[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

AMERICA'S NATURAL SOLUTIONS:
THE CLIMATE BENEFITS OF INVESTING
IN HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE
CLIMATE CRISIS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

HEARING HELD
APRIL 1, 2022

__________

Serial No. 117-16

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

www.govinfo.gov

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

______

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-152 WASHINGTON : 2022

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS
One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

KATHY CASTOR, Florida, Chair

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana,
JULIA BROWNLEY, California Ranking Member
JARED HUFFMAN, California GARY PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia BUDDY CARTER, Georgia
MIKE LEVIN, California CAROL MILLER, West Virginia
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio

------

Ana Unruh Cohen, Majority Staff Director
Sarah Jorgenson, Minority Staff Director
climatecrisis.house.gov

C O N T E N T S

----------

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Page
Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, and Chair, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 3
Hon. Garret Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis:
Opening Statement............................................ 4

WITNESSES

Collin O'Mara, President and Chief Executive Officer, National
Wildlife Federation
Oral Statement............................................... 7
Prepared Statement........................................... 10
Nick Loris, Vice President, Public Policy, C3 Solutions
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Prepared Statement........................................... 31
Dr. Sherry L. Larkin, Director, Florida Sea Grant College
Program; and Professor, Food and Resource Economics, University
of Florida
Oral Statement............................................... 39
Prepared Statement........................................... 40
Dr. Cristina Eisenberg, Courtesy Faculty, College of Forestry,
Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State
University
Oral Statement............................................... 45
Prepared Statement........................................... 47

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Report from Developments in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, ``Wood
buildings as a climate solution,'' submitted for the record by
Mr. Westerman.................................................. 75
Report from Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES),
``Decarbonizing U.S. Buildings,'' submitted for the record by
Mr. Westerman.................................................. 75
Report from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
(Minority Staff), The Chain of Environmental Command: How a
Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the
Environmental Movement and Obama's EPA, submitted for the
record by Mr. Crenshaw......................................... 75
Article by Glenn Kessler in The Washington Post, ``The Bogus
`Allegation' that Putin is Funding a California Environmental
Charity,'' submitted for the record by Ms. Castor.............. 75

APPENDIX

Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Sherry Larkin. 76
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Cristina
Eisenberg...................................................... 78

AMERICA'S NATURAL SOLUTIONS:
THE CLIMATE BENEFITS OF INVESTING
IN HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS

----------

FRIDAY, APRIL 1, 2022

House of Representatives,
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
Washington, DC.
RPTR MARTIN EDTR CRYSTAL STATE PERSPECTIVES ON CUTTING
METHANE POLLUTION Tuesday, June 14, 2022 U.S. House of
Representatives, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:04 p.m., in Room
1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Kathy Castor
[chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Castor, Bonamici, Brownley,
Huffman, McEachin, Escobar, Graves, Palmer, Carter, Miller, and
Crenshaw.
Ms. Castor. The committee will come to order.
Welcome to the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
hearing on ``State Perspectives on Cutting Methane Pollution.''
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
And as a reminder, members participating in a hearing
remotely should be visible on the camera throughout the
hearing.
For members participating in person, masks are optional.
As with in-person meetings, members are responsible for
controlling their own microphones. Members can be muted by
staff only to avoid inadvertent background noise.
And as a reminder, statements, documents, or motions must
be submitted to the electronic repository, to
sccc.repository@mail.house.gov.
Finally, members or witnesses experiencing technical
problems should inform the committee staff immediately.
Well, good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining
this hybrid hearing.
Before we begin, we are all deeply saddened by the loss of
our dear colleague Representative Sean Casten's daughter Gwen
yesterday. So I would like to ask for a moment of prayer or
silent reflection to lift up Representative Casten and his
family.
[Moment of silence.]
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
So in the hearing today we will examine state perspectives
on cutting harmful methane pollution from oil and gas
infrastructure and how Federal standards, policies, and
investments can complement state initiatives.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
We are so excited today to have two distinguished guests
for this important hearing. We are going to learn directly from
Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, one of our former colleagues,
the Governor of New Mexico, and Governor Mark Gordon of
Wyoming.
Thank you both for being here to share your unique
perspectives on climate solutions.
We often focus on carbon dioxide as the main driver of the
climate crisis, but it is also critical that we address
methane, the second-largest source of heat-trapping pollution.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and is responsible for about
30 percent of global warming in the modern era. And while it
leaves the atmosphere faster than CO2, it traps 87
times as much heat while it lingers.
Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
urged us to work to reduce this super-pollutant. And while the
Biden administration, Congress, and many states have adopted
policies to reduce methane pollution and energy waste, methane
levels have jumped dramatically over the last decade and
emissions remain at the highest levels on record.
Fortunately, there are cost-effective ways to dramatically
reduce methane pollution from the oil and gas sector, which
remains the largest industrial methane source in the United
States.
Fossil fuels were responsible for approximately 80 percent
of the increase in methane emissions between 2006 and 2017
across North America, according to an analysis from NASA and
Stanford, and methane can escape at nearly every stage during
the production, transmission, and distribution of oil and gas.
And all of these leaks add up. Producers could have sold an
additional 180 billion cubic meters of natural gas, the
equivalent of the entire European market, if all leaks from
global fossil fuel operations had been captured last year,
according to the International Energy Agency.
And according to a separate analysis by the IEA, the oil
and gas industry could slash its methane emissions in half at
no net cost just by deploying existing technologies.
So taking these actions has broad support. Last year, we
voted to require companies to regularly find and repair methane
leaks. Major oil and gas companies supported the measure--but
only 12 House Republicans voted for it, unfortunately.
Our friends across the aisle often call for expanding
production of natural gas as a solution to the climate crisis.
But unless harmful methane pollution is addressed, the climate
impacts of gas can be worse than the coal it may replace.
Plugging methane leaks is low-hanging fruit, and it is good
for producers' bottom line as well. And because of Putin's
invasion of Ukraine, it is now a security imperative. Capturing
wasted methane could meet more than half of President Biden's
LNG commitment to Europe.
Stopping energy waste will help both everyday Americans and
our allies abroad. It will also support good-paying jobs here
in America. Those jobs include plugging and remediating
abandoned wells, expanding leak detection and repair, and
increasing maintenance and inspections.
According to the BlueGreen Alliance, unleashing this
potential could create 50,000-plus jobs over the decade.
Repairing and replacing leaking natural gas distribution lines
could create 300,000 more jobs.
That win-win scenario is one of the reasons we invested
$4.7 billion to help states and Tribes plug and remediate
abandoned oil and gas wells in the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law.
We also invested more for abandoned mine reclamation, for
natural gas pipeline modernization, and to mitigate the
environmental risks of undocumented orphan wells.
We are excited about the progress at the state level,
Governors.
New Mexico now requires regular and frequent leak detection
and repair, and a new measure will help eliminate routine
venting and flaring across that state.
And in Wyoming, state officials stepped up after the Trump
administration weakened Federal methane safeguards. They
created state-level emissions limits and required leak
detection and repair on new and modified sources.
But there is so much more to be done--and quickly--as the
costly impacts of the climate crisis continue to grow and the
window to act to avoid the worst impacts is rapidly closing.
We need robust Federal rules to find and repair leaks from
both new and existing sources, including marginal wells, and we
need to end routine venting and flaring, which wastes energy
and harms the public health.
So we are looking forward to a robust discussion today.
At this time, I will recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Graves, for a 5-minute opening statement.
[The statement of Ms. Castor follows:]

Opening Statement of Chair Kathy Castor

AMERICA'S NATURAL SOLUTIONS: THE CLIMATE

BENEFITS OF INVESTING IN HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS

April 1, 2022

As prepared for delivery

I'm excited to recognize our two distinguished guests for this
important hearing so we can learn from them: Governor Michelle Lujan
Grisham, of New Mexico, and Governor Mark Gordon, of Wyoming. Thank you
for being here to share your unique perspectives on climate solutions.
We often focus on carbon dioxide as the main driver of the climate
crisis. But it's also critical that we address methane, the second-
largest source of heat-trapping pollution. Methane is a potent
greenhouse gas and is responsible for about 30% of global warming in
the modern era. And while it leaves the atmosphere faster than CO2, it
traps 87 times as much heat while it lingers. Last year, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change urged us to work to reduce
this super-pollutant. And while the Biden administration, Congress, and
many states have adopted policies to reduce methane pollution and
energy waste, methane levels have jumped dramatically over the past
decade and emissions remain at the highest levels on record.
Fortunately, there are cost-effective ways to dramatically reduce
methane pollution from the oil and natural gas sector, which remains
the largest industrial methane source in the United States. Fossil
fuels were responsible for approximately 80% of the increase in methane
emissions between 2006 and 2017 across North America, according to
analysis from NASA and Stanford. And methane can escape at nearly every
stage during the production, transmission, and distribution of oil and
gas. These leaks add up. Producers could have sold an additional 180
billion cubic meters of natural gas--the equivalent of the entire
European gas market--if all leaks from global fossil fuel operations
had been captured last year, according to the International Energy
Agency. And according to a separate IEA analysis, the oil and gas
industry could slash its methane emissions in half at no net cost just
by deploying existing technologies.
Taking these actions has broad support. Last year, we voted to
require companies to regularly find and repair methane leaks. Major oil
and gas companies supported the measure, but only 12 House Republicans
voted for it. Our friends across the aisle often call for expanding
production of natural gas as a solution to the climate crisis, but
unless harmful methane pollution is addressed, the climate impacts of
gas can be worse than the coal it may replace.
Plugging methane leaks is low-hanging fruit and it is good for
producers' bottom line. And because of Putin's invasion of Ukraine,
it's now a security imperative as well. Capturing wasted methane could
meet more than half of President Biden's LNG commitment to Europe.
Stopping energy waste will help both everyday Americans and our allies
abroad. It will also support good-paying jobs across America. Those
jobs include plugging and remediating abandoned wells, expanding leak
detection and repair, and increasing maintenance and inspections.
According to BlueGreen Alliance, unleashing this potential could create
50,000-plus jobs over a decade. Repairing and replacing leaky natural
gas distribution pipelines could create 300,000 more.
That ``win-win'' scenario is one of the reasons we invested $4.7
billion to help states and tribes plug and remediate abandoned oil and
gas wells in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. We also invested more
for abandoned mine land reclamation, for natural gas pipeline
modernization, and to mitigate the environmental risks of undocumented
orphaned wells.
We're also excited about progress at the state level. New Mexico
now requires regular and frequent leak detection and repair, and a new
measure will help eliminate routine venting and flaring across the
state. And in Wyoming, state officials stepped up after the Trump
administration weakened federal methane safeguards, creating state-
level emissions limits and requiring leak detection and repair on new
and modified sources.
But there is so much more to be done--and quickly--as the costly
impacts of the climate crisis continue to grow and the window to act to
avoid the worst impacts is rapidly closing. We need robust federal
rules to find and repair leaks from both new and existing sources,
including marginal wells. And we need to end routine venting and
flaring, which wastes energy and harms public health.
I look forward to today's discussion.

Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, today I would like to announce that my good
friends and I have finally seen the light, that I am 100
percent on board with you-all's efforts to move to renewable
energy. I am going to switch parties and----
Ms. Castor. You are in sync with most of America now. Thank
you.
Mr. Graves. So April Fool's.
When I talked about switching--I know. Somebody is going to
chop that. Somebody is going to chop that.
And just to finish my statement, when I was talking about
switching parties, I am going to switch from the Saturday night
Mardi Gras Ball to the Sunday night Mardi Gras Ball.
And when I tell you I have seen the light, I do want to
clarify that. So we recently had the President, in fact, over
the last 4 months announce that he is going to release a total
of 260 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
According to EIA, we have imported up to about 200,000 barrels
a day of Russian oil. So you can do the math. The President is
saying he is going to release a million barrels. Even if you
had a refined product, then you are still significantly below
that number. And to me, it verifies what we have expressed
concern about previously is that the release of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, our emergency reserves, are actually to
mitigate for bad energy policy.
Madam Chair, you just made reference to the Great American
Outdoors Act. And you are right. Congress did pass that, and I
know there are a lot of people in this room that supported it.
But I also want to remind you that every penny of that money
that goes toward funding the national parks and wildlife
refuges and our BLM lands and forests and it goes to the
maintenance, backlog maintenance, every single penny of that is
derived from offshore energy production in the Gulf of Mexico.
And so, over the past year, we have seen, just in one year,
we have seen--and I can get the exact numbers but I was looking
at some numbers just a minute ago. We have seen a reduction of
over $1 billion, over $1 billion in revenue to the U.S.
Treasury that would go to fund the Great American Outdoors Act,
as well as funding things like coastal resiliency and hurricane
protection in my home State of Louisiana.
And so there is a relationship here. If we continue, as
this administration has done, to say we are not going to
produce any energy--we are not going to produce it, the only
administration in modern history that has not had a single
lease sale for onshore or offshore energy in the United States,
and so you are having financial implications. It is causing
environmental concerns. It is making the people that we
represent in south Louisiana along the Gulf Coast more
vulnerable, because we are not making investments into
hurricane protection and coastal restoration at the same level
as we would. And it is going to be a downward trajectory.
And so some say, well, look, I don't want to use oil and
gas. Well, even this administration's Energy Information Agency
says we are going to have a 50-percent global increase, 50-
percent global increase in demand for energy, this
administration's projections show an increase in oil and an
increase in gas demand, as well as renewables and everything
else we need to be doing. We have got to have a strategy moving
forward.
Madam Chair, you just talked about American support and the
majority of Americans. You know what the majority of Americans
have said? 92 percent of Americans, 92 percent have said that
they don't want to import foreign oil, that they don't want to
bring in oil from Russia. Yet this administration's policies
are actually making us more dependent upon foreign resources.
So what did the President do yesterday? He just says, well,
we are going to employ the Defense Production Act and we are
going to get these critical minerals. Well, just a few months
ago, you actually banned critical minerals from being produced
in the United States.
The Defense Production Act really is designed for three
things. It is designed for national defense. It is designed to
respond to disasters. It is designed to respond to terrorism.
It is really unfortunate that we are in a situation where we
have to employ the Defense Production Act to address terrorism
and disasters committed by our own administration.
Look, we are talking about natural solutions today. And I
really appreciate it. And I am looking forward to hearing from
witnesses because I think, Madam Chair, this is an area where
we agree.
I am excited to have Congressman Bruce Westerman, the
Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee, come in, in
a little while. Bruce has been an incredible leader and very
well-versed on natural solutions such as the role that trees
can play in sequestering greenhouse gases. And as you may know,
he has got this legislation, the Trillion Trees Act, that could
sequester up to 205 gigatons of carbon through that initiative.
But we also have other things that we ought to be talking
about, and that includes our farms. Some of the largest
landholders in conservation in the United States are farms.
And, in fact, since 1948, their productivity has increased over
280 times, the productivity of our agriculture. And so that is
more efficient farming, providing food to the United States and
the world and at much more efficient rates, in fact, some of
the most efficient production in the world. In fact, I think it
is the most productive in world.
But we have additional opportunities to do better best
practices and employ better--I don't know how to say that; let
me try that again--employ best practices on a wider scale, and
I think we can resolve to working with our farmers, other
natural solutions.
And one other thing, Madam Chair, that I want to make
reference to that I think affects both of us is restoring or
protecting our coastal areas, because when we have our coastal
areas erode and are lost, it results in the emissions of
greenhouse gases. And, in fact, when I was working for the
State of Louisiana, we did one of the first clean development
mechanisms in the world relating greenhouse gas emissions to
wetlands restoration and protection. I think we have some
opportunities there as well.
So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. And I
yield back.
Ms. Castor. Now I want to welcome our witnesses.
Today we will hear from experts on the importance of
investing in healthy and resilient habitats and communities. We
have a great panel.
Mr. Collin O'Mara is the President and Chief Executive
Officer of the National Wildlife Federation. Mr. O'Mara leads
the country's largest wildlife conservation organization with
52 state and territorial affiliates and nearly 6 million
hunters, anglers, birders, gardeners, hikers, paddlers, and
wildlife enthusiasts. Prior to NWF, Mr. O'Mara led the Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control as
Cabinet Secretary from 2009 through 2014.
Mr. Nick Loris is the Vice President of Public Policy at C3
Solutions. Mr. Loris studies and writes about a wide range of
energy and climate policies, including natural resource
extraction, energy subsidies, nuclear energy, renewable power,
and energy efficiency. He also studies ways in which markets
will improve the environment, reduce emission, and better adapt
to a changing climate.
Dr. Sherry Larkin is the Director of the Florida Sea Grant
College Program and Professor of Food and Resource Economics at
the University of Florida. As a natural resource and
environmental economist, Dr. Larkin leads work to conserve
coastal and marine resources and enhance economic opportunities
across Florida. She has served as an elected member of the
Executive Committee for the International Institute of
Fisheries Economics & Trade, as well as President of the North
American Association of Fisheries Economists.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Bonamici to
introduce Dr. Cristina Eisenberg.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chair Castor.
It is my pleasure to introduce Dr. Cristina Eisenberg, an
Oregon State University Courtesy Faculty Member at the College
of Forestry and an outstanding alumna and alumni fellow. Dr.
Eisenberg is a Native American and Latinx conservation
biologist and the principal investigator on two multiyear
projects within indigenous communities. She served as a
Smithsonian Research Associate and as the Chief Scientist at
Earthwatch Institute, where she was responsible for overseeing
a global research program focused on ecological restoration,
climate resiliency, social justice for indigenous peoples, and
sustainability.
Dr. Eisenberg has authored numerous journal articles,
books, and book chapters. She serves on several boards and
advisory councils. She works to build government-to-government
partnerships with Tribal Nations and Federal agencies in a
manner that respects the sovereignty, upholds treaty rights,
and advances social and environmental justice.
I look forward to hearing more from Dr. Eisenberg, and I
thank her for being here today.
And I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Rep Bonamici.
And I would also like to welcome a number of students who
are in the audience today, graduate students. They are in town
for the National Association of Graduate Professional Studies'
Spring Legislative Action Days. It is a pleasure to have
University of Florida Graduate Student Rock Aboujaoude, who
serves as Legislative Director of the association and as
Director of the Campus Climate Corps in Gainesville.
Welcome also to Dr. John Capece, who has spent his career
supporting graduate students and clean water in the great State
of Florida.
With that, Mr. O'Mara, you are going to start us off. You
are recognized for 5 minutes for your presentation.

STATEMENTS OF COLLIN O'MARA, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION; NICK LORIS, VICE
PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY, C3 SOLUTIONS; SHERRY L. LARKIN,
DIRECTOR, FLORIDA SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM, AND PROFESSOR,
FOOD AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA; AND
CRISTINA EISENBERG, COURTESY FACULTY, COLLEGE OF FORESTRY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS AND SOCIETY, OREGON STATE
UNIVERSITY

STATEMENT OF COLLIN O'MARA

Mr. O'Mara. Thank you, Chair Castor and Ranking Member
Graves, for holding this hearing and for having me, giving me
the opportunity to testify before you all.
To achieve net zero emissions, we are going to need to
reduce net greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. by about 6
gigatons and, you know, domestically and about 44 gigatons
around the globe. We often think about natural climate
solutions and natural solutions as a resilience play. But I
want to talk today about how this could actually be--these
investments could actually be a quarter of the overall
solution.
They are kind of the ultimate win-win-win. They are a win
on safety. They make communities more resilient. The healthy
forests are less likely to experience megafires, helping
wetlands and grasslands help reduce damage from hurricanes and
inland flooding. They are a win on carbon. They are a multiple-
gigaton solution for sequestering carbon.
There are economic wins. They create a ton of good jobs,
about more than 17 to 25 jobs per million dollars invested.
They both direct restoration jobs, as well as supporting jobs
on working landscapes in the outdoor economy.
Number four, the fourth win is that they are--they make
communities healthier. For example, urban trees, you know,
filter out pollution out of the air and the water. They reduce
urban heat island effects.
And the fifth one is that there is this huge savings. They
save a ton of money. Every dollar we spend on pre-storm
disaster preparedness saves us $6 to $8 in avoided costs, and
that is an incredible ROI that is a great way to reduce our
long-term debt.
Yet, despite all of this, climate conversations rarely
focus as much on natural solutions as they do on technology.
And it is less than 5 percent of overall climate spending. And
when you consider that really the only emission reduction
strategy that also provides resilience benefits that can cost-
effectively save lives, it even becomes more absurd that we
don't focus on it more.
You know, last year alone we had twenty climate-fueled
disasters that caused at least $1 billion in damages. These
disasters resulted in $145 billion of total damages and the
tragic loss of nearly 700 lives in the U.S. Now, imagine how
many of those lives could have been saved. And, you know, when
disasters, whether it is Hurricane Katrina or Sandy or Harvey
or Maria, or the horrific fires out West, I mean, they
disproportionately affect communities of color, low-income
communities, frontline communities first and worst.
Now when we think about natural climate solutions, we are
talking about a few types of key systems. So we are talking
about forests. We are talking about wetlands. We are talking
about grasslands and shrublands. We are talking about coasts
and the marine environment.
Healthy forests are less likely to burn uncontrollably.
Right? They help clean water. They help restore water. They
reduce drought conditions. They provide key habitat for
wildlife, and they serve as our greatest terrestrial carbon
sink. Wetlands and repairing corridors, the average acre of
wetlands can hold more than 1 million gallons of water, 1
million gallons. I mean, the absorption capacity is huge. So,
when communities face a hurricane or a flash flood, those
wetlands reduce both the volume and the velocity of water,
protecting all those either inland or downstream.
Grasslands and shrublands, native grasses and shrubs have
long, deep roots that sequester a lot of carbon, improve soil
health, reduce soil erosion, all of which helps reduce flooding
and improve productivity, especially when invasive plants like
cheatgrass and buffalo grass aren't allowed to spread and get
that tender on the landscape.
Coasts and marines also huge opportunities for resilience
in carbon abatement on living shorelines, planted dunes, tidal
wetlands, mangroves, kelp, seagrass, and other native
vegetation. Each of these systems can mean the difference
between life and death, homes in better standing, or
communities that are washed away, life that is carrying on or
lives that are upended.
Now, fortunately, as Chair Castor said, over the last
several Congresses and thanks to many of you, we have made
great progress on natural climate solutions, especially
resilience. You know, we have gone from these niche products to
actually mainstream solutions. We have seen this in WRDA, the
Farm Bill, the Great American Outdoors Act, America's
Conservation Enhancement Act.
We have seen natural infrastructure prominently focused in
disaster supplementals. We have seen it in enhancements to the
hazard mitigation programs. The Infrastructure and Jobs Act had
historic investments, and the reconciliation package had $105
billion proposed for restoration resilience. We can and must
build on these investments and do so in ways that leave no
community behind and ensure that communities of color and
frontline communities are never an afterthought ever again.
Now the good news is there is a whole range of bipartisan
solutions that are before you right now. I would argue that the
biggest single action that Congress could take just for private
investment in natural solutions is replicating the success of
the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture technology and with a
complementary credit that is actually focused on the
sequestration of carbon naturally.
Sending a clear market signal that is predictable,
accessible, additional, permanent, and ecologically
appropriate, we could catalyze innovation and private
investment onto public-private Tribal lands, while providing
policy parity for natural solutions and their technological
counterparts.
If you want more greater public investment in--through the
Congress and also reduce long-term debt, we could update the
way we budget these projects, the way we score these projects.
You know, CBO right now score the dollar we spend on mitigation
without the fixed dollars in spending--in savings that we would
enjoy. And we are spending a lot on supplementals that,
frankly, are kind of that pound of cure where the ounce of
prevention would have been a lot cheaper.
We also need to continue to prioritize natural solutions in
things like WRDA, things like the next Farm Bill, all the
ecological restoration programs, and not just like the estuary
programs in the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake and the Delaware
but coastal Louisiana, the Everglades, coastal communities up
and down the coast, and also the working waterways like the
Mississippi, the Ohio, the Missouri, the Colorado, the Rio
Grande, some of the resources that don't get the attention.
And, finally, I would be remiss, of course, if I didn't
mention the Recovering America's Wildlife Act and other great
efforts like the North American Grasslands Conservation Act,
Wildlife Corridors Act. And hopefully there is a bipartisan
path on the Trillion Trees initiative.
So these present a huge opportunity. And investing in
natural infrastructure allows us to center the health and
safety of people, as well as advancing our climate,
conservation, and economic goals. That is a pretty good win-
win-win-win-win.
Thanks for letting me be with you today.
[The statement of Mr. O'Mara follows:]

Written Testimony of Mr. Collin O'Mara

President and CEO, National Wildlife Federation

Hearing on ``America's Natural Solutions: The Climate Benefits of

Investing in Healthy Ecosystems''

U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

April 1, 2022

Introduction
Thank you, Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and members of
the select committee for holding this hearing. Natural infrastructure
is a proven, life-saving, and fiscally responsible solution to
sequester carbon and protect communities from the increasingly severe
effects of the climate crisis in every state and territory.
Healthy rivers, forests, grasslands, wetlands, shrublands, and
shorelines are each essential for resilient communities, carbon
sequestration, thriving populations of fish and wildlife, and a vibrant
outdoor economy. These natural systems also reduce the need for costly
structural flood and storm damage reduction projects and improve the
effectiveness and resilience of other critical infrastructure assets.
As we confront climate change and anticipate increasingly more frequent
and severe storms and weather events, it is essential that we consider
all tools at our disposal, including the use of natural systems to help
buffer and protect communities.
As we work to confront the immense threats that the changing
climate poses to communities today, natural solutions are essential to
protecting communities. Climate-fueled hurricanes, heatwaves, fires,
floods, and storms are here and their impacts are very real. Last year
alone, there were 20 climate-fueled disasters that have each caused at
least $1 billion in damages and collectively resulted in $145 billion
in damage and the tragic loss of 688 lives. Natural systems--ranging
from healthy forests to coastal wetlands and dunes to healthy
floodplains--can mean the difference between life and death, homes
still standing or a community washed away, life carrying on or lives
upended.
Natural solutions that sequester carbon should also be central to
any plan to achieve net-zero emissions--and, through the right
incentives and investments, can account for more than 30 percent of the
emission reductions needed.
Fortunately, over the past several Congresses, natural
infrastructure has emerged as a bipartisan solution to the challenges
millions of Americans are facing. We've seen supportive policies and
increased investment through the Water Resources Development Act, the
Farm Bill, Storm Recovery Supplemental Appropriations, reform of Hazard
Mitigation Programs, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, America's
Conservation Enhancement Act, annual appropriations, and most
significantly, the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
And there are many more bipartisan opportunities to do even more.
By continuing to leverage the protective value of nature, we can
implement approaches that break the destructive and devastating cycle
of climate-fueled unnatural disasters. Resilient natural systems can
withstand changing conditions and readily recover from extreme floods,
storms, and droughts. They also provide cost-effective and self-
sustaining protections and benefits, including reducing flood risks,
sustaining fish and wildlife, improving water quality, regulating
sediment loading, stabilizing soil, sequestering carbon, and providing
recreational opportunities.
Natural infrastructure and nature-based solutions should be a
mainstream choice for our infrastructure investments. We know, based on
years of evidence, that this approach saves lives and taxpayer dollars.
Conserving, restoring, and investing in natural and nature-based
features makes communities safer and more resilient by absorbing
floodwaters, buffering storm surges, and giving rivers room to spread
out without harming homes and businesses. Studies show that restoration
can create from around 10 to 40 jobs per $1 million invested. Natural
infrastructure reduces the need for new, often expensive structural
projects, and provides an important extra line of defense when levees
or other structures are required. Natural infrastructure also avoids
unintended adverse impacts such as diverting floodwaters onto other
communities and inducing development in high risk areas.
For too long, Congress and conservation-focused organizations
looked past people when focusing on wildlife, public lands, clean
waterways, forests and headwaters, coastal dunes and wetlands, mountain
peaks and pristine coasts. This approach has left behind communities of
color and treated environmental justice and frontline communities as
afterthoughts. We should center the health and safety of people when we
prioritize the conservation and restoration of natural systems, while
also advancing our goals to recover wildlife, provide clean water and
air, reduce erosion, and promote outdoor recreation -- all while
sequestering large amounts of the excess carbon dioxide currently in
the atmosphere.
On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation, our 52 state and
territorial affiliates, and our nearly 7 million members and
supporters, we are grateful for the leadership of this Committee in
laying out thoughtful policy recommendations for natural climate
solutions, including conserving and restoring forests, grasslands,
floodplains, and ocean and wetland ecosystems; boosting federal
spending for new and existing conservation programs to help farmers and
ranchers adopt practices that help wildlife and stabilize the climate;
helping wildlife adapt to climate change by establishing wildlife
corridors and implementing landscape-scale conservation plans; and
ensuring equitable access and benefits from natural climate solutions.
A Highly Cost-Effective Solution
For every $1 that we spend on pre-disaster mitigation, we will save
$6 to $8 in avoided damages and taxpayer costs. Because of our archaic
budget rules, it's easier to spend hundreds of billions of dollars
after a disaster through a supplemental appropriation than it is to
invest in the ounce of prevention that could have mitigated the damage
in the first place. While we score the immediate cost of $1 of
mitigation, we fail to account for the long-term cost avoidance on
disaster relief and recovery. This just doesn't make sense. As a
result, we've spent nearly $300 billion in disaster supplementals over
the past decade and that number will only grow. And we urge the
committee to consider working with the Senate to amend both rules and
statutes like PAY-GO to account for the net-savings that such
investments will achieve, while not undercounting the increased
expenditures that will accrue without action.
There is a wide and growing body of literature demonstrating how
investing in nature before and after natural disasters reduces costs to
taxpayers, landowners, and insurers while also saving lives and
protecting property.[1] For
instance, coastal ecosystems represent a critical buffer against
hurricanes and other storms. One acre of wetlands can typically store
1-1.5 million gallons of floodwater.[2] According to a 2008 study, coastal wetlands in the United
States provide an estimated $23.2 billion per year in storm protection
services, or as much as $5 million per square kilometer of
wetland.[3]
Living shorelines, such as marshes enhanced with oyster reef
breakwaters, hold up better than bulkheads during major storm
events.[4] This protection also
comes at lower cost than traditional protective infrastructure. For
example, reviving reefs and mangroves can be an order of magnitude more
cost-effective than installing seawalls or breakwaters.[5] Moreover, residents with bulkheads in
coastal North Carolina report paying double the cost to repair their
property and four times the cost for annual shoreline maintenance when
compared to residents with more natural shorelines.[6] Living shorelines also protect
against coastal erosion on a day-to-day basis, while maintaining
connectivity of shoreline habitat.[7]
In coastal Louisiana, investments in wetland restoration generated
28 times as much flood protection, dollar-for-dollar, than a similar
investment in six-meter high dikes.[8] In Florida, it has been estimated that comprehensive
restoration of the Everglades would yield a four-to-one return on
investment.[9] And, wetlands can
also help industry meet regulatory requirements at lower cost than by
constructing costly water treatment facilities.[10]
Beach restoration and dune nourishment can provide protection from
major storm events, boost the local economy through increased
recreation, and provide habitat for migratory birds. When Superstorm
Sandy hit the East Coast in 2012, Cape May Point, New Jersey, had
recently completed a project to widen two miles of the beach, build an
18-foot tall dune, and restore nearby freshwater wetlands. Cape May
Point suffered virtually no damage, while surrounding areas sustained
$640 million in losses. A host of birds have flocked to the restored
wetlands and beach, and ecotourism from birders is estimated to add
more than $310 million per year to the county's revenue.[11]
Floodplain acquisition projects have been effective in reducing
flood risk, bringing down flood insurance premiums, and creating green
spaces for recreation. Along Mingo Creek in Tulsa, Oklahoma, local
property owners and businesses have not suffered property losses due to
flooding since a voluntary buyout program was implemented in 1984.
Additionally, residents have received up to a 35% discount on their
flood insurance premiums, which reflects their reduced flood
risk.[12]
Inland, reforestation, climate-smart forest management, and
watershed restoration all have the potential to bolster natural carbon
sequestration, benefit wildlife, and provide economic benefits
including job creation. In Oregon, each dollar of public investment in
forest and watershed restoration is multiplied in economic activity
between 1.7 and 2.6 times as it cycles through Oregon's
economy.[13] Similarly, it was
estimated that the first year of the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation
Economic Development Pilot Program, alone, would cost less than $30
million but generate more than $140 million in revenue while creating
3,000 jobs and attracting more than 600,000 visitors to the region in
Kentucky.[14]
The need to address greater risks from wildfires in many grasslands
and forested areas has also grown considerably in recent years due to
climate-related increases in extreme heat and drought, combined with
higher fuel loads due to nearly a century of over-reliance on fire
suppression. Indeed, the cost of wildfire impacts has grown
considerably as more people have moved in to the so-called ``wildland
urban interface.'' [15] A 2015
study estimated that at least 1.1 million homes are at the highest risk
from wildfire in the western United States, with a reconstruction cost
of $268 billion dollars.[16] In
turn, land management agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service have had
to spend significantly larger portions of their budgets on fire
suppression, eroding their ability to fund restoration and management
activities to improve ecosystem health and resilience.[17]
Ecological forest management has emerged as an important concept
for addressing wildfire risks as well as enhancing the health of forest
systems. Specifically, ecological forest management may include a
combination of strategic thinning, prescribed fire, and managed
wildfire to reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire and promote
healthier, more-resilient forests. Done thoughtfully, the approach can
help balance tradeoffs between short-term costs and impacts of
treatment with long-term benefits of reduced risks of large, high-
severity fires. For example, a combination of thinning and prescribed
fire in eastern and southern California was found to have significantly
reduced burn severity in trees during 12 wildfires that occurred
between 2005 and 2011.[18]
Further, improved community planning and collaborative risk
management efforts, including both targeted codes and ordinances and
voluntary, incentive-based approaches, have significantly reduced risks
from wildfires. For example, the Firewise USA recognition program, a
collaborative effort between state and federal agencies and
nongovernmental organizations, has been working with communities across
the country to reduce wildfire risks by encouraging homeowners to
improve defensible space in their neighborhoods. Recent fires have
demonstrated the program's success. For example, two consecutive fires
in the community of Indian Lakes Estates, Florida, spared numerous
homes and structures due to risk reduction preparations that homeowners
made under the program.[19] Such
programs are likely to be increasingly important as insurance companies
continue to assess the risks from worsening wildfires and adjust rates
and coverage accordingly.[20]
By updating our scoring rules to account for the net savings we can
both increase investment in these life-saving projects, while reducing
the long-term national debt projections.
Increasingly Severe Weather Events Are Wreaking Havoc on Communities
Natural climate solutions are essential to our ability to adapt to
unavoidable climate impacts, build resilience, and meet net-zero goals.
Adaptation is an essential partner to climate mitigation, and nature-
based solutions can play a major role for both and provide significant
co-benefits for water, air, recreation, hazard reduction, and many
other services to society. However, natural climate solutions must
value biodiversity and be ecologically appropriate to ensure no harmful
unintended consequences.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a
report in February that warned climate change is already severely
impacting people and the ecosystems we depend on in every region of the
world, with the poorest and most vulnerable at greatest risk, and one
million animal and plant species facing the threat of extinction --
more than any other time in human history. The IPCC also reported that
despite an increase in adaptation activities by governments,
businesses, and civil society, far more is needed to help people and
wildlife prepare for a changing world.
America is facing increasingly severe storms and floods, extreme
droughts, massive wildfires and record high temperatures, fueled by a
rapidly changing climate.[21] We
have suffered more billion-dollar inland flood disasters in the last
decade than in the prior three decades combined. We have endured more
billion-dollar hurricane disasters in the last five years than in the
decade before.[22] The human
suffering caused by these and many smaller disasters is incalculable,
with low-income and frontline communities bearing a disproportionate
share of the harm.
The ever-mounting toll of human suffering and economic loss from
natural disasters shows no sign of abating and every sign that it will
continue to grow. Research shows that both the intensity and number of
extreme storms will continue to increase appreciably as our climate
warms. In some locations, future extreme events could be twice as
intense as historical averages.[23] By 2100, previously rare extreme rainstorms could happen
every two years.[24] By 2050,
high tides could cause ``sunny day'' flooding in coastal communities 25
to 75 days a year.[25] By the
end of the century, homes and commercial properties currently worth
more than $1 trillion could be at risk of chronic flood
inundation.[26]
Storms and floods in the United States disproportionately harm
Black, Latinx, Indigenous, low-income, and frontline communities. For
example, the neighborhood that suffered the worst flood damage during
Hurricane Harvey was in an area of southwest Houston where 49 percent
of the residents are people of color. Similarly, damage from Hurricane
Katrina was most extensive in the region's Black neighborhoods. In
fact, in four of the seven ZIP codes that suffered the costliest flood
damages from Hurricane Katrina, at least 75 percent of residents were
Black.[27] Over the next 30
years, the ``risk of coastal floods damaging or destroying low-income
homes will triple'' resulting in the flooding of more than 25,000
affordable housing units each year.[28]
In addition, ``while severe storms fall on the rich and poor alike,
the capacity to respond to and recover from flooding is much lower in
socially vulnerable populations that even in the best of times are
struggling to function.''[29]
Even low levels of flooding can wreak havoc on buildings and the
residents who live in them, damaging belongings, disrupting electrical
equipment, contaminating water sources and septic systems, and
generating mold. These impacts can ``cause profound disruptions to
families already struggling to make ends meet'' and can be particularly
challenging to remedy in affordable housing units, which are often in
poor repair to begin with.[30]
Nature-based Solutions to Address Community Climate Risks
As the impacts of climate change accelerate, exposing the
limitations of relying only on conventional gray infrastructure, the
value of nature-based solutions to address community climate risks is
becoming increasingly evident. Known by a variety of terms--including
natural infrastructure, natural defenses, natural climate solutions,
ecosystem-based adaptation, and natural and nature-based features--
nature-based solutions can effectively deliver both climate mitigation
and climate adaptation outcomes. In 2016, the International Union for
the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) published a global standard for the
use of these approaches, defining nature-based solutions (NbS) as
``actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural and
modified ecosystems in ways that address societal challenges
effectively and adaptively, to provide both human well-being and
biodiversity benefits.''
The use of natural and nature-based systems to address climate
risks can encompass a wide range of options, from the protection and
conservation of still-intact natural systems, to the restoration of
degraded ecosystems, to the use of engineered systems designed to
emulate natural system functions. Importantly, nature-based approaches
can also be used in concert with structural options to form hybrid or
``green-gray'' systems for risk reduction. In practice, these
approaches can be as simple as planting trees in urban neighborhoods to
provide shade and stormwater management benefits or as complex as
reengineering riverine systems to restore natural floodplains and
lessen flood risks and restore natural ecosystem functioning and
biodiversity integrity.
The National Wildlife Federation recently conducted a review and
synthesis of nature-based solutions as a contribution to the U.S.
Climate Resilience Toolkit's Steps to Resilience planning framework.
This review highlighted the following seven key considerations for
incorporating nature-based approaches into community-based climate
adaptation planning:
Recognize natural systems and processes as critical
infrastructure
Consider climate impacts on priority natural assets
Consider equity implications in the design and
application of nature-based solutions
Ensure that nature-based solutions yield net positive
biodiversity benefits
Seek to protect or restore critical natural
infrastructure
Give natural features and processes space to function
Integrate nature-based solutions into existing planning
processes
The Changing Climate and Massive Habitat Losses Have Pushed
Wildlife to the Brink
The changing climate, combined with historic and ongoing
destruction, fragmentation, and degradation of vast swaths of habitat,
have pushed America's wildlife into crisis, helping to drive the
planet's ongoing sixth mass extinction of species.[31] As many as one-third of America's
plant and wildlife species are vulnerable, with one in five imperiled
and at high risk of extinction.[32]
America's freshwater species have been particularly hard hit.
Approximately 40 percent of the nation's freshwater fish species are
now rare or imperiled.[33]
Nearly 60 percent of the nation's globally significant freshwater
mussel species are imperiled or vulnerable, and an additional 10
percent are already extinct.[34]
Our wildlife crisis extends well beyond rare and endangered
species, and now affects many widespread and previously abundant
creatures, such as the little brown bat, monarch butterfly, and many of
our most beloved songbirds. State fish and wildlife agencies have
identified more than 12,000 species nationwide in need of conservation
action, and fully one-third of North America's bird species require
urgent conservation attention.[35] The best way to spur collaborative, proactive recovery
efforts to save these thousands of species of greatest conservation
need is for Congress to pass the bipartisan Recovering America's
Wildlife Act (H.R.2773).
The historic loss and degradation of aquatic wildlife habitat
across the country makes each additional acre of wetland lost or
natural stream segment channelized even more consequential for the
long-term viability of our nation's fish and wildlife. At least ten
states have lost more than 70 percent of their wetlands, which provide
essential fish and wildlife habitat, while 22 states have lost 50
percent or more of their original wetland acreage.[36] The construction of levees to reduce
the frequency and duration of flooding in the lower Mississippi River
Valley is the single largest contributor to wetland losses in the
country, according to the Department of the Interior.[[37] Fish and wildlife have also been
severely harmed through the pervasive alteration of natural stream
flows, including from reservoirs and locks and dams, which have
occurred in 86 percent of the almost 3,000 streams assessed by the U.S.
Geological Survey.[38] It is
past time that we turn to the most ingenious engineer on the planet,
Mother Nature, to help protect people and wildlife alike with natural
infrastructure.
Ecosystem Restoration Provides Multiple Environmental, Health, and
Economic Benefits
From the Coastal Louisiana to the Everglades and the Great Lakes to
the Puget Sound, many iconic ecosystems across the country have
associated restoration plans that, with enough support, could enhance
the many co-benefits ecosystem restoration provides for communities and
wildlife alike. These watershed-wide ecosystem restoration programs and
plans were carefully crafted based upon the best available science and
with extensive public input. They enjoy broad, bipartisan support, and
their success hinges on the construction and maintenance of shovel-
worthy infrastructure projects, including natural infrastructure
projects. Implementing these plans creates thousands of good-paying
jobs through the on-the-ground work needed to restore our nationally
significant lakes, rivers, and estuaries. Many federal and state
agencies -- including the Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture,
and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- have a critical
role to play in supporting a robust restoration economy by developing
and implementing these watershed-wide restoration plans and programs.
There are also critical watersheds -- such as the Ohio River, the
Mississippi River, the Delaware River, and coastal Louisiana -- where
restoration plans exist or are currently under development at the state
or regional level. These working watersheds are also home to many low-
income and vulnerable communities, who suffer firsthand as a result
from the degradation and pollution of these rivers and surrounding
floodplains.
The recently passed bipartisan infrastructure law recognizes the
multitude of benefits of investing in watershed-wide approaches that
utilize natural infrastructure to restore and protect our aquatic
ecosystems across the country. For example, it invested more than $1.7
billion in the Environmental Protection Agency's ecosystem restoration
programs, including $1 billion to clean up toxic pollution, restore
fish and wildlife habitat, reduce farm and city runoff pollution, and
confront invasive species through the federal Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative and $238 million for the Chesapeake Bay Program, which
coordinates Chesapeake Bay watershed restoration and protection
efforts. The law also provided nearly $1 billion for coastal
restoration and resilience investments through NOAA and through the
National Coastal Resilience Fund, as well as $1.9 billion for Army
Corps of Engineers' aquatic ecosystem restoration efforts across the
country, including a historic $1 billion for efforts to restore the
Everglades. It contains a historic amount of funding for water
infrastructure, including over $11.7 billion for the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF), of which at least 10 percent of each state's
capitalization grants will go toward Green Project Reserve eligible
projects, including natural infrastructure projects like wetland
restoration and reforestation efforts.
These investments, coupled with annual federal appropriations, will
help achieve comprehensive, watershed-wide restoration, enhancing
drinking water quality, safeguarding nearby communities from floods and
sea level rise, sustaining local and regional economies, protecting
wildlife habitat, and creating jobs.
Restored watersheds improve our quality of life, increase property
values, provide clean water, support fish and wildlife and enhance
outdoor recreation for our families. The on-the-ground work to restore
our coasts, lakes, rivers, and estuaries produces jobs and utilizes
skills and machinery available in the local workforce, benefiting local
economies. These cost-saving, job-creating, and resilience-building
investments will also help advance the administration's goals to
conserve and restore 30 percent of America's lands and waters.
Continuing to direct federal resources toward these widely-
supported and thoughtfully-crafted regional restoration programs are
among the smartest and most strategic investments we can make as a
nation to create jobs, support regional economies, protect natural
resources, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, and make our roads,
bridges, water systems, and communities more resilient. These
ecologically and culturally-important natural places are nationally-
significant hubs of tourism, and many support and protect other
critical industries including fisheries, shipping, and energy
production. Restoration implementation also supports a $25 billion
``restoration economy'' that directly employs 126,000 people and
supports 95,000 other jobs, mostly in small businesses. Restoring these
great watersheds helps sustain our nation's $887 billion outdoor
recreation economy. Through federal and state restoration we have an
opportunity to stimulate growth and produce jobs in regional economies,
and to support the national outdoor economy for years to come. Some
specific examples of the benefits of investing in ecosystem
restoration, and opportunities to expand ecosystem restoration efforts,
include:
Coastal Louisiana and the Mississippi River Delta: Large-
scale restoration of coastal Louisiana presents a significant
opportunity to protect existing infrastructure and industries of
national importance, while growing a restoration economy that can be a
model for other coastal communities around the world. Resources should
be directed to implement critical large-scale restoration projects in
coastal Louisiana, drawn from the state's Coastal Master Plan. These
investments would protect vulnerable communities, sustain critical
wildlife habitat, and create jobs. Additionally, lifting the existing
cap on shared Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) revenues
would increase resources available to sustain a restoration economy.
Mississippi River Restoration and Resilience Initiative:
Congress should pass H.R. 4202, the Mississippi River Restoration and
Resilience Initiative (MRRRI) Act, to establish a non-regulatory EPA
geographic program for the Mississippi River mainstem states. The MRRRI
Act centers natural infrastructure solutions that have co-benefits for
flood risk reduction, water quality improvements, wildlife habitat,
recreation, and other services to communities. It would enhance federal
coordination with the Army Corps and other agencies around a shared
agenda to improve the overall health and resilience of the Mississippi
River, through collaboration with states, Tribes, local governments,
and other river stakeholders.
Chesapeake Bay Restoration: The Chesapeake Bay watershed
is home to more than 18 million people and spans 64,000 square miles
across parts of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
and West Virginia and the entire District of Columbia. Over the past
decade, the states and the federal government have jointly committed to
a massive restoration program in the Bay watershed to restore the Bay
and its tributaries by 2025. The COVID-19 pandemic has set back
progress -- from delayed implementation of conservation practices on
farms to the implementation of stormwater practices in urban areas.
None of the watershed's restoration goals can be met without the
leadership, guidance and accelerated funding support provided by
various federal agencies, especially the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Delaware River Basin Restoration Program: More than 13
million people rely on clean drinking water from the Delaware River
watershed, including residents of New York City, Philadelphia, Trenton,
Camden, and Wilmington. The Delaware River Basin Restoration Program,
administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, develops a
coordinated approach to identify and implement restoration and
conservation activities across the Delaware River watershed, including
natural infrastructure projects that help restore water quality,
enhance water management efforts, improve wildlife habitat, and create
public access through the entire Delaware River watershed.
Everglades: The bipartisan plan to restore America's
Everglades involves constructing a suite of resilience-building water
infrastructure projects designed to remove barriers to water flow and
to clean, store, and send water south. Completing the restoration
milestones outlined in the Army Corps' Integrated Delivery Schedule for
Everglades restoration will create over 65,000 jobs, protect drinking
water supplies of more than 9 million Floridians, and enhance wildlife
habitat. It will also make Florida more resilient in the face of
climate change by defending against saltwater intrusion, strengthening
shorelines, protecting coastal and inland communities from flooding,
and sequestering carbon through restoring seagrass, mangrove, and
wetland habitat. Congress should appropriate $725 million to the Army
Corps of Engineers in FY 23 to maintain critical recent momentum to
accomplish keystone projects within the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Investing in the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which helps protect, restore, and
maintain the Great Lakes ecosystem, will protect the drinking water for
over 30 million Americans, create jobs, and safeguard public health.
Advancing the implementation of such projects in this region creates a
3-to-1 return on investment in local communities, from new real estate
and commercial development, to boosting outdoor recreation and tourism,
and more housing options and higher home values.
National Estuary Programs: The EPA's National Estuary
Programs help protect and restore water quality and habitat in 28
estuaries of national significance in the United States. These
estuaries provide important ecosystem services, create wildlife
habitat, support economically significant fisheries, and generate
billions of dollars in tourism revenues for the country. This program
leverages $22 on average in local, state and private sector investment
for every $1 of federal funds appropriated to the program.
Ohio River Basin: The Ohio River supplies drinking water
to more than 5 million people, and millions more depend on the river
for their health, jobs, and quality of life. Unfortunately, the Ohio
River basin faces the worst water pollution in the nation that
threatens drinking water quality, wildlife habitat, and human health.
Resources should be invested in developing and implementing a plan to
restore and protect the Ohio River basin ecosystem.
Texas Coastal Resiliency Master Plan: Resources should
support ecosystem restoration projects described in the Texas Coastal
Resiliency Master Plan, an inclusive stakeholder and community-driven
plan that identifies nature-based solutions spanning the entire nearly
400 miles of coastline to help the state shore up its coast and
withstand accelerating erosion rates, sea level rise, and increasingly
intense Gulf storms.
However, ecosystem restoration and the deployment of natural
infrastructure doesn't have to be at the watershed scale to make a
meaningful impact. Local and regional restoration efforts around the
nation are creating important benefits for people and wildlife. For
example, long-term partnerships between the National Wildlife
Federation and local communities have led to innovative resilience
projects around the country, including in the Great Marsh of
Massachusetts, and along the Eastern Shore of Maryland, in the town of
Oxford, where a project will incorporate living breakwaters into a
design that works with nature to protect coastal communities threatened
by increased sunny day flooding and coastal storms.
Additionally, as part of the Resilient Schools Consortium (RiSC)
program for middle and high schools in New York City, public school
students aged 12 to 20 are planting and caring for native trees on
their school grounds to help mitigate urban heat island and absorb
stormwater. They're planting thousands of American beach grass plants
to stabilize dunes in the frontline community of Coney Island,
Brooklyn. Once mature, these vegetated dunes will help to mitigate
flooding and property damage from coastal storms, and help to prevent
the migration of sand into shoreline roads. These education efforts are
foundational to addressing the multi-generational threat of climate
change and the need for adaptation.
An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure
The value of natural systems for protecting communities has long
been recognized. In a 1972 study evaluating options to reduce flooding
along the Charles River in Massachusetts, the Army Corps of Engineers
concluded:
``Nature has already provided the least-cost solution to future
flooding in the form of extensive [riverine] wetlands which moderate
extreme highs and lows in streamflow. Rather than attempt to improve on
this natural protection mechanism, it is both prudent and economical to
leave the hydrologic regime established over millennia
undisturbed.''[39]
Wetlands prevented an estimated $625 million in flood damages in
the 12 coastal states affected by Hurricane Sandy, and reduced damages
by 20 to 30 percent in the four states with the greatest wetland
coverage.[40] Coastal wetlands
reduced storm surge in some New Orleans neighborhoods by two to three
feet during Hurricane Katrina, and levees with wetland buffers had a
much greater chance of surviving Katrina's fury than levees without
wetland buffers.[41] The forest
and other conservation lands that make up the 28,000 acre Meramec
Greenway along the Meramec River in southern Missouri contribute about
$6,000 per acre in avoided flood damages annually. Wetlands in the
Eagle Creek watershed of central Indiana reduce peak flows from
rainfall by up to 42 percent, flood area by 55 percent, and maximum
stream velocities by 15 percent.
Evidence of the effectiveness of natural climate solutions in
reducing flood and storm damages continues to mount, as highlighted in
the National Wildlife Federation's report, The Protective Value of
Nature[42] and in the examples
provided as an appendix to this testimony. As aptly noted by the
Reinsurance Association of America: ``One cannot overstate the value of
preserving our natural systems for the protection of people and
property from catastrophic events.''[43]
Natural infrastructure is also often more cost-effective than
structural measures. A recent study documents that using natural
infrastructure solutions to reduce coastal flood risks in Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida would have a benefit-cost ratio of
3.5 compared to just 0.26 for levees and dikes. Restoring wetlands in
this region could prevent $18.2 billion in losses while costing just $2
billion to carry out. Natural infrastructure also has the significant
added benefits of being self-sustaining and avoiding the risk of
catastrophic structural failures. Importantly, natural infrastructure
can work both alone and in combination with more traditional gray
infrastructure to reduce flood and storm risks. And while gray
infrastructure deteriorates over time, particularly when exposed to
climatic conditions that exceed their design parameters, natural
infrastructure often has significant adaptive capacity and an ability
for self-repair.
A new approach that prioritizes nature-based pre-disaster
mitigation and resilience will save taxpayers money and make our
communities safer. Far too often, we approach resilience planning
through the lens of disaster response and recovery rather than through
proactive efforts to increase the resilience of vulnerable communities
and water resources before disaster strikes.
One clear example of this is evidenced by the Army Corps' history
of supplemental appropriations. From 2005 to 2016, the Corps received
$31.4 billion in supplemental funding, which amounts to almost half of
the agency's annual discretionary appropriations over that same period.
Of those supplemental funds, 87 percent ($27.2 billion) was provided to
respond to flooding and other disasters. With ever increasing effects
from storms, these emergency supplemental appropriations have also
dramatically increased over time, with the Corps receiving ``$1.1
billion in the 1990s, $19.2 billion in the 2000s, and $29.0 billion in
the 2010s.'' Many of these expenditures could have been avoided, if we
had invested in the necessary resilience projects. Even though we know
that for every $1 invested in pre-disaster mitigation, we save $6 in
avoided costs, Congressional budgetary rules continue to make it much
easier to fund an emergency supplemental appropriation after a disaster
than to invest in the ounce of prevention that could have saved money
and reduced damage in the first place.
Nature Can Help Mitigate Climate Change
Natural ecosystems also have the ability to sequester and store
large amounts of atmospheric carbon, the primary driver of accelerating
climate change. Indeed, natural climate solutions have the potential to
remove and store more than an additional gigaton of carbon dioxide
annually. Such nature-based solutions should be a central component of
the nation's climate mitigation strategy.
Forests and other wooded areas represent one of the best
opportunities to remove carbon from the atmosphere quickly, reliably,
and relatively cheaply. In 2017, the combination of forest land,
harvested wood products, and urban trees in the United States accounted
for an estimated net uptake of 730.9 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent (MMT CO2 eq.)[44]
endnote-reference> -- the equivalent of 15 percent of our economy-wide
CO2 emissions (Domke et al., 2020). Forested ecosystems also
provide an abundance of ecosystem services and societal benefits: they
create habitat for wildlife, produce clean water, provide space for
recreation, regulate temperatures, and much more. Between 1990 and
2017, ``forest land remaining forest land'' was the nation's largest
net carbon sink, and conversions of forest land were the largest source
of land-based emissions.[45]
However, these benefits depend on careful policy and program design and
implementation. The combined pressures on forests from development,
introduced pests and diseases, aberrant patterns of precipitation,
fragmentation, and extreme fire can hamper forest growth and even
prevent successful regeneration after disturbance.
It is important, however, to optimize rather than maximize carbon
in implementing natural solutions. Strategies that focus strictly on
maximizing carbon sequestration -- such as converting natural habitat
to plantations of rapidly growing tree species -- may run counter to
important ecological and social values. Avoiding conversion of existing
forests, especially carbon-rich old growth, increasing reforestation of
historically forested areas, and focusing afforestation on severely
degraded lands can all balance ecological and climate needs. Management
of the nation's forests should also take account of the changing
climate, while also restoring natural patterns of fire and other
ecological processes. Urban forestry also deserves significantly more
attention for its multiple benefits to air quality, reduction in energy
use and the urban heat island effect, absorbing stormwater, and
providing wildlife habitat.
Forest and watershed restoration not only increase the climate
benefits of forests by increasing their ability to store carbon, but
also reduce emissions from fire and decay. A rapidly changing climate,
including more severe drought and changing weather patterns, coupled
with more than a century of fire exclusion and excessive fuels, has
increased the size and intensity of wildfire.
Mitigating the size, severity, and effects of forest fires, and
reconnecting forest systems, is essential to ensure watershed health
and function, and to optimize the climate benefits forests provide. We
can and must better manage our forests, as ecologically appropriate, to
increase the capacity for our forests to store carbon and produce clean
water. The National Wildlife Federation is grateful that the proposed
reconciliation package included $27.5 billion for forest restoration,
and we urge the committee to help ensure it remains in any final
version that is signed into law.
At the same time, fire is an essential component of many of our
forest ecosystems. Prescribed burns can mimic natural processes and
reduce fuel loads, unlock nutrients, and reduce the intensity of future
wildfires. Furthermore, embracing traditional ecological knowledge and
practices and forming authentic partnerships with Indigenous peoples in
forest management can be another tool to help to restore the
fundamental role fire played in many forested ecosystems, while
simultaneously supporting traditional cultural practices and
livelihoods (Marks-Block et al., 2021).
Good forest and watershed management is about more than just fire.
For example, we need to restore forests at the landscape level and
consider their management over longer lengths of time, but also be
nimble to account for uncertainty. The U.S. Forest Service estimates
that 75-82 million acres of our nation's forests need restoration,
including nearly 2 million acres where changes in climate have thwarted
nature's ability to reseed and grow forests.
With more than 50 percent of the nation's forestlands under private
ownership, it's clear that partnering with landowners will be an
essential part of any strategy to increase the climate, wildlife, and
community benefits these ecosystems provide. Tax credits for carbon
capture accomplished through natural climate solutions could play a key
role in halting deforestation, increasing restoration and thereby
accelerating greenhouse gas reductions, while providing a host of
valuable co-benefits, including increased soil productivity and
resilience, water quality and quantity, wildlife habitat and landowner
economics. Such a provision could promote additional carbon storage in
the soils and vegetation of our nation's private grasslands, wetlands,
forests and agricultural lands. Modeling such a tax credit on the 45Q
provision for direct air capture could provide parity among natural and
technological carbon storage in terms of incentives. In addition, there
is a need for incentives to promote responsible, long-term stewardship
of forestlands and ensure that the public goods they provide will be
enjoyed for years to come. Programs such as those of the Healthy
Forests Reserve Program and the collaborative Regional Conservation
Partnership Program, which has been used to restore critical longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris) habitat in the Southeastern United States are
critically underfunded.
Since the time of European colonization, we have lost millions of
acres of biodiverse bottomland hardwood forests, primarily to
conversion for agricultural uses -- and when these forests are lost, so
are the invaluable services they provide to adjacent communities,
including flood water retention and water quality protection (Allen et
al., 2004). Investing in restoration of these ecosystems can reduce
burdens on gray infrastructure while simultaneously providing habitat
where waterfowl and other wildlife can thrive, especially in regions
with imperiled wetland forests, such as the coastal plains of the
Southeast.
We also have abundant opportunities to improve the productivity and
resilience of agricultural land through targeted forest restoration. In
formerly forested areas, restoring tree cover can block wind to reduce
erosion, create habitat for pollinators and other beneficial
biodiversity, or even help to diversify farmer's income with timber
products (USDA, Agroforestry). We should not, however, encourage
afforestation and tree planting in native grasslands and other
historically non-forested ecosystems, as this can have dire negative
consequences on biodiversity and carbon reservoirs (e.g., Tolgyesi et
al., 2022).
As extreme climate events increase in frequency, some agricultural
lands may begin to flood so frequently that they transform from asset
to liability. Restoring riparian forest buffers (30 meters, or about
100 feet) and reforesting floodplains with bottomland hardwoods
represents another enormous opportunity to increase climate mitigation
while providing a suite of ecosystem benefits, including flood
attenuation, erosion prevention, and habitat conservation for aquatic
species (Cook-Patton et al., 2020).
Open urban areas have been identified as another high priority area
for reforestation and forest restoration (Cook-Patton et al., 2020).
And with around 80 percent of the nation's residents inhabiting cities,
increasing access to nature and ecosystem service provisioning for
urban residents may be one of the most impactful actions at our
fingertips.
Urban trees in the United States store an estimated 643 million
metric tons of carbon, and sequester an estimated 25.6 million tons
annually.[46] Urban forests
offer an incredible array of other benefits: they moderate the urban
heat island effect, lowering energy bills and providing shade and
relief from extreme heat; they intercept rainfall, reducing the
intensity of storm impacts on urban gray infrastructure; they can be
strategically used to enhance air quality -- in other words, they can
help us to adapt to many of the challenges of climate change (Pataki et
al., 2021). Urban forest patches can provide spaces for recreation,
reflection, and wildlife observation not available elsewhere in the
urban landscape. Their presence can even provide benefits to physical
and mental health (Wolf et al., 2020). The Forest Service estimates
these services are valued at more than $18 billion annually (Nowak et
al., 2018).
Yet at the present, we know that urban forest canopy cover is often
inequitably distributed among racial groups and income levels (Gerrish
and Watkins, 2018; Watkins and Gerrish, 2018; Tree Equity, American
Forests). This exacerbates disparities in exposure, for example, to the
urban heat island effect and in related health risks or financial
burdens related to cooling. Historical discriminatory policies such as
redlining have shaped these patterns of inequity, with formerly
redlined communities often containing less than half the tree canopy
(Locke et al., 2021) and experiencing elevated temperatures in compared
to their counterparts, by an average 2.6+C and up to 7+C (Hoffman et
al., 2020).
We can and should take advantage of the benefits urban forests can
provide. But interventions must be community-led. Attempts to ``green''
communities or increase tree plantings without authentic community
engagement, consultation, and involvement at all stages can result in
unintended and harmful consequences, including displacement resulting
from changes in property values, maintenance costs shouldered by
residents, and even negative effects on health (Wolch et al., 2015;
Jelks et al., 2021). On the other hand, investment in workforce
development to support climate-informed urban forest restoration and
reforestation presents yet another opportunity to stimulate local
economies and create jobs.
Restoring America's Grasslands for Resilience and Carbon Sequestration
As important as our nation's forests are, its grasslands and
sagebrush steppe ecosystems cannot be forgotten. They are as critical
to climate success, wildlife habitat, and clean water, as they are
iconic. They are working lands, relied upon by ranchers, farmers,
energy developers, hikers, campers and hunters. They are also home to
hundreds of species of wildlife, from mule deer to snowshoe hare to
meadowlark. Yet, investments in their restoration and management are
needed to ensure their role as an important tool in combating climate
change.
A 2018 University of California at Davis study surmised that
grasslands could be a greater and more reliable carbon sink than
forests, because they are less ``climate-vulnerable.'' Forests store
most of their carbon in the soil, but less than grasslands, so when
forests, which are more susceptible to climate conditions, burn they
release more carbon into the atmosphere relative to grasslands. Jim
Blackburn, professor at Rice University and co-director of its Severe
Storm Prediction, Education and Evacuation from Disasters Center
estimates that grasslands could potentially capture 1 billion metric
tons of carbon each year -- more than 14 percent of U.S. annual
emissions.
Unfortunately, grasslands are the fastest declining ecosystem in
the United States, disappearing at rates exceeding those of the Amazon
rainforest.[47] As a result,
grassland birds have suffered the steepest losses of all bird species,
with populations declining 53 percent since 1970.[48] At least 60 percent of historical
grasslands have been converted to cropland and other land uses, with
some areas having lost upward of 90 percent over the last two centuries
(Brennan and Kuvlesky 2005). The loss and degradation of these habitats
have had, and will continue to have, dire consequences for biodiversity
and provisioning of ecosystem services, including their ability to
store carbon and contribute to climate change resilience.
These losses are also especially troubling for the thousands of
species of pollinators who rely on grasslands as habitat. One out of
every three bites of food we eat is supported by pollinators, including
wild bees and other species -- adding more than $15 billion to the
nation's crop values.
Grasslands and sagebrush steppe are threatened by invasive grasses
that outcompete native grasses and carry fire, and development and
cropland conversation. Invasive cheatgrass covers as much as 100
million acres of land in the United States, a serious problem for
wildlife and an accelerant for catastrophic fire on both public and
private land. On private land, we lose a football field's worth of
grasslands every four seconds to development and cropland conversion.
We've lost 40 percent of grassland birds in our lifetimes, and some
indicator species, like the Greater Sage-grouse, are teetering on the
edge of listing under the Endangered Species Act. We must invest in
restoration on our public lands, and find new tools for collaboration
to conserve and restore private land.
The highly successful North American Wetlands Conservation Act
(NAWCA) provides a model for this type of collaborative work on private
lands. It was signed into law in the 1980s when waterfowl numbers were
in sharp decline. Because of collaborative action sparked by the act,
waterfowl have since increased by 56 percent. Not only do we need to
invest in protecting and restoring our federal grasslands, we need to
authorize a program for private lands modeled after NAWCA, the North
American Grasslands Conservation Act.
To slow continued losses of grasslands to crop production, Congress
should make national, the Farm Bill's Sodsaver provision -- a common-
sense crop insurance reform currently effective in six states
(Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Montana)
that reduces crop insurance rates on newly converted agricultural acres
for the first three years of production. This reform corrects a policy
incentive to convert marginal land to crop production.
Significant investments in grasslands and sagebrush steppe
restoration and passage of the North American Grasslands Conservation
Act would increase these ecosystems' ability to store and retain
carbon, reduce grassland and rangeland wildfire, increase water
resources, and improve technology to control cheatgrass and other
invasive species.
Making Agricultural Lands More Profitable and Resilient
U.S. farmers and ranchers are uniquely productive compared to the
rest of the world. Popular and oversubscribed USDA conservation
programs can further enhance and make producers, and their agro-
ecosystems, more resilient to extreme weather events exacerbated by
climate change. Programs like the Conservation Stewardship Program,
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Conservation Reserve Program,
and Regional Conservation Partnerships Program, among others, are
examples of public-private partnerships that are in high demand from
producers and conservationists but lack the funding to meet that
demand. In the past decade nearly 1 million applicants have been
rejected by the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, alone (Happ,
Michael. 2021. ``Closed out: How U.S. Farmers Are Denied Access to
Conservation Programs.'' Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy.
https://www.iatp.org/documents/closed-out-how-us-farmers-are-denied-
access-conservation-programs (March 28, 2022)).
Agricultural conservation has many co-benefits for farmers,
communities, and the climate (Henneron, L., et al. 2015. ``Fourteen
Years of Evidence for Positive Effects of Conservation Agriculture and
Organic Farming on Soil Life.'' Agronomy for Sustainable Development
35: 169-81.). Cover crops enhance soil health by reducing erosion and
providing natural weed suppression, reducing unintended consequences of
overusing increasingly expensive pesticides and herbicides. Diverse
crop rotations can also improve a farm's mitigation and adaptation to
climate change by naturally cycling nutrients, reducing pests and
disease, and while providing a diversified income stream to producers.
Reduced or no-till farming rapidly sequesters carbon in the soil and
reduces agricultural runoff and erosion of precious topsoil. Further,
producers with livestock and cropping systems can increase soil carbon
while reducing costs on feed and fertilizer (Khalil, Mohammad Ibrahim
et al. 2019. ``Strategic Management of Grazing Grassland Systems to
Maintain and Increase Organic Carbon in Soils.'' CO2 Sequestration.
https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/strategic-management-of-
grazing-grassland-systems-to-maintain-and-increase-organic-carbon-in-
soils (June 10, 2020). Fully implementing these practices could remove
as much as 100- 200 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually by
2050.[49]
Technical assistance, research, and extension provided by USDA
conservation programs are essential for increased adoption of cover
crops, diversified crop rotations, decreased tillage, and livestock
grazing integration with row crops, among others. The United States'
topsoil is disappearing at twice the rate as it was during the Dust
Bowl (DeLonge, Marcia, and Karen Perry Stillerman. 2020. Eroding the
Future: How Soil Loss Threatens Farming and Our Food Supply. Union of
Concerned Scientists. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep28410 (August
9, 2021)). Unfortunately, USDA conservation programs are greatly
oversubscribed and unable to meet the demand from producers and need
for conservation practices on the land that can address climate and
ensure healthy soil, water and wildlife resources into the future. A
doubling of conservation funding would begin to address this demand and
need.
Reclamation of Degraded Lands
Investments in reclamation of degraded lands such as abandoned mine
lands, orphaned oil and gas wells, brownfield sites, and Superfund
sites are also an integral part of the climate solution. With proper
management, these lands can be turned into forests, grasslands, prairie
lands and soils that have the potential to sequester millions of tons
of carbon dioxide annually while mitigating other harmful emissions
like methane, protecting biodiversity, improving air and water quality,
and revitalizing local economies through job creation and increased
property value and tax revenues.
Blue Carbon
Oceans and coastal ecosystems also play a valuable role in
mitigating climate change, particularly through the ability of
wetlands, mangroves, and seagrasses to capture and store carbon, as
well as buffer the effects of sea-level rise and increasingly severe
storms. These repositories of ``blue carbon'' sequester more carbon per
unit area than forests, and store carbon for a longer period of
time.[50] Therefore, maintenance
and enhancement of these ecosystems are a critical part of a successful
climate strategy -- for mitigation, climate adaptation, and community
resilience objectives.
Key Bipartisan Opportunities for Congress
LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD FOR NATURAL CLIMATE SOLUTIONS
Replicating the Success of 45Q for Natural Climate
Solutions: The broadly supported and bipartisan 45Q federal tax credit
for carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration currently provides a
much-needed financial incentive for reducing carbon dioxide emissions
from industrial sources, power plants, and through direct air capture
technologies. An opportunity exists to replicate this successful model
to also spur innovation and deployment of capital into natural climate
solutions that sequester additional carbon through restoration of our
grasslands, forests, wetlands, waters, and agricultural lands.
Creating a 45X tax credit for natural climate solutions would
catalyze private investment onto private, public, and Tribal lands,
while providing greater policy parity for natural solutions with their
technological counterparts. It would be a game changer. In addition to
accelerating GHG sequestration, such investments would improve the
economics of investing in natural carbon sinks, while also increasing
soil productivity, boosting resilience (reducing erosion, etc.),
improving water quality/quantity, and providing wildlife habitat.
A 45X tax credit provision could be modeled upon 45Q, providing a
per ton credit for additional carbon storage in natural systems at a
cost point that's a fraction of the 45Q incentive levels ($20-$30/ton
on average natural solutions compared to $50-$130/ton for CCUS). While
the IRS would implement the tax credit, as it does for 45Q, USDA could
manage the measurement/practices side for private lands (this could
build upon the carbon accounting protocols envisions by the Growing
Climate Solutions Act), DOI could manage protocols for investments in
public lands (in conjunction with USDA for National Forests), and NOAA
could manage protocols for blue carbon. Tax credits could either be
refundable (as proposed by the enhanced 45Q) or transferable for when
the value of the tax credit is greater than the taxpayer's tax
liability. We believe such an approach would enjoy bipartisan support
across the political spectrum.
Key principals for program integrity:
Predictability/simplicity: The credit must be easily
understandable and accessible for all communities, especially
Indigenous communities, people of color, small landowners, veterans,
etc. to ensure equitable distribution of the benefits of the program;
Additionality: Investments must produce new reductions
above and beyond the baseline and do not ``double pay'' for tons
already accounted for through carbon offset programs/purchases;
Permanence: Investments must sequester carbon over the
long-term; and,
Ecologically appropriate: Restoration/reforestation
investments must be ecologically consistent for the project's location
(e.g. native plants) and should provide co-benefits of resilience,
habitat, clean water, etc., as documented through a credible, but
simple, management plan.
A 45X tax credit could include multiple options for participation:
Practice-based option for small landowners: Tax credit
would be determined by approved practices on the land implements
(selected from an approved USDA list of practices with well-documented
and predictable results that meet standards of additionality,
permanence, and ecologically-appropriateness). This approach would
allow smaller landowners to participate and could be easily implemented
by USDA.
Performance-based option for large landowners: Tax credit
is determined by carbon sequestration performance above a baseline as
documented by a carbon registry, approved by USDA. This approach would
work better for larger landowners, offers opportunities at scale, and
encourages innovation.
Natural sequestration on public lands and waters: Tax
credit opportunities should also exist for private investment on public
lands (BLM, USFS) and waters (NOAA, etc.) to sequester carbon in
ecologically-appropriate ways and provide addition public co-benefits.
This would drive significant investment into states with significant
public lands, while expanding opportunities for job creation and
revenues.
Encourage Conservation of Lands with High Carbon Sequestration,
Resilience, and Habitat Values: Just as the Congress came together to
create Opportunity Zones to encourage private investment in
economically distressed communities, similar opportunities exist to
improve the economic incentives for conserving lands that have high
carbon sequestration, resilience, or wildlife habitat values. Such an
approach would recognize the higher public value of these lands and
compensate landowners accordingly with a higher incentive level than
the one-size-fits all traditional approach that does not consider
ecological value.
Pass the Growing Climate Solutions Act: The bipartisan Growing
Climate Solutions Act would direct USDA to standardize protocols for
measuring carbon sequestration on agricultural lands. This would create
new revenue opportunities for America's farmers through voluntary
actions and participation in private and public carbon markets.
ENSURE RESILIENCE INVESTMENTS ACCOUNT FOR NET-SAVINS IN CBO SCORING
Modernize CBO scoring rules: Through the House Rules
package and other vehicles, ensure that investments in resilience that
would achieve clear and demonstrable net-savings score as debt-
reducing. This would free up resources for proactive investments, end
the cycle of ever-growing disaster supplemental appropriations, and
reduce long-term debt.
PASS BIPARTISAN CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS
Bipartisan Recovering America's Wildlife Act: This
landmark piece of bipartisan legislation will restore essential
wildlife habitat in all 50 states and territories to recover the more
than 12,000 species of greatest conservation need through proactive,
collaborative and voluntary actions. This will restore natural systems
across the country that will also provide critical resilience services
for communities and additional carbon sequestration capacity.
North American Grasslands Conservation Act. Grasslands
are the fastest declining ecosystem in the United States, but they are
also underappreciated powerhouses of carbon sequestration and storage.
Authorizing a program modeled after NAWCA should be a top priority.
Wildlife corridors: Helping wildlife adjust to changing
and shifting habitat conditions by facilitating wildlife movements is a
critical climate adaptation strategy. Congress took a major step
forward by passing a comprehensive wildlife crossings program,
including the first funding committed to wildlife crossings, as part of
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Wildlife corridors must
also be maintained away from roads and highways. We appreciate that the
House of Representatives passed the full Wildlife Corridors
Conservation Act as part of the INVEST in America Act and encourage
continued work on wildlife corridors legislation and the Tribal
Wildlife Corridors Act.
Trillion Trees: The idea of accelerating the pace of
forest restoration is a critical climate solution. We're encouraged by
the bipartisan, bicameral negotiations that could result in a consensus
bill to achieve essential ecologically-appropriate reforestation,
resilience, and carbon sequestration goals.
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT
There are key opportunities that Congress can pursue to enhance the
ability of natural ecosystems to provide climate mitigation,
resilience, and other benefits to communities in the context of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2022, which is currently under
development. More specifically, in the 2022 bill Congress should:
Increase Organizational Capacity Through a Resilience
Directorate. Congress should establish a Resilience Directorate within
the Office of the Chief of Engineers at the Corps of Engineers to
improve the Corps' ability to reduce flood risks, promote coordinated
planning across districts and Corps business lines and among Federal
agencies, and better leverage the benefits of natural infrastructure.
The Directorate should be tasked with ensuring that existing programs,
authorities, and operations take full advantage of natural
infrastructure and adopt modern, comprehensive planning approaches.
Critically, the Directorate should have the resources and budgetary
authority needed to work and coordinate across Corps business lines to
infuse resilience into every aspect of the Corps' work. Congress should
also establish ``community and natural systems resilience'' as a co-
equal project purpose for each water resources project to eliminate a
perceived barrier to comprehensive resilience planning. These reforms
will help the Army Corps -- one of our nation's most influential
resilience agencies -- take full advantage of its programs and
authorities to improve community and water resources resilience and
avoid piecemeal planning that can increase flood risks and recovery
costs.
Utilize Federal and State Expertise. Congress should
ensure that the Corps utilizes the expertise of federal and state fish
and wildlife experts when planning projects. Congress should direct the
Corps to utilize recommendations made pursuant to mandatory Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act reviews that derive from the special
expertise of federal and state fish and wildlife experts (e.g., methods
and metrics for assessing fish and wildlife impacts and mitigation
opportunities). The Corps often ignores these critically important
recommendations, leading to projects that cause unnecessary harm and to
mitigation plans that do not work. Utilizing these carefully developed
state and federal expert recommendations is a common sense, cost-
effective way to make projects better and improve planning efficiency.
Employ Voluntary Easements to Improve Resilience.
Congress should ensure the Corps has the tools it needs to develop and
implement resilient solutions. Congress should: (a) direct the Corps to
map all flood easements, conservation easements, and permanently
protected lands and waters in the project area when assessing the
impacts and benefits of a water resources project; (b) direct the Corps
to map the many flood easements already purchased by the Corps across
the country to facilitate consideration of those easements when
planning projects and updating operating plans; and (c) direct
consideration of Corps purchased permanent flood easements as an
appropriate natural infrastructure solution. Increasing reliance on
voluntary flood and other conservation easements will facilitate
development of resilient solutions.
FARM BILL
Bolster Working Lands Conservation Programs. Congress
should double the funding levels for these popular and successful
programs to ensure they can continue to provide benefits to producers,
wildlife, and adjacent communities. The historic funding increases
proposed in the House-passed reconciliation bill would accomplish this
goal.
Develop Workforce and Capacity to Meet Reforestation and
Restoration Goals. With additional stocking of our nation's lands,
forest ecosystems could uptake nearly 20 percent more CO2
than they already do (Domke et al., 2020). Whether on public and
private forestlands, successful reforestation and active forest
restoration depends upon the capacity of nurseries to collect seeds and
produce healthy growing stock, as well as the availability of a
workforce for nursery production, site preparation, planting, and
maintenance (Fargione et al., 2021). And with a rapidly changing
climate, we need to ensure that nurseries cultivate and supply robust
seedlings, suited for local site conditions and -- as much as possible
-- the conditions of the future. According to a survey of nurseries,
labor shortages create the largest bottleneck in the ``reforestation
pipeline'' (Fargione et al., 2021). Investing in a 21st-century
Civilian Conservation Corps that puts millions of young Americans to
work, in a manner that benefits all communities and provides high-
quality workforce development to prepare participants for jobs in the
private sector, remains one of our best options to address this
bottleneck. Investments in infrastructure, innovation, and research in
this space are also badly needed. Expanding both public and private
nursery capacity via Farm Bill programs and other targeted funding will
provide jobs and stimulate rural economies.
Other Key Opportunities:
Increase Green Project Reserve Funding Through the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF): Since its inception in 1987, the
CWSRF has provided over $153 billion in low-cost financing to water
quality projects across the nation. In 2009, Congress passed the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which required that states
allocate at least 20 percent of their annual CWSRF capitalization grant
for green infrastructure, water efficiency, energy efficiency, and
other environmentally innovative projects. It successfully helped shift
federal and state wastewater investment toward projects that utilize
green and natural infrastructure and promote holistic approaches to
wastewater treatment systems. The Green Project Reserve requirement has
been extended via appropriations bills every year, but was reduced in
Fiscal Year 2012 to 10 percent annually. In order to create additional
certainty and incentive for projects that utilize green and natural
infrastructure, Congress should permanently require states to use at
least 20 percent of their annual CWSRF capitalization grants for the
Green Project Reserve. This will help communities finance green
infrastructure projects that address climate change, enhance access to
green space, protect wildlife habitat, and improve water quality.
Ensure Hazard Mitigation Programs Support Natural
Solutions: Hazard mitigation programs at FEMA, HUD, and through the
National Flood Insurance Program are significant potential sources of
resources for nature-based hazard risk reduction. Although natural
infrastructure projects are eligible for many of these programs,
challenges exist that impede successful applications for nature-based
projects, including in the context of Benefit Cost Analyses and
feasibility demonstration requirements. FEMA should continue work to
ensure that the Benefit Cost Analysis toolkit is supportive of
different nature-based project types, and allows communities to capture
the full array of their benefits. The agency should also work to
provide communities with additional detailed guidance on designing and
successfully applying for funding for nature-based projects. These
improvements should be accompanied by additional technical assistance
and capacity building support to ensure that all communities benefit
from this solution set to improve health and safety. Congress should
support expanded consideration of natural solutions for hazard
mitigation by requiring at least 15% of funding through the Building
Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program to be
designated for nature-based projects, and/or by authorizing and
directing FEMA to partner with the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF) to establish a demonstration grant program designed
to fund nature-based projects through FEMA hazard mitigation dollars.
By encouraging FEMA to partner with NFWF, Congress can bring NFWF's
unique expertise to efforts to promote nature-based mitigation
projects, build capacity at all levels of government, and help to
further demonstrate the efficacy and multiple benefits delivered by
these types of projects. Additionally, NFWF has flexibility to build
public private partnerships to support natural infrastructure projects
and to leverage private sector funding to support added investment.
Finally, Congress can support natural solutions by fully reauthorizing
and reforming the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to ensure
NFIP premiums communicate accurate levels of risk, with means-tested
assistance for those who cannot afford actuarial rates; expanding pre-
disaster mitigation efforts, including through nature-based solutions;
and increasing funding available for updated and climate-informed
floodplain maps.
Increase Funding Available for Gulf Coast Restoration and
Resilience: Congress should increase offshore energy revenues shared
with Louisiana and other states under the Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act (GOMESA), including by lifting the current cap on revenues
shared. The State of Louisiana, through a constitutional amendment, has
committed these revenues to restoration and resilience efforts,
including implementation of the state's Coastal Master Plan. With no
time to lose in the battle against sea level rise and coastal land
loss, additional GOMESA revenues are vital to continue the essential
and urgent work that this funding stream has enabled.
Mississippi River Restoration and Resilience Initiative:
Congress should pass H.R. 4202, the Mississippi River Restoration and
Resilience (MRRRI) Act, to establish a non-regulatory EPA geographic
program for the Mississippi River mainstem states, following the
successful model in the Great Lakes. The MRRRI Act centers natural
infrastructure solutions that have co-benefits for flood risk
reduction, water quality improvements, wildlife habitat, recreation,
and other services to communities. It would enhance federal
coordination around a shared agenda to improve the overall health and
resilience of the Mississippi River, through collaboration with States,
Tribes, local governments, and other river stakeholders.
Enhance the Capacity of Federal Agencies to Access Needed
Climate Adaptation Science: Over the past decade federal agencies have
made important advances in developing their capacity to provide support
and climate science to natural resource managers and others charged
with the conservation and restoration of the nation's lands, waters,
and wildlife. Congress should provide robust budget support to such
programs as the U.S. Geological Survey Climate Adaptation Science
Center Network, the NOAA Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments
(RISA) Program, and the USDA Climate Hubs. In order to assure the
availability of such climate science for natural resource managers,
Congress should pass H.R. 6654, the ``Climate Adaptation Science
Centers Act,'' which would permanently authorize the U.S. Geological
Survey's National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers.
Support Ocean-Based Climate Solutions: Congress should
advance solutions that leverage and support the immense climate
mitigation and adaptation potential of ocean and coastal ecosystems,
which can make coastal communities more resilient and can provide for
the conservation and restoration of ocean and coastal habitats,
biodiversity, and marine mammal and fish populations. This includes
efforts to advance the protection and restoration of blue carbon
ecosystems including wetlands, mangroves, kelp, and seagrass, to
address challenges with ocean acidification impacts, and to protect and
restore coral reef ecosystems that buffer communities.
Appropriations and other Spending Packages: As Congress
considers how to fund priorities in Fiscal Year 2023 and beyond, the
National Wildlife Federation strongly urges you to ensure that
America's lands, waters, and wildlife are not left out of any future
investment package. With hurricane and wildfire seasons fast
approaching, communities around the country are bracing for another
record-breaking year of extreme weather and natural disasters that
devastate local economies, ecosystems, and families. Congress has an
opportunity to prevent lost lives and livelihoods with proactive,
robust investment in natural infrastructure and natural climate
solutions.
During the COVID pandemic, Americans sought refuge outdoors -- from
neighborhood parks to hiking trails to the most remote wilderness spots
in our nation. Families and friends were able to connect safely
outside, and millions rediscovered or newly adopted lifelong hobbies
like hunting, fishing, and bird watching. However, this increased use
-- coupled with decades of neglect and underfunding -- has strained our
forests, wetlands, grasslands, and rivers, as well as the wildlife
inhabiting them. It is critical that Congress invest in the restoration
and resilience of these shared spaces so that future generations may be
able to enjoy them.
Our outdoor heritage is part of the fabric of our society, and it
supports an $887 billion outdoor recreation economy. In addition to the
economic and societal benefits, these natural landscapes provide a
significant opportunity to address the climate crisis, both in
adaptation and mitigation. Healthy forests sequester carbon and filter
regional water supplies. Resilient shorelines protect communities from
storm and flood damage. Removal of invasive species like cheatgrass
helps prevent catastrophic fires. Restoration and resilience projects
can be tailored to every community in America, improving safety and
putting people to work. That's why we're encouraged that the bipartisan
IIJA included more than $50 billion for resilience and restoration
projects and that the proposed reconciliation package recommends
investing an additional $100 billion in on-the-ground work like forest
restoration and conservation programs at USDA; public lands, national
parks, wildlife habitat, and species recovery through the Department of
the Interior; funding for Tribal nations; and coastal resilience
initiatives at the Department of Commerce. These resources can flow to
communities quickly and make an immediate impact, so long as there is
sufficient consultation and permitting staff to efficiently process the
project proposals.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify at this important
hearing. Natural infrastructure has the potential to mitigate the
threats facing millions of Americans while also conserving and
restoring the landscapes and waterways essential to our wildlife
heritage and way of life.
The good news is that bipartisan investments in natural
infrastructure have already started under your leadership. The
bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act made historic
investment in natural landscapes essential to our water, wildlife, and
way of life -- as well as natural infrastructure. The law includes $492
million for the National Coastal Resiliency Fund, a program established
in 2018 that invests in restoration and resilience projects that expand
natural infrastructure like wetlands and barrier islands. The bill also
included $350 million to support the development and construction of
wildlife crossings that will improve habitat connectivity and reduce
wildlife-vehicle collisions. These investments, from our coasts to our
highway system, will save lives.
These investments show Congress has already started to transition
toward natural solutions. On behalf of the National Wildlife
Federation, our members, supporters, and affiliates, I would urge you
to continue down this path. Natural infrastructure is a proven strategy
to save lives, protect homes and businesses, conserve and restore our
public lands and waters, and practice fiscal responsibility. Thank you
and I look forward to your questions.
Endnotes
[1] Glick, P., E. Powell, S.
Schlesinger, J. Ritter, B.A. Stein, A. Fuller. 2020. The Protective
Value of Nature: A Review of the Effectiveness of Natural
Infrastructure for Hazard Risk Reduction. Washington, DC: National
Wildlife Federation: 8-27.
[2] Allen, W., T. Weber, J.
Varela, and CMAP Technical Committee. 2014. Green infrastructure vision
2.3: Ecosystem service valuation. Final Report. The Conservation Fund,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
[3] Costanza, R., O. Perez-
Maqueo, M. Martinez, P. Sutton, S. Anderson, and K. Mulder. 2008. The
value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. Ambio 37: 241-248.
[4] Gittman, R., A. M.
Popowich, J. F. Bruno, and C. H. Peterson. 2014. Marshes with and
without sills protect estuarine shorelines from erosion better than
bulkheads during a Category 1 hurricane. Ocean & Coastal Management
102: 94-102.
[5] Filippo, F., M. W. Beck,
C. Storlazzi, F. Micheli, C. Shepard, and L. Airoldi. 2014. The
effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal hazard risk reduction and
adaptation. Nature Communications 10.1038/ncomms4794.
[6] Smith, C., R. Gittman,
I. Neylan, S. Scyphers, J. P. Morton, F. J. Fodrie, J. Grabowski, and
C. H. Peterson. 2017. Hurricane damage along natural and hardened
shorelines: Using homeowner experiences to promote nature-based coastal
protection. Marine Policy 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.04.013.
[7] Hilke, C., J. Ritter, J.
Ryan-Henry, E. Powell, A. Fuller, B. Stein, and B. Watson. 2020.
Softening Our Shorelines: Policy and Practice for Living Shorelines
Along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts. Washington, DC: National Wildlife
Federation.
[8] Reguero, B. G., M. W.
Beck, D. N. Bresch, J. Calil, and I. Meliane. 2018. Comparing the cost-
effectiveness of nature-based and coastal adaptation: A case study from
the Gulf Coast of the United States. PLOS ONE 10.1371/
journal.pone.0192132.
[9] Economic Analysis
Predicts Minimum 4-1 Return on Restoring the Everglades Ecosystem.
[10] 11Anonymous. 2013.
Green Infrastructure Case Studies. Joint-Industry White Paper. The
Nature Conservancy, Dow Chemical, Swiss Re, Shell, Unilever.
[11] Schuster, E. 2014.
Lower Cape May Meadows ecological restoration: Analysis of economic and
social benefits. Report. The Nature Conservancy, New Jersey Chapter,
USA.
[12] Naturally Resilient
Communities. Case study: Mingo Creek, Tulsa, OK. White Paper.
[13]Nielsen-Pincus, M., and
C. Moseley. 2010. Economic and employment impacts of forest and
watershed restoration in Oregon. Ecosystem Workforce Program Briefing
Paper Number 24. Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of
Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA.
[14] Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. 2019. Report on abandoned mine land
reclamation economic development pilot program (AML pilot program) for
FY 2016- FY 2018.
[15] Evans, A., S. Auerbach,
L.W. Miller, et al. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Wildfire Mitigation
Activities in the Wildland-urban Interface. Madison, WI: Forest
Stewards Guild.
[16] Botts, H., T. Jeffery,
S. Kolk, et al. 2015. Wildfire Hazard Risk Report. Irvine, CA:
CoreLogic.
[17] U.S. Forest Service.
2017. Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Justification. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
[18] Safford, H.D., J.T.
Stevens, K. Merriam, M.D. Meyer, and A.M. Latimer. 2012. Fuel treatment
effectiveness in California yellow pine and mixt conifer forests.
Forest Ecology and Management 274: 17-28.
[19] National Fire
Protection Association. 2018. Firewise USA site in Florida takes on
two wildfires and survives. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection
Association.
[20] Collier, S.J., R.
Elliott, and T.K. Lehtonen. 2021. Climate change and insurance. Economy
and Society 50: 158-172.
[21] For example, a recent
study concludes that climate change-induced sea level rise accounted
for 13 percent of the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy (approximately
$8.1 billion of the $62.5 billion in total damages) and 54 percent of
the people affected (71,000 people out of the total of 131,000 people
affected). Strauss, B.H., Orton, P.M., Bittermann, K. et al Economic
damages from Hurricane Sandy attributable to sea level rise caused by
anthropogenic climate change. Nat Commun 12, 2720 (2021). https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22838-1.
[22] NOAA National Centers
for Environmental Information (NCEI) U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and
Climate Disasters (2021) (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/), DOI:
10.25921/stkw-7w73 (inland flooding ``caused by billion-dollar
hurricanes (i.e., Harvey, Florence, Matthew) has also increased'').
[23] E&E News, Anne C.
Mulkern, Climate drives rise in global damage from storms -- study,
July 12, 2021; Madakumbura, G.D., Thackeray, C.W., Norris, J. et al.
Anthropogenic influence on extreme precipitation over global land areas
seen in multiple observational datasets. Nat Commun 12, 3944 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24262-x.
[24] [24] Inside Climate
News, New Study Shows Global Warming Intensifying Extreme Rainstorms
Over North America, June 2, 2020; Megan C. Kirchmeier-Young, Xuebin
Zhang, Human influence has intensified extreme precipitation in North
America, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jun 2020, 117
(24) 13308-13313; DOI:10.1073/pnas.1921628117.
[25] NOAA High Tide Flooding
Report, 2021 State of High Tide Flooding and Annual Outlook.
[26] Union of Concerned
Scientists. Underwater: Rising Seas, Chronic Floods, and the
Implications for US Coastal Real Estate (2018).
[27] Thomas Frank, Flooding
Disproportionately Harms Black Neighborhoods, Scientific American (June
2, 2020).
[28] Maya K Buchanan et al,
Sea level rise and coastal flooding threaten affordable housing,
Environ. Res. Lett., 15 124020/(2020).
[29] National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. Framing the Challenge of
Urban Flooding in the United States. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25381.
[30] Buchanan et al, Sea
level rise and coastal flooding threaten affordable housing (see
footnote 8).
[31] Gerardo Ceballos,
Ehrlich Paul, Raven Peter, Vertebrates on the brink as indicators of
biological annihilation and the sixth mass extinction. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences Jun 2020, 117 (24) 13596-13602; DOI:
10.1073/pnas.1922686117 (``The ongoing sixth mass extinction may be the
most serious environmental threat to the persistence of civilization,
because it is irreversible . . . . the sixth mass extinction is human
caused and accelerating . . . . species are links in ecosystems, and,
as they fall out, the species they interact with are likely to go also
. . . . Our results reemphasize the extreme urgency of taking massive
global actions to save humanity's crucial life-support systems.'')
[32] Stein, B. A., L. S.
Kutner, J. S. Adams eds. 2000. Precious Heritage: The Status of
Biodiversity in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.
[33] Jelks, H. L., S.J.
Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, et al. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled
North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries. 33: 372-
407.
[34] Williams, J. D., M. L.
Warren, K. S. Cummings, J. L. Harris, and R. J. Neves. 1993.
Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and
Canada. Fisheries 18: 6-22; Lydeard, C., R. H. Cowie, W. F. Ponder, et
al. 2004. The global decline of nonmarine mollusks. BioScience 54 321-
330.
[35] Stein, B. A., N.
Edelson, L. Anderson, J. Kanter, and J. Stemler. 2018. Reversing
America's Wildlife Crisis: Securing the Future of Our Fish and
Wildlife. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation.
[36] T.E. Dahl and S.M.
Stedman. 2013. Status and trends of wetlands in the coastal watersheds
of the Conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. (46 pp);
Dahl, T.E. 2006. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous
United States 1998 to 2004. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. (112 pp); Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status
and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C. (82 pp); Dahl, T.E., and Johnson, C.E., 1991, Status and trends of
wetlands in the conterminous United States, mid-1970's to mid-1980's.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C. (28 pp).
[37] Report to Congress by
the Secretary of the Interior, The Impact of Federal Programs on
Wetlands, Volume II, at 145 (1994). Approximately 80 percent of the
bottomland hardwood wetlands in the lower Mississippi River basin have
already been lost approximately. Report to Congress by the Secretary of
the Interior, The Impact of Federal Programs on Wetlands, Volume I at
39.
[38] U.S. Geological Survey,
Ecological Health in the Nation's Streams, Fact Sheet 2013-3033 (July
2013); Carlisle, D.M., Meador, M.R., Short, T.M., Tate, C.M., Gurtz,
M.E., Bryant, W.L., Falcone, J.A., and Woodside, M.D., 2013, The
quality of our Nation's waters--Ecological health in the Nation's
streams, 1993-2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1391 (120 pp).
[39] American Rivers,
Unnatural Disasters, Natural Solutions: Lessons From The Flooding Of
New Orleans (2006) (quoting USACE, from Massachusetts Department of
Fish and Game, Functions of Riparian Areas for Flood Control, http://
www.mass.gov/dfwele/river/pdf/riparian_factsheet_1.pdf.
[40] Narayan, S., Beck,
M.B., Wilson, P., et al., The Value of Coastal Wetlands for Flood
Damage Reduction in the Northeastern USA. Scientific Reports 7, Article
number 9463 (2017), doi:10.1038/s41598-017-09269-z. Available at
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-09269-z.
[41] Bob Marshall, Studies
abound on why the levees failed. But researchers point out that some
levees held fast because wetlands worked as buffers during Katrina's
storm surge, The New Orleans Times-Picayune (March 23, 2006).
[42] Glick, P., E. Powell,
S. Schlesinger, J. Ritter, B.A. Stein, and A. Fuller. 2020. The
Protective Value of Nature: A Review of the Effectiveness of Natural
Infrastructure for Hazard Risk Reduction. Washington, DC: National
Wildlife Federation, https://www.nwf.org/protective-value-of-nature.
[43] Restore America's
Estuaries, Jobs & Dollars BIG RETURNS from coastal habitat restoration
(September 14, 2011), http://www.estuaries.org/images/81103-
RAE_17_FINAL_web.pdf.
[44] Domke, G.M., B.F.
Walters, D.J. Nowak, J Smith, S.M. Ogle, and J.W. Coulston. 2019.
Greenhouse gas emissions and removals from forest land, woodlands, and
urban trees in the United States, 1990-2017. Resource Update FS-178.
Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Northern Research Station.
[45] U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2017. EPA 430-R-19-001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency: Washington, D.C.
[46] Nowak, D.J., E.J.
Greenfield, R.E. Hoehn, and E. Lapoint. 2013. Carbon storage and
sequestration by trees in urban and community areas of the United
States. Environmental Pollution 178, pp. 229-236.
[47] Wright, Christopher K.,
and Michael C. Wimberly. 2013. ``Recent Land Use Change in the Western
Corn Belt Threatens Grasslands and Wetlands.'' Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110(10):
4134-39.
[48] Cornell Laboratory of
Ornithology, State of the Birds 2019, https://www.stateofthebirds.org/
2019/download-pdf-report/
[49] National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Coastal Blue Carbon
Approaches for Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration:
Proceedings of a Workshop-- in Brief. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. doi.org/10.17226/24965.
[50] Mulligan, J., et al.
2020. CarbonShot: Federal Policy Options for Carbon Removal in the
United States. Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources
Institute.

Ms. Castor. And good job on getting--summarizing your 30-
page----
Mr. O'Mara. Voluminous.
Ms. Castor [continuing]. Testimony in 5 minutes. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Loris, you are now recognized to give a 5-minute
presentation of your testimony.

STATEMENT OF NICK LORIS

Mr. Loris. Thank you. I think Collin said double what I can
say in the same amount of time, but I echo a lot of his
sentiments. So I appreciate that.
Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and distinguished
members of the Select Committee, thanks for this opportunity to
testify this morning. My name is Nick Loris, and I am the Vice
President of Public Policy at the Conservative Coalition for
Climate Solutions.
C3 Solutions is a think tank that focuses on policy reforms
to empower entrepreneurs and innovators to solve our greatest
energy and environmental challenges. And with my time, I would
like to make two brief observations.
The first is to underscore the economic, environmental, and
climate benefits of investing in America's natural ecosystems.
Active management of America's forests, grasslands, and
wetlands will improve air and water quality, restore wildlife
habitat, and capture and sequester more carbon dioxide. Forest
restoration and eradicating invasive species will also reduce
the risk of wildfires, floods, and droughts.
Furthermore, innovative agricultural technologies and
practices enable farmers and ranchers to produce more with
less. The result is higher yields, cost savings, and healthier
soils that prevent erosion and sequester more CO2.
Without active care and investment, however, the mismanagement
of America's ecosystems can increase greenhouse gas emissions
and pollution, exacerbate the risks of extreme weather, and be
an economic drain on communities.
For instance, the 2020 wildfires in California emitted more
carbon dioxide than the entire State's fossil fuel emissions
that year. Addressing the fuel load through controlled burns
and timber harvesting will reduce the size and intensity of
wildfires and improve the health of America's forests.
Another major challenge is invasive species, which devalue
properties, damage infrastructure, devastate ecological
systems, and threaten economic livelihoods. Whether it is
cheatgrass increasing wildfire risks, or zebra mussels
compromising water infrastructure, invasive species impose
significant economic and environmental harm. Allocating
resources toward prevention, early detection, and rapid
response are the most cost-effective solutions, as they prevent
the invasive species from becoming too invasive.
Harnessing the power of incentives is also an effective
mechanism to reduce invasive species. For instance, the nutria
is a semiaquatic rodent that adversely affects wetlands and
vegetation in Louisiana and several other states. Through a
federal-state program, participants can hunt and trap nutria
and receive $6 per nutria delivered to a collection center.
Another example is a resource incentive where Florida's
Fish and Wildlife Service provides a permit to harvest one
additional spiny lobster for every 25 lionfish captured. The
State also held a contest to see who could capture the most
lionfish, and last year participants collected more than 3,400
in total. These collaborative relationships that utilize
incentives are an effective tool to reduce and ideally
eradicate invasive species.
The second point I would like to underscore is the
importance of reducing or removing barriers that obstruct or
delay investments in healthy ecosystems. These projects
frequently run into burdensome, time-consuming permitting
challenges. In addition, conservation projects can be held up
for years in litigation. The significant loss of time to
actively thin forests or eradicate invasive species often
causes much worse environmental and climate outcomes. Rather
than have pragmatic evaluation of risks and tradeoffs,
environmental reviews have too often devolved into a tool to
stunt the development of cleaner infrastructure and delay
projects that will restore America's ecosystems.
To be clear, environmental reviews are a critical part of
any project, as is the participation of the public and the
communities affected by that project. Modernizing permitting is
not about removing environmental safeguards but increasing
accountability and improving efficiency.
Permitting reforms will allow preventative and restorative
ecosystem investments to occur more resourcefully. Streamlined
permitting will stretch taxpayer dollars further and inject
more private capital into natural climate solutions. Federal
agencies, States, the private sector, and nonprofits will be
able to tackle our backlog of environmental priorities with
more urgency and efficiency.
With respect to agriculture, pro-growth tax policies will
incentivize investment in new farming technologies and
equipment. And leveraging Department of Agriculture programs to
provide technical assistance for farmers and ranchers who want
to pursue regenerative and precision agriculture will improve
soil health and better optimize seed planting and treatment
application, which will reduce the use of fertilizers,
pesticides, fuel, and water.
In conclusion, investment in healthy ecosystems is smart
economic and climate policy. Rehabilitating forests, preventing
and eradicating invasive species, promoting sustainable
agriculture, and encouraging responsible land and water use
practices will result in better ecological health, will reduce
emissions, and will build up natural resiliencies to a changing
climate.
Natural climate solutions and healthy ecosystems will not
come from treating America's lands and waters as if they should
be stored behind glass in a museum. Instead they require active
attention, investment, and management. Policies and regulations
should reflect those needs.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Loris follows:]

America's Natural Solutions:
The Climate Benefits of Investing in Healthy Ecosystems

House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

United States House of Representatives

April 1, 2022

Nick Loris

Vice President of Public Policy

Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions (C3 Solutions)

My name is Nick Loris, and I am the Vice President of Public Policy
at the Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions (C3 Solutions).
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the select committee to
discuss the climate benefits of investing in healthy ecosystems.
My written testimony consists of the following two sections:

The economic, environmental, and climate benefits of
investing healthy ecosystems. Natural solutions are integral to
reducing the risks of climate change. Conservation, restoration, and
better land practices create more opportunities for forests,
grasslands, and wetlands to capture and store carbon dioxide. Active
land management that promotes healthy forests and eradicates invasive
species will also reduce the risk of wildfires, floods and droughts.
Various farming and ranching practices such as regenerative agriculture
and precision agriculture will result in healthier soils and higher
yields while sequestering more emissions and reducing the risk of
flooding. In addition, integrating natural climate solutions for
remediating abandoned mine sites would minimize environmental
liabilities make these sites more economically attractive.

Expanding opportunities for investments for healthier
ecosystems. Policymakers should reduce barriers to healthy ecosystem
investment, improve incentives for productive federal-state and private
partnerships to prevent and eradicate invasive species. Furthermore,
Congress and the administration should provide pathways to expand the
use of regenerative and precision agriculture and implement reforms
that generate alternative funding sources for natural climate
solutions.

Section I. The economic, environmental, and climate benefits of
investing healthy ecosystems

Investing in America's natural ecosystems will expand economic
opportunities and reduce environmental liabilities. Moreover, healthier
ecosystems will produce climate benefits by reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and reducing the risks of extreme weather events. Creating
positive incentive structures among private property owners, the
federal government, tribes, and state and local governments will
improve the environmental health of America's land and water systems.
Whether it is healthy forests or regenerative farms, empowering
landowners to deploy local and specialized knowledge will best deliver
economic, environmental, and climate benefits. Landowners have the most
to gain from responsible stewardship and the most to lose from
mismanagement. Natural climate solutions and healthy ecosystems will
not come from treating America's forests, farmland, grasslands, and
watersheds as if they should be stored in a museum. Instead, they
require active attention, investment, and management.

Active forest management

Healthy forests are vital for America's environmental health and
are an essential natural climate solution. Forests in the United States
sequester about 16 percent of annual carbon dioxide emissions.\1\
Reducing deforestation and increasing tree cover will protect and
enhance a sound natural climate solution to sequester carbon dioxide.
Fully restoring understocked, productive forestland in the U.S. could
increase carbon sequestration by 20 percent.\2\ That is not to suggest
a complete stop to logging, mining, building roads or other economic
reasons why private property owners may cut down trees. Rather,
policymakers should eliminate illegal deforestation, establish defined
and legally protected property rights, and increase the availability of
compensation for conservation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Penn State Extension, ``How Forests Store Carbon,'' September
24, 2020,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://extension.psu.edu/how-forests-store-
carbon#::text=According%20to%20the%20US%20Forest,mainly%20in%20trees%20
and%20soil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Grant M. Domke, et al., ``Tree planting has the potential to
increase carbon sequestration capacity of forests in the United
States,'' PNAS, Vol 117. No 40, October 6, 2020, https://www.pnas.org/
doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.2010840117
\3\ Brad Plumer, ``A Cheap Fix for Climate Change? Pay People Not
to Chop Down Trees,''
The New York Times, June 20, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/
climate/a-cheap-fix-for-climate-change-pay-people-not-to-chop-down-
trees-uganda.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If improperly managed, however, America's forests are an economic,
environmental, and public safety liability. Wildfires threaten
communities, endanger lives and reduce productivity. They spew
exorbitant amounts of pollutions and carbon dioxide emissions into the
atmosphere. In 2020, California's wildfires emitted more carbon dioxide
than the entire state's fossil fuel emissions.\4\ Wildfires can also
cancel out carbon offset projects, where companies purchase carbon
dioxide credits to offset their own emissions. Decomposing trees also
release carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. While global
decarbonization will help minimize human-induced warming's impact on
wildfires and wildfire seasons, a more immediate and effective solution
to reduce the size of wildfires is to address the fuel load. The fuel
load exacerbates the size and intensity of wildfires. Fuel includes
grass, shrubs and small trees as well as dead leaves and materials on
the forest floor.\5\ Prescribed or controlled burns and timber
harvesting will significantly reduce the fuel load, while regulatory
morass, litigation, and funding challenges prohibit or impede these
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Elizabeth Claire Alberts, `` `Off the chart': CO2
from California fires dwarf state's fossil fuel emissions,'' Mongabay,
September 18, 2020, https://news.mongabay.com/2020/09/off-the-chart-
co2-from-california-fires-dwarf-states-fossil-fuel-emissions/
\5\ U.S. Department of Interior, ``Fuels Management,'' https://
www.doi.gov/wildlandfire/fuels
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internationally, establishing defined and legally protected
property rights is critical to encourage landowners, including
indigenous populations, to reduce global deforestation.\6\ Governments,
businesses, and private organizations are dedicating more resources (a
combined $19 billion pledged at the Glasgow climate summit) \7\ to
combatting international deforestation. Through domestic rehabilitation
efforts and international cooperation, the United States should
continue to be an international leader in curbing illegal deforestation
and in increasing afforestation efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Kathryn Baragwanath and Ella Bayi, ``Collective property rights
reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon,'' PNAS, Vol 117., No 34.,
August 11, 2020,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/34/20495
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Catrin Einhorn and Chris Buckley, ``Global Leaders Pledge to
End Deforestation by 2030,'' The New York Times, November 10, 201,
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/02/climate/cop26-deforestation.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Address invasive species

Invasive species are an economic and environmental menace for
private property owners, communities, and for public lands and waters.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) explains that the widespread
``economic and social impacts of invasive species include both direct
effects of a species on property values, agricultural productivity,
public utility operations, native fisheries, tourism, and outdoor
recreation, as well as costs associated with invasive species control
efforts. A 2021 study estimated that invasive species have cost North
America $2 billion per year in the early 1960s to over $26 billion per
year since 2010.'' \8\ Rising global temperatures make invasive species
worse, and invasive species can also increase the threat of extreme
weather. A problematic example of an invasive species worsening the
size and intensity of wildfires is the pervasion of cheatgrass and
buffelgrass.\9\ Invasive species also deteriorate the health of
forestland and grassland, which increases erosion and reduces
opportunities to sequester more carbon dioxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ed Arnett, ``This Invasive Species Is Fueling Western
Wildfires,'' Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, August 28,
2020, https://www.trcp.org/2020/08/28/invasive-species-fueling-western-
wildfires/
\9\ Colorado State University, ``Cheatgrass and Wildfire''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://extension.colostate.edu/docs/pubs/natres/06310.pdf
Private property owners have a direct incentive to eradicate
invasive species, but those incentives are weaker if eradication
requires active planning, coordination and action from multiple
landowners. Federal, state, and local government policies and
regulations can further complicate coordination.\10\ The Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act allocates $100 million each to the Department
of Interior and Department of Agriculture to address invasive
species.\11\ Prevention and early detection are the most cost-effective
ways to deal with invasive species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Hannah Downey, ``What are Invasive Species? A Q&A with Chris
Costello,'' The Property and Environment Research Center, September 12,
2016, https://www.perc.org/2016/09/12/what-are-invasive-species-a-qa-
with-chris-costello/
\11\ Laura Bies, ``Senate infrastructure bill includes wildlife
funding,'' The Wildlife Society, August 18, 2021, https://wildlife.org/
senate-infrastructure-bill-includes-wildlife-funding/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, federal and state governments should consider
expanding incentive programs to reduce invasive species. For instance,
the nutria is a semi-aquatic rodent that adversely affects wetlands and
vegetation in Louisiana. Through a federal-state program, participants
can trap and hunt nutria and will receive $6 per nutria delivered to a
collection center.\12\ Another example is a resource incentive, where
Florida's Fish and Wildlife Service provides a permit to harvest one
additional spiny lobster for every 25 lionfish (the invasive species)
captured. The state also had a contest to see which diver can capture
the most lionfish and awards prizes for participants that capture the
most. In 2021, the participants collected more than 3,400 lionfish.\13\
Different types of incentive programs (bounty, contractor, community,
recreation) are effective and can vary depending on the region and
species.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Nutria.com, ``Coastwide Nutria Control Program,''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://nutria.com/nutria-control-program/coastwide-nutria-control-
program/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, ``Lionfish
Challenge 2021 Update--June 29,'' June 29, 2021, https://myfwc.com/
news/all-news/lionfish-update-621/
\14\ U.S. Department of Interior Invasive Species Advisory
Committee, ``Harvest Incentives: A Tool for Managing Aquatic Invasive
Species,'' May 15, 2014,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/
isac_harvest_incentives_white_paper.pdf
Additionally, non-profits are stepping up in a big way. Friends of
Tonto National Forest in Arizona, for example, is removing invasive
grasses from the national forest after a heavy monsoon season resulted
in aggressive growth.\15\ Through collaborative relationships with
landowners, non-profits and state and local governments, the federal
government should continue to prioritize invasive species prevention,
early detection systems, and eradication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Jen Wahl, ``Preventing Arizona wildfires: Non-profit removes
invasive plants from desert
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
landscape,'' 12 News, February 21, 2022, https://www.12news.com/
article/news/local/wildfire/preventing-wildfires-arizona-non-profit-
removes-invasive-plants-from-desert-landscape/75-a3789cb1-2f9c-45e8-
94e1-1f489759120d

Expand regenerative and precision agriculture and invest in innovative
agricultural technologies

Regenerative agriculture can diversify farmers' and ranchers'
income and produce many environmental benefits. Those benefits include
improved soil health and carbon sequestration, cleaner air and water,
and diversified, healthier wildlife habitats. Improved soil health also
reduces soil erosion and creates land that is more flood and drought
resistant.\16\ With access to more data, better information, and newer
equipment, producers can improve yields while reducing emissions and
unwanted environmental byproducts. Automated technologies, GPS, and
enhanced imagery better optimizes seed planting and treatment
application, which reduces the use of fertilizers, pesticides, fuel,
and water.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The Noble Research Institute,
``Regenerative Agriculture Is About Direction Over Perfection,''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2020, https://www.noble.org/news/publications/ag-news-and-views/
2020/march/regenerative-agriculture-is-about-direction-over-perfection/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Association of Equipment Manufacturers, American Soybean
Association, CropLife America, and National Corn Growers Association,
``The Environmental Benefits of Precision Agriculture in the United
States,'' https://app.box.com/s/3s8x8xq1olm2ygmsguo8iu56mgaowl4l
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One study has shown that precision agriculture adoption increased
corn and soybean yields on existing lands and avoided cultivating
another 10.2 million acres of new cropland, the size of 4.5 Yellowstone
National parks.\18\ Another case study examined the adoption of
precision agriculture on a family farm in Illinois and found the family
reduced its per acre costs by $67 and reduced greenhouse gas emissions
more than 15 percent.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Ibid.
\19\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although not a natural solution, continued innovation and
investment in new technologies will drive efficiency, increase output,
reduce emissions. Other innovative companies are turning waste into
valuable products. For instance, Sedron Technologies processes liquid
and solid wastes to useable products for soil nutrition, fertilizer,
and drinking water.\20\ Pro-growth economic policies that open pathways
for more agricultural innovation and investment will maintain American
leadership in farming and ranching and deliver natural climate
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Sedron Technologies, https://www.sedron.com/varcor/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voluntary carbon offset and removal markets

Voluntary carbon markets can be a cost-effective way for companies
and individuals to reduce their climate footprint. In effect,
landowners would receive compensation for preventing and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions or for sequestering carbon. This could include
activities such as planting trees or farming and ranching practices
that increase carbon sequestration. For companies that have set their
own net-zero targets, especially in hard-to-decarbonize sectors,
offsets provide a market-based mechanism to reduce or avoid emissions
at lower costs. For others, voluntary partnerships provide
opportunities for carbon removal. For instance, Shopify's
Sustainability Fund has committed $32 million to carbon removal climate
entrepreneurs, many of which are delivering natural climate solutions
(for forests, soils, and mineralization).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Shopify, ``Going All In To Get Carbon Out: Shopify's
Commitment to Climate Entrepreneurs Reaches $32M,'' March 28, 2022,
https://news.shopify.com/going-all-in-to-get-carbon-out-shopifys-
commitment-to-climate-entrepreneurs-reaches-32m
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These markets are not without their challenges. In some instances,
offset projects did not materialize in the ways expected. For example,
satellite imagery has shown that forest preservation or reforestation
projects covered only a fraction of the land they were intended to
cover.\22\ Another challenge is accurately measuring the emissions
avoided or reduced. Soil samples taken to measure carbon stored can
vary depending on which methods samplers use. Renewable power output
can change from day-to-day. A reforestation project could be wiped out
by a wildfire. The greatest challenge in verifying offsets is proving
additionality. In other words, how can we be sure that farmers or
businesses aren't getting paid for something they were going to do
anyway? For example, if a company makes an investment in a new energy
savings technology for financial reasons, but that technology also
reduces emissions, those emissions reductions are not additional. For
many reasons, proving or disproving that counterfactual is difficult to
do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Lisa Song, ``An Even More Inconvenient Truth: Why Carbon
Credits for Forest Preservation may be Worse Than Nothing,''
ProPublica, May 22, 2019, https://features.propublica.org/brazil-
carbon-offsets/inconvenient-truth-carbon-credits-dont-work-
deforestation-redd-acre-cambodia/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These markets, however, have made dramatic improvements in
collecting accurate data, improving carbon accounting methodologies,
and having transparent, proper oversight. Third-party verifiers are
improving methods to demonstrate the veracity of emissions reductions.
For instance, one verifier tests soil at the beginning of an offset
project, collects samples over the years and then inputs the data
``into an agricultural carbon model that estimates the sequestration
that's taken place.'' \23\ Other companies, including Nori, are using
blockchain technology to create a voluntary, verifiable carbon removal
market for buyers and sellers.\24\ The Environmental Defense Fund,
World Wildlife Fund and Oeko-Institut (Germany) are setting up a carbon
credit quality initiative.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Jim Giles, ``Digging into the complex, confusing and
contentious world of soil carbon offsets,'' GreenBiz, February 26,
2021, https://www.greenbiz.com/article/digging-complex-confusing-and-
contentious-world-soil-carbon-offsets
\24\ Nori, ``The Nori Carbon Removal Marketplace,'' https://
nori.com/
\25\ Environmental Defense Fund, ``Carbon Credit Quality
Initiative: Assessing the quality of carbon credits,'' August 3, 2021,
https://www.edf.org/climate/carbon-credit-quality-initiative
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like other methods to rehabilitate ecosystems that produce climate
benefits, incentives matter. Jonathan Wood, research fellow at the
Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), writes that carbon
markets will work best when they ``incentivize compliance, rather than
relying on enforcement.'' \26\ Wood writes, ``If offsets are only
purchased to comply with the regulation, neither the purchaser nor the
seller necessarily has the incentive to ensure that the offsets provide
results. Instead, those incentives depend on how closely the regulator
scrutinizes transactions and monitors long-term compliance.'' \27\ With
the right incentive structure and through weeding out fraudulent
credits, voluntary carbon markets can make meaningful gains in reducing
emissions and reducing risks of climate change.\28\ The federal
government could be a hub of information, offer technical
assistance,\29\ and provide any necessary verification for the
inclusion of carbon markets in international agreements.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Jonathan Wood, ``A Role for Carbon Markets?'' The Property and
Environment Research Center, May 29, 2019, https://www.perc.org/2019/
05/29/a-role-for-carbon-markets/
\27\ Ibid.
\28\ Steve Schwartzman, et al., ``What ProPublica's forest carbon
credits story still gets wrong--and right (with update),''
Environmental Defense Fund, May 23, 2019, http://
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
blogs.edf.org/climate411/2019/05/23/what-propublicas-forest-carbon-
credits-story-gets-wrong-and-right/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See, for instance, Senator Mike Lee's amendment to the Growing
Climate Solutions Act, https://www.lee.senate.gov/2021/6/growing-
climate-solutions-act
\30\ Frank Watson, ``COP26: Nations strike deal on international
carbon markets at Glasgow
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
summit,'' S&P Global, November 14, 2021, https://www.spglobal.com/
commodity-insights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/
111421-cop26-nations-strike-deal-on-international-carbon-markets-at-
glasgow-summit

Embrace sound science on genetically modified crops and genetically
engineered animals

Genetically modified (GMs) crops have been paramount to feeding
American households and enabling farmers to produce higher yields with
fewer resources. Genetically modified crops such as golden rice have
been instrumental in combatting global hunger and malnutrition.\31\
These crops are safe, tested and approved by regulatory agencies in the
U.S. (Food and Drug Administration) and around the world. By improving
output on existing cropland and reducing the use of herbicides and
insecticides, GMs have significant environmental and climate benefits
(both for emissions reductions and climate resiliency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Daniel Norero, ``Unfairly demonized GMO crops can help fight
malnutrition,'' Alliance for Science, June 20, 2018, https://
allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/06/unfairly-demonized-gmo-
crops-can-help-fight-malnutrition/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A June 2020 study found that, in 2018, GM crops raised farm income
nearly $19 billion and raised farm income $225 billion from 1996-2018.
The same study found that in 2018 the ``combined GM crop-related carbon
dioxide emission savings from reduced fuel use and additional soil
carbon sequestration were equal to the removal from the roads of 15.3
million cars.'' \32\ Similarly, genetically engineering animals has
proven to make them healthier, more productive, and more
environmentally friendly. For example, genetically engineered cows have
more disease-resistant milk, which reduces the emissions per gallon of
milk produced.\33\ Moreover, researchers have inserted a gene into cows
to produce more male offspring, which weigh more but eat less.\34\
Again, the result is greater output with a small environmental
footprint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot, ``GM crops: global socio-
economic and environmental impacts 1996-2018,'' PG Economics, Ltd,
United Kingdom, June 2020,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/globalimpactfinalreportJuly2020.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Robert Wall et al., ``Genetically enhanced cows resist
intramammary Staphylococcus aureus infection,'' Nat Biotechnol. April
2005, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15806099/
\34\ Kristin Houser, ``This genetically modified cow could
transform beef production,'' Freethink, July 26, 2020, https://
www.freethink.com/science/gmo-food

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section II. Expanding opportunities for healthy ecosystem investment

There is no shortage of opportunities to invest in America's
natural ecosystems and reap the economic, environmental and climate
benefits that come with it. To capitalize on those opportunities,
policymakers should reduce the regulatory barriers that obstruct or
delay ecosystem investment. Congress and the administration should also
explore ways to improve incentives for constructive partnerships and
generate alternative funding sources for natural climate solutions.
Such reforms offer several noteworthy advantages. Permitting
reforms will allow preventative and restorative ecosystem investments
to occur more resourcefully. Efficient permitting and collaboration
will stretch taxpayer dollars further, inject more private capital into
natural ecosystem rehabilitation, and incentivize investments in
stewardship. The outcome will be a cleaner environment, more protection
from extreme weather and greater reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions. To that end, policymakers should:

Streamline forest and invasive restoration projects,
expedite judicial review, and expand opportunities for timber
development. An April 2021 PERC report highlights the environmental and
climate benefits of forest restoration. The report details many
pragmatic recommendations to expedite forest restoration processes and
encourage collaborative partnerships.\35\ Notable policy solutions
include making categorical exclusions easier to apply for, excluding
prescribed burns from state emissions calculations, requiring lawsuits
to be filed quickly and resolved quickly, narrowing the scope of the
Endangered Species Act to on-the-ground impacts of endangered species,
opening timber markets for export, and allowing the Forest Service to
be a ``Good Neighbor'' with states, tribes, and counties.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Holly Fretwell and Jonathan Wood, ``Fix America's Forests:
Reforms to Restore National Forests and Tackle the Wildfire Crisis,''
The Property and Environment Research Center,
April 12, 2021, https://www.perc.org/2021/04/12/fix-americas-forests-
reforms-to-restore-national-forests-and-tackle-the-wildfire-crisis/
\36\ Ibid.

Maximize funding and flexibility for wildfire prevention,
reforestation, and afforestation efforts. Bipartisan legislative
proposals including the Emergency Wildfire and Public Safety Act \37\
and the Trillion Trees and Natural Carbon Storage Act \38\ have many
sensible provisions to improve wildfire prevention and enhance natural
climate solutions. The bills would provide funding and accelerate the
use of fire detection equipment (including the use of satellites),
matching grant programs for tree planting, seed and sapling funding,
and small tweaks to federal agency technical assistance for carbon
sequestration and forest management activities. Congress should also
explore mechanisms to solve budgeting challenges of long-term forest
restoration projects. As the PERC report underscores, ``Under the
Antideficiency Act and appropriations rules, the Forest Service cannot
obligate funds in advance of appropriations or after funding has
expired. This constrains its ability to participate as an equal
financial partner when states, tribes, or private groups are willing to
contribute funds to forest restoration.'' \39\ PERC recommends the
creation of a restoration fund that would provide the funding certainty
and commitment toward long-term projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ S.4431--Emergency Wildfire and Public Safety Act of 2020,
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/
4431#::text=This%20bill%20addresses%20wildfire%20preparedness,
wildfire%20due%20to%20climate%20change
\38\ S.4985--Trillion Trees and Natural Carbon Storage Act, https:/
/www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/4985/text
\39\ Holly Fretwell and Jonathan Wood, ``Fix America's Forests:
Reforms to Restore National Forests and Tackle the Wildfire Crisis,''
The Property and Environment Research Center,
April 12, 2021, https://www.perc.org/2021/04/12/fix-americas-forests-
reforms-to-restore-national-forests-and-tackle-the-wildfire-crisis/

Reform the National Environmental Policy Act. Investments
in healthy ecosystems and natural climate solutions often run into
burdensome, time-consuming permitting challenges. In addition,
conservation practices can be held up for years in litigation. The
consequence has been missed opportunities to thin forests or eradicate
invasive species, resulting in much worse environmental and climate
outcomes. A common obstacle that can block or delay investments in
projects that enhance ecosystems, reduce emissions, and provide natural
resilience for communities is the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). President Nixon signed NEPA into law more than 50 years ago.
Since then, many federal, state, and local environmental laws have been
enacted, creating a confusing web of unclear, overlapping, and complex
requirements. As columnist Ezra Klein recently wrote in the New York
Times, NEPA is ``part of a broader set of checks on development that
have done a lot of good over the years but are doing a lot of harm now.
When they were designed, these bills were radical reforms to an
intolerable status quo. Now they are, too often, powerful allies of an
intolerable status quo, rendering government plodding and ineffectual
and making it almost impossible to build green infrastructure at the
speed we need.'' \40\ Green infrastructure also encompasses investments
in natural climate solutions. Rather than have pragmatic evaluations of
risk and trade-offs, NEPA has too often devolved into a tool to stunt
the development of cleaner infrastructure and to delay projects that
will restore America's ecosystems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Ezra Klein, ``Government Is Flailing, in Part Because Liberals
Hobbled It,'' The New York Times, March 13, 2022, https://
www.nytimes.com/2022/03/13/opinion/berkeley-enrollment-climate-
crisis.html

While the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included and
codified some important reforms, a more systemic overhaul is necessary.
Two legislative proposals that would properly narrow the scope of NEPA
are the Undoing NEPA's Substantial Harm by Advancing Concepts that
Kickstart the Liberation of the Economy Act (UNSHACKLE Act) \41\ and
the Building United States Infrastructure through Limited Delays and
Efficient Reviews Act of 2021 (BUILDER Act).\42\ Environmental reviews
are a critical part of any project, as is the participation of the
public and communities affected by the project. NEPA reform is not
about removing environmental safeguards but increasing accountability,
improving efficiency, and curbing excessive litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ H.R.3814--UNSHACKLE Act, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-
congress/house-bill/3814?q=%7B
%22search%22%3A%5B%22UNSHACKLE+Act%22%2C%22UNSHACKLE%22%2C%22Act%22%5D%7
D &s=2&r=1
\42\ H.R.2515--Building United States Infrastructure through
Limited Delays and Efficient Reviews Act of 2021, https://
www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/
2515?q=%7B%22search%22%3A
%5B%22BUILDER+ACT%22%2C%22BUILDER%22%2C%22ACT%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=1

Provide efficient and flexible pathways for invasive
species prevention, detection, and eradication. Congress should
expedite permitting for any invasive species eradication plans (see
NEPA reform bullet), and the Department of Interior and Department of
Agriculture should have the flexibility to use federal funds to
experiment with different prevention and detection methods (within the
confines of statutory requirements). The federal government should also
explore opportunities to collaborate with the private sector and state
and local governments to expand the use of incentive programs (bounty,
contractor, community, recreation). Many of these programs, which vary
by region and species, have proven to be effective.\43\ The Interior
Department Invasive Species Advisory Committee should continue and
expand its outreach and provide recommendations and technical
assistance on program implementation and how to avoid unintended
consequences.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ U.S. Department of Interior Invasive Species Advisory
Committee, ``Harvest Incentives: A Tool for Managing Aquatic Invasive
Species,'' May 15, 2014,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/
isac_harvest_incentives_white_paper.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Ibid.

Integrate natural climate solutions into abandoned mine
site cleanups. There are hundreds of thousands of abandoned mine sites
on federal lands, and policymakers should turn these environmental
liabilities into opportunities. Establishing better incentives for
abandoned mine clean up can turn health, safety, and environmental
dangers into productive, cleaner lands and waters.\45\ The Good
Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act \46\ would be an
important step forward that helps reduce the liability risk of
remediating abandoned mine sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Jonathan Wood, ``Prospecting for Pollution: The Need for
Better Incentives to Clean Up Abandoned Mines,'' The Property and
Environment Research Center, February 2020, https://www.perc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/prospecting-for-pollution-abandoned-mines.pdf
\46\ S.3571--Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines
Act of 2022, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/
3571/text

Explore alternative funding pathways. Increase user fees
and charge international visitors higher fees. To address invasive
species at federal and state parks or waters including the Great Lakes
(where 25 invasive species of fish and numerous invasive plants have
entered the lakes since 1880),\47\ parks should charge market rates for
entrances.\48\ That revenue could be used to address deferred
maintenance at parks but also to address environmental concerns such as
invasive species. Charging international visitors to federal parks by
increasing visa fees or for out-of-state visitors to state parks (as
many do) will generate additional revenue for conservation efforts.
Vouchers could be offered to low-income communities to ensure all
Americans have access to U.S. parks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Invasive Species in
the Great Lakes,'' February 3, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/
invasive-species-great-lakes
\48\ Nicolas Loris, ``Tackling the Enormous Deferred Maintenance
Backlog for America's National Parks,'' The Heritage Foundation, June
9, 2020,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/tackling-the-enormous-
deferred-maintenance-backlog-americas-national-parks

Expand opportunities for investment in more efficient
agricultural equipment, and for investment in precision and
regenerative agriculture. Innovative agricultural technologies and more
efficient practices enable farmers and ranchers to produce more with
less. Congress should reform laws to encourage investment in new
equipment by making immediate expensing a permanent fixture of the tax
code. Immediate expensing will allow farmers and ranchers to deduct the
cost of automated, more efficient equipment in the year the cost is
incurred rather than over years using cumbersome depreciation
schedules. Congress could also consider leveraging existing USDA
programs to incentivize precision agriculture and regenerative
agriculture practices. For instance, the Producing Responsible Energy
and Conservation Incentives and Solutions for the Environment Act
(PRECISE Act) would expand USDA conservation loans and programs to
include precision agriculture investments and provide technical
assistance for farmers and ranchers who want to pursue soil health
planning.\49\ Furthermore, the Naturally Offsetting Emissions by
Managing and Implementing Tillage Strategies (NO EMITs Act) \50\ would
compensate farmers for lost revenue for a period that farmers and
ranchers switch to a healthier soil cropping system. Funds could also
be available for technical assistance for farmers and ranchers that
transition to regenerative practices in which they could consult with
USDA's conservation service experts, non-profits, or other farmers.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Producing Responsible Energy and Conservation Incentives and
Solutions for the Environment, https://republicans-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
04.14.2021_preciseacthinsonsummary.pdf?utm_campaign=2760-396
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ H.R.2508--Naturally Offsetting Emissions by Managing and
Implementing Tillage Strategies Act of 2021, https://www.congress.gov/
bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2508/text?r=95&s=1
\51\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service Technical Service Providers, https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/technical/tsp/

Provide accurate accounting of the environmental and
climate effectiveness of conservation programs. Voluntary USDA
conservation programs provide important assistance to farmers and
ranchers, protect the environment, and increase carbon sequestration in
soil and trees. Conservation programs help protect drinking water,
preserve wildlife habitat, prevent soil erosion, and protect and
restore forests and wetlands.\52\ Data collection, transparency, and
evaluation will maximize the efficiency of these initiatives and
safeguard the taxpayers from waste, fraud, and abuse. The bipartisan,
bicameral Farmer-Driven Conservation Outcomes Act of 2020 would
authorize the USDA to identify goals, metrics, and assessment processes
to measure the effectiveness of conservation programs.\53\ Developing
goals, metrics, and monitoring programs and modifying the programs as
necessary will provide sound scientific data to maximize conservation
efforts. Data collection, monitoring, and evaluation will also better
inform efforts to capture and sequester carbon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Conservation Programs, https:/
/www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/
\53\ H.R.6182--Farmer-Driven Conservation Outcomes Act of 2020,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6182/text

Keep GM labeling voluntary and promote the economic and
environmental benefits of GM crops and animals. Mandatory labeling
could create a negative stigma about genetic engineering, which would
undermine the evidence that GM crops and animals are scientifically
safe and beneficial for farmers, consumers, and the environment.
Evidence also suggests that non-GMO labels may reveal enough
information to consumers to deem mandatory labels unnecessary.\54\
Additionally, USDA should consider reinstating its GM checkoff program
to convey the minimal risks and economic and environmental benefits of
GM crops and animals. While the USDA should not be in the business of
picking winners and losers, public perception, acceptance, and
communication of sound science and data is key to legitimizing GMs
where widespread skepticism still exists.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Aaron Adalja et al., ``Direct and Indirect Effects of
Mandatory GMO Disclosure with Existing Voluntary Non-GMO Labeling,''
March 2022, https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=
674066092020080070126007004087016101038046007020059034127065092110126100
099074031
028056033058006042055014031029109121124084098053082054001060121119079000
100104073
006061053066087025064088072020125013070024065027124087029031088097081069
022122103 072028104&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE
\55\ Brian Kennedy and Cary Lynne Thigpen, ``Many publics around
world doubt safety of genetically modified foods,'' Pew Research
Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/11/many-publics-
around-world-doubt-safety-of-genetically-modified-foods/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion

Investment in healthy ecosystems is smart economic and climate
policy. Eradicating invasive species, rehabilitating forests, promoting
sustainable agriculture, and encouraging responsible land and water use
practices are pragmatic natural climate solutions. Stronger ecological
health and biodiversity in the United States and around the world will
reduce emissions and build up natural resiliencies to a changing
climate. To expand natural climate solutions, policymakers should
remove barriers to ecosystem investments and encourage collaborative
partnerships that harness the power of positive incentives.

Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Next, Dr. Sherry Larkin, you are recognized for 5 minutes
to summarize your testimony.
Welcome.

STATEMENT OF DR. SHERRY L. LARKIN

Dr. Larkin. Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and
members of the Select Committee.
Thank you for your willingness to hear of new solutions to
address the impacts of climate change, solutions that improve
our coastal habitats, strengthen our communities' ability to
withstand sea level rise, and increase America's blue economy
that NOAA estimates affects 127 million people that live in
coastal counties, municipalities, and parishes, or 40 percent
of the U.S. population.
In 2018, America's blue economy supported 2.3 million jobs
and contributed $373 billion to the nation's gross national
product. In Florida, the share of the economy that is driven by
our coastline is well above 40 percent. It is over 75 percent,
making climate resilience intertwined with our state's future.
My name is Sherry Larkin, and I am a professor in the Food
and Resource Economics Department at the University of Florida
and am the Director of the Florida Sea Grant College Program.
Florida is one of 34 university-based programs in states that
border the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Great Lakes, Gulf
of Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
Science helps us understand how much our environment
reduces the economic impact of climate change. It is now time
for us to partner fully with that environment to improve the
resilience of our coastal areas. In fact, in the recent
bipartisan Infrastructure and Jobs Act, NOAA was awarded $1.5
billion for coastal resilience-related work. And FEMA was
awarded $3.5 billion for flood mitigation assistance. This is
just 1.3 percent of the annual contribution of our coastline to
our economy.
Sea grant programs are charged with not just funding
science relevant to local stakeholders but ensuring that those
findings are communicated to the public and used by resource
managers in coastal communities. Every dollar of Federal
investment in sea grant must be matched with non-Federal funds
which is a model that fosters collaboration.
The Blue Carbon Initiative indicates that 83 percent of
global carbon cycle is circulated through the ocean, and
coastal habitats account for half of the carbon that is stored
sediments. That means there is an opportunity to invest in
coastal habitats, which account for less than 2 percent of the
total ocean area. Just think of how big our blue economy can
grow.
In Florida, some of our activities in this space include
restoring coastal sea grasses, mangroves, sponges, corals, and
sea oats habitats; improving coastal water quality by helping
divert boats in which to clean marinas, and removing plastics
from oyster restoration projects; building the capacity of
local agencies, institutions, and associates to apply for
Federal funding; and improving FEMA's community ratings system
force to reduce flood insurance premiums. We train shellfish
aquaculture farmers and offer certifications for marine
contractors to build living shorelines. We create public
education programs like Climate Smart Floridians, Seagrass Safe
Boating, and Mangrove Trimming Best Management Practices that
help residents live more sustainably.
Investigating regulatory revisions that would allow
shellfish growers to supply seafood and be used for coastal
restoration is particularly needed in Florida. We are building
climate alliances in the Gulf of Mexico region and to improve
justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion with respect to
health outcomes in the Southeastern U.S. and Caribbean.
The reality is, to generate societal benefits, a lot of
pieces need to be in place other than just habitat restoration,
namely, number one, site-specific research that quantifies the
net carbon benefits, estimates the feasibility and value of
alternative solutions, and evaluates proposed policies; number
two, education to encourage careers in natural coastal
solutions and for homeowners, policymakers, and relevant
industry sectors; and, number three, training and workforce
development to grow a new blue economy that benefits all
Americans.
As Sea Grant supports students and connects to the public
through boots-on-the-ground outreach, we believe we can create
a grassroots movement, which is why I was delighted to learn
that several graduate student leaders with the Campus Climate
Corps were planning to be in front of you today. And if we
don't embrace the opportunity now, the blue economy could leave
America behind and especially the underserved even perhaps
further behind.
Finally, I wish to thank the network of Sea Grant programs
nationwide and all of our unrecognized government and NGO
partners, since we really do none of this alone. I appreciate
the opportunity to share our collective vision regarding
nature-based solutions and look forward to our discussions.
Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Larkin follows:]

Testimony for the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

America's Natural Solutions:
The Climate Benefits of Investing in Healthy Ecosystems

April 1, 2022 (updated)

Sherry L. Larkin, Ph.D.

Professor, Food and Resource Economics, UF/IFAS

Director, Florida Sea Grant College Program

Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the Select
Committee:
Thank you for inviting me to testify today and your willingness to
listen and learn of new solutions to address the impacts of climate
change--solutions that improve our coastal habitats, strengthen our
communities' ability to withstand adverse environmental conditions, and
increase America's Blue Economy. My name is Sherry Larkin, and I am a
professor in the Food and Resource Economics Department at the
University of Florida and serve as the Director of the Florida Sea
Grant College Program. In my testimony I will describe several ongoing
projects and conclude with an identification of the suite of tools and
skills that can help ensure natural solutions are effective at helping
mitigate the negative environmental and economic effects of climate
change.
I would like to begin by providing some context. As an economist
specializing
in ways to measure the value of natural resources, I am thrilled to see
the growing scientific literature that estimates the economic value of
our nation's natural capital--and a genuine interest from resource
managers and policy makers committed to ensure those values are
sustained, and perhaps even grow with targeted investments. Our nation
benefits greatly from our natural environment--from our watersheds that
start high in the mountains, across the plains, and out to the end of
our Exclusive Economic Zone 200 miles offshore. These environments have
consistently worked to protect our shorelines, diffuse and dilute our
wastes, remove excess nutrients from our land-based activities, and
excess carbon from our atmosphere, but we are outgrowing the capacity
of these environments to protect us and clean up after us. As our
growing scientific literature is helping us understand just how much
our natural environment has helped us to adjust to climate change, it
is now time for us to partner fully with that environment to improve
the resilience of our coastal areas moving forward.
As the Director of the Florida Sea Grant College Program, which is
one of 34 university-based programs nationwide, our network generates
solutions for the issues affecting our Nation's coastal communities
throughout the Atlantic and Pacific (including the Great Lakes and Gulf
of Mexico), yielding quantifiable economic, social, and environmental
benefits. The National Sea Grant College Program Act of 1966 authorizes
our funding for research, education, and advisory services in any field
related to the conservation and development of marine resources. Sea
Grant is a unique program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) under the Department of Commerce. We are charged
with not just funding research but ensuring that those findings are
communicated to the public and used by resource managers and coastal
communities and businesses. We operate across line offices in NOAA and
across state and federal agencies in support of our broad mission. A
joint federal, state, and county investment, Sea Grant competitively
awards over 90% of appropriated funds to coastal states through issues
identified locally with boots-on-the-ground extension specialists and
science communicators who live in the communities they serve. You can
find more information on Sea Grant in the Sea Grant Association's
Programmatic Request for FY2023 (https://bit.ly/sgaprogrammaticask),
including planned efforts to extend and upscale efforts to improve
coastal resilience that we are discussing today. Every dollar of
federal investment in Sea Grant must be matched with $0.50 of non-
federal investment, which is a model that fosters cost-effective and
collaborate efforts. As a network, we have documented investments of
more than six times the required match.
In 2020, the Sea Grant program helped generate an estimated $520
million in economic benefits, created or supported 11,044 jobs, created
or sustained 1,332 businesses, assisted 285 communities improve their
resilience, helped restore or protect an estimated 4.2 million acres of
habitat, and supported the education and training of 2,027
undergraduate and graduate students (NSGO, Fall 2021). Aside from
metrics of accomplishment, Sea Grant programs are trusted sources of
scientific information and occupy a neutral, partner-building space at
the community level; we are neither regulatory nor fundraising-focused
and have a 50-year track record. That consistent presence and support,
often in conjunction with our Land Grant partner institutions, provides
an invaluable link between the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that
help us be particularly effective.
Today, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the climate
benefits of investing in healthy ecosystems, with a focus on coastal
and marine ecosystems. While discussing the ecosystem services
associated with forest or agricultural lands is understood by many, the
physical processes of the ocean are not as observable--and yet, our
oceans are undeniably our biggest asset in the fight against climate
change. Coastal marine ecosystems--mangroves, tidal marshes, and
seagrasses \1\--sequester and store large quantities of carbon in both
the plants and the sediment below. In fact, all carbon in seagrass
meadows is stored in the soils, which is why the mounting concern over
loss of seagrasses in Florida is more than just for manatees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Seagrasses are not grasses, they are flowering plants more akin
to land-growing lilies or ginger. Their leaves are thin but strong and
flexible, which allows the plant to withstand constant movement from
waves and currents; the same movement also disperses their seeds and
pollen (like land-based plants use bees and wind for pollination).
Seagrasses have evolved to grow on the soft, sandy seafloor through a
vast network of roots and specialized branching stems that act as
anchors and stabilize the sediment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Blue Carbon Initiative (http://
thebluecarboninitiative.org) 83% of global carbon cycle is circulated
through the ocean, and coastal habitats account for approximately half
of the total carbon that is deposited and stored (i.e., sequestered) in
ocean sediments. This means there is opportunity to invest in coastal
habitats, which currently only account for less than 2% of the total
ocean area. That is the ideal scenario, that we only need to invest in
more habitat and rely on photosynthesis and the potential that all
plants have to regenerate and support sustainable industries, including
plants from the ocean. Which is why Sea Grant has ``Healthy Coastal
Ecosystems'' as one of four National Focus Areas and has invested in
habitat restoration as mentioned with the metric previously. Florida is
no exception; we have grown and replanted new seagrasses, mangroves,
and shoreline sea oats, and we have even invested in genetic studies to
create more effective plant varieties. Plant breeding is not just for
food and fiber crops, and could become a more important tool as we
learn that not all marine vegetation is a net carbon sink because the
reality is that respiration releases carbon dioxide. Moreover, if these
areas natural areas are disturbed--such as scarring by boat motors or
excessive trimming by oceanfront homeowners--these coastal ecosystems
will release the carbon they have stored (which could have been for
centuries for native habitat), and that carbon returns to the
atmosphere and contributes to greenhouse gasses that are responsible
for global warming, rising seas and ocean acidification.
As this example shows, we also need research on plant biology and
breeding to maximize the carbon uptake and growth potential. We also
need public education programs, like our ``Seagrass Safe Boating''
that has recreational boaters take a pledge (http://beseagrasssafe.com/
) and ``Mangrove Trimming Best Management Practice'' videos that show
the how and why (https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/FR448). In these
programs, we are not only seeking that the public gain knowledge, we
are also providing the education to make them act and change their
behaviors. And that education extends to other efforts that will help
maintain the integrity of natural systems, such as removing invasive
species (e.g., beach vitex is a wonderful ornamental, but kills native
sea oats and is without the root structure needed to stabilize
shoreline dunes; https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/escambiaco/2018/06/24/an-
unwanted-invasive-plant-beach-vitex/). For some communities, the
urgency has led to local ordinances where violations result in fines.
Thus, sound policy and regulation could be another mechanism to help
maximize atmospheric carbon removal.
But there is more good news. In addition to the carbon
sequestration generated from photosynthesis, our oceans help us remove
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through calcification; that is, as
carbon is absorbed from the ocean, the shellfish secretes calcium
carbonate to form its shell (http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/
2008/04/24/can-seashells-save-the-world/), which means a percentage of
shells contain carbon. The calcification process thus provides a
permanent conversion of carbon dioxide into an insoluble mineral. In
other words, the calcium carbonate from shellfish and in particular
bivalves like oysters, clams, scallops, and mussels can persist
indefinitely as limestone. This is promising: molluscan shellfish
aquaculture has two products--food for humans and long-term storage of
greenhouse gases. In contrast, the carbon contained in most plant and
animal tissues return to carbon dioxide in a few years. Moreover,
shellfish aquaculture practices do not produce merely the shell-bearing
animals (such as oysters and clams with commercial value), but there
are additional hard materials associated with external growth (often
known as ``biofouling'') that is costly for farmers to remove but
beneficial for society due to its carbon capture properties. The post-
consumption shells are an industry byproduct with value in
construction, restoration, and potentially even for making decorative
tiles like a partner institution in South America. However, just
because there are carbon sink properties, and other societal benefits,
does not mean that research is no longer needed. The lead author of a
recent study concluded that, ``If you want to create jobs and income,
grow oysters to feed people and provide habitat for other species, and
that can be done anywhere that's suitable to oyster reef development.
But if you want to sequester carbon, near shore is the best bet.''
(Fodrie et al. 2017). In short, location matters.
Sea Grant, especially in Florida, has long provided outreach
support to individuals that want to become shellfish growers, but from
the perspective of support-
ing a financially sustainable and profitable industry. This support
includes the provision of habitats, in part through assisting in the
permitting and licensing
process, and potentially the need to protect the juvenile shellfish
from predation. We are now seeing the opportunity to manage growing
operations with environmental benefits in mind. Farming in the sea
doesn't require irrigation, food, or fertilizer, but does require
planning, permitting, and education that is not readily available or
passed down between generations. And for new crops and shellfish
products (https://shellfish.ifas.ufl.edu/sunray-venus-clams/project-
venus/), Sea Grant has also helped introduce consumers and chefs to
these new supplies so marketing can also be a tool to promote growth in
carbon sequestering shellfish production.
So far, I have focused on the potential carbon sequestration
benefits of shellfish aquaculture, but I would be remiss to not share
that these systems also provide equal promise in removing excess
nutrients, like nitrogen, and there is tremendous potential to foster a
nutrient credit training program. To that end, Florida Sea Grant
recently used COVID-19 relief funding to purchase market sized clams
that have sized out of retail markets for their nutrient management
functions and monitor those functions under a research experiment
(https://www.flseagrant.org/clams/and https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/news/
2019/12/09/uf-researchers-team-up-with-florida-aquarium-for-noaa-
project-part-of-coral-reef-restoration-initiative/). While this
practice--of having multiple and complementary markets for hard clams--
would seem the ideal solution, current regulations prohibit this
practice, which is a long way of saying that permitting and regulatory
revisions could be a prudent investment as efforts like the new ``All
Clams on Deck'' (https://www.allclamsondeck.org/) develop. The
development of such programs would mimic efforts proposed by USDA for
land-based agriculture, such as the Partnerships for Climate-Smart
Commodities (https://www.usda.gov/climate-solutions/climate-smart-
commodities) or those of Solutions for the Land (https://
www.solutionsfromtheland.org/flcsa/), dubbed a ``renaissance'' in
production with a focus on innovation, entrepreneurship, and advanced
environmental sustainability objectives.
Now you might be thinking, what about other invertebrates such as
corals, sponges, and sea urchins? In fact, Florida Sea Grant is
investing in all three with a focus on restoration (e.g., https://
www.flseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/
SGEF_215_SpongeRestoration_web.pdf and https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/news/
2019/12/09/uf-researchers-team-up-with-florida-aquarium-for-noaa-
project-part-of-coral-reef-restoration-initiative/). At first glance,
it would seem obvious that other invertebrates also might serve as
carbon ``sinks'' (i.e., net consumers of carbon). In fact, like
shellfish and seagrasses, the benefits are driven by a multitude of
factors that justify the need for both theoretical and applied (site-
specific) research to identify, measure, and ultimately document the
net carbon effects of habitat restoration efforts (especially in
regards to current water quality conditions).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The scientific evidence is clear on the value of preserving and
restoring coral reefs aside
from carbon sequestration (https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4794,
and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00706-6). Benefits
include reducing coastal flooding and associated damage to
infrastructure and loss of human life, and there are several promising
innovations that could translate to other invertebrates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Augmenting and extending habitats through targeted species-specific
restoration, incentivizing, and promoting the growth of shellfish that
absorb atmospheric carbon can only take us so far, which is why we've
moved toward the development, training, and practice of ``Living
Shorelines'' or LSLs. A ``Living shoreline'' (https://
floridalivingshorelines.com/) is a broad term used to describe a range
of nature-based approaches to stabilize a shoreline. In suitable
environments, living shorelines can be used instead of seawalls or
bulkheads to reduce erosion and
protect property. Living shoreline projects are made up of mostly
natural mate-
rials, such as native wetland vegetation, natural fiber logs, or oyster
reef break-
waters, thus maintaining natural shoreline features--and utilizing the
carbon
sequestration properties of the plants and shellfish. In Florida, these
configura-
tions predominantly utilize salt marshes, mangroves, and oysters
(http://floridalivingshorelines.com/types-of-living-shorelines/).
According to NOAA, a living shoreline is:

``A shoreline management practice that provides erosion control
benefits; protects, restores, or enhances natural shoreline
habitat; and maintains coastal processes through the strategic
placement of plants, stone, sand fill, and other structural
organic materials (e.g. biologs, oyster reefs, etc.).''
(https://shoreline.noaa.gov/glossary.html#partj)

As you have likely surmised, every LSL should be the result of
thoughtful, careful consideration of each project site and strategic
placement of natural components along the shoreline profile. As a
result, coastal property owners have a menu of potential solutions
available for solving erosion problems--it's not just seawalls anymore!
And, in fact, every site needs a ``green-to-grey'' assessment to
determine the range of vegetation, edging, sills, breakwater
structures, revetment and bulkheads that are most suitable. Sea Grant
has attempted to foster the adoption of this technique (and seawall
replacement) by both educating homeowners \3\ and by developing a
workforce training module--dubbed the Marine Contractors training
(https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/ncbs/2021/01/07/living-shorelines-for-
marine-contractors-virtual-course-this-month/) to foster development of
a new industry and upscale efforts to combat atmospheric carbon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The FMNP includes two courses, each with 24 contact hours,
developed by Florida Sea Grant Extension agents that increase education
of restoration (https://masternaturalist.ifas.ufl.edu/become-a-master-
naturalist/master-naturalist-courses/): (1) Coastal Shoreline
Restoration, and
(2) Marine Habitat Restoration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This homeowner education program was recently recognized at the
national level by the Association of Natural Resource Extension
Professionals (ANREP) and received the Gold Award in the Outstanding
Educational Materials category for a Book or Comprehensive Program
Curriculum for the FMNP Marine Habitat Restoration Special Topics
Course. The program provides detailed information on the ecology,
benefits, restoration methods, and monitoring of marine habitats in
Florida. A team of six faculty created the course curriculum, focused
on restoration of seagrasses, coral reefs, sponges, and marine
enhancement through artificial reefs. The companion video series
consisting of four videos, each between 10 and 26 minutes long also
garnered the Silver Award for the TV and Video category.
With the goal of shoreline restoration, it might be easy to
overlook that the methods and materials matter. Sea Grant is committed
to also helping clean nearshore and offshore aquatic systems, including
from plastics. We have a long-standing micro plastics awareness program
(https://flseagrant.ifas.ufl.edu/microplastics/)
and strive to reduce the use of plastics in our own programs. One
examples is
PROS--a Partnership for Plastic-free Restoration of Oyster Shorelines
(https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/ncbs/2021/09/03/a-partnership-for-pros-
plastic-free-restoration-of-oyster-shorelines/
#::text=This%20project%20is%20called%20the,free%20material
%20called%20reef%20prisms.). This partnership resulted from faculty
research project that sought to improve upon the most common LSL
configuration, that is, creating reefs by stacking up rows of ``shell
bags'' (oyster shell contained in plastic nylon mesh sacks). Given that
the bags can release microplastics into the marine environment,
researchers sought a new design and Reef Prisms were born. This new
design uses jute fiber instead of plastic and an adhesive that is free
of additives and readily available from local big box stores; an
outcome that reduces costs, increases availability of materials and
helps local economies--in addition to providing an alternative career
path. You see, the development of a Blue Economy is also an
unprecedented opportunity for workforce development and mechanism to
help address diversity, equity and inclusion objectives at the
community level; if we don't consider the opportunity now, the Blue
economy could leave the underserved even further behind.
I hope you are beginning to see the value of LSLs for both the
environment, coastal property owners, and coastal economies.
Investments in habitat restoration improve the health of coastal
ecosystems and reduce coastal waves and erosion that mitigate the
economic impacts of sea level rise--and they do it at a much lower
cost. But to make those projects come to fruition, we need local
programs, communities, and planners to learn about their potential. Sea
Grant has worked hard, through its boots-on-the-ground outreach, to
engage with the public and local planners. For example, we have a
Climate Smart Floridians program (https://sites.google.com/ufl.edu/
climatesmartflorida/climate-smart-floridians-program) to provide
citizens research-based information about climate change and engage
them as volunteers to help reduce household expenses and personal
greenhouse gas emissions; topics include landscaping, water resources,
transportation, home energy, food and waste and highlights the impacts
of individual choices on climate change. And one of our agents works
closely with the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and is a member of
their Technical Advisory Committee; those efforts have resulted in the
development of a shoreline suitability model for the siting of LSLs.
Working directly with communities has also been the objective of
projects designed to develop flood resilient upgrades to natural
buffers around transportation corridors near the Space Coast. Such
projects change the aesthetics of an area and, as such, need local
resident support and policy makers willing to invest in new designs.
Finally, the Gulf Sea Grant programs have partnered with local
organizations and agencies for more than a decade in hosting an annual
climate ``community of practice'' meeting where we bring together
scientists, outreach professionals, and local leaders and decision
makers to identify solutions to climate related challenges facing
communities today and anticipated to impact them tomorrow.
So, this is a great story of a win, win, win scenario for the
environment (and all its natural dependents), the pubic that lives on
or near coastal areas, and the entire nation's economy as costs (and
lives) are saved. The reality is that to generate societal benefits, a
lot of pieces need to be in place--other than just funding the growth
and replanting or stocking of plants and animals--namely:

Site specific research on the physical and biological
sciences behind carbon capture, storage, and release--for living
shorelines and its component species such as seagrasses and shellfish
to inform the development of interventions that includes:

quantifying the net carbon effects,
estimating the feasibility and economic values of
alternative solutions, and
advises on the needed policies and or regulations.

Education to students to encourage careers in natural
coastal solutions to climate change and homeowners, policy makers, and
relevant industry sectors with the goal of behavioral change.
Training and workforce development to upscale our
capacity to grow and support a new Blue economy that benefits all
Americans, and especially the underserved.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share the
accomplishments, priorities, and ongoing activities of our Sea Grant
program. You can find more information on many of the projects I
described through links in the written testimony, but if you should
have more questions or desire more information, please feel free to
contact me directly. As a final caveat, as a program that is charged
with (and embraces) developing partnerships to leverage resources, I
speak on behalf of not just Florida Sea Grant, or the network of Sea
Grant programs nationwide, but for all of our partners in these efforts
since we do none of this alone. And I thank all of our unrecognized
partners at this time.

References

Fodrie, J. F., A. B. A. B. Rodriguez, R. K. Gittman, J. H.
Grabowski, N. L. Lindquist, C. H. Peterson, M. F. Piehler and J. T.
Ridge, 2017. ``Oyster reefs as carbon sources and sinks.'' Proceedings
of the Royal Society B. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1098/
rspb.2017.0891.
Kault, J. F. Jacob, and O. Detourney. 2022. ``Carbon Balance in
Corals.'' Coral Garden, https://www.coralguardian.org/en/carbon-
balance-in-corals/. Downloaded March 29, 2022.
National Sea Grant Office. Fall 2021. Sea Grant: A Smart Investment
in our Coastal Economy. Fact Sheet. U.S. Department of Commerce.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Silver Spring. MD.
Available at:
https://seagrant.noaa.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Handouts/Seagrant-
MainFactsheet-Oct2021-508.pdf.
Moore, D. 2020. ``Shellfish motivation: the climate crisis could be
solved with seas, not trees''. The Fish Site. Downloaded 2/28/21.
The Fish Site. 2004. ``Carbon Sequestration Potential of
Shellfish.'' Available at https://thefishsite.com/articles/carbon-
sequestration-potential-of-shellfish. Downloaded 2/28/21.
Sea Grant. 2021. ``Living Shorelines in Gulf Coast States: Florida
Resource Catalog''. Updated 10/20/2021. Available at
https://masgc.org/assets/uploads/documents/
FL_Living_Shorelines_Singles.pdf.

Ms. Castor. Thank you, Dr. Larkin.
Next, Dr. Cristina Eisenberg, you are recognized for 5
minutes to present your testimony. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF DR. CRISTINA EISENBERG

Dr. Eisenberg. I want to thank Chair Castor, Ranking Member
Graves, and the others members of the Select Committee on
Climate Crisis for this opportunity to speak.
To create ecosystems more resilient to climate change
including drought and other stressors, it is essential to
partner with Tribal Nations and braid traditional ecological
knowledge with Western science. Our Fort Belknap Indian
Community Grassland Restoration Project in Montana exemplifies
such work. Taking place on BLM land and Aaniiihnen and Nakoda
Tribal lands, funded by the conservation and restoration
program lead Peggy Olwell, using Seeds of Success protocols,
this project is sponsored by Oregon State University and the
Society for Ecological Restoration.
I am the lead Principal Investigator and Thomas H. DeLuca,
Dean of the Oregon State University College of Forestry, is the
co-PI. The Fort Belknap Tribal Council, Tribal Historical
Preservation Office, BLM Montana/Dakotas botanist Wendy Velman
oversees our project.
TEK is knowledge and practices generate and passed down by
indigenous people across generations. We are applying TEK on
the Northern Great Planes to improve ecological resiliency and
restore degraded lands with native plants to increase wildlife
habitat, productivity, and carbon sequestration potential.
Incorporating TEK in ecocultural restoration empowers
Tribal Nations. This matters because Tribal Nations in America
are underserved communities with unemployment, poverty, and
suicide rates far higher than U.S. rates. Ours is also a high-
priority project because this prairie is a critical carbon sink
and endangered by anthropogenic climate change.
We deploy a Tribal conservation corps of at-risk youth to
collect the seeds of ecologically and culturally significant
plants strictly protected by Tribal data-sovereignty. We are
implementing the National Seed Strategy and Plant Conservation
and Restoration Program by following SOS protocols to ensure a
stable economical supply of native plant materials for public
land restoration. We are collecting data for BLM Assessment,
Inventory and Monitoring protocols to assess public lands.
Maintaining healthy, sustainable ecosystems supports diverse
land uses and benefits the national public lands trust.
Over the first 2 years of the project, fiscal year 2020 and
2021, outcomes include 45 jobs created, 94 percent of them for
Native Americans, 39 of which were for Tribal youth, totaling
15,000 hours of employment. We raised $200,000 in external and
in-kind funding and collected 25 pounds of seeds for
ecocultural restoration. Youth on our projects have stayed
alive and in school and some have begun college.
Beyond these tangible outcomes, during a Category 4 drought
in 2021, I received a major lesson. On BLM land, I found ankle-
height grasses. In few places where plants had bloomed, their
seedpods were hollow because the plants had suppressed growth
because of the drought to survive.
On Tribal land, in the same ecological conditions, the
grasses grew 4 feet tall with an abundance of seed. The stark
difference was unattributable to cattle. Both Tribal and BLM
lands were multiple-use lands subject to cattle raising
documented by our trail cameras.
Co-PI Tom DeLuca, a soil scientist, and I will be looking
at fire and other land management practices and their impacts
on soils. Charcoal in the soil, created by low-severity fires
set by indigenous people, sustains soil carbon capital and
increases nutrient availability and drought resiliency. When
Tribal lands were stolen and settled throughout the U.S., fires
were suppressed. Indigenous burning is a key TEK practice and
used globally to improve soil health.
The next step is to create an ecocultural restoration plan
with Fort Belknap that includes native seed collection,
ethnobotany, and pollinator and soil health studies. The plan
will contribute to the Fort Belknap climate change program. We
have applied for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grassland
Conservation Program funding for this work.
Ecocultural restoration partnerships can advance our
national climate resiliency agenda. This requires building
capacity with education and jobs in botany, soil science,
entomology, forestry, and ecological restoration for Native
Americans.
OSU can deliver the necessary education and in partnership
with Federal agencies, Tribal Nations, and non-Tribal
landowner. Together we can empower Tribal Nations and help
America meet the climate challenge.
Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Eisenberg follows:]

Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

Dr. Cristina Eisenberg Testimony

April 1, 2022 Hearing

America's Natural Solutions:
The Climate Benefit of Investing in Healthy Ecosystems

My name is Cristina Eisenberg. I am Native American and Courtesy
Faculty at Oregon State University (OSU) in the College of Forestry
(CoF). The views expressed in this testimony are my own and should not
be construed as representing any official position of the CoF or any of
my research partners. I want to thank Chair Castor, Ranking Member
Graves, and the other members of the Select Committee on the Climate
Crisis for this opportunity to speak.
To create ecosystems more resilient to climate change, including
drought and other stressors, it is essential to partner with Tribal
Nations and braid Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) with Western
Science. Our Fort Belknap Indian Community (FBIC) Grassland Restoration
Project in Montana exemplifies such work. Taking place on Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) and Aaniiihnen and Nakoda Tribal lands, funded by
the BLM Seeds of Success (SOS) Program led by Peggy Olwell, this
project is sponsored by OSU and the Society for Ecological Restoration.
I am the Lead Principal Investigator (PI), and Thomas H. DeLuca, Dean
of the OSU CoF, is the co-PI. The FBIC Tribal Council, Tribal
Historical Preservation Office, and BLM Montana/Dakotas botanist Wendy
Velman oversee our project.
TEK is knowledge and practices generated and passed down by
Indigenous people across generations. We are applying TEK on the
Northern Great Plains to improve ecological resiliency and restore
degraded lands with native plants to increase wildlife habitat,
productivity, and carbon sequestration potential. Incorporating TEK in
ecocultural restoration empowers Tribal Nations. This matters, because
Tribal Nations in America are underserved communities with
unemployment, poverty, and suicide rates far higher than U.S. rates.
Ours is also a high priority project because this prairie is a critical
carbon sink endangered by anthropogenic climate change.
We deploy a Tribal conservation corps of at-risk youth, who collect
the seeds of ecologically and culturally significant plants, strictly
protected by Tribal data-sovereignty. We are implementing the National
Seed Strategy and Plant Conservation and Restoration Program by
following SOS protocols, to ensure a stable, economical supply of
native plant materials for public land restoration. We are collecting
data per BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) protocols, to
assess public lands. Maintaining healthy, sustainable ecosystems
supports diverse land uses and benefits the national public lands
trust.
Over the first two years of the project (FY20-FY21), outcomes
include: 45 jobs created, 94% of which were for Native Americans, 39 of
which were for Tribal youth, totaling 15,000 hours of employment. We
raised $200,000 in external and in-kind funding and collected 25 pounds
of seeds for ecocultural restoration. Youth on our project have stayed
alive and in school, and some have begun college (https://www.hcn.org/
issues/53.10/north-prairies-collecting-seeds-to-restore-prairie-
grasslands).
Beyond these tangible outcomes, during a Category 4 drought in
2021, I received a major lesson. On BLM land I found ankle-height
grasses. In the few places where plants bloomed, their seed pods were
hollow, because the plant had suppressed growth to survive. On Tribal
land, in the same ecological conditions, the grasses grew four feet
tall, with an abundance of seeds. This stark difference was
unattributable to cattle; both Tribal and BLM lands are multiple-use
lands, subject to cattle grazing, documented by trail cameras. Co-PI
Tom DeLuca, a soil scientist, and I will be looking at fire and other
land-management practices and their impacts on soil health. Charcoal in
the soil, created by the low-severity fires set by Indigenous people,
sustains soil carbon capital and increases nutrient availability and
drought resiliency. When Tribal lands were stolen and settled
throughout the U.S., fires were suppressed. Indigenous burning is a key
TEK practice used globally to improve soil health.
The next step is to co-create an ecocultural restoration plan with
FBIC that includes native seed collection, ethnobotany, and pollinator
and soil health studies. The plan will contribute to the FBIC Climate
Change Program. We have applied for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Grassland Conservation Program funding for this work.
Ecocultural restoration partnerships can advance our national
climate resiliency agenda. This requires building capacity with
education and jobs in botany, soil science, entomology, forestry, and
ecological restoration for Native Americans. OSU can deliver the
necessary education, in partnership with Federal agencies, Tribal
Nations, and non-Tribal landowners. Together we can empower Tribal
Nations and help America meet the climate challenge.

Ms. Castor. Thank you, Dr. Eisenberg.
And thanks to all of our witnesses for your insightful
testimony.
And, without objection, all of the witness testimony will
be incorporated into the record.
Now we will turn to member questions, and I will recognize
myself for the first 5 minutes.
Well, we know that wetland and forest and ecosystem
restoration and conservation is critical to adaptation and
mitigation over time. But it is also, as many of you
highlighted, it is also vitally important to capturing carbon
and sequestering carbon. Just a few weeks ago, the world's top
scientists said we must act urgently to reduce carbon
pollution. There is a rapidly closing window for us to avoid
catastrophic impacts and the rising costs of the climate
crisis.
So I want to know: How do we do that? What is working right
now? The Federal level, helping states and local communities,
all in partnership, how do we make sure that we are getting the
best bang for the buck, the Federal dollar that we are
investing in natural solutions to sequester carbon? And how do
we prioritize?
Mr. O'Mara.
Mr. O'Mara. I mean, over the last several--especially in
the wake of several hurricane seasons in the last several
years, I mean, at this point, we have such great evidence in
kind of the projects that have been successful and the projects
that haven't.
There is a lot of--back in the Sandy package, you know, a
decade ago, there is a whole bunch of mountain monitoring that
was done to kind of look at the health of these systems, to
kind of make the case that they are truly achieving the
resilience goals and some of the, you know, carbon goals that
we have.
And I think it is just a matter of, you know, doing that
deep research in the early investments that are made. There is
huge opportunities in the bipartisan infrastructure package to
look at the forest restoration projects, look at some of the
grasslands projects, look at some of the flood abatement
programs, and make sure that they are actually achieving the
goals.
And what we are finding is that they are cheaper, they are
more durable, and achieve more co-benefits than a lot of the
traditional manmade solutions. And there are some solutions
where the natural makes sense. There is some places where the
structural makes sense. There is some places where a blend
does.
But there is a lot of good data now to kind of show us the
types of public infrastructure investments that really should
prioritize natural investments maybe over some of the last
century solutions.
Ms. Castor. And, Dr. Larkin, you are well-versed in those
partnerships. There are so many funding streams that come from
Federal initiatives, down to State and localities.
How are we being the most efficient and making sure at this
urgent moment in time that those dollars really are going to
the best projects to sequester carbon and to make our
communities more resilient?
Dr. Larkin. Thank you, Congresswoman Castor. That is a
great question.
And I think we have, like the previous speaker said, we
have a lot of mechanisms to follow up and track. I think we do
a much better job now of tracking and quantifying outcomes. The
science has helped us progress to the point where we can
actually get to the economic value of those outcomes.
I do see a trend in terms of making more impact in these
integrated calls for proposals where you are tasked to go out
and have local groups on the ground, and you are tasked to
bring different parts of the Federal Government together. So we
often work not just within NOAA--but within projects with the
Department of Defense and the EPA, and I think those funding
mechanisms and those language that really charge us to go out
and develop a network of partnerships are where you see a lot
of the impact happening.
Ms. Castor. So we see it in partnership, for example, with
farmers through agricultural extension. We see it in some of
the land conservation programs.
But, Dr. Larkin, there are so many communities that just do
not have the capacity to go and fight for the Federal grants.
What do we need to be doing to make sure that lower income
communities, rural areas understand that they are--they have a
partnership and can access the investments and tools they need?
Dr. Larkin. That is really good.
First, I would say, you know, I think we are lucky that we
sit with our Land Grant partners, Land and Sea Grant. We have
those boots on the ground.
I think in developing partnerships, well, so one thing, we
go where the problems are. And we are not big enough to go out
and reach out to every company. No agency is--or every
organization. So we have to rely on ``training the trainer''
program almost, like, where if we help one community, we help
that community develop another community.
I think when you look at the force multiplier effect, for
instance, or organic--the notion of organic growth is we set
some models in motion. That success breeds more success, and I
think that is one area that we are most excited in because
applying for Federal money is not easy. So helping that
capacity is definitely right. But when we help that capacity,
help them with one grant, they will then have the capacity to
go after the next one. So we really hope that that grassroots
will pay off in the long run.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Next we will go to Mrs. Miller.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chair Castor and Ranking Member
Graves. And thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
West Virginia is a--it is just so well-known to be one of
the most beautiful locations in the country, if not the world.
In southern West Virginia, we highly prize our environment.
And we know that the beauty of our State lies both in our
geography and in our abundant natural resources. I was proud to
be a sponsor of the bill to designate the New River Gorge as
our nation's newest national park.
My community has seen a huge increase in the attention and
in the tourism from so many Americans, as well as visitors from
around the world, who have had the opportunity to encounter
West Virginia for the very first time. In fact, 600,000 more
people visited the New River Gorge National Park this year than
the year before. That is over 1.7 million people.
I am so proud of the abundant resources, the natural
resources that my state has to offer. From the clean coal to
the high-quality oil and natural gas, we power the nation and
the world. And we have provided a livelihood for so many people
in our state.
And I am really proud of my neighbors who, they are kind,
loving, hardworking Americans who have been doing their best to
get by no matter what our government tries to throw at them.
Unfortunately, West Virginians know all too well that the
government doesn't always offer the best solution. That is why
I think it is so important to empower the private sector to get
to work. Streamlining permitting processes across a variety of
sectors is something Congress could do right now to expand
energy deliverability, expand opportunities of the timber
development, and produce more right here at home while we are
providing jobs and opportunities for many of my constituents.
Mr. Loris, can you explain how the National Environmental
Policy Act, known as the NEPA process, has become so burdensome
over the last 50 years? And what can Congress do to help
streamline the process?
Mr. Loris. Yeah, thank you for the question.
You know, the National Environmental Policy Act, you know,
is more than 50 years old. And, you know, it is certainly well-
intentioned and served its purpose. I think, since then, we
have seen a number of Federal environmental laws passed and
amended, a number of State environmental laws passed and
amended.
And I think what the problem with NEPA is that it has
become a tool to obstruct and delay or to challenge projects in
court. And there has been a number of documented cases,
particularly with forest restoration. For instance, a Property
and Environment Research Center report in April of 2021
documented some really troubling ones where projects took years
and years and are still held up in courts.
And so the more we can have, again, an efficient permitting
process that, again, still engages stakeholders, still engages
communities, still allows, you know, litigation to happen but
be challenged and resolved more quickly will allow for more of
these projects to happen efficiently.
I think there is several legislative ideas out there.
Representative Graves with the BUILDER Act, Senator Mike Lee
with the UNSHACKLE Act, that would still have this
environmental accountability and safeguards but allow projects,
again, not just for forest restoration and timber development,
but also it will help with clean energy projects, more
transmission lines, more liquefied natural gas exports, which
are cleaner than Russian piped gas.
This is one issue in which I have heard from, you know,
people who are working on forest restoration, energy
developers, manufacturers all run into these challenges. And
the quicker we can resolve this issue, I think the more we can
work with urgency to provide economic and environmental
benefits.
Mrs. Miller. I agree.
In your testimony, you mention the possibilities that
carbon offsets can provide to companies who are looking to
reduce their carbon footprint.
Can you explain in more detail some of the opportunities
and challenges that are presented by the carbon offsets, along
with their effectiveness?
Mr. Loris. Yeah, I think these voluntary carbon offset
markets, you can provide flexibility to engage with companies
and nonprofits and entrepreneurs, a lot of climate
entrepreneurs, who are motivated by reducing emissions to
ultimately reduce their environmental footprint and reduce
emissions. And the people who are doing that will then get paid
for it. So it is certainly a win-win.
And I think there have been concerns about carbon offsets,
primarily the validity of them, as well as, you know, if a
restoration project for forests or a forestation project
happens and it burns down, what does that mean for the offsets
or--and there has been some challenges with validity.
But those concerns, I think a lot them have been alleviated
by the work of the private sector by nonprofits in terms of we
have better technology now. We can use drones and satellite
imagery and better data to verify that these offset projects
are happening.
I think another concern is the concept of additionality
which, you know, are people getting paid for something they
were going to do otherwise? And it is very difficult to prove a
counterfactual there.
But that said, I think the fact that carbon offsets provide
this flexibility and market-based mechanism for some companies
who have a very challenging task ahead to reduce emissions is
something that results in more productive relationships.
The more we can have the private sector taking the lead on
that, which I think is what has happened, I think the better
off we are going to be. I think the role for the Federal
Government should be limited in ensuring that these are
verifiable carbon credits and to prevent things like the
Chinese flooding the markets with fake credits. There is a role
there, but I think it should be pretty limited.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Rep Bonamici, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Chair Castor and Ranking
Member Graves, for holding this important hearing. And thank
you to the witnesses for your expertise.
In November, this committee held a hearing, examining
Tribal perspective on the climate crisis. I asked a question
about the announcement from the White House Council on
Environmental Quality and the Office of Science and Technology
Policy about the administration's commitment to elevating
indigenous traditional ecological knowledge the Federal
policymaking process.
Early last month, the White House announced that the
administration will be developing guidance to lift up
traditional ecological knowledge in Federal decisionmaking.
So, Dr. Eisenberg, you have substantial experience with
traditional ecological knowledge. What are the lessons learned
and the best practices that should inform the development of
this guidance?
Dr. Eisenberg. Thank you for that question, Representative
Bonamici.
I was actually present at some of the meetings that you
just mentioned. And I am very actively involved with the
process of providing guidance on how to use indigenous
traditional ecological knowledge, or TEK as it is referred to
by the scientific community.
We need to have government-to-government relationships.
That means Tribal Nations are not stakeholders. A stakeholder
is a member of the public. Tribal Nations are nations, and so
that means honoring sovereignty rights in all aspects of our
partnerships with them.
Tribal Nations very much, all the Tribal Nations I have
worked with around the world, want to partner with federal
governments and nonprofits. But it needs to be decolonized,
this process. So we need to all sit at the table as equals.
TEK is--it is our native science, but it is also a world
view, and it includes ethics and so that everyone is equal and
the living world needs to be respected equally. And this is
within the context of multiple uses.
So one of the things that can help advance this is to
integrate our cultures, our elders in all the conversations.
And the White House is really leading with this. The White
House Council on Environmental Quality, some of those meetings
have been held by Secretary Haaland. And she really embodies
these principles in how--in her leadership style.
Ultimately what we want is a conservation corps of
indigenous people out on the landscape. Our TEK, our ecological
knowledge, is the way our Nation's lands, what is today the
United States of America, have been managed for millennia. So
all of our grasslands, all of our forests, all of our coastal
ecosystems co-involved with a large population of Indigenous
people very actively managing those lands.
And the grasslands----
Ms. Bonamici. I am sorry. I don't mean to cut you off, but
I really want to get another question in. We will continue
conversation at another time, and I may ask to you submit more
for the record because we have a lot to learn.
Dr. Larkin, I am the co-chair of the House Oceans and
Estuary Caucus. I have long advocated for elevating the role of
marine and estuarial ecosystems in adapting and mitigating the
effects of climate change, because we know of the potential
which you, of course, have recognized to reduce flooding,
reduce the intensity of storms, sequester carbon, and generate
good-paying jobs.
I do want to invite all of my colleagues on the committee
and beyond to sign onto my bipartisan Blue Carbon for Our Plant
Act.
So, Dr. Larkin, in your testimony, you cite training and
workforce development as necessary components of an effective
natural climate solutions toolkit. So what are the current
workforce challenges you and your colleagues have experienced,
and how can Congress help you close the gap?
Dr. Larkin. Well, thank you. Thank you.
So you are absolutely right. The training and workforce
development is the key to our future as we try to draw new
students in and develop new programs.
I think one of our challenges is finding our partners. But
the good news is, because these solutions can be implemented at
the local level all the way up to the State level, the fact
that we do have partnerships at every one of those levels and
with our state organizations. For us, it is the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
And, even as we try to develop programs that can be
incorporated into our curricula, start training students to
think about these as careers moving up, how do we do that?
Well, in high schools in Florida there is a curriculum process,
and it is not necessarily easy to break into.
So right now we are working on trying to help support the
development of an aquaculture curriculum, because aquaculture--
several different types of aquaculture, and how do we develop a
curriculum around that so that the STEM courses in high school
and those AP courses can use these examples as part of their
learning tool, and maybe plant a seed that, after high school,
this is something I can do, or maybe I will want to be a
researcher and go on in my education.
So I think it is interesting, because that does take our
State partners, it takes our local partners, and it takes the
folks that are working in the area to really see what is that
type of that project?
You know, these projects are so site specific, so we need
theoretical and applied research at the site level. Because
what happens in one bay is so different than what happens in
another in terms of the outcomes that we are going to receive.
And that should really resonate with our workforce. So, as
we share our communications around the State, we really need to
tailor them around the State to get the folks and the table to
figure out which one of these workforce programs might work
best for you. We can't----
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Dr. Larkin. I see my time has
expired, and I really appreciate your response as a member of
the Education Committee as well.
Ms. Castor. Your time has expired.
Ms. Bonamici. I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Castor. Next up, Mr. Carter.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank all of the witnesses for being here.
I know it is going to be a surprise to my colleagues on
this committee, but I want to talk about forestry. And the
reason I want to talk about forestry is because Georgia is the
number one forestry state in the nation.
Georgia has over 22 million acres of commercially available
private timberland, more than any other state. And each of
those acres serves as a carbon sink. You see here? Trees are
the answer. Trees are the answers. Because forests serve as
carbon sinks. They serve as a water filter, as an air filter,
as well as a habitat for wildlife.
In fact, Mr. Loris, in your testimony, you said that fully
restoring understocked productive forestland in the U.S. could
increase carbon sequestration by 20 percent--by 20 percent.
Bruce Westerman, Representative Westerman, the Ranking
Member on Natural Resources, has a bill called the Trillion
Trees Act. We are trying to make sure that we plant a trillion
trees. It is a great, great bill, a great effort.
And one of the problems that we are facing is ensuring that
forests remain forests, because landowners can use their land
for just about anything to make a living, and they do. But,
unfortunately, due to natural disasters, hurricanes, fires, a
lot of times after they have this natural disaster, they don't
put it back into forestland. And that is what we need to
encourage them to do.
So I have got legislation that is cosponsored by
Representative Sewell from Alabama. It is called the Disaster
Reforestation Act. And this will help fix a portion of the Tax
Code that makes it difficult for forest landowners to continue
using their land for forest.
I want to ask you, Mr. Loris, what are some other barriers
to expanding and maintaining our forests, both public and
private forestland?
Mr. Loris. Yeah. Yeah. I think that the two challenges are
we need to protect the ones we have got. And there are a number
of policy fixes that I think could help with timber
harvesting--removing export bans on timber harvesting that
occurs on Federal lands; expanding acreage limits for
categorical exclusions for controlled or prescribed burns;
excluding State-level air quality emission standards for
prescribed burns as well, which would just be a temporary fix.
But to allow a prescribed burn to happen on a good day
where it is not windy is a temporary fix to ensuring that we
don't have worse environmental and climate outcomes as a result
of a more intense natural disaster in a wildfire.
And then I think to your other point is planting more.
There is a number of provisions within the Trillion Trees Act--
matching grant programs to provide seeds and saplings for
States, for nonprofits, for Tribes to continue to plant more
trees.
And I think the more we could also expand afforestation
efforts as part of remediation of abandoned mine sites. There
are thousands of mine sites that need environmental
remediation. And the more we could inject natural climate
solutions into that remediation--and there is some good
legislation that will remove some of the environmental
liability risk associated with environmental mine land cleanup,
the better off we are going to be.
Mr. Carter. Good. Well, thank you.
Well, one thing I know that we can do is to expand the use
of wood and the wood products as a renewable resource. And that
would both ensure that there is always a market for working
forests, keeping them economically viable, and that we continue
to grow trees that pull CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Mr. Loris, can you speak very quickly to the environmental
benefits of using wood and forest products and how we could
further incentivize this, specifically about the lifecycle of
emissions?
This is one thing that I think we miss that point. When
people talk about biomass, they think, ``Oh, you are burning
something, therefore it is putting carbon in the atmosphere. No
way it can be environmentally friendly.'' But, if you look at
the whole lifecycle, it indeed is.
Mr. Loris.
Mr. Loris. Yeah, that is right. I think we can expand the
use of wood projects to continue to utilize wood as a safe,
environmentally sustainable product.
And, again, that is where I think some of the legislative
opportunities to enhance the availability of wood projects,
whether that is through ARC legislation that would enhance
opportunities for these kind of new, more efficient types of
wood, and even harvesting younger trees is still going to be
better off from an environmental standpoint.
And, if you would look at what the alternative might be in
terms of using cement or other products that are more emissions
intense, you are still going to be better off from an
environmental and climate standpoint.
So not only does it provide economic opportunities, but it
provides environmental benefits.
Mr. Carter. Okay. Well, good.
Again, trees are the answer. Remember what they say back
home, Madam Chair. When you breathe fresh air, get down on your
knees and thank the farmer who planted the trees.
God bless America. And I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Carter, you are giving me visions of The
Lorax and Thneeds and Truffula trees and the Once-ler. And I
know--what did they say? Unless someone cares a whole awful
lot, nothing is going to get better, it is not. So let's all
take that to heart today.
And now we will go to Rep. Levin for 5 minutes.
Mr. Levin. I am not sure if I can follow my friend, Buddy
Carter. But thank you, Chair Castor.
As a Representative for California, I want to highlight how
natural solutions can and must play a key role in addressing
some of the pressing environmental challenges, particularly
those facing California.
First, let me start off with natural solutions to address
wildfire risk. Over the last 4 years, California communities
have suffered from seven of the largest fires in State history.
Again, that is just over the last 4 years.
These fires have collectively burned over 2.5 million acres
and destroyed or damaged over 30,000 structures. With climate
change, we know that we can't just prepare for a fire season,
but must now deal with this threat year round.
And we know that wildfire risk will likely only continue to
increase with the U.N. Environment Programme recently finding
that the likelihood of extreme wildfires is expected to
increase by up to 14 percent by 2030 and up to 50 percent by
2100 as a result of climate change and changes in land use.
Mr. O'Mara, thanks for your testimony. You highlighted how
natural solutions can minimize the impacts and severity of
wildfires, and you noted how, due to ever-increasing wildfire
risk, Federal land management agencies, such as the U.S. Forest
Service, have had to spend significantly larger portions of
their budgets on fire suppression, limiting their ability to
fund restoration and management activities to improve ecosystem
health and resilience.
This hearing, I hope, is making it abundantly clear that an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Mr. O'Mara, can you share why the significant investments
in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, specifically for wildfire
risk reduction, are so important in reducing long-term wildfire
risk?
Mr. O'Mara. Yeah. Thank you for that question, and thanks
for your incredible leadership on this difficult issue.
As you said, I mean, healthy forests, making sure that you
have ecologically appropriate reforestation practices, making
sure you are removing invasives, making sure you are trying to
get at things like disease, or trying to make sure that you
have--moving, in some cases, small-diameter trees and some of
the tinder that leads to these massive fires, is all part of
having systems that are much more resilient to the kind of fire
spread that we have seen.
I think a lot of folks talk about the acreage of the fires.
It is the intensity, too. It is the level of heat. There is not
enough soil moisture in some of these cases. So all of a sudden
fires that may have had a couple--tens of thousands of acres
all of a sudden are in the hundreds of thousands of acres or
millions of acres because these systems are not sufficiently
resourced.
And, like, for most of the last decade, the Forest Service
is spending more than 60 percent of the budget fighting fires,
not actually restoring forests. The bipartisan infrastructure
package is going to help reverse that. The 27 billion that is
proposed in the reconciliation package would very much fix
that, so hopefully that can be part of the ongoing
negotiations.
Mr. Levin. Exactly. Well, you pointed out that 27.5 billion
for forest restoration that was included in the House-passed
reconciliation bill, that would be transformational for the
West. And I think we will all continue to fight for a strong
reconciliation package, and specifically for that funding.
Shifting gears, I wanted to speak about another challenge
we are facing in southern California. That is water scarcity.
We know that droughts, wildfires, rising temperatures, and the
degradation of natural ecosystems are exacerbating this water
crisis that we are facing.
Can you expand on how protecting natural ecosystems on a
watershed-wide scale can protect access to reliable clean
water, and also how restoration projects in upper watersheds
benefit users downstream?
Mr. O'Mara. Yeah. I mean, having healthy ecosystems,
whether that is healthy forests or healthy grasslands, do
provide an absorption value to keep kind of water where you
need it and not having the high rates of evaporation that we
are seeing in southern California, for example, some of the
challenges we are facing in the Sacramento Delta up north, and
really kind of making sure you are kind of holding the water
where you need it so you have the access to it as the demand in
the right places.
And so, again, I mean, folks don't always think about
forests as not just a carbon sink, but kind of a water sink, as
a way to have these healthy watersheds, but it is a critical
part of the solution. And I would much rather see that than
some of the manmade conveyances that aren't nearly as effective
as what Mother Nature created.
Mr. Levin. Thank you for that.
Dr. Eisenberg, I would like to turn to you, staying on the
topic of water, I was excited to hear about your work with
Tribal communities in Montana restoring degraded lands with
native plants, and was glad to hear about the positive
ecosystem health benefits you have seen through these
restoration partnerships with Tribal communities.
Can you discuss how these restoration practices can improve
water resilience on an ecosystem-wide scale? And, also, how can
restoring grasslands be a key natural solution to the West's
water scarcity challenges?
Dr. Eisenberg. Well, this has to do with fire and soil. So
fire is part of traditional practices done by Native people in
forests and grasslands throughout the United States for
millennia. And what this does is it puts more carbon into the
soil and in the prairie rangelands. And what that does is it
greatly increases, has the potential to greatly increase the
capacity of the soils to store water.
Prairie soils, there are roots that go down up to three
meters from these prairie grasses. And so the combination--
Native people used fire to create the sort of resiliency that
you have been expressing concern about and to help retain
moisture in both forest and grassland ecosystems. So fire is a
critical piece of it.
And so the restoration programs that we are working on,
right now we have a proposal to the BLM for a large program in
Oregon, in the forests of Oregon, in the dry forests, to look
at these things. So it is not just about grasslands.
Thank you.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Dr. Eisenberg.
I am out of time, but I look forward to working with you
and all of our witnesses and hopefully across the aisle on this
very important issue.
And I will yield back.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Rep. Levin.
Next up is Rep. Crenshaw.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you to the
Ranking Member for holding this hearing, and thank you to the
witnesses for being here.
I absolutely think the work of conservation efforts and
forest management and protection of our natural resources is
extremely important, and I am sure the work done by many of our
witnesses has contributed positively to that effort.
I do have some concerns, as you might imagine. I have
concerns that many environmental groups do not understand that
critical balance between energy development and
environmentalism. I fear that many do not understand that you
can indeed do both. After all, it was natural gas fracking in
America that led to historic reductions in CO2
emissions.
And I don't think this is a goal of many environmental
groups. Unintentionally, intentionally, whatever it may be,
there has been a serious undermining of American energy
development in United States, which has geopolitical
implications, as we are seeing now with Russia and Ukraine and
Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas.
So my questions are going to be for Mr. O'Mara.
You stated in your 990 that you are currently supporting
litigation against Enbridge Line 5, which, if successful, would
remove half a million barrels per day, causing yet another
serious supply shortage of petroleum products in an environment
where there is already extreme shortages, increasing gas prices
in an environment where gas prices are already very high.
Are you using Federal grant money to do this for your
efforts, recognizing, given the context, that that money is
indeed fungible?
Mr. O'Mara. No. No. We receive very little Federal money.
Mr. Crenshaw. Okay. But money is fungible.
So you are taking grant money, and just a quick count of
Federal grant money from the last few 990s is over $4 million.
Mr. O'Mara. For projects on the ground.
Mr. Crenshaw. But it is fungible.
Mr. O'Mara. It is not.
Mr. Crenshaw. Outside of grant money from the United States
Government, what other sources fund your organization?
Mr. O'Mara. So we receive--we have 6 million members, so
folks that are sending $15. We have Ranger Rick Magazine, which
folks subscribe to. We have some foundations that support us.
Mr. Crenshaw. What about Sea Change Foundation, how much
have you received from Sea Change?
Mr. O'Mara. Nothing in years.
Mr. Crenshaw. The number is in front of me. In the past,
your organization has received $3.4 million in funding from Sea
Change.
Mr. O'Mara. Nothing in the last 6 years, though. I have
only been CEO for the last 5 or 6 years. I think that was
before.
Mr. Crenshaw. Okay. So it was before. So it has happened in
the past. It is good to know.
The reason I am concerned about this is because it is well
documented that Sea Change is, in part, funded by a Russian
shell company based in Bermuda called Klein Ltd. Vladimir Putin
funnels money through Klein to organizations for obvious
reasons: to undermine American oil and gas and keep the world
dependent on Russian oil and gas.
And I will submit these reports for the record.
But you were never aware of this or aware of this
organization?
Mr. O'Mara. No. And, Congressman, I mean, I think, if you
talk to some of your colleagues, we are considered like one of
the most moderate, pragmatic organizations, actually trying to
find solutions for domestic production and conservation at the
same time. So I am a little surprised by this line of
questioning, frankly.
Mr. Crenshaw. Well, it is because of these talking points
that Russia puts out and that some of our environmental groups
put out that are anti-American energy, they tend to coincide,
they tend to be the same. And it is concerning when you start
to follow the money.
I appreciate the fact that it hasn't happened in 6 years.
That is good news. But the talking points haven't changed and
the efforts haven't changed.
And here is another question. So if you get rid of this
pipeline, you get rid of more American production, do you think
that affects worldwide demand or worldwide emissions?
Mr. O'Mara. Well, I think--I mean, if you want to talk
about Line 5 specifically, it is coming from Canada. It is
going across the Great Lakes. It is a 63-year-old pipe that is
under both Lake Huron and Lake Michigan. If it ruptures, it
will be a catastrophic impact that is greater--it is going to
make the BP oil spill look like child's play.
I do think that is different. I mean, there are other
pipeline projects we have not opposed. I mean, we are not in
kind of the pipeline business generally.
If the Great Lakes become contaminated, especially when
there are other alternatives--there is the Sarna (ph) Line,
there is the 17th Line, there is a bunch of other options in
that region. Having the Great Lakes be contaminated on our
watch would be one of the greatest environmental disasters in
our history.
We are not in the middle of all these other pipeline fights
that you hear from other different groups, but that is one
where it is the most important freshwater source of water in
the world. And having that happen--and, frankly, Enbridge,
given their history of the Kalamazoo spill and others, I mean,
it is just one of those cases where we need a better solution,
because you have a pipe that was supposed to last for 50 years,
and we are at 60-something and counting.
Mr. Crenshaw. Okay. Look, the reason I am concerned about
this--I am not the only one who has ever brought this up, that
Russian propaganda has made its way into a lot of
environmentalist talking points. You have done a good job
defending your organization today, and I appreciate that.
But I am not the only one who has said this. Hillary
Clinton has stated this is true. NATO's Secretary General has
stated this is true. Our ODNI has stated this is true. Our
National Security Council members have come out and testified
for this.
So it is an important piece of the puzzle when we talk
about American production and how to balance that with
environmentalism. Believe it or not, we are all on the same
page on a lot of these efforts to increase our conservation
efforts and protect the environment.
But we also have to protect people's ability to make a life
for themselves and bring themselves out of poverty. You can
only do that through energy security and in an environment
where inflation isn't skyrocketing. And so some of these
efforts directly contribute to that and benefit Russia. And I
think that is the broader point that I am making.
Mr. O'Mara. Well, I mean, Congressman, to that plan, I
mean, look, I would much rather have clean American energy
displacing Russian oil and gas. I would much rather have clean
supplies. Let's make sure it is as clean as possible. Let's
make sure the rhetoric is real.
Mr. Crenshaw. Glad to hear that.
Mr. O'Mara. Let's use American energy and clean energy,
[inaudible] pumps, renewable energy. But let's export all of
our technologies to fight----
Mr. Crenshaw. Fully agree. Forty-one percent higher
emissions if you use Russian gas over American gas. So thank
you. I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Gentleman from Texas yields back.
Next, we will go to Rep. Brownley.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding
this hearing. And I thank the witnesses today.
I can't help but to take the opportunity to brag about a
project in the district that I will soon represent, after the
2022 election. It is a project in a little town called Agoura
Hills between the Simi Hills and the Santa Monica Mountains.
And, on Earth Day of this month, April 22nd, there will be a
groundbreaking in terms of building a bridge over the 101
Freeway.
It is a bridge that is billed as the world's largest
wildlife crossing. It is a bridge that will be the first of its
kind near a major metropolitan area. And, as I mentioned, the
largest in the world, stretching over ten highway lanes on a
very, very, very, very, very busy freeway.
And so, Mr. O'Mara, I know that the National Wildlife
Federation has been involved in this project. It is a very,
very exciting thing that is happening in my area of the Conejo
Valley, the Santa Monica Mountains, the Simi Hills.
The partnership on this project is really inspiring. I
think it is extraordinary. It is a partnership with the Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy, the California Department of
Transportation--as we call it, Caltrans, in California--the
Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, the National
Park Service, and the National Wildlife Federation.
So, Mr. O'Mara, I just wanted you to comment on this
project. I wanted you to talk a little bit about the benefits
of this project. And, if you could, talk a little bit about how
this whole public-private partnership came to be.
Mr. O'Mara. Thank you so much for the questioning. And we
are looking forward to seeing you on Earth Day. It is going to
be a great event out there in just a few weeks.
So this is a great project. It will be the largest wildlife
crossing in the world. The mountain lion population of southern
California across the Agoura Hills and into San Gabriel, kind
of thinking like the 101 and 5, has been completely bisected by
massive highways.
And so this is the project to try to reconnect some of that
habitat in a very smart ecological way. It was started by some
amazing research by the National Park Service that was looking
at fatalities of these amazing mountain lions that were dying
as they were trying to get across the 101 as a way to find
mates and find food.
And so Beth Pratt, who I am sure you know, Congresswoman,
has been a dynamo on this project, pulling together all the
partners. Amazing leaders, like philanthropists like Wallis
Annenberg, and the Governor, as well as so many other partners
that you mentioned.
But this is a project, and I think, if we can show that we
can go across a ten-lane highway in California, we should be
able to have wildlife crossings and connectivity all across the
country.
And we were grateful for your leadership and others on this
committee for making that crossings program part of the
infrastructure package. There is about $50 million a year to do
these kind of projects.
And the interesting thing, too, is that the insurance
companies love it because one of the biggest sources of payouts
are wildlife collisions. And so it is a way to actually reduce
vehicle accidents and make streets--make roads a little safer
and help wildlife at the same time.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you so much for that.
And, just with another minute or so left, in your
testimony, you talked about nature solutions only being about 5
percent of climate spending altogether. So that sort of makes
me--I think this might go back to somewhat of what the chair of
the committee was asking originally in her questions.
But if it is only 5 percent of the climate spending, are we
really--and I think this hearing is really about an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of a cure. The benefits are so
great. Are we really prioritizing correctly, I guess is the
question, in terms how we are spending dollars to mitigate
climate?
Mr. O'Mara. Yeah. No, I appreciate the question. And, I
mean, of course I want to see more investment on the natural
climate solutions. I think it is bipartisan. I think it is
incredibly smart, both for resilience and for carbon abatement.
And, at the same time, we also need the technological
solutions.
So I don't want to position it as an either/or. I think we
have been a little light on that side. But as we are
electrifying the grid and thinking about transportation and all
the other investments on the climate side, I just want to make
sure that something that could be a quarter of the solution
isn't left so far behind, especially when it can be so
bipartisan in this current environment.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Next up, Rep. Palmer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I want to go back to a question that my colleague, Mr.
Crenshaw, asked about your funding. You did receive $2.1
million from the MacArthur Foundation between 1991 and 2021
that would fall under the time frame for climate solutions and
environmental work. Is that correct?
Mr. O'Mara. The MacArthur Foundation?
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Mr. O'Mara. Yes. I think we received maybe half a million
dollars last year.
Mr. Palmer. How about the Hewlett?
Mr. O'Mara. Yeah.
Mr. Palmer. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Loris, there was a report from the Little Hoover
Commission entitled ``Fire on the Mountain: Rethinking Forest
Management in the Sierra Nevada'' that was the topic of a San
Francisco Chronicle article. And the lede of the article said,
``A century of mismanaging Sierra Nevada forests has brought an
unprecedented environmental catastrophe that impacts all
Californians.''
The Commission goes on to say, ``Plans for prescribed
burning to rid the forests of dense ground cover often clash
with regional air quality regulations, even as emissions from
catastrophic wildfires nullify hard-fought carbon reduction
accomplishments.''
I just want to know your opinion in regard to the misguided
ideas about prescribed burns which have led to unhealthy
forests, more carbon emissions, and unnecessary wildfire damage
and deaths, and particularly the intense heat that is created
by wildfires because of the failure to properly manage the
forests.
Would you comment on that?
Mr. Loris. Yeah. And Collin was exactly right when he said
it is not just about the size of these wildfires, it is also
about the intensity and the heat.
And prescribed burns and controlled burns is something that
the U.S. has been doing for a long time. And, unfortunately, in
places where there has been more bureaucratic hurdles, it has
been happening less frequently than it otherwise should.
I mean, you could look at a place like Florida juxtaposed
to California, and the rate of controlled burns in a place like
Florida is so much more efficient than what happens in
California.
And so I think this is something that has been time and
proven again where forest managers at the Federal level, at
State level, nonprofits, private organizations, private
landowners, all understand the environmental importance of
controlled burns. And when an overly bureaucratic environmental
review process happens, when these projects are held up in
years of litigation, we see what happens.
Mr. Palmer. Okay. I also have an article from Mother Jones
News. It is a favorite publication of leftists. And it is about
the pine beetles that are ravaging western forests. It has been
an issue in southern forests for decades, for years, as long as
I can remember.
And in the article--I will read what it says. They are
often described as pesky invaders, bark beetles have been a key
part of conifer ecosystems for ages, ensuring that the groves
don't get overcrowded.
Is this a leftist--I don't even know how to describe this.
Is this some idea of how to log forests through beetles, to
manage forests? I mean, to allow pine beetles to continue to
decimate these forests and actually create even more fuel for
forest fires?
Mr. Loris. Not to my knowledge. And, again, preventing and
eradicating invasive species should be a bipartisan issue, and
I think there are a lot of pragmatic groups who believe that to
be so. And the infrastructure bill provides $100 billion each
to the Department of Agriculture and Department of Interior.
Again, I think the more we can get people on the ground
doing the work to eradicate the invasive species, and the more
we can provide and harness collaborative relationships between
private landowners, Federal and state agencies, and the Federal
agency, the better off we are going to be.
Mr. Palmer. Okay. Let me move on to that.
One of the ways to prevent this destruction of the forests
is to log these forests. And that is a way of sequestering
carbon. When you cut the timber and you turn it into wood
products, you sequester carbon. But that is also a way to
mitigate the infestation of the pine beetles. You can cut the
infested trees, peel off the bark, and burn them, which that
creates some emissions issues, or cut the trees and then spray
with toxic sprays.
Doesn't it make more sense to engage in sensible logging
practices and forest management than to allow the pine beetles
to continue to destroy the forests and, again, create this
massive amount of deadwood fuel that create these intensely hot
fires?
Mr. Loris. Yeah. And part of that speaks to permitting and,
again, environmental review challenges. I don't mean to sound
like a broken record. You could lift the export ban on
unprocessed timber on Federal lands.
You know, I mentioned the ARC legislation, the America's
Revegetation and Carbon Sequestration Act, that would allow for
some of this development to occur and, again, for more mass
timber development. And, again, I think we need to look at the
tradeoffs.
When you use more timber, when you promote healthier
forests, rather than using concrete and rather than losing
these forests to extremely intense and large wildfires, the
better off we are going to be from an economic standpoint, but
also from a pollution and a greenhouse gas emissions
standpoint.
Mr. Palmer. My time has expired. I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Next up, Rep. Casten.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to talk about natural solutions as the theme of
this, but I do just want to start, I feel compelled to respond
to some of the comments that have been made.
Tomorrow will be the 2-year anniversary of President Trump
calling the Saudi Arabian Government and saying that we are
going to withhold, we are going to take our troops out, unless
you cut OPEC production, and in his words, because of a strong
desire to protect the U.S. oil industry.
I am delighted that in the 2 years since my colleagues
across the aisle are now opposed to Vladimir Putin. I am
delighted that my colleagues across the aisle now support
providing defensive weapons to Ukraine. That is a genuine
transition. It is welcome, overdue, and I think it is genuine.
I am also extremely disappointed that they continue to
oppose every policy that would reduce fossil fuel demand while
simultaneously opposing anything that would increase fossil
fuel supply, as the ranking member did today in his opening
statement. You cannot oppose demand reduction and oppose supply
reduction and claim to be in support of lowering fossil fuel
costs.
I get that that provides a lot of money to the fossil fuel
industry. I get the fossil fuel would like to charge more for
their product. Please do not represent that ever again as being
in the interest of consumers.
I am sure you will have some responses.
Let me now move to--I want to thank Mr. Carter for his
comments on trees, and I think that the benefits of trees
sequestering carbon are welcome.
Urban trees are a really interesting thing. And the Morton
Arboretum does some fascinating work in Chicago showing that
urban areas with trees, because of evapotranspiration, because
of shade, are five to ten degrees cooler, less load on the air
conditioning.
It was my pleasure to provide them with $750,000 to help
further their research, because these trees are actually
increasingly unable to survive in urban environments because of
warming and pollution.
And, Mr. O'Mara, I am wondering if you have any thoughts on
what we can do federally to enhance our urban tree canopy and
help the viability of those forests?
Mr. O'Mara. Thanks so much, and thanks for your leadership
on this.
I think it is a huge opportunity. And it is not just the
urban heat island effect. It is also the health benefits. I
mean, folks that have healthy tree canopies have lower rates of
asthma. You see less upper respiratory illnesses. I mean, the
public health benefits are massive.
Some of the best work in the country is actually being done
in Louisville, Kentucky, where they are actually doing a lot of
work--it has been fairly segregated, the wealthier areas had a
lot of trees, other areas didn't--and looking at, like, the
benefits.
On the policy side, I think making sure that, like, urban
tree canopies are just an eligible use for a lot of these
programs. A lot of times they are an afterthought, because you
think of private lands or State lands or Federal lands.
I think there is an issue with, like, technical assistance,
making sure there is enough capacity to actually do the care
and feeding, and making sure the trees survive, because, as you
said, warmer temperatures are leading to higher death rates of
trees in different communities.
But I think there are big opportunities to do some existing
pots as well as some things we could kind of tuck into other
authorizations.
Mr. Casten. I would love to work on that.
Moving from the urban to the much broader, I have seen
estimates that getting back to the agricultural--the soil
carbon contents that we had a hundred years ago--I have seen as
much as 30 to 80 parts per million that we could pull out of
the atmosphere if we could bring that back. Now, some of that
is easier said than done.
But there is a really interesting program that Illinois has
rolled out to enhance the use of cover crops and couple that to
reductions in crop insurance for farmers, to sort of use
currency that the farmer understands, but add cover crops that
not only increase soil carbon retention, but increase topsoil
retention, a whole host of other--I see you are nodding your
heads.
We are working on trying to find ways to sort of federalize
that really good state policy. And I am wondering if you have
any comments on what we might factor in as we think about
maximizing the use of cover crops, not just in terms of the
climate benefits, but also doing it in ways that will resonate
with the farmers who are going to deploy this and address any
concerns that they might have.
Mr. O'Mara. Yeah. I mean, it is interesting. We are seeing
the uptick of cover crops going up in many parts of the country
right now, and Illinois is a great example, some good work in
Wisconsin as well.
It is not for climate reasons. I mean, it is because it
reduces soil erosion. It improves productivity, because the
soils are richer and they are more fertile. It also is a way to
reduce kind of flooding impacts and just make sure that topsoil
isn't kind of blowing off.
And I also think that we should be compensating farmers for
some of the carbon benefits as well if they are willing to do
it.
And so, I mean, I would love to be in a world where farmers
are paid for the commodity, but also for some of the other
benefits they are providing. And the incentive of crop
insurance is a perfect one, where all of a sudden we know we
are going to have to pay out less. If the soils are healthier
and there is less erosion, you are going to have less damage
from the next catastrophic storm.
So I think getting those incentives right but not making it
a climate program, there is a climate co-benefit, which is
great, but let's do it because it improves the economics,
improves the soil health.
Mr. Casten. Okay. And I know we are about out of time, but
if you have further comments for the record, one of the things
that we have been struggling with is different regions of the
country, depending on the planting season and when the cover
crop goes in, farmers think about it in different ways.
And trying to find a way to do this not with a one size
fits all, but something that works for the different kinds of
agricultural environments in the country.
Mr. O'Mara. Yeah. And there is some great thinking going on
right now actually at the University of Illinois, Champaign
around making sure that some of the cover crops have markets
and not thinking of them just as like a byproduct, but actually
as another economic driver. So I would love to work with you on
that.
Mr. Casten. Thanks so much. Yield back.
Ms. Castor. Next up, Ranking Member Graves.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair.
It is not often that I have a chance to speak after Mr.
Casten, so I am going to go ahead and enjoy this for just a
minute.
Look, we can sit here all day long, and I would be happy to
stay here as long as you want and go through all the facts. The
facts are that under the Biden administration we saw a 161
percent increase in dependence upon Russian crude oil, number
one, period. That is a fact.
Number two, you and your colleagues not only have opposed
domestic energy production, just as this administration is
doing--and I am going to quote this President when he said,
``We are going to ban all oil and gas.'' I am going to quote
his Interior Secretary when I say that she said, ``We are going
to ban drilling on public lands and fracking everywhere.''
I am going to talk about the SEC ESG initiatives. I am
going to talk about the executive order that said we are not
going to do any new production on Federal lands.
And then talk about how we are going to go out there and we
are going to use renewables, but then stop the Twin Metals mine
and other efforts to actually produce critical minerals in the
United States that are required for renewable energy. Your
energy policy is none of the above, not all of the above.
Every single thing that we are experiencing right now is a
result of the failed or just say the lack of an energy strategy
by this administration. And I hate to say this, Mr. Casten, but
you and your colleagues have been complicit in this.
We have offered amendments. I have offered amendments over
and over again to ban Russian oil, to prohibit it, and you know
who has voted against it? That side of the aisle.
You all want to have this discussion? I will have this
discussion all day long. Let me say it again. The President
yesterday said a million barrels of oil, a million barrels of
oil a day. You know how much he was importing from Russia? Two
hundred thousand barrels. That is five times the amount, five
times the amount every single day. You know why? Because it is
mitigating for stupid energy strategies.
I am all for all of the above. I will sit down with any of
you all and talk through it. No policy and objecting to
everything is not a strategy, and the American people that we
all represent are paying for it right now, and it is
ridiculous.
I want to thank you all for being here.
I want to say, Mr. O'Mara--I have got to tell you, I have
worked with him for a while when he was in Delaware, and I have
found him to be an honest man, and I have found him to be a
good partner to work with, although I do want to say, to
protect your reputation, we don't always agree.
Mr. O'Mara, I want to make sure I understand something that
you said, and just give me a yes or no. You said in your
extensive testimony a lot of things, but one of them is that
you believe that sequestration is a part of a--should be part
of a net zero strategy. Is that right?
Mr. O'Mara. Absolutely.
Mr. Graves. Okay. Thank you. And you advocate for natural
solutions, such as trees and other natural uptake. Something I
think you and I have worked on in the past is engineered oyster
reefs, living shorelines, and things like that as a way to kind
of get your win-win-win-win-win scenarios. That is accurate?
Mr. O'Mara. Absolutely.
Mr. Graves. Okay.
So 45Q, which is enacted, is that an okay policy?
Mr. O'Mara. Absolutely.
Mr. Graves. But we need to make improvements?
Mr. O'Mara. But let's--and I think let's make it inclusive.
Let's include----
Mr. Graves. Right. So you believe that 45Q is good, but
that we should expand its scope to include natural or biogenic
sources?
Mr. O'Mara. Exactly.
Mr. Graves. Okay.
Mr. O'Mara. And it is cheaper. It is a lot cheaper.
Mr. Graves. Which I totally agree with you. Totally on
board. And I think that that does make sense.
And then, lastly, in regard to efforts to restore coastal
ecosystems or wetlands or help to prevent the loss of those,
you agree that that--both of those are strategies to either
sequester or to prevent the release of greenhouse gas?
Mr. O'Mara. Absolutely.
Mr. Graves. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Mr. Loris, Ezra Klein did an op-ed in The New York Times a
while back, and he was talking about how NEPA, National
Environmental Policy Act, while well-intentioned perhaps, over
the years and much case law that has, in my opinion, very much
deviated from the actual focus or purpose of NEPA, that it has
actually contributed to the impediments, I guess, in terms of
our efforts to try to carry out projects such as renewable
energy projects.
Do you care to respond or comment on that?
Mr. Loris. Yeah. I think you are seeing a movement from a
lot of folks kind of on the center-left aisle who are
recognizing that some of the biggest impediments to clean
energy infrastructure, to natural climate solutions is onerous
and bureaucratic environmental reviews and litigious
organizations who prevent these projects from happening in a
timely manner.
Ezra Klein did it. Matt Yglesias, another center-left
economist, talked about the importance of cost reduction, but
also of deployment. And you can't deploy technologies, you
can't deploy transmission lines, you can't deploy new nuclear
power plants, you can't deploy natural climate solutions
without efficient environmental reviews and permitting.
And so I think if you are talking about a silver bullet,
this is certainly not it. There is a lot of things we need to
do for American leadership and for global decarbonization.
But in terms of helping with all of these solutions to
decarbonize the energy sector, the manufacturing sector, and
the agriculture and environmental sector for more carbon
uptake, this is something that can really accomplish all of
those things.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Loris.
I am out of time. But, Madam Chair, just one line. There is
a quote from a 2016 private speech that Hillary Clinton gave
that says, quote, ``We were even up against phony environmental
groups, and I am a big environmentalist, but these were funded
by the Russians.''
Yield back.
Ms. Castor. Okay.
Next up, we will go to Representative Huffman.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You know, I thought we started off on a fairly hopeful note
in terms of finding one of those rare issues in the climate
conversation where we could have common ground and try to solve
problems. And, unfortunately, some of the recent comments have
taken us pretty deep down the rabbit hole.
A few moments ago, I actually thought we were going to hear
that Bill Gates was implanting microchips into pine beetles.
And then, more recently, we hear this preposterous narrative
that major national environmental groups are somehow under the
influence of Vladimir Putin, as if he wants clean energy, the
one thing that would render him powerless and irrelevant on the
world stage.
Look, the truth is there is a glass house problem when our
colleagues across the aisle start suggesting that environmental
groups are parroting Putin talking points. It is the fossil
fuel industry that for decades has had a very lucrative
bromance with Vladimir Putin. It was the Trump administration
for 4 years that had the greatest collection of Putin fanboys
outside of the Kremlin anyone has ever seen, and our colleagues
thought that was just wonderful. It was making America great
again.
Look, we should not be looking to the fossil fuel industry
that has been writing their talking points on these subjects
for solutions to this mess. We should be sending them the bill
for the war in Ukraine, because the fossil fuel industry has
always been interested and today is still interested in only
one thing, and that is keeping as many people as possible
hooked on their fossil fuel so that they can keep making lots
and lots of money. It is not very complicated.
And maybe I should put it in terms that my colleagues could
understand in light of last week's revelations. If you have got
a colleague that is doing key bumps of cocaine, whatever that
is, and you tell them, ``Gee, that is really bad for you, that
is hurting you, let me hook you up with this other dealer who
has got better stuff,'' that is not a very good answer to the
problem.
And replacing dirty Putin natural gas with more dirty
natural gas is not an answer to the energy crisis, the climate
crisis, or the fact that we continue to experience fossil fuel-
driven wars.
So let's just get real about all of this stuff, and let's
try to bring the conversation back to things that were actually
agendized where we might be able to find some solutions
together.
Mr. O'Mara, restoring and better managing our U.S. lands
and waters can mitigate a fifth of our carbon emissions. We can
create hundreds of thousands of jobs. That is something we
ought to be interested in talking about.
Can you talk a little more about how natural solutions not
only protect communities--and I represent a coastal community
like Mr. Graves--but also increase the resiliency of ecosystems
in the face of our climate crisis?
Mr. O'Mara. Thank you for all the work that you have done.
I think we are seeing both obviously huge sequestration
benefits, but the ecological resilience of these systems, it is
just increasingly important. We are seeing, whether it is from
a wildlife perspective, given the stressors that we are seeing
on a whole range of species for communities that are adjacent,
whether that is coastal communities that are suffering from
some kind of coastal storm or a fire, and these healthy
systems, that basically every dollar we have spent, whether it
is in your district or out east, in restoring these systems
returns about $6 to $8 of avoided damage.
And the places where we have invested have been able to
come through these kind of horrific events much more whole than
other communities that haven't had those same benefits. And so
I think it really is just that win-win-win where it is safer,
healthier, and better for the economy.
Mr. Huffman. Terrific. And then we haven't heard from Mr.
Westerman yet, but he does have a bill with a wonderful title,
Trillion Trees Act. If good titles made a great bill, we would
be off to the races with that legislation.
And he and I have had lots of conversations about this, but
the science is pretty clear that not all forests are alike, not
all treatments are the same in terms of their carbon
sequestration capacity.
Could you talk about the importance of protecting old
growth trees? I don't know about Georgia and Mr. Carter's
trees, but I know that, on the West Coast and in lots of places
in California, we have trees that can keep growing up to 800
years.
And I think the science is fairly clear that it is that old
growth phenomenon that most powerfully sequesters carbon. So we
have got to protect those things while we talk about other
types of forest management strategies.
Please.
Mr. O'Mara. Yeah. No, absolutely. And I think some of the
amazing sequoias and redwoods are spectacular from a carbon
point of view.
I think one of the cases we tried to make is that if we
were actually compensating, whether it is landowners or others,
for the carbon value, all of a sudden you change the incentives
around cutting earlier or, like, having these different
economic drivers. Because I really don't want forest owners
growing houses either, right? I want them to stay in forests.
But I do think some of the economic incentives, especially
given some of the trade policy issues the last several years,
have been pushing folks to cut earlier, and so we are not
getting the carbon benefits. We are also not getting the long-
term benefits that you are talking about.
And so the question is, how do you realign those
incentives? That is why I think that that 45Q idea is kind of
interesting, because all of a sudden, if I know I am going to
make more by allowing it to grow longer, because all of a
sudden those incentives start aligning, and you can have robust
markets at the same time.
Mr. Huffman. Thanks, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Next up, Rep. Escobar.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And many thanks to our panelists as well. Really appreciate
the opportunity to talk about these issues.
Frequently when we talk about protecting ecological
treasures, we talk about the oceans, we talk about forests. We
rarely talk about the desert.
I represent El Paso, Texas, a vibrant and safe, wonderful
community on the U.S.-Mexico border that is in the Chihuahuan
Desert. And in my community, in the middle of it is the
Franklin Mountains. And, at the base of the Franklin Mountains
is this incredible treasure known as Castner Range.
Castner Range is about 7,000 acres that belongs to the
Federal Government. And, for generations, for at least 50
years, El Pasoans have been trying to preserve Castner Range
and try to convince the Federal Government to preserve it for
open space purposes.
I have filed legislation to designate Castner Range a
national monument in the hopes that it can at some point be
utilized for trails and for educational opportunities for young
people, because there were many ancestors who came before us
who lived on that land, lots of archeological treasure, and
also lots of endangered species.
The challenge for us is that it was an artillery range, and
so there is unexploded ordnance on the property. And so we have
been trying to collaborate with the Federal Government about
how to approach it.
But, in the meantime, the area around Castner, or at the
foot of it on the other side of our freeway, there has been
lots of development. We know that there is always, especially
in urban areas, a desire to have the best view and to build as
much as possible on the side of the mountain, and El Paso is no
different. Unfortunately, we have seen a lot of that happen.
But one of the things I would actually like to ask you, Mr.
O'Mara and Dr. Eisenberg, about we were talking about damage
done to our ecological treasures. Castner Range is also home to
lots of arroyos. And, for folks who don't know what an arroyo
is, it is a water channel basically. And, even though El Paso
is in the Chihuahuan Desert and we, unfortunately, have dealt
with long-term drought, we also have monsoon seasons.
And we have now seen hundred-year flooding. We have seen
unprecedented damage done to property and people, literally
hundreds of millions of damage. And with the ongoing drought,
the soil just is not ready or equipped for rapid and large
amounts of rainfall.
So if both of you could speak to helping me get the Federal
Government to understand preserving open space in a desert
where there is drought and flooding, that it protects people
and property.
Can you speak to the importance of that?
Mr. O'Mara. Yeah. No, thank you, Congresswoman. And thanks
for your work on that, and it was great to see the Secretary
there the other day.
I think there is a huge opportunity, and there is this
assumption that, because it is a desert environment, that it is
not a living environment. And there are challenges with
invasive species, there are challenges with restoring native
vegetation. There are issues in some cases in part of that
range with, like, salt cedar and turmeric and some of the other
invasive species that suck up so much water there isn't enough
for kind of the native vegetation.
And I think the conservation of the area is kind of the
starting point. But, like, what we would like to work on with
yourself and others in the valley, kind of more broadly, is the
restoration of these assets.
I mean, I think when you look at the water levels in the
Rio Grande, in particular, a little further south, the
challenges that we have with not having enough water, with the
river running dry, is because it is actually absorbing billions
of dollars, 25 billion gallons of water between the salt cedar.
And there is a huge restoration opportunity there. It
doesn't get the same kind of attention because folks don't
think of it the same way. But I would love to work on it with
you.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much.
Dr. Eisenberg, in the final 40 seconds of my time, would
you like to add anything?
Dr. Eisenberg. Yes. Ecocultural restoration is critically
important here, and restoration practices that take into
consideration the processes of--the practices of the ancestors.
And, actually, that is the part of North America that my
ancestors are from, northern Mexico.
And so tapping into Tribal wisdom about this is essential,
and restoring those practices which addresses invasive species,
reintroducing fire if it was used regionally, which it probably
was, and that then enables the soil to retain more moisture.
Fire was used throughout the Southwest by Native people.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Dr. Eisenberg. I am sorry. We have a
vote, and we have another member.
Thank you, Rep. Escobar.
And next we will go to Mr. Westerman.
Thank you for your interest in the Climate Crisis
Committee. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
allowing me to join today. A lot to cover here, so I am going
to just jump right into it.
I was pleased when I read the majority's memo on the
hearing, and especially the part where they reference climate
and ecological data. And just to be brief, I want to make sure
that our witnesses are on the same page.
As I read these bullet points, if you disagree with it,
please raise your hand. If not, we will just go to the next
one.
The first point says: A 2020 report published in the
journal Nature found that if 15 percent of identified priority
areas are restored 60 percent of expected extinctions could be
avoided and around 465 billion tons of CO2 could be
sequestered, equal to 30 percent of the total amount of
CO2 emitted in the atmosphere since the industrial
revolution.
Anybody disagree?
A 2019 report published in the journal Environmental
Science and Technology found that restoring tree canopy cover
can lead to a 27 percent further reduction in air pollution.
Anybody disagree?
A 2021 study in Environmental Research Letters found that
forests provide the highest quality water supplies among all
land uses and that more than 150 million Americans depend on
forested lands for their drinking water.
Anybody disagree?
A 2021 study published in the journals Frontier and Plant
Science found that the restoration of degraded grasslands from
severe to moderate degradation stage improved grassland
vegetation by more than 38 percent and soil water storage by
almost 42 percent.
Anybody disagree?
A 2021 study published in the journal Science found that 20
years after replanting tropical forests, numerous measures,
including soil fertility, carbon storage, and tree diversity,
returned to nearly 80 percent of the levels of old growth
forest.
Finally: A 2019 study published in the journal Science
found that adding 2.2 billion acres of tree cover would capture
205 billion metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere, which is
equivalent to nearly two-thirds of the carbon emitted since the
industrial revolution.
Anybody disagree?
I have read most of the reports that are behind these
statements, and I agree. And that last one is actually the
basis for the Trillion Trees Initiative, the global Trillion
Trees Initiative.
Madam Chair, for the record, I would also like to submit
this paper called ``Decarbonizing U.S. Buildings'' by the
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
And it has a statement: Residential and commercial
buildings account for roughly 29 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions.
Anybody disagree?
Here is another one. It is a published journal article on
mass timber, global warming, carbon, and CLT. It is talking
about using buildings to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
And it says: ``The building sector is a major source of
global greenhouse gas emissions. Construction related
CO2 emissions equal 5.7 billion tons, accounting for
23 percent of the emissions resulting from global economic
activities.''
It goes on to say: ``The building sector takes on even
greater significance when considering the approaching wave of
2.3 billion new urban residents.''
And it says energy-related CO2 emissions from
buildings is 39 percent globally.
Anybody disagree?
Next, do you support planting trees at home and abroad and
using natural regeneration methods to increase forest cover so
that we can grow more wood to store more carbon?
Anybody disagree?
Do you support management activities to make our existing
forests more resilient and healthy to grow more wood and store
more carbon?
Nobody disagrees.
Do you support sustainable building practices to reduce
carbon emissions during manufacturing and transporting building
materials, reducing carbon emissions from building operations,
and increasing the amount of carbon stored in the built
structure?
Everybody support that?
Do you support using low-grade woody biomass material from
our forests to make renewable biofuel and biochar that could be
used as a soil additive for grasslands and agriculture that
increases soil water efficiency and would be a long-term carbon
storage solution?
Everybody supports that.
Madam Chair, it appears that there is unanimous,
overwhelming support from this panel for the Trillion Trees
Act, and this committee should fully embrace it, because that
is exactly what the Trillion Trees Act does.
Next, I want to talk about giant sequoias. Mr. Huffman, I
think, mentioned that.
This chart shows fires in the giant sequoias. From 1898 to
2014, we averaged three fires per century. Previous to that,
going back centuries and centuries, we averaged 31 fires per
century, one every 3 years.
Starting in 2015 to 2021, the number of fires and the
intensity of the fires has greatly increased. We lost 20
percent of our giant sequoias to wildfires because of
mismanagement leading up to this time.
Does the panel think we should save our giant sequoias?
I agree, and there is a way to do it, and too bad we are
out of time or I would tell you.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Westerman.
And next we will go to Rep. Neguse, who, unfortunately, is
all too familiar with wildfire destruction.
Rep. Neguse, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Neguse. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, for your
leadership and for hosting this important hearing today.
The timing of this hearing couldn't be better. Just
yesterday, my staff and I had the opportunity to visit with the
Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, which is located at
Colorado State University in my district, to learn more about
the great work that they and the Southwest Ecological
Restoration Institutes are doing to restore our lands and our
forests, particularly after wildfires.
For communities in my district, as you mentioned, Madam
Chair, the threat of wildfires, of drought, and deteriorating
air quality is only worsening. Wildfire seasons are turning
into wildfire years, with fires burning in August, in December,
and in March.
In the last 18 months alone, the largest, second largest,
and most destructive fires in Colorado history all occurred in
my district, with the devastating Marshall Fire in December
destroying over a thousand homes. And just last weekend we had
another wildfire, the NCAR Fire, in South Boulder.
The cost of climate change for my community could not be
more clear. We need bold, decisive action to address these
impacts and to tackle these existential threats.
Earlier this month, I was proud to join with my colleague,
Representative Matsui from California, to launch the Nature and
Oceans Task Force of the House Sustainable Energy and
Environmental Coalition. Thank you to my select committee
colleagues, Representative Huffman and Representative Bonamici,
for joining us in this effort as members of the task force, and
I certainly look forward to the important work on those
matters.
It is time for Congress to take action to mitigate the
impacts of these climate-fueled disasters, and I am so glad
that we are holding this hearing today to explore some of the
ways that we can use natural climate solutions to do just that.
Mr. O'Mara, you used one of my favorite phrases in your
written testimony, that an ounce of prevention is worth more
than a pound of cure. I have certainly found this to be true in
wildfire and forest restoration efforts and in preparing for
natural disasters more broadly.
I wonder if you might be able to share or perhaps expound
more on some of the examples of the cost savings resulting from
forest restoration and ecosystem protection efforts and how
those efforts strengthen our lands, our forests, and our oceans
against future natural disasters.
Mr. O'Mara. Thank you, Congressman.
And in the forest space, we see at least like a 3:1 cost
savings. For every dollar we spend on forest restoration we can
avoid $3 to $4 of damage. Some estimates are even much higher
than that.
And so we are incredibly bullish and grateful for your
leadership on the bipartisan infrastructure package, as well as
the forestry package and reconciliation, to drive a lot of
these investments.
I think it is not a one size fits all. It has got to be
ecologically appropriate. It has got to be done in ways that
kind of work on the local landscape and work with the local
communities.
But it is a huge cost savings. And it is much cheaper--as,
unfortunately, folks in Boulder have experienced repeatedly--to
have healthier systems earlier as opposed to trying to pick up
the pieces afterwards.
So I just think, again, one of the things I would like to
work with all of you on is actually scoring this appropriately,
because right now you have to figure out how to pay for that $1
of prevention, where what we don't count for the supplemental
appropriation, you have to pay after the fact, when we could
avoid a lot of that damage.
So there has got to be a way to fix that with CBO because
these are savings that are attributing--we are spending, I
don't know, a hundred, two hundred billion dollars a year on
supplemental appropriations. None of that is in the forward-
looking debt projection. But it is definitely there, it is
definitely real. And we should be investing now because we know
we can save those costs tomorrow.
Mr. Neguse. I couldn't agree with you more. And I think the
point that you raise is a salient one with respect to being
cognizant of finding ways to incorporate the costs on the back
end as we are making these considerations here in the Congress.
The fact that it is a 1:3 cost savings is just--it is a
fact that I think we lose sight of here in Congress and that we
shouldn't. And certainly my community has not lost sight of
that fact in light of the natural disasters that we have
experienced in just the last 18 months.
So I thank you for the testimony.
I thank all of the witnesses for their testimony today.
Cognizant perhaps of the votes that have been called, I
will yield the balance of my time, but, again, will thank the
witnesses and the chair for her leadership.
And I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Rep. Neguse.
And thank you to all of our witnesses for your very
insightful testimony today.
All members have 10 business days within which to submit
additional written questions for the witnesses, without
objection. And I will ask the witnesses to respond promptly.
Mr. Westerman has asked for unanimous consent to submit
into the record two reports, one entitled, ``Developments in
the Built Environment,'' November 2020, and, ``Decarbonizing
U.S. Buildings,'' from Climate Innovation from July 2018.
I believe Rep. Crenshaw also asked for a 2014 staff report
from the Senate Republicans, Environment and Public Works.
So, without objection, we will enter that into the record.
[The information follows:]

Submissions for the Record

Representative Bruce Westerman

Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

April 1, 2022

ATTACHMENT: Himes, A. and Busby, G., 2020, ``Wood buildings as a
climate solu-
tion,'' Developments in the Built Environment, Volume 4.

The report is retained in committee files and available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2020.100030.

ATTACHMENT: Leung, J., July 2018, Center for Climate and Energy
Solutions,
``Decarbonizing U.S. Buildings.''

The report is retained in committee files and available at:
https://www.c2es.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/innovation-
buildings-background-brief-07-18.pdf

Submission for the Record

Representative Dan Crenshaw

Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

April 1, 2022

ATTACHMENT: Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (Minority
Staff), 30 July 2014, The Chain of Environmental Command: How a
Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the
Environmental Movement and Obama's EPA.

The report is retained in committee files and available at:
https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2020/10/chain-of-
environmental-command-2014-report.pdf

Ms. Castor. And I will also ask unanimous consent for a
March 2022 article from The Washington Post titled ``The bogus
`allegation' that Putin is funding a California environmental
charity.''
[The information follows:]

Submission for the Record

Representative Kathy Castor

Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

April 1, 2022

ATTACHMENT: Kessler, G., 17 March 2022, ``The Bogus `Allegation' that
Putin is
Funding a California Environmental Charity,'' The Washington
Post.

The article is retained in committee files and available at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/17/bogus-
allegation-that-putin-is-funding-california-environmental-
charity/

Ms. Castor. It concludes, ``For years it has been clear
that Sea Change Foundation has no connection to secret Russian
money.''
With that, I want to thank everyone. We will remain
committed to natural climate solutions to benefit the planet
and make sure that we can give our kids and future generations
a livable planet to live in.
So thank you all. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

United States House of Representatives

Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

Hearing on April 1, 2022

``America's Natural Solutions:
The Climate Benefits of Investing in Healthy Ecosystems''

Questions for the Record

Dr. Sherry Larkin

Director, Florida Sea Grant College Program

Professor, Food and Resource Economics

University of Florida

the honorable kathy castor
1. Ecosystem restoration and conservation are key tools in adapting
to and mitigating the risks from climate change, but we must ensure
these types of projects are designed and implemented in a way that
secures the needed results for climate, biodiversity, and communities.
What are the main challenges and lessons learned from engaging with
communities, especially underserved communities, when developing
projects to respond to climate change?

There are several challenges and lessons that have been learned
from engaging with communities, especially underserved communities, in
adapting to and mitigating the risks from climate change. As a result,
and to be effective, projects need to consider the following:

1. Working with communities is labor intensive due to the need to
develop relationships and ascertain capacity, needs, and constraints.
This creates a need for capacity building for engagement to get local
projects approved and secure funding. Taking time to understand a
community's issues and learning how to dialogue and discuss contentious
issues (both with disadvantages and advantaged sectors). Having
dedicated personnel to meaningfully engage over the long-term and
translate the science and advancements would catalyze mitigation
actions. This is especially important for climate initiatives to gain
stronger support.

2. Time horizons of projects needs to be long enough to develop
meaningful partnerships. Community-based interventions/projects can
often be too small (2-5 years long) and sporadic (i.e., one-off
projects) in an uncoordinated manner. Movement towards ``phased''
projects is a prudent strategy.

3. Interventions often do not take into consideration the cultural,
political, and economic conditions of local communities. Holistic
approaches are needed for identification and valuation of benefits in
terms of community health and well-being, carbon mitigation, green
infrastructure, etc.

4. Critical examination of existing finance and funding mechanisms
is needed to understand who benefits (and who does not), how and why.

5. Racial zoning and redlining have creating pockets of
disadvantage for some and prosperity for others. Planning and
development processes/policies/practices need to be linked to
environmental justice and social vulnerability to dismantle systemic
inequities and redistribute power and privilege.

6. There are often mismatches in locations where marine system
restoration is permitted versus locations that actually need the
ecosystem service. While more relevant for nutrient storage and removal
as opposed to carbon, it is still important when thinking about value
to an individual community as opposed to worldwide value.

7. Climate resilience is about more than physical safety. Projects
should ensure that they are looking at all adaptation measures within a
holistic vision of what is needed, wanted and how to get there. Then
they can determine how NNBF's (Natural & Nature-Based Features) fit
into adaptation plans.

Publications

https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s13280-022-01723-
1?sharing_token=Qbbs
klk_AHjsOx2G0VYTAfe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY5-7v4OXTL-91pP_yLEd9vxp9
W23e9Cyb55Kir0ElbW1GZdRPek2yHux2-OQk3ATZ_f-hexVWQ4gBsCk1RoM2C
qa9yUNZbnc4_4XzYB8X3YrAWKBxMIw7isY_xGSFlnLcQ%
https://cdn.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/spotlight-on-
social-equity-finance-and-scale-nbs-2021.pdf
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/
rstb.2019.0120
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0301479720306812
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-022-00047-z
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/env.2020.0054

Websites

https://www.aaas.org/events/community-and-organization-
panel-discussion-green-infrastructure
https://n-ewn.org

Related Sea Grant Projects

Southeast and Caribbean Climate Alliance, funded by
NOAA's Climate Program, Regional Integrated Science and Assessments
(RISA):
https://gacoast.uga.edu/outreach/programs/coastal-hazards/
southeast-caribbean-climate-alliance/
PLACE:SLR (Program for Local Adaptation to Climate
Effects: Sea-Level Rise), a partnership between Sea Grant programs in
the northern Gulf of Mexico has:

Provided several tools for climate mitigation at the
local level:
www.GulfTREE.org, www.localslr.org, www.bit.ly/Future-Flooding
Assembled best practices on stakeholder engagement and
testing the findings:
https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/training/underserved-
communities.html
Described their experience in putting tools into
practice (video):
https://youtu.be/V2-wJWSD9Rc

Climate Smart Floridians helps an individual identify
what they can do to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions.
Demonstrating that there are small, actionable, steps, one can do to
address climate change makes it seem more approachable, and could help
overcome the general distrust of science (especially when it comes to
climate change research).

2. Certain habitats, including forests, grasslands, and wetlands,
can provide needed carbon sequestration. However, different habitats
provide different benefits. What are the similarities and differences
between terrestrial and marine carbon sequestration? What additional
research on blue carbon is needed and why?

The quest for carbon storage strategies should be addressed through
both terrestrial and marine projects because we are going to have to
find and use every mechanism to have to sequester and store excess
carbon. That said, finding the most efficient and least expensive ways
to sequester carbon over the long run is important. There are at least
three contexts in which marine and terrestrial carbon storage differ:
The first primary difference between marine and terrestrial carbon
storage is that in marine systems, carbon is typically buried in the
soil instead of in plant biomass (like forests), which makes marine
carbon storage less susceptible to many hazards (e.g., forest fires).
While that is true, marine carbon storage remains susceptible to things
like resuspension due to plant loss and hurricanes, and to the
disruption of the sediment that might increase rates of decomposition.
There is some debate on what happens if plants die; the living plants
with a healthy root system keep the sediments in place so if they die,
the long-term storage may be lost. Direct measurements of this loss
though are rare and vary probably depend on the scale of the loss and
on site-specific wave energy (see Aoki 2021 and references there in).
The Fourqurean paper estimated carbon stocks for seagrasses and
discusses some of those differences. The classic paper is McLeod 2011.
The second primary difference in marine and terrestrial carbon
storage is that we have the ocean, which can absorb carbon. A
consequence of this is acidification. Recent work suggests that coastal
blue carbon habitats might not be as efficient at carbon storage as
originally thought because of dissolved inorganic carbon export (Santos
et al. 2021).
The third primary difference in marine and terrestrial carbon
storage is with respect to shellfish where carbon is sequestered from
photosynthesis, storage as biomass, and through calcification (shell
growth). Fodrie et al. 2017 found that reefs next to marshes were
carbon sinks while reefs isolated on mudflats were carbon sources. It
is also important to remember that calcification produces
CO2. Grabowski et al. discusses the ecosystem services of
oysters. But, the location of these habitats really matters, not only
for carbon storage (Fodrie et al) but also nutrient removal (Smyth et
al.).

Research needs should seek to determine:

1. the sources and magnitude of variability in estimates of
carbon sequestration;
2. a common system of assessment and measurement in support of
the development of payment systems and trading programs;
3. the importance of size and scope of restoration projects on
the trajectory or timeline of carbon sequestration; better
understanding the role of alkalinity, organic and inorganic carbon and
the carbon cycle in general in coastal systems;
4. interactions between multiple stressors like acidification and
eutrophication;
5. drivers of greenhouse gas emissions and burial rates from
coastal habitats to move beyond sequestration and look at the balance
between services and disservices;
6. the contribution of outwelling of dissolved carbon as well as
carbon sequestration;
7. how blue carbon habitats in tropical and subtropical
ecosystems differ from other climates and land-based systems;
8. the extent of permanent carbon storage (net carbon balance)
from shell growth;
9. the role and importance of macroalgae as a carbon sink; and
10. what management approaches promote carbon sequestration.

References

Aoki: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/
fmars.2020.576784/full
Bezerra: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo4578
Dencer-Brown: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-022-
01723-1
Fodrie et al: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/
rspb.2017.0891
Fourqurean: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1477
Grabowski et al: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/62/10/
900/238172
McLeod: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/
10.1890/110004
Needleman: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12237-018-
0429-0
Oldfield: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.abl7991
Santos et al:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0272771421002146#fig1
Smyth et al:
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/
1365-2664.12435
Van Dam et al: https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/
sciadv.abj1372

Questions for the Record

Dr. Cristina Eisenberg

Courtesy Faculty, College of Forestry

Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society

Oregon State University

the honorable kathy castor
1. In your testimony you referred to ``ecocultural'' restoration.
Can you define what this means and say a little more about the impact
you are seeing on how your ecological restoration work is also
generating cultural and climate resilience for the Fort Belknap
community? How can Congress ensure ecocultural restoration is
integrated in Federal decision-making?

Definition of Ecocultural Restoration:

Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of
an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed.\1\
Ecocultural restoration acknowledges and honors Indigenous peoples'
contributions and traditional wisdom. Defined as the process of
restoring key historic pre-contact, pre-industrial ecosystem
structures, processes, and functions, and the Indigenous cultural
practices that helped shape ecosystems, ecocultural restoration (also
referred to as biocultural restoration) increases resiliency to climate
change and other stressors, while supporting Indigenous ecosystems and
their cultures.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gann, et al. 2019.
\2\ Kimmerer 2011; Zedler, and Stevens 2018; Martinez 2019;
Dickson-Hoyle, et al. 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecocultural restoration is based on Traditional Ecological
Knowledge (TEK; also known as Indigenous Traditional Knowledge--ITEK),
defined as knowledge and practices passed from generation to generation
informed by cultural memories, sensitivity to change, and values that
include reciprocity. TEK land-care practices include using prescribed
fire and seasonal flooding to modify vegetation, conserving culturally
significant species such as beaver (Castor canadensis) and bison (Bison
bison bison), or adjusting timber use to create more sustainable
communities of traditional plants that provide wildlife habitat, and in
turn, food for humans. These processes increase biodiversity and
ecological resilience by creating fine-grained, landscape mosaics that
function within an ecosystem's range of natural variability. Further,
TEK acknowledges that change is constant in an ecosystem. Because
Indigenous people see the world as always changing, their TEK is
designed to observe and acknowledge these changes, and act on them
rapidly by adjusting Indigenous land stewardship and subsistence
practices. In this manner, TEK can optimize climate resiliency, as a
form of adaptive management that has been use for millennia
globally.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Kimmerer 2000; Roos, et al. 2018; Eisenberg, et al. 2019;
Reyes-Garcia et al. 2019.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecocultural Restoration and Cultural and Climate Resilience:

Established in 1888, the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation (FBIR) is
homeland of the Nakoda (Assiniboine) and Aaniiihnen (Gros Ventre)
Tribes. It lies in north-central Montana, north of the Missouri River,
on the Northern Great Plains, comprising 263,000 ha. FBIR lands are
primarily used for grazing, agriculture, ceremonies, hunting, gathering
traditional plants for food and medicine, recreation, natural resource
extraction, and conservation. Adjacent Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
lands are used for grazing, natural resource extraction, hunting,
recreation, and conservation.
On the FBIR, the ecocultural restoration work we are doing will
help generate cultural and climate resilience for Fort Belknap Indian
Community (FBIC) and BLM. Specifically, in partnership with BLM, Oregon
State University (OSU), and Society for Ecological Restoration (SER),
we are developing an ecocultural restoration plan based on FBIC TEK,
with the guidance and participation of the Tribal Council, the Tribal
Historical Preservation Office, Tribal elders, youth, natural resources
staff, and educators, applicable to multiple-use FBIR and BLM lands in
this region. Because the plan will be built on Indigenous stewardship
practices in this grassland used for millennia (e.g., prescribed
burning, conserving culturally significant plants that also function as
soil-stabilizing plants and carbon sinks) that have always included
adaptation to changes in the climate, it will build climate resilience
and increase what today we refer to as the ecosystem services on which
humans rely for survival, such as fertile soil, plants, pollination,
and clean water.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, because we are engaging the FBIC with jobs and
training for youth, including creating a Tribal youth conservation
corps that provides income and natural resource training, and because
the youth involved in this program will be the lead authors of the
ecocultural restoration plan we are developing, this work is also very
directly building capacity within FBIC. By engaging Tribal youth, we
are creating a STEM pathway for them in higher education at
institutions such as OSU, helping them develop into future leaders in
natural resource management and conservation. Collectively this is
generating cultural resiliency--by empowering youth to use their
culturally traditional relationships with the natural world to find
nature-based climate solutions that are also firmly grounded in Western
science. This strategy is called Two-Eyed Seeing. By combining the
empirical strengths and logic of Western science and the insights and
wisdom of TEK, one gains binocular vision that enables people to find
solutions to challenging natural resource problems, such as global
warming. The ecocultural restoration plan we are co-creating will be
based on cultural competency (e.g., understanding the FBIC culture),
and will go beyond that to cultural humility (e.g., self-assessment and
accountability, openness, and equitable relationships with all
involved).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Bartlett, et al. 2012.

How Congress Can Ensure Integration of Ecocultural Restoration into
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Decision-Making:

According to the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy, TEK could and should improve understanding of climate change
and environmental sustainability. TEK also could help in the
development of comprehensive climate adaptation and natural resources
management strategies, aimed at achieving mutually beneficial outcomes
for Tribal Nations and U.S. Federal agencies.\6\ However, the U.S.
Federal government tends to implement top-down strategies using one-
size-fits-all approaches. Such approaches will not be effective in
incorporating ecocultural restoration into Federal decision-making.
This is because ecocultural restoration, which is informed by TEK, is
strongly place-based, and comes from Indigenous cultures, with each
Tribal Nation having a unique culture.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ); 2021a.
White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2021b.
\7\ Reyes-Garcia 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-management is a partnership whereby the government shares power
with resource users, with clearly specified rights and responsibilities
for each actor relating to management and decision-making. In the U.S.,
Federal co-management efforts that incorporate ecocultural restoration
via TEK and uphold treaty rights are one of the foundational principles
in addressing initiatives such as Presidential Executive Order 14008 on
Climate Change.
With Tribal Nations, co-management typically includes a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU). Such partnerships convey economic benefits to
Tribes and government agencies, with mutual respect and reciprocity,
and can function as stepping-stones to self-determination. However, in
practice, co-management can be an imperfect alliance, because its roots
lie in settler colonialism. Successful co-management acknowledges and
supports self-determination and natural resources treaty rights, with
clear understanding of what TEK means to the specific Tribal Nation
involved in the partnership.
Ecocultural restoration has huge potential for co-management of
public lands. In order for it to succeed in its application, it must be
place-based and part of a partnership based on inclusive, equitable,
and respectful interactions. It must include relationship building that
leads to government-to-government policy actions that honor Tribal
sovereignty and self-determination rights, via formal agreements (e.g.,
MOUs).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Usher 200; Houde 2007; Nadasdy 2007; Nie 2008; Kenney 2012;
Casson 2015; Reid et al. 2018; Grey and Kuokkanen 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress can ensure that ecocultural restoration is incorporated
into Federal decision-making by implementing policies and providing
secure, dedicated funding to enable development of the trust-based
relationships described above. In doing so, it is important to consider
that it takes time to build relationships between Tribal Nations and
Federal agencies that lead to collaboration to partner in natural
resource ecocultural restoration. Building this trust means beginning
to overcome 175 years of genocide, breaches of treaties, and
exploitation of Tribal Nations. Note that the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act of 1975, 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 450 et seq.
and the 1994 Tribal Self-Governance Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 458aa et seq.
passed fairly recently. These acts acknowledged and reinstated
Indigenous peoples' sovereignty rights and empowered them to manage
their lands. Nevertheless, securing such rights in practice continues
to challenge many Tribal Nations, particularly regarding natural
resource and subsistence treaty rights.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. Congress. 1975. Indian Education and Self-Determination
Act of 1975; Deloria, and Lytle 1983; U.S. Congress. 1994. Tribal Self
Governance Act of 1994; Wilkins, and Lomawaima 2001; Treuer 2012;
Treuer 2019.

2. In your testimony, you noted the differences you saw in the
condition of the grasslands on Tribal lands as compared to the BLM
lands. Please describe what these differences indicate, and why healthy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
grasslands are so important.

Differences between FBIC Tribal lands and BLM lands:

Global warming is leading to increasingly frequent severe and
extensive drought and wildfires. Warmer temperatures, below-average
winter precipitation, earlier snowmelt, and drier summers are creating
longer wildfire seasons. Ecosystems managed for agriculture often lack
the resiliency to recover from these disturbances and other
environmental stressors (e.g., insect outbreaks), because such
management involves plowing the soil, planting non-native agronomic
species for harvest, and eliminating or disrupting processes with which
these ecosystems co-evolved, such as intermittent intensive grazing by
herds of bison, low-severity fires set by Indigenous people, and mixed-
severity wildfires.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Bond, et al. 2004; Fuhlendorf, et al. 2008; Allred, et al.
2011; Grimm, et al. 2013; Polley, et al. 2013; Lark, et al. 2020;
Hessburg, et al. 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are working to address the above issues in our grassland
restoration project, which began in 2019 in the Northern Great Plains
Biome of Montana, on BLM and FBIR lands. I am the Lead Principal
Investigator (PI) of this project, and Dr. Thomas H. DeLuca is the co-
PI. In addition to the FBIC and BLM, project partners consist of OSU
and SER. Our grassland restoration project goals are to:

a) Help the BLM Plant Conservation and Restoration Program
(PCRP) ensure a stable commercial supply of native plant materials for
restoration and rehabilitation efforts on public lands.
b) Help BLM inventory and quantitatively assess the condition
and trend of natural resources on the nation's public lands.

We are meeting these goals by surveying U.S. Federal and adjacent
Tribal lands using Assessment, Inventorying and Monitoring (AIM)
protocols, and then applying BLM Seeds of Success (SOS) protocols to
collect the seeds of target species for conservation. Target species
include those known to stabilize soils after a severe fire or other
disturbance, such as Junegrass (Koelaria macrantha), which can rapidly
resprout and help prevent erosion. Seeds go to the National Seed
Repository to eventually be used for ecological restoration of public
lands that have been degraded by catastrophic fire, drought, or
intensive conventional agriculture.\11\ An additional goal is to co-
create an ecocultural restoration plan with the FBIC, based on TEK
(described in the response to Q1), to increase resiliency to drought
and other environmental stressors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ BLM 2021a; BLM 2021b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the summer of 2021, much of the Western U.S. experienced an
extreme drought. Per National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and State of Montana data, our study site on the FBIR and
surrounding BLM lands was in D3 (Extreme) and D4 (Exceptional) drought.
In D3 conditions, crops are not harvestable, winter pasture is opened
for grazing, the soil has large cracks in it, and the fields are bare.
Cattle have very little water and producers must import water and
supplemental feed. Fire restrictions increase. In D4 conditions,
pasture loss is widespread, crops are destroyed, fire risk is extremely
high, and fires are widespread.\12\ Given that most of our study site
(both FBIC and BLM land) is used primarily for some form of
agriculture, and that for residents of north-central Montana,
agriculture is a leading occupation and income source, D3 and D4
drought can have devastating economic impacts on human communities in
this region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ NOAA, NRCS, State of Montana 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June-August, 2021, when we surveyed FBIR and BLM lands, which
consist of mixed-grass prairie communities, I received one of the most
powerful lessons of my career as an ecologist. In keeping with expected
D3-D4 drought conditions, our field crew and I found that in late
spring on BLM lands, which were dominated by exotic (e.g., non-native/
invasive) grass species (primarily crested wheatgrass, Agropyron
cristatum), with some native grasses (Sandberg bluegrass, Poa secunda,
and Western wheatgrass, Pascopyrum smithii), these grasses grew
approximately six inches tall. On adjacent FBIC land that had the same
drought conditions, climate, elevation, geomorphology, and other
ecological characteristics, but contained mostly native plant species
(primarily Western wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, and green
needlegrass, Nassella viridula), the same grasses grew up to four feet
tall. On BLM land, in the few places where native plants, such as
bluegrass, had bloomed, their seed pods were hollow, lacking a
cotyledon, because the plant had suppressed growth to survive. This
stark difference in plant drought resiliency was unattributable to
cattle; both Tribal and BLM lands are multiple-use lands, subject to
cattle grazing, which we documented with trail cameras. Further,
because of the drought response described above, on FBIR land we were
able to collect 23 pounds of seeds of target species for conservation.
On neighboring BLM land we were only able to collect 3 ounces (0.19
pounds or 0.8%) of seeds of target species, despite scoping those
Federal lands really thoroughly for several weeks, working in Blaine
and Phillips Counties.
Dr. DeLuca, an eminent soil scientist, and I hypothesize that this
difference between FBIR and BLM land is at least partly related to
differences in soil ecology between the two systems. Charcoal (also
known as pyrogenic carbon, PyC) legacies in the soil created by the
low-severity fires historically set by Indigenous people were deposited
in mineral soils on a frequent and in some cases annual basis. The
recalcitrant nature of PyC results in its accumulation over time,
thereby increasing the scale and function of the soil carbon pool,
resulting in increased nutrient availability and drought
resiliency.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ DeLuca et al., 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indigenous burning is a key TEK land stewardship practice used
globally to improve soil health.\14\ In what is today the U.S.,
Indigenous use of fire to improve habitat for wildlife and productivity
of culturally significant species of plants harvested as part of the
hunter-gatherer lifeway has been widely documented. On the Northern
Great Plains, Indigenous people used fire to manage plant communities
to improve availability of culturally significant plants used for
medicine and subsistence, such as Indian turnip (Pediomelum
esculentum), and improve bison habitat. These prescribed fires were
typically of low severity.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Bond, et al. 2005; Kimmerer, and Lake 2001.
\15\ Boyd 2022; Lake, et al. 2017; Roos, et al. 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1800s, when Tribal lands were stolen and settled by Euro-
Americans throughout the U.S., fires were suppressed. As part of
colonization, the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 placed Native
Americans on Indian Reservations and ended Tribal sovereignty
rights.\16\ Yet, despite strong encouragement to assimilate into Euro-
American culture, Native American people did not completely cease their
cultural traditions regarding grassland, forest, and wildlife
stewardship. On reservation lands, in keeping with TEK, Native
Americans continued to set some prescribed fires, even though they were
discouraged from doing so by the U.S. Federal government. On non-Tribal
lands, fire exclusion post-Euro-American colonization changed soil
biogeochemical properties significantly, in ways that created plant
communities far less resilient to drought and other environmental
stressors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Indian Appropriations Act of Mar. 3, 1871.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pyrogenic carbon (PyC) is a fire legacy formed through the thermal
decomposition of organic matter during fires. PyC can increase nutrient
cycling in soils and the carbon budget in an ecosystem. PyC is highly
stable and can be preserved in mineral soils for decades to centuries.
Recent studies have shown that the presence and content of soil PyC
explains a significant amount of variation in soil function (e.g.,
water infiltration, carbon microbial cycling, nutrient availability and
dynamics).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Bird 2015; Bowring, et al. 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The quantity and quality of PyC in soils is related to fire
severity and frequency. Low- and mid-severity fire improves soil
properties and processes, by stimulating nutrient release and
depositing PyC in the topsoil (O and A soil layers, called
``horizons''). Low- to mid-severity fire will retain much of the soil
seedbank and nutrient capital, simply losing some of the topsoil to
volatilization. After such events, microbial activity rebounds quickly
and nutrient availability actually increases. In contrast, the sort of
high-severity wildfires we have been experiencing globally, linked to
climate change, result in complete combustion of the topsoil, loss of
key species from the seedbank, mortality of shallow plant roots,
reduced resprouting of herbs, and loss of carbon and nitrogen from
surface mineral soil.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ DeLuca, et al. 2020; Gao, and DeLuca 2018; Gao, and DeLuca
2020; Michelotti, and Miesel 2015; Adkins, and Miesel 2021; Landry, and
Matthews 2017; Hart, et al. 1994; Merino, et al. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soils on the FBIR and adjacent BLM lands are predominantly
moderately fertile, high-clay soils derived from glacial till.\19\
Surface soils are susceptible to wind erosion and loss of soil organic
matter under conditions of limited vegetative cover. Frequent fire and
deposition of degradation-resistant PyC created a more fertile and
higher tilth soil condition, which is more resilient to drought. On BLM
lands, exclusion of fire and decades of heavy grazing pressure by
cattle likely led to slow, consistent loss of soil carbon due to
mineralization and erosion losses, with only modest returns of fresh
organic matter from the resident plant community. Differences in plant
community composition also influence ecosystem carbon stocks, with
exotic plant species often resulting in a net decline in soil
carbon.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Hilts 1986.
\20\ Lesica, and DeLuca 1996; Zouhar 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding how different management practices and fire history
influence soil PyC stock, dynamics, and soil biogeochemical properties
at various spatial scales will be of great importance in designing
nature-based solutions and strategies to improve the resilience of all
grasslands. To be effective, such solutions must incorporate TEK,
including ethnobotany.\21\ While soil characterization (e.g., measuring
the depth of the various soil horizons) is part of AIM protocols, in
2022 and beyond, we will be taking a more detailed look at soils. It is
possible that the difference we observed between BLM and FBIR lands may
be related to the legacy of PyC on FBIR lands, a legacy that as part of
TEK cultural burning practices on this grassland created the landscapes
and plant communities more resilient to climate change we observed in
summer of 2021. Nevertheless, relationships in the natural world are
far from simple, which Indigenous people have acknowledged since time
immemorial as part of their TEK. We also expect that a variety of site-
specific environmental factors will have bearing on the drought
resilience of FBIR and BLM lands.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Lake 2021; Gann, et al. 2019; Turner 2015.
\22\ Roos, et al. 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many factors have degraded grasslands and continue to threaten
them, including increasing agricultural development and drought.
Restoring grasslands for the ecosystem services they provide is a
global priority. Maintaining ecologically resilient, productive
grassland and forest ecosystems that can reliably and sustainably
supply the ecosystem services on which humans rely for survival will
help us address the climate crisis and create a more sustainable future
for humanity.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Havstad, et al. 2007; Bedunah, et al. 2012; Augustine, et al.
2021.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Healthy Grasslands Are so Important:

Grasslands are critically important to humanity as we respond to
the climate crisis because they are one of the most stable and reliable
terrestrial carbon sinks, providing 12% of terrestrial carbon stocks
globally. During photosynthesis, plants draw carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere and store it in their leaves, stems, and roots. Unlike
forests, grasslands store the majority of their carbon (81%)
belowground, in their roots and soil. In fact, the roots of prairie
grasses such as Western wheatgrass often extend belowground as far as
twelve feet. Because most of a grassland's carbon is stored in the
soil, when a grassland burns, it does not release much carbon into the
atmosphere, the way a forest does when it burns. Additionally, prairie
grasses typically grow as ``bunchgrasses,'' sprouting from near-surface
root crowns or rhizome mats. These grasses are highly adapted to fire,
because they co-evolved with regular Indigenous cultural burning. When
burned lightly, they can resprout within 48 hours, and grow back with
increased vigor.
Overgrazing combined with introduction of exotic species reduces
soil organic matter storage. Our data suggest that BLM lands have a far
higher proportion of exotic species such as crested wheatgrass and
cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) than Tribal lands. Part of this is an
artifact of the Homestead Era, during which semi-arid lands in the
Northern Great Plains were settled and developed for agriculture.
Attempts to stabilize soils in the 1920s involved planting exotic grass
species. Many of these lands have not recovered from the ecological
degradation caused by over a decade of drought that culminated in the
1930s Dust Bowl. Even with reintroduction of prescribed low-severity
fire that replicates Indigenous traditional burning, on BLM lands these
exotic species will influence fire behavior and post-fire responses. In
grassland ecosystems comprised primarily of native grass species, with
a small proportion of exotic species, prescribed burning and mixed-
severity wildfire do not cause a sharp increase (known as an irruption)
in exotics. However, as the proportion of exotics increases in a
prairie, some, such as cheatgrass, will irrupt in response to fire,
out-competing native grass species.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Briggs, et al. 1995; Strassburg, et al. 2000; Libecap, and
Hansen. 2002; Ontl, and Janowiak 2017; Dass, et al. 2018; Eisenberg, et
al. 2019; Lark, et al. 2020; Nagy, et al. 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of this means that as the climate continues to warm and
wildfires continue to increase in frequency, size, and severity,
grasslands provide a highly stable and important carbon sink that is
more resilient than forests as a source of carbon. In general, native
grass species, which are perennial, long-lived plants, are the most
effective at sequestering carbon. This is because many of the exotic
agronomic species, which come from Europe or the Middle East, do not
grow roots as deeply into the soil as North America's native grasses.
Since Montana's Northern Great Plains provide a unique combination of
grasses and forbs of high conservation value, establishing and
maintaining a native seed conservation program here that incorporates
TEK and ecocultural restoration is crucial to meeting U.S. Federal
plant conservation and climate resiliency objectives.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Lavin, and Seibert 2011. Oldfield, et al. 2019.

3. Can you describe the importance of a stable, economical supply
of native plants and seeds? What programs are needed to ensure this
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
supply is available to local communities and local landscapes?

Importance of Supply of Native Plants and Seeds:

As wildfires and other climate-driven disasters continue to
devastate the U.S., ecological restoration has become a national and
global priority. Having a stable, economical supply of native plants
and seeds is critical to restore ecosystems in the aftermath of these
crises. Currently the availability of native seed of a sufficient range
of species and of appropriate genetic provenance for ecological
restoration does not match the need locally, regionally, or nationally.
Federal agencies, such as the BLM, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Park Service (NPS), Tribal
nations, and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) are the largest
purchasers of native plant seeds in the U.S.\26\ The use of
genetically-appropriate native plants (rather than non-native species
or native species from a different locality) in restoration is required
or encouraged in policy documents by some agencies, like the NPS and
USFS. BLM policy strongly encourages the use of native plants used for
restoration on federal land, and BLM alone buys hundreds of thousands
of pounds of seed annually in response to wildfires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although BLM and other agencies have large stores of native seeds,
and are actively working to increase their supply, large disasters
create a reactive demand on what is already a limited supply, driving
up the cost of native seeds, and in some cases, leading to the use of
non-native species in plantings and seed mixes. State and local
authorities are also users of native seeds, frequently sourcing them
for roadside revegetation, invasive species control, landscape
beautification, soil and water conservation, and pollinator and
wildlife habitat restoration. However, these proactive state and local
restoration efforts contend with the same supply chain limitations as
the Federal agencies that dominate the market. This lack of appropriate
native plant material generally strongly constrains ecological
restoration. To that end, there exist several programs which, with
additional support, are well positioned to address this increasing
need, as well as opportunities to create new programs.

Existing Programs and Needs:

The BLM Plant Conservation and Restoration Program (PCRP) is
working to ensure that land managers across our nation can buy the
native seed that will work to restore native plant communities that
provide wildlife habitat, ecosystem services, and recreational
opportunities for all Americans to enjoy. Seed collection is the first
step in native plant materials development.\27\ Seeds of Success (SOS;
https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/native-plant-
communities/native-plant-and-seed-material-development/collection) is
the national native seed collection program housed under the BLM's
PCRP. The mission of SOS is to collect wildland native seed for
research, development, germplasm conservation, and ecosystem
restoration. Established in 2002, SOS has made over 26,000 seed
collections of over 5,800 unique taxa, from 43 states. Additional SOS
accomplishments include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Oldfield 2019.

Over 2,500 seed collectors trained in over 140 collecting
teams
In 2015, the DOI awarded BLM a $3.5 million grant through
the Hurricane Sandy Supplemental Mitigation Fund for seed collection in
coastal habitats from Virginia to Maine. As of 2018, over 125 SOS East
collections have been used for Hurricane Sandy restoration projects.

To continue the success of the PCRP, we need more:

Botanical Expertise--As of 2021, there were 32 botanists
in the BLM. The BLM manages 245 million acres. This means, there is
only one botanist for every 7.656 million acres of public lands.
Restoration Ecologists--As the availability of locally
adapted native seed increases, we need restoration practitioners who
know how to best leverage this national investment back onto the
landscape.
Seed cleaning and testing facilities--In the 20 years
that the PCRP has existed, the infrastructure available to clean, test,
and store 20 years' worth of seed collections has remained stagnant.
More seed cleaning facilities like the USFS Bend Seed Extractory are
needed for the PCRP and SOS to continue to grow and provide a stable
supply of native seeds for increase and use on public lands.

To address the urgent need for native plant materials for
restoration, the Plant Conservation Alliance Federal Committee (https:/
/www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/native-plant-communities/
national-seed-strategy/pca), which includes representatives from twelve
Federal agencies, developed the National Seed
Strategy (NSS; https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/native-
plant-communities/national-seed-strategy). The vision of NSS is to
provide the right seed in the right place at the right time. Successful
establishment and survival of seedlings depends on where and how seeds
are collected. Research suggests that it is important to use locally
adapted seeds. Local populations often show a home-site advantage and
non-local genotypes may be maladapted to local environmental
conditions. Furthermore, intraspecific hybridization of local and non-
local genotypes may have a negative impact on the genetic structure of
local populations through mechanisms such as outbreeding depression.
Additionally, many species show a strong, small-scale genetic
differentiation between different habitats so that matching habitats of
the restoration and donor site can be more significant than minimizing
geographical separation. In sum, locally adapted seeds have a far
higher germination and survival rate, leading to more effective
ecological restoration efforts, than do seeds obtained from other
geographical areas.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Vander, et al. 2010; Baughman, et al. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mission of NSS is to ensure the availability of appropriate
seed to
provide healthy and productive plant communities in a changing climate.

2015-2020 NSS accomplishments (https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/
docs/2021-02/NSS%20Progress%202020%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf) include:

17 Federal Agencies, 20+ Tribal Nations, 52 States &
Territories, 380 total partners, $167 million invested
Almost 9,000 seed collections
170+ scientific reports & articles on native seed
research and development
National Academies of Science national seed needs study
underway
1000s of native seed crops developed by local and
regional efforts in over 32 ecoregions
65+ nurseries, farms, growers, and botanic gardens
engaged, 21+ regional seed partnerships
2 facilities increased seed storage capacity to 2.1
million pounds
250+ types of seed available for large-scale restoration
10+ million acres impacted

Largely because of global warming, wildfires and storms are
becoming increasingly frequent and severe. Warmer temperatures, below-
average winter precipitation, earlier snowmelt, and drier summers are
creating longer wildfire seasons.\29\ Hurricanes are also becoming
increasingly frequent and severe, also linked to global warming. These
natural disasters increase our need for native plant materials for
restoration. Accordingly, next steps for the NSS are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Grimm, et al. 2013; Polley, et al. 2013; Hessburg, et al.
2021.

Expand economic opportunities for farmers to grow locally
adapted native seed
Actively engage with Native American Tribes and Alaska
Native villages to honor their Indigenous knowledges and ensure
culturally important plants are conserved
Increase botanical expertise in federal agencies to
inform all restoration, rehabilitation and reclamation projects
Develop regional ``Seed Hubs'' with partners who develop,
store, and deliver locally adapted native seeds
Increase research to enhance decisions based on science
for every step, from seed collection to restoration
Increase public education and awareness on the importance
of locally adapted native seed in ecological restoration

Continuing to support the above programs in a manner that can meet
our nation's needs for native plant material for restoration requires
stable, dedicated Federal funding. Such support would fund:

SOS seed collecting efforts, and analysis of such efforts
under the Justice40 Initiative, of which SOS is a pilot program
Genomic studies on seeds to be used for restoration
Education of specialists (e.g., botanists) and employment
opportunities, particularly from underserved communities such as Tribal
Nations
Seed-growing enterprises and training and opportunities
Community and public outreach

Future Programs:

A stable, enduring native seed supply must include a diversity of
voices and autonomy of community groups that builds equitable
participation in social, economic, and environmental benefits. In the
U.S., supporting Tribal Nations in developing seed-growing enterprises
will create a participatory, community-based seed supply approach that
will:

Address social and environmental justice
Honor TEK, because seeds are sacred in most Indigenous
cultures
Help achieve the goals of the U.S. Federal government in
creating ecosystems more resilient to fire, drought, and other
ecological disasters
Address the goals of the UN Decade for Ecosystem
Restoration

Meeting large-scale restoration goals requires connection between
local seed production and collaborative platforms to negotiate roles,
rights, and responsibilities between all partners. When partnering with
Tribal Nations, this will require government-to-government negotiations
that fulfill sovereignty and self-determination rights.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Reyes-Garcia 2019; Fernandez, et al. 2021; Urzedo, et al.
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

References Page

Adkins, J., and J. R. Miesel. 2021. Post-fire effects of soil
heating intensity and pyrogenic organic matter on microbial anabolism.
Biogeochemistry 154:3 154:555-71.
Allred, B. W., S. D. Fuhlendorf, and R. G. Hamilton, R. G. 2011.
The role of herbivores in Great Plains conservation: comparative
ecology of bison and cattle. Ecosphere 2(3):1-17.
Augustine, D., A. Davidson, K. Dickinson, and B. Van Pelt. 2021.
Thinking like a grassland: Challenges and opportunities for
biodiversity conservation in the Great Plains of North America.
Rangeland Ecology & Management 78:281-295.
Bartlett, C., M. Marshall, and A. Marshall, A. 2012. Two-eyed
seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of
bringing together indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of
knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies Science 2(4):331-340.
Baughman, O. W., A. C. Agneray, M. L. Forister, F. F. Kilkenny, E.
K. Espeland, R. Fiegener, M. E. Horning, R. C. Johnson, T. N. Kaye, J.
Ott, and J. B. St. Clair, and E. A. Leger. 2019. Strong patterns of
intraspecific variation and local adaptation in Great Basin plants
revealed through a review of 75 years of experiments. Ecology and
Evolution 9(11), 6259-6275.
Bedunah, D. J., and J. P. Angerer. 2012. Rangeland degradation,
poverty, and conflict: how can rangeland scientists contribute to
effective responses and solutions? Range Ecology and Management
65(6):606-612.
Casson, S. A. 2015. Socially-just and scientifically-sound: re-
examining co-management of protected areas. IK: Other Ways of Knowing
1(2):32-64.
Bird, M. I. 2015. The pyrogenic carbon cycle. Annual Review of
Earth and Planetary Science 43:273-98.
BLM. 2021a. Assessment, Inventorying, and Management Strategy.
Retrieved on October 17, 2021 from https://www.blm.gov/aim/strategy
BLM. 2021b. Seeds of Success Program. Retrieved on October 17, 2021
from https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/native-plant-
communities/native-plant-and-seed-material-development/collection
Bond W. J., F. I. Woodward, and G. F. Midgley G. F. 2004. The
global distribution of ecosystems in a world without fire. New
Phytologist 165:525-538.
Bond, W. J., and J. E. Keeley, J. E. 2005. Fire as a global
`herbivore': the ecology and evolution of flammable ecosystems. Trends
in Ecological Evolution 20(7):387-394.
Bowring, S.P., M. W. Jones, P. Ciais, G. Guenet, and S. Abiven.
2022. Pyrogenic carbon decomposition critical to resolving fire's role
in the Earth system. Nature Geoscience 15(2):135-142.
Boyd, R. T. 2022. Indians, Fire, and the Land in the Pacific
Northwest (Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press); Cronon, W.
2003. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New
England (New York, NY: Hill and Wang, McMillan).
Briggs, J. M., and A. K. Knapp. 1995. Interannual variability in
primary production in tallgrass prairie: climate, soil moisture,
topographic position, and fire as determinants of aboveground biomass.
American Journal of Botany 82(8):1024-1030.
Dass, P., B. Z. Houlton, Y. Wang, and D. Warlind. 2018. Grasslands
may be more reliable carbon sinks than forests in California.
Environmental Research Letters 13(7):074027.
DeLuca, T. H., M. J. Gundale, R. J. Brimmer, and S. Gao. 2020.
Pyrogenic carbon generation from fire and forest restoration
treatments. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 3:24.
Dickson-Hoyle, S., R. E. Ignace, M. B. Ignace, S. M. Hagerman, L.
D. Daniels, and K. Copes-Gerbitz. 2021. Walking on two legs: a pathway
of Indigenous restoration and reconciliation in fire-adapted
landscapes. Restoration Ecology 29 doi:10.1111/rec.13566.
Eisenberg, C., C. L. Anderson, A. Collingwood, R. Sissons, C. J.
Dunn, G. W. Meigs, D. E. Hibbs. S. Murphy, S. Dakin Kuiper, J.
SpearkChief-Morris, L. Little Bear, B. Johnston, and C. B. Edson. 2019.
Out of the Ashes: Ecological Resilience to Extreme Wildfire, Prescribed
Burns, and Indigenous Burning in Ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and
Evolution 7.
Fernandez-Llamazares, A., D. Lepofsky, K. Lertzman, C. G.
Armstrong, E. S. Brondizio, M. C. Gavin, P. O. B. Lyver, G. P.
Nicholas, N. J. Reo, V. Reyes-Garcia, and N. J. Turner. 2021.
Scientists' Warning to Humanity on Threats to Indigenous and Local
Knowledge Systems. Journal of Ethnobiology, 41(2):144-169.
Fuhlendorf, S. D., D. M. Engle, D. M., J. A. Y. Kerby, and R.
Hamilton. 2008. Pyric herbivory: rewilding landscapes through the
recoupling of fire and grazing. Conservation Biology 23(3):588-598.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.
2021. Ecosystem services and biodiversity. Retrieved on November 10,
2021 from
https://www.fao.org/ecosystem-services-biodiversity/en/
Gann, G., T. McDonald, B. Walder, J. Aronson, C. R. Nelson, J.
Jonson,
C. Eisenberg, J. G. Hallet, M. R. Guariguata, J. Liu, F. Hua, C.
Echeverria, and
K. W. Dixon. 2019. International Principles and Standards for the
Practice of Ecological Restoration. Restoration Ecology 27:S1-S46.
Gao, S. and T. H. DeLuca. 2018. Wood biochar impacts soil
phosphorus dynamics and microbial communities in organically-managed
croplands. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 126:144-50.
Gao, S., and T. H. DeLuca. 2020. Biochar alters nitrogen and
phosphorus dynamics in a western rangeland ecosystem. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry 148:10786.
Grey, S., and Kuokkanen, R. 2020. Indigenous governance of cultural
heritage: searching for alternatives to co-management. International
Journal of Heritage Studies doi: 10.1080/13527258.2019.170302
Grimm, N. B., F. S. Chapin III, B. Bierwagen, P. Gonzalez, P. M.
Groffman,
Y. Luo, F. Melton, K. Nadelhoffer, A. Pairis, P. A. Raymond, and J.
Schimel. 2013. The impacts of climate change on ecosystem structure and
function. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(9):474-482.
Hart, S. C, J. M. Stark, E. A. Davidson, E. A., and M. K.
Firestone. 1994. Nitrogen Mineralization, Immobilization, and
Nitrification. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2--Microbiological
and biochemical properties. 5:985-1018.
Havstad, K. M., D. P. Peters, R. Skaggs, J. Brown, B. Bestelmeyer,
E. Fred- rickson, J. Herrick, and J. Wright. 2007. Ecological services
to and from rangelands of the United States. Ecological Economics
64(2):261-268.
Hessburg, P. F., S. J. Prichard, R. K. Hagmann, N. A. Povak, and F.
K. Lake. 2021. Wildfire and climate change adaptation of western North
American forests: a case for intentional management. Ecological
Applications e02432.
Hilts, G. B. 1986. USDA Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of
Blaine County and parts of Phillips County, Montana. April 30, 2022 at
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/montana/
blainephillipsMT1986/blainephillipsMT1986 _1.pdf
Houde, N. 2007. The six faces of Traditional Ecological Knowledge:
challenges and opportunities for Canadian co-management arrangements.
Ecology and Society 12(2):1.
Indian Appropriations Act of Mar. 3, 1871, ch. 120, 16 Stat. 466
(1871) (codified at Sec. 2079 of the Revised Statutes, now 25 U.S.C.
Sec. 71) (1971)).
Kenney, B. 2012. Tribes as managers of federal natural resources.
Natural Resources and Environment 27:47.
Kimmerer, R. W. 2000. Native knowledge for native ecosystems.
Journal of Forestry 98(8):4-9.
Kimmerer, R. W. 2011. Restoration and reciprocity: The
contributions of Traditional Ecological Knowledge. In pp. 257-276, D.
Egan, and E. E. Hjerpe, editors, Human Dimensions of Ecological
Restoration (Washington, DC: Island Press).
Kimmerer, R. W., and F, K. Lake. 2001, The role of Indigenous
burning in land management. Journal of Forestry 99(11):36-41.
Lake, F. K. 2021. Indigenous fire stewardship: Federal/Tribal
partnerships for wildland fire research and management. Fire Management
Today 79(1):30-39.
Lake, F. K., Wright, V., Morgan, P., McFadzen, M., McWethy, D., and
Stevens-Rumann, C. 2017. Returning fire to the land: celebrating
traditional knowledge and fire. Journal of Forestry 115(5):343-353.
Landry J. S., and H. D. Matthews. 2017. The global pyrogenic carbon
cycle and its impact on the level of atmospheric CO2 over
past and future centuries. Global Change Biology 23(8):3205-3218.
Lark, T. J., S. A. Spawn, M. Bougie, and H. K. Gibbs, H. K. 2020.
Cropland expansion in the United States produces marginal yields at
high costs to wildlife. Nature Communications 11(1):1-11.
Lavin, M., and Seibert, C. 2011. Great Plains flora? Plant
geography of eastern Montana's lower elevation shrub-grass dominated
vegetation. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues 16:1-13.
Lesica, P., and T. H. DeLuca. 1996. Long-term harmful effects of
crested wheatgrass on Great Plains grassland ecosystems. Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation 51(5):408-409.
Libecap, G.D. and Z. K. Hansen. 2002. ``Rain follows the plow'' and
dryfarming doctrine: the climate information problem and homestead
failure in the upper great plains, 1890-1925. The Journal of Economic
History 62(1):86-120.
Nagy, R.C., E. J. Fusco, J. K. Balch, J. T. Finn, A. Mahood, J. M.
Allen, and
B. A. Bradley. 2021. A synthesis of the effects of cheatgrass invasion
on U.S. Great Basin carbon storage. Journal of Applied Ecology
58(2):327-337.
Martinez, D. 2019. Redefining sustainability through kincentric
ecology: reclaiming Indigenous lands, knowledge, and ethics. In pp.
139-175, Nelson. M. K., and Shilling, D., Eds. Traditional Ecological
Knowledge: Learning from Indigenous Practices for Environmental
Sustainability (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).
Merino A, E. Jimenez, C. Fernandez, M. T. Fonturbel, J. Campo, J.,
and J. A. Vega. 2019. Soil organic matter and phosphorus dynamics after
low intensity prescribed burning in forests and shrubland. Journal of
Environmental Management 234:214-25.
Michelotti, L. A., and J. R. Miesel. 2015. Source Material and
Concentration of Wildfire-Produced Pyrogenic Carbon Influence Post-Fire
Soil Nutrient Dynamics. Forests 6:1325-42.
Mijnsbrugge, K., A. Bischoff, and B. Smith. 2010. A question of
origin: where and how to collect seed for ecological restoration. Basic
and Applied Ecology 11(4):300-311.
Nadasdy, P. 2007. Adaptive co-management and the gospel of
resilience. In pp. 208-227, Armitage, D., Ed., Co-management:
Collaboration, Learning and Multi-level Governance (Victoria, BC: UBC
Press).
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. An
Assessment of the Need for Native Seeds and the Capacity for Their
Supply: Interim Report (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press)
https://doi.org/10.17226/25859
Nie, M. 2008. The use of co-management and protected land-use
designations to protect tribal cultural resources and reserved treaty
rights on federal lands. Natural Resources Journal 585-647.2.
NOAA, NRCS, State of Montana. 2022. Drought.Gov, accessed April 27,
2022 at https://www.drought.gov/states/montana
Oldfield, S. F. 2019. The U.S. national seed strategy for
rehabilitation and restoration: Progress and prospects. Plant Biology
21(3):380-382.
Oldfield, S. F., P. Olwell, N. Shaw, and K. Havens. 2019. Seeds of
Restoration Success: Wild Lands and Plant Diversity in the U.S.
(Netherlands: Springer-Verlag).
Ontl, T. and M. Janowiak, 2017. Grassland and Carbon Management.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource
Center. https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/grassland-carbon-management
Polley, H. W., D. D. Briske, J. A. Morgan, K. Wolter, D. W. Bailey,
and J, R. Brown, 2013. Climate change and North American rangelands:
trends, projections, and implications. Range. Ecological Management
66(5):493-511.
Reid, A. J., L. E. Eckert, J. F. Lane, N. Young, S. G. Hinch, C. T.
Darimont, . . . and A. Marshall. 2020. ``Two-Eyed Seeing'': An
Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management.
Fish and Fisheries 22(2):243-261.
Reyes-Garcia, V., A. Fernandez-Llamazares, P. McElwee, Z. Molnar,
K. Ollerer,
S. J. Wilson, and E. S. Brondizio. 2019. The contributions of
Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ecological restoration.
Restoration Ecology 27(1):3-8.
Roos, C. I., M. N. Zedeno, K. L. Hollenback, and M. M. Ehrlick.
2018. Indigenous impacts on North American Great Plains fire regimes of
the past millennium. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
115(32):8143-8148.
Strassburg, B. B., A. Iribarrem, H. L. Beyer, C. L. Cordeiro, R.
Crouzeilles,
C. C. Jakovac, A. Braga Junqueira, E. Lacerda, A. E. Latawiec, A.
Balmford, and
T. M. Brooks. 2000. Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration.
Nature 586(7831)7:24-729.
Treuer, D. (2012). Rez Life (New York, NY: Grove Press).
Treuer, D. (2019). The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America
from 1890 to the Present (New York, NY: Riverhead Books, Penguin).
Turner, N. 2015. Ancient Pathways, Ancestral Knowledge: Ethnobotany
and Ecological Wisdom of Indigenous Peoples of NW North America
(Toronto, ONT: McGill-Queen's University Press).
Urzedo, D., S. Pedrini, D. L. Vieira, A. B. Sampaio, B. D. Souza,
E. M. Campos-Filho, F. Pina-Rodrigues, I. B. Schmidt, R. G. Junqueira,
and K. Dixon. 2022. Indigenous and local communities can boost seed
supply in the UN decade on ecosystem restoration. Ambio, 51(3):557-568.
U.S. Congress. (1887). General Allotment Act or Dawes Act of 1887.
Statutes at Large 24, 388-91, NADP Document A1887. Retrieved on May 3,
2022 from https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dawes-act
U.S. Congress. 1975. Indian Education and Self-Determination Act of
1975. Retrieved on May 3, 2022 from
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title25/
chapter46&edition=prelim
U.S. Congress. 1994. Tribal Self Governance Act of 1994. Retrieved
on May 3, 2022 from https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-
bill/3508
Usher, P. J. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge in
environmental assessment and management. Arctic 183-193.
White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2021a. America
the Beautiful Initiative, Tribal Consultation, Defining Co-Management,
October 28, 2021. Retrieved on October 30, 2021 from https://
www.doi.gov/priorities/america-the-beautiful
White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2021b.
Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Federal Decision
Making, November 15, 2021. Retrieved on November 16, 2021 from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/111521-OSTP-CEQ-
ITEK-Memo.pdf
Wilkins, D. E., and Lomawaima, K. T. 2001. Uneven ground: American
Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma
Press).
Zedler, J. B. and M. L. Stevens. 2018. Western and traditional
ecological knowledge in ecocultural restoration. San Francisco Estuary
and Watershed Science 16(3).
Zouhar, Kristin. 2021. Fire regimes of plains grassland and prairie
ecosystems. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Retrieved on May
1, 2022 from
https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/fire_regimes/PlainsGrass_Prairie/
all.html

[all]