't know the answer to. It is
an intriguing question because I know up on the North Pacific,
with the endangered Steller sea lion, we have had a lot of
issues and questions with regard to the effects on that
population of killer whale predation.
So, I don't know offhand of any documented evidence of
right whale calves being taken by sharks. But I was at South
Atlantic Council meeting earlier this week and heard from a
number of fishermen. They are seeing way more and way bigger
sharks than ever, to the fact that they are taking fish off
their lines on a routine basis.
So, given that there are more and bigger sharks,
apparently, out there, I think you raise a good question. And I
would probably want to get back to my expert people and find
out whether we have any documentation of shark predation.
Mr. Webster. There are several proposals out there about
sharks, fishing, and even the finning of sharks. And one of the
proposals is to just eliminate any shark fishing. And if this
is true, and there is a lot of documentation from NOAA about
the migration of these predators down into the Florida area,
even around to the Gulf, to me I would propose an idea of
trying to draw in the international fishing industry into
taking our more conservation-style treatment of sharks and yet
still not totally prohibiting the fishing of sharks.
And I am just wondering if there is a correlation between
that and the number. And is it going to change? If these
predators are coming to Florida, and if their prey is an infant
calf, then we are doing great harm to the white whale
population, I believe.
Would you see a correlation between those two?
Mr. Oliver. Again, Congressman, I don't know that there is
any correlation between the two. I would say that in cases
where particular shark species warrant protection, we will do
our best to do that. But we also support sustainable harvest of
shark species where there is a sustainable harvest level to be
had.
Mr. Webster. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. Will the gentleman yield his final 40 seconds
for a followup?
Mr. Webster. I will.
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Oliver, you have said that seismic air
blasting can have sublethal effects on right whales. Right?
Mr. Oliver. Yes.
Mr. Huffman. And that can include disrupting the
communication patterns that allow a mother and a calf to be
together? That is one of the ways in which whales communicate,
through ocean sound. If one is concerned about shark predation
that is limited to baby right whales, there is no shark in the
ocean big enough to go toe to toe with a mother right whale.
Correct?
Mr. Oliver. I believe that would be true.
Mr. Huffman. So, if we are concerned about shark predation
on right whales, we should be concerned about seismic air
blasting that causes mothers and calves to be separated in the
ocean.
With that, I yield back. The Chair recognizes----
Mr. Webster. Well, would the gentleman yield his----
Mr. Huffman. There is no extra time.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Moulton.
Mr. Webster. Are we operating under a 6-minute rule now,
Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Huffman. I was using the gentleman's----
Mr. Webster. You accorded yourself 6 minutes.
Mr. Huffman. No.
Mr. Webster. You accorded----
Mr. Huffman. The gentleman is out of order. I was using the
time yielded to me specifically----
Mr. Webster. And you stopped the clock when you borrowed
time from another Member. And that is getting a little
tiresome.
Mr. Huffman. The gentleman is incorrect and out of order.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Moulton for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moulton. Mr. Chairman, by even the most generous
estimates, there are fewer than 422 right whales left in the
ocean. Humans have killed nearly every right whale in existence
through our direct and indirect actions over the past two
centuries.
And, today, we are at a crossroads. We have a choice. We
can be the generation that saves the right whale or the
generation that allows their extinction. The right whale's fate
is literally in our hands, in the hands of the members of this
Committee and this Congress.
I want to thank the Committee for having this hearing today
and showing their commitment to the right whale, which in turn
is a commitment to my region's economy and identity. Let's not
miss this unique moment.
Last night with Mr. Huffman, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Keating,
and Mr. Posey, I reintroduced the SAVE Right Whales Act. Mr.
Chairman, few people in the history of the Earth have had the
ability to help a species survive like this.
From the passenger pigeon to the western black rhinoceros,
humans have driven the extinction of iconic species through
centuries of choices. It was a choice to hunt the right whale
to near extinction. It was a choice to jeopardize the right
whale by drilling off our coasts. Let's be the generation of
leaders that chooses to bring the right whale back from the
brink.
Massachusetts is leading the way. Our bill has the support
of scientists like Dr. Scott Kraus from the New England
Aquarium, a group leading the charge. He will speak with you
shortly. It has the support of lobstermen and other members of
the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance, who know that the
fate of our economy in Massachusetts is directly linked to the
health of our oceans and the species that live in them.
And the SAVE Right Whales Act has the support of the folks
who speak for the whales and so many other iconic species,
groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the
Defenders of Wildlife.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership, for your
support of this bill in the past, and for prioritizing this
hearing in the new Congress. Let's pass the SAVE Right Whales
Act, and arm us with the funding we need to be the generation
of humans that saves the right whale.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentleman. With that, we will
thank and excuse Mr. Oliver. Thanks very much for your
testimony. We will bring forward our second panel.
While the panel is coming forward, I will go ahead and
begin the introductions.
Our first witness will be Dr. Scott Kraus, the Chief
Scientist of Marine Mammal Conservation at the New England
Aquarium.
Next will be Dr. Sterling Burnett, a Senior Fellow and
Managing Editor of Environment and Climate News at The
Heartland Institute. And last we will have Dr. Chris Clark, who
is a Visiting Senior Scientist at the Bioacoustics Research
Program at Cornell Lab.
Let me just remind the witnesses in the second panel that
under Committee Rules, they must limit their oral statements to
5 minutes. Their entire statement will, of course, appear in
the hearing record.
And, again, gentlemen, when you begin, you will see the
lights that are displayed. As you get closer to the end of your
testimony, you will see a yellow light. And when your time is
about to run out, you will see a red light. I will encourage
you to wrap up at that point.
We will allow the entire panel to testify before questions
begin.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Scott Kraus for 5 minutes.
Welcome, Doctor.
STATEMENT OF DR. SCOTT KRAUS, VICE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR SCIENCE
ADVISOR, CHIEF SCIENTIST, MARINE MAMMAL CONSERVATION, ANDERSON
CABOT CENTER FOR OCEAN LIFE AT THE NEW ENGLAND AQUARIUM,
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Dr. Kraus. Thank you, Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member
McClintock, for inviting me to testify on the status of the
North Atlantic right whale. I have spent almost 40 years
studying this species, publishing over 80 scientific papers on
its biology, ecology, and conservation.
In addition, my research team curates the North Atlantic
right whale catalog, a photographic record of every individual
right whale in the population. I am here to speak to the
threats to this species and the need for enhanced Federal and
state efforts to prevent North Atlantic right whales from going
extinct.
This species is among the most endangered whale on the
planet, with only about 400 left. Despite almost 50 years of
Federal management efforts, the stock is now declining rapidly.
Why does this matter?
Whales are incidental farmers of the sea. They fertilize
the entire marine food chain, supporting ocean ecosystems and
commercial fisheries. Whales are also the basis of a large
tourist economy on both coasts, worth hundreds of millions of
dollars annually.
North Atlantic right whales feed in waters off New England
and Canada during the spring, summer, and fall, and pregnant
females migrate to calving grounds off the southeast U.S. coast
to give birth during the winter. This distribution and their
migration patterns expose them constantly to threats from human
activities, including entanglements in fishing gear, collisions
with ships, and disturbance from underwater noise.
Right whale deaths from ship strikes and fishery
entanglements slow or halt population growth. Our research
indicates that twice as many whales die annually than are
documented or estimated. In 2017 and 2018, 20 right whales were
found dead, representing nearly 5 percent of the population. Of
the 12 whales that were examined carefully, all had died from
human causes.
On the other side of the equation, for right whales to grow
in population size, they need to have babies. That means we
must reduce the exposure of all whales, but particularly
females, to stressors that can slow or stop reproduction. This
includes underwater noise, pollutants, and sublethal fishery
entanglements. Climate change also likely affects whale health
and reproduction.
Chronic underwater noise is a proven stressor to right
whales. Chronic stressors are known to cause increased disease
and mortality and lower reproduction rates in a variety of
mammals, including humans. Right whales are already exposed to
relentless shipping, dredging, pile driving, and other
industrial noises, which are likely impairing their ability to
communicate, to find food, and to find mates.
In November 2018, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service
issued five Incidental Harassment Authorizations allowing
companies to take marine mammals during geophysical surveys off
the southeastern United States, which is the only known right
whale calving ground. This activity will create a chronic
disturbance and raise background noise levels throughout the
right whales' habitat, increasing the risk of mother-calf
separations.
NMFS' assertion that the effects of seismic surveys will be
transient is not believably defensible. Air gun noise is
constant, with explosions every 10 to 16 seconds. Combined,
these authorizations represent about 850 ship-days of 24-hour
explosions within a single year.
Finally, NMFS' plan to close, seasonally, some areas to
seismic surveys out to 90 kilometers from shore ignores the
recent changes in right whale distribution and the fact that
air gun noise travels many hundreds of kilometers underwater.
The recent population decline is partly due to deaths from
entanglements in fishing gear and collisions with ships. It has
been made worse by low calf numbers. None were born in 2018,
and only seven have been born this year. Right whale survival
is entirely dependent upon reducing human-caused mortality and
eliminating stressors that impact reproduction. Without
dedicated efforts to reduce the effects of human activities,
this species is likely to go functionally extinct in about 20
years.
Despite all this, the North Atlantic right whale is not
doomed to extinction. They will adapt to changing conditions,
find food in new places, and start having calves again. In the
meantime, we need to stop killing them and disrupting their
lives.
In my expert opinion, NOAA's authorization of the seismic
exploration near the right whale calving ground is a step
backward. In contrast, NOAA's existing ship speed limit rule
has definitely reduced ship kills. And I am also pleased that
NOAA is enhancing efforts to reduce entanglements of right
whales in fishing gear.
Minimizing the human causes of right whale deaths and
reducing stresses that impact right whale health and
reproduction will help this species move toward population
recovery.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kraus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Scott Kraus, Vice President and Senior
Science Advisor, Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life, New England
Aquarium
Thanks to Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member McClintock for
inviting me to testify on the critically important topic of the plight
of the North Atlantic right whale, among the most endangered baleen
whales in the world. I am Vice President and Senior Science Advisor in
the Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life at the New England Aquarium.
The New England Aquarium is a catalyst for global change through public
engagement, commitment to marine animal conservation, leadership in
education, innovative scientific research, and effective advocacy for
vital and vibrant oceans. The Center's mission is to conduct research
on topics related to ocean health and conservation and to develop
science-based solutions to marine conservation problems. Before
assuming my present role, I served for 22 years as the Aquarium's Vice
President and Director of Research. I am Research Faculty at the
University of Massachusetts, Boston and am a member of the Marine
Technology Society, the Marine Mammal Society, and the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. I have spent almost 40
years studying the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis),
publishing more than 80 scientific papers on its distribution, ecology,
and conservation. My research team curates the North Atlantic Right
Whale Catalog, a photographic index of nearly every individual right
whale in the population that is the cornerstone of work in the field. I
am a Board Member and vice-Chair of the North Atlantic Right Whale
Consortium, a multi-sector collaborative research and conservation
effort with partners from government, industry, research institutions,
and conservation organizations. I am also a member of the Atlantic
Large Whale Take Reduction Team that the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) has convened since 1996 to reduce entanglements of right
whales and other large whales in fishing gear.
I am here to testify in support of Federal and state efforts to
reduce the threats to the North Atlantic right whale. This is among the
most endangered whales on the planet, with only about 400 individuals
surviving. Despite almost 50 years of Federal management efforts, the
stock is now declining rapidly. Why should we care? Protecting right
whales protects entire ocean ecosystems, including other whales, sea
turtles, commercial fish species, even plankton. Generally, whales are
the basis of a large tourist economy on both coasts worth hundreds of
millions of dollars annually. Whales act as incidental farmers of the
sea, capturing food at depth and releasing nutrients at the surface,
thereby fertilizing and supporting the entire marine food chain (Roman
et al. 2014). This fertilizing function moderates climate change
(Pershing et al. 2010) and supports the marine productivity that robust
and economically valuable fisheries depend upon (Lavery et al. 2014;
Roman et al. 2016). Because whales are mammals like us, they serve as
an early warning for drastic ecosystem changes in the oceans that will
damage fisheries and coastal human communities. Finally, whales are
more like us than most people realize--they have culture, dialects,
individual voices, family trees, and long-term social structures
(Whitehead and Rendell 2014). For all of these characteristics, we owe
them more than treating them as collateral damage in the
industrialization of the oceans.
The North Atlantic right whale's life cycle takes it through some
of the most industrialized, commercially active regions of the North
Atlantic (Kraus and Rolland 2007). These iconic whales forage largely
in waters off New England and the Canadian Maritime provinces during
the spring, summer, and fall, and pregnant females then migrate to
calving grounds off the southeast U.S. coast during the winter. That
distribution has exposed them to a suite of anthropogenic stressors,
including entanglements in fishing gear, collisions with ships,
disturbance and masking from underwater noise, and pollutants. As
described further below, these stressors have affected the whales'
birth and death rates and have impeded their recovery from whaling.
Without concerted efforts to reduce the effects of human activities,
this species is likely to go functionally extinct in about 20 years.
The North Atlantic right whale is a large baleen whale that can
reach 50 feet in length and weigh as much as 100,000 pounds. They spend
the warmer months feeding on tiny zooplankton called copepods in the
coastal and offshore waters of eastern North America. In the late fall,
pregnant females head south to waters off the Carolinas, Georgia, and
northern Florida to give birth in the winter, returning north with
their calves in the spring. Like all large whales, the right whale was
once hunted for its oil. The species obtained its name from early
Yankee whalers as the ``right'' whale to kill, because of its high
yields of oil and baleen, its comparatively slow speed, and its
tendency to float for some time after death, enabling easy retrieval.
By the early 1700s, the North Atlantic population had been hunted
nearly to extinction. However, whalers seeking other species in the
Atlantic still hunted and killed any right whales encountered, right
through the early 1900s. The League of Nations barred further killing
in 1935, a protection that was extended after World War II by the
International Whaling Commission. It is listed as endangered under the
U.S. Endangered Species Act and is protected under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. According to the most reliable population estimate, an
estimated 411 were alive at the end of 2017 (Pace et al. 2017; Pettis
et al. 2018). Based upon the known 2018 right whale deaths, the
estimated actual deaths, and the lack of calving, it is likely that the
population at the end of 2018 was just under 400 animals. A total of
seven calves have been born to date in 2019.
Right whales experienced some population growth during the 2000s.
During that decade, they produced an average of about 24 calves each
year and experienced around 3 known deaths each year from entanglements
with fishing gear and ship kills (Waring et al. 2006, 2011), resulting
in an annual increase of about 2.8 percent in population abundance.
This growth rate was significantly smaller than the annual growth
observed in many baleen whale populations that have recovered from
whaling, including that of the Southern right whale, a related species
that lives in the waters of the Southern Hemisphere (Corkeron et al.
2018). This period of slow but positive growth for the North Atlantic
right whale lasted until 2010, when the species entered a state of
decline. Right whales have now been declining every year for the past 8
years (Pace et al. 2017). The decline is marked by increasing numbers
of deaths, reduced calving rates, and poor health condition. All
scientific evidence indicates that this decline can be attributed
entirely to human activities. This type of rapid decline in the
population has not been seen since the period of active right whaling
prior to 1750 (Reeves et al. 2007).
increases in deaths
During the 5-year period from 2010-2014, human activities killed or
seriously injured right whales at more than twice the rate observed
during the previous decade, with known mortalities rising from an
average of 2.6 to 5.7 incidents per year. The legal threshold required
to trigger management action for this species under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, called the ``potential biological removal level,'' is
less than one serious injury or mortality per year (Waring et al. 2006,
2011, 2016). The term ``potential biological removal level,'' or
``PBR,'' means ``the maximum number of animals, not including natural
mortalities, which may be removed from a marine mammal stock while
allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable
population.'' For the last 20 years, the annual PBR established by the
NMFS for right whales has been between 0 and 1, and that number has
been exceeded every year.
In 2017 and 2018, researchers documented the deaths of 20 right
whales, nearly 5 percent of the population. Twelve were subjected to
complete or partial necropsies, and the deaths of all the examined
whales were due to human causes.
The actual number of right whale mortalities is likely far greater
than the unprecedented amount of documented deaths. Since 1980, the
right whale research team at the New England Aquarium has curated a
photographic catalog of individuals in the North Atlantic right whale
population (Hamilton et al. 2007; http://rwcatalog.neaq.org). From
nearly 40 years of photographic records, it is known that only one-
third of right whales are detected when they die; the rest simply
disappear from the photographic sightings record. Based on our limited
ability to detect mortalities, the 20 right whale deaths reported
during the last 2 years represent fewer than half of the actual losses
during that time period.
As a consequence of human-caused mortality, right whale longevity,
which can exceed 70 years (Hamilton et al. 1998), has dropped to a mere
30 to 40 years. It is unlikely that right whales die of old age
anymore.
calving declines
As mortalities in the population have increased, calving rates have
fallen. During the 1980s and 1990s, North Atlantic right whale females
had calves every 3 to 5 years. In the 2000s, however, most females
began producing calves at longer intervals, which are now approaching
10 years (Pettis et al. 2018). As a consequence, calf numbers over the
2010-2018 period decreased by 43 percent as compared to the previous
decade. No calves were born in 2018, and seven were born in 2019 to
date.
It is unlikely that the research community has failed to detect
significant calving activity in undiscovered locations beyond the
southeastern U.S. continental shelf. As curators of the North Atlantic
Right Whale Catalog, my research team at the New England Aquarium
collects photographic data on right whales from hundreds of sources,
including several other major research institutions along the East
Coast of the United States, Canada, and Iceland, fishermen,
recreational boaters, the U.S. Coast Guard, and many others. Aerial
surveys for this species are regularly flown off Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, New York, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
and in the whales' calving grounds off Georgia and northern Florida.
Breeding females make up an unusually small percentage of the right
whale population, and as of 2015, only an estimated 105 were alive
(Pace et al. 2017). Female right whales may be especially vulnerable to
human impacts because their migration to the calving ground (which
males rarely make) takes them through the heavily used coastal waters
of the eastern United States (Caswell et al. 1999; Fujiwara and Caswell
2001). Females attain sexual maturity around 10 years of age, and human
activities are now killing them before the age of 40, leaving
relatively few years for reproduction. Further, female body condition
is dependent upon high-quality habitat that includes a combination of
adequate food, quiet conditions for communication, and low levels of
extrinsic interactions with human activities. Good body condition is
defined as good health and blubber (fat) reserves, which female whales
require for ovulation, pregnancy, and especially lactation. Chronic
stressors can reduce physiological resilience and lower body condition
over time to the point where it falls below the necessary threshold for
pregnancy. Health assessments show that many female right whales are in
poor body condition, falling below the health indicators consistent
with successful calving (Rolland et al. 2016; Pettis et al. 2017).
cumulative impacts and chronic stressors
The right whale is subject to a cumulative impacts problem as its
survival is threatened by multiple anthropogenic stressors including
fishing gear entanglements, ship strikes, underwater industrial noise,
habitat use and climate change, and now also the threat of seismic
exploration.
Fishing Gear Entanglements: Right whales are increasingly subject
to entanglement in fishing gear, particularly in the ropes used by
lobster and crab fishermen to deploy, mark, and retrieve their traps at
sea. From 2010-2014, entanglements caused more than four times as many
right whale deaths and injuries likely to result in death, than during
the previous 5 years (Kenney 2018; Waring et al. 2011, 2016).
Additionally, the health consequences of an entanglement can last long
after the whale is freed. Right whales can have poor body condition and
are significantly less likely to reproduce for at least 1 year
following serious entanglement (van der Hoop et al. 2017). This problem
is widespread. At least 83 percent of all North Atlantic right whales
have scars from being entangled at least once in their lives, and 59
percent have been entangled more than once (Knowlton et al. 2012).
Ship Strikes: Right whales are also killed by collisions with
ships, as their habitat coincides with a number of major shipping
routes. Overall, mortalities from ship strikes have decreased over the
past 15 years (van der Hoop et al. 2015), likely due to several
successful conservation efforts that included routing changes in the
Bay of Fundy, Roseway Basin, and Boston shipping lanes that were
permanently established between 2003 and 2009, and the U.S. adoption,
in 2008, of a speed regulation for commercial ships along the U.S. East
Coast. Nonetheless, vessel collisions continue to account for right
whale deaths including, in 2017, one lethal strike reported off
Massachusetts and four in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Habitat Use and Climate Change: Recent changes in right whale
health and habitat changes have been associated with climate change,
through changes in oceanographic conditions and in the distribution and
abundance of their prey species (Record et al. in press). Since 2010,
right whales have been distributed less predictably, including year-
round occurrences in southeastern United States and mid-Atlantic
coastal waters, aggregations in the winter and spring south of Cape Cod
(Leiter et al, 2018), and sightings and recordings of right whales on
the continental shelf edge during the summer months (June and July) and
as far south as Georgia (Hodge et al. 2015; Salisbury et al. 2015).
Acoustic detections off the southeastern United States have documented
small numbers of right whales in the area from August through October
(Davis et al. 2017). Right whale sightings have occurred in Bermuda,
the Azores, and the Canaries, indicating that the species occasionally
travels into deep, warm waters well beyond the continental shelf.
Further, pregnant right whales may give birth south of Cape Hatteras
while on southward migration, or go offshore to give birth before
returning to coastal habitat in the southeast (Zani et al. in prep).
The historical thinking about seasonal movements of right whales no
longer applies, as new aggregation areas are being identified and
``traditional'' ones are being used differently.
Underwater Industrial Noise: Underwater noise constitutes another
serious, demonstrated stressor on the population (see section on
Seismic Exploration below). Due to shipping noise, right whales have
lost much of their ability to communicate over long distances (Hatch et
al. 2012). Additionally, the broadband noise produced by shipping
traffic has been shown to induce chronic physiological stress in right
whales (Rolland et al. 2012). That result is consistent with data on
the effects of noise on numerous other species (Romero and Butler
2007). Chronic stress increases vulnerability to disease and causes
increased mortality and compromised reproduction across a wide variety
of mammals. Right whales are exposed to widespread shipping, dredging,
pile-driving and other industrial noises, which are impairing
communication, food finding, and reproduction (Hatch et al., 2012).
Seismic Exploration: In November 2018, NMFS issued five separate
incidental harassment authorizations (IHAs) to incidentally harass
marine mammals during geophysical survey activities in the Atlantic
Ocean. The authorized seismic surveys will involve multiple vessels
operating simultaneously, each for periods of months, producing chronic
noise that will propagate hundreds of kilometers and raise ambient
noise levels throughout right whale habitat. Since shipping noise
demonstrably increases the stress response in right whales (Rolland et
al. 2012), it is likely that constant exposure to seismic airgun noise,
which is much louder than ship noise, will increase chronic stress in
this species. Chronic stress in all mammals (including humans) reduces
immune and endocrine function, negatively affecting reproduction and
disease resistance (Romero and Butler 2007). This is an impact that
this critically endangered species cannot tolerate. Many adult female
right whales now have health scores that are just above the threshold
of reproductive success (Rolland et al. 2016), suggesting that any
additional stressors that reduce body condition will push them below
any ability to reproduce. Low health scores are also associated with
lower probabilities of survival. The authorized seismic surveys would
reduce fitness in these already health-compromised animals, reducing
survival and reproduction and pushing the population increasingly
toward extinction.
NMFS Biological Opinion on Seismic Impacts to Right Whales was Flawed:
Before issuing the IHAs, NMFS developed both a Biological Opinion
and an IHA notice that included an impact analysis. This analysis was
inadequate and contained significant flaws in both fact and
interpretation as follows.
(1) NMFS bases its impact analysis on a cetacean abundance model by
Roberts et al. (2017). This model maps the distribution and density of
whale, dolphin, and porpoise populations along the U.S. East Coast and
in the northern Gulf of Mexico. While the model represents an advance
over earlier efforts for many species, it does not incorporate much of
the recent data on right whale occurrence that demonstrates their
extended use of habitats in the mid-Atlantic and Southeast. Because of
the distance sampling constraints of the data selection, the model does
not take account of numerous opportunistic sightings and systematic
acoustic detections in the mid-Atlantic and Southeast regions.
Moreover, very little systematic distance sampling survey effort has
occurred beyond the whales' designated critical habitat, an area
covering only a small portion of the continental shelf. As a result,
the model is likely to underestimate right whale distribution beyond
surveyed areas within 40 miles from shore.
(2) Any credible environmental analysis must consider the
cumulative acoustic impacts of the five authorized seismic surveys in
the context of the right whale's current conservation status and all
factors impacting the population. The addition of seismic exploration
as another significant stressor on the most vulnerable segment of the
population, reproductive females and their calves, was considered in
isolation from all other stressors listed above.
(3) Seismic exploration is likely to increase ambient noise levels
across the entire continental shelf, which may interfere with mother
and calf communication, increasing risk for calf survival. In calving
grounds off the southeastern United States and in the migratory
corridor, seismic noise would increase the probability that right whale
mothers and calves could get separated by disrupting their ability to
hear one another. Recent studies show that mother-calf pairs
communicate with very low-amplitude calls (Parks et al. 2018; Cusano,
et al. 2018), which will be vulnerable to interference or masking from
small increases in ambient noise (Clark et al. 2009). Even short-term
separation is a risk for calves, primarily from shark predation (Taylor
et al. 2012).
(4) Seismic noise could displace right whale mothers from their
primary calving grounds, leading them to give birth in sub-optimal
habitat where newborn survival is compromised. It is likely that the
combination of bathymetry and temperature in the coastal waters of the
southeastern United States are critical to right whale calving. While
NMFS asserts, in its notice supporting the present authorizations, that
marine mammals displaced by seismic exploration may ``seek temporary
viable habitat elsewhere,'' habitat suitable for right whale calving is
limited. Given the hundreds of kilometer range of seismic noise
propagation, it is certain that the authorized surveys, which combined
represent about 850 ship days of active airgun use in a single year,
would compromise large areas of right whale habitat for calving and
other purposes.
(5) NMFS' assertion that the behavioral effects of the authorized
surveys will be ``transient'' is not biologically defensible. There is
strong evidence that seismic airgun noise directly alters the behavior
of baleen whales, including vocalization behavior associated with
migration, feeding, and other functions, at low received sound pressure
levels and at distances of tens to hundreds of kilometers from the
airgun source (e.g., Blackwell et al. 2015; Castellote et al. 2012).
Additionally, seismic airguns can mask baleen whale vocalizations,
reducing the whales' communication space and compromising their
behavior, at scales of hundreds to thousands of kilometers (e.g.,
Estabrook et al. 2016; Nieukirk et al. 2012). Given the amount of
seismic airgun activity that NMFS has authorized and its range of
influence, important right whale behavioral patterns will be disrupted
frequently and repeatedly.
(6) NMFS has prescribed a seasonal closure of coastal waters out to
90 kilometers. This ignores recent changes in distribution as right
whales are now occurring further offshore, beyond NMFS' closure area
and outside the putative migratory season during times of year when the
closure does not apply (Davis et al. 2017) (see Habitat Use and Climate
Change section above). This also ignores the way airgun noise spreads
for hundreds of kilometers, making the 90 kilometer exclusion zone
biologically meaningless.
right whale status and management options for recovery
In conclusion, the North Atlantic right whale is among the most
endangered whales on the planet, with about 400 individuals remaining,
including about 100 breeding females. Despite almost 50 years of
Federal management efforts, the stock is now declining rapidly. This
decline is linked largely to mortality from entanglements in fishing
gear and from vessel collisions. It is exacerbated by low calving
rates, which are probably due to the sublethal effects of by
entanglements, underwater noise, and food availability. These combined
effects are likely to reduce body condition and health in all exposed
right whales and will have negative effects on reproduction and
survival. The efforts currently underway to reduce accidental killing
of right whales by ships and fishing gear must be matched with
appropriate protections for reproductive females and their calves off
the mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States.
The recent decline in calving rates does not mean that the right
whale population is doomed to extinction. Mammalian females of all
species slow or stop reproduction when environmental conditions are
poor and wait to have offspring when conditions improve. This species
can adapt to changing conditions, will find food sources in new places,
and start having calves again at rates that can maintain and grow the
population. However, North Atlantic right whales do not have the
capacity to sustain high death rates for long. For this species to
recover, it is critical for managers to prevent human-caused mortality
and eliminate those stressors in their ocean habitats that reduce
individual whale health. For all of these reasons, the New England
Aquarium is opposed to NOAA's issuance of the five IHAs for seismic
exploration. However, we support NOAA's existing ship speed rule, and
recommend that NOAA urgently enhance its efforts to reduce the
entanglements of right whales in fixed fishing gear. We also support
NOAA's work on reducing shipping noise and other noise in the ocean, as
well as the many Federal and state efforts to reduce pollution of all
kinds in the sea. Reducing the human causes of right whale deaths, and
reducing sub-lethal stressors that reduce whale health, will allow this
species time to adapt to its new environmental conditions and begin the
road to population recovery.
references cited
Blackwell, S.B., et al. 2015. Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale
calling rates: Evidence for two behavioral thresholds. 10(6) PLoS ONE
e0125720.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125720.
Castellote, M., C.W. Clark, and M.O. Lammers. 2012. Acoustic and
behavioural changes by fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in response
to shipping and airgun noise. 147 Biol. Conserv. 115-22.
Caswell, H., M. Fujiwara, and S. Brault. 1999. Declining survival
probability threatens the North Atlantic right whale. 96 Proceedings
Nat'l Acad. Sci., Population Biol. 3308-13.
Clark, C.W., et al. 2009. Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems:
Intuitions, analysis, and implication. 395 Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 201-
222.
Corkeron, P., et al. 2018. The recovery of North Atlantic right whales,
Eubalaena glacialis, has been constrained by human-caused mortality. 5
R. Soc. Open Sci. 180892.
Cusano, D.A., et al. 2018. Implementing conservation measures for the
North Atlantic right whale: Considering the behavioral ontogeny of
mother-calf pairs. Animal Conserv. __. DOI:10.1111/acv.12457.
Davis, G.E., et al. 2017. Long-term passive acoustic recordings track
the changing distribution of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena
glacialis) from 2004 to 2014. 7 Sci. Reports 13460. DOI:10.1038/s41598-
017-13359-3.
Estabrook, B.J., et al. 2016. Widespread spatial and temporal extent of
anthropogenic noise across the northeastern Gulf of Mexico shelf
ecosystem. 30 Endangered Species Res. 267-382.
Fujiwara, M., and H. Caswell. 2001. Demography of the endangered North
Atlantic right whale, 414 Nature 537-541.
Hamilton, P.K., Knowlton, A.R., and Marx, M.K. 2007. Right Whales Tell
Their Own Stories: The Photo-Identification Catalog. In Kraus, SD and
Rolland, RM (eds). The Urban Whale: North Atlantic Right Whales at the
Crossroads. Harvard University Press. 514 pp.
Hamilton, P.K., et al. 1998. Age structure and longevity in North
Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) and their relation to
reproduction. 171 Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 285-92.
Hatch, L.T., et al. 2012. Quantifying loss of acoustic communication
space for right whales in and around a U.S. National Marine Sanctuary.
26 Conserv. Biol. 983-94.
Hodge, K.B., et al. 2015. North Atlantic right whale occurrence near
wind energy areas along the mid-Atlantic US coast: implications for
management. 28 Endangered Species Res. 225-234.
Kenney, R.D. 2018. What if there were no fishing? North Atlantic right
whale population trajectories without entanglement mortality. 37
Endangered Species Res. 233-237.
Knowlton, A.R., et al. 2012. Monitoring North Atlantic right whale
Eubalaena glacialis entanglement rates: A 30 yr retrospective. 466 Mar.
Ecol. Prog. Ser. 293-302.
Kraus, S.D., and R.M. Rolland, eds. 2007. The Urban Whale: North
Atlantic Right Whales at the Crossroads.
Lavery, T. J., et al. 2014. Whales sustain fisheries: Blue whales
stimulate primary production in the Southern Ocean. Mar Mam Sci,
30:888-904. doi:10.1111/mms.12108.
Leiter, S.M., et al. 2017. North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena
glacialis occurrence in offshore wind energy areas near Massachusetts
and Rhode Island, USA. 34 Endangered Species Res. 45-59.
New England Aquarium. 2018. North Atlantic Right Whale Catalog. http://
rwcatalog.neaq.org.
Nieukirk, S.L., et al. 2012. Sounds from airguns and fin whales
recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean, 1999-2009. 131 J. Acoust. Soc'y
Amer. 1102-1112.
Pace, R.M. III, P.J. Corkeron, and S.D. Kraus. 2017. State space mark-
recapture estimates reveal a recent decline in abundance of North
Atlantic right whales. Ecol. and Evol. 1-12. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3406.
Parks, S.E., et al. 2018. Low amplitude acoustic communication of North
Atlantic right whale mother-calf pairs on the calving grounds.
Presentation to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium, Nov. 2018.
Pershing A.J., et al. 2010. The Impact of Whaling on the Ocean Carbon
Cycle: Why Bigger Was Better. PLoS ONE 5(8): e12444.doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0012444.
Pettis, H.M., et al. 2018. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2018
Annual Report Card. Report to the North Atlantic Right Whale
Consortium.
Pettis, H.M., et al. 2017. Body condition changes arising from natural
factors and fishing gear entanglements in North Atlantic right whales
Eubalaena glacialis. 32 Endangered Species Res. 237-249.
Record, N.R., et al. Rapid climate-driven circulation changes threaten
conservation of endangered North Atlantic right whales. Oceanography,
In press.
Reeves, R.R, Smith, T.D., and E.A. Josephson. 2007. Near annihilation
of a species: Right whaling in the North Atlantic. In Kraus, S.D., and
R.M. Rolland, eds. The Urban Whale: North Atlantic Right Whales at the
Crossroads, at 39-74.
Roberts, J.J., L. Mannocci, and P.N. Halpin. 2017. Final project
report: Marine species density data gap assessments and update for the
AFTT Study Area, 2016-2017 (Opt. Year 1). Report prepared for Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic.
Rolland, R.M., et al. 2012. Evidence that ship noise increases stress
in right whales. 279 Proceedings Royal Soc'y B 2363-68.
Rolland, R.M., et al. 2016. Health of North Atlantic right whales
Eubalaena glacialis over three decades: From individual health to
demographic and population health trends. 542 Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
265-282.
Roman J., et al. 2016. Endangered Right Whales Enhance Primary
Productivity in the Bay of Fundy. PLoS ONE 11(6):e0156553. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0156553.
Roman, J., et al. 2014. Whales as marine ecosystem engineers. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment, 12: 377-385. doi:10.1890/130220.
Romero, M.L., and L.K. Butler. 2007. Endocrinology of stress. 20 Int'l
J. Comp. Psychol. 89-95.
Salisbury, D.P., C.W. Clark, and A.N. Rice. 2015. Right whale
occurrence in the coastal waters of Virginia, U.S.A.: Endangered
species presence in a rapidly developing energy market. 32 Mar. Mammal
Sci. 508-519.
Taylor, J.K.D., et al. 2012. Shark predation on North Atlantic right
whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the southeastern United States calving
ground. 29 Mar. Mamm. Sci. 204-212.
van der Hoop, J., P. Corkeron, and M. Moore. 2017. Entanglement is a
costly life-history stage in large whales. 7 Ecol. and Evol. 92-106.
van der Hoop, J.M., et al. 2015. Vessel strikes to large whales before
and after the 2008 ship strike rule. 8 Conserv. Lett. 24-32.
Waring, G.T., et al. 2006. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessments--2005. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-194.
Waring, G.T., et al. 2011. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessments--2010. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-219.
Waring, G.T., et al. 2016. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessments--2015. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-238.
Whitehead, H. and Rendell, L. 2014. The cultural lives of whales and
dolphins. University of Chicago Press.
Zani, et al. In prep. The timing and location of calving in the North
Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis): Does their pre-calving
sighting gap point to birth location?
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Scott Kraus, Vice President
and Senior Science Advisor, Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life, New
England Aquarium
Question Submitted by Rep. Lowenthal
Question 1. Dr. Kraus, both offshore drilling and wind farm
development require seismic surveys. Are the impacts on North Atlantic
right whales the same for both forms of development? Do we have a
reason to be more concerned about the seismic surveys required for
offshore gas and oil development?
Answer. There are two fundamental differences between the seismic
methods used for oil and gas, and those used for assessing pile driving
options for wind farms. One, airgun arrays used for oil and gas
exploration produce sound with source levels typically between 240 and
260 db. Wind farm companies only need to know what is beneath the ocean
floor down to a depth of perhaps 50 meters, so their systems use much
less power, typically with source levels of 210-220 db at 1 m. This
means the spread of the sound is orders of magnitude less than seismic
for oil and gas. Second, wind farm companies generally lease small
areas of sea floor, so a geotechnical survey of their area of interest
is much more limited in scale and time than the broadscale surveys for
oil and gas. Put another way, these surveys are relatively short term
in duration (a couple of months at most), and their acoustic impact
will be on the order of kilometers, as opposed to hundreds of
kilometers for oil and gas exploration seismic sounds.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Dr. Kraus.
Next is Dr. Burnett.
STATEMENT OF DR. H. STERLING BURNETT, SENIOR FELLOW AND
MANAGING EDITOR, ENVIRONMENT & CLIMATE NEWS, THE HEARTLAND
INSTITUTE, ROWLETT, TEXAS
Dr. Burnett. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member
McClintock, and the other distinguished members of the
Committee for inviting me to speak today.
I want to say at the outset, we all recognize that energy
is a fundamental building block of modern society. And fossil
fuels, it is just a fact, now and for the foreseeable future,
will provide the lion's share of that energy. The question is,
where will we get that energy from going forward? And at what
cost?
My background--I am not a scientist. I am not an expert in
right whales. I am a philosopher. I do philosophy of science.
Environmental ethics, my training, is to follow the argument
where it goes. But my training in applied philosophy says that
your values, your choices you make, should be informed by
facts, by data.
Good science, good laws, good public policy, all depend on
good data. And good data is precisely what we lack concerning
how much oil and gas exists off the Atlantic Coast, where it is
located, in what volumes and what formations. It has been 40
years.
And while it is certainly true that many governors on the
East Coast object to oil and gas drilling, they are making
decisions for them and future governors in ignorance. They are
making these decisions with their eyes blinded because we don't
have the data. They cannot make an informed decision because we
don't know how much is there, so how much they would be
forgoing.
It may be the case that good data will show the Atlantic
outer continental shelf contains so little, or so widely
dispersed--not captured in large, appreciable volumes--that it
would support their decisions and it would make it easy because
oil companies just will not want to go out there. And at
current prices, they probably don't want to go out there.
Alternatively, an updated, accurate assessment with the
newest technology could show vast volumes and may change their
or future governors' minds, especially when the next recession
comes, and we know recessions will come, and their budgets are
strained, and they are figuring out a way to pay for their
education, pay for their roads, pay for other things. But
regardless, they should make these decisions not on outdated
data, not on poor science, but on the best available science.
And that requires new testing, comprehensive testing.
Threats to whales consist of, well, nature, in part. They
start from a low population size, even a lower fertile breeding
population of females. They are slow to reproduce. And then
they face all the human threats. The dominant ones--and I will
not go into it but we all know from testimony earlier today--
the dominant ones are vessel strikes and entanglement. I don't
know it is the case, but I wonder if pollution, plastics
pollution in the ocean, might also be contributing to that. If
so, tourism then is contributing to whale struggles.
I keep hearing the concern about offshore seismic testing.
But I do not hear the same concern concerning offshore seismic
testing for wind turbines, hundreds of which will have to be
located precisely--not a few dispersed over large areas of the
ocean, but hundreds of which in concentrated areas of the ocean
right along the migration routes--with the same seismic
testing.
I don't know if the SAVE Right Whales Act--I have not had a
chance to review it--deals with just seismic testing for oil
and gas, or if it deals with all seismic testing. But if it
doesn't deal with all seismic testing, then it is dishonest. It
is just against oil and gas. It is not about the right whales;
it is about oil and gas because protecting the right whales
would demand the same thing for wind farms.
I note that just a month ago, you had a woman from the
Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association testify, and she spent
three paragraphs in her testimony talking about the threats
from wind farms to the fishing industry and a paragraph
concerning right whales. She spent one paragraph concerning oil
spills for the oil industry. So, she certainly sees it as a
bigger threat. But no one seems to be addressing that, or care.
I will stop there.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Burnett follows:]
Prepared Statement of H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. Senior Fellow, The
Heartland Institute
Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member McClintock, and other members of
the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify concerning
the need to accurately assess the potential oil and gas deposits
beneath the U.S. Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and the
purported threat a comprehensive survey of the region might pose to the
North Atlantic Right whale (hereafter called ``right whale'').
My name is Harold Sterling Burnett. I am a senior fellow with The
Heartland Institute, where I also serve as managing editor of
Environment & Climate News. I won't bore you with my entire vitae,
which you have already received, other than to say I have a Ph.D. in
applied philosophy, with a specialization in environmental ethics, from
Bowling Green State University.
I have been conducting energy and environmental policy work at
various think tanks, as well as in the field, part-time since 1987 and
full-time since 1996. The views I express in this testimony are my own
and should not be construed as necessarily representing any official
position of The Heartland Institute.
Energy is the fundamental building block of modern society. Fossil
fuels service the lion's share of the world's energy needs, including
in the United States. Numerous reports by the International Energy
Agency and Energy Information Administration confirm fossil fuels will
continue to make up more than 80 percent of the world's primary energy
base in 2050.
With this in mind, the most important questions are: Where will the
United States get its share of that energy, and at what cost?
President Donald Trump has provided his answer to the former
question as part of his America First Energy Plan. The Trump
administration aims to pursue energy dominance by encouraging the
development of all forms of domestic energy production and to minimize
the United States' dependence on foreign sources of critical energy
supplies.
As part of that effort, President Trump revised a 5-year energy and
gas leasing program imposed under the Obama administration that barred
oil and gas development in most, if not all, of the Atlantic OCS.
Toward the end of the Obama administration, it also denied permits for
seismic surveying in the Atlantic area.
The Trump administration has proposed replacing the Obama
administration's 2017-22 plan with a modified 2019-24 plan, including a
reversal of the decision to prevent seismic surveying.
While I applaud President Trump's commitment to putting America and
its energy needs first, it should be recognized that a survey of the
Atlantic OCS is not necessarily a prelude to wholescale oil and gas
production, but rather an information-gathering exercise.
Good data and facts are critical to the development of good
decision making, science, and public policy. I often hear lawmakers
claim when advocating for a new policy proposal, ``We should follow the
science.'' But science doesn't fall like received wisdom from Heaven;
it requires extensive research and effort.
Before America's political and private sector leaders can make
informed decisions concerning the relative benefits and costs of oil
and gas exploration or production, the government, taxpayers, and oil
and gas companies must have a better understanding of how much oil and
gas might be available and what it would cost to develop it.
We currently lack reliable data for the Atlantic OCS. It's been
more than 40 years since the most recent comprehensive Atlantic Coast
geological seismic survey was conducted, and seismic survey technology
has improved considerably since then. It has become more effective and
less invasive. Because it has been so long since a survey has been
completed, we have a limited, outdated understanding of the natural gas
and oil resources located off the U.S. Atlantic seaboard. An updated
OCS survey is long overdue.
Extensive data might, once fully gathered, show the Atlantic OCS
contains so little or so widely dispersed potential oil and gas that
oil companies would not find it worthwhile to explore the region.
Perhaps it would lead policy makers to conclude the potential benefits
are outweighed by the risks.
Alternatively, an updated seismic survey might discover the
potential for billions of barrels of recoverable oil and trillions of
cubic feet of natural gas. In that were to occur, the Trump
administration, governors of potentially affected states, and Federal
and state legislators would be able to accurately consider, with open
eyes, the potential benefits and costs of exploration.
Some have expressed concern seismic surveying would result in
serious ecological damage, including harm to whales and other marine
life. However, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the agency
charged with, among other things, protecting marine species, has
concluded seismic surveying poses no significant threat to marine life.
In 2014, under the Obama administration, NMFS stated, ``To date, there
is no evidence that serious injury, death, or stranding by marine
mammals can occur from exposure to airgun pulses, even in the case of
large airgun arrays.''
A 2014 report from the chief environmental officer of the
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management came to
the same conclusion, stating: ``To date, there has been no documented
scientific evidence of noise from airguns used in geological and
geophysical seismic activities adversely affecting marine animal
populations or coastal communities.''
More recently, in 2017, the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
(associated with Columbia University) conducted a seismic survey off
the coast of North Carolina to map plate tectonics, using the same type
of ships and equipment oil and gas mapping would require. This seismic
survey went forward without any objections that I am aware of, even
though it covered a larger area than testing for oil and gas off the
coast of North Carolina would. Research indicates a fossil fuel survey
would cover just 10-50 miles, compared to 2-200 miles for the Lamont-
Doherty survey. Further, the Lamont-Doherty seismic survey sent out
much stronger signals that traveled deeper into the ocean bed.
Despite the larger scale of the Lamont-Doherty survey, a study by
the National Science Foundation concluded the survey caused no
consequential harm to the ocean's wildlife or the ecosystem.
It's also worth noting many of the same people and groups objecting
to an oil-and-gas-related seismic survey because it would harm the
right whale have not expressed similar objections to the seismic
surveys that would have to be conducted to erect the huge, much more
extensive and interconnected offshore wind farms proposed for placement
in right whale migration routes and breeding grounds.
An exception to my previous statement was included in testimony to
this very Committee on February 7, when Beth Casoni, executive director
of the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, provided a single-
paragraph warning of the potential harms posed by offshore oil and gas
development to fisheries and whales. She devoted three paragraphs to
providing warnings of the dangers to the fishing industry and right
whales from offshore wind turbines. If seismic surveys are dangerous to
North Atlantic right whales, why should renewable energy companies be
permitted to site offshore wind turbines?
There are anthropogenic threats to the right whale, but offshore
oil and gas production and seismic testing are not foremost among them.
Shipping vessel strikes account for the largest percentage of human-
caused right whale mortality. Entanglement in floating fishing lines
also accounts for many injuries and deaths. One study estimated
approximately 85 percent of right whales have entanglement scars.
Further, a Canadian estimates shipping strikes and entanglement have
accounted for nearly 50 percent of all known right whale deaths since
1970. Plastics in the ocean are another potential source of harm.
Interestingly, the development of oil and gas for use as fuel might
actually have contributed to saving the right whale and a few other
whale species from extinction. History shows the greatest threat to
whale survival ever recorded was the whaling conducted by humans to
render blubber down to whale oil for use in lamps and for other uses.
The right whale got its name because it was the ``right'' whale to kill
for its blubber, which could be rendered into whale oil and other
products. The advent of the fossil fuel industry saved whales from
extinction, because the world quickly replaced whale oil with kerosene
and other petroleum products.
One final objection I wish to address is that some say because the
world is awash with oil and gas and prices are so low, we don't need to
survey or explore new offshore areas. It's true that it takes years
from the time offshore surveys are conducted to when leases are
offered, areas are explored, and production takes place. As much as a
decade can pass from survey to production.
In the past, I've debated people who said during periods of high
prices, we don't need to explore for new offshore oil and gas regions
because it would take 10 years to develop, and by then, the crisis will
pass. To that, I say, ``Let's get ahead of the curve and prepare for
the next shortage.'' One thing we can be fairly certain of is oil and
gas supplies won't always be so abundant and prices so low. The best
hedge against future high prices is to know where to go to exploit
future oil and gas reserves, as well as how much exists.
Historically, physical and political restrictions have limited
supplies of these two critical resources, causing price spikes that
rippled throughout the U.S. economy, harming businesses and consumers.
By conducting a comprehensive survey now, industry can hit the ground
running to produce new supplies when limited supplies and high prices
make such development economically worthwhile, and when the same
factors incentivize political leaders to support production.
Further, and this is just speculation, the fracking revolution that
so many of the same people who object to offshore oil and gas
exploration decry might partly have resulted from the absence of an up-
to-date survey of OCS reserves and restrictions on OCS production
outside the Gulf of Mexico.
Fracking is largely responsible for the economic recovery that
began late in the Obama administration, as the oil and gas industry was
responsible for an outsized proportion of the growth in employment.
Lower energy prices, provided in large part by fracking, have also
helped mom and pop businesses and large companies alike to compete with
global competitors, and they have helped to bring back the chemical
production and refining industry to America's shores.
Modern fracking required the development of technological
innovations and new techniques that might not have been sought or
developed had offshore oil and gas mapping, exploration, and production
been shuttered outside the Gulf of Mexico. If permitted, industry might
have used existing deep-water drilling technologies to develop OCS oil
and gas reserves, rather than seeking new techniques to exploit
additional reserves on land.
In closing, thank you all once again for the opportunity to testify
concerning this important issue. I look forward to any questions you
might have regarding my testimony.
______
Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentleman.
Dr. Clark, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. CHRIS CLARK, SENIOR SCIENTIST, RESEARCH
PROFESSOR, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NEW YORK
Dr. Clark. I thank Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member
McClintock for inviting me to testify on behalf of North
Atlantic right whales and the potential impacts of noise from
seismic air gun surveys on this highly endangered population.
Like Scott and Dr. Kraus, I have been studying right whales
a long time, since 1973. And scientific studies over these last
four to five decades have confirmed that baleen whales,
including North Atlantic right whales, produce an extraordinary
variety of sounds which they use for all types of critical life
functions, such as communicating, navigating, mating, and
maintaining social bonds such as those between mothers and
calves.
There is also compelling evidence that baleen whales,
including North Atlantic right whales, have excellent low-
frequency hearing. The low-frequency, extremely loud explosions
produced by seismic air guns fall right on top of that
frequency range in which right whales produce these sounds.
Right whales are highly dependent on contact calls, a means
of maintaining social contact and coming together in social
groups. Mothers and calves use very soft calls to maintain
close proximity in order for the calf to nurse and increase the
chances of a mother protecting her calf from killer whales and
sharks.
These interactions are dependent on listening for and
recognizing sounds under naturally quiet conditions. Research
has shown that right whales produce contact calls and counter-
calls in every location along the East Coast where we have
listened. Calling whales are detected throughout the year in
regions and at times of year when they were not expected to
occur--in some cases, as far out as the continental shelf
break. That is 90 to 150 kilometers offshore.
Why am I so absolutely certain that the noise from the
seismic air gun arrays will jeopardize and increase the risk of
harm to North Atlantic right whales? Noise from seismic air gun
explorations has been detected throughout the North Atlantic,
and are essentially everywhere. We have heard air guns even
when the seismic surveys were conducted far, far away from the
recorders.
I am talking about recording them on the eastern U.S. coast
to systematic explosions off Canada, 1,200 kilometers away;
French Guiana, 3,800 kilometers away; and Western Ireland,
5,000 kilometers away. Explosions off Virginia will propagate
into the waters off New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and
elsewhere.
Because these surveys occur in distant places and influence
the ocean's acoustic environment over such enormous areas--
these are areas of many hundreds of thousands of kilometers
squared--and temporal scales--years on end--assessing the full
scale of this chronic impact is challenging. But I am convinced
that the most critical impacts are chronic, not acute.
My deep concern about seismic impacts on right whales comes
from responses of bowhead whales, a close relative, to seismic
surveys. Susannah Blackwell and her colleagues have shown that
bowhead whale calling rates increase as soon as air gun pulses
were detected, then plateaued as increased received levels
occurred, began decreasing as received levels continued to
rise, and then ceased entirely at higher levels. In other
words, the whales initially adapt to the noise, and then
eventually just give up.
In my opinion, this significant and consistent response by
an endangered species to seismic air gun arrays is alarming
given that none of the proposed monitoring or mitigation
actions proposed for North Atlantic right whales can determine
whether or not right whales modify their calling behavior from
the proposed seismic activities, and the inability to observe a
response is not evidence of no response.
Right whales as well as many marine animals are dependent
upon a natural quiet ocean for basic life functions. Seismic
air gun arrays off the East Coast will significantly change
that acoustic ecosystem. We know that the sounds from seismic
air gun arrays propagate and change the acoustic environment
through enormous areas.
We know that a close relative of right whales, the bowhead
whale, starts to react to seismic noise at extraordinarily low
levels and continues reacting until whales stop communicating
altogether. The level of seismic air gun activity authorized by
NMFS is irresponsible and likely to cause significant impacts
on right whale acoustic behavior.
For right whales, such changes could likely increase
mother-calf separations, decrease acoustic communication
between whales, and influence acoustic behaviors that are
essential for maintaining the population's social cohesion and
integrity.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Clark follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Christopher W. Clark
Thanks to Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member McClintock for
inviting me to testify on the critically important topic of North
Atlantic right whale and the potential impacts of noise from seismic
airgun surveys on this highly endangered population. I am a biologist
and engineer and the founding Director of the Bioacoustics Research
Program (BRP) at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and the Imogene
Johnson Senior Scientist in BRP and Graduate Professor in the
Department of Neurobiology & Behavior at Cornell University. I have a
long history of successfully working at the interface between science,
applied engineering, industry, and regulations; all with the specific
objectives of using science to understand the potential impacts of
human activities on marine mammals and to inspire and enable the
scientific conservation of marine wildlife and habitats. I was the
Chief Marine Mammal Scientist for the U.S. Navy's Whales 1993 dual-uses
program, co-PI for the Low-Frequency Active Scientific Research Program
(LFA-SRP), co-PI investigating the impacts of the Navy's mid-frequency
active sonar on beaked whales, and lead the development and application
of the near-real-time, auto-detection network for North Atlantic right
whale acoustic monitoring in Boston shipping lanes (http://
admin.nrwbuoys.org/, http://www.listenforwhales.org/). Up until my
retirement from Cornell in December 2018, my research areas focus on
the potential chronic influence of cumulative man-made noise sources on
marine mammal distributions and behaviors. I remain deeply concerned
about the continued loss of marine animal acoustic habitats as a result
of multiple anthropogenic noise sources operating over large scales for
extended periods of time. In collaboration with a small group of
experts I am working to develop a new, ecologically based paradigm for
evaluating and measuring biological risks from anthropogenic activities
at individual and population levels.
Baleen whales are known for their remarkable abilities to sing and
produce a wide variety of sounds for basic life function including
communicating, foraging, mating, and navigating. Humpback whales were
most likely the sirens of the sea whose songs were first heard by
ancient mariners through the hulls and masts of their wooden ships.
World War II initiated the dramatic development of underwater listening
systems motivated by the need to detect, track and identify enemy
submarines. Those early efforts at listening to the ocean for rare, but
critical acoustic events indicative of a lethal aggressor were
accompanied by a deluge of unknown sounds attributed to marine life.
Who and what was responsible for all these sounds, and how could we be
sure we could know which ones were biological and which were not? That
acoustic detection challenge existed beneath a top-secret mantel
throughout the period known as the cold war and remains today. However,
beginning in the early 1970s, civilian scientists also started
listening to the ocean. Today that effort has risen to the point where
people outside the military are listening throughout large areas of the
world's oceans with all types of recording systems throughout entire
years. Furthermore, our technologies for analyzing those large data
sets are becoming faster and more and more sophisticated. As a result,
it is fair to say that the science of listening to the ocean has
entered a period of expansive exploration of and rapid discovery in the
bioacoustics of marine acoustic environments.
In 1971, Roger Payne and Scott McVay published a paper first
describing humpback whale song compositions based on recordings
collected by the U.S. Navy off Bermuda (Payne and McVay 1971). Humpback
songs are melodic, complex and primarily composed in a frequency range
that we can hear and appreciate. Today scientists are beginning to
describe the complex culture of whale communication using humpback
songs and how these reveal the global nature of population
interactions. In 1971, Roger Payne and Doug Webb also published a paper
postulating that prior to the advent of modern shipping, the songs of
fin whales could be heard across an ocean basin (Payne and Webb 1971).
Fin whale songs are monotonously simple and so low in pitch as to be
below our hearing range. The hypothesis that whale voices could be
heard across an ocean was almost too grand to believe. Furthermore, the
notion that noise from commercial shipping might be interfering with
whale communication seemed far-fetched and was essentially forgotten. A
point to be made by these recollections is that we (scientists
included) can only understand the consequences of something if we can
observe it. In the early years of ocean listening, where, when and how
we listened were so limited in scope that our understandings of the
complexities of sound in the living ocean were based on a few small,
disparate pieces. We listened to bays or along short stretches of
coastlines for the sounds we wanted to hear and understand (Clark and
Clark 1980; Tyack 1983), and usually based on what we already knew was
there and what hypothesis we wanted to evaluate.
In 1993, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, along with a
handful of other scientists, I was given access to the U.S. Navy's
Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS). In those first days after my
introduction to SOSUS, a Navy Commander helped me locate, track and
record a singing blue whale out to distances of over a thousand miles.
This memorable observation proved to me that the far-fetched Payne and
Webb (1971) hypothesis was true: whales could be heard across an ocean
basin. Commander Gagnon and I later published a paper on an extensive
set of SOSUS observations on singing blue, fin, humpback and minke
whales in the North Atlantic (Clark and Gagnon 2004). The SOSUS
observation system that worked on ocean basin and decadal scales
totally changed my comprehension of sound in the ocean. It expanded my
experiential knowledge about whale acoustic behaviors from the
traditional small scales of tens of miles and a few weeks into the much
larger scales of many thousands of miles and years. I have often
remarked that my ocean listening experiences using old technology vs.
the modern SOSUS technology, was like the difference between looking at
the night sky with a toy telescope and the Hubble telescope. There were
many important insights from those early SOSUS experiences, three of
which stand out as monumental. One, I observed the immense distances
over which sounds of different frequencies (i.e. pitches) traveled
through the ocean's complex, refractive medium (Jensen et al. 1994).
Two, I participated in a nearly continuous flow of discoveries that
contradicted current thinking about where and when whales should occur
in the ocean. Three, I witnessed the ubiquitous occurrence of human
noises from commercial shipping and seismic explorations throughout
enormous ocean regions. These experiences clearly demonstrated that our
limited technologies and analysis tools, had significantly limited our
abilities to observe the movements and behaviors of whales throughout
their actual ocean-scale ranges. At the same time as I was having these
incredible experiences listening at ocean basin scales, I started
working with some of the world's best acoustic oceanographers as part
of the Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (The ATOC Consortium
1998), which gave me the experience of learning about the intricacies
of how, why and when low-frequency sound travels so efficiently through
the ocean.
Those expansive insights occurred in the mid 1990s. Today, there is
a growing community of scientists recording along the East Coast of
North America, from the Gulf of Mexico to the Grand Banks of Canada,
and much of this effort is dedicated to documenting the acoustic
occurrence of right whales (e.g. Davis et al. 2017) throughout a
significant portion of their home range. A significant increase in this
acoustic effort along the East Coast has come from NOAA's scientific
community that recognized that anthropogenic noises are affecting
marine acoustic environments (Hatch et al. 2016) as well as the value
of applied bioacoustics for monitoring, mitigation and management
actions in support of the North Atlantic right whale population
recovery. This NOAA scientific effort is complemented by a rising
global awareness that anthropogenic noises are influencing acoustic
environments, in general (Merchant et al. 2018) and impacting the
acoustic habitats of specific populations (Williams et al. 2013), and
must be included in assessments of cumulative impacts on marine
wildlife (Williams et al. 2016, Lacy 2017).
Why is there so much concern about the potential influences of
anthropogenic noise on marine mammals in general and the effects of
seismic airgun array surveys on baleen whales specifically? There are
two basic reasons. First, it has been known since the time of
Aristotle, and repeatedly confirmed by scientific study that marine
mammals depend on sound to survive. In particular, there is compelling
evidence that baleen whales (like right whale) have acute very-low-
frequency (<100 Hz) and infrasonic hearing (<20 Hz; Ketten 1994). In
particular, right whales are specifically well-adapted to and dependent
upon listening to sounds in the low-frequency register (Ketten 1997,
Parks 2007) for critical life functions such as communicating,
navigating, mating, and maintaining social bonds (e.g. between mothers
and calves). Second, the very-low-frequency band (10-100 Hz) used by
baleen whales overlaps substantially with the frequency bands in which
seismic airgun energy is concentrated. In short, there are significant
overlaps between whale sounds and the explosive noise produced by
seismic airguns.
The occurrences of seismic airgun explosions from surveys
throughout the North Atlantic have been well documented (Nieukirk et
al. 2004) and are essentially unavoidable. This is true for recorders
operating along the East Coast of the United States and Canada, even
recorders on the continental shelf in relatively shallow water (<100m)
(pers. obs). All of these seismic surveys were conducted far, far away
from the recorders; for example, off the Scotian shelf of Canada (1200
km), on and off the shelf of Surinam and French Guiana (3800 km), and
on and off the shelf of western Ireland (5000 km). The coincident
occurrence of acoustically active baleen whales and seismic airgun
surveys has been observed in multiple oceans in very remote parts of
the world (e.g., Nieukirk et al. 2012). These types of surveys have
been happening throughout the last 20 years. To my knowledge there is
no complete and reliable inventory of the possible hundreds of surveys
conducted during this period.
Explosions from seismic airgun surveys have been recorded
throughout the oceans, which is not surprising because the acoustic
energy is so high and the frequency content so low. As scientists we
are still in the process of understanding the long-term, large-scale,
chronic, biological consequences of these surveys. Because these
surveys occur offshore in distant places and influence the ocean's
acoustic environment over such enormous spatial areas (>200,000
km2) and temporal scales (>60-180 days), assessing the full
scale of a sub-lethal impact is challenging. Lack of data is not
evidence of lack of impact, especially when the space and time scales
of existing observational schemes do not match to the scales of the
seismic airgun noise. Papers reporting responses to distant seismic
airgun noise by a species closely related to right whales are sobering.
This critical piece of evidence that raises my deep concern about
seismic survey impacts on right whales comes from responses of bowhead
whales (a species closely related to right whales) to seismic surveys
(Blackwell et al. 2015). In that paper, the authors show that bowhead
whale calling rates differ depending on the received level of airgun
sounds from distant seismic surveys. Calling rates increased as soon as
airgun pulses were detectable, then plateaued at increased received
levels, began decreasing as received levels continued to rise, and then
ceased entirely at levels that have been assumed to be approaching some
sort of auditory harm. In other words, the whales have some capacity to
first compensate for rising relative levels of noise exposure, but
these levels are far below levels that have ever been of concern. They
continue to have the significant response of decreasing calling rates
at received levels that have only been of minor concern. In my opinion,
these kinds of significant and consistent responses by an endangered
species to seismic airgun sounds are alarming. Furthermore, there is
nothing in any of the proposed monitoring or mitigation actions that
could determine whether or not right whales modify their calling
behavior in the face of noise from proposed seismic surveys. The
inability to observe a likely response and therefore no data is not
evidence of no response.
What do I know about right whale acoustic communication that leads
me to be extremely concerned about North Atlantic right whales
exposures to seismic airgun surveys?
For my PhD research, I conducted research on a population of
southern right whales lived in the Golfo San Jose in southern
Argentina. We simultaneously observed and listened to the whales every
day for 18 months, for two full seasons in great detail. I designed,
built and installed an array of bottom hydrophones (underwater
microphones) that allowed us to know which whales made which sounds. We
learned to associate certain types of sounds with different behaviors,
and built a very simple form of a sound dictionary. Of particular
importance, we observed that the whales produced a distinctive class of
calls as a means of maintaining contact and coming together into social
groups. We referred to these sounds as ``contact calls,'' and we
validated the biological importance of contact calls by conducting
experiments in which we used an underwater loudspeaker to play back
different types of sounds. In response to play back of contact calls,
distant whales called back, and many of those whales swam to the
location of our underwater loudspeaker. I referred to this as counter-
calling. From watching and listening to the whales, and learning the
personalities of the different individuals, I determine that right
whales are highly dependent upon sound to maintain social contact. This
includes mothers and young calves that must maintain close proximity in
order for the calf to nurse and increase the chances of the mother
being able to protect her calf from killer whales. This dependence is
ultimately dependent on listening for sounds under naturally quiet
conditions.
In 2001, I initiated an acoustic research project on North Atlantic
Right Whales in Cape Cod Bay, MA for which our team from Cornell
deployed arrays of bottom recorders that we could use to detect, locate
and track calling whales (Urazghildiiev & Clark 2009). I did this in
part because other right whale scientists had been studying right
whales there for some time (e.g. Hamilton and Mayo 1990, Ganley et al.
2018). Early on we discovered that on days when only a few right whales
were acoustically present in the bay, aerial surveys did not see any
whales (Clark et al. 2010). Continued research on right whale acoustics
by a growing number of scientists has shown that North Atlantic right
whales produce contact calls and counter call (Parks et al). In Cape
Cod Bay, I have observed cessation of right whale calling under high
noise conditions as a result of both winter storms and shipping
traffic. Calling right whales are detected throughout the year in
regions and at times of year when they were not expected to occur
(Hodge et al. 2015). Calling right whales are also detected far
offshore where they were not expected to occur (Muirhead et al. 2018).
What has happened over the last several decades is that the level of
effort for acoustically observing right whales has expanded to include
places along the entire East Coast, many as far out as the continental
shelf break.
Consider this as evidence for concern: All right whale populations
in the Southern Hemisphere for which there are population data are
increasing, while the North Atlantic population is not (Corkeron et al.
2018). There are now years in which more calves are born into the
population of right whales off the western South Atlantic than there
are in the total population of right whales in the North Atlantic
Ocean. One very obvious difference between the regions in which these
two populations occur is the level of commercial activities that
influence the very-low-frequency marine acoustic environment; namely,
the levels of anthropogenic noise from shipping traffic and seismic
airgun surveys.
Finale: Right whales, as well as many marine animals (e.g. shrimp
and commercial fishes), are highly dependent upon a naturally quiet
ocean for basic life functions. Seismic airgun surveys off the East
Coast will significantly change the natural dynamics of that acoustic
ecosystem. We know that the sounds from seismic airgun arrays propagate
and change the acoustic environment throughout enormous areas. We know
that a close species relative of the right whale, the bowhead whale
starts to react to seismic noise at extraordinarily low received levels
and continues reacting until it totally stops communicating. The
present level of seismic airgun activity authorized by NMFS, both in
terms of the area covered by a single survey and especially in terms of
multiple surveys, is incredibly irresponsible and has a legitimate
likelihood of causing significant impacts on right whale acoustic
behavior. For right whales, such changes will increase the likelihood
of mother-calf separations, decrease the likelihood of acoustic
communications between whales, and impact all those acoustic behaviors
that are essential for maintaining the population's social cohesion and
integrity. This is not about acute, physical harm to an individual.
Rather, this is about the cost to a marginally surviving population as
a result of aggregate chronic noise from seismic airgun surveys
throughout large portions of the population's range throughout
significant periods of the year.
references cited
Payne, R.S. and McVay, S. 1971. Songs of humpback whales. Science
173:585-597. (10.1126/science.173.3997.585).
Payne, R. and Webb, D. 1971. Orientation by means of long-range
acoustic signaling in baleen whales. Ann NY Acad Sci 188:110-141.
Clark, C.W. and Clark, J.M. 1980. Sound playback experiments with
southern right whales (Eubalaena australis). Science 207:663-665.
(10.1126/science.207.4431.663).
Tyack, P. 1983. Differential response of humpback whales (Megaptera
novaeangliae) to playback of song or social sounds. Behav. Ecol.
Sociobiology 13:49-55. (10.1007/BF00295075).
Clark, C. W. and Gagnon, G.C. 2004. Low-frequency vocal behaviors of
baleen whales in the North Atlantic: Insights from IUSS detections,
locations and tracking from 1992 to 1996. Journal of Underwater Acoust
52:609-640.
Jensen, F.B., et al. 1994. Computational Ocean Acoustics. New York:
American Institute of Physics.
The ATOC Consortium. 1998. Ocean Climate Change: Comparison of Acoustic
Tomography, Satellite Altimetry, and Modeling. Science 281:1327-1332.
Davis, G.E., et al. 2017. Long-term passive acoustic recordings track
the changing distribution of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena
glacialis) from 2004 to 2014. Scientific Reports 7, No/13460,
doi:10.1038/s41598-017-13359-3.
Hatch, L.T., et al. 2016. Can you hear me here? Managing acoustic
habitat in US waters. Endangered Species Research 30:171-186. doi:
10.3354/esr00722.
Williams, R., et al. 2013. Acoustic quality of critical habitats for
three threatened whale populations. Anim. Cons., Zool. Soc. London. Pp.
12.
Williams, R., et al. 2016. Gauging allowable harm limits to cumulative,
sub-lethal effects of human activities on wildlife: A case-study
approach using two whale populations. Journal of Marine Policy. Online.
Lacy, R.C., et al. 2017. Evaluating anthropogenic threats to endangered
killer whales to inform effective recovery plans. Scientific Reports
17, 14567, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-14471-0.
Ketten, D.R. 1994. Functional Analyses of Whale Ears: Adaptations for
Underwater Hearing, I.E.E.E Underwater Acoustics vol. 1, pp. 264-270.
Ketten, D.R. 1997. Structure and Function in Whale Ears. Bioacoustics
8:103-136.
Parks, S. E., et al. 2007. Anatomical Predictions of Hearing in the
North Atlantic Right Whale. The Anatomical Record 290:734-744.
Nieukirk, S. L., et al. 2004. Low-frequency whale and seismic airgun
sounds recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. Journal of the Acoustic
Society of America 115, 1832-1843.
Nieukirk, S. L., et al. 2012. Sounds from airguns and fin whales
recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean, 1999-2009. Journal of the Acoustic
Society of America 131, 1102-1112. (10.1121/1.3672648).
Blackwell, S.B., et al. 2015. Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale
calling rates: Evidence for two behavioral thresholds. 10(6) PLoS ONE
e0125720.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125720.
Urazghildiiev, I.R., et al. 2009. Detection and recognition of North
Atlantic right whale contact calls in the presence of ambient noise.
IEEE J. Ocean Engineering 34:358-368.
Hamilton, P.K. and Mayo, C.A. (1990) Population characteristics of
right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) observed in Cape Cod and
Massachusetts Bays, 1978-1986. Rep Int Whal Comm Spec Issue 12:203-208.
Ganley, L.C., Brault, S., and Mayo, C.A. 2019. What we see is not what
there is: estimating North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis
local abundance. Endangered Species Research 38:101-113. https://
doi.org/10.3354/esr00938.
Clark, C.W., Brown, M.W. and Corkeron, P. 2010. Visual and acoustic
surveys for North Atlantic right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, in Cape
Cod Bay, Massachusetts, 2001-2005: Management implications. Marine
Mammal Science 26:837-854.
Hodge, K.B., et al. 2015. North Atlantic right whale occurrence near
wind energy areas along the mid-Atlantic US coast: implications for
management. Endangered Species Research 28:225-234.
Muirhead, C.A., et al. 2018. Seasonal Acoustic Occurrence of Blue, Fin,
and North Atlantic Right Whales in the New York Bight. Aquatic
Conservation 1-10. doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2874.
Corkeron, P., et al. 2018. The recovery of North Atlantic right whales,
Eubalaena glacialis, has been constrained by human-caused mortality.
Royal Society of Open Science 5:180892.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Dr. Clark.
We will now move to questions for the second panel, and I
will begin, recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Dr. Clark, you are the expert on bioacoustics and the
impacts of these things on North Atlantic right whales. Can you
please address this claim we have heard, that acoustic sounds
produced by seismic testing do not threaten the North Atlantic
right whale?
We have heard, for example, that it is merely a sublethal
impact, the implication being that that is no big deal. I would
like you to speak to that.
Dr. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the disparity
between saying that I do something that actually kills an
individual--that is an acute impact--or I deafen them to the
point that they are basically dysfunctional, versus a chronic
impact. You all know what chronic impacts are like.
Mr. Huffman. A chronic impact could still cause the
extinction of a struggling species. Is that fair to say?
Dr. Clark. A chronic impact will increase the stresses,
like Dr. Kraus has talked about. Chronic impacts, we get
chronic impacts from smoke, secondhand smoke, et cetera, et
cetera. So, it is the constant, deliberate debilitation of the
species.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. We have also heard that a more
protective standard in the Gulf Coast is justified because the
bathymetry and I guess the greater tolerance for acoustic noise
in the Atlantic justifies a more relaxed standard. You heard
that testimony. Do you agree with it?
Dr. Clark. I think it is nonsense.
Mr. Huffman. Dr. Kraus, you have authored more than 80
scientific publications on the right whale. Do you think the
seismic testing poses an existential threat to this species?
And why?
Dr. Kraus. I do, and it is not because it causes mortality.
The only time seismic activity would actually kill a whale
would be, one, if the whale was really dumb or deaf. Generally,
the activity is exactly as Dr. Clark pointed out. It is a
chronic, long-distance, widespread impact. And there have been
no actual studies that would actually answer the question about
the long-term seismic impacts on populations because you cannot
do those studies easily.
The short-term studies that have looked at the response of
seismic activity by many different species of whale shows that
nearly all of them respond. They hear it, but they just cannot
do anything about it. So, in the case of right whales where you
have an already stressed population with significant multiple
impacts that are occurring at multiple levels, the addition of
additional stressors is just a bad idea.
Mr. Huffman. All right. Dr. Kraus, you know these whales
individually better than anyone. Can you please tell us about
the condition of the roughly 100 breeding females?
Dr. Kraus. Female condition is measured by a series of both
photographic and physiological measurements. And it turns out
that of the animals that we have still alive, most of them are
in a steady state of--they have been in a relatively slow
decline over the last 30 years.
They have stabilized, but we know exactly what the
threshold of reproduction is. And many of them are just above
it, so that additional stressors can change their physiology,
change stress responses in a way that would actually reduce
their fitness and their ability to produce calves.
Mr. Huffman. And Dr. Kraus, finally, why are the mitigation
measures proposed by NMFS and its Incidental Harassment
Authorizations insufficient to ensure the survival of the
species?
Dr. Kraus. The mitigation strategies employed for all of
these seismic activities are a little bit of a lipstick on a
pig. That is to say, they will prevent immediate mortality if a
whale gets so close that it is going to get blown up. They will
have nothing to do with mitigating the long-term impacts and
the chronic elevation of ambient noise levels for hundreds of
kilometers around the seismic vessel.
Mr. Huffman. All right. Thanks very much for your
testimony, all of the witnesses. I will now recognize the
Ranking Member, Mr. McClintock, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The central issue
in this hearing seems to be the effect of seismic testing on
the North Atlantic right whale. The contention is that it is
driving them to extinction.
Now, Dr. Burnett, coincidence obviously does not prove
causation. But causation must show coincidence. Correct?
Dr. Burnett. Yes. It should be, it is correlation. Yes.
Mr. McClintock. Yet, we do not see coincidence with the
population of other whale species in the North Atlantic; as we
have heard, other whale species continue to grow in population
in the same region, several of the species having reached their
pre-whaling levels.
So, if seismic activity was fatal to whales, would we not
be seeing the same effect on other species' populations?
Dr. Burnett. I cannot think of a reason why not. And you
would find it in other right whale species in the Southern
Hemisphere, where they are currently undertaking seismic
testing.
Mr. McClintock. We had a dramatic demonstration with the
air horn, and it was annoying. The implication of this and the
discussion that followed was that any fish or mammal species in
the ocean is going to stay in the immediate proximity of this
annoying phenomena. Is that a reasonable assumption to make?
Dr. Burnett. Well, many will. Of course, when they tested
in North Carolina, tests that the National Science Foundation
also found did not pose negligible danger to sea species, some
species abandoned the area for the time of the testing, and
then came back into the area after the testing.
Mr. McClintock. I think our common sense tells us that any
fish or mammal population is going to move away from such an
annoying sound. I think that the reaction of every person in
this room, had it continued, would be to leave the room.
We learned today that seismic testing has been going on in
the Atlantic for 80 years. Up until the last decade, we were
actually seeing an increase in the population of the North
Atlantic right whale, about 2.8 percent a year. What does that
tell us about cause and effect?
Dr. Burnett. Well, it tells us there doesn't seem to be a
cause and effect on whale mortality and decline, that there are
a number of factors. It turns out the Canadians are just now
getting on board with some of the shipping things that we have
been doing for a decade.
And that should hopefully reduce right whale mortality. I
see no evidence, however, that limiting seismic testing--I see
no difference between the seismic testing for wind, that would
evidently be allowed, but not for oil and gas.
Mr. McClintock. I am going to get to that in a moment, if I
can. But while we are on the general subject of populations, a
lot has been said that there are only 411 right whales left in
the North Atlantic. Certainly, they number just in the
hundreds. It gets worse if you look at the North Pacific right
whale population; I am told they number only in the tens.
But in the Southern Hemisphere, they have a healthy
population of 16,000, which is growing at about the pace that
we are seeing of other whale species around the world. What
does that tell us?
Dr. Burnett. I guess I cannot honestly say for sure what it
tells us. I don't know what the difference is--shipping lanes,
fishing entanglement, and other factors that may be interfering
with the recovery of the right whale here.
Mr. McClintock. I should think so. And I again would
imagine it may have something to do with the fact that the
population in the North Atlantic was hunted almost to
extinction. And when you have that small a population, it is
very difficult for it to recover. Is that accurate?
Dr. Burnett. I would suppose it is accurate. I would also
suppose it might have implications for the genetic diversity
within the species and perhaps genetic disorders from close
interbreeding populations.
Mr. McClintock. Point taken. We heard about inconsistency
and politically motivated decisions. But again, as we know, the
Obama administration issued many seismic testing permits,
including in the Atlantic for Columbia University, USGS. Why
are those permits good and the recent permits are bad?
Dr. Burnett. That is my problem, I cannot explain the
difference. It seems to be that seismic testing is bad for oil
and gas but is good for everything else. And that is curious if
what you are really concerned about is the right whale.
Mr. McClintock. So, it is a double standard, then. It is
not the seismic testing, it is the purpose of the seismic
testing?
Dr. Burnett. Correct.
Mr. McClintock. And since science is based on data, and the
purpose of seismic testing is to collect data, why would any
scientist want to blind themselves to that, particularly as we
have already established it has no effect on the populations of
other whales?
Dr. Burnett. I can think of no good reason.
Mr. Huffman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Van Drew.
Dr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Kraus, do you believe that multiple stressors and
threats compound the impacts on the North Atlantic right whale?
Dr. Kraus. I do. I think that we know that they are getting
affected by ships and entanglements. But what we know less
about is the sublethal effects of those entanglements and the
sublethal effects of noise. We do know that they have
physiological responses that indicate a stress response, and
that stress response, when accumulated over time, is damaging.
Dr. Van Drew. Let me ask you this: Did the National Marine
Fisheries Service consider the suite of stressors already
present? And did they assess whether the addition of seismic
testing would further compound these stressors?
Dr. Kraus. In my reading of the IHAs and the Biological
Opinion, I did not see that.
Dr. Van Drew. Well, then, what about the cumulative effect
of five different companies doing systematic surveys?
Dr. Kraus. I did not see that, either. They did not seem to
combine the analysis.
Dr. Van Drew. Dr. Kraus and Dr. Clark, both of you, the
North Atlantic right whale population was growing as recently
as the early 2000s, and on average, almost 25 calves were born
each year. The population has been in decline since 2010, and
now approximately less than 420 individuals remain.
In the 2017-2018 calving season, no new calves were
observed. This year we have seen 7 births, but after 20 deaths.
Since 2017, the population has not seemed to grow overall. In
your expert opinion, would the use of seismic air gun blasting
for oil exploration in the Atlantic be a potential threat to
the survival of the species?
Dr. Kraus. Who would you like?
Dr. Van Drew. Both of you.
Dr. Kraus. OK. My opinion is that it does represent a
threat, largely because of the very quiet communications
between mothers and calves, and the fact that half of the
population equation is dependent. If we are going to bring this
population back, it is going to be dependent upon right whales
having enough calves to start to replenish the animals that are
lost from the mortalities. In order to do that, we need to give
the mothers and their calves every possible chance.
Dr. Van Drew. OK. Thank you.
Dr. Clark. Yes. I believe it is a threat. I have observed
what right whales do when noise levels go up. Their
communications stop. Their aggregation on food resources is--
they go into random walks. Actually, they do not aggregate
appropriately on food resources. And all of that has a serious
potential impact on the animals' ability to gain recent fat and
grow, and mothers to come into estrus and have calves.
Dr. Van Drew. OK. Thank you very much. I would just like to
point out that I do have legislation that would disallow the
permitting of the five seismic studies. It is H.R. 1149. It is
a bipartisan piece of legislation. It is called the Atlantic
Coastal Economies Protection Act, and I welcome anybody who is
interesting in joining on as a co-sponsor.
And I would like to yield the remaining time to the
Chairman.
Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The
Ranking Member just asked a series of questions about right
whale biology to a witness with a philosophy degree from a
conservative think tank. Seems like we should maybe pose some
of these questions to our right whale experts.
We have heard that right whales in the Southern Hemisphere
are doing much better. We have heard that other whale species
in the Northern Hemisphere are doing better. I am not sure what
the implication is. Maybe our North Atlantic right whales are
just defective and we should stop trying to protect them.
Dr. Kraus, you are the expert. Would you like to speak to
these claims?
Dr. Kraus. The right whales in the Southern Hemisphere tend
to occur south of about 45 degrees south latitude, and they are
south of most of the seismic activity in the Southern
Hemisphere. The right whales in the Northern Hemisphere, by
contrast, are actually quite in the middle of a lot of
industrial activity--shipping, fishing, and a lot of stuff like
that.
As other people have pointed out, there has not been any
seismic activity in the Atlantic for the last 40 years except
for very short periods of time. There is no comparability
between the seismic activity in terms of sound source levels or
extent or the time period or, rather, the duration of that
activity between wind farms, between the geophysical surveys
that the Langseth did off the coast, compared to the kind of
magnitude and the number of ship-days involved in the proposed
activity.
Mr. Huffman. So, is it fair to say this would be a new and
fundamentally different stressor at the worst possible time for
this species?
Dr. Kraus. And many times more--the magnitude is out of--it
is completely different.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
I want to thank the witnesses. We have reached the end of
this hearing.
Mr. McClintock. I would like to ask unanimous consent to
insert into the Committee record the Status of Whales Report of
the International Whaling Commission, and an April 2018 paper
by John Droz regarding offshore fossil fuel exploration and
development.
Mr. Huffman. Without objection, those will be entered into
the record.
One of the courtesies that Democrats routinely granted to a
Subcommittee Chair, Mr. Gosar, was to allow a final 1-minute-
or-less question to each of the witnesses on the panel, to ask
them, essentially, ``What is the one thing you were not asked
that you wish you had been asked?''
I would like to request unanimous consent for my Republican
colleagues to grant that same courtesy so that we could ask
that final question to our panelists.
Mr. McClintock. Well, Mr. Chairman, courtesy is as courtesy
does. And unfortunately, because of your handling of my request
for unanimous consent to borrow from accredited time to Mr.
Webster, I am really not inclined to do that. This is outside
the normal scope of the hearing and outside the House rules.
Mr. Huffman. Well, I am disappointed that that courtesy
will not continue under this Ranking Member.
But with that, I want to thank the witnesses for their
valuable testimony, and also the Members for their questions.
The members of the Committee may have some additional questions
for the witnesses, and we will ask that the witnesses respond
to those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the
Committee must submit witness questions within 3 business days
following the hearing. And the hearing record will be held open
for 10 business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, this
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Lowenthal
115th CONGRESS
1st Session
H.R. 3682
To direct the Director of the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to create a
Blue Whales and Blue Skies Program to reduce air pollution and
harmful underwater acoustic impacts and the risk of fatal
vessel whale strikes by recognizing voluntary reductions in the
speed of vessels transiting the Greater Santa Barbara Channel
Region, California, and for other purposes.
--------------------------
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 6, 2017
Mr. Lowenthal (for himself, Ms. Brownley of California, Mr. Carbajal,
and Mr. Khanna) introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
--------------------------
A BILL
To direct the Director of the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to create a
Blue Whales and Blue Skies Program to reduce air pollution and
harmful underwater acoustic impacts and the risk of fatal vessel
whale strikes by recognizing voluntary reductions in the speed of
vessels transiting the Greater Santa Barbara Channel Region,
California, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Blue Whales and Blue Skies Act''.
SEC. 2. BLUE WHALES AND BLUE SKIES PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 12 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of
National Marine Sanctuaries of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, in consultation with the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, shall establish the Blue
Whales and Blue Skies Program, to----
(1) reduce air pollution and harmful underwater acoustic
impacts and the risk of fatal whale strikes by encouraging
voluntary reduction in the speed of eligible vessels transiting
the Greater Santa Barbara Channel Region; and
(2) annually award Blue Whales and Blue Skies Excellence
Awards for verified successful participation in, and compliance
with, the program by eligible vessels.
(b) PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.--The Director shall----
(1) model the program after the pilot Vessel Speed Reduction
Program administered by the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution
Control District, the Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District, the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, the
Environmental Defense Center (a non-profit corporation
established under the laws of the State of California as in
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act), and the
National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, except the Director may
not provide a financial incentive for participation in the
program; and
(2) develop the program in consultation with the entities
referred to in paragraph (1).
(c) ANNUAL AWARDS.----
(1) IN GENERAL.--Under the program, the Director shall
annually award Blue Whales and Blue Skies Excellence Awards to
owners of eligible vessels that have complied with the program
during the preceding year.
(2) AWARD CONDITIONS.--As a condition of an award under this
subsection, the Director shall require, at a minimum, that each
eligible vessel of the awardee----
(A) transit the Greater Santa Barbara Channel Region
at speeds of 12 knots or lower, or at a lower maximum
speed as provided in guidance established under the
program; and
(B) participate in the Port of Los Angeles or Port
of Long Beach vessel speed reduction program,
respectively, if the vessel calls at that port in the
transit for which the award is considered.
(d) OFFICIAL SEAL.--The Director shall create an official seal to be
recognized as the symbol of excellence in compliance with
the program, that----
(1) may be used by shipping companies with eligible vessels
for which a Blue Whales and Blue Skies Excellence Award is
awarded under this section;
(2) includes the name of the shipping company;
(3) includes the year for which such award was made; and
(4) includes the percentage of transits through the Greater
Santa Barbara Channel Region by eligible vessels of the
shipping company in such year that were in compliance with the
program, calculated as----
(A) the number of such transits, divided by
(B) the total number of transits through the Greater
Santa Barbara Channel Region by all vessels of the
shipping company in such year, excluding transits
directed by the Coast Guard to proceed in excess of the
speed requirements of the program.
(e) EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.--No later than 4 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Director shall----
(1) consider the feasibility of extending the program to
encompass all shipping channels along the United States Pacific
coast between Canada and Mexico; and
(2) report the findings and recommendations under paragraph
(1) to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and
the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives, and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate.
(f) LIMITATIONS.--Nothing in this section shall be construed----
(1) to require participation in the program;
(2) to authorize appropriations for, or the provision of,
any financial incentive for participation in the program; or
(3) to authorize any action that affects navigation safety.
(g) DEFINITIONS.--In this section:
(1) ELIGIBLE VESSEL.--The term ``eligible vessel'' means a
vessel that has been approved by the Director to participate in
the program.
(2) PROGRAM.--The term ``program'' means the Blue Whales and
Blue Skies Program established under this section.
(3) GREATER SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL REGION.--The term
``Greater Santa Barbara Channel Region''----
(A) means such portion of the geographic zone used
by vessels transporting goods to transit the area
surrounding the Channel Islands, including the Santa
Barbara Channel, California, as is designated by the
Director for purposes of this section; and
(B) includes, at a minimum, the geographic area
identified in the pilot Vessel Speed Reduction Program
referred to in subsection (b)(1).
______
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
June 19, 2018
Re: 2018 voluntary Vessel Speed Reduction (VSR) incentive program for
the Santa Barbara Channel and San Francisco Bay Area regions
off California
Dear Carrier Representative:
We are implementing a 2018 VSR incentive program July 1-November
15, 2018 to reduce air pollution and fatal ship strikes on whales. For
the 2018 Program, financial incentives will be awarded to companies
based on percent of distance traveled by their vessels through the VSR
Zones at 10 knots or less, termed ``percent cooperation,'' during the
identified time period. Average speed of a transit throughout the
entire VSR Zones must not exceed 12 knots in order to receive credit
for distance traveled at 10 knots or less. Close to $300,000 is
available for incentive awards and amounts will scale with the percent
cooperation, and will range from $1,000 to up to $35,000 (or greater)
per company. Overall there is less funding available for awards for the
Bay Area than for the Channel region.
The California Marine Sanctuary Foundation will manage the
incentive payments to individual shipping lines; please see the Letter
of Understanding. Each vessel's speed transiting the VSR Zones will be
verified via Automatic Identification System (AIS) data. Vessels that
call on the Ports of Los Angeles and/or Long Beach must participate in
one of the ports' VSR incentive programs.
In addition to the financial award for companies that meet
requirements, we will work with successful shipping companies on a
positive public relations campaign to draw public awareness to the VSR
program and your company's participation. Participation is voluntary
and does not commit shipping industry participants beyond the program
period. If companies are enrolled in the program and unable to meet the
minimum program criteria, there is no penalty but financial incentives
will not be awarded.
Advantages to shipping companies of the 2018 incentive program
structure include the following.
The 10-knot target is consistent with the target speed for
voluntary Whale Advisory Zones which overlap with VSR
Zones.
Sign up for shipping companies is greatly streamlined.
Just provide a list of the vessels (with IMO and MMSI
numbers, including charter or alliance vessels under the
company's control) expected to transit one of the VSR Zones
July 1-November 15, 2018.
There is no longer a requirement that the vessel must have
historically transited the region. Vessels that are coming
to the region for the first time can be part of the
program.
There is no longer a requirement that previous transits
must have been at higher speeds. The system is set up to
reward companies with vessels already transiting at lower
speeds.
A fleet-based approach will also be used in the 2019
program next year.
While the scope of the program is limited to the Santa Barbara
Channel and San Francisco Bay Area regions (see Attachment A), air
pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and the threat of ship strikes on
whales extends beyond these regions. Every effort should be made by
participating vessels to not increase speed over the registered
vessel's historic baseline speeds while outside the VSR Zones to ``make
up time.'' Ship speed monitoring using AIS may occur between the Santa
Barbara and San Francisco Bay Area region VSR Zones to determine if
ships are speeding up between Zones.
Please note this VSR incentive program complements existing
seasonal whale advisories in effect in the Santa Barbara Channel and
San Francisco Bay Area regions. The National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) strongly recommends that all vessels
300 gross registered tons or larger reduce speeds to 10 knots or less
in these vessel slow speed zones. For more information on the seasonal
whale advisories, please consult the Eleventh Coast Guard District
Local Notice to Mariners.
To enroll in the program, companies will be required to sign a
Letter of Understanding (see Attachment B) and provide the name and
MMSI and IMO numbers for all vessels under the company's control which
are scheduled to transit the VSR Zones during the program period (see
Attachment C). To enroll your company, please return the completed and
signed Letter of Understanding (Attachment B) and fillable PDF Sign Up
Form (Attachment C) to Lindsay Marks of NOAA Channel Islands National
Marine Sanctuary (contact information provided below). Please enroll by
June 30th if possible and no later than July 10, 2018.
For more information about the VSR incentive program, watch
``Protecting Blue Whales and Blue Skies,'' a promotional film found at
https://www.ourair.org/air-pollution-marine-shipping/. Please also see
Attachment D to learn how to report sightings of endangered whales.
Enrollment materials, comments or questions may be directed to:
Contact: Lindsay Marks
Address: NOAA Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
University of California Santa Barbara
Ocean Science Education Building 514, MC 6155
Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-6155
Phone: +1 (805) 893-6425
Fax: +1 (805) 893-6438 (ATTN: Lindsay Marks)
Email: [email protected]
We believe by working together we can maintain vibrant maritime
commerce, enhance corporate responsibility, and protect human health
and the marine environment. We thank you in advance for considering
your company's participation in the VSR incentive program.
Sincerely,
The Partners in the Vessel Speed Reduction Incentive
Program for 2018
in the Santa Barbara Channel and San Francisco Bay Area
regions
______
Submissions for the Record by Rep. McClintock
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsComprehensive Assessment
When, at its 1982 meeting, the IWC agreed to a pause in commercial
whaling (or to use popular terminology, a `moratorium') from 1986, the
amendment to the regulations included a clause that `the Commission
will undertake a `comprehensive assessment' of the effects of this
decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision
and the establishment of other catch limits'.
The term `Comprehensive Assessment' had not been defined by the
Commission and eventually the Scientific Committee defined it to be:
`an in-depth evaluation of the status of all whale stocks in
the light of management objectives and procedures . . . that .
. . would include the examination of current stock size, recent
population trends, carrying capacity and productivity'.
To date the Committee has completed or is still undertaking such in-
depth analyses of:
Antarctic minke whales--Southern Hemisphere;
Common minke whales--North Atlantic; western North Pacific
Fin whales--North Atlantic
Humpback whales--Southern Hemisphere and North Atlantic
Bryde's whales--western North Pacific
Bowhead whales--Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas
Blue whales--Southern Hemisphere
Sei whales--North Pacific
______
Offshore Fossil Fuel Exploration and Development:
A Review of Some Concerns
By John Droz, Jr.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*John Droz, Jr. is an independent physicist, an internationally
known energy expert, and a NC resident. For a more complete bio and
acknowledgements, see the end of the last page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 28, 2018
Environmental activists have expressed strong opposition to all U.S.
fossil fuels--offshore and onshore . . . Every energy source has
benefits and liabilities. The only sensible way to determine what our
best energy choices are, is to do a comprehensive and objective
assessment of ALL the pros and cons of each option. Only then are we
able to make an informed, science-based decision. This document is a
contribution toward such an assessment.
This paper presents some different perspectives about several
assertions made by NGOs in the offshore fossil fuel debate. The focus
is on North Carolina, which is estimated to have the largest offshore
natural gas and oil reserves on the East Coast. We begin by outlining
the main NGO concerns, and then follow that with a brief discussion of
each item . . .
1. Seismic surveying will result in serious ecological damage. No,
similar seismic surveys have resulted in no consequential environmental
problems.
2. An oil spill is inevitable. For several reasons, an oil spill is
extremely unlikely.
3. Offshore drilling puts the vital coastal tourism industry at risk.
Offshore wind energy is a much greater threat to coastal tourism.
4. More jobs will come from offshore wind energy than from offshore
fossil fuels. This is not likely to be true, but it is an irrelevant
argument anyway.
5. Professional NC fishermen oppose coastal fossil fuel exploration and
development. The NC Fisheries Association has officially endorsed
offshore fossil fuel development.
6. There isn't enough oil and natural gas off the NC coast to justify
the risk and the expense. No one knows the true economics, which is why
a seismic survey is needed.
7. Drilling would result in some of the NC coast looking like Louisiana
or Galveston, Texas. Considerable federal, state and local regulations
mean that would never happen.
8. Revenue-sharing with the coastal States has not been approved. It is
very likely that such revenue-sharing will be approved by the Trump
administration.
9. Any oil and gas we discover will probably be exported anyway. Some
resources will undoubtedly be exported, and that's good for our economy
and our national security.
10. We have better U.S. energies available to us. If we exclude all the
energy options the NGOs have blackballed (e.g. nuclear), there are no
better choices left.
11. We don't need fossil fuels as we can live on 100% renewable energy
sources. This is a 100% impossible scenario for multiple technical and
economic reasons.
12. To effectively combat climate change, fossil fuels need to stay in
the ground. This makes little sense as the NGOs' energy plans do not
truly combat climate change anyway.
Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now
(and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning
the day all the time), is because we're hardwired not to always
think clearly when we are scared.
--Barack Obama
SOME BACKGROUND: In January 2015, the Obama Administration's Department
of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued
a proposed 5-Year (2017-2022) Oil and Gas Leasing Program that included
waters off the coast of the Mid and South-Atlantic Region (offshore
Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia). Revenue-sharing (of
potential lease-payments, rents and royalties) with the States was not
part of the proposal for the Atlantic area. After public hearings, BOEM
subsequently removed the Atlantic area from the draft leasing plan.
Just before leaving office, the Obama Administration denied permits for
seismic surveying in the Atlantic area.
Rather than wait for the next 5-year plan (2023-2028), the Trump
Administration proposed replacing the 2017-2022 plan with a modified
2019-2024 plan. On January 4, 2018, the DOI announced the next steps
for developing the National OCS Leasing Program. The Draft Proposed
Program ``includes 47 potential lease sales in 25 of the 26 planning
areas (19 off the coast of Alaska, 7 in the Pacific Region, 12 in the
Gulf of Mexico, and 9 in the Atlantic Region).'' The new Administration
also reversed the decision concerning seismic surveying, putting the
earlier applications to conduct these surveys back into play. As the
National Ocean Industries Association's (NOIA) statement of support
conveys quite well, it is important to understand that the current
process is extremely cautious . . .
This is the second step in a multi-year process that will
determine a future leasing schedule, NOT a future drilling
schedule. The process involves several rounds of public
participation and several layers of environmental review. Once
the leasing program is finalized (many months from now), future
decisions on possible drilling must undergo their own series of
public and environmental reviews. Similarly, any future efforts
to actually produce offshore oil and natural gas will be
subject to yet another round of reviews.
Given these developments, now is a good time to step back and
critique some of the common concerns put forward by the opponents of
oil and natural gas exploration in the Atlantic (like Oceana and the
Sierra Club). This paper is being prepared with the hope that a
constructive, informed discussion of these issues will lead to better
public understanding, and ultimately to better public policy outcomes.
The following is an assessment of commonly voiced NGO themes
periodically expressed at public hearings about Atlantic offshore oil
and natural gas exploration and development.
1--Seismic surveying will result in serious ecological damage. The
opponents of offshore fossil fuel exploration try to demonize a seismic
survey by calling it seismic ``air gun blasting.'' It's unfortunate
that this technical matter has been mis-presented to the public this
way, as it makes having a rational discussion about its pros and cons,
very difficult.
One fact is that a comprehensive Atlantic Coast geological seismic
survey has not been done in almost 40 years. Seismic survey technology
has advanced significantly during that time. Because it has been so
long since a survey was done, we have little understanding of the
natural gas or oil resources off the U.S. Atlantic seaboard. We need
better information so that our positions and critical public policy
decisions are based on the best available facts.
Opponents claim seismic surveys pose grave threats to marine
mammals, fish stocks, and especially to the endangered North Atlantic
Right Whale. However, the current plight of the right whale and other
endangered ocean species cannot be blamed on the fossil fuel industry,
as that industry has not existed off the U.S. East Coast in decades. On
the contrary, the Right Whale got its name because it was the ``right''
whale to kill for its blubber, which could be rendered into whale oil
and other products. The advent of the fossil fuel industry actually
saved whales from extinction by allowing substitution of kerosene and
other petroleum products for whale oil, etc.
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) says the main
threats to endangered marine species are: collisions with commercial
and recreational vessels, entanglements in commercial and recreational
fishing lines and nets, and ingestion or entanglement in garbage
(primarily plastic). Most of these things are related to the tourism or
fishing industries. Where are the Resolutions and public protests about
those proven environmental impacts?
NMFS made this 2014 statement about the environmental impact of
seismic surveys: ``To date, there is no evidence that serious injury,
death, or stranding by marine mammals can occur from exposure to air-
gun pulses, even in the case of large air-gun arrays.'' BOEM's chief
environmental officer issued a 2014 report stating: ``To date, there
has been no documented scientific evidence of noise from air-guns used
in geological and geophysical seismic activities adversely affecting
marine animal populations or coastal communities.'' Note that both of
these conclusions came during President Barack Obama's environmentally
friendly terms.
The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (the top U.S. academic seismic
authority) recently conducted a NC seismic survey (e.g. re plate
tectonics, etc). It covered a much wider area (2 to
200 miles from the NC coast vs. 10 to
50 miles for fossil fuel exploration for the entire NC
coast: see here, p 4-6). Both seismic surveys are done with the same
type of ships and equipment, with minor technical differences.
Interestingly the academic geological surveys send stronger signals
deeper into the ocean bed, as natural gas and oil reserves are
shallower. This National Science Foundation (NSF) study discusses the
environmental impact of the Lamont-Doherty seismic survey. NSF
concluded this seismic survey caused no consequential harm to the NC
ocean's eco-system . . . Lastly if seismic surveys are so
environmentally problematic, where are the NGOs objections to the
seismic surveys needed to site offshore wind turbines?
2--An oil spill is inevitable. As one writer put it, ``if you drill,
you're going to spill.'' This perspective is a classic example of a
well-known logical fallacy: if ``X'' happens, then ``Y'' is certain to
follow. However, correlation is not the same as causation. Those who
oppose offshore fossil fuels assume right from the beginning that the
worst outcome (a BP Horizon type of accident), is inevitable. In
reality, consequential oil spills resulting from drilling accidents are
exceedingly rare. Offshore exploration and development can be done
safely and is being done safely all over the globe. A spill is not
inevitable.
The BP Horizon accident was an unfortunate anomaly. The accident
cost BP $65 billion in fines, restitution, and
compensation, making it clear that an offshore accident today could
mean financial ruin, even for the largest companies. None of these
successful businesses wants to go bankrupt, so everyone involved
(companies, equipment manufacturers, regulatory agencies, academic
researchers, etc.) have become more risk averse than ever before.
Extensive and unprecedented consultation among all these stakeholder
groups over the past six years (including NGOs) unleashed an extensive
analysis and evaluation of the causes of the BP accident, and a
comprehensive review of all dimensions of the offshore program (from
industry standards and best practices to design requirements and
operational procedures for critical equipment).
This analysis and evaluation resulted in a relatively recent major
overhaul of U.S. offshore drilling regulations. The Obama
Administration DOI 2016 press release accompanying the implementation
of its new well-control regulations states:
``. . . the final rule addresses the full range of systems and
equipment related to well control operations, with a focus on
blowout preventer requirements, well design, well control
casing, cementing, real-time monitoring and subsea containment.
The measures are designed to improve equipment reliability,
especially for blowout preventers and blowout containment
technologies. The rule requires operability of equipment
through rigorous testing and provides for the continuous
oversight of operations, all with the goal of improving the
reliability of equipment and systems to protect workers' lives
and the environment from the potentially devastating effects of
blowouts and offshore oil spills.''
The Trump Administration is working with industry experts to ensure
that these changes further increase safety (e.g. here). Life is about
managing risks, as there are risks in every human endeavor. For
example, tens of thousands of U.S. citizens die every year in traffic
accidents, yet we still drive our vehicles. Accidents are not
inevitable and the risks can be managed. The number of oil spills from
all sources, and the volumes of oil involved, have fallen considerably,
decade by decade in the past 30 years, in spite of the 40 million
barrels per day increase in world oil output and consumption that
occurred over the same time. As a result of new rules and regulations,
and the financial penalties facing those involved, offshore drilling is
unquestionably safer today than ever before, especially in the U.S.
3--Offshore drilling puts the vital coastal tourism industry at risk.
This claim ignores many realities: the extremely low likelihood of a
consequential oil leak ever happening, that the rigs would be
40 miles off the coast, that the ocean currents would not
be bringing any oil spill to shore, and more. Further, a recent study
by NCSU specifically asked NC coastal visitors two questions: a) are
you in favor of wind energy [most said YES], and b) would you do the
same vacation in a NC coastal community where wind turbines were
visible [80% said NO]. If drilling opponents are sincere
about their concern for the NC coastal tourism business, where is their
organized and vocal opposition to wind turbines being visible off the
NC coast?
4--More jobs will come from offshore wind energy than from offshore
fossil fuels. The discussion surrounding the number of jobs, the types
of jobs, and the location of jobs likely to be created by offshore
fossil fuel development, ranges from confusing to silly. To begin with,
we don't choose our energy supplies by the number of jobs they create!
Instead, our energy options are selected based on reliability, actual
cost to ratepayers, true cost to taxpayers, proximity to demand
centers, dispatchability, etc.
Even if we did focus on jobs, we would be better off choosing the
energy options that require the least amount of labor per BTU, because
they are also likely to be the least expensive and most efficient. This
study concluded that it takes 7 wind energy workers to
produce the same amount of electricity that 1 fossil fuel worker can
produce. That said, the political attraction of job creation is
understandable, and we know that many politicians live and die by
economic indicators. Kissing babies and promising jobs are two
political tactics that never go out of style.
Opponents of drilling have disputed fossil fuel industry employment
claims as speculative--yet they accept the job claims of wind energy
lobbyists at face value. Here's how the numbers likely compare: a
projection for NC jobs resulting from offshore wind energy is
20,000. The latest projection for NC jobs from offshore
fossil fuels is 55,000.
Until we have a better understanding of the reserves off our coast,
we can't be certain about its job creation. It all depends on where a
seismic survey shows oil and natural gas resources located, and the
quantities that can be economically recovered with current
technologies.
Exploration and development of fossil fuels, if and when it goes
forward, will create many high-paying jobs in the legal, accounting,
engineering, environmental, and regulatory and compliance fields. NC's
solid manufacturing base, which already supplies many sophisticated
components to the fossil fuel industry, would see more activity, and
our world-class research institutions put us in a good position to
benefit from offshore development. (Here are some videos for sample
career possibilities.) A good parallel is what has happened further up
the Atlantic coast, in Canada. See this detailed economic study about
the broad and substantial economic benefits experienced there. For more
information see ``North Carolina Offshore Oil and Gas Roadmap,''
prepared by the NC Energy Policy Council, December, 2016.
5--Professional NC fishermen oppose coastal fossil fuel exploration and
development. This is a misunderstanding. The North Carolina Fisheries
Association (NCFA) recently brought this issue to their board again (as
it had been discussed before). Although on most issues they almost
always have dissenting votes, in this case the 17 member board
unanimously supported NC offshore fossil fuel exploration and
development. Here is their official position statement about offshore
fossil fuels. This is a story about their position and the NC
Governor's statement.
What is undeniable is that fishermen have been overwhelmingly
opposed to offshore wind turbines (e.g. see here and here). There have
been several studies (e.g. here and here) that have documented the
environmental impact from turbine construction (e.g. significant sounds
resulting from pile driving enormous bases, hundreds of feet into the
ocean floor). Additionally there have been many reports of whale
beachings and deaths that have been attributed to the infrasound
generated by these 700 foot tall industrial structures
(e.g. see here and here).
6--There isn't enough oil and natural gas off the NC coast to justify
the risk and the expense. Drilling opponents say the old U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) estimates the amounts of fossil fuel reserves
in the mid-Atlantic are so small that they won't matter, so it's not
worth the trouble, risk and expense to go after them. That assertion
ignores two studies, by independent academic experts (both PhDs), that
both came to the opposite conclusion. This article says:
``Mike Walden, an economist at North Carolina State University,
did a cost-benefit analysis of offshore energy exploration.
University of Wyoming economist Timothy Considine also did a
detailed analysis. Both looked at estimates of offshore energy
reserves, a range of estimates for future market prices, and
the potential effects of oil spills or other problems.
``While using different methodologies, Walden and Considine
came up with similar results, as Walden explains in his recent
book (and here). The scenario Walden described as most likely
suggested that offshore drilling would boost North Carolina's
gross domestic product by $1.9 billion a year, its permanent
employment by about 17,000 jobs, and annual government revenues
by $116 million. In Considine's mid-range scenario, his growth
projections were $1 billion in GDP, about 15,000 jobs, and $171
million in revenues. (Ed note: in their economic figures,
Considine assumed State revenue-sharing, while Walden did not.)
``What about the environmental risks? Using standard
assumptions and historical probabilities, the two scholars came
up with projections denominated as dollars of GDP. Walden put
the potential cost of spills at $83 million a year. Considine
computed a broader range of potential environmental costs,
including emissions, at $92 million a year.''
The truth of the matter is we don't know exactly what reserves are
there. There haven't been any NC offshore energy surveys for
40 years, and the technical advances in seismic surveying
for oil and natural gas resources achieved since then (e.g. high
resolution 3D) have never been applied in this region. Let the
companies that take the economic risks make the economic decision
whether or not to walk away. All indications are that the economics do
make sense. This 2018 report estimates that there will be some $260
Billion in economic benefits to Atlantic Coast states to develop their
fossil fuel reserves--and North Carolina is far and away the big
winner.
Given the long lead times required to lease, explore, develop and
license production from new fields, it is extremely important that we
have a better understanding of the scale of the resources off our
coast. The earliest anything would be likely to be produced will be
beyond 2030, and who knows what the market will be like then? If there
aren't any commercial deposits in the Atlantic OCS, policy makers and
the industry need to know that so they can focus their attention and
resources on other options. A new seismic survey would put the
uncertainty to rest.
7--Drilling would result in some of the NC coast looking like Louisiana
or Galveston, TX. Opponents of drilling play this card several ways. On
the one hand they claim that we may lose our beautiful beaches, clean
water, wildlife habitats, and pristine environment to unbridled
industrialization. On the other hand, the very same people often argue
about the job creation benefits of industrialization. They can't have
it both ways. As in several of the examples before, the truth is
somewhere between these extremes. A lot depends on what resources are
out there, how much is out there, and where it is, but there are many
other forces at work that will also have an impact.
For multiple reasons, Texas/Louisiana type of oil and gas
infrastructure is highly unlikely to be constructed along the NC coast.
Much of NC's shoreline is comprised of state, local and national parks,
wetlands, areas of environmental concern, wildlife sanctuaries, and
critical habitats. There is also unlikely to be any suitable tracts of
NC coastal land for this type of industrialization. Further, the land
that is available is simply too expensive for this type of use.
Additionally, we now have an exceptional amount of federal, state,
and local government regulations in place addressing all aspects of
development. Many of the commercial projects we take for granted (like
the Morehead City port, marinas and channels, and a multitude of ocean
front structures), probably could not be built today. Just consider the
recent fight over the Titan America cement plant in Wilmington, or the
time it took to get agreement on a replacement for the Bonner Bridge
(OBX). Our governing bodies currently have sufficient authority to
protect our communities from the kinds of development that a majority
of residents don't want to see.
Above all, we should not be worried about over-industrialization
because these companies aren't stupid. Why enter a prolonged legal
battle through an ever-changing forest of regulations and public
opposition to build something not needed? Our oil demand has been below
2005 levels and it is expected to remain that way in the coming years.
Outside of a few small specialty units, the U.S. hasn't built a large
scale new refinery since 1977. We have more than enough refining
capacity to meet our needs. If something changes, it's cheaper and
easier to invest in the modernization of our existing refineries. If we
discover natural gas, it could be processed offshore and shipped as LNG
to markets, or it could be brought ashore by pipelines that would be
buried out of sight. See again, the ``North Carolina Offshore Oil and
Gas Roadmap''.
8--Revenue-sharing with the coastal States has not been approved. The
basics are that the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 provides states with
the rights to the natural resources (and associated revenues) of
submerged lands within three nautical miles of their coasts. (For
Florida's western coast, this jurisdiction extends nine miles.) Beyond
states' jurisdiction, submerged lands are administered by the federal
government for 200 nautical miles, in accordance with
accepted international law. These lands are commonly referred to as the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). BOEM is the federal agency responsible
for this territory.
Drilling opponents say that to make the potential issues with
offshore drilling worth considering, affected states should get a
``revenue-sharing'' deal with the federal government. Such sharing
would be of income from potential lease-payments, as well as rents and
royalties for any offshore fossil fuel leases.
In the prior administration's plan, there was no revenue-sharing
between the federal government and the States, as a part of the
proposal for the Atlantic area. The issue of revenue-sharing between
the Federal Government and States (outside of the Gulf of Mexico)
remains to be decided. However, the political reality is that President
Trump is amenable to revenue-sharing of offshore fossil fuel
development with affected coastal states, so this is likely a non-
issue. See this good discussion. This presentation and this article are
both instructive. Note: no revenue sharing has been approved for
offshore wind energy, so where is the NGOs' objection?
9--Any oil and gas we discover will probably be exported anyway. The
U.S. became a net exporter of some petroleum products (diesel,
gasoline, jet fuel, etc.) a few years ago, and Congress recently
repealed the long-standing ban on exports of crude oil. However, the
U.S. is still a net importer of crude oil and petroleum products taken
together. Exports and imports of crude oil and petroleum products help
us balance the changes in consumer demand for products that take place
seasonally and over time. They also help us match different crude oil
stream's physical characteristics with various refinery configurations
to maximize output of higher-value products. Crude oil produced
50 miles off our coast probably would be pumped directly
into tankers and sent to refineries here or abroad, and that is a good
thing.
The product created from a given economic activity doesn't have to
be consumed where it's produced in order for it to provide benefits.
This is like saying that all the fish caught in NC waters have to be
eaten here in NC in order for us to benefit from fishing, or that all
the phosphate mined in Aurora (NC) has to be used in Aurora for that
community to benefit from that mining. This is a red herring, as it
simply is not true. Oil, and natural gas (via Liquefied Natural Gas:
LNG), are internationally traded commodities whose prices are
determined in a global marketplace. An increase in supply anywhere will
affect supplies and prices everywhere.
The shale revolution has made it possible for the U.S. to become a
net exporter of oil and natural gas, which provides many strategic
benefits for us and our allies. U.S. exports of natural gas are
lessening Europe's dependence on Russian gas imports. This recent
typical story is about severe LNG shortages in Europe. Half of
Britain's imported LNG now comes from Russia!
In other words, NC offshore gas production would help our national
security, as it would limit Russia's earnings from selling LNG (to
Europe and even the U.S.!). That income often funds Russian agendas at
odds with our own objectives. This report makes clear the geo-political
power of U.S. gas resources. This perspective is supported by this 2018
Congressional Report which documents that Russia is meddling in our
energy markets--with the same objective as the NGOs have: to discourage
the U.S. from developing its valuable fossil fuel resources.
10--We have better U.S. energies available to us. We may indeed have
better energy options available to us, however, the same NGOs that
oppose offshore fossil fuel exploration and development, also strongly
oppose: nuclear, hydroelectric, coal, gas fracking. What's left? Wind
and solar. Regarding electricity generation, it takes considerable
imagination and chutzpah to call these unreliable, dilute, expensive
options ``better'' than conventional sources (e.g. natural gas).
To try to justify this illogical conclusion, the NGOs say that we
need to include the external costs of fossil fuels. Of course, they
never apply this criteria to wind and solar, as the external costs of
those are significant. Additionally it only makes sense to consider
externalities, if we are objectively and comprehensively looking at the
benefits and liabilities of each of our energy options. Any such
comparison would conclude that fossil fuels have a superior NET
externality--which is why the NGOs never do such an analysis. So if the
NGOs involved here are believed to have energy competence, then no, we
do not have better U.S. energy options available.
11--We don't need fossil fuels as we can live on 100% renewable energy
sources. This is one of the silliest of the arguments. This type of
claim is made to take advantage of the fact that most citizens are
technically challenged--i.e. they simply don't understand electric grid
realities.
For example, there is no such thing as wind energy by itself. Due
to its unrelenting, unpredictable and uncontrolled output, wind energy
must be permanently paired with a balancing conventional fuel source,
which almost always is Gas (i.e. natural gas). So, what actually exists
in the real world is a Wind+Gas package. In other words, the more wind
we have, the more Gas we need to balance it. A similar situation exists
for solar power.
The Buck Rogers claim that this renewable energy balancing will
done by batteries, is too fanciful to take seriously. The discovery,
development, manufacture, and deployment of economical large-scale
batteries to bring about 100% renewables is not even in the foreseeable
future. Even ardent supporters of renewable energy (like Bill Gates)
recognize the limitations of today's renewable technologies. Gates
likened trying to run a modern economy on 100% renewable energy to
``trying to put a man on the moon by stacking ladders one on top of
another.''
In addition to the intermittency of renewables, another real-world
problem is their diluteness. In other words, it takes an enormous
number of wind turbines to even roughly approximate the average output
of a single gas well. For example (see here), to match the energy
output of the proposed NC offshore Manteo Prospect gas facility, it
would take 7700 offshore wind turbines--covering an area the size of
the state of Rhode Island! The environmental, commercial fishing,
shipping, military, etc. impacts of such an enormous wind project,
would be extraordinary. (As just one example, these turbines would
interfere with radar for commercial airline traffic, as well as for
military operations: see here.)
Another reality-check fact is that offshore wind energy is four to
five times the cost of conventional energy. Countries with the highest
percentage of renewables, also have the highest cost for electricity.
For example, Denmark has a lot of wind turbines (onshore and off) and
the cost of residential electricity there is about 36 cents/KWH. The
U.S. average residential cost is about 12 cents/KWH. How is it good for
our citizens or our economy--our families, farms, factories, hospitals,
schools and all businesses--to increase our cost of electricity by
three times?
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration all
renewables together currently provide about 5% of our country's Total
Primary Energy Requirements (TPER). Wind and solar alone, provide less
than 3% of the U.S. TPER, and less than 1% of global TPER.
Speculation that expensive, uncontrolled renewable energy will
completely replace low-cost, reliable fossil fuel energy sources, is
simply wishful thinking, and without scientific basis. The only reason
wind and solar have become even a small part of the energy mix, is
because of the effectiveness of an intensive lobbying campaign to
influence political policies (e.g. to get tax dollars for products that
are not cost effective on their own). Despite their political support,
wind and solar will continue to be relatively minor players for the
foreseeable future.
12-To effectively combat climate change, oil and gas need to stay in
the ground. Opponents of drilling claim we can contribute to the Paris
Accord's goal (limiting the earth's temperature rise to no more than 2+
C), by not using the fossil fuel resources off our coast. However,
leaving these resources in the ground that wouldn't have been produced
for another 15 years anyway, clearly won't have any near-
term effects on climate change. Additionally, leaving these resources
in the ground will not affect the U.S. demand, so the oil and gas we
consume will come from other sources.
Once again, in making their anti-fossil fuel case, the drilling
opponents are leaving out important information. For example, a
detailed study was done at MIT to simulate some of the consequences of
getting just 10% (a far cry from 100%) of our TPER from wind energy.
The startling conclusion is: ``using a three-dimensional climate model
suggested that a large deployment of wind turbines over land to meet
about 10% of predicted world energy needs in 2100 could lead to a
significant temperature increase in the lower atmosphere over the
installed regions.'' In other words, large-scale deployment of
industrial wind turbines could increase climate temperatures!
Another claim frequently made, is that we need more wind energy so
that we can get rid of coal. (This is primarily heard from the Sierra
Club which has been paid $80 million to conduct its anti-coal campaign:
see here and here.) The problem is that no quantity of wind turbines
can ever replace even a single coal facility, as coal is typically a
base-load source (i.e. one that generates a constant amount of
electricity 24/7/365). Due to its unpredictable and uncontrolled
output, wind energy can never provide base-load electricity. What can
replace coal is a Wind+Gas package--but that means continued fossil
fuel dependence.
An eye-opening pertinent study (confirmed here and here) compared the
CO2 from the Wind+Gas package that actually exists on the grid, to the
CO2 from just Gas by itself. Due to some technical realities (like the
fact that there are two different types of Gas generators), Gas by
itself resulted in lower CO2 than Wind+Gas! In other words, if the
objective is to reduce CO2 (and help with Climate Change), we should be
using more Gas, and less Wind!
Another consideration rarely heard from fossil fuel opponents is
the use of Enhanced Gas Recovery (EGR). This technique amounts to
injecting CO2 into the ocean subsurface, to force out the gas. This
offshore energy CO2 sequestration would help with climate change.
In another climate change perspective, keeping Atlantic oil and gas
in the ground could raise prices and suppress demand for these fuels.
The higher natural gas prices would inhibit the use of this clean-
burning bridge fuel, and limit its ability to substitute for coal and
reduce CO2 emissions. This would unquestionably be the case in Europe,
where Russian supplied natural gas is priced at 5 times
what we pay. This high cost limits Europe's ability to substitute
clean-burning natural gas for coal, which means that more global CO2
could be saved if we developed and exported our offshore natural gas to
Europe.
Despite the religious opposition of certain environmental
organizations to fossil fuels, the fact is that the global percentage
of fossil fuel use has NOT decreased over the past forty
(40) years. Additionally, the official projections for the
next twenty-five (25) years are that the global percentage
of fossil fuel use will INCREASE. Based on this reality, and the other
careful explanations provided in this document, it's clear that we
should embrace careful and cautious exploration and development of our
offshore fossil fuel energy resources.
************************************************************************
*******
Some Conclusions:
a) Offshore wind energy is a much worse choice than is offshore
natural gas.
b) When the NGO concerns about offshore fossil fuel exploration and
development are carefully and objectively examined, the evidence
indicates that they are weak.
c) When the NGO concerns about offshore fossil fuel exploration and
development are compared to their position on each of the same items
regarding offshore wind energy, there are significant discrepancies.
This inconsistency erodes their credibility.
d) On the other hand when the NGO concerns about offshore fossil
fuel exploration and development are compared to the position of the
Russians regarding U.S. energy policy, there is almost perfect
alignment. This uniformity supports the contention that the NGO
offshore fossil fuel concerns are primarily political in nature.
e) Strategically, DOI would be well-advised to change their current
OCS Leasing Plan from Natural Gas and Oil to just Natural Gas.
************************************************************************
*******
Some sample U.S. offshore drilling articles and reports:
BOEM Environmental Assessment of the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing
Program
Offshore Resources: Digging Up The Facts
OCS Leasing Benefits
Sound and Marine Seismic Surveys
Interview re Seismic Testing
Offshore Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources
Some sample NC offshore drilling articles and reports:
NC DENR Presentation about Offshore Wind and Fossil Fuels (2016)
Offshore Energy Primer (one page)
Pine Knoll Shores Talk (Rudi Rudolph)
Differences Between Friends and Foes of Offshore Drilling
Drilling Opponents Pack Raleigh Meeting (also see sidebar article)
*John Droz, Jr. is an independent physicist, an internationally known
energy expert, and founder of Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions
(AWED). For over 40 years John has also been an ardent environmental
advocate, and had been an active member of multiple environmental
organizations (e.g. the Sierra Club). During this period he has never
received funding from anyone. He and his wife reside on the NC coast.
The views expressed here are his own.
This paper is a significant expansion of the excellent offshore energy
report originally done by John Brodman. He was a former (retired)
Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Energy Policy at the U.S.
Department of Energy, and former member of the NC Energy Policy
Council. Special thanks also to the many people who took the time to
review this paper.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
-- International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW): Statement
of Ms. Beth Allgood, U.S. Country Director.
[all]