[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OCEAN CLIMATE ACTION: SOLUTIONS TO THE CLIMATE CRISIS.
H.R. 8632, H.R. 3548, H.R. 3919,
H.R. 4093, H.R. 5390, H.R. 5589,
H.R. 7387, H.R. 8253, and H.R. 8627
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, November 17, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-41
__________
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
42-326 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Joe Cunningham, SC Daniel Webster, FL
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Liz Cheney, WY
Diana DeGette, CO Mike Johnson, LA
Wm. Lacy Clay, MO Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Debbie Dingell, MI John R. Curtis, UT
Anthony G. Brown, MD Kevin Hern, OK
A. Donald McEachin, VA Russ Fulcher, ID
Darren Soto, FL Pete Stauber, MN
Ed Case, HI
Steven Horsford, NV
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU
Matt Cartwright, PA
Paul Tonko, NY
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL
Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
David Watkins, Chief of Staff
Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, November 17, 2020....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Hilborn, Ray, Professor, School of Aquatic and Fishery
Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.... 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Questions submitted for the record....................... 30
Kryc, Kelly, Director of Ocean Policy, New England Aquarium,
Boston, Massachusetts...................................... 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Questions submitted for the record....................... 39
Leonard, Kelsey, Steering Committee Member, Mid-Atlantic
Committee on the Ocean, Enrolled Citizen Shinnecock Indian
Nation, Long Island, New York.............................. 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Questions submitted for the record....................... 23
Lubchenco, Jane, University Distinguished Professor, Wayne
and Gladys Valley Professor of Marine Biology, Marine
Studies Advisor to the President of Oregon State
University, Corvallis, Oregon.............................. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Questions submitted for the record....................... 16
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Castor, Hon. Kathy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, statement for the record................. 70
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 70
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON OCEAN CLIMATE ACTION: SOLUTIONS TO THE CLIMATE
CRISIS
The hearing will be on the following bills:
H.R. 8632, To direct the Secretary of Commerce, acting through
the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, to provide for ocean-based climate solutions to
reduce carbon emissions and global warming; to make coastal
communities more resilient; and to provide for the conservation
and restoration of ocean and coastal habitats, biodiversity,
and marine mammal and fish populations; and for other purposes,
``Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act of 2020''; H.R. 3548, To
improve data collection and monitoring of the Great Lakes,
oceans, bays, estuaries, and coasts, and for other purposes,
``BLUE GLOBE Act''; H.R. 3919, To require research in coastal
sustainability and resilience, to ensure that the Federal
Government continues to implement and advance coastal
resiliency efforts, and for other purposes, ``Creating
Opportunity And Sustainability Through Science Act'' or
``COASTS Act''; H.R. 4093, To improve the National Oceans and
Coastal Security Act, and for other purposes, ``National Oceans
and Coastal Security Improvements Act of 2019''; H.R. 5390, To
designate Regional Ocean Partnerships of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, and for other purposes,
``Regional Ocean Partnership Act''; H.R. 5589, To establish an
Interagency Working Group on Coastal Blue Carbon, and for other
purposes, ``Blue Carbon for Our Planet Act''; H.R. 7387, To
require the Secretary of Commerce to establish a grant program
to benefit coastal habitats, resiliency, and the economy, and
for other purposes, ``Shovel-Ready Restoration Grants for
Coastlines and Fisheries Act of 2020''; H.R. 8253, To amend the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to require 30 percent of
revenues from offshore wind energy to be deposited in the
National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund, and for other
purposes, ``Strengthening Coastal Communities Act of 2020'';
and H.R. 8627, To express the sense of Congress that the
Chesapeake Bay Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration shall be the primary representative of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the
Chesapeake Bay, to require the Secretary of the Commerce,
acting through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, to provide grants supporting
research on the conservation, restoration, or management of
oysters in estuarine ecosystems, and for other purposes,
``Chesapeake Bay Oyster Research Act''
----------
Tuesday, November 17, 2020
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:02 p.m., via
Webex, Hon. Raul M. Grijalva [Chairman of the Committee],
presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Huffman, Lowenthal, Cox,
Neguse, Levin, Haaland, Cunningham, DeGette, Dingell, Soto,
Cartwright, Tonko, Garcia, Barragan; Bishop, Gohmert,
Westerman, Graves, Gonzalez-Colon, and Stauber.
Also present: Representatives Bonamici and Beyer.
The Chairman. Good morning, the Committee on Natural
Resources will now come to order. The Committee is meeting
today to hear testimony on H.R. 8632, the Ocean-Based Climate
Solutions Act; H.R. 3548; H.R. 3919; H.R. 4093; H.R. 5390; H.R.
5589; H.R. 7387; H.R. 8253; and H.R. 8627.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority
Member or their designees. This will allow us the opportunity
to hear from our witnesses sooner, and help Members keep to
their schedules and afford them the opportunity to ask
questions.
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. Eastern Standard Time
today, or at the close of the hearing, whichever comes first.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess
subject to the call of the Chair.
I am also asking unanimous consent that the gentleman from
Virginia, Representative Beyer, and the gentlewoman from
Oregon, Representative Bonamici, be permitted to participate in
today's proceedings.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a written
statement by Representative Kathy Castor.
As described in the notice, statements, documents, or
motions must be submitted to the electronic repository at
[email protected]. Additionally, please note that as with
in-person meetings, Members are responsible for their own
microphones. And as with in-person meetings, Members can be
muted by staff only to avoid inadvertent background noise.
Finally, Members or witnesses experiencing technical problems
should inform the Committee staff immediately.
Thank you for that, and thank you for joining us at this
hearing. Let me recognize myself for the opening statement.
Ms. Snyder. Chair Grijalva----
The Chairman. Yes?
Ms. Snyder. Sorry, this is Lora. The audio is not working
on the streaming device right now, so can you hold just 1
second, please?
The Chairman. Do I need to begin from the get-go on calling
the meeting to order and everything?
Ms. Snyder. Sarah Lim, what do you think? OK. No, we are
good.
[Pause.]
Mr. Bishop. Perfect time for you to give your speech.
[Laughter.]
[Pause.]
Ms. Snyder. I just got a note the audio is back, so we can
start.
The Chairman. OK. We apologize for the technical glitch,
but let me recognize myself for the opening statement and then
recognize the Ranking Member or his designee.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
THE STATE OF ARIZONA
The Chairman. Thank you to all the Members of Congress and
witnesses for joining us today, as we have a conversation about
my bill, the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act.
At over 300 pages long, the bill includes a number of
provisions, many of which are bipartisan, to address the very
serious problem of climate change. As the incoming Biden
administration is going through its transition process, we must
lay the groundwork to address climate change with the speed
that this crisis demands.
Turning to the legislation, the idea here is simple: A
healthy ocean can help us fight the climate crisis. Our ocean
has absorbed over one-third of our carbon emissions and 90
percent of the excess heat we have generated. This has
consequences, which has resulted in ocean acidification, sea
level rise, shifting fish stocks, coral reef die-offs, and much
more. The ocean and atmosphere are closely connected, which is
good news for us. Scientists have found that 21 percent of the
carbon equation could be solved globally through the ocean.
The climate proposals have ignored the ocean for far too
long. That is why we have put forward the Ocean-Based Climate
Solutions Act, a bill that provides a roadmap for ocean and
coastal climate resilience and curbs greenhouse gases.
Since this bill is the first of its kind, we continue to
expect and welcome feedback. I look forward to working with all
of you to improve this legislation as it goes forward.
The bill develops a plan to protect 30 percent of the ocean
by 2030, which is good for everybody. A new study finds that
expanding existing global marine protected areas by just 5
percent could improve future fisheries catch by at least 20
percent.
The bill also prepares our fisheries and blue economy for
climate change, improves coastal zone management, strengthens
marine mammal conservation, and confronts ocean acidification
and harmful algal blooms. It improves coastal resilience, and
specifically promotes resilience and justice for U.S.
territories, Indigenous people, and communities of color.
Critically, the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act captures
and reduces carbon dioxide by creating a pathway forward for
renewable offshore energy, and enhances natural carbon capture
and storage in ocean ecosystems like seagrass beds, kelp
forests, and mangroves, in a concept known as ``blue carbon.''
The way I look at it, we are in a reciprocal relationship
with nature. You reap what you sow. Greedy polluters have
harmed our planet for decades, and now we are all having to
deal with the consequences. But with solutions like this
legislation and other proposals to confront climate change, we
can and will do better.
The legislation is a compilation of the work of many of my
colleagues: Representative Bonamici, Representative Seth
Moulton, Representative Don Beyer, Representative Charlie
Crist, Representative Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, Representative
Anthony Brown, Representative Haaland, Representative
Lowenthal, and Representative Velazquez. So, to them I thank
them for their work on the pieces of the legislation, their
legislation, that has been incorporated into the overall bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Chair, Committee on
Natural Resources
Thank you to all of the Members of Congress and witnesses for
joining us today to have a conversation about my bill, the Ocean-Based
Climate Solutions Act. At over 300 pages long, this bill includes a
number of provisions--many of which are bipartisan--to address the very
serious problem of climate change.
As the incoming Biden administration is going through its
transition process, we must lay the groundwork to address climate
change with the speed this crisis demands.
Turning to the legislation, the idea here is simple. A healthy
ocean can help us fight the climate crisis.
Our ocean has absorbed over one-third of our carbon emissions and
90 percent of the excess heat we have generated. This has consequences
which has resulted in ocean acidification, sea level rise, shifting
fish stocks, coral reef die-offs and more. The ocean and atmosphere are
closely connected, which is good news for us. Scientists have found
that 21 percent of the carbon equation can be solved globally through
the ocean.
But climate proposals have ignored the ocean for far too long.
That's why we've put forward the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act, a
bill that provides a roadmap for ocean and coastal climate resilience
and curbs greenhouse gases.
Since this bill is the first of its kind, we continue to expect and
welcome feedback. I look forward to working with all of you to improve
this legislation.
The bill develops a plan to protect 30 percent of the ocean by
2030, which is good for everybody--a new study finds that expanding
existing global marine protected areas by just 5 percent can improve
future fisheries catch by at least 20 percent.
The bill also prepares our fisheries and blue economy for climate
change, improves coastal zone management, strengthens marine mammal
conservation, and confronts ocean acidification and harmful algal
blooms. It improves coastal resilience and specifically promotes
resilience and justice for U.S. territories, Indigenous people, and
communities of color.
Crucially, the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act captures and
reduces carbon dioxide by creating a pathway forward for renewable
offshore energy and enhances natural carbon capture and storage in
ocean ecosystems like seagrass beds, kelp forests, and mangroves, a
concept known as ``Blue Carbon''.
The way I look at it, we are in a reciprocal relationship with
nature. You reap what you sow: greedy polluters have harmed our planet
for decades, and now we are all facing the consequences.
But with solutions like this bill and other proposals to confront
climate change, we can and will do better.
Thank you.
______
The Chairman. With that, the Chair will now recognize the
Ranking Member or his designee for the opening statement.
Mr. Ranking Member.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing in such a manner that easily produces
interaction and understanding of the issues that we are facing.
Before I actually begin my comments, I would ask unanimous
consent that three documents be added to the record. I think
you have them electronically already.
One is a letter of opposition to H.R. 8632 that is signed
by 831 organizations. Basically, anyone who knows about
fishing, uses fishing, or eats fish is in opposition.
The second is a letter of the Family Farm Alliance
expressing concerns over the impact on Western agriculture.
Third, a letter from Stronger America Through Seafood also
expresses their concerns with H.R. 8632.
Mr. Chairman and members of our wonderful Committee, today
we meet in what will likely be the last Natural Resources
Committee hearing of the 116th Congress. We are considering
nine bills, most of which were included in the Chairman's H.R.
8632. There really is no reason to add to this hearing--unless
it is to give Members another 5 minutes to campaign, or speak
on the bills. It is kind of a waste of time. But I would remind
you all that the election is over. We should move on.
Jessica Hathaway, the editor-in-chief of National
Fisherman, described the Chairman's bill perfectly when she
wrote that, ``Reading its 324 pages felt like swinging a pinata
packed with a mix of treats and lit fireworks.'' I think
Hathaway got it perfectly.
The bill authorizes billions in new grants and programs to
distract from the economically devastating policies that are
also being pushed in this bill. The Majority is pushing a so-
called 30x30 idea, locking up 30 percent of our oceans by 2030,
all under the guise of protecting biodiversity while tackling
climate change.
The reality is really much different. The policy is
woefully misguided. It does not improve fisheries. It
undermines the Magnuson-Stevens Act. And even worse, it is
detrimental to America, and especially American fishermen.
Our fisheries are not on the brink of collapse. According
to NOAA, 91 percent of the stocks for which we have assessments
are not subject to overfishing. Further, nearly 90 percent of
Federal mandated fisheries fall below their annual catch
limits, meaning that our commercial recreational fishermen are
not being allowed to harvest the maximum sustainable levels.
Dr. Hilborn, who is one of our distinguished guests here
today, a marine biologist and fisheries scientist at the
University of Washington, has stated that ``the major threat to
sustainable jobs, food, recreational opportunities, and revenue
from U.S. marine fisheries is not overfishing, but
underfishing.'' I look forward to his testimony as we realize
once again what that actually means, and that we may be looking
at things as we did in the past, not what is presently needed,
and definitely not for what the future requires.
So, I think it is worth repeating: the Magnuson-Stevens Act
is not just for the conservation and management of fishery
resources, but also to assure that our citizens benefit from
employment, food supply, and revenue which could be generated
from these resources.
Just like locking up large sums of land has been a terrible
and expensive idea, locking up 30 percent of our oceans does
not translate into good stewardship. There are better ways of
managing our fishery resources--again, the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, that does not put the industry that supports 1.6 million
U.S. jobs at risk.
I would be remiss if I didn't point out the timing of this
bill. Our fishing industry has been hard hit by COVID-19.
Instead of helping, it seems the Majority is more interested in
putting fishermen's livelihood at risk in the name of faux
conservation.
And last, I want to point out that this bill bankrupts the
LWCF by banning its main revenue source. Mr. Grijalva has
constantly reminded us that LWCF is one of the Nation's bedrock
conservation laws. I want to remind him that OCS revenues
provide 100 percent of the funding for the LWCF, as well as
significant revenues to the Gulf of Mexico coastal states for
coastal restoration.
This ban is even more ridiculous after we just locked in
mandatory spending of $900 million in perpetuity in the not-so
Great American Outdoors Act.
So, with that, let the festivities begin. Thank you for
letting me see you on my screen, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Rob Bishop, Ranking Member, Committee on
Natural Resources
Today we meet in what will likely be the last Natural Resources
Committee hearing of the 116th Congress.
We are considering nine bills, most of which are included in
Chairman Grijalva's H.R. 8632, the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act.
There is no reason these have been added to this hearing, unless it is
to give those Members 5 minutes to speak. It's a waste of my time and
of the Committee's time.
Jessica Hathaway, the editor in chief of National Fisherman,
described the Chairman's bill perfectly. She wrote that ``Reading its
324 pages felt like swinging at a pinata packed with a mix of treats
and lit fireworks.'' \1\ I agree with Ms. Hathaway. The bill authorizes
billions in new grants and programs to distract from the economically
devastating policies being pushed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.nationalfisherman.com/national-international/ocean-
climate-bill-is-a-grab-bag-for-marine-stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Majority is pushing a so-called ``30 by 30'' idea of locking up
30 percent of our oceans by 2030 all under the guise of ``protecting
biodiversity while tackling climate change.'' \2\ The reality is much
different. This policy is woefully misguided, it does little to improve
fisheries, undermines the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and even worse it is
detrimental to American fishermen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://naturalresources.house.gov/media/press-releases/chairs-
grijalva-castor-introduce-landmark-oceans-solutions-bill-to-tackle-
climate-crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our fisheries are not at the brink of collapse. According to NOAA,
``91 percent of stocks for which we have assessments are not subject to
overfishing and 84 percent are not overfished.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Testimony of Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for the
National Marine Fisheries Service, to the House Committee on Natural
Resources, September 26, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, nearly 90 percent of federally managed fisheries fall
below their annual catch limits,\4\ meaning that our commercial and
recreational fishermen are not being allowed to harvest at maximum
sustainable levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/msa/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Hilborn, a distinguished marine biologist and fisheries
scientist at the University of Washington and our witness has stated
that ``[t]he major threat to sustainable jobs, food, recreational
opportunities and revenue from U.S. marine fisheries is no longer
overfishing, but underfishing.'' \5\ I look forward to listening to his
testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Testimony of Ray Hilborn, Professor at the University of
Washington, given to the House Committee on Natural Resources,
September 11, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's worth repeating that the Magnuson-Stevens Act is not
just for the conservation and management of fishery resources, but also
``to assure that our citizens benefit from the employment, food supply,
and revenue which could be generated'' \6\ from these resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 16 U.S.C. 1801(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as locking up large sums of lands has been a terrible and
expensive idea, locking up 30 percent of our oceans does not translate
to good stewardship. There are better ways of managing our fishery
resources, again the Magnuson-Stevens Act, that do not put an industry
that supports 1.6 million U.S. jobs at risk.
I would be remiss if I didn't point out the timing of this bill.
Our fishery industry has been hard hit by COVID-19. Instead of helping,
it seems the Majority is more interested in putting our fishermen's
livelihoods at risk in the name of conservation.
Lastly, I want to point out that this bill bankrupts the LWCF by
banning its main revenue source. Chairman Grijalva constantly reminds
us that LWCF is one of our Nation's bedrock conservation laws. I want
to remind him that OCS revenues provide nearly 100 percent of the
funding for LWCF, as well as significant revenues to Gulf of Mexico
coastal states for coastal resources restoration.
This ban is even more ridiculous after we just locked in mandatory
spending of $900 million in perpetuity with the so-called Great
American Outdoors Act.
I yield back.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Bishop.
And a point of personal privilege--you have mentioned that
this might be the last possible hearing that we have before our
new Congress and our new session. I just want to take this
personal time, Mr. Bishop, to thank you for your service to
Congress, and to this Committee, both as Chairman and Ranking
Member of the Natural Resources Committee. It has been a
pleasure and a chore to work with you all these years.
And I think it is important to note, as I have noted in the
past, that you have been a consistent voice for your point of
view and the philosophy, and one can ask no more of a
Representative but to be consistent. And I want to thank you
for that, and wish you the best.
Let me now begin by introducing our witnesses for this
hearing. Our first witness is Dr. Jane Lubchenco, a University
Distinguished Professor of Marine Biology at the Oregon State
University. Following her, we will hear from Dr. Kelsey
Leonard, Steering Committee Member, Mid-Atlantic Committee on
the Ocean, and Enrolled Citizen of Shinnecock Indian Nation.
Next will be Dr. Ray Hilborn, a professor of the School of
Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington.
And, finally, our last witness will be Dr. Kelly Kryc, Director
of Ocean Policy at the New England Aquarium.
Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee Rules,
they must limit their oral presentation to 5 minutes, but that
their entire statement will appear as part of the hearing
record.
When you begin, the timer will begin, and it will turn
orange when you have 1 minute remaining. I recommend that
Members and witnesses joining remotely use grid view, so they
may pin the timer on their screen.
And as your testimony is complete, please remember to mute
yourself to avoid any inadvertent background noise.
I will also allow the entire panel to testify before the
questioning of the witnesses begins by Members.
I will now recognize Dr. Lubchenco to testify. The time is
yours.
STATEMENT OF JANE LUBCHENCO, UNIVERSITY DISTINGUISHED
PROFESSOR, WAYNE AND GLADYS VALLEY PROFESSOR OF MARINE BIOLOGY,
MARINE STUDIES ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT OF OREGON STATE
UNIVERSITY, CORVALLIS, OREGON
Dr. Lubchenco. Chair Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to join you today. I am an ocean ecologist. I study
connections in ecosystems, including interactions between
people and their ecosystems.
When I read the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act, I saw
oceans of opportunity for exciting, urgently needed progress on
climate change. But much more, as well. You are all painfully
aware and have mentioned some of the multiple crises facing the
Nation and the world. With COVID-19, we are facing an
unprecedented health crisis that has also triggered an economic
crisis; the racial injustice crisis, long ignored, has burst
onto the national conscience; we know there is a biodiversity
crisis on land and in the ocean; and multiple threats have
produced an ocean crisis; and, of course, the climate crisis
that brings us together today.
Each of these six crises is complex and demands attention.
Making serious headway with any of them is tough. But taken
together, they might seem impossible. But what if? What if we
could find synergies that would allow us to address multiple
crises at the same time? Now, that would be worth doing.
This bill provides just such an opportunity, with obvious
synergies between the ocean and the climate crisis.
True, the ocean has been mostly out of sight, out of mind
in dialogues about climate mitigation. We have focused
primarily on land-based opportunities to produce renewable
energy; enable more efficient transportation, buildings, and
appliances; and tap nature-based solutions through forest
action. But now, thanks to new analyses from scientists
organized for the High-Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean
Economy, we know that the ocean also has powerful solutions
that might provide as much as 20 percent of the emission
reductions we need to achieve the 1.5 degree target by 2050.
Until recently, these solutions were not even on our radar
screens. Multiple ocean-based climate actions are ripe for
action. You have begun the exciting process to realize their
potential. Renewable ocean energy, decarbonizing shipping,
tapping the power of blue carbon ecosystems, encouraging
consumption of sustainable seafood instead of animal protein
from the land, and protecting 30 percent of the ocean by 2030
are all powerful, timely actions. Together, they provide both
mitigation and adaptation solutions.
But if we are smart about tapping this ocean climate
synergy, we can also achieve even greater benefits across other
urgent crises. For example, economic stimulus funds could be
put to excellent use to create the jobs needed to protect and
restore seagrass beds, salt marshes, and mangroves. These blue
carbon wetlands would remove massive amounts of carbon from the
atmosphere, a climate mitigation benefit.
Restored wetlands would be a boon to the commercial and
recreational fisheries by restoring critically important
nursery areas, bringing economic and social benefit. Restored
wetlands provide wildlife habitat, creating biodiversity
benefit. They provide recreational opportunities, providing
health and economic benefit. And those same restored wetlands
also provide buffers against storm surge, resulting in climate
adaptation and resilience benefit.
Finally, if done smartly, many of those jobs and outcomes
could benefit communities of color. So, with just this one
example, we see exciting possibilities to derive powerful co-
benefits that address the economic, social justice,
biodiversity, and ocean crises. A quintuple win-win-win-win-
win. Talk about synergies.
Marine protected areas provide another strong pathway to
achieve multiple benefits, including both mitigation and
adaptation benefit, while also creating jobs, protecting
biodiversity, enhancing resilience, protecting carbon stores,
and providing recreational benefit.
When crises loom, what is needed most is knowledge that
there is light at the end of the tunnel: hope. This bill
provides hope because it provides a pathway for tackling
multiple crises simultaneously. The time for climate action is
now, using the full suite of tools to achieve the greatest
social, economic, and environmental benefit. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lubchenco follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jane Lubchenco, Distinguished University
Professor, Oregon State University
Chair Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is an honor to submit this written testimony
concerning the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act.
I am a marine scientist with expertise in ocean-climate
interactions, and their connections to human well-being. My
contributions to these topics have been recognized by multiple
scientific organizations including the National Academy of Sciences--
who elected me a Member 24 years ago, and presented me with its highest
award, the Public Welfare Medal, 3 years ago--and by the National
Science Foundation who bestowed on me its most prestigious honor, the
Vannevar Bush Award. I received my bachelor's degree from Colorado
College, my master's degree from the University of Washington and my
PhD from Harvard University. I have been an academic scientist for most
of my career, serving on the faculties of Harvard, Stanford, and Oregon
State Universities.
I have also had the opportunity to serve my country in a different
way through positions in the Federal Government. From 2009-2013, I was
honored to serve as the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere and the Administrator of NOAA. It was a pleasure to work
with many of you and many of your colleagues during those 4 years on
issues ranging from fisheries and coastal habitats to climate change,
from weather forecasts and weather satellites to oil spills. Then from
2014 to 2016, I served as the first U.S. State Department Science Envoy
for the Ocean doing science diplomacy in developing countries around
fisheries, healthy oceans, climate change, ocean acidification, and
sustainable development.
Since moving back to Oregon, I have worked to produce the knowledge
and solutions needed to meet serious challenges like climate change. I
have been delighted to find that people at all levels of organizations
have a genuine hunger for durable, practical, scalable solutions--from
the leaders at the tops of governments and organizations to those whom
they serve.
I am therefore pleased to see the introduction of the Ocean-Based
Climate Solutions Act. This bill focuses on the under-appreciated
connections between the ocean and climate change and it highlights
solutions. Moreover, the bipartisan nature of many of the related
referred bills gives me hope that this Committee can provide much-
needed bipartisan leadership to address one of the most urgent problems
of our time, climate change.
Solutions to Climate Change are Urgently Needed
As amply documented in the National Climate Assessments and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, climate
change is already affecting people's health and safety, opportunities
and quality of life, and economic growth. In addition, climate change
exacerbates existing inequities and functions as a threat multiplier
for peace and security, increasing the likelihood of political
instability and terrorism around the world. Global action to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as rapidly as possible is urgently
needed and can substantially reduce climate-related risks. The ocean
has much to offer toward solutions.
In my testimony, I wish to (1) emphasize the urgency of moving
decisively; (2) highlight the need to embrace the full suite of
science-based ocean solutions in this bill, and (3) underscore the
added bonus of multiple co-benefits that many of the solutions bring,
ranging from economic to health to biodiversity benefits. This is not a
time for timid action, nor for piecemeal solutions. Time is short and
failing to act aggressively will have dire consequences. It is time for
a full-court press using every play in our playbook.
The Role of the Ocean in the Climate System and Climate Impacts on the
Ocean
Until recently, most discussions of the ocean and climate change
focused either on the (1) central role the ocean plays in regulating
the climate system or (2) on the impacts of climate change to the
ocean. Scientists have documented that the ocean absorbs over 90% of
the excess heat trapped by GHG emissions and it absorbs nearly a third
of the carbon dioxide that we emit. The ocean has literally `taken the
heat' for us, modulating some of the impacts of excess greenhouse
gases.
The 2019 IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and the Cryosphere in a
Changing Climate and the 2018 National Climate Assessment document in
depressing detail the myriad ways that climate change has impacted the
ocean and the consequences of those impacts to people's lives, health,
safety, livelihoods, and economic opportunities. (a) Sea level rise is
an obvious example, and it disproportionately affects some coasts--such
as our mid- and south-Atlantic coastlines--more than others. The ocean
is also (b) warmer and (c) more acidic; it is experiencing (d)
unprecedented ocean heatwaves and (e) loss of oxygen. And the ocean is
(f) more variable and (g) less predictable.
Each of these impacts has consequences, but a deeper dive into one
of these changes, a warmer ocean, can illustrate the far-reaching
implications for people. According to NOAA, the average global sea
surface temperature has increased by approximately 2.3+F (1.3+C) over
the past 100 years. This might seem like a small amount, but it is
having disastrous consequences for many coastal communities and
economies, and for people far inland as well. For example, we are
seeing the consequences of warmer water in the changing nature of
tropical storms including hurricanes. There is unequivocal evidence
that climate change is affecting hurricanes. Let me be clear: there is
no evidence that climate change affects the number of tropical storms
and hurricanes each year. However climate change does affect the
intensity, speed, and water content of tropical storms including
hurricanes. The results are more powerful Category 4 and 5 storms,
storms that move more slowly (for example Hurricane Harvey in 2017 that
caused catastrophic flooding and many deaths in Texas and Louisiana),
and storms that hold more water (contributing to flooding). Just last
week, a new analysis was published (Li and Chakraborty 2020) suggesting
that the greater moisture in hurricanes also acts like an extra battery
pack to keep them stronger and last longer once they have made
landfall. Hurricanes in North America are decaying at slower rates over
land than they used to. These three climate-related impacts enhance the
power and destructive impact of hurricanes, as well as the intensity of
storm surge, coastal and inland flooding, and the destructive impact of
more powerful winds. Sea level rise makes some of these impacts even
worse. In short, we can connect the dots directly between climate
change, warmer ocean waters and air temperatures, and threats to
coastal and inland inhabitants. Warmer Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of
Mexico waters are supercharging hurricanes, fueling rapid
intensification, and enhancing the power and longevity of the
destruction.
Another impact of warmer water is seen in the heatwaves now being
documented globally. One particularly well studied heat wave was the
so-called `Blob' of warm water off the West Coast in 2013-2015,
stretching some 2,000 miles from Alaska to California, with water
temperatures close to 7+ Fahrenheit above average! The Blob triggered
the largest harmful algal bloom ever recorded on the West Coast,
shutting down crabbing and clamming for months, and resulted in
multiple declared fishery disasters and triggered the death of
thousands of marine mammals and seabirds.
Clearly, many climate change impacts are multifaceted and serious.
And the impacts to people are profound, underscoring the urgency of
tackling climate change aggressively and effectively.
Ocean Solutions to the Rescue--the Ocean Panel's Analysis of Mitigation
Options
Thanks to new scientific analyses, we now know that the ocean could
provide a powerful source of solutions to slow down climate change.
These would not supplant other parallel, terrestrial-based mitigation
efforts, but when combined with them would enhance the likelihood that
we can tackle climate change effectively and smartly.
Although earlier discussions about ways to mitigate climate change
focused primarily on land-based solutions, we now have a newly
appreciated, powerful suite of ocean-based tools to add to the climate
mitigation toolbox. Moreover, many of these new tools could also bring
multiple benefits to other parallel issues.
A report published last year by the High Level Panel for a
Sustainable Ocean Economy (hereafter called simply the `Ocean Panel')
(Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019a; see also Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019b)
concluded that a set of five ocean-based mitigation solutions could
achieve as much as 1/5 of the carbon emission reductions needed to
achieve the 1.5+C degree Paris Agreement target by 2050. The experts
analyzed the potential emission reductions that could result from 5
different categories of actions: ocean-based renewable energy, ocean-
based transportation and shipping, protecting and restoring coastal and
marine ecosystems, seafood, and carbon storage in the seabed (Figures 1
and 2).
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsFigure 1. Ocean-based Mitigation Options Explored in Hoegh-
Guldberg 2019a and their Associated Annual Mitigation Potential in
2050. From Hoegh-Guldberg 2019a.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsFigure 2. Contribution of Five Ocean-based Climate Action Areas
to Mitigating Climate Change in 2050 (Maximum gigatonnes of carbon
dioxide equivalents). From Hoegh-Guldberg 2019a.
As shown in Figures 1 and 2, each of these solution categories can
contribute to the emission reductions needed. But the power lies in
using multiple solutions. Together they reduce emissions by up to 21%
of the annual greenhouse gas emission reductions needed by 2020 to
achieve the 1.5+ target (Figure 3).
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsFigure 3. Contribution of Ocean-based Mitigation Options to
Closing the Emissions Gap in 2050. From Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019a.
The analysis further suggests that the first four of these
mitigation solutions would provide immediate opportunities for action
while the fifth--sequestering carbon on the seabed--is not ready for
deployment, and requires significantly more research and analysis
before it might be considered for adoption. The four categories that
are ripe for action, and the Ocean Panel Report's description of each
include:
1. Ocean-Based Renewable Energy: Reduce barriers to scaling up
offshore wind (fixed and floating turbines) and invest in
new, innovative ocean-based energy sources such as floating
solar photovoltaics, wave power, and tidal power.
2. Ocean-Based Transport: Implement available technologies to
increase energy efficiency now (e.g., improved hull
design), and support the development of low-carbon fuels as
part of a broader decarbonization of ocean industries and
energy supply chains, including port facilities. Start with
decarbonizing domestic fleets.
3. Coastal and Marine Ecosystems: Conserve existing ``blue carbon''
ecosystems (mangroves, seagrass beds, and salt marshes) to
prevent further release of greenhouse gas emissions and
scale up effective restoration efforts.
4. Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Dietary Shifts: Reduce emission
intensity of fisheries and aquaculture by optimizing wild
catch and shifting to low-carbon feed options. Shift diets
toward low-carbon marine sources such as sustainably
harvested fish and seaweed including kelp as a replacement
for emissions-intensive land-based sources of protein.
After analyzing each of the above options through multiple lens of
geophysical, technical, economic, and social/political feasibility and
potential, the Ocean Panel report authors concluded that these four
options, while not necessarily easy, are feasible and ready for
adoption. Many of these options are included in H.R. 8632.
Blue Carbon
Of the above four solutions, the `blue carbon' category might be
useful to consider in greater detail because this ocean-based
mitigation solution is less well known. `Blue carbon' is simply the
carbon that is captured and stored by the world's ocean and coastal
ecosystems. (`Green carbon' is the carbon that is captured and stored
by trees and other plants on land.) Capturing carbon alone is not
sufficient to create climate mitigation benefit. The carbon must also
be stored, or sequestered so that it is functionally removed from the
atmosphere. In Blue Carbon ecosystems, the plants capture carbon from
the air and effectively lock it away in the sediment.
Three blue carbon ecosystems are particularly important from the
standpoint of capturing and sequestering carbon: seagrass beds,
mangrove forests and salt marshes. These three habitats sequester
carbon at a much faster rate than do forests and they can sequester
carbon for centuries to thousands of years as long as they are not
damaged or destroyed. If these habitats are damaged or destroyed, the
massive amounts of the carbon they have stored, sometimes for
millennia, are released into the atmosphere, contributing to climate
change.
So, first and foremost, preventing the destruction of these
wetlands is a smart and powerful climate-mitigation action. Moreover,
because these coastal habitats also provide protection from storm
surge, nursery habitats for commercial and recreational fisheries, and
recreational opportunities, their protection brings multiple benefits.
The second most important climate-mitigation action on the blue
carbon front is restoring seagrass beds, mangrove forests, and salt
marshes that have been lost or degraded. A recently reported exemplary
success in effectively restoring seagrass beds comes from Virginia,
where scientists from the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences and The
Nature Conservancy have recovered over 3,000 hectares of seagrass beds
in a number of bays and inshore lagoons (Orth et al. 2020). The
restored beds now sequester on average about 3,000 metric tons of
carbon each year, locking it away permanently. Moreover, recovering the
beds has also enhanced water quality and benefited several commercial
and recreational fisheries.
Incorporation of blue carbon into Nationally Determined
Contributions and carbon trading schemes would be useful tools to
recognize the importance of this mitigation tool and provide resources
and incentives to both reduce loss of and effectively restore blue
carbon ecosystems.
Ocean-based Solutions for Adaptation
As noted earlier, climate change impacts on the ocean, fisheries,
wildlife, and coastal and ocean ecosystems have been apparent for at
least two decades and are accelerating. This in turn affects the people
and economies that depend upon healthy ocean ecosystems for a wide
array of benefits. Moreover, scientists have documented unprecedented
rates of loss of biodiversity at the genetic, population, and species
levels, in marine systems as well as on land and in freshwater (IPBES
2019). Therefore, in addition to forceful efforts to reduce emissions,
strong, smart efforts are needed to enhance the resilience of coastal
and inland communities, coastal and ocean ecosystems, fisheries, and
other key sustainable uses of the ocean.
Fisheries. Supporting climate-smart and climate-ready fisheries is
obvious and important. I am proud that our federally managed fisheries
are a model for excellent stewardship and have been steadily improving,
due in large part to visionary leaders within the fishing community,
strong science, and well-crafted management policies stemming primarily
from the 2005 Reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act. Fisheries managed by
states, however, are highly variable, with the status of many stocks
simply unknown. There is clear evidence that one of the best ways to
minimize the impact of climate change on fisheries is to ensure they
are well managed (Gaines et al. 2018). Therefore, ensuring that all
U.S. fisheries are sustainably managed should be high priority.
However, fishery management needs to be more nimble, more
precautionary, and more anticipatory than it is at present. This is
especially true as stocks shift from their historic locations to new
places, especially when they move across Fishery Management Council
boundaries or national boundaries.
Policies to increase the fuel efficiency of fishing vessels without
penalizing fishermen and women are needed. In addition, the U.S. can
exert stronger leadership to eliminate fish and fuel subsidies through
international agreements and management programs.
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are a well-known, but underutilized
tool to protect biodiversity, provide safe havens for wildlife, help
recover depleted stocks and species, restore the ecological balance
within an ecosystem, protect stores of carbon, provide reference areas
for evaluating impacts of fishing, and enhance ecosystem resilience--on
a permanent basis. For these benefits to accrue, an MPA must have good
enabling conditions, including being well designed, resourced, managed
and enforced.
Not all MPAs are the same. For example, they vary in the level of
protection they provide from extractive and abatable destructive
activities. Only Fully Protected or Highly Protected MPAs provide the
benefits listed above; Lightly and Minimally Protected Areas simply do
not. (The MPA Guide, 2019, explains these four types of MPAs.) At
present, only 2.6% of the global ocean is in Fully to Highly Protected,
Implemented MPAs (MPA Atlas 2020). And 23% of U.S. waters are in Fully
and Highly Protected, Implemented MPAs (MPA Atlas 2020).
There is a compelling need for MPAs to help protect biodiversity.
The international scientific assessment of biodiversity concluded that
the biggest threat to marine biodiversity is fishing and impacts of
fishing gear (IPBES 2019). Fully and Highly Protected MPAs provide safe
havens from extraction and gear. Moreover, modern technology through
remote sensing, machine learning and other tools coupled with
international agreements to fight Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported
(IUU) Fishing are enhancing the ability to protected MPAs from
poaching.
A recent comprehensive, global analysis concluded that Fully and
Highly Protected MPAs can also play a central role in helping provide
healthy seafood to feed a growing human population (Cabral et al.
2020). The authors conclude that at the global scale, ``protecting an
additional 5% of the ocean could increase future catch by at least 20%,
generating 9-12 million metric tons more food annually than in a
business-as-usual world with no additional protection.'' Most of this
benefit is achieved in countries where fisheries are poorly managed or
not managed at all, not where they are relatively well managed such as
in U.S. waters. Hence, this food provisioning benefit of MPAs is highly
applicable elsewhere, but not particularly relevant for U.S. waters.
And finally, there is increasing evidence that MPAs hold great
promise as a climate mitigation and adaptation tool (Roberts et al.
2017). In protecting genetic, population, and species diversity, Fully
and Highly Protected MPAs can enhance the resilience of ecosystems,
protect stores of carbon in the sediment, and protect the ability of
blue carbon ecosystems to capture and sequester additional carbon. The
greater the genetic diversity, the greater the likelihood there will be
genotypes that are suited to a climate-impacted world.
Numerous scientific analyses have concluded that to achieve the
biodiversity and climate benefits of MPAs, at least 30% of the ocean
should be safeguarded in Fully and Highly Protected MPAs. The urgency
of the biodiversity and the climate crises underscores the importance
of moving rapidly toward this goal.
Note that even the best fishery management cannot substitute for
effective Fully and Highly Protected MPAs in terms of protecting
biodiversity or enhancing resilience of ecosystems to climate change.
Good fishery management is necessary but not sufficient for a healthy
ocean. Even the best-managed fisheries have impacts on target and non-
target species. Simply removing massive amounts of biomass from fished
areas has significant impacts on the other species in the ecosystem.
Even well-designed, selective gear has unintended impacts on habitats
and non-target species. We need both excellent fishery management,
highly selective gear, and MPAs. They are not substitutes for one
another. They have different goals, all of which are important and
needed. Good fishery management and Fully and Highly Protected MPAs
should go hand-in-hand.
Marine Spatial Planning that is science- and ecosystem-based and
goal-oriented is a good tool to harmonize different uses of the ocean.
Regional Ocean Plans are a smart approach that allows a range of
stakeholders and interests to consider options for using the ocean in
ways that address climate change, protect the integrity and resilience
of the ocean ecosystem, and deconflict various uses.
Economic Recovery Opportunities in the Aftermath of COVID-19
A healthy ocean is the foundation of a vibrant economy. Fisheries,
tourism, shipping, and other ocean industries have been
disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, in the U.S. and
around the globe. As leaders look to jump-start the economy, ocean-
based opportunities have been mostly overlooked, but in fact provide
some golden opportunities for smart investment. Another report from the
Ocean Panel provides timely ideas and analysis of high-priority action
items that could contribute directly to rebuilding economies, in ways
that support a sustainable, equitable, and resilient ocean economy.
Three of the five priority actions discussed in the report overlap with
topics discussed above: (1) Investing in coastal and marine ecosystem
restoration and protection, (2) Incentivizing sustainable ocean-based
renewable energy, and (3) incentivizing the transition to zero emission
marine transport (Northrup et al. 2020). Two additional opportunities
include (4) Investing in sustainable, community-led non-fed
mariculture, and (5) Investing in sewerage and wastewater
infrastructure for coastal communities. Many of these options provided
economic, social and environmental benefits and should be seriously
considered.
In Summary
Climate change affects all Americans. It affects our health and
safety and our economic opportunities. But it disproportionately
affects the poor, people of color, and the elderly. This is true within
the U.S. and it is true globally. The beauty of the action items
discussed above is that they provide timely opportunities to address
climate change while also boosting the economy, strengthening
communities, benefiting health, and addressing racial inequities.
Many of the solutions provide both mitigation and adaptation
benefit. Across all of these topics, investments in science,
monitoring, assessment and training will pay off handsomely.
It is high time for ocean actions to be appreciated for the
significant power they provide as solutions. The ocean connects and
sustains us. It is our past and our future. When we pay attention to
the ocean, people win, the economy wins, and nature wins.
I am happy to provide additional information on these and related
topics if that would be useful to you.
Thank you.
References
Cabral, R.B., et al. 2020. A global network of marine protected areas
for food. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
117(45):28134-29139.
Gaines, S.D., et al. 2018. Improved fisheries management could offset
many negative effects of climate change. Science Advances 4:eaao1378.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., et al. 2019a. ``The Ocean as a Solution to Climate
Change: Five Opportunities for Action'' (World Resources Institute,
Washington, DC); www.oceanpanel.org/climate.
Hough-Guldberg, O., E. Northrop, and J. Lubchenco. 2019b. The ocean is
key to achieving climate and societal goals. Science 365(6460):1372-4.
https://bit.ly/3eIldK2.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Special Report on the Ocean
and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. 2019. www.ipcc.ch/report/srocc.
IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services). 2019. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services. E.S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Diaz, and H.T. Ngo
(editors). https://ipbes.net/global-assessment.
Li, L. and P. Chakraborty. 2020. Slower decay of landfalling hurricanes
in a warming world. Nature 587:230-234. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-
020-2867-7.
Lubchenco, J. and S.D. Gaines. 2019. A New Narrative for the Ocean.
Invited editorial. Science 364(6444), p. 911, DOI: 10.1126/
science.aay2241, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6444/911.
MPA Atlas 2020. https://mpatlas.org/.
MPA Guide 2019. Oregon State University, IUCN World Commission on
Protected Areas, Marine Conservation Institute, National Geographic
Society, and UN Environment Program World Conservation Monitoring
Center. Introduction to The MPA Guide. https://www.protectedplanet.net/
c/mpa-guide.
Northrop, E., M. Konar, N. Frost, and E. Hollaway. 2020. A Sustainable
and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis. Report. Washington,
DC: World Resources Institute. https://oceanpanel.org/bluerecovery.
Orth, R.J., et al. 2020. Restoration of seagrass habitat leads to rapid
recovery of coastal ecosystem services. Science Advances 6:eabc6434.
Roberts, C.M., et al. 2017. Marine reserves can mitigate and promote
adaptation to climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 114(24):6167-6175.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., University
Distinguished Professor, Oregon State University
Questions Submitted by Representative Cox
Question 1. Like many of my colleagues, I come from a landlocked
district--but that doesn't mean that we don't all benefit from ocean-
based climate solutions. The High Level Panel for the Sustainable
Economy's report on the Ocean as a Solution for Climate Change finds
full implementation of ocean-based climate solutions could deliver one-
fifth (up to 21 percent) of the annual greenhouse gas emissions cuts
the world needs by 2050 to keep global temperature rise below 1.5
degrees Celsius, which the IPCC says we must strive to do. How does the
Chairman's bill address their findings? Are there any areas we need to
improve or expand upon?
Answer. Thank you, Rep. Cox, for drawing attention to the
overarching importance to all Americans of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions as rapidly as possible. The Chairman's bill notes a number of
ways in which ocean-based activities can help achieve that goal. I
would underscore the importance of using all of the tools in our ocean
toolbox: already highlighted in the bill are protecting and restoring
blue carbon ecosystems, Marine Protected Areas that are fully to highly
protected, ocean renewable energy, and making fisheries more energy
efficient. I would add making ports more energy efficient and
decarbonizing shipping to that list--at the national as well as
international scale. Working in close collaboration with other
countries on all of these issues will leverage more, more efficient,
and smarter actions. In addition to more aggressive actions to reduce
emissions and thus slow down the rate of climate change, parallel
efforts are needed to adapt to changes already underway. A robust
National Ocean Policy would be a nice complement to help integrate
actions across sectors and issues, and to enable smart planning at the
regional scale, for both mitigation and adaptation.
Questions Submitted by Representative Velazquez
Question 1. Dr. Lubchenco, in 2012 Superstorm Sandy tore through
New York City and research shows that sea level rise played a major
role in driving Sandy's surge, resulting in severe flooding in the
region. Consequentially, New York City experienced an estimated $19
billion in damages and lost economic activity. To better prepare
coastal communities from future catastrophes, I've introduced the
National Sea Level Risk Analysis Act, which is included in H.R. 8632.
Can you explain how a National Coastal Data Information System will
better protect and prepare businesses, governments, and citizens from
current and future flooding risks?
Answer. Thank you, Rep. Velazquez, for your leadership to prepare
and enhance the resilience of coastal communities to climate and other
changes. I agree with you that integrated, user-friendly information is
absolutely needed for smart planning and action. When I was the NOAA
Administrator, and understanding the grave threats posed by coastal
inundation and inland flooding, NOAA formed a new partnership with USGS
and the Army Corps of Engineers, each of whom had one piece of the
larger puzzle needed for accurate, more unified and comprehensive
understanding of flood risks. That program was called Integrated Water
Resources Science and Services (IWRSS (pronounced iris). The goal was
to integrate and harmonize information across these agencies and
provide one-stop shopping to communities, businesses and states. Since
I am no longer at NOAA, I can't provide an update on the state of
IWRSS, but I suspect you've already investigated that. It strikes me as
one element needed to provide your and other vulnerable communities
with better information to plan and to act. I also draw your attention
to the work done by Climate Central to create user-friendly risk zone
maps, GIS layers and more https: / / ss2.climatecentral.org / #12 /
40.7298 / -74.0070?show= satellite&projections=0-K14_RCP85-
SLR&level=5&unit=feet&pois=hide. In short, although there are good
elements in place for a robust and useful coastal data information
system, a truly functional, comprehensive system does not exist and is
urgently needed. Businesses, communities, citizens and governments need
to plan and for that, they need accurate information, a better
understanding of risk and trade-offs to evaluate options and make smart
decisions. I applaud your focus on this topic.
Questions Submitted by Representative Bishop
Question 1. During the hearing you seemed to agree that state
management of fisheries in state waters should not be pre-empted by a
federal regime. Could you please confirm that position in writing?
Answer. Thank you, Rep. Bishop, for the chance to clarify my
position on this issue. Both states and the Federal Government should
play key roles in managing fisheries. As you are aware, there are
various agreements between different states and the Federal Government
to allocate responsibility for specific fisheries, in particular those
where the fish move back and forth from state waters to federal waters.
I noted in the hearing that in my experience, although federally
managed fisheries have improved significantly through time and are
generally well managed, many state-managed fisheries are not well
resourced and do not have a good handle on the status of their stocks.
I was not commenting on who should manage different stocks, but only
noting that without adequate resources, it is difficult for many states
to manage their fisheries well.
______
The Chairman. Next I recognize Dr. Leonard. The floor is
yours.
STATEMENT OF KELSEY LEONARD, STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBER, MID-
ATLANTIC COMMITTEE ON THE OCEAN, ENROLLED CITIZEN SHINNECOCK
INDIAN NATION, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK
Dr. Leonard. Thank you. Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member
Bishop, and members of the House Committee on Natural
Resources.
Tabutne. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on ocean
policy solutions for coastal resiliency, and for your dedicated
work and the work of your staff in bringing this bill together.
I am an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Environment
at the University of Waterloo, and have served since 2013 in a
regional ocean planning capacity, as a former Tribal Co-Lead
for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body, and now as a
member of the Steering Committee for the Mid-Atlantic Committee
on the Ocean.
I speak before you today not only as a water scientist and
legal scholar, but as a Shinnecock woman. Although I should
note that I am not here in an official capacity as a Tribal
governmental representative. However, I am an enrolled citizen
of the Shinnecock Indian Nation. Our territory is located on
the eastern end of Long Island, New York, and we are a coastal
Tribal Nation that has existed on our aboriginal lands and
waters for more than 10,000 years.
Shinnecock, in our language, means ``People of the Shore.''
We are water people. We are fishermen and baymen, and have
harvested the bounty of the sea since time immemorial. But
above all, we are ocean protectors.
In 2012, when Superstorm Sandy hit our community and
countless other communities along the Atlantic coast, we knew
climate change would have irreparable consequences for our
territory if we did not take swift action to address the
climate crisis. Increasing extreme storm events mean more
flooding, saltwater intrusion, infrastructure vulnerabilities,
power outages, and the potential for loss of life.
Eastern Tribal Nations were severely impacted by Hurricane
Sandy, and some reservations, like my own, went weeks without
power. With rising sea levels, Tribal Nations are on the front
lines of coastal communities with little protection within
existing legislation for adaptation and capacity building. This
is why we need the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act.
I go into more detail in my written testimony, but I would
like to highlight a few high-level points with you today.
Global studies have found that nearly 80 percent of the
world's land-based biodiversity is located on Indigenous
peoples' territories. And if the United States is to set a
national goal of conserving at least 30 percent of the land and
30 percent of the ocean by 2030, that goal should also support
Tribal sovereignty and Indigenous-led conservation.
Protection of land and ocean areas should not limit Tribal
access to food sovereignty, stewardship practices, or
maintenance of heritage sites and cultural resources. As
Indigenous peoples, our communities cannot benefit from the
ocean-based solutions presented in the bill if we are not
counted.
Data collection and monitoring of the Great Lakes, oceans,
bays, estuaries, and coasts must be done in consultation with
Tribal Nations and align with Indigenous data sovereignty
principles of free, prior, and informed consent.
Our role as Tribal Nations is not that of stakeholder, but
of sovereigns and rights holders in a government-to-government
relationship with the United States. As former Tribal Co-Lead
for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body, I saw firsthand
the shift in ocean governance when intergovernmental
coordination is mandated, and Tribal Nations are included in
equal parity to state and Federal representatives.
Tribes should not be made to compete with state governments
for funds to conserve ocean ecosystems. The Ocean-Based Climate
Solutions Act fills a gap in the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) where, previously, Tribal Nations were ineligible to
access CZMA funds. This type of funding would allow Tribal
Nations, such as Shinnecock, to continue our coastal habitat
restoration work, and build shoreline resiliency through
nature-based solutions that are grounded in our Indigenous
knowledge systems.
As Shinnecock people, we have a deep cultural connection to
whales, and the recent unusual mortality events in the Mid/
North Atlantic waters have terrified our community and other
Indigenous communities in the region. I believe the whale is
like a miner's canary, a foreboding and sacrificing alarm of
our current climate crisis, and the need to take immediate
action not only to protect our whale relatives, but the planet.
I want to conclude today by sharing one remaining story
from my community, the Shinnecock Nation. Like many coastal
communities, if sea levels continue to rise, half our
reservation could be inundated by water by 2050. With a growing
population and a depleting land base and no existing
legislative process for relocation of Tribal Nations to lands
of cultural patrimony, where we would retain our land status,
what will become of us?
We echo the calls of our Pacific Island brothers and
sisters--``We are not drowning, we are fighting.'' And we need
the Federal Government to fight for us.
Tabutne. And thank you for your time today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Leonard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Kelsey Leonard
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and members of the House
Committee on Natural Resources--Tabutne/ thank you for this opportunity
to testify on ocean policy solutions for coastal community resiliency
and to ensure the conservation and restoration of ocean and coastal
habitats.
I am an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Environment at the
University of Waterloo and have served since 2013 in a regional ocean
planning capacity as a former Tribal Co-Lead for the Mid-Atlantic
Regional Planning Body and now as a member of the steering committee
for the Mid-Atlantic Committee on the Ocean.\1\ Our regional ocean
planning work has received international recognition and was awarded
the Peter Benchley Ocean Award for Excellence in Solutions in 2017. I
speak before you today not only as a water scientist and legal scholar,
but as a Shinnecock woman. Although, I should note that I am not here
in an official capacity as a Tribal governmental representative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mid-Atlantic Committee on the Ocean, ``Ocean Planning'' (2020)
(https://www.midatlanticocean.org/ocean-planning/mid-atlantic-
committee-on-the-ocean/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, I am an enrolled citizen of the Shinnecock Indian Nation,
our territory is located on the eastern end of Long Island, New York
and we are a coastal Algonquian Tribal Nation that has existed on our
aboriginal lands and waters for more than 10,000 years. Shinnecock in
our language means ``People of the Shore.'' We are water people. We are
fishermen and baymen and harvested the bounty of the sea since time
immemorial. But above all we are Ocean protectors.
In 2012 when Superstorm Sandy hit our community and countless other
communities along the Atlantic coast, we knew climate change would have
irreparable consequences for our territory if we did not take swift
action to address the climate crisis. Increasing extreme storm events
mean more flooding, saltwater intrusion, infrastructure
vulnerabilities, power outages, and potential for loss of life.\2\
Eastern Tribal Nations in New Jersey, Delaware, New York, and
Connecticut were severely impacted by Hurricane Sandy. Some
reservations went weeks without power after the storm hit.\3\ With
rising sea levels Tribal Nations are frontline coastal communities with
little protection within existing legislation for adaptation and
capacity building. This is why we need the Ocean-Based Climate
Solutions Act. However, full engagement by Indigenous Peoples is
critical to fulfilling the policies described in the Ocean-Based
Climate Solutions Act and the operationalization of the bill must honor
treaties and support Tribal Sovereignty, the Federal Trust
Responsibility, Tribal Self Determination, and the Government-to
Government relationship between Tribal Nations and the Federal
Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Jantarasami, L.C., et al. 2018: Tribes and Indigenous Peoples.
In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National
Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., et al. (eds.)]. U.S.
Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 572-603. doi:
10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH15.
\3\ ICTMN. (2012). ``Hurricane Sandy Passes, Tribes Begin Assessing
Damage.'' Indian Country Today Media Network, Verona, NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. establish a national goal of conserving at least 30 percent of the
land and ocean of the united states by 2030
Global studies have found that nearly 80% of the world's land-based
biodiversity is located on Indigenous Peoples' territories \4\ and if
the United States is to set a national goal of conserving at least 30
percent of the land and 30 percent of the ocean within the United
States by 2030 that goal should also support Tribal Sovereignty and
Indigenous-led conservation. Protection of land and ocean areas should
not limit Tribal access to food sovereignty, stewardship practices or
maintenance of heritage sites and cultural resources. As Indigenous
Peoples and Tribal Nations we have been stewards of these lands and
waters for thousands of years and our conservation practices represent
an applied science based on dynamic and cumulative observational data.
In the establishment of new protected areas there should be established
co-governance arrangements with Tribal Nations. There are examples of
Indigenous-led protected areas around the world \5\ and the Ocean-Based
Climate Solutions Act could shape the United States as a world leader
not only in conservation but Indigenous rights restoration. It is past
time the Federal Government begins to fulfill its 2010 endorsement of
the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Schuster, Richard, et al. ``Vertebrate biodiversity on
indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada equals that
in protected areas.'' Environmental Science & Policy 101 (2019): 1-6.
\5\ Ban, Natalie C., and Alejandro Frid. ``Indigenous peoples'
rights and marine protected areas.'' Marine Policy 87 (2018): 180-185.
ii. improve data collection and monitoring of the great lakes, oceans,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
bays, estuaries, and coasts, and for other purposes
As Indigenous Peoples our communities cannot benefit from the
ocean-based solutions presented in the bill if we are not counted. Data
collection and monitoring of the Great Lakes, oceans, bays, estuaries,
and coasts must be done in consultation with Tribal Nations and align
with Indigenous data sovereignty principles including free, prior, and
informed consent. Within the BLUE GLOBE Act there are areas for
enhanced coordination with Tribal Nations and Indigenous Peoples.
Through my work with the Mid-Atlantic Regional Ocean Data Portal I have
seen the immense benefit ocean data can have when made accessible to
Tribal Nations for planning and policymaking. However, our ocean data
infrastructure, especially funding streams available for Tribal
Nations' data collection and monitoring, is severely underfunded. You
have the opportunity with these bills to remedy that and to create
tools that will allow for best-available science to include Indigenous
science and traditional ecological knowledges to inform sound decision-
making for ocean governance.
However, in building these data sources with Indigenous partners
additional care is needed. I support portions of the bill that call for
Indigenous communities to retain rights of ownership over data provided
to Federal agencies and would encourage the adoption of the Global
Indigenous Data Alliance C.A.R.E. principles for Indigenous data
governance \6\,\7\ which include: Collective benefit;
Authority to Control; Responsibility; and Ethics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Global Indigenous Data Alliance. ``CARE principles for
Indigenous data governance.'' GIDA https://www.gida-global.org/care
(2019).
\7\ Carroll, Stephanie Russo, et al. ``The CARE Principles for
Indigenous Data Governance.'' Data Science Journal 19, no. 1 (2020).
Collective benefit: Data ecosystems shall be designed and
function in ways that enable Indigenous Peoples to derive
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
benefit from the data.
-- C1. For inclusive development and innovation
-- C2. For improved governance and citizen engagement
-- C3. For equitable outcomes
Authority to Control: Indigenous Peoples rights and
interests in Indigenous data must be recognized and their
authority to control such data respected. Indigenous data
governance enables Indigenous Peoples and governing bodies
to determine how Indigenous Peoples, as well as Indigenous
lands, territories, resources, knowledges, and geographical
indicators are represented by and identified within data.
-- A1. Recognizing rights and interests
-- A2. Data for governance
-- A3. Governance of data
Responsibility: Those working with Indigenous data have a
responsibility to share how that data are used to support
Indigenous Peoples' self-determination and collective
benefit. Accountability requires meaningful and openly
available evidence of these efforts and the benefits
accruing to Indigenous Peoples.
-- R1. For positive relationships
-- R2. For expanding capability and capacity
-- R3. For Indigenous languages and worldviews
Ethics: Indigenous Peoples' rights and well-being should
be the primary concern at all stages of the data life cycle
and data ecosystem.
-- E1. For minimizing harm and maximizing benefit
-- E2. For justice
-- E3. For future use
Moreover, data collection on the Blue Economy must include Tribal
industries. In this way Tribal-level statistics should be included to
measure the contribution of the Great Lakes, oceans, bays, estuaries,
and coasts to the overall economy of the United States.
iii. require research in coastal sustainability and resilience, to
ensure that the federal government continues to implement and advance
coastal resiliency efforts, and for other purposes
Indigenous Peoples are on the frontlines of climate change.
Indigenous communities, like my own, face severe livelihood risks due
to increasingly extreme climate events and as such must be equal
partners in the development of scalable best practices and solutions to
ensure more resilient and sustainable communities. Our role as Tribal
Nations is not that of stakeholder but of sovereigns and rights holders
in a government to government relationship with the United States. Our
research practices must therefore reflect that distinct relationship
and the United States must honor the federal fiduciary responsibility
to Tribes.
iv. designate regional ocean partnerships of the national oceanic and
atmospheric administration, and for other purposes
As former Tribal Co-Lead for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning
Body I saw firsthand the shift in ocean governance when
intergovernmental coordination is mandated, and Tribal Nations are
included in governance with equal parity to state and federal
representatives. This form of ocean justice in intergovernmental
coordination led to the first U.S. National Ocean Policy and regional
ocean action plans \8\ that were unprecedented in American history. I
also saw the development of a regional ocean assessment \9\ process
that valued Indigenous science and can now serve as a model for
integration of Indigenous data and science into the ocean planning
process through regional ocean data portals. We need more of that level
of coordinated action. The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act positions
the United States once more to be a leader in ocean governance that
prides itself on fairness, equity, and participation of all peoples in
ocean decision-making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body. ``Mid-Atlantic regional
ocean action plan.'' (2016). https://www.boem.gov/environment/mid-
atlantic-regional-ocean-action-plan.
\9\ Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body. ``Mid-Atlantic Regional
Ocean Assessment.'' (2015). https://roa.midatlanticocean.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, within the Regional Ocean Partnership Act there is not a
pathway for intergovernmental coordination among Tribes. It would be my
recommendation that the path set forward to promote intergovernmental
coordination among states is provided equally to Tribal Nations and the
funding streams would be equally accessible and operationalized.
Unfortunately, coastal Indian Tribes in regions outside of the West
Coast are absent from the bill and the replacement of Regional Planning
Bodies by Regional Ocean Partnerships for intergovernmental
coordination has hindered progress for ocean planning and conservation.
Tribes should not be made to compete with State governments for funds
to conserve ocean ecosystems and maintain habitats of cultural
patrimony.
v. offshore energy
I support Title III of the bill limiting oil and gas leasing in the
outer continental shelf and would echo the concerns of Tribal leaders
across the country who through the National Congress of American
Indians in 2009 issued a resolution calling for greater coordination on
the impacts of outer continental shelf developments on Tribal rights
and sovereignty.\10\ Moreover, other offshore energy developments
should occur in consultation with Tribal Nations in a government-to-
government relationship. Tribal rights extend to ocean related
activities and Tribes have reserved rights and inherent sovereignty for
purposes of ocean and marine development. Moreover, wealth gained from
offshore energy leasing should be shared with Tribal Nations and
Indigenous communities who are ocean rights holders that predate the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The National Congress of American Indians, Resolution #PSP-09-
024, ``Outer-Continental Shelf Protection and Coordination'' (2009)
(https://www.ncai.org/attachments/Resolution_
TOwvMXRiPywSFtMIWInuAkzlOotkWKpxzfTXPvSHIUZCwSTGKZt_PSP-09-
024_final.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vi. establish an interagency working group on coastal blue carbon, and
for other purposes
With regards to the Blue Carbon for Our Planet Act I support the
development of Integrated Pilot Programs To Restore Degraded Coastal
Blue Carbon Ecosystems among Tribes, ensuring that Indigenous
communities are not only included in the program but equitably
represented based on disproportional impacts of climate change on our
communities.\11\ Moreover, the Federal Government must ensure that data
included in the Coastal Carbon Data Clearinghouse includes
disaggregated data accessible for Tribal Nations and Indigenous
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Norton-Smith, Kathryn, et al. ``Climate change and indigenous
peoples: a synthesis of current impacts and experiences.'' Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-GTR-944. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 136 p. 944 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vii. provide grants supporting research on the conservation,
restoration, or management of oysters in estuarine ecosystems, and for
other purposes
Indigenous Peoples throughout the Mid-Atlantic have harvested
oysters sustainably for thousands of years. Our own Shinnecock oysters
are prized among some of New York City's top restaurants. Historically,
we harvested the meat and with the shells we created vast mounds--known
as shell middens--that show an archaeological record of oyster
stewardship that can and should inform sustainable practices for oyster
habitat restoration today.\12\ The portions of the bill that call for
increased research on the conservation, restoration, or management of
oysters in estuarine ecosystems are needed and we hope that Tribal
Nations and Indigenous communities can be listed as eligible entities
for receipt of those research grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Jansen, Alex. ``Shell middens and human technologies as a
historical baseline for the Chesapeake Bay, USA.'' North American
Archaeologist 39, no. 1 (2018): 25-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
viii. grants to further achievement of tribal coastal zone objectives
The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act fills a needed gap in the
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) where previously Tribal Nations were
ineligible to access CZMA funding. This type of funding would allow
Tribal Nations, such as Shinnecock, to continue our coastal habitat
restoration work and build shoreline resiliency through nature-based
solutions grounded in our Indigenous knowledge systems.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Sengupta, Somini and Shola Lawal. (2020, March 5). The
Original Long Islanders Fight to Save Their Land From a Rising Sea.
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/climate/shinnecock-
long-island-climate.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ix. strengthening marine mammal conservation
As Shinnecock People we have a deep cultural connection to whales
and the recent Unusual Mortality Events in Mid/North Atlantic have
caused grave alarm within our community and other Indigenous
communities in the region. I believe the whale is like a miner's canary
a foreboding and sacrificing alarm of our current climate crisis and
the need to take immediate action not only for their protection but for
the planet. Therefore, Title VIII of the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions
Act is needed to protect these relations and that the conservation
practices implemented would be informed by Indigenous and western
science and support Tribal Sovereignty.
x. bureau of indian affairs tribal resilience program
Title IX of the Act is important to ensure the Federal Government
can meet its fiduciary obligations to Tribes. Tribal Nations are
frontline communities and require these grants to be able to build
resiliency in our nations and ensure our deteriorating infrastructure
can be rebuilt to withstand climatic changes.
xi. coastal resiliency and adaptation
I want to conclude today by sharing one remaining story from my
community, the Shinnecock Nation. Like many coastal communities if sea
levels continue to rise half our reservation could be inundated by
water by 2050.\14\,\15\ With a growing population and a
depleting land base and no existing legislative process for relocation
of Tribal Nations to lands of cultural patrimony where we would retain
our land status what will become of us? We echo the calls of our
Pacific Island brother and sisters ``We are not drowning. We are
fighting.'' And we need the Federal Government to fight with and for
us. The Federal Trust Responsibility is ``a legally enforceable
fiduciary obligation on the part of the U.S. to protect Tribal treaty
rights, lands, assets, and resources, as well as a duty to carry out
the mandates of Federal law with respect to American Indian and Alaska
Native Tribal Nations and Villages'' as well as to non-federally
recognized Indigenous Peoples. Sea Level Rise poses a direct threat to
the lands, waters, assets, resources, and ecosystems that are protected
by the Federal Trust Responsibility. I support portions of the bill
that establish processes for relocation of communities and humbly call
for the Federal Government to do more. Tribal Nations currently
confront a significant unmet funding need for relocating or protecting
infrastructure threatened by climate impacts. There is not only a need
for funding but for legislative guarantees that our land status will
transfer with our people as we are forced to relocate due to the
climate crisis. The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act is the
opportunity to create a world where the United States is a leader in
ocean justice for the benefit of all peoples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Shepard, Christine C., et al. ``Assessing future risk:
quantifying the effects of sea level rise on storm surge risk for the
southern shores of Long Island, New York.'' Natural hazards 60, no. 2
(2012): 727-745.
\15\ NOAA Coastal Services Center. (2012). ``Sea Level Rise and
Coastal Flooding Impacts Viewer.'' http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/
tools/slr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tabutne. Thank you for your time today.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Kelsey Leonard, Shinnecock
Indian Nation
Questions Submitted by Representative Cox
Question 1. The Chairman's bill would also establish a Blue Carbon
Program at NOAA to improve the management of coastal carbon sinks. What
benefits would this new program bring to the management of coastal
carbon sinks? What existing management practices need to be improved?
Answer. Existing management practices can be improved through
greater consultation of Tribal governments and inclusion of Indigenous
Knowledge ensuring the best available science for decision-making in
the management of coastal carbon sinks. Coastal ecosystems such as
mangroves, sea grass, and tidal marshes, are essential to climate
change resilience due to their roles in storm surge buffering and food
security and their unique capacity for carbon storage. Coastal carbon
sinks, referred to as blue carbon ecosystems, sequester more carbon per
area unit than do terrestrial forests. They are also extremely
threatened due to both climate change and anthropogenic forces. For
example, the IUCN predicts that all mangrove ecosystems could disappear
in the next century under a business-as-usual scenario. Destruction of
coastal carbon sinks not only releases the carbon stored therein, but
also reduces overall capacity to uptake carbon from the atmosphere.
The program established under Title I of this bill would ensure
that the most valuable blue carbon ecosystems are identified,
protected, and continuously studied and monitored to better understand
their role in mitigating and adapting to climate change. The
comprehensive blue carbon program would facilitate interagency
cooperation and management of coastal carbon sinks, promote public
understanding of these valuable resources, support partnerships between
federal agencies, Tribes, state and local governments or NGOs, and
increase protection from agency actions for areas designated under the
program.
Importantly, the program would also assess the economic, social,
and environmental impacts and co-benefits of carbon storage, such as
reduced flood risk, maintenance of biodiversity, and healthy fisheries,
as well as the makeup of communities served by these ecosystems. The
program prioritizes funding for blue carbon restoration projects that
would benefit communities of color, low-income, and Tribal Nation or
Indigenous communities.
Questions Submitted by Representative Velazquez
Question 1. Dr. Leonard, H.R. 8632 includes important provisions
for the U.S territories, which have been heavily impacted by natural
disasters during the last 4 years. Specifically, Section 704, requires
the NOAA Administrator to provide technical assistance to improve data
collection and forecasting for extreme weather. How will technical
assistance like this benefit territories like Puerto Rico, which has
limited resources and is still recovering from Hurricane Maria?
Answer. This year has already seen the greatest number of
hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean since NOAA began recording hurricanes
in the 1850s.\1\ Studies show that climate change is increasing the
risk of severe weather events, and the brunt of that risk will be borne
by areas already impacted by major tropical storms, typhoons, and
hurricanes. Additionally, higher sea levels and atmospheric moisture
increase levels of flooding associated with major oceanic weather
events. Shifts in the range and severity of storm events weaken the
reliability of existing predictive data, which has already proven
insufficient to prevent tragic losses of life and billions of dollars
in damage. Hurricane Maria was the wettest hurricane on record to hit
Puerto Rico, and severe rainfall of that degree is now five times more
likely to hit the island than it was 50 years ago.\2\ In addition to
causing at least 3,000 deaths, Hurricane Maria destroyed Puerto Rico's
main weather radar used for hurricane forecasting, and significant
investment is needed to both rebuild and improve the island's
forecasting capabilities. For all U.S. territories facing the risk of
natural disasters, more comprehensive data collection and weather
forecasting is essential to supporting impacted-based decision services
in and facilitating pre-disaster preparations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.noaa.gov/news/2020-atlantic-hurricane-season-takes-
infamous-top-spot-for-busiest-on-record.
\2\ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01280-w.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technological advances over the past decade have increased
forecasting abilities, and additional funding is needed to both
implement existing technology and continuing to develop new forecasting
methods. NOAA's recent deployment of hurricane gliders to increase data
availability on ocean conditions and improve the accuracy of hurricane
forecasting is an example of the highly beneficial technology that can
be implemented when sufficient funding is available. Minimizing
uncertainty in forecasting means increasing the time that potentially
impacted territories have to prepare for threats facing them. Section
704's grant program would ensure that territories can engage with and
benefit from such technology to live-saving ends. Additionally, Section
704 would also provide needed resources to ensure technological
advances are inclusive of Indigenous Knowledge from U.S.
Territories.\3\ A recent study by David-Chavez et al. (2020) found that
resource limitations were a significant obstacle to Indigenous
Knowledge mobilization in the Caribbean including Boriken (Puerto
Rico).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ David-Chavez, D.M. & Gavin, M.C. (2018). A global assessment of
Indigenous community engagement in climate research. Environmental
Research Letters, 13(12), 123005.
\4\ David-Chavez, D.M., et al. (2020). Community-based (rooted)
research for regeneration: understanding benefits, barriers, and
resources for Indigenous education and research. AlterNative: An
International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 16(3), 220-232.
Question 2. Dr. Leonard, climate change issues are deeply
intertwined with injustice and human rights disputes. As you know, LMI
and communities of color are unfairly exposed to, and impacted by,
hazardous pollution and industrial practices. Can you explain how H.R.
8632 guards our Nation's waters and redistributes resources,
protection, and power to LMI and minority frontline communities where
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
environmental injustices are most pervasive?
Answer. Multiple sections of the Ocean-based Climate Solutions Act
prioritize the needs and interests of LMI and minority frontline
communities in light of the disproportionate risk of harm from climate
change that these communities face and the disproportionate burden of
environmental and resource degradation placed on these communities by
present and historic government practices.
Sec. 107 secures protections for coastal areas that buffer
frontline communities from storm surges and requires increased agency
consultation regarding actions that would impact areas designated under
the section. Sec. 201 calls for the protection of marine habitats that
mitigate threats to vulnerable coastal communities by protecting
natural resources vital to health and economies of those communities.
It also requires the section to be implemented in such a way as to
increase access to nature for low-income and communities of color. Sec.
1005 creates a grant program for shovel-ready restoration of coasts and
fisheries and prioritizes projects that would benefit communities
without adequate resources. Sec. 1302 likewise creates a grant program
for coastal and estuary resilience projects that advance environmental
justice by reducing the disproportionate impact of climate change on
frontline communities.
These sections, among others, both dedicate resources to increasing
the resilience of vulnerable communities in the face of climate change
and ensure the consideration of these communities in the development
and implementation of federal policy.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Leonard.
Let me now turn to and recognize Dr. Hilborn for his
testimony.
Thank you, Doctor.
STATEMENT OF RAY HILBORN, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF AQUATIC AND
FISHERY SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Dr. Hilborn. Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you for this
opportunity to address the Committee on this important issue.
As someone who has worked in fisheries for over 50 years,
and done field work in Alaska for almost 40 years, I know that
global warming is real, and climate change is the major
challenge to American fisheries. The question is, what are the
most appropriate tools to respond?
Before we discuss how to respond to climate change, we
first need to set the stage. What is the state of U.S.
fisheries and oceans?
U.S. fish stocks are healthy and increasing in abundance,
and U.S. fisheries management is highly precautionary. A recent
paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed
that overfishing is causing only a 3-5 percent loss in
potential yield from U.S. fisheries, whereas precautionary
underfishing is causing far more loss of yield. Overfishing is
simply not a concern for U.S. fisheries production. Science-
based management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act is working.
So, how should we respond to the challenges of climate
change?
The United States has an admirable set of laws and
institutions that can do this. The Regional Fisheries
Management Councils have the authority, and the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, and other legislation give councils the tools
to respond to climate change. We don't need a fixed set of
closed areas; we need adaptive response to climate.
In the years ahead, it will be important for fisheries
management to be more flexible, allowing for changes in the
distribution and productivity of marine species. Areas and
stocks that are high priority for protection now may not be the
same in 20 years.
This brings me to Title II of the Ocean-Based Climate
Solutions Act, which would require establishment of marine
protected areas that ban all commercial fishing activity in 30
percent of U.S. ocean waters by 2030. Such fixed marine
protected areas are simply the wrong tool to adapt to climate
change.
There are three primary objectives in the 30x30 proposal:
(1) to increase target species production; (2) to better
protect non-target species; and (3) to protect sensitive
habitats. MPAs will either not help achieve these objectives,
or there are far better tools.
Both theory and empirical evidence shows you cannot
increase target species yield with MPAs unless overfishing is
widespread. This is not the case in the United States. We would
not expect MPAs to increase the yield from our fish stocks.
Certainly, there are typically more fish in closed areas than
outside, but remember that the fishing effort that was
previously inside the MPA has been moved outside. The evidence
shows that when MPAs are put in place and stocks are well
managed, abundance goes up in the closed area, but goes down
outside with no net gain. MPAs would help to increase yield in
places where overfishing is common, such as South and Southeast
Asia, but not the United States.
It has been clearly demonstrated that bycatch can be best
reduced by changes in fishing technology, fishing gear, or
changes in incentives to alter fleet behavior. Bycatch
reduction of 90 percent has been achieved by turtle excluder
devices for trawls, acoustic pingers for gill nets, and a
combination of tori lines, change in bait, circle hooks, and
night setting for longlines. The spatial location of bycatch
problems will change as species distribution changes. Closing
fixed areas of the oceans based on current distributions will
not be effective.
Certainly, vulnerable marine ecosystems need protection,
but Fishery Management Councils are doing that in a way that is
science-based, and has credibility with industry and other
stakeholders. These areas should be mapped and protected from
fishing gear that impacts certain species, but the distribution
of these species may well shift with climate change, and fixed
closed areas are not the right tool.
MPA advocates argue that areas with no fishing are more
resilient to climate change than fished areas, but they ignore
the fact that a 30x30 would cause 70 percent of U.S. oceans to
see increased fishing pressure from vessels that move out of
the 30 percent closed. Thus, if the areas inside the reserve
are more resilient, the areas outside would be less resilient.
Do we really want to make 70 percent of our oceans less
resilient to climate change?
For none of these issues are no-take areas the most
appropriate tool, but the proposed legislation would draw staff
time, resources, and industry engagement away from the really
effective tools. MPAs will also not help other threats to the
ocean, such as ocean acidification, exotic species, land-based
runoff, plastics, or illegal fishing.
I certainly agree with my colleagues in the environmental
movement that we need protection of our oceans. But Title II
takes the wrong approach, and we can do better if we apply the
same resources that will work. Let councils use the effective
tools to protect 100 percent of the U.S. oceans, not apply an
ineffective tool to 30 percent.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hilborn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ray Hilborn, Professor, School of Aquatic and
Fishery Sciences, University of Washington
Good morning and I want to thank the members and staff for the
opportunity to address this committee. My name is Ray Hilborn, I am a
Professor of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences at the University of
Washington. I have been studying fisheries management for 50 years,
both in the U.S. and in a number of other countries and international
commissions. I currently serve on the SSC of the Western Pacific
Council. My research has resulted in 300 peer reviewed journal
articles, and several books including ``Quantitative fisheries stock
assessment and management'' which is a standard reference work on
fisheries management. My work has been recognized by several awards
including the Volvo Environmental Prize, the International Fisheries
Science Prize, and the Ecological Society of America's Sustainability
Science Prize.
I am not representing any group, although I do receive research
funding from a wide range of sponsors including major U.S. foundations
such as the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the David and Lucielle
Packard Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation; NGOs such as the
Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy and the Natural
Resources Defense Council; agencies including the National Science
Foundation and NOAA; and commercial and recreational interest groups.
As someone who has worked in fisheries for over 50 years, and done
field work in Alaska for almost 40 years, I know that global warming is
real, and climate change is the major challenge to American fisheries.
The key question is what are the most appropriate tools to respond?
Before we discuss how to respond to climate change we first need to
set the stage. What is the state of U.S. fisheries and Oceans? U.S.
fish stocks are healthy and increasing in abundance, and U.S. fisheries
management is highly precautionary. Figure 1 shows the median abundance
of scientifically assessed stocks in the U.S. relative to the reference
point of the abundance that would produce maximum sustainable yield.\1\
As you will see the median abundance has always been above the target
level and has been increasing since 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data from NOAA stock assessments and can be found in
www.ramlegacy.org.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsFigure 1. Median stock abundance of U.S. stocks relative to the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
target biomass that would produce maximum sustainable yield.
In a recent paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (1), we showed that overfishing is causing only a 3-5% loss in
potential yield from U.S. fisheries, whereas precautionary underfishing
is causing far more. Figure 2 shows the loss of U.S. fish production in
millions of tons from overfishing, and from underfishing. Underfishing
is simply harvesting less than would produce maximum sustainable yield.
If we were to fully exploit all of our underfished resources we might
increase yield by 40%. Overfishing is simply not a major concern for
U.S. fisheries production: science-based management under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act is working.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsFigure 2. The amount of yield lost to overfishing and
underfishing from U.S. fish stocks.
Also to set the stage, the Committee should be aware that in
general U.S. fisheries produce food, protein and nutrients at much
lower environmental cost than alternative land-based production methods
(2). Expanding crops production requires destroying native ecosystems,
with most growth in global production coming from conversion of
tropical forests. In contrast the well-managed U.S. fisheries maintain
largely natural ecosystems that are little altered when compared to the
conversion from forest to crops. Anything that reduces U.S. fish
production will either cause us to import more fish from places with
lower environmental standards, or rely on more land based production.
The impact of fishing on non-target species such as birds, and
mammals, and on vulnerable marine ecosystems, is less well known but of
more concern than overfishing target species, and to me the major
challenge to sustaining our oceans and producing food from the ocean.
Climate change has two major dimensions, warming and increased
variability in weather. Warming has been shown to cause species to
shift their ranges (3), generally but not always toward the poles, and
some species will become less productive and others will become more
productive. We may also expect more variation from year to year in the
abundance of fish stocks.
Recent examples of shifting distributions include the movement of
pollock in the Bering Sea northwards, and North Atlantic right whales
moving into areas of intense lobster and crab fishing. Responding to
these changes in distribution requires dynamic real time management.
So how should we respond to the challenges of climate change? The
U.S. has an admirable set of laws and institutions that can do this.
The Regional Fisheries Management Councils have the authority, and the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal
Protection Act and other legislation gives Councils the tools to
respond to climate change. We don't need a massive overhaul of existing
law to tackle the challenge.
In the years ahead it will be important for fisheries management to
be more flexible, allowing for changes in distribution and
productivity. Areas and stocks that are high priority for protection
now may not be the same in 20 years.
That brings me to Title II of the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions
Act, which would require the establishment of marine protected areas
that ban all commercial fishing activity in 30 percent of U.S. ocean
waters by 2030. Such marine protected areas are simply the wrong tool
for adapting to climate change. There are three primary objectives of
the 30x30 proposal; (1) to increase target species production, (2) to
protect non-target species and (3) to protect sensitive habitats. MPAs
will either not help or there are better tools.
Both theory and empirical evidence shows that you cannot increase
target species yield with MPAs unless overfishing is wide spread
(4),(5),(6). Overfishing is rare in the U.S. and we would not expect
MPAs to increase the yield from our fish stocks. Certainly there are
typically more fish in the closed areas than outside, but remember that
the fishing effort that was previously inside the MPA has been moved
outside. The evidence shows that when MPAs are put in place and stocks
are well managed, abundance goes up inside the closed area, and goes
down outside with no-net gain.
In the highly publicized MPA network set up in California it has
been shown that abundance of target species increased inside reserves,
but declined outside (7) and that the result was no measureable
increase in fish abundance (6).
It has been clearly demonstrated that bycatch can be best reduced
by changes in fishing technology, fishing gear, or changes in
incentives to alter fleet behavior. The dramatic reductions in bycatch
from turtle excluder devices for trawls, acoustic pingers for gill
nets, and a combination of tori lines, change in bait, circle hooks and
night setting for longlines has often reduced bycatch by 90%. The
distribution of bycatch problems will change as species distribution
changes. Setting aside fixed areas of the oceans is not going to be
effective.
Certainly, vulnerable marine ecosystems need protection, but many
Fishery Management Councils are doing that--and in a way that is
science-based and has creditability with industry and other
stakeholders. Moreover, these areas only need protection from mobile
bottom contact gear such as trawls and dredges. There is no need to ban
midwater trawling, purse seining, longlining or surface gill nets to
protect corals, sponges or sea grasses. Moreover the distribution of
these species may well change with climate change.
MPA advocates argue that MPAs are more resilient to climate change
than fished areas; however a recent review article (8) entitled
``Climate change, coral loss, and the curious case of the parrotfish
paradigm: Why don't marine protected areas improve reef resilience?''
has shown no evidence for this. Furthermore, the MPA advocates ignore
that fact that 30x30 would cause 70% of U.S. oceans to see increased
fishing pressure from the vessels that moved out of the 30% closed, and
thus potentially be less resilient to climate change. Do we really want
to make 70% of our oceans less resilient to climate change?
For none of these issues are no take MPAs the most appropriate
tool, but the proposed legislation would draw staff time, resources and
industry engagement away from the really effective tools. The oceans in
the U.S. are under many threats beyond climate change, including ocean
acidification, exotic species, land based runoff, plastics and illegal
fishing. There are solutions to each of these problems, but it is not
no-take MPAs--they do nothing to mitigate these problems.
I certainly agree with my colleagues in the environmental movement
that we need to protect our oceans, but Title II takes the wrong
approach and we can do much better if we apply the same resources to
the tools that will work. Let Councils use the effective tools to
protect 100% of U.S. oceans, not apply an ineffective tool to 30%. No
take areas are an inflexible, static tool, whereas agency management we
already have can respond to climate change in real time.
References
1. R. Hilborn, et al. Effective fisheries management instrumental in
improving fish stock status. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 117, 2218-2224 (2020).
2. R. Hilborn, et al. The environmental cost of animal source foods.
Front Ecol 7Environ.
3. M.L. Pinsky, et al. Marine taxa track local climate velocities.
Science 341, 1239-1242 (2013).
4. A. Hastings and L.W. Botsford. Equivalence in yield from marine
reserves and traditional fisheries management. Science 284, 1537-1538
(1999).
5. R. Hilborn, F. Micheli, and G.A. De Leo. Integrating marine
protected areas with catch regulation. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63, 642-649
(2006); published online EpubMar.
6. D. Ovando. (2018). Ph.d. thesis. University of California Santa
Barbara.
7. S.L. Hamilton, et al. Incorporating biogeography into evaluations of
the Channel Islands marine reserve network. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 107, 18272-18277 (2010); published online Epub2010
(10.1073/pnas.0908091107).
8. J.F. Bruno, I.M. Cote, and L.T. Toth. Climate change, coral loss,
and the curious case of the parrotfish paradigm: Why don't marine
protected areas improve reef resilience? Annual review of marine
science 11, 307-334 (2019).
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Ray Hilborn, Professor,
School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington
Questions Submitted by Representative Bishop
Question 1. During the hearing we heard testimony that the
Magnuson-Stevens Act isn't a conservation statute, and that additional
statutory authority is needed. Do you agree with that characterization?
Answer. I strongly disagree with that statement. The implication
was that Regional Fisheries Management Councils are only concerned with
target species management. This is simply not true.
The Act is entitled the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. Conservation is the first reason for its existence.
Public Law 94-265 describes it as an act ``to provide for the
conservation and management of fisheries and other purposes.''
Among the ``other purposes'' are the protection of habitats;
article 104-297 states ''One of the greatest long-term threats to the
viability of commercial and recreational fisheries is the continuing
loss of marine, estuarine, and other aquatic habitats. Habitat
considerations should receive increased attention for the conservation
and management of fishery resources of the United States.'' Further,
article 104-297 charges the Regional Fisheries Management Councils to
``promote the protection of essential fish habitat in the review of
projects conducted, under Federal permits, licenses, or other
authorities that affect or have the potential to affect such habitat.''
In addition to the mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Regional
Fisheries Management Councils and NOAA are regulated by a range of
other federal laws that mandate biodiversity protection. These include
especially the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species
Act, which require the councils and NOAA to devote considerable
attention to a wide range of non-target species and ecosystems.
Let us be clear, Marine Protected Areas in the U.S. and globally,
have been almost exclusively a fisheries management measure; they
simply move fishing effort. MPAs have had little if any impact on any
of the other forces affecting marine ecosystems, and in the U.S. the
Regional Fisheries Management Councils are required by law to consider
fisheries impacts on all species of conservation concern and on marine
habitats.
Further, a very high proportion of the scientific understanding of
trends in marine biota is housed in the NMFS Regional Science Centers.
NOAA's Office of Protected Resources is responsible for the
conservation, protection, and recovery of species under the Endangered
Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The ecosystem
division of the Regional Science Centers are a major hub of knowledge
of the overall changes in the marine ecosystem. So there is an existing
science and management structure well able to protect marine
biodiversity as required by U.S. law. The notion that we should bypass
this existing structure through the creation of new Marine Protected
Areas is deeply misguided and would lead to duplication of effort.
Question 2. During the hearing we heard testimony that target
species managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act only comprise a small
percentage of the biomass in any given ocean area, and that therefore
MPAs are essential to achieve broader marine biodiversity objectives.
Do you agree?
Answer. Regional Fishery Management Councils--drawing on the
expertise of the Regional Science Centers and the Councils' Scientific
and Statistical Committees--are responsible for managing fishing
activity and considering its impacts on marine ecosystems. The idea
that management is only concerned with the health of target species is
simply untrue.
Certainly the target species are only a small portion of the marine
ecosystems, but the fisheries management system is designed, and
required, to consider a broad range of biodiversity. The Regional
Science Centers conduct surveys that track changes in abundance of
hundreds of species that are not target species, and the Regional
Fisheries Management Councils devote much of their time and resources
to minimizing the impact of fishing on non-target species and habitats.
As examples of how the existing legislation has protected
ecosystems, the map below shows areas that are managed in a variety of
ways to protect a wide range of marine biodiversity. Large areas of the
marine ecosystem are closed to fishing to protect sensitive benthic
species such as corals in the Aleutian Islands, and other areas closed
to protect breeding grounds of birds and mammals.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsThis map courtesy of John Olsen, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
It is not widely recognized how much of the US EEZ has been closed
to fishing. At least 67% of the U.S. EEZ is closed to bottom trawling,
and 24% of the area of the continental shelf. Over 3.8 million square
kilometers of the US EEZ is in protected areas such as Marine
Monuments, Wildlife Refuges, and Marine Sanctuaries. That is over 30%
of the U.S. EEZ
Our federal system of fisheries management has evolved over more
than four decades to put science at the center of the decision-making
process. Council deliberations relating to biodiversity objectives are
rigorous, and they are achieving considerable success. Creating a
cabinet-level Task Force that would simply designate permanent Marine
Protected Areas in large tracts of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone
will encroach on the ability of Fishery Management Councils to achieve
their management objectives. Overall biodiversity outcomes would be
weakened, not improved.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Hilborn, for your testimony.
And now let me recognize Dr. Kryc for her testimony.
You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF KELLY KRYC, DIRECTOR OF OCEAN POLICY, NEW ENGLAND
AQUARIUM, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Dr. Kryc. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member
Bishop, and all of the Committee members for inviting me to
testify on the topic of ocean climate action.
As a former resident of Arizona, a non-ocean state, I want
to acknowledge Chairman Grijalva's leadership in introducing
this bill, and recognizing that no matter where we reside, a
healthy and thriving ocean is critical to all of us.
I am Dr. Kelly Kryc, the Director of Ocean Policy at the
New England Aquarium in Boston, Massachusetts. I am also an
oceanographer and a geoscientist. My career has focused on both
the energy and environmental sides of climate. And although I
currently serve in a role advocating for a healthy ocean, I
also have experience working with the energy sector to achieve
a balance between energy extraction and protecting the
environment, conserving natural resources, and promoting
safety. I am testifying today in support of H.R. 8632.
On the whole, the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act
proposes a comprehensive, yet pragmatic framework for taking
immediate action to limit the impacts of the climate crisis by
harnessing the power of the ocean.
Let me be clear: the provisions outlined in the bill are
absolutely necessary if we are to prevent the worst of what has
been predicted under a business-as-usual scenario.
The evidence is overwhelming: we must severely curb
emissions of greenhouse gases, and we need to do it now.
Prohibiting new offshore oil and gas leasing, while
simultaneously enhancing offshore wind energy production will
help the United States meet its energy needs as the country
works to achieve its climate targets.
In 2018, when the Trump administration announced a draft
plan to open nearly the entire U.S. Outer Continental Shelf for
potential oil and gas lease sales, the Aquarium opposed this
course of action because of the risks posed to the ocean and
coastal communities that depend on it for their living. We
still oppose any new oil and gas activities offshore.
Despite our reservations related to offshore oil and gas
development, the Aquarium fully supports the development of
offshore renewable wind energy, with the caveat that the
industry use the best-available science to inform the siting,
construction, and ongoing operation of the platforms. While we
recognize that offshore wind will likely impact the marine
environment, we support this because climate change represents
a much greater threat to the ocean and its wildlife.
Furthermore, by conducting scientific research, exercising
the precautionary principle, and making decisions informed by
the best scientific information available, we believe that the
benefits of offshore wind in mitigating climate change far
outweigh the costs.
One of the potential costs that the Aquarium is deeply
vested in is the fate of the endangered North Atlantic right
whale. Ensuring the ongoing recovery of vulnerable marine
mammal populations is an essential component of any ocean-based
solution to climate change. This bill addresses the important
issue of marine mammal mortality caused by lethal strikes with
vessels transiting the animals' habitats. In 2020 alone, two
young endangered North Atlantic right whales were killed by
vessel strikes. The current estimate of remaining North
Atlantic right whales dropped to just 366 animals in 2020.
The bill's solution to reduce shipping speeds in U.S.
waters addresses three complementary issues: first, slowing
ships down directly reduces carbon emissions; second, slower
vessel speeds are proven to reduce the lethality of strikes
with marine mammals; third, slower vessel speeds reduce
underwater noise through decreased propeller cavitation, which
improves marine mammals' abilities to communicate and navigate.
The Aquarium supports the bill's provision establishing a
nationwide voluntary ship slowdown program, and encourages the
Committee to consider mandatory speed restrictions in areas
where right whales are present.
Taken together, the provisions in this title of the bill
will make a meaningful difference in securing the health of
marine mammals, which will ensure that they continue providing
climate benefits as carbon reservoirs and fertilizers of the
ocean.
In closing, the Aquarium is grateful to the Chairman and
the Committee for their leadership on addressing ocean-based
solutions to climate change. As an ocean scientist and an ocean
advocate, I personally am grateful for the opportunity to shift
the narrative of the ocean as a victim of the climate crisis to
the ocean as the hero in this story. The solutions detailed in
this bill should be implemented sooner, rather than later, to
reduce the intensity of projected climate impacts, and set us
on a sustainable path where humans find balance with the
planet.
Thank you again for inviting me to serve as a witness in
support of this important and groundbreaking legislation, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kryc follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Kelly Kryc, Director of Ocean Policy, New
England Aquarium
Thank you to Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and all the
committee members for inviting me to testify on the topic of ocean
climate action: solutions to the climate crisis. As a former resident
of Arizona--a non-ocean state--I want to acknowledge Chairman
Grijalva's leadership in introducing H.R. 8632: The Ocean-Based Climate
Solutions Act and the recognition that no matter where we as U.S.
citizens reside, a healthy and thriving ocean is critical to all of us.
I also want to thank the lead sponsors of the other bills (H.R. 3548,
H.R. 3919, H.R. 4093, H.R. 5390, H.R. 5589, H.R. 7387, H.R. 8253, and
H.R. 8627) being considered during this hearing for their efforts to
keep the ocean front of mind and sustain the necessary science and
research that informs decision making critical for managing our ocean
ecosystems.
I am the Director of Ocean Policy at the New England Aquarium
(Aquarium) based in Boston, Massachusetts. The New England Aquarium is
a catalyst for global change through public engagement, innovative
scientific research, commitment to marine animal conservation,
leadership in education, and effective advocacy for vital and vibrant
oceans.
For decades, scientists at the Aquarium's Anderson Cabot Center for
Ocean Life have been working to protect marine and freshwater
ecosystems from human impacts and conserve threatened and endangered
animals and habitats. The Aquarium's scientists conduct cutting-edge
research to understand, quantify, and reduce the consequences of human
activities on the health of marine species and ecosystems by developing
science-based solutions and advocating for policies that balance human
use of the ocean with the need for a healthy, thriving ocean now and in
the future.
I am an oceanographer and a geoscientist. While I was an active
scientist, I conducted geochemical research on ocean sediments to
understand Earth's climate history. My focus was on reconstructing the
climate history of Antarctica for the past 10,000 years. The goal of
this research was to understand the causes of past extreme climate
events and to use that information to anticipate what we might expect
in the present or future as Earth's climate changes in response to
excess carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses being emitted into
the atmosphere. My career in policy has focused on both the energy and
environmental sides of climate and, although I currently serve in a
role advocating for a healthy ocean, I also have experience working
with the energy sector to achieve a balance between energy extraction
and protecting the environment, conserving natural resources, and
promoting safety.
While the ocean has a central role in my life, I have to remind
myself that not everyone is as attuned to the role that the ocean plays
in all of our lives whether we live on the coast or not. For those of
us that live on the ocean, it may be easier to see how the ocean is
connected to our health and well-being. It provides food, tourism,
transportation, and increasingly, clean energy from offshore wind
resources. The ocean comprises 71% of the Earth and is responsible for
keeping the planet habitable, whether by providing oxygen, absorbing
excess carbon dioxide and heat from anthropogenic sources, or storing
vast amounts of carbon in deep-sea sediments. The ocean's reach extends
far beyond the coasts. It is responsible for controlling weather
patterns that determine precipitation for farms and ranches in
Oklahoma, prolonged droughts in Colorado, and flooding in Missouri.
Persistent heat waves or the intensifying polar vortex are also
attributed to changes in our ocean.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 held the promise of being the
``Super Year'' for the ocean and climate. The year kicked off with the
United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 25th Conference of
Parties (COP) in December 2019. I was at that meeting and appreciated
that the Chairman and other members of the committee attended as well.
Promoted as the ``Blue COP,'' it was the first time the ocean was
integrated in the international climate negotiations with the result
that an ocean section was agreed to in the COP decision text. The
``Blue COP'' was to be followed by the United Nations Ocean Conference,
the IUCN World Conservation Congress, the Our Ocean Conference, the
15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity, and concluding with the 26th UNFCCC COP. Each of
these international conferences represented an opportunity to continue
reinforcing the need to include the ocean as part of the solution to
the climate crisis.
By introducing H.R. 8632: The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act,
the House of Representatives and the leadership of the House Natural
Resources Committee has ensured that efforts to integrate ocean-based
solutions to climate change remain at the forefront of decision making
and policies that recognize the role of the ocean in keeping the planet
healthy and habitable for all life on Earth.
The 15 titles that comprise H.R. 8632 leverage the ocean's capacity
to serve as a solution to climate change by advancing offshore
renewable energy and limiting offshore conventional energy from fossil
fuels, protecting the vast carbon reservoirs stored in the ocean (i.e.
``blue carbon''), supporting climate-ready fisheries, expanding marine
protected areas, and welcoming all stakeholders to the dialogue.
I am testifying today in support of H.R. 8632 in my capacity as
both the Director of Ocean Policy at the New England Aquarium and as a
geoscientist with professional experience working directly on many of
the solutions proposed in the bill. On the whole, the Ocean-Based
Climate Solutions Act proposes a comprehensive yet pragmatic framework
for taking immediate action to limit the impacts of the climate crisis
by harnessing the power of the ocean.
While the Aquarium supports the goals outlined in all 15 titles of
the bill, my written testimony addresses those that Aquarium works on
directly or has taken a position on in the past.
Blue Carbon and Coastal Resilience
Blue carbon is defined as the carbon captured by the planet's ocean
and coastal ecosystems.\1\ In particular, coastal ecosystems comprising
mangroves, seagrasses, tidal and salt marshes, and estuaries are
incredibly effective at storing carbon. Development projects that
degrade or destroy these ecosystems not only release the stored carbon
back into the atmosphere further exacerbating climate change, they also
leave coastal communities vulnerable to the impacts of rising sea
levels and intensifying storms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/bluecarbon.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal wetlands represent less than 1% of the ocean, but they
store more than 50% of the seabed's carbon reserves. Moreover, they
sequester enough carbon to offset one billion barrels of oil annually.
One hectare of mangrove forest is capable of offsetting the equivalent
of 726 tons of emissions from burning coal, and one hectare of seagrass
can store twice the amount of carbon than that of a terrestrial
forest.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://oceanwealth.org/why-blue-carbon-is-redd-hot/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By providing a mechanism to increase carbon storage in coastal
ecosystems and supporting mapping, restoration, and protection of these
critically important, but vulnerable, ecosystems, the Ocean-Based
Climate Solutions Act capitalizes on the many co-benefits these systems
offer in the fight against climate change.
By investing in coastal restoration and resilience, the bill
supports nature-based solutions and prioritizes front-line communities.
As a cultural institution based on the Boston waterfront, the Aquarium
has experienced first-hand the devastating impacts from sea-level rise
and flooding from storm surge. Funding that supports efforts to enhance
coastal resilience and protect and restore important coastal ecosystems
from climate threats is needed for communities like Boston and
organizations like the Aquarium to adapt to future climate scenarios.
Protecting and restoring coastal ecosystems uses ``natural
infrastructure'' to provide cost-effective solutions that increase
resilience for coastal communities and also enhance habitats for birds
and fish, improve water quality, and sequester carbon.
As evidence of the value of restoring these ecosystems, a recent
study developed an economic evaluation of the Boston Harbor cleanup
that was mandated under the Clean Water Act and initiated in 1986. The
results from the study show that the cost of the cleanup itself was
$4.7 million and that the resulting ecosystem restoration has provided
$30-100 billion in services to society.\3\ The numbers here speak for
themselves regarding the co-benefits of restoring and protecting
coastal habitats both to protect coastal communities and store carbon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00478/
full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Protected Areas
The Aquarium supports the provisions pertaining to Marine Protected
Areas proposed in the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act. New England
Aquarium together with Mystic Aquarium provided the scientific
justification that was used to designate the Northeast Canyons and
Seamounts Marine National Monument (Monument) in 2016.\4\ We
subsequently opposed President Trump's proclamation weakening
protections of the Monument in June 2020. The Aquarium conducts regular
aerial surveys of the Monument to monitor and measure marine
biodiversity visible at the surface and uses this information to inform
decision making on the Monument and advocate for the need to maintain
strong protections for this highly diverse, but extremely fragile,
ecosystem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.00566/
full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Aquarium also supports the global call to protect 30 percent of
lands and seas by 2030 and sees this as the minimum amount of
protection required to ensure that the ocean continues to produce
oxygen, absorb heat, support healthy and diverse ecosystems, provide a
plentiful source of healthy, low-carbon protein for billions, and
enhance resilience to climate impacts.
While the Aquarium recognizes that setting aside places in the
ocean to protect them from the impacts of human activities may not have
wide appeal amongst all ocean users, we view this as a critical and
necessary component of any ocean-based solution to climate. The
Aquarium also supports balanced uses of ocean and advocates for
science-informed decision-making to ensure that human uses of the ocean
are sustainable and minimize impacts to habitats and wildlife.
The science on this topic routinely demonstrates the benefits of
highly protected Marine Protected Areas. Recently published results
show that protecting just 5% more of the ocean can increase future fish
catches by at least 20%.\5\ These results reinforce the complementary
benefits that marine protected areas have for fisheries and make a
strong case for expanding marine protected area specifically designed
to support productive and sustainable fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.pnas.org/content/117/45/28134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In New England, over the past decade, the Gulf of Maine has warmed
faster than 99% of the global ocean.\6\ Warming temperatures combined
with slow adaptation has contributed to the collapse of the Gulf of
Maine cod fishery. In addition, the lobster fishery has been migrating
north with estimates that the fishery in Maine may also collapse within
5 years.\7\ The dire outlook for fisheries in New England and elsewhere
supports arguments on behalf of strongly protecting marine environments
from human activities to enhance resilience and support fisheries.
Because of this, the Aquarium recognizes the need to balance both the
human communities that depend on the ocean with those of a vibrant
ecosystem too often impacted negatively by the industrialization of the
ocean. We strongly support conducting the science necessary to ensure
this balance is achieved and believe that the ocean--if healthy and
well managed--can accommodate multiple uses that support both
conservation measures and some extractive uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://science.sciencemag.org/content/350/6262/809.
\7\ https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/
eap.2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offshore Energy
The provisions outlined in the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act
are absolutely necessary if we are to prevent the worst of what has
been predicted under a business-as-usual scenario. The evidence is
overwhelmingly clear. We must severely curb emissions of greenhouse
gasses, and we need to do it now. Prohibiting new oil and gas leasing
in all areas of the Outer Continental Shelf while simultaneously
enhancing offshore wind energy production to 25 gigawatts by 2030 will
help the United States meet its energy needs while also enabling the
country to achieve its climate targets. Both of these goals are
consistent with the Aquarium's overarching mission to protect the blue
planet.
In 2018 when the Trump administration announced a draft plan to
open nearly the entire U.S. Outer Continental Shelf for potential oil
and gas lease sales, the Aquarium vehemently opposed this course of
action because of the risks posed to the ocean and coastal communities
that depend on it for their living. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in
2010 demonstrated the devastating impact that this industry can have on
the environment. The commercial fishing industry in the Gulf of Mexico
is estimated to have lost $247 million as a result of post-spill
fisheries closures with an estimated total loss of upwards of $8.7
billion and 22,000 jobs by 2020. Lost tourism dollars were estimated to
have cost Gulf of Mexico states up to $22.7 billion in just the 2 years
after the spill.\8\ New England fisheries are the most valuable in the
country with scallop and lobster landings worth a combined $1.18
billion in 2018. In New England and elsewhere along the Atlantic coast,
these costs simply don't outweigh any benefits for allowing offshore
oil and gas to proceed in the Atlantic or elsewhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/gulfspill-impacts-
summary-IP.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of November 2, 2020, there were 2,286 active leases in the Gulf
of Mexico representing 12,148,609 acres, most of which are in the
Western and Central Planning Areas and cover nearly 13% of the total
available acreage.\9\ In 2012, the Department of the Interior released
a report showing that nearly two-thirds of the acreage leased by the
industry was neither producing or under active exploration or
development.\10\ While these numbers have invariably changed since
2011, the fact remains that companies still have the right to develop
and produce oil and gas offshore on existing leases. In other words, we
do not need to issue more leases when so many go unused, particularly
at a time when we must be planning for a clean energy economy instead
of planning for more fossil fuel extraction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/oil-gas-
energy/leasing/regional-leasing/gulf-mexico-region/
Lease%20Statistics%20November%202020.pdf.
\10\ https://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/DOI-Releases-Update-on-
Unused-Oil-and-Gas-Leases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the Aquarium's commitment to conserving and protecting North
Atlantic right whales, we also opposed NOAA's issuance of Incidental
Harassment Authorizations to geophysical companies interested in
conducting seismic surveys seeking potential offshore oil and gas
reservoirs in the Atlantic. The sound produced by these seismic arrays
would have been detrimental to North Atlantic right whales and other
marine life in the Atlantic. Further, we view these surveys as
unnecessary given our view that oil and gas development should not
proceed.
Despite our reservations to conventional oil and gas development
and production in the Atlantic, the Aquarium fully supports the
development of offshore renewable wind energy with the caveat that the
industry use the best available science to inform the siting,
construction, and ongoing operation of the platforms. The Aquarium is
actively involved in the research to support these decisions and
mitigate any impacts to North Atlantic right whales and other
vulnerable, threatened, and endangered species. We recognize that
offshore wind will likely impact the marine environment, but by
engaging scientists early and exercising the precautionary principle,
the Aquarium strongly feels that the benefits far outweigh the costs by
mitigating climate change through this critical energy transition from
conventional fossil fuels to clean, renewable offshore wind energy.
This isn't the first time Massachusetts--or New England for that
matter--has gone through an energy transition. From the 1700s to the
late 1800s, whales were used for energy. Oil from whale blubber lit
entire cities until the first modern oil well was established near
Titusville, Pennsylvania. Communities dependent on whaling went out of
business. Now, Massachusetts and New England residents stand to gain
immensely in the form of jobs, a clean environment, low-cost energy,
and reduced risks from climate change as we transition yet again to
benefit from offshore renewable energy. As lessons are learned off our
coast, they can be applied elsewhere to help facilitate a wider
transition and provide economic benefits across the country.
Climate Ready Fisheries
New England is on the front line of a rapidly changing ocean that
is altering our fisheries and forcing us to adapt. Because the Aquarium
believes that a healthy ocean is part of the solution to climate
change, we also believe that sustainable fisheries are a key component
of not only a resilient ocean, but also a low-carbon source of protein
for billions of people. As with every other issue pertaining to ocean
use, the Aquarium supports strong, science-based decision making and
cooperative research that involves the fishing community. Innovative
tools and approaches in addition to a robust scientific process are
needed to support and implement adaptive measures that help fisheries
managers adapt to shifting stocks, decreasing biomass, changes in
distribution and abundance, and changes in recruitment, which is
supported by the provisions of the bill.
Marine Mammal Conservation
Beyond being an iconic cultural institution and tourist
destination, the New England Aquarium is most well-known for its 40-
year old research program on the North Atlantic right whale. In
addition, our scientists study other cetaceans, pinnipeds, and sirenias
(i.e. manatees). As experts in marine mammal research and conservation,
the Aquarium was pleased to see marine mammals included as an ocean-
based climate solution.
Marine mammals, and specifically large whales, are an essential
element of a low-carbon future. Whales not only store a vast amount of
carbon in their bodies by virtue of their size (to the tune of 1 Gt per
large whale), but also distribute nutrients throughout the water column
that support phytoplankton growth, which in turn removes carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere and produces oxygen. Ensuring the ongoing recovery
of marine mammal populations and the survival of threatened and
endangered species is an essential component of any ocean-based
solution to climate change.
By directing the National Marine Fisheries Service to establish and
implement climate impact management plans for vulnerable populations of
marine mammals with the goal of effectively conserving species in the
face of climate change, the bill ensures we are planning for the
impacts that a changing climate will have on these species.
This bill also addresses the important issue of marine mammal
mortality resulting from interactions with shipping vessels. The United
States is heavily reliant on the commercial shipping industry;
according to NOAA, approximately 75% of all U.S. trade involves some
form of marine transportation.\11\ Each year, dozens of large whales in
the United States are killed when they are struck by vessels transiting
their habitats.\12\ In 2020 alone, two young (one was just days old)
endangered North Atlantic right whales were killed by vessel strikes.
The current estimate of remaining North Atlantic right whales dropped
to just 366 animals in 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Ports. Accessed November
2020 at https://coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/ports.html.
\12\ Rockwood, R.C., Calambokidis, J., and Jahncke, J. (2018). High
mortality of blue, humpback and fin whales from modeling of vessel
collisions on the U.S. West Coast suggests population impacts and
insufficient protection. PLOS ONE 13(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0201080.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, widespread shipping activity translates to a sizable
carbon footprint. In 2019, domestic and international shipping
accounted for 4% of the U.S. transportation sector's energy-related
carbon emissions.\13\ Shipping contributes to underwater noise, which
interferes with marine mammal communication, foraging, and navigation.
The ambient noise in the oceans is generally doubling each decade, led
by a rise in commercial shipping.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. ``Solving the
Climate Crisis: The Congressional Action Plan for a Clean Energy
Economy and a Healthy, Resilient, and Just America.'' Majority Staff
Report, 116th Congress, June 2020. Accessed at https://
climatecrisis.house.gov/sites/climatecrisis.house.gov/files/
Climate%20Crisis%20Action%20 Plan.pdf.
\14\ Andrew, R.K., Howe, B.M., and Mercer, J.A. (2010). Long-time
trends in ship traffic noise for four sites off the North American West
Coast. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129(2): 642-651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill's solution to reduce shipping speeds in U.S. waters
addresses all three of these issues. Slowing ships down directly
reduces carbon emissions and increases fuel efficiency,\15\ which may
provide an economic incentive to comply. As an added benefit, slower
vessel speeds are proven to reduce the lethality of strikes with marine
mammals as well as reduce underwater noise through decreased propeller
cavitation.\16\ The Aquarium supports the bill's provision establishing
a nation-wide voluntary ship slowdown program administered by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as a necessary step to
both reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping and reduce lethal
interactions between vessels and marine mammals. The Aquarium hopes
that mandatory speed restrictions will be considered in the future in
areas that serve as critical habitat for North Atlantic right whales
during times when the animals are present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/
mel.2013.2#::text=Slower%20speeds%20generally%
20improve%20vessel,volatile%20and%20expensive%20cost%20item.&text=As%20a
%20second%20 slow%20steaming,GHG%20emissions%2C%20namely%20CO2.
\16\ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
292345445_Propeller_cavitation_noise_and_ background_noise_in_the_sea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken together, the provisions in the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions
Act will make a meaningful difference in securing the health of marine
mammals, which will ensure that they continue providing climate
benefits as carbon reservoirs and fertilizers of the ocean.
In closing, the Aquarium is grateful to the Chairman and the
committee for their leadership on addressing ocean-based solutions to
climate change. As an ocean scientist and an ocean advocate, I am
personally grateful for the opportunity to shift the narrative of the
ocean as a victim of the climate crisis to the ocean as the hero in
providing solutions that mitigate and help humans as well as marine
wildlife and ecosystems weather the gathering storm. The solutions
detailed in the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act, if implemented
sooner rather than later, are the key to reducing the intensity of
projected impacts and setting us on a sustainable path where humans
find balance with the planet.
The Aquarium looks forward to continuing to work with committee
members to achieve the ambitious goals of the Ocean-Based Climate
Solutions Act.
Thank you again for inviting me to serve as a witness in support of
this important and ground-breaking legislation.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Kelly Kryc, Director of Ocean
Policy, New England Aquarium
Questions Submitted by Representative Cox
Question 1. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over, as we have seen
the number of cases skyrocket over the past few months. Not only are we
dealing with a public health crisis, but COVID-19 has also created an
economic fallout that we are still grappling with. With unemployment
around 7% and an estimated 11 million unemployed, this crisis is not
over. According to NOAA, in 2018, the ocean economy was responsible for
$373 billion to our GDP, while supporting 2.3 million jobs. How can we
leverage ocean and coastal restoration and ocean-climate solutions to
help individuals get back to work, while also helping us address the
climate crisis?
Answer. The New England Aquarium and other cultural institutions
across the United States have experienced the serious economic fallout
of the COVID-19 pandemic first hand. According to the American Alliance
of Museums, 1/3 of all museums in the United States may close
permanently as funding sources and financial reserves are exhausted as
a result of the financial crises brought on by the pandemic.\1\ New
England Aquarium is responsible for the health and welfare of 20,000
animals in our collection. To continue caring for our animals, the New
England Aquarium has reduced as many costs as feasible, including
reducing our staff by 42% since March 2020. As contributors to and
beneficiaries of the ocean economy, we recognize the critical role that
a healthy ocean plays in our own ability to deliver our mission to
serve as is a catalyst for global change through public engagement,
innovative scientific research, commitment to marine animal
conservation, leadership in education, and effective advocacy for vital
and vibrant oceans. Funding provided through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provides an example of how impactful
ocean and coastal restoration projects can be in helping individuals
get back to work and supporting economic recovery and growth. ARRA
provided $167 million to NOAA that supported 125 habitat restoration
projects. That funding and those projects created 2,280 jobs, restored
25,000 acres of habitat, and has generated $260.5 million in economic
output annually. Not only that, these projects opened river habitat,
removed marine debris, reconnected tidal wetlands, and restored coral
reefs. The provisions outlined in Section 1005 of the Ocean-Based
Solutions to Climate Act build on the success of the ARRA coastal
restoration program by authorizing $3,000,000,000 to restore marine,
estuarine, costal, or Great Lake habitat that provides adaptation to
climate change. The New England Aquarium supports this approach as both
pragmatic and effective with the added benefit of producing co-benefits
that support the economy and address climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.aam-us.org/2020/07/22/united-states-may-lose-one-
third-of-all-museums-new-survey-shows/.
Questions Submitted by Representative Velazquez
Question 1. Dr. Kryc, as the Chairwoman of the House Small
Businesses Committee and a Representative of coastal communities, I'm
deeply concerned about the impacts of climate change on small
businesses located along our waterfronts. Can you explain the unique
challenges faced by small businesses located in our coastal
communities? How can small businesses utilize the climate change
relocation initiative program in H.R. 8632 to better prepare for the
effects of global warming?
Answer. As a small business located on the Boston waterfront, the
New England Aquarium shares the Chairwoman's concerns. During a storm
surge event in early 2018, flooding in the plaza in front of the
Aquarium and at the Aquarium ``T'' stop forced the Aquarium to close to
the public at a substantial loss in revenue from ticket sales. A little
more than 50 years ago, the Aquarium was one of the first non-
industrial businesses to establish a presence on the waterfront, which
at the time was not as desirable a location as it is now due to water
quality issues in the Boston Harbor. The Boston Harbor cleanup that was
initiated in 1986 under the Clean Water Act helped to transform the
Boston waterfront into the tourist destination and business hub it is
now. Now, the Boston waterfront is facing a new threat from climate
change and associated sea level rise. A 2013 report by the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development ranked Boston as the world's
eighth most vulnerable to flooding among 136 coastal cities.\2\ This
has profound impacts on the residents of Boston and its businesses. As
the COVID-19 pandemic has painfully demonstrated, small businesses in
coastal communities (and elsewhere) simply don't have the resources to
weather these storms in the absence of support from the U.S.
Government, state and local governments, and the communities
themselves. While the New England Aquarium has a long-term plan to work
with other Boston waterfront businesses and communities to develop a
climate resilient waterfront, and the city of Boston is implementing a
strategy to defend it from the impacts of climate change, we appreciate
the actions detailed in Section 1006 of the Ocean-Based Solutions to
Climate Act to proactively launch an initiative to coordinate Federal
agency activities to identify and assist communities that have
expressed interest in relocating due to health, safety, and
environmental impacts from climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/08/19/coastal-
cities-at-highest-risk-floods.
Question 2. Dr. Kryc, due to these unprecedented times, we have the
opportunity for economic restructuring that incentivizes clean energy
jobs. In your testimony, you discuss how offshore wind energy
production promotes jobs for coastal communities and provides economic
benefits across the country. As we work toward re-opening our economy,
what role can clean energy jobs play in improving public health, labor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
productivity, and economic output?
Answer. Transitioning to a clean energy economy--whether powered by
wind, solar, geothermal, or the ocean itself--is the critical first
step in mitigating the impacts of climate change, which represents a
threat to the health, well-being, and livelihoods of all Americans. The
United States has not only gone through several energy transitions
during its history, but led them by embracing innovation and change.
Clean energy represents an opportunity for American citizens to benefit
greatly from this transition. New England is leading the way on
developing offshore wind resources off its coastline and demonstrating
that these projects create high-paying jobs for local residents,
provide the resources to revitalize aging coastal infrastructure in
port cities, and contribute millions of dollars in economic impacts to
the region annually. The 2018 Massachusetts Offshore Wind Workforce
Assessment \3\ estimates between 6,800 and 10,000 construction jobs
will be created for the four planned projects off of Massachusetts.
Ongoing operations and maintenance will contribute an additional 1,000
to 1,800 jobs annually. In addition, the Assessment estimates that the
direct impact on the state's economic output resulting from these
projects is estimated at $678.8 million to $805.1 million per year,
with total economic gains of between $1.4 billion to $2.1 billion
including direct, indirect, and induced impacts. Similar assessments
for other regions of the United States demonstrate similar benefits to
their local workforces and economies.\4\,\5\ The U.S.
Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment \6\ published in 2020 by
the American Wind Energy Association suggests that 20,000-30,000
megawatts of offshore wind capacity will be operational by 2030, which
would support up to 83,000 jobs and produce as much as $25 billion
annually in economic output by 2030. In addition, the Assessment
reports that wind developers have already announced investments of $307
million in port-related infrastructure, $650 million in transmission
infrastructure, and $342 million in U.S. manufacturing facilities and
supply chain development. All of these benefits translate to benefits
to American households that will have access to clean, renewable energy
at price parity with electricity generated from oil, gas, or coal with
the added public health benefit of access to clean air and water. The
Ocean-Based Solutions to Climate Act recognizes the need to transition
to a clean energy economy and provides the framework for how the United
States works to accelerate the responsible development of this resource
in U.S. waters. The New England Aquarium supports offshore wind and is
working with the developers and Massachusetts to conduct research that
will be used to inform decision-making that aims to minimize impacts to
marine ecosystems and wildlife.
\3\ https://files.masscec.com/
2018%20MassCEC%20Workforce%20Study.pdf.
\4\ https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57565.pdf.
\5\ https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60445.pdf.
\6\ https://supportoffshorewind.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/
2020/03/AWEA_Offshore-Wind-Economic-ImpactsV3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions Submitted by Representative Bishop
Question 1. Your testimony relies heavily on the premise that MPAs
can help restore overfished fisheries. You push the approach hard for
the U.S., but we have healthy, sustainably management fisheries in the
U.S. Isn't your position inconsistent with the reality of how well-
managed fisheries in the U.S. are?
Answer. The New England Aquarium strongly supports the Magnuson
Stevens Act (MSA) and agrees with the ranking member that U.S.
fisheries are some of the most well managed in the world. That said,
implementation of MSA across the regions has yielded inconsistent
results, and there is still room for improvement. For example,
fisheries in New England have failed to attain the same success as
fisheries in other regions under the MSA. The National Marine Fisheries
Service's 2018 Status of the Stock Report \7\ reported that 91% of
managed U.S. fish stocks are not subject to overfishing and 82% are not
overfished. Of 43 stocks on the overfished list, 14 are in New
England--the most of any region. Of 28 stocks on the overfishing list,
6 are in New England. At its core, MSA is a fisheries law and, while
MSA does allow the Council to protect marine habitats ``as
practicable'' for the benefit of the fisheries, the law prioritizes
maximizing sustainable yields of fish stocks. Furthermore, MSA focuses
on managing 479 fish stock or stock complexes, which represent less
than 1% of the documented ocean species in U.S. waters. While fisheries
management tools and laws play an important role in ensuring a healthy
ocean, they were not meant to protect the full biodiversity of the
ocean. For that, marine protected areas (MPAs) are necessary. Fully and
highly protected MPAs support ecosystem health and resilience by
protecting genetic diversity, and species abundance, size and
fecundity.\8\ Increased biodiversity has been shown to increase
resilience in ecosystems to the impacts of climate change including
lower pH, increased temperatures, and/or disease.\9\ The New England
Aquarium considers marine protected areas and well-managed fisheries to
be complimentary to each other as tools to keeping the ocean (and its
fisheries) healthy today and in the future. That's why we support the
provisions in Title II of the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act. The
ocean is a complex environment and requires a diverse and flexible
arsenal of tools to balance the competing uses of its resources. For
the ocean to continue providing those resources, it must be able to
restore itself. For that, marine protected areas are needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/2018-report-congress-
status-us-fisheries.
\8\ https://tos.org/oceanography/article/planning-for-change-
assessing-the-potential-role-of-marine-protected-areas.
\9\ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ele.12598.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Kryc, and I want to
thank the panel for their testimonies.
And reminding Members that Committee Rule 3(d) imposes a 5-
minute limit on questions, I will not recognize myself at this
point, but I afford the Members that are participating in the
hearing the opportunity to make their statements, ask their
questions. Let me begin with Representative Huffman.
Sir, you are recognized.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to thank you for your leadership in pulling this bill together,
bringing it forward to this hearing. I also want to thank the
Committee staff for their work on what is a very big, very
ambitious, comprehensive bill that incorporates a lot of good
science-based ideas on how to tackle climate change through our
oceans.
Many of these ideas were raised by the Select Committee on
the Climate Crisis, where I have served in this Congress to
raise awareness of the dangers of continued offshore drilling,
as well as possible solutions such as blue carbon, which I am
pleased to see reflected in this bill.
I am also pleased that the bill contains a prohibition on
new oil and gas leasing in all areas of the Outer Continental
Shelf, which would include two areas that I have been fighting
to protect: the West Coast and the Arctic.
We are all aware of the impacts of the climate crisis, and
the need for bold, progressive legislation in my district and
also across the country. Coastal communities are all too
familiar with the consequences of inaction, whether it is sea
level rise, ocean heat waves, or loss of important coastal
habitat. We are facing a dire situation.
This legislation is a starting point. It is a set of
proposals that includes tangible solutions to not only protect
our ocean resources and biodiversity, but to harness the power
of our oceans to tackle the most important issue of our time.
It is probably the biggest, most ambitious ocean and climate
bill this Committee has ever considered.
And it is not perfect. I appreciate that staff has already
made some technical changes to improve concerns that I have
raised, and addressed feedback that I have given. I am
confident that this bill will continue to improve as it moves
forward through the legislative process. And I also believe
many of the concerns that have been raised, particularly from
the fishing community, can and will be resolved.
But we have to find a way to tackle this challenge, and it
is so important that today we are getting started.
My question is for Dr. Kryc about offshore wind energy.
Obviously, it is very important that we pursue renewable energy
sources, and we see the opportunities to stimulate the economy
and create jobs, as well. What kind of economic opportunity do
you think offshore wind provides?
And what other forms of renewable energy in our oceans do
you think we should be exploring?
And then I also want to invite you to speak to the way in
which you think this legislation supports research and
development into those types of energy sources.
Dr. Kryc. Thank you, Representative Huffman, for that
question. I am delighted to answer that. We are very excited
about the offshore wind industry that is starting to develop
off of our coast in New England and further down the Atlantic
Coast.
Current estimates have the offshore wind industry by 2030
as having generated 83,000 new jobs, and $25 billion in annual
economic output. That is a really important resource for our
region. And, also, as other regions look to develop this
resource in their waters, it shows the potential of what this
has to offer.
You also mentioned other energy sources, and marine
hydrokinetic energy is one of my favorite types of energy. That
is energy from the tides, from currents, and in waves, as well
as OTEC, the energy that is generated from thermal gradients.
Anyway, those are boutique energy sources that offer an
awful lot of potential for folks on the coasts, and they offer
the potential to overcome some of the intermittency issues that
might happen with other renewable energy sources. Tidal energy
can be predicted 100 years out, which is, really, a kind of
remarkable thing.
The resources that are needed to develop those pieces of
energy are included in this bill. And I am looking at Dr.
Lubchenco here--Oregon State is one of the marine energy
centers, as well as in Florida, and also in Hawaii. So,
increasing the amount of resources available to continue
developing those resources will help us add yet one more tool
to the arsenal of clean energy options for energy generated
from the ocean, going forward.
Mr. Huffman. OK. Dr. Kryc, I want to try to sneak in one
more question. We know the ocean is a busy place, and we have
to carefully site these renewable energy projects, not just to
avoid environmental impacts, but to avoid unnecessary impacts
on the fishing industry and other users. How do you think this
bill supports collaboration and thoughtful planning to avoid
those conflicts?
Dr. Kryc. Thank you for that question, as well. I think
that New England is representing an opportunity for us to test
all of those things, and engage stakeholders at the table to
overcome some of the challenges associated with the multiple
uses, and finding that balance.
So, I just want to flag for people a resource called the
Responsible Offshore Science Alliance that brings scientists,
fishermen, and the industry together in the Atlantic Region to
have those discussions, and figure out how to balance the need
to develop the energy source, to continue the fisheries, and to
make sure that all of those decisions are science-based.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Thank you, Mr. Huffman.
Let me now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Stauber has an
appointment. Can I ask if you would go to him first?
The Chairman. Not a problem.
Mr. Stauber, you are recognized, sir.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Member Bishop. I appreciate this
opportunity.
Thank you all for testifying today.
Chairman Grijalva, the so-called Ocean-Based Climate
Solutions Act fits neatly within the Green New Deal and the
goals of the House Democrats. Like other previous bills, this
legislation sacrifices affordable energy development done by
union men and women under the highest environmental standards
in the world. Instead, these types of policies will only
increase demand for dirtier energy sources in Russia and other
countries that we compete with that lack environmental and
labor standards.
The average American household spends a little more than
$3,500 a year on energy alone. Last year, it reached 60 below
zero with the wind chill in my district for several days in a
row. I am sure that is a little colder than the Chairman's
district. And as you can imagine, energy costs are something
that my neighbors are closely familiar with. I cannot support
legislation that will make it harder for families in my
district to heat their homes, put food on their table, and
further financially burden the middle class because some
millionaire on a beach somewhere doesn't want his view of the
ocean obscured due to an oil or gas rig.
Energy independence is our Nation, and energy independence
is critical for our Nation to continue on.
Dr. Hilborn, the goal of this bill is to supposedly
mitigate climate change. Could you tell me how increasing the
cost of energy for American families, importing energy from
abroad, and killing American jobs mitigates climate change?
Dr. Hilborn. I am afraid I haven't prepared anything on
that, and it is really outside my area of expertise.
Mr. Stauber. OK.
Dr. Hilborn. I am a fisheries guy.
Mr. Stauber. Dr. Hilborn, what policies should this
Committee be pursuing to actually benefit marine conservation,
instead of focusing on hurting American families?
Dr. Hilborn. Well, my expertise is in the fisheries realm,
and in fisheries we do have the issue of the more precautionary
we are in the United States, the more we import fish from
places that have lower standards.
But we need to become more dynamic and responsive to
changes in fish distribution and changes in fish productivity,
and we have the system for doing that. The councils can do
that. They are just starting to do it on a major basis. But we
need to change the assumption that nature is stable over time,
and realize that things are changing, and we need to be able to
respond to those changes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Dr. Hilborn.
Mr. Chair, I yield back. Thank you, Ranking Member Bishop.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Let me now recognize
Representative Dingell if she has any questions, or--is she
still with us?
[No response.]
The Chairman. If not, let me now recognize Mr. Levin for
any questions that he might have.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
leadership on this legislation, and for holding today's
hearing. Obviously, I care a great deal about this,
representing a district with 52 miles of coastline. And I
appreciate our witnesses today.
Dr. Kryc, the bill bans all new offshore leases for oil,
gas, or methane hydrate exploration and development. There are
some that will tell you that this means we will be indebted to
Russia or others for energy, which, frankly, is a tired
argument with very little basis in fact.
Could you explain why we need to ban new offshore drilling
leases as soon as possible, and move toward onshore renewable
energy instead?
Dr. Kryc. Thank you, Congressman Levin, for that question.
I would be happy to answer. Anticipating this question, I
looked it up, and at the moment we do import 11 million tons,
or about 6 percent, of fuel from Russia.
We also have achieved a great deal of energy independence
in the recent past.
Offshore production on the Outer Continental Shelf
represents 16-18 percent of the total production in the United
States of oil, and only 4 percent of gas. So, if you were to
take those two things off, that does not exclude any existing
leases that still exist and remain to be produced. The average
time for a well production, once a platform is in place, the
life span could be as many as 25+ years. So, there is plenty of
runway.
But the real key here in our perspective, from the
Aquarium's perspective, and from the ocean conservation
perspective, it is the need to transition as quickly as
possible to clean, greenhouse-gas-free emissions. And that
comes in the form offshore wind and marine hydrokinetic energy,
as that gets developed, as well as land-based sources of
renewable energy, going forward.
Mr. Levin. Thank you for that. And in your testimony you
say that the New England Aquarium supports offshore wind
development, and I quote, ``with the caveat that the industry
use the best-available science to inform the siting,
construction, and ongoing operation of the platforms.''
So, Dr. Kryc, how can science-based approaches to offshore
wind siting reduce harm to wildlife and the environment?
Dr. Kryc. Thank you. Again, for the Atlantic, and from the
Aquarium's perspective, one of the primary species that we are
concerned about is the North Atlantic right whale. We are
involved in early studies to understand how those animals are
using the habitats, where the leases and the siting of the
platforms will be, so that the siting can accommodate those
animals as they migrate through and transit through those lease
sites.
We are looking at fisheries. We are looking at the impacts
on sharks, turtles, and other vulnerable and threatened species
to develop mitigation plans that enable the balance to exist
between what is needed for the energy transition of the future,
as well as providing for the ecosystem and the wildlife needs
of the ocean habitats themselves, to ensure that the ocean
remains healthy for the future.
Mr. Levin. Thank you for that. And one more question for
you, Doctor.
A number of places, including my home state of California,
are laying out ambitious plans to transition to 100 percent of
new cars being zero emissions, and also new requirements for
trucks, which I believe will have benefits not only for climate
action, but also obvious benefits for public health, along with
air quality, environmental justice, and the list goes on.
I wanted to ask you about ships and, specifically, when can
we expect ships to transition to cleaner fuels?
And are there additional policies we could add to this bill
to help catalyze the zero-emission vessel transition in
international shipping?
Dr. Kryc. Thank you. That is a really good point. I think
that in my written testimony I make the point that, right now,
shipping in the United States represents 4 percent of
emissions, and that is only expected to grow as international
trade grows, and our dependence on marine transportation grows.
The bill already sets the path and the policy forward for
reducing those emissions through fuel efficiency, through the
slowdowns of the ship speeds, and then those have the co-
benefits that I mentioned for marine mammals.
So, leaning on programs in your home state that have been
so successful, like the Blue Skies, Blue Whales initiative, I
think is a really great start for reducing shipping emissions
in U.S. waters.
Mr. Levin. I am out of time, but I want to thank you for
all your great work, Doctor, and I thank my colleagues for
their great work on this bill.
And I will yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Levin.
Mr. Bishop, you are recognized.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate it, sir.
Dr. Hilborn, let me ask you a question. Ms. Lubchenco's
testimony made a rather alarmist claim that, if I quote this
right, even the best fishery management cannot substitute for
effective, high-protected MPAs, in terms of protecting
biodiversity, et cetera, et cetera.
Your testimony, Mr. Hilborn, actually takes a different
approach. Can you explain to the Committee how our current
system is, in your mind, a better approach?
Dr. Hilborn. Yes, thank you. Thanks for this question.
The current system protects biodiversity over 100 percent
of the Economic Zone of the United States through the councils.
That is, I serve on the SSC of the Western Pacific Council, and
it is our job to meet U.S. legislation, like the Endangered
Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, over the entire
Economic Zone. Proposed 30x30 closures would simply protect 30
percent of the Zone, whereas using the existing tools of
bycatch avoidance, protecting vulnerable ecosystems, protecting
target species, we can protect 100 percent of the Economic
Zone, and the biodiversity in 100 percent of the Economic Zone.
And certainly the track record with respect to target species
is outstanding.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Let me give you another question, if
I could, sir.
Both Ms. Lubchenco and Ms. Kryc quote a recent study that
says, if you protect an additional 5 percent of the ocean, you
can increase future catch by at least 20 percent. Considering
we only pass laws that have jurisdiction over the United
States, are these claims really relevant?
Dr. Hilborn. Well, certainly there are places in the world
where marine protected areas would increase catch. And the
biggest potential is South and Southeast Asia, that has very
ineffective fisheries management. Overfishing is rampant. But
there is really no potential to increase the yield of American
fisheries in the U.S. Economic Zone by marine protected areas.
Mr. Bishop. So, as I think Ms. Kryc said in her written
testimony, if that wind power disturbs fishery efforts, but it
is worth the cost--and this may be out of your area of
expertise, so I will just ask you this--what do you say would
be the effect on fishing in the United States, the industry as
a whole, if certain areas are put off limits and then certain
areas which do have these types of good kinds of energy
developments are also going to be included in the areas that
are on limits, and still have an impact that is negative, even
if it is worth the cost?
And, once again, maybe I am asking you something that is
out of your area of expertise, and it is an unfair question.
Dr. Hilborn. Well, I don't think there is a general answer
to that. It would all depend on where these things were sited,
and how much catch was coming from those places, how mobile the
species are, whether they would effectively be caught
elsewhere. So, I just don't think that there is an answer to
that. It would have to be done on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Bishop. All right, thank you. Do I have time for one
question? I have 1 minute, I am told.
Ms. Lubchenco, you made suggestions that state management
of their jurisdictions are not as efficient and effective as
the Federal Government would be. So, there is an implication
that we should federalize management areas.
I just want to know if those comments are aimed at simply
the offshore fishing, or are you talking about fishery
management that is on shore? Because there is very clear
evidence, especially on onshore fish managements that don't
come under NOAA, that there is an incompetence on the Federal
Government that far exceeds what the states are able to do in
their fish hatcheries. So, is that statement only dealing with
ocean issues and ocean fishing, or are you talking about all
fishing?
Dr. Lubchenco. Ranking Member Bishop, thanks for the
opportunity to clarify this. I am not in any way, shape, or
form suggesting federalizing the management of all fisheries.
States are responsible for managing the fisheries in their
state waters, except when there are agreements where the stocks
go back and forth.
My point was simply that----
Mr. Bishop. OK, before you run out of time, you weren't
talking about all fisheries. We are dealing with only those
issues that deal with offshore ocean fishing. Is that correct?
Dr. Lubchenco. My point is simply that state-managed
fisheries are not managed, generally, as well as our federally-
managed fisheries, and we need to do a better job to help the
states do their management better.
Mr. Bishop. OK. And if you are talking about all fisheries,
then I think there is clear evidence that that is not an
accurate statement. And I think many of those local fisheries
on the coast would have some quibbling with your jurisdictional
approach, as well. But if you are talking about all fishery
management, especially those that are onshore and not offshore,
especially those hatcheries, that clearly is not the case.
Mismanagement is worse with the Federal Government on all--that
is why I wanted to clarify if you were talking about all
fisheries. So, I appreciate you stating that fact.
Dr. Lubchenco. Certainly some state fisheries are well
managed. My point is they all need to be, and they aren't.
There is much room for progress in state-managed fisheries.
Mr. Bishop. And, obviously, state management gives you a
greater opportunity of having success than if you have a
Federal Government management system that treats everything as
a one size fits all, and then doesn't meet the needs of those
local areas, which I have seen, once again.
Dr. Lubchenco. I agree.
Mr. Bishop. That is why I wanted to make the distinction. I
have seen that clearly in onshore fish management regulations
and jurisdiction. So, I appreciate you clarifying that.
Mr. Grijalva, thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Let me now recognize Representative Haaland.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Chairman. I ask unanimous consent
to enter into the record three scientific papers that support
Title II, and a letter submitted by 180 organizations and
businesses demonstrating broad support for the goal to protect
30 percent of our oceans and lands by 2030, as set forth in
Title II of the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act.
[No response.]
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Chairman.
Dr. Lubchenco, I would like to give you the opportunity, if
you would like to take it, to respond further to Mr. Hilborn on
his last----
Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you, Congresswoman. I appreciate that
opportunity. Both the question and the response framed fishery
management against conservation, as if we have an either/or
choice. And in my view, we absolutely need good fishery
management, and we absolutely need good conservation.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, which is the law that regulates
federally-managed fisheries, is a fishery management act. It is
not a conservation act. It does not manage biodiversity. So,
suggesting that it is a good tool for managing biodiversity is
simply inaccurate.
We need better tools to achieve biodiversity conservation
that are a complement to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The
opportunity exists to expand our protection and management of
biodiversity with all the other benefits that MPAs bring in
parallel to continuing good fishery management.
And, in particular, much of Dr. Hilborn's statements are
focusing on the fact that our federally-managed fisheries do a
good job with target species, which, for the most part, they
do. But they have not had as strong a track record with weak
stocks, and with many of the bycatch species. In both of those
instances, spatial protection through fully or highly protected
MPAs can, in fact, be a very nice complement. So, this is not
either/or. We need both.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Dr. Lubchenco.
And Dr. Leonard, how does the bill maintain or accelerate
the much-needed intergovernmental coordination for ocean
justice, in your opinion?
Dr. Leonard. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question.
In particular, the bill has a section to support the
Regional Ocean Partnerships, which are kind of a new evolution
of what I previously talked about, in terms of the regional
planning bodies that came out of the national ocean policy in
the prior administration.
With the Regional Ocean Partnerships, that is where we see
the intergovernmental coordination happening on the ground
right now. In my specific instance, with the Mid-Atlantic
Committee on the Ocean--through MARCO, NROC, the West Coast
Pacific states, as well as tribes working together to think
through what does ocean planning look like in our regions--how
do we sustainably use ocean resources and coordinate all of our
ocean activities with one another.
The one thing that I will point out in the way the current
portions of the bill reads I would say that we need some
additional review and modernizing around tribes. Right now the
Regional Ocean Partnerships are structured to give states power
and allow for states and Federal agencies to have greater
intergovernmental coordination. But there is nothing that
really allows for there to be supportive funding and
infrastructure for tribes amongst ourselves to have that
intertribal coordination as it pertains to ocean conservation
and ocean resiliency.
So, I think we almost need something that is a blend of
what is stated, in terms of Regional Ocean Partnerships and
what we previously had with the regional planning bodies, where
there was a mandated intergovernmental coordination of equal
parity of tribes, states, and Federal representatives coming
together on an equal footing. And I just don't really see that
playing out right now in the Regional Ocean Partnerships, as it
currently stands.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you so much.
And Dr. Kryc, I just have just a few seconds. How do we
convince those in landlocked states that the ocean does, in
fact, impact them, and their Representatives should support
ocean climate policy?
Dr. Kryc. Thank you. I will answer that as quickly as
possible. The ocean controls all of the weather patterns that
we see across the United States and across all of the
continents. So, the rain that is happening in the middle of the
country; the droughts that are happening in Colorado, New
Mexico; the wildfires, all of these things are ultimately tied
to the interconnected nature of our entire planet. And those
patterns are driven by the ocean. So, we all have an investment
to make in a healthy ocean.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you so much, Chairman. I yield.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Let me now recognize
Mr. Gohmert.
Sir, the time is yours.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Let me then turn to Mr. Westerman.
Sir, you are recognized.
[No response.]
The Chairman. We turn to the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Graves.
You are recognized, sir.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
witnesses for their testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to
join you today.
A number of things to counter. First, I want to briefly
respond to my friend in California who made the comments on
saying there was no relationship between stopping domestic
energy production and increased importation. I will be willing
to make a bet or wager with my friend right now that I can
produce evidence showing that that is exactly the case in
history.
We have had expert witnesses before this very Committee
that have testified that, including during the Obama
administration. In fact, during the moratorium or permitorium
in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon, that is exactly what
we saw. And if my friend can produce some evidence or facts
showing otherwise, then I would be willing to yield you my
future time on the Committee. But the reality is that that data
doesn't exist.
In any case, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
submit for the record House Resolution No. 38 that was passed
by the Louisiana Legislature, including unanimously passed by
the Louisiana Senate, that is in total opposition to the
underlying bill, the blue ocean legislation.
Mr. Chairman, look, this bill is written and referred to
five different committees. We know that that is not going to go
anywhere, because we are not going to get through five
different committees.
I certainly share my friend's objectives of having a
cleaner energy future and reducing emissions. My home state of
Louisiana--if any state is affected by sea rise and the
symptoms of climate change, it is the people that I represent.
So, we have a great stake in ensuring that we have sustainable
coastal communities, that we have a clean energy future, that
we have sustainable, affordable energy policies. But this
legislation really doesn't even do that. And I think we all
know that.
For example, if this legislation were implemented years
ago, we would have lost $200 billion--that is with a B--$200
billion to the United States Treasury. I ask any of my friends
on the other side, how would you fund senior citizen programs,
health care programs, education programs, environmental
programs, transportation programs, how would you do that
without $200 billion?
There is this concept out there, there is this belief out
there, Mr. Chairman, for many folks on the other side that the
target, or the enemy is the energy source. That is not it. And
we have to stop saying that, and stop believing it, because it
is going to prevent us from implementing suggestions or
policies that actually make sense.
It is the emissions, and there are proven strategies today,
technologies today, where you can actually sequester emissions,
you can utilize emissions: CCS, CCU-type technologies that
complement our conventional energy sources.
Look, we all know. We can sit here and ban cars in
California and everywhere else for next year. You don't have
the energy infrastructure in place to supplant the energy that
is brought to the table with 30 times more energy density than
the next closest alternative. That is what conventional fuels
provide.
So, we have to stop this dream world that some people are
operating in.
I want to ask perhaps the sponsor of the bill one question,
one question. As you know, this bill will stop--will stop--the
investment of revenues into wetlands restoration in the coast
of Louisiana, which is the greatest wetlands loss in the
continental United States. And it will stop investment in
hurricane protection and coastal resiliency programs.
I mentioned in our last hearing, this year alone we had
Hurricane Laura and Marco that came at the same time, we had
Hurricane Delta and Zeta, and then caught the edge of Hurricane
Sally. We had people die. What would you say to the family
members of people in Louisiana that lost loved ones, when your
legislation would actually take future investments in the
restoration of our coast and the protection of these
communities?
[Pause.]
The Chairman. We can deal with this question, or we can
continue to avoid it, as we have in the past, dealing with
climate change and of the important role of oceans in the
mitigation and resiliency that has to be built up. But the
legislation----
Mr. Graves. I am happy to have that discussion.
The Chairman [continuing]. Does not intend to do any
restoration.
Mr. Graves. Reclaiming my time, I have tried to have this
conversation with my friend many, many times in the past. And
here is the reality--all you people sitting there on your
pedestals, and telling us what we need to do--we produce more
offshore energy than every other state in the Nation combined.
We have the top commercial fisheries in the continental United
States in the same exact area.
All these people are coming to try to prescribe solutions
for us that have no idea what in the world they are talking
about, what the on-the-ground conditions are. And the people
that actually represent these areas, they are opposed. The
people that actually represent these very communities, that
understand this stuff much better than any of you and your
little towers out there around the United States that don't
even represent, don't even live, don't even spend time in these
very areas.
It is really embarrassing to continue to see legislation
like this that is so offensive to the people that I represent,
and simply doesn't respect the science or on-the-ground
conditions. It offends those that repeatedly have lost loved
ones as a result of the inaction by this very Committee.
I yield back.
The Chairman. I couldn't agree with you more, sir. And our
exploration of constituents, perhaps even within your district
and other districts in Louisiana, considering the cancer
corridor, and the environmental justice and frontline
communities across portions of Louisiana need to be dealt with.
There are life and death issues there, as well, and I hope you
join with us in working on that.
With that, let me recognize Mrs. Dingell, if she is
available now, for her time.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Mr. Cartwright, if he is available. You are
recognized.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Late Monday
morning, Hurricane Iota became the latest in-season hurricane
in recorded history to reach Category 5 intensity in the
Atlantic Basin. As this dangerous hurricane makes landfall in
Central America, in Nicaragua, we are again reminded of the
disastrous effects of climate change.
The scientific community agrees that a healthy ocean is
going to help us fight the climate crisis.
As Vice Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, and Science, I, along with my Democratic
colleagues, have fought for robust funding for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, an agency
designed to protect and restore our coastal regions.
I have also introduced two bills, the PREPARE Act and the
SAFE Act, which improve adaptation and resiliency to extreme
weather events and climate change. That is why I applaud our
Chairman, Chairman Grijalva, for introducing H.R. 8632, the
Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act, the bill that would provide
the resources we need to protect our ocean and coastal
communities.
The investments we make now will save us significant
hardship and expense in the future.
As we rebuild our communities after each natural disaster,
we have quickly learned the lesson that the costs of inaction
on climate change are incredibly high. A recent study and
scientific report states that not acting right now to mitigate
climate change will result in a projected additional $600
billion every year in damage.
Given all of this, I would like to ask Dr. Kryc, if you
could elaborate on what you think the long-term fiscal and
real-world impacts of the investments called for in the Ocean-
Based Climate Solutions Act would be.
Dr. Kryc. Thank you, Congressman Cartwright, for that
question.
We firmly believe that these investments will be not only
good for the ocean, but good for Americans and for the economy.
In a recent example in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, $160 million was awarded to NOAA that
supported 125 habitat restoration projects. Those projects have
paid a great deal of dividends over the following years--not
only in jobs, they created a little over 2,200 jobs, they
restored 25,000 acres of habitat, and have generated $260
million in economic output annually.
Natural infrastructure is known to be more cost effective
than gray, or hard infrastructure, and it has the co-benefits
of not just providing resilience, but the ability to store
carbon to support nurseries of fisheries and, in our own Boston
Harbor, sharks, which is a really delightful development, since
Boston Harbor has been cleaned up.
So, I think that there are so many benefits to these types
of investments, and they have been shown time and time again to
pay dividends on more than the initial investment.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Dr. Kryc.
As I mentioned earlier, the climate crisis not only impacts
our environment, our economy, and our health, but it also harms
our oceans. Current laws like the Magnuson-Stevens Act only
manage 0.2 percent of the ocean's known species. With one in
six species at risk of extinction, this hands-off approach is
terribly inadequate to address the existential risk to our
oceans posed by climate change.
The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act addresses the
dangerous consequences of the climate crisis by holistically
protecting the ocean's biodiversity and natural resources.
Dr. Kryc, Dr. Leonard, Dr. Lubchenco, can you elaborate on
why protections outlined in this bill are critical for the
health of our oceans?
Dr. Kryc. I will jump off and just say that the protections
afforded through marine protected areas go beyond fisheries.
And they, through increased biodiversity within the boundaries
of a marine protected area, impart resilience to things like
ocean acidification. And those types of studies have been done
in places where, if you have the entire range of, all the way
up through apex predators, that those systems have been shown
to withstand changes in temperature and pH that we are unable
to control.
So, as we can control things like setting aside special
places that give those places resilience, that just benefits
the entire ocean, as a whole.
Mr. Cartwright. Dr. Leonard?
Dr. Leonard. Thank you. I would say that the bill really
supports the mitigation effort that we need right now to
address the climate crisis within ocean conservation and ocean
ecosystems. But what does that actually look like in practice?
That is research going to oyster habitats and oyster
hatcheries, and thinking about the way in which we can use
oysters to rehabilitate ecosystems grounded in Indigenous
knowledge systems, which is something that we have been doing
in this part of the world for thousands of years.
And then, in addition, other mitigation efforts, like
nature-based solutions, again, grounded in Indigenous knowledge
systems. As Shinnecock, we have done some great coastal habitat
restoration through seagrass planting. I think we need to have
more of those mitigation efforts, and this bill provides the
funding to be able to do those types of exact conservation
measures.
Mr. Cartwright. And Dr. Lubchenco?
Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you, Congressman Cartwright. I really
appreciate the fact that you have painted a picture of the vast
biodiversity that is not really under fishery management. And
let me bring that home to U.S. waters, because the numbers that
you cited were global.
The Magnuson Fisheries Act manages around 474 stocks and
stock complexes. But there are nearly 50,000 documented species
in U.S. waters. So, the Magnuson-Stevens Act actually manages
less than 1 percent of all known species in U.S. waters.
Again, I would repeat that the Magnuson-Stevens fishery
management is a fishery management law. It is not an ocean
management law. So, managing oceans more holistically, where we
have vibrant fisheries, as well as 30 percent in fully to
highly protected areas, is really essential to achieve the kind
of benefits that Dr. Kryc was alluding to: safe havens for
wildlife, enhanced resilience to climate change, to help
recover weak stocks, to contribute to food security where
fisheries are not well managed, and that is mostly elsewhere in
the world.
But they also provide reference areas, where we can
evaluate the impacts of fisheries for areas--so to compare
inside and outside of MPAs. And we have recently discovered
that there are vast stocks of carbon on the seabed. And using
protected areas to protect those stores of carbon can prevent
them being released into the atmosphere.
So, marine protected areas here are really a powerful, but
under-utilized tool that will bring not only biodiversity
benefit, but climate resilience and many other benefits to a
healthy ocean that we all need.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry for going over. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Westerman, sir, you are recognized.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Let me now recognize, then, Mr. McClintock.
Sir?
[No response.]
The Chairman. All right, let me now turn to the gentleman
from Florida, Mr. Soto.
You have 5 minutes, sir, you are recognized.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We just had an election.
Climate change was on the ballot, and President-elect Joe Biden
won. A majority of Americans, especially our young people, want
significant change. My colleagues across the aisle should take
note.
We once again have a national mandate for the United States
to combat climate change at home. And, as the most advanced
Nation on the planet, we have a duty to lead the world effort.
Climate change denial and the fact that it is caused by human
activities--again, is an extremist political position. It is a
dangerous view that threatens the future of our Nation and our
planet. Scientists, Federal agencies, the U.S. military, even
the Federal Reserve and SEC are starting to recognize the long-
term risks.
And the American people want us to stop bickering and work
together on a bipartisan solution.
The facts? The largest energy bill of the term was
bipartisan: the Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act, where
213 Democrats and 7 Republicans voted yes. We revised the
Department of Energy grants relating to energy storage,
microgrids, including renewables, nuclear, and, yes, natural
gas. It moved the ball forward on combating climate change in a
reasonable and incremental fashion.
But here is what I find so interesting about that vote. The
rest of you voted no. Other than seven Republicans, you voted
no, along with the very Green New Deal proponents you attack
here today.
The path forward is clear. We need to come together to pass
bipartisan bills, and to continue to act on climate. The oceans
are part of that solution, and we have seen many bills dealing
with that here today.
In my own home state, Florida's coasts remain in danger of
offshore oil drilling, and our great Florida reef is in danger
of massive coral bleaching from warming seas. We must protect
these environmental treasures for all Americans.
And my fellow Floridians, Congressman Crist and
Congresswoman Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, have presented important
reforms here today.
Ms. Leonard, looking at Representative Crist's bill to
designate Regional Ocean Partnerships of NOAA, and for other
purposes, you had talked about it at length already. How are
communities of color left behind? How are poorer communities
left behind without these Regional Ocean Partnerships?
Dr. Leonard. Well, I think, put blankly, the lack of
coordination means that communities are going to be left
behind. So, the Regional Ocean Partnerships create a forum by
which states, Federal representatives, Tribal representatives,
Fishery Management Council representatives, as well as our
broader stakeholders actually have forums and entities that
they can come to to share concerns.
Also, on the ground, we have been doing a lot of work
around diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice to think about
how do we make sure that there is ocean justice for all. And I
think one pathway is supporting innovative bills like the
Ocean-Based Solutions Act to do just that, and to continue to
support our work through Regional Ocean Partnerships.
You do great work. And to have best available science means
that we need funding to support that research and to support
the data collection. And that then, in turn, allows us to
support justice movements that benefit local communities,
communities of color, and marginalized communities, based on
economic impacts, as well.
So, I think that is why this is needed.
Mr. Soto. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left? I can't see it
on the screen.
The Chairman. Take your time, about 45 seconds.
Mr. Soto. OK. Dr. Lubchenco, Debbie Mucarsel-Powell has a
bill to establish a grant program to benefit coastal habitats,
Shovel-Ready Restoration Grants for Coastlines and Fisheries
Act of 2020. How would this be important in really moving ahead
some of these projects?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman Soto, it is extremely important
that we pay close attention to these coastal habitats,
especially the seagrass beds, mangroves, and salt marshes that
are what we call the blue carbon ecosystems. They just suck up
carbon much, much faster than do forests on land. And
protecting them is one of the first lines of defense, so that
we don't lose them, we don't release all of the carbon that has
been stored there for millennia into the atmosphere.
But we also have learned that it is possible to protect
them--I mean to restore them after they have been degraded. And
up the coast from you--not your state, but up the coast, in
Virginia--and I note in my written testimony, there is a very
nice example of restoration of seagrass beds in Virginia
recently that has shown the power of being able to utilize
these coastal ecosystems to reduce carbon emissions and help
directly, significantly with mitigating climate change.
Because those habitats also provide a wealth of other
benefits: they restore nursery areas, they provide recreational
opportunities, they are buffers against storm surge--they are
critically important in multiple dimensions. And having the
resources to do that coastal restoration is critically
important.
And, as Dr. Kryc mentioned, when I was Administrator of
NOAA, the ARA funds that we utilized to do habitat restoration,
we had only $160 million. And as it turned out, we got $3
billion worth of proposals from communities around the country.
So, there is huge latent opportunity and interest in----
The Chairman. I am going to need you to wrap up your
answer, so we can----
Dr. Lubchenco. Apologies, Chairman.
The Chairman. We have gone over quite a bit. No problem.
Mr. Soto. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. On my Republican colleagues' side
of the dais, is there anyone that wishes to ask questions--we
don't have a name at this point.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Oh, yes, Miss Gonzalez-Colon, you are
recognized. Thank you.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to yield my 5 minutes to my friend, Garret Graves.
[Pause.]
Mr. Graves. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. You are recognized, sir.
Mr. Graves. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I want to show you a graphic here, and I ask
unanimous consent that this be included in the record.
This is a graphic that shows crude oil supply sources to
California refineries. As you can see here, Mr. Chairman, as
energy production in California has gone down, as they have
reduced the energy coming in from Alaska, all of that has been
supplanted or replaced by energy from foreign sources.
And, Mr. Chairman, you can see there is not a reduction. It
is not a reduction in oil. None. It is simply replacing or
supplanting all of that domestic production with foreign.
Mr. Chairman, I can't vouch for the source of this
information, but I can tell you it is from energy.ca.gov. Ouch.
Mr. Chairman, look, just bringing more fact into this
thing--the reality is, as you all know, you all are a scientist
panel, our expert panel, our witnesses, you are scientists.
This is a global issue. For every one ton of emissions we have
produced in the United States, four tons, four additional tons
of emissions, have come out of China. That is not a global
reduction. It is a global increase. The Paris Accords result in
a global increase.
This whole thing, we are not even bringing science to the
table. I am asking for more science, not less, more science to
inform our decisions, moving forward.
The facts clearly show that when you reduce domestic
production, you increase your dependence upon foreign sources
of energy. Facts and science and history shows you have greater
emissions from foreign sources of energy than you have from
domestic.
So, look, we can sit here and do all this pretty window
dressing. We can talk about this in a way that makes us all
feel really good. None of this is based on science. None of
this is based upon fact. And it is incredibly frustrating to
watch people wander down this emotional path without any type
of scientific support.
Dr. Lubchenco, you and I have worked together before,
extensively. And you made a comment, and I want to push back on
it. You made the comment about state-managed fisheries. Look, I
will give you one quick fact. The fact is that I can't think
of--and I am fairly certain on this--there is not a single
state-managed fishery that has required a restoration plan or a
rebuilding plan, yet I can sit here and think of a whole lot of
federally-managed fisheries that have been overfished that
required it. So, I don't think it is fair to take shots at
state-managed fisheries. In fact, my home state of Louisiana,
we developed an LA Creel system which has a 90 percent
certainty level, whereas the MRIP program is 80 percent or
less.
So, we have better science and better data informing our
fish management than what the Federal Government does, so I
don't think comments like that are necessarily accurate or
fair. And I do want to give you a chance to respond, in case I
misconstrued something that you said.
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman Graves, it is great to see you
again. Thank you, sir, for your comment.
I did not intend at all to throw state fisheries under the
bus, to criticize them. I am simply pointing out that we need
effective state-managed fisheries, just like we need effective
federally-managed fisheries. Some state fisheries are well
managed. Others are absolutely not. And most of them, we simply
don't have enough information to know how they are doing. Most
states simply don't have the resources to do the kind of
effective fishery management that is really needed.
Thanks for letting me clarify that.
Mr. Graves. We have imposed additional fees on ourselves to
make sure that we had the resources that were needed to
properly manage our fisheries in Louisiana. So, we did that to
ourselves to make sure that the resources were there.
Dr. Lubchenco. And that is a great model.
Mr. Graves. Thank you.
So, Mr. Chairman, I will say this again, and I will offer
this to you every day of the week. In regard to a cleaner
energy future, reducing emissions, the United States continuing
to be the global energy technology leader, I am 100 percent in.
I would be happy to work with you any day of the week.
But continuing to throw out legislation that has no chance
of going anywhere and, quite frankly, is only going to result
in higher energy prices, higher emissions, and creating more
jobs in other countries, I don't think that is a solution for
America.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Lowenthal, you are recognized, sir.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And first I would like
to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a written
statement from the World Shipping Council on the Ocean-Based
Climate Solution Act, H.R. 8632.
The Chairman. So ordered, without objection.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. And I also want to thank you, Mr.
Chair, I would like to thank the staff for working so hard, and
the other Members that have contributed to this, and the
discussion that we are having today.
I truly appreciate also listening to Representative Graves
talking about that we are not focusing enough on emissions. We
tend to focus more on the source, rather than emissions. I will
say, in California, we have tried to address that question by
being relatively neutral on what are the solutions, and more
focusing on emissions reduction. And I think it is always
important for us to look at the concept, and I appreciate your
raising that issue.
I want to talk first to some of the things that have been
on here, if I can open up my questions. I want to talk first to
Dr. Kryc.
Dr. Kryc, first of all, I want to thank you and the New
England Aquarium for your great work. You have worked with my
staff, especially Shane Trimmer, on many questions over the
years on aquaculture, on marine mammal protection. You have
helped us as we have worked on marine debris, especially
plastic and the reduction of plastic pollution. And I look
forward to working with you and the Aquarium on these important
issues, because they are not going away.
But I want to talk about one thing that you talked about,
and that I have direct experience with, and that was the
legislation that we are talking about today really addresses
and establishes the Quiet Seas and the Clean Skies Vessel Speed
Reduction Award program.
I represent the Port of Long Beach, and my adjacent port is
the Port of LA. We are the busiest commercial maritime hub in
terms of much of international trade and international cargo.
Our shipping lanes cross the Santa Barbara Channel, which
is a vital marine ecosystem where whales congregate to feed. We
had established a program from the Santa Barbara Channel down
to the Ports of LA Long Beach, a voluntary program called the
Blue Whales, Blue Skies program that you talked about, which is
attempting to both accommodate commerce, and also to protect
marine mammals in the Santa Barbara Channel.
And given all the work that you have done in the New
England Aquarium to protect the North Atlantic right whale, I
am really interested in the data that you have about the
threats that marine mammals face, especially around ship
strikes, which is what we tried to deal with. You have already
talked a little bit about it, and I am kind of interested. Do
you think a voluntary program that encourages the reduction of
ship speeds is going to help marine mammals, and is going to
promote ecosystem resilience?
In the Quiet Seas and Clear Skies Vessel program there is
both a voluntary program and also, in other parts where
maritime conservancies, we have a more mandatory program.
I am interested in how do you see the voluntary program
working?
Dr. Kryc. Thank you, Congressman Lowenthal, for that
question. As I mentioned in my oral testimony and my written,
we would like to see a mandatory ship restriction specifically
for North Atlantic right whales. That said, this bill and the
provisions that it outlines for shipping, and the voluntary
measures, and the rewards-based system, we think will help.
That is not something that has been implemented in the
Atlantic.
And to answer your question about the impacts of shipping
specifically on the North Atlantic right whale, as I mentioned,
we lost 2 North Atlantic right whales of the remaining 366 this
year, both juveniles, to vessel strikes. And they weren't
ships, they were small vessels, maybe 25 feet, going faster
than 10 knots. The science that we have done at the Aquarium
demonstrates that we can reduce mortality to North Atlantic
right whales by upwards of 90 percent by reducing ship speeds
to 10 knots or less.
We have also been very successful in using science to
recommend shifts in shipping lanes to avoid the most
concentrated areas where these animals are congregating to
feed.
I think that time is up, but I am happy to explore this
more with you.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. Do I have time? I don't see the--
--
The Chairman. I don't have my clock up right now.
Dr. Lowenthal. I don't either, so I am going to ask one
more question, and you will just have to cut me off if I have
gone over----
The Chairman. Yes, OK.
Dr. Lowenthal. And I will be quick.
Dr. Lubchenco, we have heard a lot today about offshore
wind, but everything has been focused on the North Atlantic and
the Atlantic. I am interested in, even though we are talking
about this on a national level, what research and development
is going to be needed to overcome hurdles--and is this
something a technology, offshore wind, that can be expanded
into the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific?
And what are we going to do--what types of research and
development is needed to make it more cost effective? Because
we are not seeing it in those areas like we are in the North
Atlantic.
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman Lowenthal, thanks. I think the
evidence shows that there are likely to be different types of
ocean energy that are going to be appropriate for different
places around the country. In some places it is going to be
wind, but in others it will be tidal or current or, in some
cases, wave energy. And the R&D that is required to really
determine what is most appropriate, how continuous the energy
provision would be, what kind of infrastructure is needed, much
of that is in the very elementary stages.
Investments in R&D that can, and the research that enables
us to understand what works best in this place, and how it
connects to grids on land is absolutely needed, and would be a
very smart path forward.
Dr. Lowenthal. Just before I yield back, I would like to
follow up that conversation with you.
As we begin to talk about a comprehensive approach, we have
really only focused so far on offshore wind and turbines. And
you are saying, if we are going to look at other parts of the
country, it would be appropriate to do research and
development, and to really look at the opportunities to create
energy in other ways than just through wind. I thank you.
And I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Again, I'm not seeing any names on the Minority side,
unless there is one that isn't on my list, or hasn't been
provided to me. If not, let me now recognize Ms. Barragan for
her 5 minutes.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Grijalva, for
holding this important hearing on ocean solutions to the
climate crisis.
Climate change is impacting everyone, especially our most
vulnerable coastal communities. However, there is an
opportunity to build a sustainable ocean economy that creates
new industries and jobs, while reducing greenhouse gas
pollution.
We are leading the way at the Port of Los Angeles, where I
happen to represent, where a new public-private ocean institute
called AltaSea is creating a world class, ocean-based, 35-acre
campus where scientists, entrepreneurs, and educators can come
up with innovative solutions to food, energy, and climate
security. It is estimated that, in Los Angeles, the ocean-based
economy will produce more than 126,000 jobs, paying a combined
$37.7 billion in wages by 2023.
The bills the Committee is hearing today will drive climate
solutions, restore our oceans, foster innovation, and help us
realize the potential of a sustainable ocean economy.
Dr. Lubchenco, an important part of the Ocean-Based Climate
Solutions Act is the permanent protection of the Outer
Continental Shelf from offshore drilling. Prior to this
pandemic, fishing, tourism, and recreation along the Pacific,
Atlantic, and Florida's Gulf Coast supported over 2.5 million
jobs. Ten years ago, you led NOAA's response to the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill off the coast of Louisiana. Can you speak to
the potential dangers and impacts of an oil spill in the Outer
Continental Shelf that make permanent protection from drilling
so important?
Dr. Lubchenco. Thanks, Congresswoman. We have seen in no
uncertain terms the devastation that massive oil spills can
have. But even smaller spills can have really nasty impacts on
ecosystems, not only on the most obvious target species, like
oiled birds, whose images are very graphic, but also for the
other species below the surface, whether it is marine mammals
that get oiled or very, very small microscopic species in the
plankton that then get incorporated into the rest of the
ecosystem.
The bottom line is that oil is really toxic. The
hydrocarbons that are in the oil are really nasty to living
creatures. And starting with the Santa Barbara oil spill, just
up the coast from you in 1969, we have seen how devastating oil
spills can be. So, doing everything possible to avoid those
spills is really smart.
When we add to that consideration the consequences of
burning that oil, and the contributions it makes to climate
change, and all of the devastating impacts that has on the
ocean and on people, it seems a no-brainer that we shift as
rapidly as possible to green energy sources, and to do so in
ways that are innovative and that really create jobs.
I love what is happening in the Ports of LA, in Congressman
Lowenthal's district. Those ports are doing really innovative,
great work that is conservation and smart business in ways that
I think are a wonderful model.
Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you. Representative Lowenthal
has Long Beach, and I have Los Angeles. We partner together,
and it is a great way to have a duo team.
Dr. Leonard, thank you for your incredible work as a Tribal
leader on the Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body of the U.S.
National Ocean Council.
How should Congress ensure our ocean climate policy
addresses the needs of environmental justice communities, and
builds trust between government and these communities?
Dr. Leonard. Well, I think one step forward is the Ocean-
Based Climate Solutions Act, and the provisions within the bill
that allow for increased funding, increased research, and
increased data collection.
But in doing all of that, it also needs to support Tribal
sovereignty, and support the Federal trust responsibility in
ensuring that tribes, in a government-to-government
relationship are a part of that research, are a part of the
data collection, are integral partners in how the United States
envisions ocean conservation and ocean justice moving forward.
And one issue that is of particular importance and of
particular severity for myself, being a Shinnecock woman, is
relocation. And I think provisions of the bill that provide for
our coastal communities to relocate are much needed. And we
actually even need more.
One thing that I see in the bill right now, and that
doesn't exist for Tribal Nations, are legislative guarantees.
The bill allows for funding for relocation, which is very much
needed, and an unmet need currently for Tribal communities and
coastal communities broadly. But what we need, as well, are
legislative guarantees that, as our people are forced to
relocate due to the climate crisis, that our Tribal Nations,
our land status, will transfer with our people as we are forced
to relocate to new lands of cultural patrimony. And I don't see
that currently in the provisions, but I am hopeful that a bill
like this could envision that, and could chart a path forward
so that relocation, which is real--we have environmental
climate refugees currently in the United States--can have more
pathways for funding that can support that relocation, and
support the overall health of American citizens. Thank you.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you. I yield.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Let me now, absent any
indication from the Minority side--if they have some of theirs
that want to address the panelists. Let me now ask the
gentleman from Chicago, Mr. Garcia.
The time is yours.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, and
to the witnesses joining us today. Today, we speak on the
existential threat of global climate change, and the
devastating impacts on wildlife and our communities, impacts
that will affect generations to come.
Although Chicago is far from the ocean, we are no strangers
to the impacts of climate change. Climate change is causing
significant and far-reaching impacts on the Great Lakes.
Unchecked human activity over the last two centuries has led to
habitat losses, invasive species outbreaks, and polluted air,
water, and sediments. The Great Lakes, one of the world's most
abundant freshwater resources, hold more than 90 percent of
North America's fresh surface water. Unless we take action, it
will suffer from severe pollution, hurting the 34 million
people who live within its basin, and especially communities of
color.
Dr. Leonard, thank you for joining us today. In your
testimony you mentioned that, ``data collection and monitoring
of the Great Lakes, ocean, bays, estuaries, and coasts must be
done in consultation with Tribal Nations.''
Two questions: Why is it so important to consult with
Tribal Nations and other communities traditionally left out of
the policy-making process?
And second, Section 1505 of the Ocean-Based Climate
Solutions Act authorizes a study to assess public access to the
Nation's coasts, including the Great Lakes. What barriers to
accessing our coasts do some communities face?
Dr. Leonard. Thank you very much for those questions. I
would say, for the first question, to be informed decision
makers related to marine environments, our Great Lakes, as well
as ocean environments, we have to have the best available
science. And right now we don't, because we are not including
Indigenous science and data collection within Indigenous
communities in the data that informs our best available science
that then informs our decision makers.
So, what we are looking for in the Great Lakes region, as
well, because we are doing an international region of both
Canada, the United States, states, provinces, First Nations,
Tribal Nations, communities--a really complex space--we need
data collection that allows for, again, intergovernmental
coordination, and for the ability for our tribes and other
Indigenous communities to be able to contribute our data to the
best available science that is informing decision making in the
basin.
And one way that we see that sort of having a disconnect
right now is some of the best science coming out about Great
Lakes habitat restoration, protection against aquatic invasive
species is coming from the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, and they are bootstrapping their budget because
they don't have funding streams available to them to really
have that influx that they need to do the research, and
continue the great science work that they are doing, and then
to have that contribute to the larger national best-available
science conversation.
So, that is one area we need more Indigenous involvement in
data collection and science, because it should inform our best
available science for decision making.
And your second question about access in communities to our
oceans, we have a legacy and a history of segregation across
America. Those segregation policies and laws have had a
systemic influence on the way in which communities of color,
disenfranchised economic communities, are able to access our
oceans and coastlines.
There have been some great studies coming out about even
just the cost of a parking permit to access a beach. Our
beaches and our coastlines are not really in the public domain,
and they have been disenfranchised from communities of color
and communities who are economically deprived because of the
way in which we have set up systemic laws and segregation
policies that have purposely aimed at excluding those
communities for decades, if not centuries.
So, we have to do a lot more to remedy those historic
injustices if we are going to tread a path of ocean
reconciliation and ocean justice for our future.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Dr. Leonard.
Dr. Lubchenco, in my last half-a-minute plus, the living
shorelines provision in this bill sets aside funds for the
Great Lakes. Can you please explain what living shorelines are,
and how they specifically benefit the Great Lakes?
Dr. Lubchenco. Sure, Congressman, thank you so much for
that question.
Living shorelines are simply shorelines that have
vegetation and creatures that live there. And those dune
systems, grass systems, et cetera, are providing very important
functions to stabilize shorelines, to absorb carbon dioxide, to
help provide critical nursery areas for important fisheries.
The vegetation that is along the shoreline is critically
important to the healthy adjacent waters of the Great Lakes.
They interact in very complex fashion. So, having them be
intact, having them be healthy contributes both to the
livelihoods of people in the vicinity, but also to the
resilience to climate change. So, both protecting and restoring
them are important.
Mr. Garcia. Great, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud you for introducing this landmark
ocean solutions bill to tackle the climate crisis, and for
including critical provisions that would benefit the Great
Lakes. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Garcia, and let me
now, absent any indication from the Minority side--Mr. Tonko,
you are recognized, sir.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, for organizing
this hearing. It is very thoughtful and very timely. And thank
you to each and every witness for the invaluable testimony you
have provided. Oceans are unmistakably critically important in
the fight against climate change, so I appreciate the
opportunity today.
Dr. Lubchenco, over the past 15 years, and particularly in
the Trump administration, climate scientists have often been
targeted for producing work that has been viewed as politically
inconvenient to those who deny the impacts of anthropogenic
climate change. Such attacks have been visible in the last 4
years as Federal scientists have been silenced and sidelined,
keeping them from sharing their work with the public and
informing our national response.
My question is, how do strong scientific integrity
protections at agencies working on climate science serve to
benefit the public good?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman Tonko, it is nice to see you
again, and thank you for being such a strong and effective
champion for scientific integrity.
The importance of scientific integrity is paramount. People
need to trust the information that is provided by the Federal
Government.
The most obvious examples are weather forecasts and
disaster warnings. If people think that they have been
manipulated for political reasons, then they won't take them
seriously, and they won't take the actions that are needed to
protect their lives, their families, and their property.
The same is true for fisheries information or any other
kinds of information that the Federal Government is providing
to people. We need to trust that that information is based on
the best available science, and has not been cherry-picked or
manipulated or, in some cases, the science is distorted.
The scientific integrity policies that agencies created
under President Obama--my agency, NOAA, included--are intended
to ensure that the information is not cherry-picked,
manipulated, or distorted.
And that is important not only for public trust, but it is
also important so that the agencies can have the best possible
scientists working for the government. Scientists are not going
to work in a government where their science is ignored or
altered or suppressed. They will leave, and new scientists
aren't going to come and take their places if they think that
their science is unwelcome.
So, to have a thriving scientific enterprise in agencies,
we need to have scientific integrity. And the public needs to
be able to trust what the government says. And for both of
those reasons, not only do agencies need to have good, strong
scientific integrity policies, but it is important that there
be a public expression of the importance of that, as well,
through legislation that says this is our expectation, this is
what we want of Federal science.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you for that. And what recommendations
would you make to our President-elect Biden to strengthen
scientific integrity policies across the gamut of Federal
Government?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, we have seen from some of the
violations of scientific integrity policies--for example, at
NOAA--that happened in the last few years, that there are
multiple ways that the scientific integrity policies that exist
need to be improved, and also need to be enforced so that
political appointees are aware of those policies and abide by
them.
But it is not sufficient to have an agency such as NOAA
have a scientific integrity policy if the department that it is
part of, the Department of Commerce, ignores that policy. So,
there needs to be harmonization and mutual respect for the
integrity of science at all levels within the Federal
Government.
Those are some of the ideas, but I am happy to explore
others, if that would be useful.
Mr. Tonko. Yes, a rather holistic and inclusive process.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know how much time I have left, I
don't see the clock.
The Chairman. Not a lot. You have 10 seconds.
Mr. Tonko. Let me just quickly ask Dr. Lubchenco--your
testimony highlights the increasing intensity, speed, and water
content of tropical storms due to warming water temperatures.
Could you expand on impacts warmer water could have on upstate
New York?
Dr. Lubchenco. Certainly, Congressman. The first time you
and I interacted was in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, when
your district, which is far inland, was flooded in some
horrific fashion. And what we are seeing now, as climate change
changes the hurricanes so that they are more likely to be
really strong, more Category 4 and 5, they move more slowly.
So, when they come up over land, they sit there and dump
massive amounts of water like Hurricane Harvey did on Houston.
But they also have more water, because warmer water and warmer
air holds more water, so there is more water to cause flooding.
A paper that just came out last week that I mentioned in my
written testimony alludes to the fact that those storms that
are more powerful----
The Chairman. I am going to have to call it. Wrap up your
answer, because everybody is going 1 to 3 minutes over, and we
need to ask other panelists questions.
Dr. Lubchenco. Yes, sir. Those storms last longer and are
more likely to go inland and be more powerful and flood
districts like yours.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Beyer, you are recognized, sir.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And I want
to thank you especially for having this hearing today. I am
really proud to see the Natural Resources Committee be a leader
on tackling climate.
America needs to know that our climate conversations happen
not just on the land, but also in the water and the ocean, too.
And for areas that I represent, northern Virginia, it is just
expensive homeowner flooding. But if you move down to Virginia
Beach or in Norfolk, you are talking about an entire way of
life.
The ocean is part of the solution, and we know that full
implementation of ocean-based climate solutions could deliver
one-fifth of the annual greenhouse gas emission cuts that the
world needs by 2050 to keep that temperature below 1.5 degrees
Centigrade.
So, I really want to thank the Oceans-Based Climate
Solutions Act and Lora, Rachel, Casey, Zach, and Beth, the team
at WOW, for creating this comprehensive, meaningful bill led by
our Chairman. And I am really pleased that I got to work with
Republican Francis Rooney in a bipartisan way to build some of
the coastal resiliency pieces that are in this bill.
It is wonderful to see Dr. Lubchenco again. We miss you
here. But welcome back.
And when we talk about ocean and climate, we often focus
locally here on nuisance flooding, but when you think about
marshes, how important are they to climate change and the whole
idea of blue carbon?
Dr. Lubchenco. Marshes are incredibly central and important
in absorbing carbon, and then storing that carbon, locking it
away so that it is not part of, is not contributing actively to
climate change. Protecting those marshes and restoring marshes
that have been degraded is really smart action that has
multiple benefits. Not only does it help mitigate climate
change, but those marshes are important nursery areas for
fisheries. They provide recreational opportunities. And
critically important, they provide buffers against storm surge
and winds that are coming ashore.
So, for all of those reasons, we need to value the marshes,
but also the seagrass beds and the mangroves, depending on what
part of the coastline you are living in. For you, the marshes
and the seagrass beds are the ones that are really important as
blue carbon ecosystems. They are a hidden treasure that has
just recently been revealed, and we need to make the best use
of them possible.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much. I know, with a home on the
Chesapeake Bay, we look at those grasses every year, and their
restoration, how important they are.
Dr. Leonard, you said we are not drowning, we are fighting.
Why are the coastal resiliency pieces in the bill so important?
Dr. Leonard. Thank you for the question. I think the
coastal resiliency pieces in the bill are so important because
it is potentially the first acknowledgment of the long-time
suffering that coastal communities have been going through in
recent decades due to the climate crisis and, in particular,
for Tribal coastal communities.
It is the first recognition, both through the Tribal
resilience program funding provisions in the bill, as well as
the relocation funding provisions in the bill, where our harm
and our suffering is being acknowledged, and that the Federal
Government is stepping forward to say we have a fiduciary
responsibility, a treaty obligation to meet these relocation
needs, and to meet the needs of the coastal communities, not
only Indigenous coastal communities, but other coastal
communities who are really suffering right now, and are in need
of solutions for a path forward so that we can envision
ourselves as American citizens who aren't going to be
sacrificial lambs for the climate crisis, and that we won't be
sort of sacrificed to drown in our homes.
Mr. Beyer. I know my friend, Mr. Graves, is probably not on
the call any longer, but you talk to him about how much of his
district has disappeared because of the absence of coastal
resiliency.
Dr. Kryc, I only have a minute, but the fourth National
Climate Assessment said that more than half of the damage to
coastal communities is avoidable if we take real-time
adaptation measures. Are we doing the right thing in this bill
to move forward on that?
Dr. Kryc. Yes, definitively. Doing the type of work that is
included in this bill will help to impart that coastal
resiliency, which will protect coastal communities and, as I
have mentioned before, will pay dividends on the original
investment to the benefits that come for years beyond.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you all very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you for your leadership.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. And let me recognize
another important contributor to the legislation.
Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Chairman Grijalva, for
your leadership on ocean climate action. And thank you to our
witnesses for joining us, especially my good friend, Dr.
Lubchenco.
We live in Oregon, where public access to our majestic
coastline has been protected, basically, by a permanent public
easement back since 1913.
We know that every person on this planet benefits from a
healthy ocean. The ocean covers more than 70 percent of the
planet's surface. It supplies much of the oxygen we breathe,
and it regulates our climate, as we have discussed. It is
linked to the water we drink, and it is home to more than half
of life on the planet. The ocean drives our economy. It feeds,
employs, and transports us, and the power of its waves
generates clean energy.
We can capture this potential to help mitigate the climate
crisis. Earlier this year, I joined my colleagues on the House
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. We released our bold,
comprehensive, science-based climate action plan that sets our
Nation on a path to reach net zero emissions no later than mid-
century, a net negative after.
As the co-chair of the House Oceans Caucus and
Congressional Estuary Caucus, I am thrilled that this plan
includes many of the pieces of legislation recognizing the
power of our ocean as part of the solution. And I appreciate
Chair Grijalva's leadership to incorporate many of these
recommendations into the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act.
That includes four of my bipartisan bills and six bills that I
am co-leading.
Dr. Lubchenco, in your testimony you noted the value of
protecting and restoring blue carbon ecosystems. I know you
talked about that with Representative Beyer. And you also
worked on the High-Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy.
That report was released last year, and indicated that the
protection and restoration of coastal blue carbon ecosystems
could prevent approximately one gigaton of carbon dioxide from
entering the atmosphere by 2050.
So, my questions are, do we have an accurate map and
inventory of blue carbon ecosystems across the country, and how
would a better assessment of the sequestration potential of
blue carbon ecosystems be useful as the United States looks to
rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman Bonamici, thank you for doing
such an effective job of representing Oregon and your district,
but also being such a staunch champion for science, and for
working in bipartisan ways on so many important pieces of
legislation. We really, deeply appreciate it.
Having the numbers that you cite from the ocean panel's
report, which I helped oversee, that are the 20 percent, the
one-fifth of the carbon emission reductions needed to get us to
the 1.5 degree Paris target, are obviously global numbers. We
do not have comparable numbers for the United States, and we
need them. That would be an obvious next step, to be able to
better inform the kinds of actions that would be taken. And
knowing how much bang we can get for the buck is critically
important.
The High-Level Panel also produced a second report, which
draws attention to the opportunities to advance climate and
ocean synergies through economic restoration in the aftermath
of the economic downturn following the COVID pandemic that we
are seeing play out again in very real time. So, I just want to
draw attention to the importance of that report as you and your
colleagues consider these activities, moving ahead.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And Dr. Lubchenco, as we prepare
for the United Nations' Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable
Development, I worked with my House and Senate Oceans Caucus
colleagues to introduce the Blue Globe Act to rapidly
accelerate the collection, management, and dissemination of
data on the Great Lakes, the ocean, bays, estuaries, and
coasts. This bill will assess the potential for an Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Oceans, or ARPA-O, to help overcome
the long-term and high-risk barriers in the development of
ocean technologies.
Based on your experience at NOAA, how could an ARPA-O help
us better understand the effects of the climate crisis on our
ocean and coastal communities?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, as you know, knowledge is
power, and having information is golden, because then we know
how much we need to do, and where, and can be as smart and
strategic as possible.
So, having both the assessments and the monitoring on an
ongoing basis so we can see how things are changing, but also
the research to understand the processes that are driving
climate change and the responses that we are seeing from
ecosystems, are all critically important to help inform a
better understanding of this new world that we are in that is a
climate-changed world.
So, great opportunities. Thank you for your leadership in
moving those ahead.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Dr. Lubchenco and all the
witnesses.
And Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your leadership, and
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Bonamici.
Now that Members are done with their questions, let me ask
my questions as we wrap up this hearing. But I once again thank
the witnesses.
I have a set of questions that I will be submitting to the
panelists for their response, so questions are specific to
them. But I am not really going to go off of those at this
point.
Dr. Leonard, I think your points on parity and resource
investment for tribes, and for Tribal regional efforts, parity
at the table, and parity in terms of incorporating data and
science coming from Indigenous knowledge is very good. And I
appreciate that point, and it is something that needs to be
looked at in the legislation.
Part of what we are going to hear in almost any discussion
on climate change--and I want to thank the WOW staff and the
leadership of Mr. Huffman for bringing the issue of oceans and
the important role they play in the abatement of climate change
and the climate crisis that we are confronting to the center
point, and to making our response a much more comprehensive
response from this Committee. And I want to thank the staff for
their fine work, and the leadership of the Subcommittee, and
Committee members in general, for making sure that this becomes
a part of a comprehensive response to climate change, along
with land and initiatives that are also part of another piece
of legislation.
Dr. Lubchenco, one of the points that we are going to hear
over and over about is that we really can't talk about climate
change regarding the ocean. It is about job loss, it is about
the destruction of energy independence. It is about hurting
American families with rising energy costs. And it is having to
play with bad actors like Russia. And this is just a bad actor
in other instances, to the Administration, not so bad.
And, then, I think the other point that kind of wrapped up
that was let's talk about real science-based discussions and
formulation of legislation going forward, because the
legislation before us is based on emotion, and not science. I
mean, those are the messages we are going to hear as this
legislation goes forward.
And it is going forward. I think it is incumbent on us in
the House of Representatives, at least, to lay a template out
about how we need to respond to climate change. And this is one
of them.
So, Dr. Lubchenco, emotion not science. I appreciated your
discussion on integrity that you had with Mr. Tonko. That was
excellent, as well. But if we are going to put science and
empirical information, in fact, at the head of the table, does
this make this legislation that we are talking about today an
emotional, feel-good response?
Dr. Lubchenco. Mr. Chairman, we continue to be saddled with
a very unfortunate framing that many people have bought into,
that we have to choose between the economy and the environment.
And I think that is absolutely false.
This bill really provides a pathway for both protecting and
restoring ocean ecosystems in ways that generate economic
benefit, and that also reduce the impacts of climate change
that are so economically devastating and so devastating to
people who have fewer options, be they poor people or BIPOC
communities. And the current impact of climate change is
devastating to the economy, to our health, to economic
opportunities, as well as to life on Earth.
So, it is imperative that we tackle this urgent problem of
climate change. This bill has many key provisions for doing
exactly that. But not only can we tackle climate change using
ocean-based solutions, but doing so brings multiple other
benefits and huge opportunities.
The Chairman. Thank you. But let me just state that I
really think having science as the crucible by which we forward
legislation, I am absolutely in favor of that, totally. And the
more that we have fact-driven and science-driven decisions that
are around issues of the environment and climate change, the
better off the American people are going to be, in terms of
some progress.
But I don't want to spend time going through the whole
debate about the validity of some science versus the lack of
validity of other science. I think we are way past that
question. And I don't plan to really re-litigate that whole
point over again, period.
But I do think that, going forward, as we plan to introduce
this legislation in the next session, based on your comments
and the continued feedback that we are getting, we hope to make
the bill, the legislation, even better, and incorporating some
of the points that were made today.
I think we need to deal with it. To ignore it, to put it
off, and to go from denial to avoidance on climate change is
not progress. And we have much to catch up on. Nothing has
happened for 4 years. In fact, on the contrary, much has
happened to make the situation even worse. So, we have to
repair, and this is a repair legislation. And I hope that, as
we go forward, we continue to welcome your input.
To my colleagues and Members, thank you. To the panel, I
appreciate very, very much your information. And we will be
forwarding individual questions to you.
Again, thank you, and there are no other comments?
The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 2:21 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida
Today I would like to commend Chair Grijalva for his continued
leadership on climate action and to express my support for the Ocean-
Based Climate Solutions Act. This bill will unleash the incredible
power of the ocean to capture and store carbon, helping us move closer
to our climate goals. As Chair of the Select Committee on the Climate
Crisis, I'm proud that it incorporates many of the recommendations from
our Climate Crisis Action Plan. And as a Floridian, I have seen
firsthand the impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels and
increasingly extreme storms and weather. I am encouraged by the
important progress made by the Natural Resources Committee in laying
out a comprehensive framework for ocean climate action.
In particular, the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act recognizes the
potential of ``blue carbon'' to mitigate climate change. This bill
would take meaningful steps to protect and restore the ocean and
wetland ecosystems that are so vital in capturing and storing carbon.
Importantly, this legislation will protect at least 30% of our ocean by
2030. This is an ambitious goal, but an achievable one that will help
mitigate both the climate and biodiversity crises that we face.
Protecting and restoring ocean and wetland ecosystems doesn't just
increase their capacity to sequester carbon; it also makes coastal
communities more resilient to the impacts of climate change. The Ocean-
Based Climate Solutions Act improves coastal resiliency by promoting
living shorelines, enhancing the Coastal Barrier Resource Act, and
expanding natural infrastructure.
One of the most critical aspects of the Ocean-Based Climate
Solutions Act is that it incorporates ocean-based energy production as
part of the climate solution. It prohibits new oil and gas leasing in
all areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, while promoting responsibly
sited offshore wind energy and other marine energy development.
We know the ocean is a crucial ally in the climate fight. We also
know we need to protect it, as ocean ecosystems are already being
harmed by climate change. The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act will
keep oceans healthy in the face of warming temperatures--by enhancing
and improving research, forecasting, and mitigation of ocean
acidification and harmful algal blooms. It also promotes climate-ready
fisheries and provides investments in climate and fisheries management
research.
These are just a few of the many climate solutions we can advance
by passing the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act. This legislation will
allow our ocean and coasts to mitigate climate change, while also
protecting frontline communities and ensuring healthy, biodiverse
marine ecosystems. I look forward to continuing to work with Chair
Grijalva, as we advance meaningful, nature-based policies to fight the
climate crisis.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Haaland
-- A letter by 180 organizations and businesses to members
of the House of Representatives and to Senators,
dated February 7, 2020 urging them to co-sponsor a
House Resolution by Representative Haaland and a
Senate Resolution by Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and
Michael Bennet (D-CO) to strongly protect at least
30% of lands and 30% of ocean areas by 2030.
-- A 2019 scientific paper by E. Dinerstein et al. entitled,
``A Global Deal for Nature: Guiding principles,
milestones, and targets,'' from the Journal Science
Advances.
-- A 2020 study by Cabral et al. entitled, ``A global
network of marine protected areas for food,'' from
the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences.
-- A 2019 paper by Murray & Hee entitled, ``A rising tide:
California's ongoing commitment to monitoring,
managing and enforcing its marine protected
areas,'' in Ocean and Coastal Management, Volume
182.
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Huffman
-- A letter from the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations dated November 17, 2020, RE: Statement
for the record: Full Committee hearing entitled
`Ocean Climate Action: Solutions to the Climate
Crisis'.
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Lowenthal
-- Testimony submitted by the World Shipping Council, dated
November 17, 2020.
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Bishop
-- A letter of opposition to Title II from a coalition of
commercial fishermen, dated November 16, 2020.
-- Testimony submitted by Dan Keppen, P.E., Executive
Director, Family Farm Alliance dated November 17,
2020.
-- A letter of concern from Stronger America Through Seafood
dated November 12, 2020.
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Graves
-- House Concurrent Resolution No. 38 of the Louisiana State
Legislature.
-- A graph entitled, ``Crude Oil Supply Sources to
California Refineries''.
[all]