[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                    H.R. 6841, H.R. 7925, H.R. 8704,
                             AND H.R. 8705

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

                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               before the

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND
                               FISHERIES

                                 of the

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                        Thursday, June 27, 2024
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-132
                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources






               [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]






        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ______

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

56-169 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2025






















      

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Grace F. Napolitano, CA         
Robert J. Wittman, VA                Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,         
Tom McClintock, CA                     CNMI       
Paul Gosar, AZ                       Jared Huffman, CA        
Garret Graves, LA                    Ruben Gallego, AZ      
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Joe Neguse, CO                
Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Mike Levin, CA       
Daniel Webster, FL                   Katie Porter, CA         
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR         Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM                
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Melanie A. Stansbury, NM     
Pete Stauber, MN                     Mary Sattler Peltola, AK          
John R. Curtis, UT                   Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY                
Tom Tiffany, WI                      Kevin Mullin, CA             
Jerry Carl, AL                       Val T. Hoyle, OR              
Matt Rosendale, MT                   Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA                 
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Seth Magaziner, RI               
Cliff Bentz, OR                      Nydia M. Velazquez, NY           
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Ed Case, HI                 
Jim Moylan, GU                       Debbie Dingell, MI              
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Susie Lee, NV                  
Mike Collins, GA                            
Anna Paulina Luna, FL                             
John Duarte, CA                                
Harriet M. Hageman, WY              
                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

                       CLIFF BENTZ, OR, Chairman
                      JEN KIGGANS, VA, Vice Chair
                   JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member

Robert J. Wittman, VA                Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Tom McClintock, CA                   Mike Levin, CA
Garret Graves, LA                    Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Kevin Mullin, CA
Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Val T. Hoyle, OR
Daniel Webster, FL                   Seth Magaziner, RI
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR         Debbie Dingell, MI
Jerry Carl, AL                       Ruben Gallego, AZ
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Joe Neguse, CO
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Katie Porter, CA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL                Ed Case, HI
John Duarte, CA                      Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                 ------ 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 




                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                               CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing Memo.....................................................     v
Hearing held on Thursday, June 27, 2024..........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon............................................     2
    Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................     4

    Panel I:

    Graves, Hon. Garret, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Louisiana.........................................     5
    Levin, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of California..............................................     7
    Carter, Hon. Earl L. ``Buddy'', a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of Georgia..................................     8
    D'Esposito, Hon. Anthony, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of New York......................................    10

Statement of Witnesses:

    Panel II:

    Howell, Evan, Director, National Marine Fisheries Service 
      Office of Science and Technology, NOAA, U.S. Department of 
      Commerce, Silver Spring, Maryland..........................    11
        Prepared statement of....................................    13
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    17
    Guyas, Martha, Southeast Fisheries Policy Director, American 
      Sportfishing Association, Tallahassee, Florida.............    18
        Prepared statement of....................................    20
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    24
    Strong, Jeff, Chair of the Marine Retailers Association of 
      the Americans Board of Directors, and President of Strong's 
      Marine, Mattituck, New York................................    25
        Prepared statement of....................................    26
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    29
    Redfern, Jessica, Associate Vice President for Ocean 
      Conservation Science, Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life, 
      New England Aquarium, Boston, Massachusetts................    30
        Prepared statement of....................................    32
    McCurry, James (Jamie), Jr., Chief Administrative Officer, 
      Georgia Ports Authority, Savannah, Georgia.................    43
        Prepared statement of....................................    45
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    47

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Bentz

        Georgia Ports Authority, Letter to the Secretary of 
          Commerce...............................................    72
        National Marine Manufacturers Association, Letter to the 
          Committee..............................................    74
        Marine Industries, Letter to the Secretary of Commerce...    78
        Viking Yachts, Letter to the Committee...................    82

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Graves

        Jared Huffman, Letter to NOAA............................    69

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman

        Conservation Groups, Letter to the Committee.............    85

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Levin

        Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, Letter to the Committee.....    88

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Fry

        Post and Courier, ``Commentary: NOAA's proposed vessel-
          speed rule would devastate SC's coastal economy........    60


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


To:        Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Republican 
        Members

From:     Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries staff: Annick 
        Miller, x58331 (annick.miller@mail.house.gov), Thomas Shipman 
        (thomas. shipman@mail.house.gov), and Kirby Struhar 
        (kirby.struhar@mail.house. gov)

Date:     Thursday, June 27, 2024

Subject:   Legislative Hearing on H.R. 6841, H.R. 7925, H.R. 8704, and 
        H.R. 8705
________________________________________________________________________
    
    The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will hold a 
legislative hearing on: H.R. 6841 (Rep. Levin), To amend the Coastal 
Zone Management Act of 1972; H.R. 7925 (Rep. D'Esposito), ``Modernizing 
Access to Our Public Oceans (MAPOceans) Act''; H.R. 8704 (Rep. Carter), 
To require the Secretary of Commerce to establish a grant program to 
foster enhanced coexistence between ocean users and North Atlantic 
right whales and other large cetacean species; and H.R. 8705 (Rep. 
Graves of Louisiana), the ``Fisheries Data Modernization and Accuracy 
Act'' on Thursday, June 27, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in 1324 Longworth House 
Office Building.

    Member offices are requested to notify Lindsay Walton 
(lindsay.walton @mail.house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 26, 
2024, if their Member intends to participate in the hearing.

I. KEY MESSAGES

     H.R. 8704 would prevent the National Oceanic and 
            Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) from finalizing the 
            expanded vessel speed restriction rule first proposed in 
            2022, keeping the existing restriction in place. It also 
            would create a new grant program to encourage the 
            development and deployment of technology to reduce vessel 
            strikes of endangered species like the North Atlantic right 
            whale.

     H.R. 6841 would reauthorize the Coastal and Estuarine Land 
            Conservation Program and the National Estuarine Research 
            Reserve System, which help manage coastal areas.

     H.R. 7925 would require NOAA to publish data related to 
            federal waterways in one location, ensuring safety and 
            improving the experience of ocean users.

     H.R. 8705 would reform NOAA's Marine Recreational 
            Information Program (MRIP), encouraging NOAA to work more 
            effectively with states and entities like the National 
            Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine.

II. WITNESSES
Panel I

     Members of Congress TBD

Panel II

     Dr. Evan Howell, Director, National Marine Fisheries 
            Service Office of Science and Technology, NOAA, U.S. 
            Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD (All bills)

     Ms. Martha Guyas, Southeast Fisheries Policy Director, 
            American Sportfishing Association, Tallahassee, FL (H.R. 
            8705)

     Mr. James (Jamie) McCurry Jr., Chief Administrative 
            Officer, Georgia Ports Authority, Savannah, GA (H.R. 8704)

     Mr. Jeff Strong, Chair of the Marine Retailers Association 
            of the Americas Board of Directors, and President of 
            Strong's Marine, Mattituck NY (H.R. 7925 and H.R. 8704)

     Dr. Jessica Redfern, Associate Vice President for Ocean 
            Conservation Science, Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life, 
            New England Aquarium, Boston, MA [Minority Witness] (H.R. 
            8704)

III. BACKGROUND

H.R. 6841 (Rep. Levin, D-CA), To amend the Coastal Zone Management Act 
        of 1972 to allow the Secretary of Commerce to establish a 
        Coastal and Estuarine Resilience and Restoration Program, and 
        for other purposes.

    The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 authorized three key 
programs to help NOAA protect coastal communities.\1\ The National 
Coastal Zone Management Program is a voluntary partnership between NOAA 
and 34 coastal and Great Lakes states to design programs for effective 
coastal management.\2\ The National Estuarine Research Reserve System 
(System) is a collection of 30 sites in coastal communities along the 
Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts that allows NOAA to study 
estuarine systems.\3\ The System encourages partnership between NOAA 
and states to assist research, training, and education efforts for 
stewardship of the System.\4\ Past focus topics include habitat 
restoration efforts, increased resilience, and nonpoint source 
pollution.\5\ Finally, the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation 
Program (CELCP) works with coastal programs to purchase and conserve 
coastal lands ``that are ecologically important or possess other 
coastal conservation values, such as historic features, scenic views, 
or recreational opportunities.'' \6\ It has ``protected more than 
110,000 acres through funds to state and local governments'' \7\ to 
help protect coastal and estuarine lands. Notably, the CELCP expired in 
fiscal year (FY) 2013, with funding running out in FY 2017.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Coastal Zone Management 
Act. https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/act/.
    \2\ NOAA Office for Coastal Management. The National Coastal Zone 
Management Program. https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/.
    \3\ NOAA Office for Coastal Management. National Estuarine Research 
Reserves. https://coast.noaa.gov/nerrs/.
    \4\ NOAA Office for Coastal Management. National Estuarine Research 
Reserves Overview. https://coast.noaa.gov/nerrs/about/.
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ NOAA Office for Coastal Management. The Coastal and Estuarine 
Land Conservation Program. https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/
landconservation/.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Congresswoman Jen Kiggans. Kiggans, Colleagues Introduce 
Bipartisan Bill to Protect Coastal Ecosystems. December 23, 2023. 
https://kiggans.house.gov/posts/kiggans-colleagues-introduce-
bipartisan-bill-to-protect-coastal-ecosystems.

    H.R. 6841 reauthorizes the CELCP, which the bill renames as the 
Coastal and Estuarine Resilience and Restoration Program, at $60 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
million annually through FY 2028.

    H.R. 6841 also reauthorizes the National Estuarine Research Reserve 
System at $47 million annually through FY 2028. The legislation 
requires the Secretary of Commerce to designate five additional 
national estuarine reserves within five years of enactment. In 
reauthorizing this program, the Secretary is directed to establish 
research guidelines with estuarine systems and adds direction to 
establish methods to model the impact of sea level rise. The 
reauthorization also directs the Secretary to use the System's reserves 
as the ``preferred placements for fellowship and research positions for 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ H.R. 6841. https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr6841/BILLS-
118hr6841ih.pdf.

    H.R. 6841 has 9 Republican cosponsors and 8 Democrat cosponsors.
H.R. 7925 (Rep. D'Esposito, R-NY), ``Modernizing Access to Our Public 
        Oceans (MAPOceans) Act''

    The United States' waterways serve commercial and recreational 
industries critical to the domestic and global economy. Operating on 
the water safely and effectively requires a wide variety of data, 
including the types of vessels allowed to operate and other 
restrictions that may be in place. The restrictions and data can vary 
from region to region, which can often cause confusion.
    The MAPOceans Act seeks to make this information readily 
accessible. Specifically, the legislation directs the Secretary of 
Commerce to work with stakeholders to develop standards to collect and 
disseminate information. Such information includes when federal 
waterways are open, no-wake zone areas or speed restrictions, the types 
of vessels allowed, or the boundaries of fishing restrictions. The 
Secretary would also be required to consult the public on the data used 
and its accessibility.
    The Secretary would be required to make this data available within 
four years of enactment of this legislation, publishing it on a public 
website and ensuring that the data is organized in a user-friendly way. 
Additionally, the legislation requires the Secretary to update this 
data no less than twice a year.
    Given the changing dynamics of our federal waterways--with 
restrictions and protocols varying from region to region--ensuring that 
this information is publicly available and updated regularly will give 
our ocean users the most up-to-date information. This will enhance the 
recreational experience, encourage compliance with applicable laws and 
regulations, and support industries that are vital to the American 
economy.

    H.R. 7925 has 6 Republican cosponsors and 10 Democrat cosponsors.
H.R. 8704 (Rep. Carter, R-GA), To require the Secretary of Commerce to 
        establish a grant program to foster enhanced coexistence 
        between ocean users and North Atlantic right whales and other 
        large cetacean species.

    Several critical sectors of the American economy operate on 
America's waters, including along the Atlantic Coast. Whether it's 
fishing, tourism, or recreation, the vessels supporting these 
activities vary in size and operate at different speeds. America's 
waters, and the Atlantic coast, are also home to several endangered 
species like the North Atlantic right whale. The multiple uses of the 
United States' natural resources require effective strategies to 
protect endangered species that do not unnecessarily inhibit or burden 
ocean users.
    Since 2008, NOAA has enforced a 10-knot speed limit on vessels 65 
feet and longer to prevent them from striking the North Atlantic right 
whale.\10\ While this restriction has made progress in preventing and 
reducing vessel strikes,\11\ several stakeholders have advocated for 
using technologies that allow vessel operators to detect whales in real 
time.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ 50 C.F.R. Sec. 224.105; National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 
``Amendments to the North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike Reduction 
Rule,'' 87 Federal Register 46921-46936, August 1, 2022. Hereinafter 
NOAA, NMFS, ``Amendments to the North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel 
Strike Reduction Rule.''
    \11\ National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected 
Resources. North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Vessel 
Speed Rule Assessment. June 2020. https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/
2021-01/FINAL_NARW_Vessel_Speed_Rule_Report_Jun_2020.pdf?null.
    \12\ National Marine Manufacturers Association. Recreational 
Boating Industry Decries Advancement of Vessel Speed Rule. March 7, 
2024. https://www.nmma.org/advocacy/news/
24641#::text=Proposed%20by%20NOAA%2C%20the%20rule,up%20the%20recreation
al%20 boating%20industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In August of 2022, NOAA proposed an update to the current vessel 
speed restriction rule, expanding it to include vessels from 35 to 65 
feet.\13\ Throughout the comment period, stakeholders and industries 
have told NOAA that this proposed expansion will dramatically limit 
outdoor recreation sectors. Outdoor recreation contributed more than 
$550 billion, or 2.2 percent, to the United States' gross domestic 
product (GDP) in 2022.\14\ If implemented, the expanded restrictions 
that are currently under review at the Office of Management and 
Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs \15\ will have 
devastating consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ 50 C.F.R. Sec. 224.105; National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 
``Amendments to the North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike Reduction 
Rule,'' 87 Federal Register 46921-46936, August 1, 2022. Hereinafter 
NOAA, NMFS, ``Amendments to the North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel 
Strike Reduction Rule.''
    \14\ U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Outdoor Recreation Satellite 
Account, U.S. and States, 2022. https://www.bea.gov/news/2023/outdoor-
recreation-satellite-account-us-and-states-2022.
    \15\ RIN 0648-BI88. Received date: March 5, 2024. https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/EO/
eoDashboard.myjsp?agency_cd=0600&agency_nm=DOC&stage_cd=3&from_page=inde
x.jsp&sub _index=0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last June, this Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on this 
issue. Witnesses representing marine manufacturers, marine pilots, and 
charter boats discussed how expanding the existing vessel speed 
restriction rule would increase safety concerns, threaten industries 
that depend on the maritime sector, and cause inefficiencies at ports 
along the East Coast. Information from that hearing, including 
testimony, can be found here, and the hearing memo can be found here.

    H.R. 8704 prevents the devastating impacts of the proposed rule by 
requiring the existing rule that has been in place since 2008 to remain 
in place until December 31, 2030. Additionally, the legislation creates 
a new grant program administered by the National Fish and Wildlife 
Foundation (NFWF) to deploy innovative technologies and other best 
practices to limit vessel strikes and other harmful interactions 
between ocean users and species like the North Atlantic right whale. 
This legislation will provide regulatory certainty to stakeholders, 
encourage innovation, and ensure that endangered species like the North 
Atlantic right whale are protected.

    H.R. 8704 has 2 Republican cosponsors and 1 Democrat cosponsor.
H.R. 8705 (Rep. Graves, R-LA), ``Fisheries Data Modernization and 
        Accuracy Act''

    NOAA's data collection and broader fisheries management efforts, 
including their Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), have 
long been the subject of criticism and concern. Last year, the Center 
for Sportfishing Policy (CSP) released its ``Modern Fish Act 
Implementation Report,'' which monitored and graded the federal 
government's implementation of the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries 
Management Act of 2018 (Modern Fish Act).\16\ According to CSP, the 
Modern Fish Act ``recognizes that recreational and commercial fishing 
are fundamentally different endeavors and should be managed 
accordingly.'' \17\ While the report indicated that NMFS is improving 
on implementing this law, CSP indicated that the agency is ``not yet 
meeting expectations'' regarding the statute's section requiring the 
improvement of federal-state cooperative data collection or 
recreational data collection.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ 2023 Modern Fish Act Implementation Progress Report, Center 
for Sportfishing Policy. http://www.sportfishingpolicy.com/2019-modern-
fish-act-implementation-progress-report/.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In April of 2024, several members of the Committee on Natural 
Resources sent a letter to NOAA's Assistant Administrator for 
Fisheries, Janet Coit, expressing concern with NOAA's continued 
reliance on the MRIP, stating that utilizing the survey is ``causing 
premature fishery closures across the country, limiting both economic 
and recreational opportunities.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Letter to Assistant Administrator Coit. April 18, 2024. 
https://garretgraves.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
2024.04.18_bicameral_ltr_to_nmfs_re_fisheries_data.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 8705 seeks to reform MRIP to ensure that the best available 
science and data are used by NOAA as it makes fisheries management 
decisions. The legislation directs NOAA to establish a standing 
committee with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and 
Medicine (NAS). Through the standing committee, NOAA and the NAS are 
directed to meet regularly to work on recreational fisheries management 
and data collection issues. They are specifically directed to consider 
whether MRIP data is ``appropriate and useful for management 
decisions'' \20\ and how the NAS' activities ``can and should be 
applied in light of the particular context of the fishery being 
considered.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ H.R. 8705. ``Fisheries Data Modernization and Accuracy Act.'' 
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/
8705?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22hr+8705%22%7D&s=2&r=1.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To encourage better management decisions, the legislation would 
also require the Secretary to publish stock assessment plans in the 
Federal Register to ensure they're regularly updated. The legislation 
would also allow the Administrator of NOAA to partner with the private 
sector to incorporate additional abundance surveys.
    Finally, the legislation also gives states the ability to develop 
their own recreational fishery data collection programs and would 
create a new grant program within six months of enactment to encourage 
those efforts.

IV. MAJOR PROVISIONS & ANALYSIS

H.R. 6841 (Rep. Levin, D-CA), To amend the Coastal Zone Management Act 
        of 1972 to allow the Secretary of Commerce to establish a 
        Coastal and Estuarine Resilience and Restoration Program, and 
        for other purposes.

     Amends the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to 
            reauthorize the Coastal and Estuarine Resilience and 
            Restoration. This program expired in 2013 and would be 
            funded at $60 million annually through 2028.

     This bill also reauthorizes the National Estuarine 
            Research Reserve System Program and requires the Secretary 
            to designate five new national estuarine reserves within 
            five years. This program would be funded at $47 million per 
            year through 2028. The bill directs the Secretary to 
            consider the impact of sea rise on estuarine systems and 
            requires the Secretary to develop systemwide programs to 
            improve the management of the System.

H.R. 7925 (Rep. D'Esposito, R-NY), ``Modernizing Access to Our Public 
        Oceans (MAPOceans) Act''

     This bill directs the Secretary to create a publicly 
            accessible website that includes information and data 
            relating to recreational use of Federal waterways. This 
            data includes restrictions on motorized propulsion, entry 
            closures, fishing restrictions, permissibility of certain 
            boats, and more. The bill directs the Secretary to make 
            this data publicly available within four years.
H.R. 8704 (Rep. Carter, R-GA), To require the Secretary of Commerce to 
        establish a grant program to foster enhanced coexistence 
        between ocean users and North Atlantic right whales and other 
        large cetacean species.

     Stipulates that the vessel speed restriction rule to 
            protect the North Atlantic right whale that was finalized 
            in 2008 shall remain in place until December 31, 2030.

     Authorizes a grant program from NOAA to be administered by 
            the NFWF to reduce vessel strikes and other dangerous 
            interactions between vessels and large cetacean species, 
            including the North Atlantic right whale.
H.R. 8705 (Rep. Graves, R-LA), ``Fisheries Data Modernization and 
        Accuracy Act''

     Reforms the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) 
            within NOAA. The legislation directs the Administrator to 
            enter into an agreement with the National Academies of 
            Science, Engineering, and Medicine to collaborate on 
            recreational fisheries management.

     The legislation also gives states the ability to create 
            their own recreational fishery catch data collection 
            program; if such a program is created, NOAA would be 
            required to use the data that the state collected.

     Establishes a grant program for states to develop their 
            own data collection programs or improve existing programs.

V. COST

    The Congressional Budget Office has not provided cost estimates for 
these bills.

VI. EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW

H.R. 6841

H.R. 8705
                                     


 
            LEGISLATIVE  HEARING  ON  H.R. 6841, TO
             AMEND  THE  COASTAL  ZONE   MANAGEMENT 
             ACT OF 1972 TO ALLOW THE SECRETARY  OF
             COMMERCE  TO ESTABLISH  A  COASTAL AND
             ESTUARINE  RESILIENCE   AND   RESTORA-
             TION  PROGRAM,  AND  FOR  OTHER   PUR-
             POSES;  H.R. 7925,  TO PROVIDE FOR THE
             STANDARDIZATION,    PUBLICATION,   AND
             ACCESSIBILITY  OF  DATA   RELATING  TO 
             PUBLIC  OUTDOOR  RECREATIONAL   USE OF
             FEDERAL  WATERWAYS,   AND   FOR  OTHER
             PURPOSES, ``MODERNIZING ACCESS TO  OUR
             PUBLIC OCEANS ACT''; H.R. 8704, TO RE-
             QUIRE THE  SECRETARY  OF  COMMERCE  TO
             ESTABLISH  A  GRANT  PROGRAM TO FOSTER
             ENHANCED  COEXISTENCE   BETWEEN  OCEAN
             USERS   AND   NORTH   ATLANTIC   RIGHT
             WHALES   AND  OTHER   LARGE   CETACEAN 
             SPECIES; AND H.R. 8705, TO REQUIRE THE
             ADMINISTRATOR  OF  THE  NATIONAL  OCE-
             ANIC  AND  ATMOSPHERIC  ADMINISTRATION
             TO   REFORM  THE  MARINE  RECREATIONAL
             INFORMATION   PROGRAM   OF   THE   NA-
             TIONAL MARINE  FISHERIES SERVICE,  AND
             FOR OTHER  PURPOSES, ``FISHERIES  DATA
             MODERNIZATION   AND  ACCURACY  ACT  OF
             2024''

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, June 27, 2024
                     U.S. House of Representatives
             Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
                     Committee on Natural Resources
                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Bentz 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    Present: Representatives Bentz, Wittman, Graves, Radewagen, 
Carl, Hageman; Huffman, Levin, Hoyle, Magaziner, Porter, and 
Case.
    Also present: Representatives Carter, D'Esposito, Fry; and 
Beyer.

    Mr. Bentz. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and 
Fisheries will come to order.
    Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome Members, 
witnesses, and our guests in the audience to today's hearing.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral statements at hearings 
are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member. I, 
therefore, ask unanimous consent that all other Members' 
opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they 
are submitted in accordance with the Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that the Congressman from New 
York, Mr. D'Esposito; the Congressman from Georgia, Mr. Carter; 
and the Congressman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry, be allowed to 
participate in today's hearing.
    Mr. Huffman. No objection. May I request unanimous consent 
that Mr. Beyer from Virginia be allowed to similarly 
participate?
    Mr. Bentz. So ordered.
    We are here today to consider four legislative measures: 
H.R. 6841, to amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to 
allow the Secretary of Commerce to establish a coastal and 
estuarine resilience program, and for other purposes, sponsored 
by Representative Levin of California; H.R. 7925, the 
Modernizing Access to Our Public Oceans Act, sponsored by 
Representative D'Esposito of New York; H.R. 8704, to require 
the Secretary of Commerce to establish a grant program to 
foster enhanced co-existence between ocean users and North 
Atlantic right whales and other large, cetacean species, 
sponsored by Representative Carter of Georgia; and H.R. 8705, 
the Fisheries Data Modernization and Accuracy Act of 2024, 
sponsored by Representative Graves of Louisiana.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening 
statement.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF BENTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Mr. Bentz. I want to thank the Members that are joining us 
today and their interest in the bills we are considering.
    I also want to thank the witnesses that traveled to 
Washington to be here. We look forward to hearing from you.
    Historically, the United States has managed our natural 
resources in a way that recognizes the benefits of their 
multiple uses. NOAA's work in doing so to protect America's 
coasts, marine mammals, and fisheries, among other things, 
requires the most up-to-date science, data, and research to 
make decisions. This morning, we are considering four bills 
that would address critical issues within the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration that relate to that objective.
    Congressman D'Esposito's MAPOceans Act looks to make 
important data from NOAA easily accessible to the multiple 
users of our ocean resources. The recreational and commercial 
industries that operate on America's waters require an immense 
amount of data, including when waterways are open and closed, 
and other restrictions relating to vessel speed and fishing.
    Congressman D'Esposito's legislation directs NOAA to work 
with stakeholders and the public to determine what data should 
be included, and publish it on a publicly available website, 
with an emphasis on user access. This effort builds on similar 
pieces of legislation that this Committee has advanced this 
Congress. I appreciate Congressman D'Esposito's championing 
this legislation which will enhance safety and improve the 
recreational experience for ocean users.
    Congressman Levin's bill would reauthorize two programs 
created by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The bill 
reauthorizes the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 
The program was created to provide the research, training, and 
education necessary to conserve and study estuarine systems. 
Today, it serves as a network of 30 coastal sites covering 1.4 
million acres of study area, offering information on non-point 
source pollution, community resilience, habitat restoration, 
and invasive species.
    The bill also reauthorizes the Coastal and Estuarine Land 
Conservation Program, which conserves coastal lands that hold 
ecological or historic importance.
    We are also considering Congressman Garret Graves' 
Fisheries Data Modernization and Accuracy Act. This bill builds 
on this Subcommittee's efforts to ensure that NOAA uses the 
most accurate data in managing the United States' recreational 
fisheries.
    In April this year, many members of this Subcommittee 
signed a bicameral letter to NOAA's Assistant Administrator for 
Fisheries, Janet Coit, expressing frustration with the 
continued failures of the Marine Recreational Information 
Program, or MRIP. Interestingly, since this program is not used 
on the West Coast, there are clearly better ways to manage the 
recreational fishing. Clearly, it is time to move away from 
MRIP.
    Congressman Graves' bill would require NOAA to enter into 
an agreement with the National Academies of Science, 
Engineering, and Medicine to develop a standing committee made 
up of experts in recreational fishing data collection to 
improve the management process. It would also develop a process 
for states to gain NOAA's approval to establish their own 
recreational fishery data collection program.
    Finally, there are few issues that have faced more 
criticism in this Congress than proposed changes to NOAA's 
vessel speed rules on the East Coast.
    Let me start with the obvious. There is no member of this 
Committee that seeks to harm an endangered species like the 
North Atlantic right whale. However, in August 2022, NOAA 
proposed a dramatic expansion of this rule to vessels as small 
as 35 feet. We have repeatedly heard from stakeholders that 
this expansion would cause tremendous harm to the nation's 
sports recreational industries, and the manufacturing and 
retail industries that support outdoor recreation.
    Congressman Carter's legislation would do two critical 
things. First, it would keep the existing 2008 speed 
restriction rule in place through the end of the decade, 
providing regulatory certainty to stakeholders. It would also 
establish a grant program administered by NOAA and the National 
Fish and Wildlife Foundation to develop new technologies to 
reduce vessel strikes and develop additional mitigation 
measures. This bill represents the path forward that NOAA 
should have taken to address this issue from the beginning.
    I want to once again thank the Members and the witnesses 
for their time and interest today. I look forward to a robust 
discussion.
    With that, I recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTA-
      TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, 
everyone.
    Welcome to the Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee, 
a subcommittee that, by virtue of its authority and title, 
should be working to find solutions that recover fisheries and 
endangered species, that ensure marine ecosystems and coastal 
communities actually thrive. But too often, and in this case 
with two bills we are considering today, we are considering 
efforts that do the opposite of those objectives.
    So, the two bills before us would undermine the best 
available science, make it harder for a Federal agency like 
NOAA to comply with the law. And worse, instead of helping 
boaters and fishermen, the stated objectives of this 
legislation, bills like H.R. 8704 and H.R. 8705 will probably 
backfire, resulting in more punitive restrictions on fishing in 
the end, and boating, precisely the opposite of what the 
sponsors are trying to achieve.
    Look, one year ago this Subcommittee had a hearing on 
NOAA's proposed Vessel Speed Rule, which will help North 
Atlantic right whale mortality, help save this critically 
endangered species from extinction because of vessel strikes. 
And guess what? Since that hearing, the evidence for a stronger 
Vessel Speed Rule has only grown. At least four right whales 
have died from vessel strikes since January, though we can only 
afford to lose less than one per year if the population is to 
recover, according to scientists.
    By law, NOAA is required to do more in this situation in 
order to limit right whale deaths from vessel strikes. Even the 
former administration, the one with the convicted felon from 
New York, recognized that additional measures were needed. They 
identified strategies such as vessel speed reductions for 
smaller vessels and mandatory seasonal slow zones for 
consideration.
    H.R. 8704 blocks any updates to a 2008 Vessel Speed Rule 
until 2031, an arbitrary date. And this is what happens when 
Members of Congress mess with science and try to be wildlife 
biologists. The North Atlantic right whale could well be on the 
verge of functional extinction by that point.
    And to make up for this essentially warm embrace of 
extinction, this legislation includes a token grant program 
with a one-time authorization of $10 million. Now, Congress 
enacted a similar grant program 2 years ago, and lest one 
confuse this grant program as a sign that my colleagues are 
interested in protecting right whales and developing technology 
to help ocean users and marine life co-exist, let me demystify 
this for you and explain why that little grant program is in 
the bill. It is tacked on in order to secure some jurisdiction 
before the Natural Resources Committee, because otherwise this 
is a bill that would go to the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, where it would probably not see the 
light of day.
    Turning to H.R. 8705, the Fisheries Data Modernization and 
Accuracy Act of 2024, we have another example of sticking our 
heads deeper into the sand for the answer to improving the 
problem. And I will admit, we have a problem with the certainty 
of NOAA's recreational fishing data. But the answer should not 
be to arbitrarily replace it with, in many cases, data that is 
even worse.
    I won't defend the current state of recreational fishing 
data collected by NOAA, the states, the fishery commissions 
through various surveys and methods. It needs to get better. 
The Marine Recreational Information Program, or MRIP, is then 
responsible for taking all this data and making sense of it, 
all these different lines of data, turning them into 
recreational catch estimates. And yes, there are known issues.
    But the goal here should be recreational catch estimates 
with low uncertainty. Likely, if we do that, it would allow 
people to fish more while maintaining recoverable stocks. But 
using all the data, and strengthening the data sources is how 
we reduce that uncertainty. That is the smartest path forward. 
However, the legislation that is being proposed today says that 
if the data passes a certain specific threshold of uncertainty, 
there is an automatic stop on using Federal data, and that NOAA 
would only be allowed to use state data, even if it is worse 
than the Federal data. And while you are at it, NOAA would be 
disallowed from further work to calibrate the data.
    So, this bill directs recreational fishing estimates to be 
made on a smaller subset of data and limits the math that NOAA 
can use to help the data make sense. That is not good policy.
    You lose a lot when you do this, by the way. Baselines and 
long-term estimates are ignored, and there is no continuity 
across data collection methods. In short, you probably increase 
the uncertainty that you set out to improve at the beginning.
    This bill doesn't solve the known problems with 
recreational data, and it doesn't improve the accuracy or the 
precision of the MRIP program. The best thing Congress can do 
right now is to step back and let NOAA, the states, and the 
commissions finish their research and collaborative efforts to 
make the data better.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, we do have two bills that I am 
happy to support before us today. I look forward to the 
conversation.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Bentz. I will now introduce our first panel. As is 
typical with legislative hearings, the bills' sponsors will be 
recognized for 5 minutes each to discuss their bills.
    With us today is Congressman Graves, who is recognized for 
5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. GARRET GRAVES, A REPRESENTA-
         TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all of 
you being here today, and look forward to your testimony.
    I will note I am going to be bouncing back and forth 
between two committees today, so I may not be here for all of 
it. I want to apologize on the front end, but thanks again for 
being here, and I look forward to engaging you in questions a 
little bit later.
    We are excited today because one of the bills that is on 
the agenda is our legislation, and the legislation is H.R. 
8705, that helps to improve the data collection that my friend 
from California was just speaking about. I want to put things 
in practical terms.
    First of all, years ago, in regard to red snapper, the area 
where I represent and Congressman Carl represents, we were 
facing 3 to 9 days of fishing, 3 to 9 days. When I was a kid 
growing up, we could fish year round. This is part of our 
culture in South Louisiana. It is one of the recreational 
opportunities, and something that we often do with families 
growing up, and enjoying the bounty of the Gulf of Mexico. I 
want to be crystal clear. The last thing in the world I would 
ever do is push legislation or anything that would undermine or 
jeopardize the sustainability of fisheries. It is selfish, it 
is, quite frankly, in a word, just stupid. And I would never do 
that.
    But what we were able to do, against the efforts of people, 
including my friend Mr. Huffman, is we were able to actually 
migrate to a state-based management system. And as a result of 
that, we were able to fish in recent years 250 days, yet doing 
it with improved data, and doing it in a way that actually left 
a cushion between what was projected to be sustainable 
fisheries and being over-fished. So, again, we left a cushion 
in there to ensure that we intentionally under-fished.
    Now, the data that my friend from California is trying to 
protect is data that has been proven, and I want to thank Dr. 
Howell for coming out and acknowledging this as data that has 
shown that it had projected over 30 percent over-fishing, 
totally inaccurate, totally inaccurate. And that was the data 
that my friend from California is here defending.
    Further, when independent academia was given the 
opportunity to come in, they were given the opportunity to come 
in and able to look in an independent assessment, not using 
state data, not using Federal data. They found that the data 
that was being used to manage fisheries by the Federal 
Government in the Gulf of Mexico had under-counted fish 
substantially. As a matter of fact, the great red snapper count 
found that the abundance of fish was three times the number of 
red snapper that were actually being managed under the Federal 
data.
    So, said another way, if Federal data said there were 100 
fish, this independent assessment by academia came in and said 
no, there are 300. So, this data that my friend from California 
is here trying to protect and calling sacrosanct could not be 
more wrong.
    Now, I do want to thank Dr. Howell, who I think has been 
very constructive in coming in.
    First of all, I want to thank you for acknowledging that 
there were errors in the Federal data, but also your efforts to 
try to take some of the more accurate data, proven, accurate 
data that is being collected by the states, including my home 
state of Louisiana under the LA Creole program, and trying to 
find ways to incorporate that or work on a calibration where 
the data collected by the various states, and I know that Ms. 
Guyas is going to be talking about that a little bit today, is 
data that is more accurate, more dynamic, more live, and allows 
you to actually manage fisheries in a dynamic manner in season.
    So, look, bottom line is that the way that we have written 
this bill is that it builds upon some of the lessons, and works 
to build better science to build fisheries dependent, which is 
the data that is being collected by the actual fishers, by the 
states, as well as independent fish data, which goes out there 
and just does independent stock assessments absent of the 
participation of the actual fisheries.
    But I think it is really important that at the end of the 
day, we are using the best science available. And if we have 
calibration issues where there is less accurate data or 
different metrics of data, we have to make sure that we can 
incorporate those and make them be able to actually be utilized 
or speak to one another.
    But one of my major concerns is that we are going to take 
the data that Ms. Guyas in Florida, the state of Louisiana, and 
others have done that is more accurate, and we are going to 
basically dumb it down to calibrate it to the Federal system 
versus going the other way around. If our data is more 
accurate, we need to use the data with more specificity, and 
that is exactly what our bill does.
    So, again, Mr. Chairman, more accurate data, better 
management of the fisheries, more dynamic and, at the end of 
the day, ensuring sustainable fisheries while balancing with 
access for both recreational and commercial fishing.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Bentz. I thank Congressman Graves for his testimony. I 
now recognize Congressman Levin for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE LEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE
          IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Levin. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
for including my bill, H.R. 6841, the Resilient Coasts and 
Estuaries Act, in today's hearing.
    This bipartisan bill, which I introduced alongside my 
colleagues, Representatives Brian Mast, Jen Kiggans, and 
Suzanne Bonamici, would provide crucial funding for state and 
local governments to preserve our nation's coastal habitats.
    I have been heartened by our success in building a strong, 
bipartisan coalition to protect our nation's treasured natural 
resources, and I am similarly glad that H.R. 7925, the 
bipartisan MAPOceans Act, which I co-lead with Representative 
D'Esposito, is also included in today's hearing.
    This bill will help coastal communities like my own access 
the information they need to enjoy our beautiful waterways and 
protect them for years to come. I am proud to represent 
California's 49th Congressional District, which is home to over 
50 miles of pristine coastline, as well as many cherished 
lagoons and other estuaries that are important for our local 
ecosystem, recreation, and economy.
    Our region is also home to the Tijuana River Research 
Reserve, which supports vital work to clean up the heavily-
polluted Tijuana River Valley, and provides important resources 
to coastal communities in my district. That is why I introduced 
the Resilient Coasts and Estuaries Act, which would strengthen 
efforts to protect coastal and estuarine habitats by 
reauthorizing and revitalizing the Coastal and Estuarine Land 
Conservation Program, also known as CELCP.
    CELCP has protected over 110,000 acres of locally owned and 
managed coastal and estuary land. However, Congress stopped 
funding this program in 2013, and other Federal funding 
mechanisms ran out in 2017. My bill would reauthorize this 
essential program at previous funding levels to help 
communities protect estuaries like the San Mateo Creek, San 
Luis Rey River, Buena Vista Lagoon, Batiquitos Lagoon, Agua 
Hedionda Lagoon, San Elijo Lagoon, and so many more in my 
district. We have six lagoons in my district.
    My bill would also direct NOAA to designate five new 
National Estuarine Research Reserves over the next 5 years, and 
expand research guidelines to include long-term data monitoring 
and modeling on the impacts of climate change. This will expand 
the capacity of the reserve system to research, monitor, and 
support local conservation and management efforts across the 
country.
    I am proud that this bill has strong bipartisan support 
from coastal areas all across the country, and I would like to 
ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record these 
letters of support from 36 different hunting, fishing, and 
conservation organizations, as well as the Batiquitos Lagoon 
Foundation, which is doing great work in my district.
    Mr. Bentz. Without objection.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would now like to turn to my questions.
    Dr. Howell, my district is constantly grappling, oh, just 
testimony.
    Sorry, I got ahead of my skis. That is what happens, Mr. 
Chairman, when I get here and then have to speak 60 seconds 
later. Thank you.
    Mr. Bentz. We thank Congressman Levin for his testimony. I 
now recognize Congressman Carter for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, A REP-
       RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to 
waive on to your Committee today, and for considering my bill, 
H.R. 8704.
    The bill would, first and foremost, stop NOAA from 
finalizing the expanded vessel speed restriction rule first 
proposed in 2022, keeping the current rules in place.
    NOAA is proposing to broaden the Atlantic right whale 
strike reduction rule by requiring vessels 35 to 65 feet in 
length to maintain a speed of roughly 11.5 miles per hour when 
a water is inhabited by right whales. The proposed rule would 
cause grave safety issues for recreational vessels and pilot 
vessels alike, as it presents a safety concern for traversing 
the shipping channels and safety issues at sea. You can imagine 
trying to drive a boat in the sea at 11.5 miles per hour. I 
mean, it is just dangerous to think about it.
    Second, it creates a new grant program to encourage the 
development and employment of technology to reduce vessel 
strikes of endangered species like the North Atlantic right 
whale. This is important because there are technological 
innovations available, and I want to stress that. I am not just 
offering something to stop something, I am offering solutions 
to it.
    We care about the right whales. We need to protect the 
right whales. But we have to balance that with public safety 
and the needs for our coastal shipping economy. For example, 
buoys with sensors to help detect these whales have already 
been placed off Georgia's coast. Technology can play a key role 
in balancing the safety of both the right whale and boaters, as 
well as our coastal economy. This bill will allow us to expand 
use of those solutions.
    Unfortunately, if this rule goes into effect, boaters who 
use 35-foot or larger vessels will simply not take fishing 
trips, and the market will die for these kinds of vessels. That 
is why the rule threatens 27,000 direct and indirect jobs, in 
Georgia alone, related to recreational fishing and boating. I 
have significant concerns about how this will impact the 
state's recreational boating industry, which has an annual 
impact of $4.3 billion.
    NOAA's calculations for determining projected economic 
impacts of their rule are just wrong. They are flat-out wrong. 
To start, it estimates that this rule would make an economic 
impact of only $47 million. Suffice it to say, we all know in 
this room that that is more like $47 billion. In fact, 
estimates say that nearly $84 billion in negative impacts and 
jeopardizing Americans' 340,000 jobs.
    It does not consider the differences in hull design between 
recreational and commercial vessels. Using NOAA's own data, the 
chance that a recreational vessel will strike a right whale is 
less than one in a million, less than one in a million.
    There is bipartisan agreement that we can protect the 
endangered right whales without harming our ports and coastal 
communities. And we want to protect the right whales. I don't 
know of any boater who wants to hit a right whale. We want to 
protect them.
    Harbor pilots must be considered in the crafting of this 
rule. I am very concerned, very concerned for both their safety 
and the port's overall operations. That is why I am very 
pleased to have my good friend, a former staffer, here in 
Washington, Jamie McCurry from the Georgia Ports Authority here 
today to testify on the impact this rule can have on our 
nation's ports.
    I represent the entire coast of Georgia, two major 
seaports, the Port of Savannah and the Port of Brunswick. The 
Port of Savannah is the single largest and fastest-growing 
container terminal in America, in addition to being the second 
largest port on the East Coast by volume. The Port of 
Brunswick, the No. 2 roll-on, roll-off port in the country, 
their success has translated into growth and prosperity 
throughout the region, and this rule directly jeopardizes that.
    Communities like ours depend on the ocean for our 
livelihoods. There is bipartisan agreement that we can protect 
the endangered right whales without harming our ports and 
coastal communities.
    I want to share a story with you, Mr. Chairman. I was in 
Canada last year, and we were hearing from Meta Canada, and 
they were telling me, they said, ``We can identify species in 
the wild.''
    And I asked them, I said, ``Wait a minute, can you identify 
right whales in the wild?''
    And they said, ``Sure, we can.''
    I said, ``Do you have to tag them?''
    They said, ``No, we have the technology now, we can tell 
you where they are at.''
    We are not just saying we don't want to protect the right 
whales. We do want to protect the right whales, and that is 
what this bill does, because it offers solutions, solutions 
that won't destroy our recreational fishing, and solutions that 
won't have a negative economic impact on our ports.
    Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for considering this bill.
    Thank you for allowing me to waive on, and I yield back.

    Mr. Bentz. I thank Congressman Carter for his testimony. I 
will now recognize Congressman D'Esposito for 5 minutes.

        STATEMENT OF  THE HON. ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO,  A
         REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
         NEW YORK

    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you very much. Good morning, 
everyone, and thank you, Chairman Bentz, for allowing me to 
waive on to the Subcommittee hearing to speak about legislation 
myself and Representative Levin introduced, H.R. 7925, 
Modernizing Access to Our Public Oceans Act, or MAPOceans Act.
    Thank you to the witnesses for coming here today to speak 
about the important issues that we have in front of us. I am 
also glad to see a fellow Long Islander and community leader, 
Jeff Strong, is here with us, as well. Thank you for taking the 
trip, and thank the members of the Committee for showing an 
interest in the MAPOceans Act.
    The MAPOceans Act would create a publicly accessible 
website for recreational boaters, anglers, and those who use 
our coastal waterways, displaying up-to-date information on a 
variety of Federal waterway regulations and fishing 
restrictions off the coast. Available information includes the 
types of vessels allowed, when Federal waterways are available 
to use, no-wake zones, speed restrictions, geographic fishing 
restrictions, and even the types of fishing equipment allowed.
    Furthermore, MAPOceans would digitize Geographical 
Information System data, which includes navigation information, 
depth charts, and other critical information.
    The Secretary of Commerce, through NOAA, must cooperate and 
coordinate with Federal agencies, state agencies, interstate 
marine fisheries commissions, regional ocean partnerships, 
experts, the private sector, and non-profits in carrying out 
the legislation in this bill.
    Navigating the water and abiding by Federal fishing 
regulations is often complicated for boaters and anglers. It is 
critical that this information is publicly available and easily 
accessible. The MAPOceans Act would allow recreational boaters, 
anglers, and others to have access to consolidated, up-to-date 
information that will enable them to follow the rules of the 
water and disseminate information in a real time, and be 
effective.
    Not only would this legislation help recreational boaters 
and anglers, but it would benefit their critical industries. 
Strategic partnerships between Federal agencies such as NOAA, 
experts, and the private sector will allow for the 
technological innovation, accelerating business and economic 
output within these two industries.
    Providing digital information on fishing regulation, as 
well as mapping tools will allow for responsible and 
sustainable fishing off America's coastal waterways. The 
website's mapping of data could be used to ensure compliance in 
the fishing sector. Recreational fishing generates a 
significant amount of money for conservation efforts, and I am 
confident that new technology will only further conservation 
and achievements.
    Like many coastal districts around the nation, my district 
on Long Island benefits economically from the recreational 
boating and fishing industry. I am confident that this 
bipartisan legislation would tremendously benefit my neighbors 
back home, as well as coastal communities across this great 
nation.
    I look forward to hearing from my colleagues and the 
witnesses today, and I am confident that this hearing will be a 
positive first step in advancing this important legislation. 
Once again, thank you to the panel.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you, I yield back.

    Mr. Bentz. I thank Congressman D'Esposito for his 
testimony, and I thank the other Members for their testimony. I 
will now introduce our second panel.
    Dr. Evan Howell, Director of the Office of Science and 
Technology with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration in Washington, DC; Ms. Martha Guyas, Southeast 
Fisheries Policy Director of the American Sport Fishing 
Association of Alexandria, Virginia; Mr. Jeff Strong, Chair of 
the Marine Retailers Association of the Americas, and President 
of Strong Marines in Mattituck, New York; Dr. Jessica Redfern, 
Associate Vice President for Ocean Conservation Science of the 
Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life in Boston, Massachusetts; 
and Mr. Jamie McCurry, Jr, Chief Administrative Officer of the 
Georgia Ports Authority in Savannah, Georgia.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, 
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their 
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``on'' button on 
the microphone.
    We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn 
green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn 
yellow. And at the end of the 5 minutes, the light will turn 
red, and I will ask you to complete your statement.
    I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member 
questioning.
    I now recognize Dr. Howell for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF  EVAN HOWELL,  DIRECTOR,  NATIONAL 
     MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
     TECHNOLOGY, NOAA, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
     SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND 

    Dr. Howell. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
provide comments from NOAA on H.R. 6841, H.R. 7925, H.R. 8704, 
and H.R. 8705. My name is Evan Howell, and I am the Director of 
the Office of Science Technology within NOAA Fisheries, 
providing comments on behalf of NOAA.
    In regard to H.R. 8705, Fisheries Data Modernization and 
Accuracy Act, NOAA recognizes the challenges and limitations 
associated with the current recreational fishing data 
collection partnership, known as MRIP. Many of the bill's main 
tenets highlight issues about which we share concerns and are 
actively working to address.
    Currently, NOAA has a cooperative effort to improve the 
Federal-State framework to collaboratively produce more 
accurate and precise catch and effort estimates, which are 
critical for resource management. I and my staff have 
personally attended numerous council and commission meetings in 
the Gulf and Atlantic to continue to build partnerships, listen 
to ideas and concerns, and identify actions for positive impact 
and change together.
    We support the core concept that all recreational data 
collection systems should have clear and universal standards. 
This is why we established the National Recreational Data 
Standards with input from states, commissions, councils, and 
the broader fishing community, and why we have also initiated 
an independent peer review of these standards by the National 
Academies Committee on National Statistics.
    We do note, however, that the bill's requirements have 
significant resource implications on the agency through 
enhanced consultation based on the percent standard error 
thresholds and development of the grant program for state data 
collection. We look forward to working with the Committee to 
improve our shared Federal-State recreational data program.
    Next, regarding H.R. 8704, North Atlantic right whales. 
Endangered North Atlantic right whales are among the most 
imperiled species on the planet. Since 2011, we have lost over 
200 individual whales, primarily as a result of vessel strikes 
and entanglements in fishing gear. Our mandates under the 
Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act require 
us to reduce the risk to the species immediately to prevent the 
loss of any additional North Atlantic right whales.
    The grant program included in this bill dovetails with our 
current efforts to develop and expand the use of technology-
based innovations to promote co-existence between large whales 
and ocean users. NOAA remains fully committed to minimizing the 
regulatory burden on ocean users by investing in and adopting 
technology-based tools to reduce vessel strike risk to North 
Atlantic right whales. However, as it stands, there is no 
proven technology that can be adopted rapidly enough to reduce 
lethal vessel strikes of North Atlantic right whales and ward 
off extinction.
    In light of the necessity of the rulemaking that will 
modify the North Atlantic right whale vessel speed regulations, 
NOAA opposes H.R. 8704. The species cannot wait until 2030 to 
finalize the amendments to the Vessel Speed Rule. Over the past 
few months alone, we have documented four right whale 
mortalities in the U.S. waters, three of which were from vessel 
strikes.
    Next, regarding H.R. 7925, the Modernizing Access to our 
Public Oceans, we agree that NOAA could be the authoritative 
source for delivering fisheries access mapping data to the 
public and the developers of apps, GIS, and navigational chart-
plotting software and devices. NOAA is supportive of the vision 
of this bill to provide clear answers to the question, where 
can I fish?
    We also fully agree that collaboration with partners will 
be key to the success of this bill, especially learning from 
innovators and data scientists already serving the fishing 
communities. Interagency coordination will also be critical to 
ensuring that the published data is complete and easily 
accessible to the public.
    However, we note that there are some provisions in the 
bill, particularly the timelines for updating the information, 
that would be difficult to implement, given existing resources. 
With this in mind, NOAA acknowledges Congress' intent in 
increasing access to Federal waters for fishing while engaging 
the fishing community and building sustainable commercial and 
recreational fisheries.
    Lastly, regarding H.R. 6841, Coastal and Estuarine 
Resilience and Restoration Program, this bill would authorize 
restoration efforts and prioritize investments that increase 
resilience and equity, and mitigate the effects of climate 
change and sea level rise, while preserving critical resources.
    This bill would authorize non-governmental organizations to 
apply for a grant under the section, providing flexibility in 
cases where state or local governments are limited in their 
ability to take ownership of additional properties.
    This bill would codify existing system wide and place-based 
programmatic components of the National Estuarine Research 
Reserves, including the Margaret A. Davidson Fellowship.
    Finally, H.R. 6841 would require the designation of five 
new National Estuarine Research Reserves within 5 years. We are 
concerned with this requirement. The designation process is 
state-driven and involves considerable time to ensure state, 
tribal, local government, and public input and engagement. The 
timing, therefore, may be partly beyond NOAA's control.
    We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these bills, 
and look forward to working with bill sponsors and Committee 
staff on our shared areas of interest and efforts to improve 
resource management and climate resilience. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Howell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Evan Howell, Director, NOAA Fisheries' Office 
                       of Science and Technology
                       
           on H.R. 6841, H.R. 7925, H.R. 8704, and H.R. 8705

    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity for the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide comments regarding 
H.R. 6841--To amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to allow 
the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Coastal and Estuarine 
Resilience and Restoration Program, and for other purposes, H.R 7925--
Modernizing Access To Our Public Oceans (Map Oceans) Act, H.R. 8704--To 
require the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Grant Program to 
Foster Enhanced Coexistence between Ocean Users and NARW and other 
large cetacean species, and H.R. 8705--Fisheries Data Modernization and 
Accuracy Act of 2024. I am the Director of the Office of Science and 
Technology within NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 
providing comments on behalf of NOAA.
H.R. 6841--To amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to allow 
        the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Coastal and Estuarine 
        Resilience and Restoration Program, and for other purposes

    Coastal communities are home to nearly half the American 
population, support 54.6 million jobs, and contribute approximately 
$9.5 trillion to the U.S. economy. Of those who live in coastal 
counties, approximately 40 percent of the population fall into an 
elevated coastal hazard risk category. These include at-risk 
populations, such as children, older adults, households where English 
is not the primary language, and people living below the poverty line. 
For over 50 years, the Coastal Zone Management Act has provided a 
framework for the Federal government to work in partnership with state 
and local leaders to address the complex challenges facing our coasts 
and to ensure they can benefit generations to come.
    H.R. 6841 would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act to expand the 
authority and funding authorization for the Coastal and Estuarine Land 
Conservation Program and National Estuarine Research Reserve System 
(Sections 307A and 315, 16 U.S.C. 1456-1 and 1461, respectively). The 
bill would expand the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program 
to authorize restoration efforts and prioritize investments that 
increase resilience and equity, and mitigate the effects of climate 
change and sea level rise, in addition to preserving recreational, 
ecological, cultural, and other benefits. It would also authorize non-
governmental organizations to apply for a grant under this section 
provided that the organization has documented support from the lead 
state agency, ensures public access, and identifies how the property 
will be managed or transitioned to an eligible entity in the event that 
the organization is no longer in operation. This will provide 
flexibility in cases where state, territorial, Tribal or local 
governments are limited in their ability to take ownership of 
additional properties.
    H.R. 6841 seeks to protect and restore coastal and estuarine lands 
and to expand and codify components of the National Estuarine Research 
Reserve System (NERRS) that ensure it is best positioned to meet the 
current and future needs of coastal communities. H.R. 6841 would modify 
the authorization for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System to 
require the designation of five new reserves within five years and 
codify existing systemwide and place-based programmatic components, 
including the Margaret A. Davidson Fellowship.
    NOAA appreciates the intent of H.R. 6841 and your support for NOAA 
activities pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act. NOAA supports 
the authorization for the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation 
Program. NOAA is also supportive of the intent to expand the National 
Estuarine Research Reserve System; however, NOAA is concerned that the 
requirement to designate no less than five new estuarine reserves 
within five years of the bill's enactment may be infeasible. The 
designation process is state-driven and involves considerable time to 
ensure state, Tribal, local government, and public input and 
engagement. The timing, therefore, may be partly beyond NOAA's control.
    NOAA is currently managing three proposed new designations, which 
has been a multi-year effort.
    NOAA currently does not have the resources to implement this 
program and if enacted, NOAA would have to weigh these program needs 
against other priorities.
H.R. 7925--Modernizing Access to Our Public Oceans (MAP Oceans) Act

    Recreational saltwater fishing and boating are traditional American 
activities that are integral to the culture and economies of coastal 
communities across the nation. These time-honored activities allow 
millions of people access to America's great outdoors each year, while 
generating billions of dollars in economic value.
    NOAA's National Saltwater Recreational Fisheries Policy has a goal 
to promote inclusive public access to sustainable and abundant 
recreational fishing opportunities, especially understanding and 
addressing barriers and constraints to participation in recreational 
fisheries and stewardship.
    As envisioned in the MAP Oceans Act, NOAA could would deliver 
fishing access mapping data to the public and the developers of apps, 
GIS and navigational chart plotting software and devices. Through the 
America the Beautiful initiative, the Fishery Management Councils and 
NOAA have for the first time built a national database of fishery 
managed areas. This, coupled with NOAA's Marine Protected Areas 
Inventory, provides the most complete picture to date of Federal 
fishery management measures. This national managed area database is an 
important step in achieving the goals of this bill, but we would also 
need to augment the area data with detailed information on where, when 
and how fishing can occur.
    Safe navigation is key to the public accessing available commercial 
and recreational fishing resources. As mandated under the Coast and 
Geodetic Survey Act, NOAA is responsible for providing charts and 
related information for the safe navigation of marine commerce. Our 
customers include the recreational boating and fishing communities that 
rely on the data nautical charts provide. NOAA will continue to provide 
navigational charts and fundamental data to the public so vessel 
operators can reach fishing grounds and return to port safely.
    NOAA is supportive of The Modernizing Access to Our Public Oceans 
Act, and its vision of providing clear answers to the question: ``Where 
can I fish?'' We also fully agree that collaboration with partners will 
be key to the success of the Act, especially learning from innovators 
and data scientists who are already serving the fishing communities. In 
addition, we note that other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (FWS), have sole or joint jurisdiction over public 
recreational access to many coastal and/or marine waters. Interagency 
coordination between NOAA, FWS, and other Federal agencies will be 
critical to ensuring that the published data is complete and easily 
accessible to the public.
    However, we note that many of the Act's requirements have 
significant cost implications to the agency, in particular the 
timelines for updating information. Implementing the Act could also 
place a financial strain on other Federal agencies who would need to 
coordinate with NOAA to ensure compatibility among Federal databases 
and, potentially, collect new information. NOAA currently does not have 
the resources to implement this program and if enacted, NOAA would have 
to weigh these program needs against other priorities.
    With this in mind, NOAA looks forward to implementing the vision 
laid out by the MAP Oceans Act and increasing access to Federal waters 
for fishing while engaging the fishing community in building 
sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries.
H.R. 8704--To require the Secretary of Commerce to establish a grant 
        program to foster enhanced coexistence between ocean users and 
        NARW and other large cetacean species

    Endangered North Atlantic right whales are among the most imperiled 
species on the planet, with an estimated total population of about 360 
whales and only about 70 reproductive females remaining. Vessel strikes 
are one of the two leading causes of death to North Atlantic right 
whales. Since 2011, we have lost over 200 individual whales, primarily 
as a result of vessel strikes and entanglements in fishing gear.
    Our mandates under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal 
Protection Act require us to reduce the risks to the species to prevent 
the loss of any additional North Atlantic right whales. In addition to 
working with industry and partners on non-regulatory or technological 
tools that could help prevent additional deaths, we have been engaged 
in a rulemaking process to update the existing North Atlantic right 
whale vessel speed regulation to reduce risk of serious injury and 
death and begin to recover this species. We have also taken into 
account the best available science on the distribution of right whales 
and the risks they face. Investing in technological tools is a key 
aspect of our road to recovery, and NOAA Fisheries is taking steps to 
support development of new technologies to detect and reduce risk to 
whales. But until the promise of technological and other advancements 
can be proven, a more effective vessel speed rule is needed to minimize 
risk.
    The final rule to modify the existing North Atlantic right whale 
vessel speed regulations is now with the White House Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), part of the Office of 
Management and Budget, for review under Executive Order 12866. The rule 
package was submitted to OIRA following careful consideration of the 
nearly 90,000 comments received during the 90-day comment period, and 
appropriate incorporation of this input. Because the rulemaking process 
is ongoing, we are unable to comment on any changes made to the 
proposed rule.
    In light of this rulemaking, the National Marine Fisheries Service 
opposes H.R. 8704. Section 1 would explicitly prevent (through 2030) 
finalization of amendments to the vessel speed rule that would update 
the safety deviation provision and enhance protections needed to reduce 
the risk of extinction of North Atlantic right whales. Vessel strikes 
are an ongoing, unsustainable threat that NMFS has the statutory 
authority and mandate to address under the Endangered Species Act and 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Over the past few months alone, we 
have documented four right whale mortalities in U.S. waters. Three of 
these were consistent with vessel strikes as the cause of death, 
including one involving a young calf that was struck and killed by a 
boat estimated to be 35-57 feet in length.
    The grant program included in this bill dovetails with our current 
efforts to develop and expand the use of technology-based innovations 
to promote coexistence between large cetaceans and ocean users. It will 
take years to evaluate the effectiveness of these innovative tools and 
even longer to fully operationalize them. NMFS remains fully committed 
to minimizing the regulatory burden on ocean users by investing in and 
adopting technology-based tools to reduce vessel strike risk to North 
Atlantic right whales. However, as it stands, there is no proven 
technology that can be adopted rapidly enough to reduce lethal vessel 
strikes of North Atlantic right whale and ward off extinction, and the 
species cannot wait for decisive action until 2030.
H.R. 8705--Fisheries Data Modernization and Accuracy Act of 2024

    NOAA Fisheries recognizes the challenges and limitations associated 
with the current recreational fishing data collection partnership. We 
are pleased to discuss the legislation aimed at further improving the 
Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). Many of the bill's main 
tenets highlight issues about which we share concerns and are actively 
working to address.
    We agree with the authors of this bill that our shared recreational 
data program must focus on increased precision and accuracy of 
estimates; more collaborative feedback mechanisms for regional data 
review; national standardization practices that drive consistency 
across survey programs, support for state surveys; and independent 
expert review. To help achieve this, we have initiated a cooperative 
transparent effort to strengthen our Federal-State data partnership, 
beginning an initial information-gathering phase in May 2024, with 
plans to host external visioning workshops in 2025. These activities 
will identify actions for shared Federal-State process and data 
improvements, with the intent to implement actions and opportunities 
for change as they are identified through this process. A primary 
objective of this strengthening process is to collaboratively produce 
more accurate and precise catch and effort estimates to better inform 
the stock assessments that underpin management decisions that support 
sustainable fisheries. Through these actions, we will achieve the goal 
of finalizing an improved program framework driven by regional and 
state partner input by early 2026.
    Parallel to this effort, we are working closely with our fisheries 
information networks, including the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries 
Information Network (GulfFIN), and state partners to improve partner 
review of preliminary estimates, as we recognize the importance of 
incorporating regional knowledge of fishing activity.
    While we are already executing improvements in many of these areas, 
we will continue to advocate for all data systems to undergo continual 
improvement, and welcome options to enhance our current and future 
Federal-State program partnership.
    We support the core concept that any recreational data collection 
system should have clear and universal standards that provide national 
coherence and regional flexibility. This was the basis for why we 
established national recreational fishing and survey and data standards 
with input from states, interstate marine fisheries commissions, 
fishery management councils, and the broader fishing community, and why 
we have initiated an independent peer review of these standards by the 
National Academies' Committee on National Statistics.
    We are committed to continuing our work to improve precision and 
accuracy of estimates from both Federal and state surveys to best 
inform decision-making. In order for the data from any data collection 
system to be usable in regional resource management, it must be 
consistent and comparable across a full management region. We emphasize 
here that any new system will need to be compared to an existing survey 
time series to scientifically compare and track trends in fishing, 
which is critical for stock assessments. We want to highlight that any 
prohibition on the ability to calibrate any new survey with Federal 
MRIP data could negatively impact the scientific rigor of our existing 
data time series used in our stock assessment enterprise.
    NMFS also remains committed to using the objective regional 
frameworks in place for Best Scientific Information Available (BSIA) 
decision making, which currently considers all available data, 
including data derived from State surveys. A recent example is the 
utilization of the Florida State Reef Fish Survey to make NOAA 
Fisheries management decisions for gag grouper.
    We do note that H.R. 8705's requirements have significant resource 
implications on the agency. We support in concept the formation of an 
independent standing committee to discuss recreational fisheries data 
collection and management issues, and for consultation purposes when 
Percent Standard Error (PSE) exceeds an established threshold. The 
requirement for consultation as written will require additional 
resources to support the development of this new committee, and to 
support the level of consultation that would be required using the 30% 
PSE threshold for seasonal fisheries contained in this bill. 
Additionally, the establishment of a new grant program for development 
of state data collection systems would require new resources to ensure 
existing Federal-state shared data collection efforts could continue at 
current levels. NOAA currently does not have the resources to implement 
this program and if enacted, NOAA would have to weigh these program 
needs against other priorities.
    Overall, NMFS appreciates the opportunity to comment on this bill 
and looks forward to working with the committee and staff on our shared 
areas of interest. This includes improving our recreational data 
collection capabilities to support effective resource management and 
maintain recreational opportunities.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Evan Howell, Director, NOAA's 
                    Office of Science and Technology

Dr. Howell did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate 
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

              Questions Submitted by Representative Bentz

    Question 1. Dr. Howell, during our hearing one of the criticisms 
that we heard of NOAA's proposed amendments to the North Atlantic Right 
Whale Vessel Strike Reduction Rule was that NOAA failed to fully 
incorporate feedback from impacted industries. More specifically, 
stakeholders believe NOAA failed to consider technological solutions to 
reduce vessel strikes and other interactions with species like the 
North Atlantic right whale. During the hearing, you mentioned the 
technology workshop that NOAA held back in March. However, as has been 
noted on many occasions, the proposed rule was transmitted to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on the same day as 
the workshop.

    1a) How would NOAA have been able to incorporate any feedback or 
lessons learned at the workshop if the proposed rule was already 
submitted to OIRA before the workshop concluded?

    Question 2. When you were asked if there were technological devices 
that would allow for vessel operators to detect whales while on the 
water, you stated that NOAA was currently going through the technology 
review.

    2a) Wouldn't it be more effective to conduct a thorough technology 
review prior to moving ahead with the proposed amendments?

    Question 3. Dr. Howell, on June 26th in an offshore wind briefing 
hosted by NOAA, Ms. Jenni Wallace, Director of NOAA Fisheries Office of 
Policy, went into detail describing the compensation program for 
businesses impacted by offshore wind lease sales.

          Questions Submitted by Representative Gonzalez-Colon

    Question 1. H.R. 8705 seeks to reform NOAA's Marine Recreational 
Information Program (MRIP), which develops statistics on recreational 
fishing catch and effort. I've previously expressed concerns with the 
limited or lack of recreational fishing data for Puerto Rico included 
within the program. I understand the latest available recreational 
statistics for Puerto Rico are from 2016, given data collection efforts 
on the Island were suspended in late 2017 following Hurricane Maria.

    In response to questions I submitted last year, NOAA indicated that 
the Caribbean MRIP Regional Implementation Team was working on 
developing alternative survey designs for both Puerto Rico and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands that can generate reliable catch statistics. NOAA 
further indicated that it believed the team could complete this effort 
in 2023, and that once feasible and statistically sound designs were 
identified, it would work with regional partners to assemble the 
necessary resources and commence recreational effort and catch data 
collection in both territories.

    Could you provide an update on the status of this initiative and 
discuss NOAA's efforts to support the resumption of recreational 
fishing data collection efforts in Puerto Rico?
               Questions Submitted by Representative Carl

    Question 1. Dr. Howell, during your tenure at NOAA, you have been 
actively engaged in efforts to reform the management of our 
recreational fisheries. In what ways do you think NOAA can most 
effectively incorporate independent, third-party surveys and the work 
of state agencies to help manage our nation's fisheries?

              Questions Submitted by Representative Levin

    Question 1. Dr. Howell, my district is constantly grappling with 
coastal issues, but we have seen firsthand how wetland and estuary 
habitats not only support vibrant and diverse ecosystems, but also 
provide economic benefits and help to protect against erosion. Can you 
speak to how the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program 
(CELCP) and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System support the 
resilience and economies of coastal communities across the country?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Dr. Howell. I now recognize Ms. Guyas 
for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF MARTHA GUYAS,  SOUTHEAST  FISHERIES
        POLICY DIRECTOR, AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIA-
        TION, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

    Ms. Guyas. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to speak 
on behalf of the American Sportfishing Association regarding 
the Fisheries Data Modernization and Accuracy Act of 2024.
    ASA's mission is to look out for the interests of the 
sportfishing industry and the entire recreational fishing 
community. Recreational fishing is a deeply American activity, 
with 57.7 million participants in 2023 supporting more than 
945,000 jobs and contributing $148 billion to the economy.
    In addition, fishing connects people to the outdoors and 
provides substantial funding for conservation. Fishing 
participation is dependent on access and healthy fisheries. 
Incredible data on catches and fishing effort, along with 
information about the biology and ecology of fish stocks, are 
critical to ensuring fishery stock assessments accurately 
characterize the status of stocks and, in turn, ensure that 
management decisions are informed by the best available 
science.
    Too often, especially where I live in the Southeast, stock 
assessments that are used to inform management decisions have 
high levels of uncertainty due to unreliable or sparse fishery 
data. This uncertainty can have severe implications for fish 
stocks, anglers, businesses, communities, and the economy. ASA 
commends Congressman Graves for introducing the Fisheries Data 
Modernization and Accuracy Act to address these issues and 
improve confidence in the scientific information used for 
fisheries management.
    The bill proposes reforms to the Marine Recreational 
Information Program, or MRIP, which is a NOAA program designed 
to provide big-picture information on recreational fishing 
trends. In Federal fisheries management, MRIP estimates are 
used to manage fisheries to exact poundage-based annual catch 
limits.
    Fishermen, managers, states, and other stakeholders have 
expressed concerns that MRIP estimates have high levels of 
uncertainty and are too imprecise, and this has led to 
unrealistic catch estimates, unnecessary fishery closures, and 
erosion of public trust in fisheries management. A 2023 pilot 
study conducted by NOAA found that MRIP Fishing Effort Survey 
may be causing over-estimation of recreational catch in effort 
by 30 to 40 percent seems to validate these concerns.
    Oftentimes, MRIP data are all that are available, so are 
considered best science, even though estimates may not meet 
NOAA established standards for use in management. However, in 
some cases states have created their own recreational data 
collection programs to better align data collection with 
management needs. Many of these state surveys, such as those 
conducted by California and Louisiana, are routinely used for 
Federal fisheries assessments and management, and are certified 
by NOAA fisheries, meaning they have been found to be 
scientifically sound.
    The Fisheries Data Modernization and Accuracy Act aims to 
address these issues and enhance recreational fishing data by 
doing two things: (1) encouraging improvement of MRIP by 
convening a National Academies panel of experts to consider 
options for how to improve MRIP estimates and management for 
seasonal fisheries in cases where no established data standards 
aren't being met, or where MRIP may not do a good job of 
estimating catching effort, such as for fisheries that are 
rarely sampled; and (2) building off the success of state-led 
data programs that are already out there, the bill would also 
facilitate states and NOAA working together to develop and 
enhance state-led data collection programs. Universal standards 
set by NOAA would ensure the programs are useful for 
management, while allowing flexibility to account for 
differences and recreational fishing activity among states.
    Additionally, the Act would require coordinated stock 
assessment planning for priority species, which would help 
ensure the science used to manage important fisheries stays 
current.
    The bill would also encourage improvement of fishery data 
by facilitating abundant surveys, similar to the Gulf of Mexico 
great red snapper count, and review lessons learned to provide 
insight on how to best apply results of similar studies in the 
future. Abundant surveys like this have a lot of potential to 
provide insights on stocks that can further improve management 
and assessment of fisheries.
    Alongside H.R. 8705, ASA supports the three other bills 
being considered by the Subcommittee today. Those are the 
Resilient Coasts and Estuaries Act, which supports vital 
conservation programs for estuaries; the MAPOceans Act, which 
aims to digitize boating and fishing information for enhanced 
recreational opportunities; and H.R. 8704, which promotes the 
co-existence of ocean users and large cetaceans like the North 
Atlantic right whale through technological solutions, rather 
than overly restrictive regulations.
    I appreciate the opportunity to provide the sport fishing 
industry's perspective on these important bills, and we are 
committed to working with the Committee to continue 
strengthening the management and conservation of our nation's 
natural resources. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Guyas follows:]
    
    Prepared Statement of Martha Guyas, Southeast Fisheries Policy 
              Director, American Sportfishing Association
                              
                              on H.R. 8705

    On behalf of the American Sportfishing Association, I am honored to 
have been asked to testify before the House Committee on Natural 
Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries regarding 
legislation that affects marine resources and the recreational fishing 
industry.
    The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) is the sportfishing 
industry's trade association committed to representing the interests of 
the sportfishing industry as well as the entire sportfishing community. 
We give the industry and anglers a unified voice when emerging laws and 
policies could significantly affect sportfishing business or 
sportfishing itself. ASA invests in long-term ventures to ensure the 
industry will remain strong and prosperous, as well as safeguard and 
promote the enduring economic, conservation and social values of 
sportfishing in America. Recreational fishing is truly an all-American 
activity. Our fisheries resources, which are held in the public trust 
and conserved through sound laws and policies, are envied the world 
over. In 2023, 57.7 million people went fishing in the U.S.\1\ 
Recreational fishing supports 945,500 jobs and contributes $148 billion 
to the economy.\2\ Fishing is the third most popular outdoor recreation 
activity, behind only running and hiking.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation. 2024 Special 
Report on Fishing. Available online at: https://www.takemefishing.org/
getmedia/7d775bde-f3a1-4f97-b9bb-845dcb9e05ba/Special-Rport-2024-
Infographic.pdf
    \2\ American Sportfishing Association. 2023 Economic Contributions 
of Recreational Fishing. Available online at: https://asafishing.org/
economic-impacts-of-recreational-fishing/
    \3\ Outdoor Foundation. 2021 Participation Trends Report. Available 
online at: https://outdoorindustry.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2021-
Outdoor-Participation-Trends-Report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All of this fishing activity supports the economy, connects people 
to the outdoors and provides substantial funding for conservation. 
Through fishing license purchases, excise taxes and direct donations, 
the recreational fishing community contributes approximately $1.7 
billion toward aquatic resource conservation each year. I am confident 
in saying that no other user group contributes nearly as much toward 
ensuring our nation's waterways and fisheries are healthy and 
accessible to the public.
    Fishing participation is dependent on two primary factors--access 
and healthy fisheries. Access can take several forms, including 
physical access to water (e.g., boat ramps, piers, public shorelines) 
and regulatory access (e.g., seasons, bag limits, size limits, 
closures). While simply being outdoors and wetting a line is a large 
part of the enjoyment of fishing, at some level, most people want to 
actually catch fish too. There are many more effective ways of catching 
fish than a rod, reel and hook, so for recreational fishermen to have a 
decent probability of encountering a fish, there have to be a lot of 
fish in the water.
    In most cases, the foundation for fisheries management and 
conservation decisions is scientific information. Credible data on 
catches and fishing effort, along with information about the biology 
and ecology of fish stocks, are critical to ensuring fisheries stock 
assessments accurately characterize the status of stocks and in turn, 
ensure that management decisions are informed by the best science.
    This is particularly the case with federal fisheries management, in 
which harvest is monitored relative to annual catch limits (ACLs), and 
accountability measures such as seasonal closures and ACL paybacks are 
used to constrain harvest. The federal government, via the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), manages fisheries in the 
exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which for the purpose of fisheries 
management is 3-200 miles off the South Atlantic coast and 9-200 miles 
in the Gulf of Mexico.
H.R. 8705 ``Fisheries Data Modernization and Accuracy Act of 2024''

    Too often, especially in the southeastern U.S. where I live, 
fisheries stock assessments have high levels of uncertainty (if 
assessments are even available) due to unreliable or sparse fishery 
data. The uncertainty caused by use of questionable fishery data to 
inform the status of fisheries and make management decisions can have 
severe implications for fish stocks, anglers, businesses, communities 
and the economy. ASA commends Congressman Graves for introducing the 
Fisheries Data Modernization and Accuracy Act of 2024 to address these 
issues and improve confidence in the scientific information used for 
fisheries management.

    The Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) is a NOAA 
program that provides estimates of recreational fishing catches and 
trips that occur from Maine to Mississippi and Hawaii. These data are 
used to assess and manage state and federal fisheries in the Atlantic, 
Gulf of Mexico and Hawaii. MRIP is the product of two different 
components:

  1.  Dockside interviews administered by state partners that gather 
            information on angler catch rates (i.e., number, types and 
            sizes of fish caught); and

  2.  A mail survey administered by NOAA known as the Fishing Effort 
            Survey (FES), which is used to estimate fishing effort 
            (i.e., the number of fishing trips that occur).

    For years, MRIP catch estimates have been a source of contention 
for anglers, state agencies, and other fishery managers that depend on 
accurate and precise data for decision-making. MRIP was originally 
designed to provide broad (imprecise) information about recreational 
fishing catch and effort trends. However, MRIP is currently used to 
manage federal fisheries to exact, poundage-based ACLs, in accordance 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(MSA). In most cases, MRIP is the only information available on 
recreational catch and effort due to a lack of alternative data 
sources, and is considered best scientific information available (BSIA) 
by default. NOAA cautions use of MRIP estimates in fisheries management 
when percent standard error (PSE), which is a measure of precision or 
margin of error around an estimate, is greater than 30 and does not 
support use of MRIP estimates with PSEs above 50.\4\ Unfortunately, 
MRIP estimates routinely have PSEs that are well above these thresholds 
but are nonetheless used by NOAA as the basis for fisheries management 
decisions. Using data that does not meet data quality standards to 
manage our fisheries results in lost access when fisheries are closed 
due to unrealistically high and highly uncertain catch estimates, is 
detrimental to conservation, and further erodes public trust in the 
fishery management process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ NOAA Fisheries Service. An Introduction to Marine Recreational 
Information Program Data. Available online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/recreational-fishing-data/introduction-marine-
recreational-information-program-data#data-use-considerations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response to longstanding concerns with MRIP or its precursor, 
the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey (MRFSS), several 
states designed their own recreational data collection programs to 
supplement or replace MRIP to better align data collection with their 
management needs. The most recent state surveys are those developed and 
implemented over the past 10 years by the Gulf of Mexico states, such 
as Louisiana's LA Creel. There is a long history of state-run 
recreational fishery surveys being used to generate recreational 
fisheries data that are used for management our nation's fisheries. For 
example, California, Oregon, and Washington withdrew from MRFSS about 
20 years ago to implement state surveys that better meet local needs. 
Many state surveys are certified by NOAA, meaning they have undergone a 
rigorous scientific peer review process and have been found to be 
scientifically sound and defensible.
    Since FES was overhauled in 2018, replacing a survey design based 
on calls to coastal landlines to a mail-based survey, many anglers and 
state agencies have expressed concerns that MRIP effort estimates have 
been greatly inflated, often producing unrealistically or impossibly 
high estimates. Indeed, a 2023 pilot study \5\ conducted by NOAA in 
response to these and other concerns about MRIP estimates found that 
the order of mail survey questions in FES may be causing overestimation 
of recreational catch and effort by 30-40%. While ASA appreciates that 
NOAA is conducting a follow-up study to further investigate this issue, 
it is clear that changes beyond adjusting MRIP based on pilot study 
findings are needed to meet the needs of anglers and fisheries 
managers. MRIP is in need of an overhaul, not tweaks around the 
margins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ NOAA Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology. 
Evaluating Measurement Error in the MRIP Fishing Effort Survey. 
Available online at: https://apps-st.fisheries.noaa.gov/rpts/main/
public_docs/
Evaluating%20Measurement%20Error%20in%20the%20FES%20Consolidated 
%20Final%20w%20Review.pdf?method=PUB_MANUSCRIPT&id=32268
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A recent example of unrealistically high MRIP harvest estimates for 
Gulf of Mexico recreational gag grouper during September-October (MRIP 
Wave 5) last year was highlighted in a bicameral letter \6\ to the NOAA 
Assistant Administrator that included signatures from several members 
of the House Natural Resources Committee. Shortly after MRIP estimates 
for Wave 5 were released, Gulf recreational fishermen raised suspicions 
that the 1.6 million pounds of gag grouper estimated to be harvested by 
anglers during the September 1-October 18 open season was 
unrealistically high. Although the length of the open season was set 
based on when NOAA predicted the ACL would be met, MRIP estimates 
indicated that harvest during this time period was nearly four times 
greater than the ACL. The PSEs for the MRIP estimates were also above 
the 30% threshold set by NOAA (33-98%). In the Gulf of Mexico, gag 
grouper are caught almost exclusively off Florida. Thankfully, the 
State of Florida conducts a survey called the State Reef Fish Survey 
(SRFS) which is specifically designed to provide better recreational 
catch and effort data for gag grouper and 12 other reef fish species 
that could be used to compare with the unrealistically high MRIP 
estimate. SRFS estimated gag grouper harvest was only one-seventh of 
the MRIP estimate and prompted further review of the MRIP estimates, 
which were ultimately revised substantially. Without the SRFS estimates 
being available for contrast, it is unclear if the MRIP estimates would 
have been revised, and if there would be a recreational gag grouper 
season in the Gulf of Mexico this year due to the extreme overage 
estimated by MRIP. This would have been disastrous for the anglers, 
for-hire operations, tackle shops, marinas, and other fishing 
businesses in Florida that depend on gag grouper harvest opportunities. 
Florida SRFS estimates will be used to manage this fishery in the 
future based on direction from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 
Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ April 18, 2024 Letter to NOAA Assistant Administrator Coit. 
Available online at: https://garretgraves.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
2024.04.18_bicameral_ltr_to_nmfs_re_fisheries_data.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Highly uncertain and unrealistically high MRIP estimates of 
recreational discards (fish that are caught and released) can also 
cause problems for stock assessments and lead to significant management 
headaches. This has been the case for South Atlantic red snapper, which 
have rebounded so much in the past 15 years that scientists and 
fishermen both agree the stock is at record abundance and biomass, such 
that there are now more red snapper in the South Atlantic today than 
any living person has ever seen. Yet, highly uncertain and unvalidated 
MRIP estimates of recreational discards, which are used to estimate the 
proportion of fish that do not survive catch and release, are causing 
the fishery to be classified as undergoing overfishing. This 
overfishing designation has resulted in severe limitations on harvest 
despite the clear progress in stock rebuilding (this year's 
recreational harvest season will be just one day, July 12) and 
discussion of draconian measures such as large bottom fishing area 
closures for all 55 species of the snapper grouper complex to prevent 
red snapper from being caught and released by fishermen while they 
target other species.
    Recognizing that significant changes are needed, the Fisheries Data 
Modernization and Accuracy Act would advance reform of recreational 
fishing data collection. First, the bill would convene a National 
Academies panel of experts to consider options for improving MRIP 
estimates and/or management of seasonal fisheries that have high PSEs 
(greater than the NOAA-established standard of 30%) or are identified 
as problematic by a state via petition. In cases where increasing the 
precision of estimates is not practicable, the committee would consider 
options for adjusting management while adhering to the management and 
conservation requirements of MSA. These options would be presented in a 
report for consideration by the relevant regional fishery management 
council and include recommendations from the NOAA Administrator. 
Critically, as part of this process, the panel and NOAA Administrator 
would consider whether MRIP is the most appropriate tool for use in 
management decisions for a given seasonal fishery. Options and 
recommendations from the panel would not override or interfere with 
scientific recommendations from a council's scientific and statistical 
committee (SSC), but would provide an objective bird's eye view that 
can help identify common issues and solutions across fisheries and 
regions for consideration by NOAA, the federal fishery management 
councils, and SSCs. Second, H.R. 8705 would help facilitate development 
and use of state-led data collection programs. Existing programs such 
as LA Creel, Florida's SRFS and the Pacific states' Recreational 
Fisheries Information Network have demonstrated the potential for 
superior accuracy and precision of harvest estimated produced by the 
states. The bill would create universal standards for such data 
collection programs to ensure capability and use for management, while 
allowing for flexibility to account for differences in recreational 
fishing activity among states. While the Gulf states' data collection 
programs have proven extremely valuable, the process for establishing 
each of them independently and ultimately ensuring the data is used for 
management has been challenging. Having a clear system for establishing 
such programs, with the support of NOAA, will provide a smoother and 
more efficient path for additional state-led programs to address state 
and regional management needs.
    In addition to improving recreational data collection, the 
Fisheries Data Modernization and Accuracy Act would encourage 
coordinated planning of stock assessments for priority species and 
improvement of fishery independent data (scientific survey data rather 
than fishery dependent catch data) by facilitating third-party fishery-
independent abundance surveys of federally managed fish stocks. 
Abundance surveys, such as the Great Red Snapper Count (GRSC), are 
designed to provide an estimate of how many fish are in a given stock. 
Numerous discussions at council and scientific and statistical 
committee meetings indicate that fishery-independent surveys like the 
GRSC that estimate absolute abundance of fish stocks can provide 
important insights for management and assessment of fisheries. 
Additional Congressionally funded independent studies similar to the 
GRSC are currently underway for greater amberjack and South Atlantic 
red snapper.
    Results of the GRSC, which was funded with a $10 million 
appropriation from Congress to provide an independent estimate of 
abundance of Gulf of Mexico red snapper, indicate that there are more 
than 118 million red snapper in the Gulf (as of 2019). Abundance was 
previously estimated to be about 36 million fish. The wide disparity in 
estimates is explained by the GRSC finding a surprisingly large biomass 
of red snapper over uncharacterized bottom that was not considered in 
previous stock assessments. Although the GRSC improves our knowledge of 
red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, the path to integrating this 
groundbreaking science into red snapper management and assessment has 
not been straightforward. Reviewing the path of the GRSC as proposed in 
this legislation would provide valuable lessons on how the results of 
other independent abundance surveys should best be incorporated into 
management and assessments in the future.
    Lastly, this legislation would promote transparency and public 
understanding of SSC decision making by ensuring that recordings and 
transcripts of SSC meetings are readily available to the public. This 
is simply good governance and is already common practice by some 
federal fishery management councils.
Other Legislation Under Consideration

    ASA is also grateful that the committee is considering in this 
hearing other legislation that will benefit conservation and public 
access to the ocean.

     H.R. 6841 (Rep. Levin), the Resilient Coasts and Estuaries 
            Act: The nation's estuaries are critical fish nurseries, in 
            addition to providing a wide range of other environmental 
            benefits such as preventing soil erosion and protecting 
            against storm surges. H.R. 6841 supports two important 
            conservation programs established under the Coastal Zone 
            Management Act: the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation 
            Program (CELCP) and the National Estuarine Research Reserve 
            System (NERRS). The CELCP bolsters state and locally led 
            efforts to conserve ecologically important coastal lands. 
            The NERRS currently contains 30 reserves--all owned and 
            operated by state or local governments--that provide 
            crucial stewardship, research, training, and education 
            necessary to manage and conserve estuaries across the 
            United States. The Resilient Coasts and Estuaries Act would 
            reauthorize both programs at their most recent fund levels 
            and make other modest but important policy improvements.

     H.R. 7925 (Rep. D'Esposito), the Modernizing Access to Our 
            Public Oceans (MAPOceans) Act: The MAPOceans Act directs 
            the standardization, consolidation, and digitization of 
            boating and recreational fishing information for federally 
            managed marine waters and federal fisheries administered by 
            NOAA. This bill will enhance and expand recreation 
            opportunities by investing in modern technology commonly 
            found in smartphone applications to provide anglers, 
            boaters, and other users with the information they need to 
            safely and legally enjoy offshore waters and federal 
            saltwater fisheries. The hundreds of thousands of offshore 
            ocean miles and numerous saltwater fish species regulated 
            by NOAA present enormous recreational opportunities where 
            restrictions are difficult to access and constantly 
            changing. MAPOceans directs the federal agency to compile 
            those rules in digital form so they can be integrated into 
            GPS units and smartphone applications that are popular with 
            boaters and anglers, making that information available to 
            the public in real time.

     H.R. 8704 (Rep. Carter), To require the Secretary of 
            Commerce to establish a grant program to foster enhanced 
            coexistence between ocean users and North Atlantic right 
            whales and other large cetacean species: ASA understands 
            the importance of protecting right whales and minimizing 
            vessel strikes by small vessels, as rare as these 
            occurrences are. Unfortunately, NOAA's 2022 proposed 
            amendments to the North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike 
            Reduction Rule are misguided, excessively restrictive and a 
            risk to human safety. Due to the large area covered and the 
            unfeasibility of traveling offshore under 10 knot speed 
            restrictions, this rule would effectively prohibit most 
            offshore fishing trips for approximately half the year. In 
            addition, forcing boaters to travel at slow speeds, even in 
            dangerous conditions, puts human safety at risk. Technology 
            to better identify right whale locations in real time and 
            disseminating the information to mariners in a timely 
            manner provides a much more effective and efficient 
            strategy to minimize vessel strikes. H.R. 8704 would 
            support the development and expansion of such technology, 
            most of which is currently available, while pausing 
            unnecessary and economically devastating regulatory changes 
            from moving forward.

Conclusion

    Thank you again for the opportunity to provide the sportfishing 
industry's perspective on these important bills. We are grateful for 
the ongoing work of the House Natural Resources Committee and 
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries to advance legislation 
that will strengthen the management and conservation of the nation's 
public lands and waters. We look forward to working with the Committee 
on these and other important measures that impact the recreational 
fishing industry and America's 54.5 million anglers.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Martha Guyas, Southeast Fisheries 
           Policy Director, American Sportfishing Association

               Questions Submitted by Representative Carl

    Question 1. I have been deeply involved with issues surrounding the 
Great Red Snapper Count and the calibration of fisheries data. It has 
become increasingly clear to me that the management of these processes 
should be left to the states. Mr. Graves' bill is a significant step 
forward in achieving this goal. It empowers states to create their own 
recreational fishery catch data collection programs, with NOAA being 
required to utilize the state-collected data. I have told NOAA that the 
state has done a fantastic job monitoring snapper season.

    With this context, Ms. Guyas, in your testimony you emphasized the 
significance of the Great Red Snapper Count as a model for third-party 
abundance surveys that can inform management decisions, along with 
similar studies currently underway.

    Could you expand on ways that you think NOAA could more effectively 
incorporate studies like the Great Red Snapper Count into management 
decisions?

    Answer. Studies like the Great Red Snapper Count provide 
opportunities to assess and manage fisheries based on the absolute 
abundance of fish in a stock. Section 7 of H.R. 8705 would facilitate 
this by requiring that the National Academies, in consultation with 
Harte Research Institute, submit a publicly available report to the 
Committee on Natural Resources regarding use of Great Red Snapper Count 
results in fisheries management decisions, as well as recommendations 
for how to incorporate results of similar studies in management 
decisions made by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

              Questions Submitted by Representative Levin

    Question 1. I appreciate that in your testimony, you discuss how 
programs like the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program 
(CELCP) and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System help to 
manage and conserve estuaries across the country. Can you share more 
about how hunters and fishers benefit from these coastal conservation 
programs?

    Answer. The Coastal Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) and 
National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) are vital programs 
to manage and conserve estuaries throughout the country. Estuaries are 
important spawning and nursery habitats for a wide range of sportfish 
species, so conserving and providing responsible public access to them 
provide significant benefits for recreational fishing. Since 2002, 
CELCP has conserved over 110,000 acres of coastal and estuarine land, 
in partnership with states providing an equivalent non-federal funding 
match. The stewardship, monitoring, research, training and education 
that occurs throughout the NERRS provides social, economic, and 
environmental benefits--particularly toward outdoor recreation--that 
far exceed their cost of operation.

    Question 2. Will the establishment of new research reserves limit 
hunting and fishing in coastal areas?

    Answer. Section 2(j) of H.R. 6841 requires that fishing, hunting 
and cultural uses be allowed unless explicitly prohibited in a 
management plan. Currently 90% of research reserves allow recreational 
fishing and 75% allow hunting. Any restrictions would need to be based 
on sound, scientific reasoning.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Ms. Guyas. I now recognize Mr. Strong 
for 5 minutes.

         STATEMENT OF JEFF STRONG,  CHAIR  OF  THE MARINE
          RETAILERS ASSOCIATION OF THE AMERICANS BOARD OF
          DIRECTORS,  AND  PRESIDENT OF STRONG'S  MARINE,
          MATTITUCK, NEW YORK

    Mr. Strong. Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member 
Huffman, Congressman D'Esposito, and esteemed members of the 
Committee. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to 
testify in support of the MAPOceans Act, or H.R. 7925. My name 
is Jeff Strong. I am President of our family business, Strong's 
Marine. We are a full-service marine dealership with six marina 
locations throughout Long Island. Our family has been in 
business since 1945. We employ 125 full-time, year-round 
employees. I also serve as Chairman of the Board of the Marine 
Retailers Association of the Americas, supporting 3,500 
dealers.
    I thank Congressman D'Esposito and Congressman Levin for 
their leadership on H.R. 7925, as this bipartisan bill is a 
significant step towards enhancing the accessibility, safety, 
and the enjoyment of our nation's Federal waterways.
    In the United States, recreational boating is a major 
economic driver and a crucial part of our nation's $1.1 
trillion outdoor recreation economy. Recreational boating alone 
annually contributes $230 billion to our economy, supports more 
than 800,000 jobs and 36,000 businesses. The industry is 
uniquely American, as 90 to 95 percent of all boats sold in the 
United States are American-made and sold at family-owned 
businesses just like Strong's Marine.
    Throughout my 51 years in the industry, I have seen 
firsthand the value that our coastal regions provide, not just 
as critical habitat, but also as recreational spaces that 
support local economies. The MAPOceans Act will address the 
need for standardized and accessible data relating to the 
public use of our waterways. By digitizing information about 
these waterways like fishing restrictions and regulations, we 
are taking a step towards ensuring the safety and enjoyment of 
recreational boaters and anglers and the conservation of 
sportfish populations.
    With Strong's Marine being a fourth-generation family 
business, I am no stranger to the advances in technology we 
have seen in the industry, from LORAN to GPS. I am confident 
that the provisions in MAPOceans will be crucial in helping to 
usher in a new innovation in our sector. MAPOceans will create 
an important platform that is ready to aggregate and 
disseminate crucial data to recreational mariners. Ultimately, 
it would be like Waze is for cars for mariners, which would 
provide real-time alerts of what areas must be avoided or where 
a dynamic speed zone is established due to the presence of 
endangered species or at-risk creatures.
    MAPOceans will allow boaters and customers of Strong's 
Marine to provide more safety, confidence, and in accordance 
with Federal fisheries regulations. It will also support 
innovation in the industry to relay this information to 
mariners in real time on displays right aboard their vessels. 
This will help keep boaters safe, but also ensure that we have 
more critical tools to protect our wildlife that we share the 
ocean ecosystem we all love so dearly.
    As a marine retailer with six Atlantic Coast locations, we 
sell and service boats over 35 feet and have extensive dock 
space for these vessels, which is why I would also offer 
support for H.R. 8704, which balances conservation with 
protecting coastal businesses. The proposed North Atlantic 
Right Whale Vessel Strike Rule amendments would severely impact 
our business. Imagine owning a 45-foot vessel and desiring to 
fish off shore, typically 80 to 90 miles, and being restricted 
to a speed of 10 knots. Our clients will not do this. They will 
sell their boats and create significant job losses.
    While the rule aims to protect right whales, NOAA failed to 
consider existing technology-based solutions that can protect 
the species. NOAA did host a technology workshop on March 5 of 
this year. It also transmitted the rule to the Office of Budget 
and Management during that workshop, ensuring the technologies 
presented would not even be considered in the rule.
    Additionally, the economic impact analysis overlooks the 
significant negative effects on our businesses. This would 
result in an average loss of $4.1 million in business per 
dealer, over 500 dealers, resulting in $2 billion in loss along 
the East Coast. This is just one shortcoming with the proposed 
amendments, but is the one that hits closest to home for me as 
a marine dealer.
    I believe H.R. 8704 will help protect and restore the North 
Atlantic right whale while protecting the coastal economy. My 
business and the entire industry believe keeping boaters safe 
on the water is the highest priority, and technology is the key 
to ensuring boaters are informed and able to protect themselves 
and endangered wildlife. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Strong follows:]
    
     Prepared Statement of Jeff Strong, President, Strong's Marine
                       
                       on H.R. 7925 and H.R. 8704

    Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, Congressman 
D'Esposito, and esteemed members of the Committee. Thank you for 
providing me with the opportunity to testify in support of the 
MAPOceans Act or H.R. 7925.
    My name is Jeff Strong, and I am the President of Strongs Marine, a 
family owned full service marine dealership and marina with locations 
throughout Long Island, where we are dedicated to fulfilling dreams by 
creating life-enhancing recreational possibilities, one family at a 
time. I also serve as the Chairman of the Board for the Marine 
Retailers Association of the Americas, a 501(c)6 dedicated to fueling 
marine dealer success, so it is safe to say that recreational boating 
is in my blood and a pastime I care about deeply. I thank Congressman 
D'Esposito and Congressman Levin for their leadership on H.R. 7925, as 
this bipartisan bill is a significant step toward enhancing the 
accessibility, safety, and enjoyment of our nation's federal waterways.
    In the United States, Recreational boating is a major economic 
driver and a crucial part of our nations $1.1 trillion outdoor 
recreation economy. According to statistics from the National Marine 
Manufacturers Association, recreational boating alone annually 
contributes $230.3 billion to our economy, supports more than 800,000 
jobs and 36,000 businesses. Furthermore, the recreational boating 
industry is uniquely American, as 95% of all boats sold in the United 
States are American made and sold at family owned small businesses just 
like Strongs Marine.
    Throughout my 51 years in the recreational marine industry, I have 
seen firsthand the immense value that our coastal regions provide, not 
just as critical habitat but also as recreational spaces that foster 
communities and support local economies. The MAPOceans Act will address 
a pressing need for standardized, published, and accessible data 
relating to the public recreational use of our federal waterways. By 
digitizing this important information about these waterways, and 
fishing restrictions and regulations we are taking a critical step 
toward ensuring the safety and enjoyment of recreational boaters and 
anglers and the conservation of various sport-fish populations.
    At Strong's Marine we not only have marina facilities where 
experienced and new boaters alike keep their vessels, we also sell new 
and pre-owned boats and get people on the water for the very first 
time. Time and time again both new and experienced boaters alike come 
to members of my staff, or even myself, with questions regarding 
navigation or need help finding and figuring out fisheries regulations 
and catch limits. While our staff and I are always pleased to work with 
our customers and teach them where to look to find this information, 
these constant needs by the boating public underscore the importance of 
the MAPOceans Act, as this important information will be made much more 
available and accessible, making it easier for the boating public to 
boat and fish safely, confidently, and in accordance with Federal 
fisheries regulations.
    The Modernizing Access to Our Public Oceans Act is a vital piece of 
legislation that promises to enhance the safety, accessibility, and 
enjoyment of our nation's waterways. By providing standardized, up-to-
date information, we are empowering recreational users to connect with 
nature responsibly and sustainably. I urge you to support this 
important initiative, which benefits our environment, our communities, 
and our economy.
    In addition to the MAPOceans Act, I would like to offer my support 
of H.R. 8704, which would require the Secretary of Commerce to 
establish a grant program to foster enhanced coexistence between ocean 
users and North Atlantic right whales and other large cetacean species. 
In addition the reasons stated below, I believe this bill will also 
benefit from the MAPOceans Act's standardization and publication of 
accessible data on our federal waterways as a means to collect and 
disseminate near-real time information on the location of protected 
species such as the North Atlantic Right Whale so recreational boaters 
can avoid those areas and empower boaters who encounter a protected 
species to report their sighting to alert others in the area.
    I would like to express my appreciation for the efforts of this 
Committee and the bill's sponsors, Mr. Carter of Georgia, and Mrs. 
Peltola of Alaska, in addressing the critical balance between whale 
conservation, human safety, and economic sustainability. Furthermore, I 
would like to reiterate something the entire recreational boating and 
fishing industry has worked to make clear and that is we all support 
the protection and restoration of this critically endangered animal. As 
an industry directly tied to the health of our nations oceans and 
freshwater resources, we understand better than most the importance of 
robust marine mammal populations for overall ocean ecosystem health, 
however, our community strives to find the means to provide for the 
recovery of this species while allowing for continued safe access to 
the waters off the Atlantic Coast. For that reason, I express my 
support for H.R. 8704 and again thank Representatives Carter and 
Peltola for their dedication to finding a balanced approach to the 
conservation of this key species.
    As a marine retailer with 4 locations on the Atlantic Coast who 
sells and services boats above 35 feet and dock space for vessels of 
the same size category, I stand to be negatively impacted by the 
Proposed Amendments to the North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike 
Rule and support the provisions laid out in H.R. 8704 as focusing on 
technological solutions strikes the right balance between conserving 
the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale and ensuring coastal 
communities and family run small businesses like Strongs Marine are not 
shuttered due the proposed expansions of the North Atlantic Right Whale 
Vessel Strike Reduction Rule.
    In addition to failing to consider the potential of existing 
technologies to measurably reduce the risk of a vessel striking a North 
Atlantic Right Whale, NOAA also failed to complete a thorough and 
thoughtful economic impact analysis and completely missed the mark on 
how the proposed rule would impact the recreational marine industry at 
large, and more specifically small marine retailers like me who stretch 
down the Atlantic Coast. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
done by the National Marine Fisheries Service found that the proposed 
rule would only have an economic impact of $46 million per year, and 
only evaluated the number of ``delayed transit hours'' for impacted 
vessels. NMFS essentially cherry picked the single and likely smallest 
facet of the vast economic impact of the proposed rule, completely 
ignoring the impact to businesses like mine, and many other industries 
that are integral to the fabric of coastal communities along the 
Atlantic Seaboard. It is also worth noting that these concerns have 
been echoed by a variety of stakeholders, including the Small Business 
Administration office of Advocacy who stated in a letter to NMFS that 
they should ``Consider all potential impacts to small businesses from 
the proposed rule, and to update its IRFA to better account for these 
small business impacts.'' Despite these concerns being made during and 
after the public input period, no such work has been done to better 
understand the devastating impacts this rule stands to have on small-
businesses and the recreational marine industry at large.
    Furthermore, the Marine Retailers Association of the Americas 
recently surveyed 65 of their members to examine the negative impact 
the proposed rule would have on small businesses. Ultimately, the 
survey found that on average a marine retailer or broker typically 
sells just over 23 boats between the 35-and 65-feet range annually, and 
that the average revenue generated by boats in this size category is 
between $3.7 million per year. Respondents also indicated an estimated 
average loss in revenue of $3 million per business per year and a total 
loss of sales revenue of more than $153.2 million. Additionally, the 
proposed rule will not just impact marine retailers and brokers' 
ability to sell boats within and above the 35-65 size class, it will 
likely result in decreased revenues from servicing, provisioning, and 
the storage of these vessels. The survey also found that non-sales 
related losses would average $1.1 million per year. It is important to 
note that this was a survey of just 65 members, and with almost 500 
marine retailers on the East Coast, the full impact is estimated at 
just over $2 billion.
    While the aforementioned survey works to provide a clearer impact 
on marine retailers, I have been hearing first-hand from current and 
potential customers about the proposed rule, many feeling discouraged 
about buying a new vessel or upgrading to a larger size and concerned 
about the safety implications of traveling at only 10kts, or the speed 
of a bicycle. Furthermore, the recreational anglers in my marinas are 
also outraged by the proposed regulations, as they would simply make an 
offshore trip to the Canyons for tuna and other pelagic species 
impossible. It is not uncommon when traveling offshore for recreational 
angling to cover 200 miles or more, about the distance from New York to 
Washington D.C., now imagine having to cover that distance on a bicycle 
instead of in a car or train.
    For my business and the entire recreational marine industry, 
nothing is more important than the safety of boaters on the water and 
technology is a key part of creating a safe and confident boater who 
can enjoy our shared waters while protecting endangered species like 
the North Atlantic Right Whale and the environment as a whole.
    These foreseen and unintended impacts underscore the importance of 
H.R. 8704, as we need to work together on a solution that will better 
accomplish the goal of conserving the North Atlantic Right Whale, while 
simultaneously ensuring recreational boaters can continue to enjoy our 
nations oceans and be stewards on the high seas. Furthermore, H.R. 8704 
is focused on developing technological solutions that can be applied to 
all large cetaceans, and this will ultimately ensure that we foster an 
overall safer recreational boating experience for users and wildlife 
alike.
    Again, I would like to thank the Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member 
Huffman, Representatives D'Esposito, Levin, Carter, and Peltola for 
their work and focus on these important pieces of legislation. Together 
H.R. 7925 and H.R. 8704 will be crucial in furthering the ability of 
recreational anglers and boaters to be stewards of the Atlantic while 
ensuring the conservation sport fish populations, cetaceans.

                                 ______
                                 
  Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Jeff Strong, President of 
     Strong's Marine and Chair of the Marine Retailers Association
                   of the Americas Board of Directors

              Questions Submitted by Representative Bentz

    Question 1. Mr. Strong, one of the other witnesses at our hearing 
talked about technological approaches needing to be more thoroughly 
evaluated to ``show whether these approaches can be used to replace, 
rather than supplement, vessel speed restrictions.'' However, it's 
important to note that the legislation we considered seeks to keep the 
existing rule in place, not remove it entirely.

    1a) Can you talk about the importance of pursuing a more thoughtful 
approach that utilizes technologies and other forms of mitigation to 
prevent vessel strikes?

    Answer. NOAA neglected to evaluate opportunities that would 
leverage existing technology to support risk reduction. Instead, it is 
simply relying on archaic speed limits--which will likely be much less 
effective than taking a 21st century approach. Sophisticated technology 
that could be implemented immediately exists today, including radio 
frequency transmission and whale collection data aggregation. There are 
also various technologies currently in development, including 3D sonar 
mapping, infrared imagery detection and innovative marine radar 
algorithms. The combination of these technologies enables mariners to 
detect and monitor whales more efficiently and take proactive measures 
to help prevent strikes. For example, the Massachusetts Division of 
Marine Fisheries partners with the Provincetown Center for Coastal 
Studies, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the National Marine 
Fisheries Service to conduct a real and acoustic monitoring of Cape Cod 
Bay to inform targeted fishery closures and vessel speed 
restrictions.\1\ Regular monitoring of these areas ensures that these 
fishery closures and vessel speed restrictions are only in place during 
times when right whales are known to be present. Not only did NOAA 
overlook examples of how technology is currently leveraged to conserve 
the NARW, they also did not meaningfully consult with the recreational 
marine industry to determine what technologies currently exist. In 
short, technology and other approaches must be considered not only to 
increase the likelihood of success for the NARW population, but to also 
minimize negative economic impact on stakeholders while maintaining 
access to our nation's ocean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.mass.gov/doc/042823-dmf-monitoring-presence-of-
right-whales-in-coastal-waters/download

    Question 2. When you discussed how to integrate technology to 
reduce vessel strikes and mitigate the impact to species like the North 
American right whale, one of our colleagues said that it might be 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
beneficial to revisit the rule once those technologies were in place.

    2a) Do you believe that NOAA should take more time to work with the 
sectors of the economy that stand to be hurt by these proposed 
amendments before moving forward? And do you agree that there are 
technologies that currently exist that help accomplish that objective?

    Answer. These technologies are in place. For example, in February, 
the National Marine Manufacturers Association hosted Janet Coit, 
Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries, at the Discover Boating 
Miami International Boat Show to show her and her team exactly what 
technologies exist today to detect marine mammals and reduce boat 
strikes.\2\ In March, NOAA hosted a technology workshop to hear from 
key stakeholders and businesses that have the data and technologies 
today to help mitigate the risk of vessel strikes. In April, many of 
these same manufacturers briefed Congress and showcased the technology 
that exists today that can better reduce the risk of marine mammal 
vessel strikes. NOAA must not only work with impacted sectors of the 
economy before moving forward but should also work with scientists and 
technology developers to better understand what technology and tactics 
can be employed to conserve the NARW. Furthermore, more than 1.5 years 
after the rule was proposed. Lastly, to highlight currently existing 
technologies as well as develop and research other technology the 
marine industry has created the Whales and Vessel Speed (WAVS) Task 
Force. In October 2023, the Taskforce shared a white paper (found on 
the WAVS Taskforce site) with NOAA that provides an overview of the 
technology that's currently available for deployment today. The WAVS 
Taskforce is focused on five key areas, known as the Vessel Strike Risk 
Reduction Chain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.nmma.org/press/article/24622

  1.  Detection: Using various technologies to detect the presence of 
            whales and other marine mammals, including sonar, radar, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            camera & AI, crowd sourced observation, etc.

  2.  Aggregation: Collecting data for a central clearing house. 
            Analyzing data to reduce noise, duplication, and other 
            artifacts.

  3.  Dissemination: Sending the data out for stakeholder receipt in an 
            efficient and timely manner.

  4.  Integration: Leveraging disseminated data to create an on-board 
            experience aimed to influence operation and decision 
            making.

  5.   Risk reduction: Boaters use the display data to make informed 
            decisions and take appropriate action to reduce vessel 
            strike risk.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I now recognize Dr. Redfern for 5 
minutes.

     STATEMENT OF JESSICA REDFERN, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESI-
      DENT  FOR  OCEAN  CONSERVATION  SCIENCE,  ANDERSON
      CABOT  CENTER   FOR   OCEAN   LIFE,  NEW   ENGLAND
      AQUARIUM, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

    Dr. Redfern. Thank you, Chair Bentz and Ranking Member 
Huffman, for the opportunity to testify today. I am the 
Associate Vice President for Ocean Conservation Science in the 
Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life at the New England 
Aquarium.

    The New England Aquarium is a catalyst for global change 
through innovative scientific research, commitment to marine 
animal conservation, public engagement and education, and 
effective advocacy for a vital and vibrant ocean.

    I have used statistical models to address wildlife 
conservation challenges for more than 25 years, and have 
published scientific papers on a broad range of topics 
including species habitat modeling, vessel traffic patterns, 
and the risk of human activities to whales, including vessel 
strikes.

    In the hearing today, I will address H.R. 8704. This bill 
would have devastating consequences for right whales because it 
delays NOAA's ability to implement its proposed protections 
from vessel strikes through December 2030. Right whales must 
survive long enough to benefit from the approaches for co-
existence that would be funded in this bill, including 
technology.

    There are less than 360 right whales, and less than 70 of 
these whales are reproductive females. Vessel strikes are a 
leading cause of the decline of this critically endangered 
species. A long history of research shows that NOAA's 2008 
Vessel Strike Rule does not provide sufficient protections. I 
provided scientific evidence at a Subcommittee hearing in June 
2023, just over a year ago, that shows the revisions in NOAA's 
proposed rule would contribute to right whale survival by 
reducing the risk of vessel strikes. Recent research shows that 
the revisions in the proposed rule will also protect humpback, 
fin, and sei whales from vessel strikes. It has been more than 
22 months since NOAA proposed the revisions, and the final rule 
has yet to be released.

    My testimony last year showed that even one human-caused 
death of a right whale is not consistent with scientific 
evidence and U.S. laws. In the years since I testified, at 
least three right whales were killed by vessels. The details of 
these three lethal vessel strikes demonstrate the need for the 
changes in the proposed rule.

    The first calf of the 2024 season was seen off South 
Carolina on January 6 with deep propeller cuts across its head. 
On March 3, the calf was found dead on the shores of Georgia. 
The expert that reviewed the images of the calf's propeller 
wounds estimated that the vessel that killed this calf was 
likely between 35 and 57 feet in length. The death of this calf 
highlights the need to make speed restrictions mandatory for 
vessels smaller than 65 feet.

    The second mortality was documented on February 13, 2024. 
The carcass of a 1-year-old female was seen floating off 
Georgia and, when examined, showed evidence of blunt force 
trauma consistent with vessel strike. Her death shows the 
vulnerability of right whales during calving season, which 
occurs annually off the southeastern United States from 
November through April.

    The third mortality was a female right whale that was at 
least 35 years old. She was found off Virginia on March 30, 
2024. Her spine was dislocated, and all the vertebrae in her 
lower back were fractured. Months before this strike, she had 
given birth to her sixth calf. Although several aerial survey 
teams searched the area, her calf was not spotted. A nursing 
calf this young is not expected to survive without its mother. 
This calf is not included in the number of human-caused 
mortalities that I reported for this year, and it is a good 
reminder that documented mortalities represent a minimum number 
because not all mortalities are observed.

    A female right whale can contribute at least 30 individuals 
to the population when her offspring and their subsequent 
offspring are considered, emphasizing the important effect that 
a single reproductive female can have on this endangered 
population. Human-caused mortality of reproductive females 
removes that individual and their future contributions to 
population growth.

    The number of human-caused right whale deaths in the last 
year are more than three times the number of deaths estimated 
to be sustainable by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. These 
vessel strikes have increased the urgency of implementing the 
revisions in the proposed rule to help curb the current 
trajectory towards the extinction of this endangered species.

    The implications for the survival of right whales are 
clear. Action is needed now to reduce vessel strikes. 
Protecting whales through measures known to be effective, such 
as speed restrictions and funding the development of other 
approaches to reduce vessel strikes, including technology, are 
not mutually exclusive. It is critical to ensure right whales 
survive long enough for the approaches in this bill to be 
developed, assessed, and carried out. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Redfern follows:]
    
  Prepared Statement of Dr. Jessica Redfern, Associate Vice President,
   Ocean Conservation Science, Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life,
                          New England Aquarium
                              
                              on H.R. 8704

    Thank you Subcommittee Chairman Bentz, Subcommittee Vice Chair 
Kiggans, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Huffman for inviting me to 
testify at this hearing. I am the Associate Vice President for Ocean 
Conservation Science in the Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life at the 
New England Aquarium. The New England Aquarium is a catalyst for global 
change through innovative scientific research, commitment to marine 
animal conservation, public engagement and education, and effective 
advocacy for a vital and vibrant ocean. We conduct research that 
advances animal and ocean health, promotes responsible ocean use, and 
contributes to developing science-based solutions to ocean conservation 
challenges.
    I have been using statistical models to address such conservation 
challenges for more than 25 years. My research focuses primarily on 
developing cetacean-habitat models and using predictions from these 
models to reduce risk to cetaceans. I have published numerous 
scientific papers on a broad range of topics, including species habitat 
modeling, vessel traffic patterns, the risk of human activities to 
whales (i.e., vessel strikes, entanglements, and chronic noise), and 
estimating species diversity to guide designation of marine protected 
areas. I served as a guest editor for a research topic in Frontiers in 
Marine Science about the impacts of shipping on marine fauna. I also 
serve as an invited member on the International Council for the 
Exploration of the Sea's (ICES) Working Group on Shipping Impacts in 
the Marine Environment. Finally, I have been an invited expert at a 
workshop on the Identification of Important Marine Mammal Areas in the 
North West Atlantic Ocean Region hosted by the IUCN Marine Mammal 
Protected Areas Task Force and my research has been presented at a 
workshop on The Future of Shipping at the Biodiversity and Climate 
Nexus hosted by the World Maritime University.
    The New England Aquarium has been extensively studying North 
Atlantic right whales (NARW; Eubalaena glacialis) for more than 40 
years. We curate the photo-identification catalog for NARW and use the 
catalog to monitor human impacts to individuals, including 
entanglements and vessel strikes. We also conduct analyses to assess 
risk from vessel strikes; facilitate communication across the maritime 
industry to reduce vessel strikes; collaborate with the fishing 
community to reduce entanglements; collect the data and conduct 
analyses needed to understand and mitigate the potential impacts of 
offshore wind energy development; and work with lawmakers locally, 
nationally, and internationally to develop science-based protections 
for NARW.
    The New England Aquarium commends the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for reviewing the 2008 North Atlantic 
Right Whale Vessel Strike Reduction Rule (hereafter, 2008 Rule; NOAA, 
2020). This review found that the 2008 Rule required revision to 
fulfill NOAA's mandates under the Endangered Species Act and Marine 
Mammal Protection Act to protect the endangered NARW. On August 1, 
2022, NOAA proposed revisions to the 2008 Rule (hereafter, Proposed 
Rule; NOAA, 2022) that are necessary to further reduce the likelihood 
of mortalities and serious injuries to NARW from vessel strikes. It has 
been more than 22 months since NOAA proposed the revisions and the 
Final Rule has yet to be released.
    On June 6, 2023, I testified on behalf of the New England Aquarium 
before this subcommittee at a hearing titled ``Examining the impacts of 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's proposed changes 
to the North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike Reduction Rule.'' My 
testimony highlighted the scientific research that shows that the 
changes in the Proposed Rule are an essential component of preventing 
the extinction of the critically endangered NARW. In that hearing, I 
noted that the changes in the Proposed Rule were needed as immediately 
as possible because the species cannot afford to lose even one 
individual to human-caused mortality. The events of the intervening 
year have increased the urgency of implementing these changes. 
Specifically, at least three NARW were killed by vessels since the 
beginning of 2024. This number of deaths is more than four times the 
number estimated to be sustainable by the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act--a Potential Biological Removal of only 0.7--for an estimated 
population of 356 individuals. These deaths show that the 2008 Rule 
does not adequately protect NARW from vessel strikes. NOAA's proposed 
improvements to the 2008 Rule would help curb the current trajectory 
toward NARW species extinction.
    In the hearing today, I will address H.R. 8704. The bill would have 
devastating consequences for NARW because it delays NOAA's ability to 
implement its proposed protections from vessel strikes through December 
31, 2030. Protecting whales through measures known to be effective, 
such as speed restrictions, and funding the development of other 
approaches, including technology, to reduce vessel strike risk are not 
mutually exclusive: it is critical to ensure NARW survive long enough 
for the approaches in H.R. 8704 to be developed, assessed, and carried 
out. Scientific evaluation of the changes in the Proposed Rule shows 
that these changes would contribute to NARW survival by reducing the 
risk of vessel strikes, especially during particularly vulnerable 
times, like calving season, which occurs annually from November through 
April. While the Proposed Rule focuses on NARW, my colleagues and I 
published a paper in the peer-reviewed journal, Biological Conservation 
(Estimating reductions in the risk of vessels striking whales achieved 
by management strategies, Redfern et al., 2024), that shows that the 
Seasonal Speed Zones in the Proposed Rule will protect humpback 
(Megaptera novaeangliae), fin (Balaenoptera physalus), and sei 
(Balaenoptera borealis) whales, in addition to protecting NARW, from 
vessel strikes.
    New England Aquarium scientists and our other experts are committed 
to working on the development of technological and other approaches to 
reduce the risk of vessel strikes. For example, we participate in 
government-convened technology workshops as invited scientific experts 
and are starting to use our expertise to design studies that can 
rigorously evaluate proposed technological solutions (e.g., thermal 
imaging cameras). Evaluations of technological and other approaches are 
needed to quantify the risk reduction that they can achieve, 
particularly in comparison to the risk reduction realized through known 
methods, such as speed restrictions and vessel routing changes. These 
evaluations will show whether these approaches can be used to replace, 
rather than supplement, vessel speed restrictions.
    Ongoing delay in releasing the critically important Proposed Rule 
would put NARW at continued risk of death and serious injury from 
vessel strikes. NARW must survive long enough to benefit from the 
approaches for coexistence that would be funded in H.R. 8704, including 
technology and enhanced awareness. While these approaches are 
developed, assessed, and carried out, we must implement measures known 
to reduce the risk of vessel strike, such as those included in the 
Proposed Rule that was released nearly two years ago.

    To support this position, this testimony provides additional 
details on the following:

  1.  Implications for the survival of the NARW species if we do not 
            take action to reduce vessel strikes;

  2.  NARW deaths caused by vessel strikes so far in 2024; and

  3.  The scientific evidence that supports the Proposed Rule.

Implications of vessel strikes for the survival of the NARW species

    The NARW is one of the most endangered large whale species in the 
world. The NARW has been protected from hunting since 1935 and 
experienced a slow, but steady, recovery until 2011. In particular, the 
recent estimates of the number of NARW (i.e., the population size 
estimate) grew from 261 (+4/-2) in 1990 to a high of 481 individuals 
(+4/-3) in 2011. Over the last decade, the number of NARW steadily 
declined from the high in 2011 to 356 individuals (+7/-10) in 2022 
(Linden, 2023; Pettis and Hamilton, 2024). The current population size 
estimate is one of the lowest in the past 20 years (Linden, 2023; 
Pettis and Hamilton, 2024). Additionally, the number of reproductive 
NARW females has declined and Reed et al. (2022) estimated that fewer 
than 70 were alive in 2018. The species recovery has been limited by 
lethal and sub-lethal effects of entanglements and vessel strikes 
(Corkeron et al., 2018; Sharp et al., 2019; Pirotta et al., 2023). 
However, population viability analysis shows that the current 
trajectory toward extinction for NARW can be reversed if the risk of 
entanglement and vessel strikes are reduced (Runge et al., 2023).
    The ``take'' of a NARW is generally prohibited under both the U.S. 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1532(19); 16 U.S.C. 1362(13)). The Marine Mammal Protection 
Act defines the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) from a marine mammal 
stock as the maximum number of animals, not including natural 
mortalities, that may be removed while allowing the stock to reach or 
maintain its optimum sustainable population. When I testified last 
year, I was asked about natural mortality in NARW. Sharp et al. (2019) 
reviewed 70 NARW mortalities documented between 2003 and 2018 from 
Florida, USA, to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada. The cases included 
30 adults, 14 juveniles, 10 calves, and 16 whales of unknown age. A 
cause of death was determined in 43 cases: 38 (88.4%) of these deaths 
were caused by humans, including 22 (57.9%) from entanglement and 16 
(42.1%) from vessel strike. No natural mortalities were observed in 
adult or juvenile NARW. Natural mortalities were only found in five 
calf deaths. The primary sources of natural mortality in calves are 
perinatal complications and malnutrition due to either presumed 
maternal abandonment or developmental abnormalities. There was one 
necropsy report that concluded that a calf death was caused by shark 
predation. This predation death is one of four shark predation case 
studies presented by Taylor et al. (2013) using necropsy and aerial 
survey data collected between 1994 and 2011. The other three cases 
presented by Taylor et al. (2013) represent documentation of shark 
bites on a living calf, a calf that died from an interaction between 
shark predation and entanglement, and a two-year-old whale that 
experienced shark predation while severely entangled. The research on 
NARW mortality that spans more than two decades shows that human-caused 
mortalities are driving NARW toward extinction.
    The PBR for NARW defined by the Marine Mammal Protection Act is 0.7 
(Hayes et al., 2022) and shows that the survival of every individual 
matters and that even one human-caused mortality puts the species at 
risk of extinction. There is a long history of NARW vessel strikes (see 
Figure 1 in the Supplement). The New England Aquarium collates 
information on NARW mortalities and injuries from vessel strikes as 
curators of the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium's photo-
identification catalog (https://rwcatalog.neaq.org/#). We provide this 
information in annual reports to NOAA (https://www.narwc.org/narw-
catalog-reports.html) and in the annual report card of the North 
Atlantic Right Whale Consortium (https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/
browse/title?scope=3afd3800-5620-59b9-8b77-fc901b0c0f ec). From 1972 
through June 2024, a total of 124 cases with blunt trauma or external 
injuries (i.e., propeller cuts or gashes) from vessel strikes have been 
documented in U.S. and Canadian waters (Moore et al., 2004; Sharp et 
al., 2019; NOAA, 2020; NARWC, 2023; NOAA, 2023b). The evidence for 
these strikes include observed deaths (determined by the presence of 
deep propeller cuts that occurred pre-mortem and/or examining a carcass 
and finding evidence of pre-mortem blunt trauma) and sightings of 
living whales with cuts or gashes that are categorized as deep, 
shallow, or superficial. Pirotta et al. (2023) found that sub-lethal 
vessel strikes associated with deep and shallow wounds decreased a 
NARW's chance of survival. These vessel strikes are part of an Unusual 
Mortality Event (UME) for NARW. NOAA declared an UME because a 
particularly high number of deaths have been observed from Florida, 
U.S., to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada, since 2017 (NOAA, 2023b).
    The life history of every individual NARW that has been 
photographed is tracked in the North Atlantic Right Whale Catalog 
(https://rwcatalog.neaq.org/#). These life history data demonstrate the 
consequences of vessel strikes on the NARW population and show how the 
loss of each of these whales, particularly females, is compounded by 
the loss of their reproductive potential. Female NARW can give birth to 
at least nine calves in their lifetime (Hamilton and Knowlton, 2021). 
For example, one whale, Wart, has given birth to seven calves since 
1982 and is responsible for at least 31 whales being added to the 
population so far. However, Wart's family has experienced 11 vessel 
strikes, including the death of the one-year-old calf that occurred 
this year (see details below). Wart's contribution to the NARW 
population emphasizes the important effect that a single reproductive 
female can have on this small population and the negative impacts of 
vessel strikes. Females and calves are particularly vulnerable to 
vessel strikes because they spend >70% of their time resting at or just 
below the surface (Cusano et al., 2019).
NARW deaths caused by vessel strikes so far in 2024

    Three NARW deaths caused by vessel strikes have been documented 
this year, all during calving season. This number of deaths is more 
than four times the number of deaths estimated to be sustainable by the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act--a Potential Biological Removal of only 
0.7--for this population. The number of actual strikes is likely 
higher, since documented vessel strikes represent the minimum number of 
strikes because not every death or injury is observed. Pace et al. 
(2021) showed that documented mortalities accounted for only 36% of all 
estimated NARW deaths between 1990 and 2017.

    The details of these three deaths demonstrate the need for the 
changes in the Proposed Rule and what the loss of these individuals, 
particularly females, means to the population as a whole:

  1.  February 2024, offshore of Georgia, one-year-old female calf of 
            Catalog #4340 (Pilgrim): On February 13, 2024, the carcass 
            of this one-year-old female calf was seen floating offshore 
            of Savannah, Georgia. The carcass was towed ashore for a 
            necropsy. The multi-organization necropsy led by the 
            University of North Carolina, Wilmington, showed evidence 
            of blunt force trauma consistent with a vessel strike prior 
            to death. Full necropsy details are pending and this strike 
            is considered an active NOAA Office of Law Enforcement 
            investigation. This whale's family has experienced at least 
            10 other vessel strikes, including one that was killed and 
            one that was seriously injured due to a strike by a 54-foot 
            sport-fishing vessel. The seriously injured whale has not 
            been sighted again as of submission of this testimony.

  2.  January to March 2024, offshore of South Carolina and Georgia, 
            calf of Catalog #1612 (Juno): This calf was the first 
            documented calf of the 2024 season and was seen off Edisto, 
            South Carolina, with propeller cuts across its head (see 
            Figure 2 in the Supplement) in early January 2024. NOAA 
            Fisheries biologists reviewed the case and determined that 
            it met the criteria of a serious injury, meaning the calf 
            was likely to die as a result of the injuries. NOAA also 
            noted that the injuries could impact this calf's ability to 
            nurse successfully. The calf was closely monitored through 
            January and February. On March 3, the calf was found dead 
            on the shore of Cumberland Island, Georgia. The expert 
            (Paul Kamen, a forensic naval architect) that reviewed the 
            images of the calf's propeller wounds estimated that the 
            vessel that struck and ultimately killed this calf was 
            likely between 35-57 feet in length (see Figure 3 in the 
            Supplement).

  3.  March 2024, offshore of Virginia, adult female Catalog #1950: 
            This NARW was at least 35 years old and her carcass was 
            found floating 50 miles offshore east of Back Bay National 
            Wildlife Refuge, Virginia, on March 30, 2024 (see Figure 4 
            in the Supplement). Months before this strike, this whale 
            had given birth to her sixth calf. Although several aerial 
            survey teams searched the area, her calf was not spotted. A 
            nursing calf this young is not expected to survive without 
            its mother. Preliminary necropsy results of #1950, provided 
            by the Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center and 
            others, found catastrophic injuries consistent with blunt 
            force trauma from a vessel strike, including dislocation of 
            the spine and fractures to all vertebrae in her lower back. 
            Before the strike, she had been seen healthy and with her 
            calf on February 16, off the coast of Florida.

    These three incidents underscore the need to make speed 
restrictions mandatory for vessels smaller than 65 feet in length; the 
particular vulnerabilities during calving season; and the ripple 
effects of losing female whales from the population. In addition, the 
lethal and sub-lethal effects of vessel strikes may be delayed, as in 
the case of Juno's calf (#2 above) and as has been previously 
documented in strikes to other whales (e.g., Glass et al., 2010). 
Vessel strikes can also directly harm calves that are dependent on 
their mother, as in the case of calf of Catalog #1950 (#3 above).
Scientific support for NOAA's Proposed Rule

    In 2022, NOAA proposed changes to the 2008 Rule (NOAA, 2022) to 
further reduce the likelihood of mortalities and serious injuries to 
NARW from vessel strikes. The proposed changes for reducing the risk of 
vessel strikes to the statutorily protected NARW are necessary and 
based on the best available science. Specifically, Garrison et al. 
(2022) used the most up-to-date data available about NARW distributions 
and vessel traffic patterns to develop an encounter risk model for the 
U.S. East Coast. The methodology used by Garrison et al. (2022) has 
been used on the U.S. East and West Coasts (e.g., Martin et al., 2016; 
Rockwood et al., 2017; Crum et al., 2019; Rockwood et al., 2020). 
Mortality estimates from encounter risk models developed for fin, 
humpback, and blue whales have been included in NOAA's marine mammal 
stock assessment reports (Carretta et al., 2022). Garrison et al. 
(2022) used the encounter risk model to estimate the reduction in NARW 
mortalities that could be achieved by implementing speed restrictions 
in broad areas along the U.S. East Coast. Their broad areas were 
defined as the areas of highest risk to NARW. They found an 
approximately 28% reduction in NARW vessel strike risk when 10 knot 
speed restrictions were implemented in their broad areas.
    In January 2024, I published a study (Redfern et al., 2024) with 
scientists from the Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life at the New 
England Aquarium, NOAA, academia, and other organizations in the peer-
reviewed journal, Biological Conservation, that supports the findings 
of Garrison et al. (2022). We developed a metric for estimating the 
reduction in risk achieved by management strategies that is easy to use 
and understand. The metric estimates risk reduction using the 
relationship between vessel speed and the probability that a strike is 
lethal, the distance a vessel travels, and whale habitat use. This 
metric does not include estimates of the time species spend in the 
strike zone; consequently, no assumptions are made about the size of a 
vessel's draft. In our study, we used the metric to assess potential 
vessel strike risk reductions for several species of large whales on 
the U.S. East Coast, including North Atlantic right, humpback, fin, and 
sei whales. We found that a 10-knot speed restriction, rather than a 
12- or 14-knot speed restriction, was necessary for reducing risk. We 
also found that a 10-knot speed restriction applied in broad areas 
defined by core whale habitat reduces the risk of a lethal vessel 
strike for these species. The core whale habitat defined in our study 
was similar to the Seasonal Speed Zones in the Proposed Rule and 
supports the study by Garrison et al. (2022) that shows that a 10-knot 
speed restriction in the Seasonal Speed Zones reduces vessel strike 
risk for NARW. While the core whale habitat used in our study was 
primarily defined to protect NARW, our results suggest that these areas 
also protect humpback, fin, and sei whales.

    Below we address three of the four specific changes in the Proposed 
Rule based on the New England Aquarium's longstanding expertise and 
study of the species:

  1.  Expanding the spatial and temporal extent of Seasonal Speed 
            Zones;

  2.  Expanding the vessels subject to the speed restrictions to most 
            vessels greater than or equal to 35 feet (10.7 m) and less 
            than 65 feet (19.8 m); and

  3.  Implementing mandatory speed restrictions in Dynamic Speed Zones, 
            which are established when whales are detected outside of 
            Seasonal Speed Zones.

    The fourth proposed change updates the safety deviation provisions 
in the 2008 Rule. We do not have expertise in this area; consequently, 
we do not address this change.
Expanding the Seasonal Speed Zones

    The New England Aquarium reviewed the proposed Seasonal Speed Zones 
(SSZ) and associated best available science, which supports the 
expansion of the size of the SSZ and the length of time the SSZ are 
active. We support NOAA's approach to determining whether, where, and 
for how long speed restrictions should be in place, which recognizes 
responsible use of the ocean by establishing the smallest spatial and 
temporal footprint needed to protect the species, while allowing for 
vessel activity. Vessel speed restrictions have been used to mitigate 
vessel-strike risk because studies (Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007; Conn 
and Silber, 2013) have shown that the probability of a lethal vessel 
strike increases at higher vessel speeds. The SSZ, which are larger and 
active longer than the Seasonal Management Areas established in the 
2008 Rule, address the shortcomings identified in the 2008 Rule's 
Seasonal Management Areas.
    Analyses of the proximity of NARW vessel strikes to Seasonal 
Management Areas (Laist et al., 2014) and analyses comparing the number 
of NARW struck before and after management measures were implemented 
(NOAA, 2020) suggest that the Seasonal Management Areas have helped to 
reduce vessel strikes of NARW. However, multiple studies and continued 
vessel strikes of NARW since 2008 demonstrate that these areas fall 
short of achieving the risk reduction necessary to prevent extinction 
of NARW. In particular, multiple studies have shown that these Seasonal 
Management Areas are insufficient in both space and time (Schick et 
al., 2009; Laist et al., 2014; van der Hoop et al., 2015). The size of 
the Seasonal Management Areas was likely insufficient when the 2008 
Rule was implemented because nearly one-third of detected NARW vessel 
strike mortalities occurred outside of the managed space but within 
managed timeframes (van der Hoop et al., 2015).
    U.S. East Coast waters represent year-round NARW habitat (Davis et 
al., 2017). The spatial and temporal expansion of the SSZ ensure that 
they are better aligned with NARW habitat, cover areas where previous 
vessel strike mortalities have been detected, and buffer against 
climate-driven changes in NARW habitat. Climate change has caused NARW 
distributions to shift to new areas and has changed the time periods 
over which NARW use different areas (Record et al., 2019; Pendleton et 
al., 2022). For example, NARW have returned to historically important 
areas, such as southern New England shelf waters. Southern New England 
shelf waters were formerly a whaling ground and these waters have 
reemerged as an important NARW habitat (O'Brien et al., 2022). 
Additionally, studies have shown that climate change has resulted in 
the peak usage of Cape Cod Bay by NARW occurring later in the season 
(Pendleton et al., 2022) and in a higher abundance of NARW in Cape Cod 
Bay (Ganley et al., 2022). The expanded SSZ help ensure that vessel 
strike risk is addressed in these areas with documented, climate-driven 
changes in NARW habitat use.
    Additionally, the Proposed Rule will benefit other baleen whale 
species (Redfern et al., 2024). For example, NOAA declared an Unusual 
Mortality Event for humpback whales because of an elevated number of 
humpback whale mortalities along the U.S. East Coast from Maine through 
Florida since 2016 (NOAA, 2023a). This Unusual Mortality Event remains 
active as of June 2024. A total of 224 humpback whale mortality cases 
through June 13, 2024 are included in the UME with 85% of these cases 
(205 cases) detected between Massachusetts and North Carolina. 
Determination of cause of death for recent cases is ongoing. However, 
of the 90 carcasses examined, 40% were attributed to vessel strikes or 
entanglements (NOAA, 2023a). The Proposed Rule establishes a SSZ in 
waters off these states, which would reduce the risk of a lethal vessel 
strike for humpback whales.
Expanding the vessels subject to the speed restriction

    The New England Aquarium supports the Proposed Rule's expansion of 
the vessels subject to the speed restriction to most vessels greater 
than or equal to 35 feet (10.7 m) and less than 65 feet (19.8 m). The 
2008 Rule focused on reducing risk in U.S. waters from vessels over 65 
feet, which were the vessel sizes thought to be the main threat to NARW 
at that time. However, at least five vessel strikes in U.S. waters 
since 2008 (including three after 2020) that resulted in death or 
serious injury involved vessels smaller than 65 feet, which are not 
subject to the mandatory speed restrictions in the 2008 Rule. 
Specifically, a 46-foot vessel struck a NARW off Georgia in 2012, 
resulting in a serious injury (NOAA, 2020). Additionally, a 39-foot 
vessel struck a NARW off Massachusetts in 2014, resulting in propeller 
cuts and serious injury (NOAA, 2020). These individual NARW could not 
be identified because they were not photographed; consequently, the 
ultimate outcome of these strikes are not known. In 2021, a 
reproductive female NARW, Infinity, was seriously injured and her calf 
was killed when they were struck by a 54-foot vessel. Infinity was last 
sighted four days after the strike with deep propeller wounds to her 
side and has not been sighted again as of submission of this testimony 
(NOAA, 2023b). Finally, a months-old calf suffered significant 
propeller wounds to its head in January 2024 and died from those 
injuries in March. Forensic analyses indicate that the vessel 
responsible for the strike was between 35 and 57 feet in length. 
Additional details about this calf's death are provided above.
Mandatory speed restrictions in Dynamic Speed Zones

    Static speed management is not sufficient as a sole strategy to 
reduce vessel strike risk because of variability in species 
distributions. Consequently, it is necessary to include Dynamic Speed 
Zones in the Proposed Rule and for speed restrictions in these Dynamic 
Speed Zones to be mandatory. Over a decade of research on the U.S. East 
and West Coasts shows low compliance with voluntary speed restrictions 
(e.g., McKenna et al., 2012; Silber et al., 2012; Freedman et al., 
2017; Morten et al., 2022). Mandatory speed restrictions were found to 
achieve high compliance when they were implemented and enforced on the 
U.S. East Coast (Silber et al., 2014). This research suggests that 
implementing and enforcing mandatory speed restrictions in areas of 
high risk identified using the best available science will reduce the 
risk of lethal vessel strikes for NARW. To ensure that the Dynamic 
Speed Zones provide the protection needed to reduce vessel strike risk 
requires the continued use of both visual sightings and acoustic 
detections. Both monitoring methods require sufficient effort (e.g., 
surveillance flights and acoustic monitoring stations) to ensure that 
NARW are detected and Dynamic Speed Zones are established.
Conclusion

    On behalf of the New England Aquarium, this testimony is grounded 
in the best available science, consistent with the U.S. statutory laws 
that protect North Atlantic right whales (NARW), and necessary given 
the extinction trajectory of the NARW species. H.R. 8704 would have 
devastating consequences for NARW because it delays NOAA's ability to 
implement its proposed protections from vessel strikes through December 
31, 2030. NOAA's Proposed Rule (NOAA, 2022) is necessary to further 
reduce the likelihood of mortalities and serious injuries to NARW from 
vessel strikes. It has been more than 22 months since NOAA released the 
Proposed Rule on August 1, 2022, and the Final Rule has yet to be 
released. Further delay in releasing the important protections would 
put the critically endangered NARW at continued risk of death and 
serious injury from vessel strikes.
    Scientific evaluation of the changes in the Proposed Rule show that 
these changes contribute to NARW survival by reducing the risk of 
vessel strikes. Specifically, expanding the Seasonal Speed Zones in 
space and time is necessary to ensure that these zones are better 
aligned with NARW habitat (e.g., Davis et al., 2017), cover areas where 
previous vessel strike mortalities have been detected (e.g., van der 
Hoop et al., 2015), and buffer against climate-driven changes in NARW 
habitat (e.g., O'Brien et al., 2022). Expanding the speed restriction 
to most vessels greater than or equal to 35 feet (10.7 m) and less than 
65 feet (19.8 m) is necessary because at least five documented vessel 
strikes in U.S. waters since 2008 (including three after 2020) that 
resulted in death or serious injury involved vessels smaller than 65 
feet (NOAA, 2020; 2023b). Implementing mandatory Dynamic Speed Zones is 
necessary because of variability in species distributions and over a 
decade of research on the U.S. East and West Coasts shows low 
cooperation with voluntary speed restrictions (e.g., McKenna et al., 
2012; Silber et al., 2012; Freedman et al., 2017; Morten et al., 2022).
    Protecting whales through measures known to be effective, such as 
speed restrictions, and funding the development of other approaches, 
including technology, to reduce vessel strike risk are not mutually 
exclusive. However, NARW must survive long enough to benefit from the 
approaches for coexistence that would be funded in H.R. 8704, including 
technology and enhanced awareness. While these approaches are 
developed, assessed, and carried out, we must implement measures known 
to reduce the risk of vessel strike to NARW, such as those included in 
the Proposed Rule that was released nearly two years ago. Recent 
research shows that the Seasonal Speed Zones in the Proposed Rule will 
also protect humpback, fin, and sei whales from vessel strikes. A long 
history of research shows that the 2008 Rule is not sufficient to 
protect NARW. Research also shows that the changes in the Proposed Rule 
reduce the risk of vessel strikes for NARW, especially during 
particularly vulnerable times, like calving season, which occurs from 
November through April. The deaths of three NARW that were caused by 
vessel strikes so far this year have increased the urgency of 
implementing the changes in the Proposed Rule to help curb the current 
trajectory toward the NARW species extinction. The implications for the 
survival of the NARW species are clear: action is needed now to reduce 
vessel strike risk through measures known to be effective, such as 
speed restrictions.
References

Carretta, J.V., Oleson, E.M., Forney, K.A., et al. (2022). U.S. Pacific 
marine mammal stock assessments: 2021. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-663.

Conn, P.B., and Silber, G.K. (2013). Vessel speed restrictions reduce 
risk of collision-related mortality for North Atlantic right whales. 
Ecosphere 4(4), 1-16. doi: 10.1890/ES13-00004.1.

Corkeron, P., Hamilton, P., Bannister, J., et al. (2018). The recovery 
of North Atlantic right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, has been 
constrained by human-caused mortality. Royal Society Open Science 
5(11), 180892. doi: 10.1098/rsos.180892.

Crum, N., Gowan, T., Krzystan, A., and Martin, J. (2019). Quantifying 
risk of whale-vessel collisions across space, time, and management 
policies. Ecosphere 10(4), e02713. doi: 10.1002/ecs2.2713.

Cusano, D.A., Conger, L.A., Van Parijs, S.M., and Parks, S.E. (2019). 
Implementing conservation measures for the North Atlantic right whale: 
considering the behavioral ontogeny of mother-calf pairs. Animal 
Conservation 22(3), 228-237. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12457.

Davis, G.E., Baumgartner, M.F., Bonnell, J.M., et al. (2017). Long-term 
passive acoustic recordings track the changing distribution of North 
Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) from 2004 to 2014. 
Scientific Reports 7(1), 13460. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-13359-3.

Freedman, R., Herron, S., Byrd, et al. (2017). The effectiveness of 
incentivized and non-incentivized vessel speed reduction programs: case 
study in the Santa Barbara channel. Ocean & Coastal Management 148, 31-
39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.07.013.

Ganley, L.C., Byrnes, J., Pendleton, D.E., et al. (2022). Effects of 
changing temperature phenology on the abundance of a critically 
endangered baleen whale. Global Ecology and Conservation 38, e02193. 
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02193.

Garrison, L.P., Adams, J., Patterson, E.M., and Good, C.P. (2022). 
Assessing the risk of vessel strike mortality in North Atlantic right 
whales along the U.S. East Coast. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA NMFS-
SEFSC-757: 42 p.

Glass, A.H., Cole, T.V., and Garron, M. (2010). Mortality and serious 
injury determinations for baleen whale stocks along the United States 
and Canadian Eastern Seaboards, 2004-2008. NOAA Technical Memorandum 
NOAA-TM-NMFS-NE-214, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. doi: https://doi.org/
10.25923/3v2z-j845.

Hamilton, P.K., and Knowlton, A.R. (2021). The power of knowing the 
individual-the North Atlantic Right Whale Catalogs. In Right Whales at 
Risk. Special issue of Whalewatcher. Corkeron. P. ed. 18-23. https://
acs.memberclicks.net/assets/Whalewatchers/Whalewatcher-2021-final.pdf

Hayes, S.H., Josephson, E., Maze-Foley, K., et al. (2022). U.S. 
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments 2021. NOAA 
Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-288. doi: https://doi.org/10.25923/6tt7-
kc16.

Linden, D.W. (2023). Population size estimation of North Atlantic right 
whales from 1990-2022. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOAA-TM-NMFS-NE-314, 
Woods Hole, Massachusetts. doi: https://doi.org/10.25923/3v2z-j845.

Martin, J., Sabatier, Q., Gowan, T.A., et al. (2016). A quantitative 
framework for investigating risk of deadly collisions between marine 
wildlife and boats. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7(1), 42-50. doi: 
10.1111/2041-210X.12447.

McKenna, M.F., Katz, S.L., Condit, C., and Walbridge, S. (2012). 
Response of commercial ships to a voluntary speed reduction measure: 
are voluntary strategies adequate for mitigating ship-strike risk? 
Coastal Management 40(6), 634-650. doi: 10.1080/08920753.2012.727749.

Moore, M.J., Knowlton, A.R., Kraus, S.D., et al. (2004). Morphometry, 
gross morphology and available histopathology in North Atlantic right 
whale (Eubalaena glacialis) mortalities (1970-2002). Journal of 
Cetacean Research and Management 6, 199-214.

Morten, J., Freedman, R., Adams, J.D., et al. (2022). Evaluating 
adherence with voluntary slow speed initiatives to protect endangered 
whales. Frontiers in Marine Science 9. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.833206.

NARWC (2023). North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium Anthropogenic 
Events Database 06/01/2023, Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life at the 
New England Aquarium, Boston, MA, U.S.

NOAA (2020). North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) vessel 
speed rule assessment. Office of Protected Resources.

NOAA (2022). Amendments to the North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike 
Reduction Rule. Federal Register. Document Citation 87 FR 46921. 50 CFR 
Part 224. Docket No. 220722-0162. RIN 0648-BI88.

NOAA (2023a). 2016-2023 Humpback Whale Unusual Mortality Event Along 
the Atlantic Coast. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-
life-distress/2016-2023-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-
atlantic-coast#causes-of-the-humpback-whale-ume.

NOAA (2023b). NOAA 2017-2023 North Atlantic Right Whale Unusual 
Mortality Event. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-
distress/2017-2023-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event.

O'Brien, O., Pendleton, D.E., Ganley, L.C., et al. (2022). Repatriation 
of a historical North Atlantic right whale habitat during an era of 
rapid climate change. Nature Scientific Reports.

Pace, R.M., Williams, R., Kraus, S.D., et al. (2021). Cryptic mortality 
of North Atlantic right whales. Conservation Science and Practice 3(2), 
e346. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.346.

Pendleton, D.E., Tingley, M.W., Ganley, L.C., et al. (2022). Decadal-
scale phenology and seasonal climate drivers of migratory baleen whales 
in a rapidly warming marine ecosystem. Global Change Biology 28(16), 
4989-5005. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16225.

Pettis, H.M., and Hamilton, P.K. (2024). North Atlantic Right Whale 
Consortium 2023 Annual Report Card. Report to the North Atlantic Right 
Whale Consortium.

Pirotta, E., Schick, R.S., Hamilton, P.K., et al. (2023). Estimating 
the effects of stressors on the health, survival and reproduction of a 
critically endangered, long-lived species. Oikos 2023(5), e09801. doi: 
https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.09801.

Record, N.R., Runge, J.A., Pendleton, D.E., et al. (2019). Rapid 
climate-driven circulation changes threaten conservation of endangered 
North Atlantic right whales. Oceanography 32(2), 162-169.

Redfern, J.V., Hodge, B.C., Pendleton, D.E., et al. (2024). Estimating 
reductions in the risk of vessels striking whales achieved by 
management strategies. Biological Conservation 290, 110427. doi: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110427.

Reed, J., New, L., Corkeron, P., and Harcourt, R. (2022). Multi-event 
modeling of true reproductive states of individual female right whales 
provides new insights into their decline. Frontiers in Marine Science 
9. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.994481.

Rockwood, R.C., Adams, J., Silber, G., and Jahncke, J. (2020). 
Estimating effectiveness of speed reduction measures for decreasing 
whale-strike mortality in a high-risk region. Endangered Species 
Research 43, 145-166.

Rockwood, R.C., Calambokidis, J., and Jahncke, J. (2017). High 
mortality of blue, humpback and fin whales from modeling of vessel 
collisions on the U.S. West Coast suggests population impacts and 
insufficient protection. PLOS ONE 12(8), e0183052. doi: 10.1371/
journal.pone.0183052.

Runge, M.C., Linden, D.W., Hostetler, J.A., et al. (2023). A 
management-focused population viability analysis for North Atlantic 
right whales. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOAA-TM-NMFS-NE-307, Woods 
Hole, Massachusetts. doi: https://doi.org/10.25923/3v2z-j845.

Sharp, S.M., McLellan, W.A., Rotstein, D.S., et al. (2019). Gross and 
histopathologic diagnoses from North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena 
glacialis mortalities between 2003 and 2018. Diseases of Aquatic 
Organisms 135(1), 1-31.

Silber, G.K., Adams, J.D., and Bettridge, S. (2012). Vessel operator 
response to a voluntary measure for reducing collisions with whales. 
Endangered Species Research 17(3), 245-254.

Silber, G.K., Adams, J.D., and Fonnesbeck, C.J. (2014). Compliance with 
vessel speed restrictions to protect North Atlantic right whales. PeerJ 
2, e399. doi: 10.7717/peerj.399.

Taylor, J.K.D., Mandelman, J.W., McLellan, W.A., et al. (2013). Shark 
predation on North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the 
southeastern United States calving ground. Marine Mammal Science 29(1), 
204-212. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2011.00542.x.

van der Hoop, J.M., Vanderlaan, A.S.M., Cole, T.V.N., et al. (2015). 
Vessel strikes to large whales before and after the 2008 ship strike 
rule. Conservation Letters 8(1), 24-32. doi: 10.1111/conl.12105.

Vanderlaan, A.S.M., and Taggart, C.T. (2007). Vessel collisions with 
whales: the probability of lethal injury based on vessel speed. Marine 
Mammal Science 23(1), 144-156. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2006.00098.x.

                    Supplement to Written Testimony

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Figure 1. Vessel strikes of North Atlantic right whales since 
1972, including both photographed and unphotographed cases as reported 
in Knowlton et al (2001), Moore et al. (2004), Sharp et al. (2019), 
NOAA (2020), recent North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium report cards, 
and the ongoing Unusual Mortality Event. The 124 cases represented in 
this graph include 46 dead whales and 5 whales that are presumed dead 
from their injuries. These cases also include two females who were 
pregnant at the time of the strike, one female that was struck as a 
calf and died when her injuries reopened during her first pregnancy 14 
years later (Glass et al., 2010), and two females that had dependent 
calves when struck. The dependent calves were too young to survive 
without their mother and are included in this graph as blunt trauma 
mortalities. Studies have shown that whales that survive a strike, but 
experience deep or shallow injuries, suffer negative effects on health, 
reproduction, and survival (Pirotta et al. 2023). These effects are not 
captured in the graph, but provide further evidence of the necessity of 
protecting North Atlantic right whales from vessel strikes.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Figure 2. The 2024 calf of Juno seen with vessel strike 
injuries on January 3, 2024 off Edisto, SC. Credit: Forever Hooked 
Charters of South Carolina. See NOAA Updates page for details: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/north-
atlantic-right-whale-updates#2024-calf-of-juno-(right-whale-1612.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Figure 3. Illustration of the estimated propeller diameter that 
produced the cuts observed on the 2024 calf of Juno (Catalog #1612). An 
estimate of the propeller diameter was obtained using estimated 
measurements of calf's head length and the lengths and spacing of the 
cuts. The estimated propeller diameter suggests that the vessel size 
was between 35 and 57 feet. Credit: NOAA Fisheries, taken under NOAA 
permit #21371. Illustration created by forensic naval architect Paul 
Kamen. See NOAA Updates page for details: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/north-
atlantic-right-whale-updates#2024-calf-of-juno-(right-whale-1612.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Figure 4. The carcass of Catalog #1950, a female North Atlantic 
right whale that was at least 35 years old, was found floating 50 miles 
offshore east of Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Virginia, on March 
30, 2024. Credit: Clearwater Marine Aquarium Research Institute, taken 
under NOAA permit #24359. Aerial survey funded by United States Army 
Corps of Engineers. See NOAA Updates page for details: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/north-
atlantic-right-whale-updates#2024-calf-of-juno-(right-whale-1612.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Dr. Redfern. I now recognize Mr. 
McCurry for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF JAMES (JAMIE) McCURRY, JR., CHIEF ADMIN-
    ISTRATIVE   OFFICER,    GEORGIA   PORTS   AUTHORITY,
    SAVANNAH, GEORGIA

    Mr. McCurry. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me to 
testify today as the Chief Administrative Officer of the 
Georgia Ports Authority. I have 22 years of experience in the 
maritime industry and have witnessed firsthand the critical 
role our ports play in both local and national economies. 
Today, I am here in support of H.R. 8704, a bill introduced by 
Congressman Buddy Carter which seeks to balance environmental 
protection with economic stability and operational safety.
    The Georgia Ports Authority, a public entity of the state 
of Georgia, is dedicated to providing customers with the most 
efficient and productive port facilities in the nation, and to 
creating jobs and business opportunities for our nation's 
benefit. Our ports serve as magnets for international trade and 
investment, supporting critical sectors of our economy such as 
agriculture, manufacturing, and retail. We are committed to 
maintaining a competitive edge through the development of 
leading-edge technology, marketing, and operations to move 
cargo faster. The Authority is constantly working to identify 
what must be done today to sustain growth, performance, and 
security for tomorrow.
    Georgia's deepwater ports in Savannah and Brunswick, 
together with our inland terminals in Chatsworth and 
Bainbridge, are gateways for the world of American commerce. 
They are the critical conduits to which raw materials and 
finished products flow to and from destinations around the 
globe. As one of the state's largest public employers, the GPA 
directly employs approximately 1,800 trained logistics 
professionals. GPA operations, together with private sector 
port-related operations, account for more than 609,000 jobs in 
Georgia alone, including $171 billion in business revenue, and 
generate over $10 billion in Federal tax revenues annually, 
again, in Georgia alone.
    The proposed amendments to the North Atlantic Right Whale 
Vessel Strike Reduction Rule, while well intended, pose a 
significant threat to port operations on the East Coast. These 
changes will lead to extensive delays for piloted services, 
with Savannah experiencing delays of up to 28 days and 
Brunswick up to 9 days, resulting in substantial economic 
losses. Our third-party study indicates that potential job 
losses of up to 26,820 jobs, and a $1.85 billion reduction in 
GDP, again, in Georgia alone.
    The repercussions would be felt nationwide, disrupting 
supply chains and increasing costs for customers. State license 
pilots face significant challenges due to these speed 
restrictions. Reduced speeds compromise their ability to 
navigate safely, particularly in adverse weather conditions. 
For instance, during high wind days, the slower speeds required 
by the rule would make it nearly impossible for pilots to 
safely guide ships, leading to increased risk of accidents and 
port closures. These operational challenges not only threaten 
safety, but also contribute to significant congestion and 
delays, further straining an already overburdened supply chain.
    While the intention behind the rule is to protect the North 
Atlantic right whale, the unintended consequences stand to be a 
dramatic increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Ships idling at 
sea and rerouted cargo would contribute to emissions three 
times higher than those from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long 
Beach combined in 2020. This is an environmental cost that we 
cannot afford.
    The financial burden on East Coast pilots and ports is 
substantial. Compliance costs, including the need for new pilot 
boats and additional crew, are estimated to exceed tens of 
millions of dollars annually. Furthermore, increased legal 
liabilities for pilots will lead to more conservative 
operations, exacerbating delays and congestion.
    In conclusion, while we support the protection of the North 
Atlantic right whale, it is crucial to find a balanced approach 
that safeguards our economy and operational safety. H.R. 8704 
offers a pathway to achieve this balance.
    I urge the Committee to support this bill and work with all 
stakeholders to develop a solution that protects our 
environment and our economic interests, and the critically 
important maritime safety. By doing so, we can ensure the 
continued prosperity of the East Coast ports and the broader 
economy they support. Thank you for your time and 
consideration.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. McCurry follows:]
    
 Prepared Statement of Mr. James C. McCurry, Jr., Chief Administrative 
                    Officer, Georgia Ports Authority
                              
                              on H.R. 8704

    Thank you, Chairman Westerman, Committee Ranking Member Grijalva, 
Subcommittee Chairman Bentz, Subcommittee Ranking Member Huffman for 
inviting me to testify at this hearing. To all of the committee members 
present, I also extend my gratitude for your time and interest in this 
important subject. I speak to you today in support of H.R. 8704 from my 
Congressman Buddy Carter, who represents the entire coast of Georgia, 
including the ports of Brunswick and Savannah.
    As the Chief Administrative Officer of the Georgia Ports Authority, 
I am charged with overseeing Contracts, Properties & Planning; 
Purchasing; Grants Administration; Risk Management & Sustainability; 
Navigation Programs; Governmental Affairs and all legal matters for the 
Authority. I have 22 years of experience in the maritime industry and 
hold a Master of Science degree in Transportation Management from the 
University of Denver.
    The Georgia Ports Authority, a state-owned entity, is dedicated to 
providing customers with the most efficient, productive port facilities 
in the nation, and to creating jobs and business opportunities to our 
nation's benefit. Our ports serve as magnets for international trade 
and investment, supporting critical sectors of our economy such as 
agriculture, manufacturing and retail. We are committed to maintaining 
a competitive edge through development of leading-edge technology, 
marketing and operations to move cargo faster. The Authority works hard 
to identify what must be done today to sustain growth, performance and 
security for tomorrow.
    Georgia's deepwater ports in Savannah and Brunswick, together with 
inland terminals in Chatsworth and Bainbridge are gateways to the world 
for American commerce. They are the critical conduits through which raw 
materials and finished products flow to and from destinations around 
the globe.
    As one of the state's largest public employers, the GPA directly 
employs almost 1,800 trained logistics professionals. The GPA, however, 
generates far more employment throughout the state. GPA operations, 
together with private sector, port-related operations, account for more 
than 609,000 jobs statewide, $171 billion dollars in revenue, and 
generates over $10 billion in federal revenues annually in Georgia 
alone.
    The Port of Savannah, home to the largest single-terminal container 
facility of its kind in North America, is comprised of two modern, 
deepwater terminals: Garden City Terminal and Ocean Terminal. Together, 
these facilities exemplify the GPA's exacting standards of efficiency 
and productivity.
    The Port of Brunswick is comprised of three GPA-owned deepwater 
terminals. The port's well-earned reputation for productivity and 
efficiency is heightened by its position as one of the fastest growing 
auto and heavy machinery ports in North America. Today, more than 12 
major auto manufacturers, supported by three auto processors, utilize 
the Colonel's Island Terminal. The terminal is home to the United 
States' largest and fastest growing Ro-Ro operation.
    The Georgia Ports Authority has joined other East Coast Port 
Authorities, Maritime Terminal Operators, Harbor Pilots and other 
maritime-focused interests in opposing NOAA's proposed ``Amendments to 
the North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike Reduction Rule'' since it 
was released. NOAA did not take into account or properly weigh several 
critical factors when developing the proposed changes to the existing 
rule. The proposed rule raises considerable life and safety concerns 
and would cause further delays to an already strained supply chain. If 
implemented, this rule change will create significant congestion at our 
nation's ports--resulting in substantial detrimental effects on the 
nation's economy.
    The GPA understands the need for reasonable regulations to protect 
the North Atlantic Right Whale and is committed to that effort. In 
fact, we have implemented several voluntary measures throughout the 
years to help protect the critically endangered species. Recently, CMA-
CGM, in partnership with the GPA, launched an acoustic monitoring buoy 
off the coast of Savannah to increase North Atlantic right whale 
detection efforts.
    Furthermore, we agree that it is important to monitor the 
effectiveness of vessel speed regulations to reduce vessel strikes. 
However, it is also critical to find balance between American economic 
priorities and conservation goals. The GPA believes that present 
regulations offer sufficient protection while a more thoroughly vetted 
solution, including modern technological monitoring is developed.
    The GPA is concerned that NOAA's recently proposed changes to the 
existing vessel speed rule will negatively affect the safe transit of 
ocean-going vessels during the designated seasonal management window. 
State-licensed pilots are expected to act in the public interest, and 
to maintain a professional judgment that comports with the needs of 
maritime safety. In addition, state and federal licensing and 
regulatory authorities require compulsory pilots to take all reasonable 
actions to prevent ships under their navigational control from engaging 
in unsafe operations.
    Local pilots must consider hydrological, meteorological and many 
other factors for safe navigation. These considerations greatly affect 
maneuverability and steering controls--particularly at slower speeds 
for larger vessels when transiting our nation's harbors.
    The NOAA-proposed speed restriction requires slower speeds for 
pilot boats, which will lead to reduced service capacity and ship 
delays along virtually the entire Eastern seaboard. Without speed as an 
effective tool to overcome other navigational influences, ocean-going 
cargo vessels will be unable to safely traverse our nation's harbors 
under currently normal operating conditions--resulting in temporary 
port closures and significant congestion outside the affected harbors. 
When ship delays increase, shippers will reroute to other ports 
resulting in further congestion elsewhere.
    It is highly unlikely that ships will wait at sea for weeks or 
months for a berth and will seek alternative ports not impacted by this 
rule--ports in South Florida, the Gulf Coast or the West Coast. These 
alternative sites do not have the ability to absorb 40% to 50% of the 
affected ports' volumes and would quickly back up as well--resulting in 
pandemic era or worse supply chain disruptions.
    Freight moves based upon connectivity and cost. This rerouted cargo 
would have an increased impact on the environment compared to current 
operations--as it would be moving a greater distance over land at a 
greater cost to the shipper. The resultant cost increases would be 
passed along to the consumer and cause significant inflationary impacts 
to the American economy.
    The potential increases of greenhouse gas emissions from the 
landside transportation of rerouted cargo are merely a fraction of what 
the emission impacts of vessels anchored at sea, waiting for weeks for 
a berth. As inbound vessels arrive and congestion sets in, cargo delays 
will also continue to increase. In Savannah and Brunswick, maximum peak 
days could see over 200 vessels per day waiting at anchorage. Over 1.8 
million metric tons of GHG emissions may be emitted in Georgia alone as 
a result of these vessels--potentially 3 times higher than the 2020 
vessel emissions for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach combined.
    NOAA's economic impact assessment for the newly proposed rule does 
not consider any additional negative impacts to ocean-going vessels 
because they are already regulated under the existing rule. The changes 
in deviation reporting and enforcement proposed under this rule, 
however, greatly alter the enforcement and oversight of necessary 
deviations, thereby greatly expanding the impacts on ocean-going 
vessels.
    The negative economic impact of this proposed rule equates to the 
loss of up to an estimated 1,283 diverted cargo ships destined for 
Georgia port facilities. Amongst other cargoes, these diverted ships 
would include up to 3.1 million TEUs, equating to an estimated loss of 
$3.8 Billion in revenue for Georgia businesses, 26,820 Georgia jobs, 
$1.3 billion in personal income and $1.85 billion in GDP--far 
surpassing the total negative economic impacts assumed by the 2022 
Draft Regulatory Impact Review and Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis of this proposed rule for the entire East Coast.
    We have highly encouraged NOAA to consult with appropriate federal 
partners to assess the full scope of the impacts of their proposal. The 
United States Coast Guard is a key partner of the maritime sector in 
protecting the safe and efficient movement of cargo into and out of our 
nation's ports. The Environmental Protection Agency can thoroughly 
assess the significant negative air quality impacts that ships anchored 
off the Eastern seaboard would generate. Congress should also further 
consider their priorities regarding the massive economic disruptions 
created by NOAA's proposition.
    Congressman Carter's legislation, if enacted, would pause NOAA's 
otherwise well-intentioned proposal until technology authorized by H.R. 
8704 can implement safeguards for the North Atlantic Right Whale 
without the significantly negative commercial and life-safety issues 
created by it.
    In support of our nation's agricultural, manufacturing and retail 
interests and the hundreds of millions of Americans who rely upon the 
efficient flow of commerce, the Georgia Ports Authority would highly 
encourage the members of this committee to support H.R. 8704.

                                 ______
                                 
    Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Jamie McCurry, Chief 
            Administrative Officer, Georgia Ports Authority

              Questions Submitted by Representative Bentz

    Question 1. Mr. McCurry, one issue with NOAA's proposed amendments 
to the North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike Reduction Rule that the 
Georgia Ports Authority raised in its comments to NOAA was the proposed 
change to the rule's deviation clause.

    1a) Could you expand on how the requirements included in NOAA's 
proposed rule would be burdensome to pilots and operators?

    Question 2. Mr. McCurry, during the hearing there was a reference 
made to the Port of Los Angeles' Vessel Speed Reduction Program, a 
voluntary speed restriction program that has been in place for more 
than a decade. However, the Program's guidelines note that while there 
are incentives awarded for achieving certain compliance percentages, it 
is noted that this is a voluntary program.

    2a) Could you talk about the difference between voluntary programs 
put in place at ports like Los Angeles versus the wide-ranging 
implications of NOAA's proposed amendments to the North Atlantic Right 
Whale Vessel Strike Reduction Rule?

                                Response

    On behalf of the Georgia Ports Authority, I would like to thank you 
for the opportunity to testify before your committee last week. I 
appreciated the discussion and certainly hope I was able to clarify any 
questions you may have had on how NOAA's proposed Vessel Speed Rule 
will negatively affect the port industry in America and all of the 
nation's economic sectors--like agriculture, manufacturing, and 
retail--that rely upon the efficient flow of commerce.
    During the hearing, it became clear that some committee members 
have been misinformed about the proposed rules' changes to existing 
practices when it comes to deviating for the purposes of navigational 
safety. I appreciate the opportunity to extend my remarks and offer 
some clarity.
NOAA's Proposed Deviation Clause Criminalizes Real-time Navigational 
        Decisions

    Each pilotage assignment normally begins with a conference between 
the pilot and the master, often referred to as the Master-Pilot 
Exchange or MPX. The MPX is an opportunity not only to exchange 
information that the pilot and master each need, but also for the pilot 
and the master to establish an appropriate working relationship that 
will continue throughout the pilotage assignment. A mutually supportive 
and trusting relationship between the pilot and the ship's master/
bridge crew is a critical component of navigation safety in pilotage 
waters.
    NOAA's language describing the navigation safety deviation clause 
will, however, negatively impact the dynamics of the critical Master/
Pilot Relationship. The language overtly criminalizes real-time 
decisions about safe navigation that vessel masters and pilots must 
make. Specifically, the proposed new regulatory language states, ``it 
is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. to 
commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to cause 
to be committed any speed violation with a vessel subject to the 
restrictions.'' This pronounced emphasis on criminality will 
undoubtedly strain the relationship between the pilot, in charge of 
directing the ship's navigation and protecting the marine environment, 
and the master, responsible for the overall safety of the vessel and 
responsible to the shipping company.
    If this relationship is damaged or compromised, there will be 
negative consequences. The proposed changes to the navigation safety 
deviation clause will cause masters and pilots, at a critical point 
when they are considering whether to increase speed for the safety of 
the ship--and its crew, passengers, and cargo--to be worrying about 
whether their decision could subject them to criminal penalties, 
including imprisonment.
    Because the proposed regulation envisions the master and pilot 
agreeing upon the need to deviate from the speed limitation and 
concurring on all the details to be submitted in the Safety Deviation 
Report, a lack of understanding, hesitation, or unwillingness on the 
part of masters to invoke the deviation clause can create tension 
between the master and pilot. This would negatively impact what should 
be a mutually supportive and cooperative relationship.
The proposed ``Safety Deviation Report'' is Unworkable

    NOAA wants to better monitor the use of the navigation safety 
deviation clause in its new proposed amendment. However, the proposed 
alternative is both dangerous and unworkable. The changes to the 
reporting requirements in the 2008 rule would jeopardize navigational 
safety by distracting pilots and masters--at precisely the wrong time--
from focusing squarely on safely navigating large ocean-going vessels 
in the constricted waters of FNCs.
    Additionally, the proposed amendments to the deviation clause are 
unworkable as drafted. Rather than create a new, unwieldy, and 
dangerous new regulatory scheme, NOAA should instead require the 
submission of relevant sections of the ship's log within 30 days of 
invoking the navigation safety deviation clause. This will not only 
allow NOAA to gather, in a timely manner, the information it requires, 
but it will also not unnecessarily distract professional mariners from 
the duties to navigate large merchant vessels safely.
    Furthermore, the requirement for the vessel operator to submit a 
``Safety Deviation Report'' to NMFS within 48 hours of using the 
deviation clause is impracticable, and the detailed reporting 
requirements are lengthy, detailed, and extremely cumbersome. The 
proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements will require 
considerable time to gather the information (if it, in fact, is even 
available in some offshore waters), compile it, fill out the form, and 
transmit it to NMFS. Further, if the vessel is under pilotage, ``the 
pilot must attest to the accuracy of the information contained in the 
report.'' Even though NMFS proposes to allow 48 hours for the Safety 
Deviation Report to be submitted, the only practical way to comply with 
the rule would be for the master to complete the Report in near real-
time and the pilot to remain on the ship to review and ``attest'' to 
the information on the form.
    It is unrealistic to expect that the pilot could depart the ship to 
service other ships, the ship would transit off to the next port of 
call, and then the pilot and master would correspond electronically 
over the next two days to complete, agree upon, and submit the form to 
NMFS. It is simply not realistic to expect such a process to be 
practical or workable.
    Our industry strongly recommends NMFS reconsider its 
criminalization of the decision to use a safety speed deviation, 
especially for vessels operating in areas of restricted maneuverability 
like FNCs and pilot boarding areas. We also believe that NOAA should 
instead require that when a ship opts to exercise the navigation safety 
deviation clause and exceed 1O knots, the shipping interests must 
submit the relevant portions of the ship's log (e.g., the log entry 
information currently required by 50 CFR Sec. 224.105) to NMFS within 
30 days. Requiring the prompt submission of relevant portions of the 
ship's log, which is an official document with significant legal 
standing both in the U.S. and internationally, will provide NMFS with 
timely access to information pertaining to the use of the navigation 
safety deviation clause by large ocean-going vessels.
Federally Required Speed Rules Preclude Safe Passage in Georgia Harbors

    Every port in America is served by harbor pilots who are charged by 
their state with preventing vessel operations that might pose a danger 
to navigation or to the state's environment and economy. The official 
responsibility of these state-licensed pilots is to protect the marine 
environment as they ensure the safe and efficient movement of maritime 
commerce. To fulfill that mission, pilots are required to not only have 
detailed knowledge of local waters, but also expected to be world-class 
ship handlers, and to understand how ships and their pilot boats 
interact with each other and the elements. Pilots along the East Coast 
are intimately familiar with the oceanography, hydrographic, and 
meteorological conditions of Federal Navigation Channels FNCs) and 
waterways in which the speed restrictions would apply.
    Unlike airline pilots who experience more uniform approaches to 
airport runways, seaport runways or Federal Navigation Channels are all 
unique. The diversity of our nation's FNCs dictates distinctive 
challenges to the safe and efficient operation of commercial vessels at 
every port. Since this rule affects the speed of vessels offshore, a 
review of the dimensions of the entrance channels at key ports is 
appropriate.


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    The data above shows the dimensions of the three California 
ports--San Francisco, Los Angeles and Long Beach have very wide and 
very short entrance channels with ample available depth. Georgia's port 
entrance channels are much narrower, longer, and shallower than their 
West Coast peers. Navigational challenges where speed becomes a 
critical consideration are more prevalent along the Georgia coast due 
primarily to FNC dimensions at these ports.
    The maneuverability of large, deep-draft ocean vessels is already 
restricted by the depths and width in Georgia's much longer entrance 
channels. The vessels are limited in how far they might be able to turn 
or alter course based on their deep drafts and other tidal 
considerations. The NARW vessel strike rules compound the dangers of 
navigating these large vessels by limiting the ability of pilots to use 
the necessary speed to maintain safe navigation in these waters.
    These entrance channels are perpendicular to the high winds and 
currents that are prevalent in the winter months. The perpendicular 
winds and currents often demand increased speed to keep these vessels 
on track. It is in these offshore, unsheltered, and restricted 
channels--with the challenging combination of strong currents, confused 
winds, heavy vessel traffic, and proximity to dangerous shoal waters--
where Savannah and Brunswick's state-licensed pilots ply their trade. 
Due to the rapid growth in length, width, sail area, and draft of 
vessels calling at Georgia's ports, our concerns about the ability of 
pilots to safely navigate in narrow and challenging FNC waters have 
only increased since mandatory NARW speed restrictions began in 2008.
    Furthermore, California's voluntary Vessel Speed Reduction Program 
(VSRP) was crafted to reduce diesel particulate matter, nitrous oxides, 
and other greenhouse gas emissions from ocean-going vessels, not to 
reduce impacts on sea life . This program was established in 
partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency and various 
California-based air quality regulatory agencies and offers financial 
incentives to encourage participants to comply.
    Conversely, a federally required speed reduction rule will have the 
opposite effect in Georgia, where air quality is not subject to EPA-
mandated remediation efforts. Requiring harbor pilots to delay ship 
movements due to safety considerations created by this proposed rule 
will cause ships to remain at anchor offshore and unnecessarily emit 
additional particulates into an otherwise pristine environment. Cargo 
that diverts to other ports will be required to travel further to or 
from inland destinations, creating additional emissions throughout the 
Southeast.
    Thank you again for allowing us to testify before your committee 
and for including this additional information into the record.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. McCurry. I thank all the 
witnesses for their testimony, and we will now recognize 
Members for 5 minutes each for questions.
    Congresswoman Hageman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you very much, and thank the witnesses 
for being here today.
    I am on the Judiciary Committee, and we recently had a 
hearing related to the anti-trust aspects of the ESG radical 
agenda. And it is a radical agenda. One of the things that 
became clear during the course of that particular hearing is 
that they are coming for our food. And this is yet another 
example of that. The areas that they have targeted the most are 
our energy industry, our airline industry, and then they have 
also made clear that they want to go after the livestock and 
agriculture industry.
    And again, I think that this is partly an extension of that 
when they adopt regulations that will destroy entire 
communities and entire industries that have done just an 
absolutely phenomenal job of taking care of our environment and 
protecting our various wildlife and fisheries species.
    Mr. McCurry, the grant program established in H.R. 8704 is 
supposed to help deploy innovative technologies and best 
practices to limit vessel strikes with whales. And what are 
some of the best practices, and why is the funding provided 
through this grant program necessary to assist with that?
    Mr. McCurry. Well, I can offer one example that we have 
employed at the Port of Savannah in partnership with CMA CGM. 
We have deployed a buoy that can help locate the North Atlantic 
right whales that are in the area of the navigation channel, so 
that ships will be aware of their presence and know to avoid 
them. It is that type of technology that is pinpointing the 
presence of a whale or any other species. I think the 
technology is available to do a lot of things that can, in the 
time of need, allow for pilots and the maritime crews on the 
vessels to perform in a safe manner while not, I guess, 
overdoing that on a constant basis during the season.
    Ms. Hageman. And you have demonstrated that you can operate 
in a safe manner and protect the species, as well. Isn't that 
true?
    Mr. McCurry. That is correct. In fact, to our knowledge, 
there has never been a vessel strike by a pilot boat anywhere 
on the East Coast, and certainly not in Georgia. In fact, the 
pilot boats that are used in Georgia, and I think in most 
states, are actually jet propulsion vessels, so they do not 
contribute to the problem that this rule is seeking to avoid.
    Ms. Hageman. And what is interesting to me is that, when we 
are going after your industry, or this Administration is going 
after and attempting to destroy this industry, and as you say, 
disrupt and impact the supply chain, it will impact our ability 
to bring goods and materials into the country. And these are 
the same people who are advocating for massive wind farms off 
the coast that we know do have an impact upon the right whale 
and other species, including birds and other marine species. 
So, it is just so interesting to me that they want to destroy a 
very successful industry that has done a great job of 
protecting a variety of species, while also advocating for 
things that we know are destructive.
    I am going to direct my questions to Mr. Strong.
    Mr. Strong, in your opinion, why is the funding provided 
through the grant program established in this legislation 
necessary for implementing some of these best practices that we 
just talked about?
    Mr. Strong. Thank you. In our experience, the technology 
vastly does exist. It is unfortunate that NOAA has chosen not 
to include our industry during what was supposed to be 
collaboration. They didn't reach out. When they were finally 
forced to reach out, and they had a technology conference, that 
was after their submission for the rule. So, the findings and 
the information during that technology conference were never 
even included.
    For the funding aspect of it, it is our industry's belief 
that the vast majority of technology does exist, but is not 
well integrated currently. So, the funding of this would help 
to advance the timeline of being able to integrate multiple 
technologies that do exist, again, as I testified earlier 
briefly, much like Waze is for cars. A similar type application 
could be applied for boats that would show right up on the 
vessel screen, along with other fishing regulations and things 
that would be helpful for boaters.
    Ms. Hageman. Dr. Howell, why didn't you reach out to the 
industry to address the technology that is available?
    Dr. Howell. The team did hold the Advanced Technology 
Workshop, and they reached out to the people I think that they 
felt were there. I am not sure. I can get back to the team to 
understand how the list of participants was selected.
    Ms. Hageman. I would sure like to know why you would 
exclude the very industry that is involved in developing the 
technology and has the expertise. It is just so interesting to 
me that they would be excluded when you are talking about 
adopting a rule of this magnitude that would essentially 
destroy their industry. Don't you think you should have?
    Dr. Howell. I would like to focus on two things. One is 
there are two separations, the Vessel Speed Rule itself and 
then the advanced technology incorporation, which we----
    Ms. Hageman. Well, my question is, don't you think you 
should have reached out to the industry to get their input from 
the beginning, so that you understand what kind of technology 
is available in the industry itself? It is a yes or no 
question.
    Dr. Howell. Our intention was to include the people that 
are necessary for this.
    Ms. Hageman. But apparently you didn't reach out to the 
industry.
    Dr. Howell. I won't say that I didn't reach out to 
industry----
    Ms. Hageman. Well, they are saying that you didn't.
    Mr. Bentz. The Congresswoman's time has expired.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Huffman. Yes, and just to clarify, because there has 
been so much hyperbole and performative stuff in the last 5 
minutes, I heard the gentleman from NOAA say he did reach out 
to the industry, but apparently maybe not this specific 
technology, this specific company.
    Dr. Howell, I am sure you would be happy to hear more about 
that. And if there is a wonderful fix here through technology, 
I am sure you would love to consider that in your rulemaking. 
Is that fair to say?
    Dr. Howell. That is fair.
    Mr. Huffman. All right, thank you. Yes, hyperbole is 
getting a bad name in this Subcommittee. Apparently, there is 
some other world somewhere where a vast conspiracy of hyper-
woke Democrats is trying to ruin entire industries. I don't 
know where that world is, but I want to bring us back to this 
world, where there has been a lot of misinformation about this 
vessel speed reduction issue.
    So, I want to ask you, Dr. Redfern, what does the science 
tell us is the best tool that we currently have to save right 
whales from extinction?
    Dr. Redfern. There are two threats that right whales are 
facing: entanglements and vessel strikes. We are talking about 
vessel strikes today. The scientific evidence is clear that the 
revisions NOAA proposed to the 2008 Vessel Speed Rule will 
reduce the risk of vessel strikes for right whales, and that is 
critically important to curbing the trajectory towards 
extinction for this species.
    Mr. Huffman. And is there a percentage of death reduction 
that has been calculated from a Vessel Speed Rule?
    Dr. Redfern. Yes, and that has been calculated in two 
different ways, and I find that really important because when 
we use different methods that show the same thing, I have 
confidence in those results. They are robust, any of the 
assumptions going into them. And both of them are showing on 
the order of 20 to 30 percent risk reductions.
    Mr. Huffman. All right, thank you. Under the Endangered 
Species Act, if a boater injures or kills a North Atlantic 
right whale, they are liable, correct?
    Dr. Redfern. I would like to pass that to Dr. Howell.
    Mr. Huffman. All right, Dr. Howell, am I correct?
    Dr. Howell. I don't have the direct answer for that.
    Mr. Huffman. That is a take.
    Dr. Howell. Yes.
    Mr. Huffman. I can answer it. How is that?
    Dr. Howell. Yes.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Huffman. So, I am just wondering how an individual 
boater can reduce their risk of striking and killing a right 
whale if they are operating in a seasonal North Atlantic right 
whale migratory zone. If there is a better way for them to 
avoid that individual liability, I would love to hear about it. 
Maybe the technology Mr. Strong talked about can help them in 
that regard, but it seems like vessel speed rules would also be 
of great benefit to avoiding that individual liability.
    Dr. Redfern, is there technology currently available and 
employed that can save right whales in the absence of a speed 
rule?
    Dr. Redfern. The technology is not yet ready or available.
    One of the things that is critical about technology and 
other approaches to reducing vessel strike is that they need to 
be rigorously evaluated so that we can understand exactly the 
risk reduction that they provide, and compare that to measures 
we know are effective, such as rerouting vessels or slowing 
vessels down.
    And I just want to point out the history that there is a 
lot of research that shows that slowing vessels down reduces 
the risk of a lethal strike to whales. It also gives whales and 
the boaters more time to react if a whale is detected in front 
of them so they can take the actions they need to avoid the 
strike.
    Mr. Huffman. And you talked about the impact of losing a 
reproductively mature female right whale. Mothers and calves 
are particularly important to protect for this population, 
right?
    Dr. Redfern. Yes.
    Mr. Huffman. And where do mothers and calves spend most of 
their time?
    Dr. Redfern. I looked into this before the hearing. A study 
shows that they are spending 70 percent of their time at or 
near the surface.
    Another point I want to make, because it is really relevant 
to the technology discussion, mothers and calves are not 
calling, and that is why buoys to detect calling whales are not 
going to be as successful for mothers and calves down in the 
southeast, where they are not calling. So, that is something 
else that we need to be thinking about and working on. And the 
Aquarium is committed to working with our partners to find 
technological solutions, we just have to make sure right whales 
survive long enough to benefit from those technologies.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. And you also gave important 
testimony to show that we are not just hypothesizing that 
smaller vessels between 35 and 65 feet can kill right whales. 
You have hard data showing that that has happened, right?
    Dr. Redfern. Yes.
    Mr. Huffman. And we know that those are just the examples 
you have been able to confirm. So, there are surely others.
    Dr. Redfern. That is exactly right. There have been five 
since the 2008 Vessel Speed Rule, and three of them since 2021.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Dr. Redfern.
    Just to close, look, I don't want to arbitrarily do 
anything that harms boaters. I like boats, I like recreating on 
them. I have probably done more of that than most members of 
this Committee, Mr. Graves has probably spent more time than me 
on the water, but not many others do. So, I would not be 
supporting this common-sense approach NOAA has taken if I 
didn't think it was absolutely necessary to save the North 
Atlantic right whale.
    And I also know, in response to some of the doom and gloom 
we have heard about vessel speed reductions, that it happens 
all the time. In the West Coast, we have voluntary speed 
reductions. I am sure the Port of Georgia is very important. 
So, is the Port of Los Angeles, and Long Beach, and Oakland, 
where we have had voluntary speed reductions from big-time 
shippers just because they want to do the right thing. And the 
world didn't come to an end.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Mr. Graves, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you.
    Mr. McCurry, why don't we have a 5 mile-per-hour speed 
limit on the interstates?
    Mr. McCurry. Well, I suppose that has to do with safety.
    Mr. Graves. So, if we put a 5 mile-per-hour speed limit on 
interstates, it would probably be safer, but it would take 
approximately forever for people to get places, right?
    Mr. McCurry. I would argue that it would be less safe to 
have that kind of speed on the interstate, but yes, it would 
take forever to get anywhere.
    Mr. Graves. Yes, all right. I am just curious. So, there 
are probably other considerations and a balance in the overall 
kind of thinking through.
    Mr. McCurry. Absolutely.
    Mr. Graves. Yes, all right. Just curious.
    Ms. Guyas, in your testimony, you talk about how MRIP is 
used. I think you said East Coast, Gulf, and then you said 
Hawaii. You said over to Hawaii. And I am not a geography 
major, but I just noted that you didn't make reference to the 
West Coast. Can you talk a little bit about that background, 
and perhaps why that wasn't explicitly included?
    Ms. Guyas. Yes, thanks for that question. The West Coast 
states used to participate in a data collection system that was 
federally run prior to MRIP. That was called, the acronym is 
MRFSS, and at the time, about 20 years ago, some of the states 
over there were running their own surveys on top of that, and 
they decided that they would, 20 years ago, stop with the 
Federal program. And each state, California, Oregon, and 
Washington, has their own survey that they have been doing for 
20 years that is used for management.
    Mr. Graves. Could you say that again? I just wanted to make 
sure I heard you. For Oregon, Washington, and California, they 
what?
    Ms. Guyas. They all have their own state surveys that they 
use instead of MRIP.
    Mr. Graves. Wow, that is fascinating.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Graves. Fascinating, fascinating. I am sorry. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Huffman. If the gentleman wants to yield, I can 
demystify it for him, but maybe you would prefer to preserve 
the mystery.
    Mr. Graves. No, I have to tell you, I feel like I have 
heard enough out of you for a lifetime, a lifetime.
    Mr. Huffman. Let the mystery----
    Mr. Graves. No. For those of you who don't know, Mr. 
Huffman is a friend of mine. He really is. We violently 
disagree on things, and only one of us is rational, but he is a 
friend of mine.
    Ms. Guyas, can you talk about some of the issues we have 
had with calibration in the Gulf?
    And I made comments earlier in my opening statement about 
translating, converting, calibrating, and talked about going 
State to Federal versus Federal to State, and just how you 
effectively dilute accuracy. Could you talk about that a bit?
    Ms. Guyas. Yes, thanks for that question, too.
    As you know, each of the Gulf states has their own survey 
for red snapper, and maybe other species too. In the case of 
Louisiana, their survey covers everything, right?
    So, one of the ongoing struggles that has been going on in 
the Gulf of Mexico with red snapper is how to calibrate or, in 
other words, convert from MRIP, which used to be used to 
monitor that fishery, to now these state data programs because 
you do need to be able to compare what has happened in the past 
and what was caught with MRIP versus what is being monitored 
and caught now under the state programs.
    And we have had situations with some of the states. I will 
use the example of Mississippi, because I think it is an easy 
one to follow. So, Mississippi, when they were using MRIP to 
track red snapper landings, they would have years where MRIP 
was telling them no red snapper were landed, which they knew 
was not true. And then it was kind of scattershot otherwise, 
where they would have really high landings or really low. So, 
the program that they have developed is called Tails and 
Scales. They are able to get much more refined information from 
the anglers that are out there fishing for red snapper. It is a 
lot more reliable.
    And one of the struggles with calibration has been with 
Mississippi. How do we calibrate this program that was very 
inconsistent and we know does not paint a good picture of what 
has happened, really, in the past with this program that seems 
to be a lot more reliable? And the approach has been to 
calibrate all of the state surveys back to MRIP, which is not 
being used anymore for red snapper, and has some issues.
    So, there have been a lot of conversations about the best 
way to do that. I feel like it is still an ongoing 
conversation. Does that help answer your question?
    Mr. Graves. Yes, it was very helpful. I do want to push 
back on one thing you said in regard to not catching any fish 
in Mississippi in one year. I have seen them fish there before, 
and I wouldn't be shocked at all if that were the case.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Graves. Just kidding.
    Dr. Howell, I would like to ask you, in regard to your 
testimony about a bill, I noticed that you talked about 
sections related to improving recreational fishing data 
collection. However, we did try to incorporate some of the 
lessons learned from the great red snapper count into that. Is 
it reasonable that more consistent surveys of that type, the 
independent type like the great red snapper count, would help 
to improve or fill in the gaps on some of the stock 
assessments?
    Dr. Howell. The great red snapper count represented one of 
the biggest studies that was ever done on red snapper at one 
point in time. Using the technology that was in there is 
definitely a way that we could look to try to get more towards 
absolute or a better abundance estimate than we use just from 
the survey.
    So, we have been investing IRA money. We have about $10 
million that is going into a workshop, $2 million of this for 
just the optical system. So, look at a mini-great red snapper 
count, more every year.
    Mr. Graves. Great. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. We are going to go into recess now until after 
votes. They were called, so we will see you in an hour-and-a-
half or so.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Bentz. The hearing will come to order. The Chair 
recognizes Congressman Carter for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank you 
for allowing me to waive on.
    Mr. McCurry, thank you again for being here. As I said in 
my opening statement, Georgia's ports have seen tremendous 
growth over the past few years, and a few decades, to be quite 
honest with you, and they have seen significant investments 
into the infrastructure required for our ports. And I didn't 
say, but I want to say the Georgia ports are the economic 
engine of the Southeast. And when I say Southeast, I don't mean 
southeast Georgia, I mean the Southeast. The impact of the 
Georgia ports are felt all the way up to the Ohio Valley, as 
you know, and as I hope everybody knows.
    Mr. McCurry, could you expand on the potential impacts this 
rule could have on port operations?
    Mr. McCurry. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
    I think that, first and foremost, none of us, I believe I 
speak for everybody here, want to see any right whales injured, 
much less killed for one reason or another. But when you look 
at the practical impacts that the proposed rule would have on 
operations at the Port of Savannah, the Port of Brunswick, any 
port along the East Coast, most of the ports on the East Coast 
are in the zone affected, you run into two things. With the 
size of the pilot vessels having to be restricted, or the speed 
restricted in lieu of a size change, the lives and the safety 
of the pilots are perversely at danger.
    And when considerations offshore, which is, obviously, 
prevalent all the time, particularly during the winter season 
and into the early spring, what would happen if the pilots 
cannot go out and access the vessels for transit on schedule, 
then they will just have to wait. Particularly with the element 
of criminalization of the decision to adjust the speeds of the 
vessels that are necessary for safely transiting the channels, 
you are looking at, in all likelihood, supply chain delays that 
probably exceed those that we saw during the pandemic because 
of the delay of vessels being able to safely transit channels.
    In terms of the ships themselves, the speed of the vessel 
must constantly be adjusted to maintain safe transit. I think 
that we have seen an unfortunate accident--now, granted, it was 
because of the loss of power and, therefore, steerage of a 
vessel very near here, in Baltimore. But if you can't 
constantly adjust the speed of the vessel in and out of a port, 
then you obviously are at risk of a grounding or a collision, 
vessels colliding with one another, or potentially even a 
vessel colliding with buildings along a channel, such as what 
you see in Savannah and other places.
    So, it is not about a preference of rule or no rule. It is 
about smart rulemaking, and providing for the safety above all 
else of the maritime traffic.
    Mr. Carter. If you had a backlog, like could potentially 
happen because the ships couldn't get into port in a timely 
fashion, how would that impact the competitiveness of the ports 
on the East Coast?
    Mr. McCurry. Well, I think that, practically speaking, 
those delays become such that the ships have to find other 
ports to go to. So, there is an economic impact to the ports 
along the East Coast by virtue of vessels departing to go to 
other places.
    There is also, as I stated earlier in my testimony, the 
environmental impacts of vessels having to steam longer or 
simply sit at anchor with their engines running. That creates 
additional greenhouse gas emissions that we don't want to see, 
either.
    So, there are economic consequences to not just, selfishly, 
the ports that want the business, but to the cost of moving 
goods on the East Coast and the businesses that are in place 
along the East Coast that will be affected by that. And then 
there is an environmental impact by the longer transit and 
longer steaming times at anchor.
    Mr. Carter. Right. Well, as you know, we have the largest 
single economic development project ever in the state of 
Georgia close to the Savannah port in the 1st District that I 
have the honor and privilege of representing, a $5.5 billion 
investment by Hyundai that is going to create 8,100 jobs. We 
are having enormous growth in our area. If this rule were to go 
into effect, what kind of impact would it have on the future of 
the Savannah port, as well as the Brunswick port?
    Mr. McCurry. I think, at a minimum, you are talking about a 
significant increase in the cost of moving goods, so the good 
movement often finds the path of least resistance, both 
financially and in terms of the time to get to and from 
markets. So, it could have a significant economic impact on the 
ports in your district.
    But honestly, the same applies up and down the East Coast, 
the ports that are also going to be impacted by this.
    Mr. Carter. Great. Again, thank you for being here today.
    Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for allowing me to waive on.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman Hoyle for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Hoyle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to yield my 
time to Mr. Huffman.
    Mr. Huffman. Through the Chair, I would like to thank the 
gentlelady from Oregon.
    Director Howell, I want to ask you some questions about 
this data MRIP issue.
    And my colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Graves, is right. We 
are friends. But as I said off mic, sometimes that is not easy, 
because my friend, Mr. Graves, did a little something that you 
hear in congressional debates quite often. I think those who 
were here for my opening remarks heard me say quite plainly 
that the data we use on the Federal side for recreational 
fishing is not great. It is flawed. It needs to get better, and 
we are in the process of trying to make it better. I have 
worked with Mr. Graves, in fact, to push NOAA to work with 
states in order to make that data set much better and much less 
uncertain.
    So, what my friend from Louisiana did in his time was to 
say that I regard the Federal data as sacred, that I am trying 
to protect it, I consider it sacrosanct. And then, once you 
have set up that straw man, you attack it. And that is how we 
debate things here in Congress. But I hope folks who are 
following along know that that little sleight of hand is not 
exactly accurate or fair. Our data is not great, Dr. Howell, I 
don't think you would disagree with that when it comes to 
recreational fishing. And I want to talk to you a little bit 
about that.
    But first of all, before I get there, let's circle back to 
the North Atlantic right whale for just one moment, because 
some concerns were raised about human safety and the fact that 
these vessel speed reductions, if there is a storm, if there is 
an emergency, that boaters could really be put at risk by an 
arbitrary 10 knot vessel speed reduction. Tell me a little more 
about the flexibility that you anticipate building into your 
rulemaking.
    Dr. Howell. I appreciate that question.
    For the rulemaking, I will need to get back with the 
regulatory folks to understand what flexibilities are built in. 
I understand that it was built in mind with having ideas like 
safety available.
    Mr. Huffman. My understanding is the proposed rule includes 
an expansion of the safety deviation provision to include 
emergency situations, any emergency situation that presents a 
threat to health, safety, or the life of a person. So, if I am 
wrong about that, please correct me. Please get back to us.
    Dr. Howell. I will not correct you, sir.
    Mr. Huffman. But honestly, to suggest that people are going 
to be put in harm's way because of this is simply inaccurate. 
It is at odds with the actual rule as it currently stands.
    Let me go back to MRIP and the data. You are currently 
reviewing and updating the MRIP program, correct?
    Dr. Howell. Correct.
    Mr. Huffman. And does this bill allow for managers at NOAA 
to objectively assess all data sources?
    I mean, the best data, the most reliable data actually 
takes in everything we have. And I just want to know if this 
bill would allow you to do that.
    I am talking about Mr. Graves' legislation.
    Dr. Howell. Absolutely, yes. Thank you for that question.
    Right now, we currently have a system that does allow us to 
use all data that is available. We have state-led systems, we 
have Federal-led surveys, as you have mentioned.
    There are concerns with the bill that we would be forced to 
decide between one, either a state-led system or a Federal-led 
system, depending on what was proposed. There may be 
consequences where we would not be able to use all of the data 
that is available, or we would be forced to choose in building 
one system over the other.
    Mr. Huffman. Yes. Now, there are ways that you can improve 
the percent standard error, I believe. Is it PSE or PES----
    Dr. Howell. PSE.
    Mr. Huffman [continuing]. That is referred to in the 
current data models that you are running. Tell us about those 
ways that you are trying to improve it.
    Dr. Howell. Thank you again for the opportunity to talk 
about this. There are ways that we can improve the PSEs, the 
Percent Standard Errors, by doing additional sampling. There 
are also ways that we can look at taking the Federal survey, 
which really tries to cover the 50 million anglers in the 
United States, with the state surveys that are very specialized 
towards what they are looking for in that particular region. We 
can take those data fields together to improve our ability to 
collect information in a collaborative way, and not a 
competitive way.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. How can we be certain that state 
data, I mean, let's say the triggers under this bill are met, 
and you are forced to default to state data instead of your 
data. How can we be sure that it would result in a reduction in 
PSE?
    In other words, that it would increase certainty.
    Dr. Howell. The best thing that we could do is create a 
rulemaking or a standards and best practices framework. And we 
have this in the regions which says that all of the data that 
is used has to undergo the same rigorous scientific review, 
transparency documentation. That allows us to see that the 
survey itself is being done, and it is also the way that the 
survey is being done in a representative way. Then we can 
review that data, take it in, and the ability for us to use 
more data should account for our ability to lower the PSEs.
    Mr. Huffman. And Mr. Graves' bill would prevent you from 
doing that, as I understand it.
    I am out of time, but I am going to circle back to this 
subject if I can get a friendly Member to yield me time later.
    Thank you, I yield back.
    Dr. Howell. Thank you.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congressman Fry for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 
opportunity to waive on to this hearing today. This proposed 
rule is incredibly impactful to my district in South Carolina.
    COVID brought back outside recreation. People were golfing, 
people were going out, they were kayaking. They were also going 
out on boats. They were going fishing. And in my region of 
South Carolina, we saw tremendous growth in this industry. It 
has always been the lifeblood of our economy, tourism. People 
travel from all over the country to come to Myrtle Beach, South 
Carolina every single year. And one of the things that they do 
is they go fishing.
    The Gulf Coast is 75 to 100 miles off the coast of South 
Carolina. And this proposed rule, sir, instead of taking 3 
hours to get to the to the Gulf Stream, it would take 5 to 6. 
There is an article that was in Savannah, Georgia, in Buddy 
Carter's district, and somebody says, ``We go out up to 100 
miles off the Gulf Stream. It takes us 3 hours. They do this, 
and it will take 5 to 6 to get out there. Ninety-nine percent 
of people will just say `we would rather not go fishing'.''
    There are going to be tremendous impacts because of this. 
And I fear that we are taking an axe to where we need a 
scalpel. Everyone wants to protect this endangered species, but 
I don't think that the data backs up what we are actually 
doing.
    In my district of South Carolina, Mickey Thompson, the 
owner of Sportsman's Choice Marine in Long, South Carolina, 
said this: ``It would be devastating to my business. One of my 
best selling boats is a 39-foot boat, and we sell boats up to 
44 feet in length. We would lose close to $8 million, just with 
my dealership alone. My fear is not losing new customers, but 
previous customers' boat values would also drop dramatically. 
This rule would not only kill my business, but other businesses 
in the 7th Congressional District of South Carolina, from 
charter captains, commercial seafood folks, and the tourism 
business that accommodate many around here.''
    Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter into the 
record an op-ed in the Charleston Post and Courier, ``NOAA's 
proposed vessel-speed rule would devastate South Carolina's 
coastal economy.''
    Mr. Bentz. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

Commentary: NOAA's proposed vessel-speed rule would devastate SC's 
coastal economy

The Post and Courier, June 6, 2024 by Tommy Hancock

https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/commentary/noaa-vessel-speed-
rules-whales-sc-coastal-economy/article_9129f58c-233b-11ef-8361-
2f22c232917e.html

                                 *****

In my 54 years of boating and fishing along South Carolina's coast, 
I've not yet had the privilege of seeing a North Atlantic right whale. 
Since I was 8, I've spent more than 500 days fishing these waters, yet 
this elusive creature remains a rarity to be seen.

Now, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has proposed 
expanding a rule that would cripple our coastal economy in the name of 
protecting these endangered whales. As someone who loves the sea, I 
support protecting our endangered marine mammals, but not in a way that 
puts boaters in danger and destroys livelihoods across our state.

South Carolina's coastal recreation economy is a powerhouse. A study by 
University of South Carolina economist Joey Von Nessen says boating and 
fishing in our state have a $6.5 billion economic impact, supporting 
29,000 jobs annually, with $1.6 billion in labor income that would not 
exist without it. Our coastal communities thrive on recreational 
boating and fishing, but NOAA's reckless proposal threatens to 
dismantle this vital sector.

NOAA's proposed rule to limit all boats 35 feet and over to a speed of 
10 knots--equivalent to a mere 11 mph--is illogical and dangerous. This 
antiquated measure grossly ignores the realities of boating safety and 
practical navigation. Imposing a 10-knot speed limit in open seas is 
not just impractical; it endangers the lives of boaters.

Small recreational boats are not designed to cut through the choppy 
waters of the Atlantic at such low speeds, which increase the 
likelihood of capsizing or swamping. Further, limiting boats to 10 
knots restricts their visibility and ability to maneuver effectively, 
particularly in deteriorating weather conditions. Speed is a vital 
safety asset during sudden weather changes, and boaters need the 
capability to return to port quickly when storms approach. The proposed 
speed restriction would hinder this ability, potentially trapping 
boaters in dangerous situations.

Not only does the rule impose significant safety concerns, but it also 
reeks of enforcement issues and blatant government overreach. Just last 
year, a Charleston-based boat over 65 feet was hit with a $15,000 fine 
from NOAA based on Automatic Identification System data from two years 
prior. The penalty for speeding in a whale zone surpasses that for 
speeding in a school zone and can be issued through the mail nearly two 
years later. To put this in perspective, this would be as if you were 
driving your vehicle down Interstate 26 and the government sent you a 
ticket for speeding based on your GPS data two years later.

The facts simply do not support NOAA's heavy-handed approach. In more 
than 50 years, there has been just one serious whale strike off South 
Carolina's coast, and never by a vessel between 35 and 65 feet. This 
rule is not only baseless but also misguided in its failure to 
distinguish between small boats and enormous oceangoing vessels. Most 
fatal whale strikes come from vessels over 260 feet, not recreational 
boats. NOAA's blanket rule ignores these critical differences, 
endangering South Carolina's boaters while failing to make a meaningful 
impact on whale conservation

The fallout from this misguided rule would be catastrophic. It 
threatens not only recreational boating and fishing but also jobs and 
entire business sectors dependent on our Atlantic access, from 
fisheries to coastal tourism and aquaculture. South Carolina's economy 
cannot afford this ill-conceived intervention. My company, Sportsman 
Boats, employs more than 450 people, a small fraction of the jobs 
statewide that could be affected.

As a dedicated boating and fishing enthusiast, I understand the 
irreplaceable value of our time, safety and commitment to conservation 
on the water. This dedication led our industry to establish the South 
Carolina Boating and Fishing Alliance nearly four years ago, aiming to 
protect and enhance these experiences for future generations while 
leading industry-driven conservation initiatives.

NOAA's one-size-fits-all rule not backed by science is a blunt 
instrument that will do more harm than good, disregarding effective, 
technology-driven solutions.

Protecting wildlife and the Atlantic Ocean's ecosystem will always be a 
priority. But NOAA's proposed rule isn't the right approach. The 
industry urges NOAA to rethink this rule by working with the 
recreational boating and fishing industries to use the best technology 
available to protect the North Atlantic right whale. The next 54 years 
of South Carolina's coastal communities and economies depend on it.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Fry. Thank you.
    Ms. Guyas, in your testimony, you provide the figure that 
recreational fishing contributes $148 billion to the U.S. 
economy annually. Many boaters in my district participate in 
the South Carolina Wahoo series annually that runs from 
February to April every year, which stands to be heavily 
impacted by this proposed rule. If this rule were enacted 
regarding the vessel strikes, is it feasible for this 
tournament to continue in its current form?
    Ms. Guyas. I don't think it would. I mean, folks that are 
out Wahoo fishing, they have to run quite a ways out, similar 
to the gentleman that you quoted in the article.
    Mr. Fry. How much money do you think local tackle shops, 
hotels, charter captains, and restaurants would stand to lose 
if this rule was implemented?
    Ms. Guyas. It is a lot. I would put it in the millions of 
dollars, for sure.
    Mr. Fry. Mr. Strong, I would like to ask you about the 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis completed by NMFS that 
found that the proposed rule would only have a $46 million 
annual impact. In your testimony, you note that that would 
actually be closer to $2 billion.
    Similarly, the South Carolina Boating and Fishing Alliance 
estimated that it would have a $77 million impact just in our 
state alone in boat sale losses in their members' current 
inventory. Can you explain some of the disparities between 
these two findings?
    Mr. Strong. I will do my best. How they arrived at the $46 
million number, quite frankly, I don't know. I do know that, 
again----
    Mr. Fry. That might be like one city, right?
    Mr. Strong. Yes. Our industry, the marine recreational 
industry, was not involved in collaborative conversations. So, 
our determination was from sampling our dealers along the East 
Coast who would be directly impacted by this if it were to go 
through, and we kind of came up with a number that seemed like 
a conservative number of a $4 million revenue loss per dealer, 
$4 million, I think it was $4.1 something, but rounded, $4 
million times 500 dealers, $2 billion, we believe, is a 
conservative loss number. And that is how we arrived at our 
data.
    And that is annual, that is not cumulative. That is annual. 
Our fear is that it would actually become a lot worse than that 
because, as Ms. Guyas said earlier, tournaments, things that 
people invest a lot of money in to purchase a boat, because 
that is part of what they really enjoy doing. They are going to 
just get out. They are not going to do it because the time is 
one aspect, but the safety is another.
    Some people referenced they were avid boaters before. 
Anybody who is an avid boater, if you know you are 80 miles 
offshore and you are restricted to traveling 10 knots, and all 
of a sudden the wind in the afternoon picks up to 25 knots, it 
is totally dangerous and unsafe to travel in 10 knots 80 miles 
off shore in a 25-knot wind.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman Porter for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Porter. I yield my time to Mr. Huffman.
    Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentlelady.
    And the point about putting boaters in danger is exactly 
why the draft language of NOAA's rule has an exception for any 
situation that would risk the health or lives or property of 
people. So, I hope we can kind of dispel that particular straw 
man.
    I want to come back to MRIP, though, and talk about state 
data under Mr. Graves' bill, H.R. 8705. Dr. Howell, if the 
triggers under this bill are met, and NOAA is forced to default 
to state data, is there anything to ensure that that state 
data, and the trigger would be if Federal data is more than 30 
percent uncertain, right?
    So, is there anything in the bill to ensure that the state 
data that you are forced to default to using exclusively is 
actually more certain than the Federal data that you have been 
required under this bill to stop using?
    Dr. Howell. Thank you for the question there.
    There is nothing that would allow us, outside of the 
current framework that we have. And in the regional teams, we 
create frameworks that have the documentation and the 
scientific process for how that data is collected. The states 
aren't always in those, and are in varying forms of how well 
they can do that. The Federal side, we have strived to be as 
transparent as possible in our framework there. So, being 
forced to use it, we would have to have the same documentation 
and the same framework analysis that was done to ensure that we 
had the PSEs, that 30 percent, and were done in the way that 
was commensurate with what MRIP as a partnership----
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. And is there anything in the bill 
to make sure that, if you are forced to default to state data, 
that that state data is at least as certain, hopefully, more 
certain, than the Federal data?
    Dr. Howell. Not that I can see.
    Mr. Huffman. And it is my understanding that Louisiana 
certainly has very good state data. A few other states likely 
have very good state data. My understanding is not every state 
does, and that it is very foreseeable that under this bill, you 
may be forced to use less certain data than the Federal data 
you are being required to ignore. Is that fair to say?
    Dr. Howell. I think it is fair to say. And to the fairness 
to the states, they are all working hard for the continual 
improvement that we strive for in the Federal side. There are 
in varying degrees of where they are in that state. So, for us 
to have to turn a switch and be able to use that data right 
away, we can't guarantee of what state that would be in.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
    Dr. Howell, are you familiar with the Pacific Recreational 
Fisheries Information Network and MRIP Regional Implementation 
Plan for the West Coast Recreational Fishery? It was referenced 
earlier by Mr. Graves.
    Dr. Howell. Yes.
    Mr. Huffman. And he sort of left the mystery hanging. I had 
tried to demystify it for him, but he had left the mystery 
hanging that these West Coast states are using state data for 
Federal fisheries management decisions. And I want to just 
spend some time on that with you, if I could.
    My understanding is that this is a cooperative system 
developed by MRIP, by you guys, over many years with the states 
that includes collaborations, historic baselines, MRIP survey 
certification, and standards. Is that all correct?
    Dr. Howell. Correct.
    Mr. Huffman. And that when you switched over to the state 
data, you also continued calibrating the Federal system and 
running the Federal system side-by-side for over a decade to 
continue calibrating. Is that fair?
    Dr. Howell. That is fair.
    Mr. Huffman. And that MRIP still reviews the data and 
surveys it periodically.
    Dr. Howell. That is correct.
    Mr. Huffman. So, that is a high standard of collaboration, 
of data integrity, of best practices, all leading to an outcome 
where these states were allowed to use their data for Federal 
fishery management decisions. It is a great model for Louisiana 
and every other state to potentially follow, but they have 
instead decided to do an end run around that rigorous process 
and come to Congress and ask for an Act of Congress.
    This outcome for the West Coast did not require an Act of 
Congress at all, right? You did it all under your existing 
authority, right?
    Dr. Howell. Correct, and that is the spirit of our Federal-
State re-envisioning that we are going through right now, is to 
try to look by region to emulate where things are working, and 
to get to a Federal-State collective, where we are capturing 
the information we need for the species of interest, and also 
to get to the higher resolution data with lower PSEs.
    Mr. Huffman. Well, you have done excellent work on the West 
Coast. I am so glad that Mr. Graves brought it up, because I 
think it shows us the right way forward on recreational fishing 
data, and also makes a very strong case that this bill is the 
wrong way forward.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congressman Beyer for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And Ranking Member 
Huffman, thank you for allowing me to waive on. It is fun to be 
back.
    I keep hearing from my Republican friends that everyone 
wants to protect the North Atlantic right whale. It came up in 
virtually every one of the conversations, and just with Mr. Fry 
a minute ago. I am trying to reconcile everyone wanting to save 
the American North Atlantic right whale with the fact that 
there are fewer than 340 that exist, that 3 have been killed in 
the last year, that the potential biological removal number is 
0.7, and anything more than 0.7 per year is going to lead to 
the extinction by 2037. And at 3 per year, that probably means 
extinction by 2031. And the only thing we have figured out how 
to do right now so far is slow the speeds down.
    First, from the scientific perspective, Dr. Howell, how 
confident are you as a scientist that if we don't do this, that 
we are looking at a real extinction event some time in the next 
15 years, if not the next 10 years?
    Dr. Howell. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to that. 
We are very confident. There were over 60 scientific studies 
that were referenced in making this speed rule and the 
determination for why we came up with the parameters for that 
speed rule.
    Mr. Beyer. Also, I have read in the literature that they 
figure only one in three actual strikes is ever recorded. So, 
the 3 that we know about is probably 9. It could be 7, could be 
10.
    Dr. Howell. That is correct. We estimate that we understand 
about 36 percent of the mortalities from what we can see.
    Mr. Beyer. I don't want to throw a hard existential 
question at the industry people, because I have had a small 
business for five decades. But do you feel there is some other 
way to avoid the extinction?
    Or how will you feel, personally, when you save your 
industry and you made a whole species go extinct?
    Mr. Strong?
    Mr. Strong. Well, just a few facts to add to that. Right 
now, it is my understanding the way the rule is currently 
proposed is they are factoring that the draft of a 35- to 65-
foot boat is the same draft as that of a 300-foot vessel, and 
that is just not factually accurate. The average draft range on 
a 35- to 65-foot vessel is between 2 and 4 feet, and they 
actually, when they are going slower, they actually draw more 
water when they are going slower than when they are able to be 
on plain, let's say, at a 20 knot speed, they are up on top of 
the water. So, there are some assumptions there in the rule, 
the way it is proposed, that are not factually accurate.
    Going back to the earlier testimony on the technology side 
of things, and our industry typically is about 20 years behind 
the automotive industry in almost all aspects, and the auto 
industry is way out ahead of us on the technology side of 
things. A lot of the technology does exist, but it is not well 
integrated, which is what some of the bills speak to.
    So, with the grant monies that are proposed to help foster 
the integration of that technology so it can get on the 
dashboards of people's boats on real-time live data, there can 
be warning areas, there can be some limited speed reduction 
areas, much again, like Waze on a car.
    Mr. Beyer. Yes, which sounds like it might be a good thing 
to revisit the rule when that technology is actually in place 
and working.
    Dr. Redfern, one of the things Ms. Hageman talked about was 
why do we do wind farms? Can you talk about North Atlantic 
right whales and wind farms?
    Dr. Redfern. I can. There is no evidence that links whale 
deaths, and not just right whales, but humpback whale deaths, 
to wind farm and the activities that are being done to develop 
wind. There is no link there. What we do know is that vessel 
strikes are killing whales.
    You asked about the studies, and the studies that are 
showing right whales headed towards extinction. I want to make 
one point about those, because those studies also show that, if 
we can eliminate human-caused mortality, the species can 
recover. So, those studies give us hope. If we will remove 
direct, human-caused mortalities, this species can come back.
    And one of the ways we can do that is by slowing ships 
down. And the New England Aquarium stands ready to partner on 
technology, but your point is absolutely right. We have to make 
sure the whales survive long enough to be able to benefit from 
these new technologies. And you do that through the speed rule, 
which is scientifically backed.
    Mr. Beyer. Yes. We want to point out that we don't want 
this to be a zero-sum game. We would love to have the industry 
survive and thrive, but we also don't want to cause the 
extinction of one of our charismatic species, and a fellow 
mammal, too.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congressman Magaziner for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Chairman. A number of very 
important bills to Rhode Island are all being discussed today, 
and it is hard to get them all in in the 5 minutes that we each 
have allotted. So, let me just, as a high level, say that when 
it comes to managing fisheries and protecting coastal 
communities and waterways, we should be grounding our policy 
decisions in independent, scientifically sound data, and I am 
glad that many of the bills that are being discussed today do 
just that.
    The Resilient Coasts and Estuaries Act will help the 
Narragansett Bay National Estuary. We have the MAPOceans Act, 
which will also help Rhode Island fishermen access the 
information that they need to fish responsibly. I just want to 
call out and thank the sponsors of those bills for advancing 
legislation that I think will be very helpful to Rhode Island.
    There is one that I have concerns with in particular, 
though, and I will just say too often, I think, Congress 
undermines the independence of data collection in order to try 
to achieve certain political results. And we have seen lots of 
examples of that.
    My colleagues across the aisle will often demand exhaustive 
environmental impact studies to slow clean energy development, 
but dismiss those same types of studies for assessing the 
ecological harms of offshore oil and gas, for example. They 
have pushed legislation to weaken the Endangered Species Act to 
accelerate mining projects that have questionable environmental 
impacts and economic validity. And, of course, while the SEC is 
trying to better enhance climate disclosure so that investors 
can make sound decisions for how to invest their money, there 
are those who are trying to restrict the ability of investors 
to get the information that they need to make informed 
decisions.
    And in that same vein, the so-called Fisheries Data 
Modernization and Accuracy Act appears to be another attempt to 
manipulate data to achieve a specific outcome. Now, the 
existing MRIP process for collecting and disseminating data on 
fishing stocks is flawed, and we all recognize that. But the 
approach should be to try to fix it, not to replace it with a 
patchwork, state-by-state model of different standards and 
different methods of data collection that may vary in their 
accuracy and their standardization.
    There are some states that are running very good state 
recreational catch and data collection programs, but other 
states that seem to be running programs with methodological 
biases that make it impossible for the data to be comparative. 
So, we need a consistent approach, not a patchwork approach.
    This is a view that is, I think, widely held in the 
recreational fishing community in Rhode Island, which I 
represent. Dave Monte, a fisherman, charter captain, from Rhode 
Island, recently had an op-ed in the Westerly Sun in which he 
stated that bills like this one that were being considered 
today enabled over-fishing of the Atlantic cod to occur year 
after year, to the point that the stock was decimated.
    So, Dr. Howell, can you tell us a little bit more about how 
NOAA is working with fishermen and with others on the ground to 
improve the existing MRIP process in sort of a fix-it, as 
opposed to replace-it approach?
    Dr. Howell. Thank you very much, Representative Magaziner, 
for the time to talk.
    I spoke a little bit about our current Federal-State re-
envisioning process, which is us going out. We have held four 
listening sessions so far with representatives from the 
industry, councils, and recreational fishers to explain what 
our intentions were to really try to continually improve the 
data streams that we have. We believe it is important for us to 
have the Federal and state data together, if available. The 
more data we have, the better we can get our percent standard 
error down to resolution to really understand what these 50 
million anglers are doing in the country.
    One of the main things that we are doing, as well, is we 
know that we have our access point surveys that reach the 
docks, talk to people. Those collect the information on what 
they caught and where they caught it. And we also have our 
Federal Effort Survey, which is a mail order survey that goes 
to hundreds of thousands of people. That is the result where we 
found that, if we did changes to that system, you could have a 
30 to 40 percent reduction in the effort estimates. We reported 
that last August.
    This is what we have invested this year, 2024, a full year 
of testing to ensure that that preliminary result is accurate. 
When we find the results from that, then we will be able to 
employ that back in, and that will allow us to improve the 
framework.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you. I am already just about out of 
time, but I will just say we have 57,000 licensed saltwater 
anglers in Rhode Island. It is an important part of our economy 
and our quality of life, and we want to make sure that that 
industry can continue for generations to come. So, the 
importance of sound data and having policy decisions that focus 
on the long term, and not just the short term is really felt in 
my district. So, I thank you and your colleagues for your work.
    And I will yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congressman D'Esposito for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 
again for being here. My first question is for Mr. Strong.
    I know that we are here today, we discussed the MAPOceans 
Act. In your opinion, what are the biggest challenges that new 
boaters and experienced boaters face?
    Mr. Strong. When we sell a boat to somebody, first, you 
have experienced boaters, you have novice boaters, and you have 
people in between. Our concern and our industry's concern is to 
make sure that they learn how to operate the boat safely. So, 
safety is a big component.
    The integration of any safe information that could be on 
their screens, more so than it is today, would be a big benefit 
for our industry and for our clients. And then you could take 
that from safety information to potentially fishing 
information, weather information. Integration, though.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Obviously, I think that we would agree that 
having access to the standardized information in digital form 
that would be provided through this MAPOceans Act is critically 
important to, really, all boaters.
    Mr. Strong. It would be extremely helpful, for sure.
    Mr. D'Esposito. And as a fellow Long Islander, we know 
that, as was mentioned in my statement earlier, that 
recreational boating and fishing supports our local economies. 
And it is really just part of our culture. It is part of why 
people love Long Island. It is why people generation after 
generation, even though it is expensive to live there, they 
find a way to stay because they love it so much.
    And in your testimony, you mentioned that recreational 
boating alone contributes a little over $230 billion into the 
economy, supports more than 800,000 jobs, 36,000 businesses, 
and that 95 percent of all boats sold in the United States are 
American-made and family-owned. Do you see this bill, the 
MAPOceans Act, as something that is pro-business?
    And secondly, in what ways do companies like your company 
benefit from legislation like this?
    Mr. Strong. Thank you. We would construe it as pro-business 
because it kind of supports our goals of having clients be 
safer and more confident on the water.
    And how the business part comes up, generally, if people 
feel safer and they feel more confident with their investment, 
they are going to use it more often, hopefully refer more 
people, and continue to expand the sport. So, this would be 
very supportive of that.
    Mr. D'Esposito. OK. And recreational boating, recreational 
fishing, and, of course, commercial fishing have an obligation 
to be stewards to conservation efforts and protect marine 
habitats. This bill, as we discussed earlier, will provide 
information to users to disseminate information of the marine 
life around them. For example, knowing where certain marine 
species are, which I think is one of probably the biggest 
challenges that we face not only on Long Island, but all over, 
like you mentioned, novice and new boaters. I think we probably 
saw the biggest change during COVID, when so many people went 
out and decided that they were going to become boaters for the 
first time.
    Regardless of where you stand on the North Atlantic right 
whale vessel strike reduction rule, do you believe that this 
platform with the MAPOceans Act will provide people the ability 
to mitigate the risk of vessel strikes to whales and other 
marine life?
    Mr. Strong. We do, and I would add that boaters are in full 
support of the science and data. It is not like we are on the 
opposite side of that. We are on the same side of that. We just 
maybe would like to see a higher priority put on utilizing that 
data. And part of both bills that you are referencing speak to 
that.
    So, we believe that, as conservationists, as people on the 
water, yes, we are business people, but if we don't have clean, 
safe water that people can use and recreate, we don't have a 
business. So, it is totally in alignment, and that would be 
supportive. Thank you.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you.
    And Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for allowing me to waive 
on. And I am thankful to see this bipartisan piece of 
legislation.
    Mr. Graves. Can I have your time?
    Mr. D'Esposito. Oh, sure, I will yield my time to Mr. 
Graves.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. D'Esposito, thank you for being 
here and doing your legislation. I appreciate it. I want to 
follow up on a couple of things real quick.
    First of all, I wish Mr. Magaziner were still here, because 
he mentioned how legislation like our bill is what led to over-
fishing of the Atlantic cod, which I would love to know what 
bill he is talking about because Congress has never done 
anything like this. And uninformed statements like that are 
really unfortunate, and lead to, I think, outcomes that don't 
make sense because people are confused by what they are talking 
about in terms of causation.
    But otherwise, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous 
consent to include in the record a letter from last year that 
expresses concern about an over-fishing designation of a 
species, and requests that National Marine Fisheries Service 
work with a specific state to actually get better data because 
the National Marine Fisheries Service data is not good, and 
they need to work with the state to get better data that is 
then peer-reviewed to make sure that the over-fishing 
designation doesn't cause economic harm on some of the coastal 
communities, which is virtually identical to the situation we 
are facing in Louisiana that my friends across the aisle are 
criticizing. Let me see if I can read that name on there, Jared 
Huffman, yes. Jared Huffman.
    If I could get that into the record, please. Thank you.
    Mr. Bentz. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

                     CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
                             Washington, DC

                                              November 20, 2023    

Dr. Richard Spinrad, Administrator
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 5128
Washington, DC 20230

    Dear Dr. Spinrad:

    I am writing to ask for your urgent assistance regarding a stock 
assessment for the Northern California coast that prompted the closure 
of a vital fishery and cause significant harm to coastal communities 
for years to come. Following the November 2023 Pacific Fisheries 
Management Council (PFMC) meeting, I would ask that the National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS) postpone issuing an ``overfished'' 
determination for quillback rockfish, the species at the heart of the 
closure, until the assessment can be reviewed.
    NMFS' 2021 assessment of quillback rockfish was used to conclude 
that the species is overfished and a rebuilding plan should be adopted. 
That conclusion prompted the mid-season closure of the nearshore 
rockfish fishery in Northern California in 2023, which has had 
devastating consequences. The assessment is considered ``data 
moderate,'' which in this case means that there was no direct 
information from the fishery used to draw the conclusion. Instead, data 
was borrowed from other fisheries and extrapolated. The California 
coastline in my congressional district is remote and contains vast 
areas of quillback rockfish habitat that is never fished, but the 
assessment nonetheless suggested that this stock is overfished.
    Understandably, the PFMC and many stakeholders expressed concern 
that the assessment would be used to adopt an overfished designation 
for quillback rockfish with no independent review. Two experts the PFMC 
called to review the assessment raised significant questions about the 
assessment and its use to develop fisheries regulations. The council 
asked its Science and Statistical Committee (SSC)--including NMFS' 
Science Center--to review the assessment for consideration at the 
PFMC's March meeting. NMFS, however, has indicated that it will 
continue to complete its overfished stock determination, which would 
force the PFMC to adopt a rebuilding plan that would trigger severe 
restrictions to the nearshore rockfish fishery for years.

    My request is twofold:

  1.  Pause the development of the overfished determination until the 
            SCC and NMFS can reevaluate its assessment of quillback 
            rockfish and the PFMC can hear the results of that review 
            in March. No harm can be done to the species in the 
            meantime, as the season for the fishery does not start 
            until later in Spring.

  2.  Immediately begin developing plans to assist the state of 
            California in collecting data from the fishery being 
            impacted. This should include hook-and-line surveys in 
            rocky nearshore habitat where quillback are most abundant, 
            and where rockfish associated with the stock are caught by 
            sport, charter, and commercial fishers. Rigorous data is 
            critical to understanding when and how regulations are 
            written to protect fish stocks from over-exploitation, and 
            in allowing sustainable, economically beneficial use of 
            fisheries as called for in the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

    I ask that you consider this request urgently to allow the PFMC to 
make an informed decision on the potential for adoption of a rebuilding 
analysis for quillback rockfish. It is critical to consider all 
available information and analysis when the stakes are so high for 
coastal communities. Please contact my Senior District Representative 
John Driscoll with any questions.

            Sincerely,

                                             Jared Huffman,
                                                 Member of Congress

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Bentz. All right. So, I think there is----
    Mr. Huffman. In the gentleman's remaining time, would he 
yield?
    Mr. Bentz. You have no remaining time.
    Mr. Huffman. Because I would write the same letter for 
Louisiana or any other state.
    Mr. Bentz. Moving on, the Chair recognizes himself for 5 
minutes.
    There have been some remarks about the language in the rule 
concerning the ability of someone with a ship or boat less than 
I think it is 65 feet in length, having the ability to protect 
itself in the event of weather. But the way the rule is 
written, it talks about gale force winds, which are defined as 
39 knots. So, the hypothetical that was presented earlier 
suggested something far less than 39 knots. So, I am just 
wondering why the rules are written in such a fashion as to put 
people in danger for fear of violating these rules.
    Dr. Howell. Thank you, Chairman, and I appreciate the 
opportunity to speak to that.
    I am on the science and technology side of the aisle, and 
it is probably a question that is better raised with my 
regulatory partners. What I can say today is that I will talk 
with them and get more details about that. I don't think that 
anything in that bill has the intention of affecting safety, 
and that fisheries in NOAA does have a statutory requirement to 
protect the endangered species right now.
    Mr. Bentz. Well, of course they do, but not at the risk of 
harming all kinds of people out on the water. This needs 
attention.
    I understand this is not the most recent draft. It is the 
one that we have, but apparently there is another one. Please 
check and make sure that folks aren't stuck out there on the 
water, unable to speed up over 10 knots, waiting for the wind 
to break over 39. That makes no sense. So, please check on 
that.
    Dr. Howell. I fully recognize that. Thank you. I will take 
that back.
    Mr. Bentz. Secondly, Dr. Howell, sticking with you for a 
second, is there technology available today that people can 
afford which will allow them to recognize where these whales 
are?
    And before you answer, how many of these whales are there?
    Dr. Howell. The population is estimated at 340 whales at 
this time.
    Mr. Bentz. OK, great, 340 whales over what space?
    Dr. Howell. The space of the Atlantic Ocean.
    Mr. Bentz. Well, reaching from what point off what state to 
what point off what state?
    Dr. Howell. So, roughly off the coast of Maine down to the 
bottom of Florida.
    Mr. Bentz. OK, so how many miles is that ocean?
    Dr. Howell. I don't have that at my fingertips.
    Mr. Bentz. Give me a guess.
    Dr. Howell. A thousand miles.
    Mr. Bentz. OK, so 1,000 miles. So, we have 340 whales over 
a 1,000-mile space. Is that correct?
    Dr. Howell. Correct.
    Mr. Bentz. So, what you have done is defaulted, I suppose, 
to affect ships within that 1,000-mile space, in the hope that 
we will somehow save these 340 creatures.
    And by the way, it is difficult for me, when I hear 
remarks, Dr. Redfern, where you say, we can save these whales 
if we would just do something like get all the boats off the 
ocean. And that would be true for almost any endangered 
species. Just get rid of people. We would probably have no 
problems at all. Well, that kind of a standard is, 
unfortunately, not available. Or better put, fortunately, not 
available.
    Going back to you, Doctor, tell me. Is there a 
technological device that will allow people to see some of 
these 340 whales within that 1,000-mile space?
    Dr. Howell. We are currently going through the technology 
that is available. That is part of what we put the $20 million 
from our Inflation Reduction Act funding into, to doing that 
through a NFWF grant that they will fund 18 projects. The 
technology workshop that was mentioned earlier, as well as this 
investment is really to understand what technologies----
    Mr. Bentz. Do we have something that works?
    Dr. Howell. Not operational at this point.
    Mr. Bentz. How close are we?
    Dr. Howell. That I can't tell you right now.
    Mr. Bentz. How much would it cost to get there?
    Dr. Howell. That is another great question, and that is 
what the investment in IRA is going to get us.
    Mr. Bentz. And when will we have an answer?
    Dr. Howell. That is another great question. I would bring 
that back to the team.
    Mr. Bentz. So, bring it back to the team and get us 
something that shows us.
    Let's shift to Mr. Strong.
    Mr. Strong, do you have an answer of when this technology 
might be available that people could afford to put on their 
boats to see where one of these whales, whatever they are, 
might be?
    Mr. Strong. I can't speak from a scientific perspective, 
but I can speak from a boater and a marinas perspective, and 
the technology that we do see that is there right now. And I 
wouldn't suggest that it is perfect or that they are going to 
be able to pinpoint every one of the 340 whales that are out 
there. But there are trends.
    And, again, going back to the Waze application in cars, we 
believe that technology does exist, and could be put, or not 
even put, the machines wouldn't have to be changed, they could 
just be updated through software to be able to have that be 
applicable.
    Mr. Bentz. I bet someone is working on this.
    Well, I want to thank all of you for your testimony, a 
very, very interesting hearing, a very important one.
    The members of the Committee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Committee must submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 
p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 2. The hearing record will 
be held open for 10 business days for these responses.
    I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 
letter from the Georgia Ports Authority; a letter from the 
National Marine Manufacturers Association; and a letter from 
the Congressional Sports Foundation submitted to NOAA on their 
proposed Vessel Speed Restriction Rule.
    Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

                        GEORGIA PORTS AUTHORITY
                              Savannah, GA

                                             September 29, 2022    

The Honorable Gina M. Raimondo
Secretary of Commerce
1401Constitution Ave NW
Washington, DC 20230

    Dear Secretary Raimondo:

    On behalf of the Georgia Ports Authority (GPA), I would like to 
express our concern with NOAA's proposed ``Amendments to the North 
Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike Reduction Rule.'' We believe that 
NOAA is overlooking several critical factors as it seeks to implement 
harmful changes to the existing rule. The proposed rule raises 
considerable life and safety concerns and would cause further 
interruptions to an already strained supply chain. If implemented in 
its current form, this rule will exacerbate congestion at American 
ports--resulting in detrimental effects on the nation's economy.
    It is our hope that NOAA Fisheries will work closely with the 
affected ports and other maritime industry stakeholders to determine an 
accurate effect of any rule changes on port communities. We would 
request that NOAA consider an adjustment of the proposed rule--
excluding Federal Navigation Channels and pilot boarding areas as well 
as exempting pilot vessels from these speed restriction zones. This 
modest alteration removes less than 1% of the total area covered by 
NOAA's proposed rule while protecting the safe, efficient movement of 
imports and exports through East coast ports.
    The GPA appreciates the need for reasonable regulation to protect 
the North Atlantic Right Whale and is committed to that effort. We have 
implemented several voluntary measures throughout the years to help 
protect the critically endangered species. In fact, CMA-CGM, in 
partnership with the GPA, recently launched an acoustic monitoring buoy 
off the coast of Savannah to increase North Atlantic right whale 
detection efforts.
    Furthermore, we agree that it is important to monitor the 
effectiveness of vessel speed regulations to reduce vessel strikes. 
However, it is also critical to find balance between our shared 
conservation goals and ensuring America's economic vitality. The GPA 
believes that present regulations are more than sufficient.
    NOAA's recently proposed changes to the existing vessel speed rule 
will negatively affect the safe transit of ocean-going vessels during 
the designated seasonal management window. State-licensed pilots are 
expected to act in the public interest, and to maintain a professional 
judgment that comports with the needs of maritime safety. In addition, 
state and federal licensing and regulatory authorities require 
compulsory pilots to take all reasonable actions to prevent ships under 
their navigational control from engaging in unsafe operations.
    Local pilots must consider hydrological, meteorological and many 
other factors for safe navigation. These considerations greatly affect 
maneuverability and steering controls--particularly at slower speeds 
for larger vessels when transiting our nation's harbors.
    The NOAA-proposed speed restriction will lead to reduced service 
capacity and ship delays along the entire Eastern seaboard. Without 
speed as an effective tool to overcome navigational influences, ocean-
going cargo vessels will be unable to safely traverse our nation's 
harbors. This will likely result in temporary port closures and 
significant congestion outside the affected harbors.
    NOAA's proposed changes to the deviation clause will place an 
enormous burden on the ship's master and the pilot. The new rule would 
require a vessel operator to complete and electronically submit a 
deviation report to NOAA within 48 hours of deviating from the rule. 
This reporting requirement would be burdensome and distracting during a 
time when focus on safely navigating the vessel is most critical. Many 
questions remain over the enforceability, potential criminality, and 
due process for cases where there is disagreement in a deviation's 
justification. These are not adequately addressed in the proposed rule 
change.
    Requiring the slower speeds of pilot boats will also lead to 
additional delays in the movement of goods and increase port congestion 
along the entire East Coast. East Coast pilot boarding areas can be as 
far as 20 miles or more offshore. If implemented, the new speed rule 
could double or even triple the amount of time it takes for a pilot 
boat to reach a vessel. The economic impacts of these added delays and 
the reduced efficiency on port operations were not factored into NOAA's 
economic analysis.
    It is highly unlikely that ships will wait at sea for weeks or 
months for a berth and will seek alternative ports not impacted by this 
rule, perhaps ports in South Florida, the Gulf Coast, or the West 
Coast. These alternate gateways do not have the capacity to absorb 40% 
to 50% of the affected ports' volumes and would quickly back up. In 
short, the nation will again experience pandemic era supply chain 
disruptions.
    NOAA's economic impact assessment for the newly proposed rule does 
not consider any additional negative impacts to ocean-going vessels 
because they are already regulated under the existing rule. The changes 
in deviation reporting and enforcement proposed under this rule, 
however, greatly alter the enforcement and oversight of necessary 
deviations, thereby greatly expanding the impacts on ocean-going 
vessels.
    The negative economic impact of this proposed rule equates to the 
loss of up to an estimated 1,283 diverted cargo ships destined for 
Georgia port facilities. Amongst the other cargoes, these diverted 
ships would include up to 3.1 million TEUs, equating to an estimated 
$3.8 Billion in revenue for Georgia businesses, 26,820 Georgia jobs, 
$1.3 billion in personal income and $1.85 billion in GDP--far 
surpassing the total negative economic impacts assumed by the 2022 
Draft Regulatory Impact Review and Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis of this proposed rule for the entire East Coast.
    Normally, freight moves based upon connectivity and cost. NOAA's 
proposed amendment, however, would require freight to move a greater 
distance over land at a greater cost to the shipper. The resultant cost 
increases would then be passed along to the consumer and cause 
significant inflationary impacts to the American economy. This rerouted 
cargo would also have an increased impact on the environment compared 
to current operations.
    The potential increases of greenhouse gas emissions from the 
landside transportation of rerouted cargo are merely a fraction of what 
the emission impacts of vessels anchored at sea, waiting for weeks for 
a berth. As inbound vessels arrive and congestion sets in, cargo delays 
will also continue to increase. In Savannah and Brunswick, maximum peak 
days could see over 200 vessels per day waiting at anchorage. Over 1.8 
million metric tons of GHG emissions may be emitted in Georgia alone as 
a result of these vessels--3 times higher than the 2020 vessel 
emissions totals for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach combined.
    The GPA requests that NOAA consult with appropriate federal 
partners to assess the full scope of the safety, environmental and 
economic impacts of their proposal. The United States Coast Guard is a 
key partner of the maritime sector in protecting the safe and efficient 
movement of cargo into and out of our nation's ports. The Environmental 
Protection Agency can thoroughly assess the significant negative air 
quality impacts that this rule amendment would generate. The 
President's Supply Chain Disruptions Task Force can further consider 
the administration's priorities regarding the massive economic 
disruptions created by NOAA's proposition.
    Once again, we would highly encourage NOAA to consider adjusting 
their proposed rule to exclude Federal Navigation Channels as well as 
the exemption of pilot vessels from these speed restriction zones. This 
modest alteration removes less than 1% of the total area covered by 
NOAA's proposed rule and would significantly reduce the negative safety 
of life, environmental and economic disruptions described above. Thank 
you in advance for your consideration of our request.

            Sincerely,

                                               Griff Lynch,
                                                 Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 

           NATIONAL MARINE MANUFACTURER'S ASSOCIATION (NMMA)
                             Washington, DC

                                                  June 26, 2024    

Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chairman
Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:

    On behalf of the National Marine Manufacturer's Association 
(``NMMA''), I write today to express our industry's strong support for 
H.R. 8704, To require the Secretary of Commerce to establish a grant 
program to foster enhanced coexistence between ocean users and North 
Atlantic right whales and other large cetacean species, introduced by 
Representatives Buddy Carter (R-GA) and Mary Peltola (D-AK). This bill 
would prevent the finalization of the National Marine Fisheries 
Service's (``NMFS'') proposed amendments to the North Atlantic right 
whale (``NARW'') vessel speed regulations at 50 C.F.R. Part 224 (the 
``Vessel Speed Rule'' or ``Rulemaking'') and would establish a grant 
program to encourage development and deployment of emerging 
technologies that would significantly reduce the threat of vessel 
strikes to large cetaceans such as the North Atlantic right whale.
    As you know, the final Vessel Speed Rule is currently under review 
at the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'').The purpose of this 
letter is to reiterate certain technical and procedural shortcomings of 
the Rulemaking, highlight information about technological solutions 
that have emerged during the pendency of the Rulemaking, and to 
underscore the benefit that the grant program established by H.R. 8704 
would have on the continued recovery of the North Atlantic right whale.
    As explained further below, the proposed Vessel Speed Rule failed 
to consider currently available technology as a potential alternative 
approach to reducing the risk of vessel strikes on the NARW. The NMMA 
and other stakeholders raised this concern in comments on the proposed 
Vessel Speed Rule and, since the close of the comment period, NMFS has 
solicited and collected information on technological options. Yet, to 
our knowledge, NMFS is not considering this information as part of its 
Rulemaking process, even though the information would significantly 
impact the agency's analysis of options to address risks from vessel 
strike on the NARW. In fact, NOAA is obligated under the Administrative 
Procedures Act to reopen the rulemaking process to consider new 
information that significantly affects the Rulemaking. On May 15, 2024, 
NMMA made a request to NMFS to reopen the docket for additional public 
comment on technological options to achieve a performance-based vessel 
strike reduction rule that can reduce whale strike risk without 
significant safety, economic, and privacy consequences. This request 
will be submitted in today's hearing record and is supplementary to the 
public's responses to the August 1, 2022 Rulemaking, including comments 
from NMMA that highlight the many technical and procedural flaws of the 
proposal. In particular, the NMMA explained that NMFS had failed to 
consider technology-based alternatives that would achieve the same (or 
superior) results with regard to protecting the NARW, without the 
drastic adverse economic and safety impacts.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Comments of NMMA on the Vessel Speed Rule at 11-12, 
available at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NOAA-NMFS-2022-0022-
20629.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since the close of the 2022 comment period, the NMMA and other 
stakeholders have been actively involved in educating policymakers 
within NMFS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(``NOAA'') regarding the benefits of leveraging marine technology 
solutions to safeguard marine life and boater safety as an alternative 
to NMFS's current approach. NMFS has welcomed this engagement and 
hosted a NARW Vessel Strike Risk Reduction Technology Workshop on March 
5-6, 2024 (the ``Technology Workshop'').\2\ In addition, the Whale and 
Vessel Safety (``WAVS'') Task Force, a coalition of marine industry 
stakeholders and experts in various disciplines, sent a white paper to 
NMFS in advance of the Technology Workshop which set the stage to 
discuss many available and developing technologies (``WAVS White 
Paper'').\3\ The Technology Workshop made clear to all stakeholders 
that NMFS is now well aware of the technologies currently available 
that can be utilized alone or on a layered basis to reduce NARW vessel 
strike risk.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See generally NOAA Fisheries, North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel 
Strike Risk Reduction Technology Workshop, available at https://
web.cvent.com/event/7467a542-8d8d-4020-82d8-7cef9482a3d2/
websitePage:b2fe19ef-3416-4fa1-a7a6-1df5a28b9242. In addition to the 
presentations and materials included on the Technology Workshop 
website, all presentations and information developed and/or received in 
connection with the Technology Workshop should be part of the docket 
for, and considered as part of, the Rulemaking.
    \3\ Letter from WAVS Taskforce to Mary Colligan, NOAA Fisheries, 
dated October 30, 2023
    \4\ For example, NMFS created a table to consolidate the categories 
of various technologies that can be utilized to reduce the risk of NARW 
strikes. See https://custom.cvent.com/8D2B15A58CD6472E897351F27F2DF309/
files/5cdb90075da041c894d0a21b32eed916.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, NMFS reverse engineered its Rulemaking process by 
issuing a proposal without seeking or soliciting input from any 
recreational boating or fishing interests or the marine industry at-
large. In fact, the Vessel Speed Rule is based on an archaic premise 
that recreational boating, fishing, and marine industry are not 
technology- or innovation-driven. The WAVS Task Force effort proves 
otherwise and was developed based off a greater need to demonstrate 
innovation leadership in this sector, especially as it relates to 
advancing conservation and marine mammal management.
    As discussed below, there are several technological alternatives 
available today that, if deployed properly, would likely be more 
effective at reducing NARW strike risk than expansive speed and routing 
restrictions and avoid the severe negative impacts that would be caused 
by the Vessel Speed Rule. NMFS is aware of these technological 
solutions--it has actively solicited this information from 
stakeholders. The agency cannot simply turn a blind eye to this 
information as it undertakes this Rulemaking. Further, the agency is 
well-suited to create a collaborative structure with all stakeholders, 
including the marine industry, to implement technology solutions that 
can successfully reduce risks of NARW vessel strikes. As contemplated 
throughout the public comments submitted, recreational boating, 
fishing, and marine industries support the protection of endangered 
species but find serious fault with the data used to justify the 
Rulemaking and the unrealistic approaches that would be required to 
achieve compliance with the Vessel Speed Rule.
    The Members of this Subcommittee, holding a significant 
representation of the coastal districts that would be impacted by this 
Rule, if it advances to a final stage as proposed, understand the 
significant threat of this proposal. The recreational boating industry 
is responsible for a $230 billion annual contribution to the United 
States economy, and the outdoor recreation industry as a singular 
entity contributes 2.2% of the country's annual gross domestic 
product.\5\ There are jobs, livelihoods, homes, and communities at 
stake if this Rule is allowed to continue forward toward finalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Outdoor Recreation Satellite 
Account, U.S. and States, 2022. See https://www.bea.gov/news/2023/
outdoor-recreation-satellite-account-us-and-states-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Technology holds significant advantages over other forms of risk 
reduction tools such as speed reduction and re-routing. And because 
collision avoidance (with any objects in the water, including marine 
mammals) has been a priority for recreational boat and supply 
manufacturers for decades, this technology is well-developed as the 
private sector is incentivized to constantly improve and innovate. Each 
of the technology alternatives discussed below--either alone or layered 
together--provide a better alternative for reducing risks to NARW from 
vessel strikes that NMFS must and should have considered as part of the 
ongoing Rulemaking. These types of technologies are what can be become 
immediately available for deployment with the funding provided by the 
grant program that this bill establishes.

  1.  Detection Technologies

        A variety of detection technologies are readily available and 
        can be utilized, alone or in combination with other methods, to 
        reduce NARW strikes. These technologies include acoustic 
        detection, visual detection, satellite and drone imagery, 
        infrared cameras, forward-looking sonar, and heat signature 
        technology. These instruments generally can connect to the on-
        board Multi-Function Display (``MFD'') to provide real-time 
        information regarding the boat's surroundings and thereby 
        reduce the risk of NARW strikes. One readily available example 
        already used for species protection is vessel-mounted 
        navigational radar that utilizes S and X band radar for vessel 
        avoidance and navigations. X-band radars are used for a sharper 
        image and better resolution, while S-band radar is used during 
        rain or fog and for identification.
        Other countries recognize the importance of these technologies 
        to address NARW strikes. For example, the Tethys Research 
        Institute conducted a study in the Mediterranean Cetacean 
        Sanctuary (located along the Italian and French coast) that 
        analyzed how best to deal with threatened whale populations and 
        high levels of maritime traffic and nautical activities. Their 
        approach includes, among other things, drones and other 
        detection devices that notify vessels that they are likely to 
        encounter a cetacean on their route.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ As discussed in the WAVS White Paper, visual and infrared 
images can be analyzed by artificial intelligence (``AI'') to detect 
and classify objects in the water such as NARWs:

    The benefit of AI is that it allows for immediate analysis of 
information even in adverse conditions more effectively than can be 
done by human observers, thereby allowing vessel operators to have 
better situational awareness and to make better informed decisions for 
the vessel and the whale. Whale Seeker, Space Whale, Awarion, Sea AI, 
Sea Machines, and Avikus are but a few examples of companies that have 
developed AI tools to scan images for the presence of whales. These 
products are currently being trained with the intent of deployment for 
field verification in the coming months.

  2.  Automatic Identification System (``AIS'') and On-Board 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Electronics

        As detailed at the recent Technology Workshop, AIS is already 
        in use by the Coast Guard for security and coastal management 
        purposes. This same technology is widely utilized among 
        recreational boaters as it is commercially available and 
        included on many new boats as standard equipment for safety 
        purposes. AIS technology is a viable alternative for 
        distributing real-time (or near real-time) monitoring 
        information to boaters regarding factors that are relevant to 
        NARW strike risk.

        For example, utilizing existing technology, NOAA could issue an 
        acutely focused dynamic management area and a vessel's on-board 
        cartography would be updated in near real-time to reflect that 
        new zone.

        ``Dynamic regulatory polygons could be broadcast using AIS and 
        chartplotters on vessels of all sizes, and can be taught to 
        receive, display, and alarm based on those dynamic polygons.'' 
        \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Id. at 5.

        In addition, existing on-board technology allows users to share 
        their own data points in real time. Crowdsource infrastructure 
        and communities such as ActiveCaptain, Community, and Navionics 
        Community Edits allow a user's point-based data to be 
        distributed in real-time and loaded to a chartplotter through a 
        mobile application. As a result, NARW positions ``reported by 
        real-time monitoring programs and technology . . . can be 
        distributed to on-board marine electronics and displayed and 
        alarmed on screen in near real-time.'' \8\ Input of such data 
        would also enable NOAA and other research entities to augment 
        the volume of the agency's monitoring data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  3.  Technology for Aggregating & Disseminating Information

        As boaters collect data through detection devices or other 
        instruments, technology exists to aggregate this information 
        and share it in near real-time with NOAA and other boaters. For 
        example, the WhaleReport Alert System (``WRAS'') aggregates 
        whale detection data from multiple sources and sends out 
        alerts. In fact, the U.S. Coast Guard recently launched a 
        Cetacean Desk in the Puget Sound region that utilizes WRAS to 
        aggregate data and disseminate notices to mariners.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ U.S. Coast Guard News, ``Press Release: U.S. Coast Guard 
introduces cetacean desk, enhancing cetacean safety in Salish Sea,'' 
available at https://www.news.uscg.mil/Press-Releases/Article/3681963/
us-coast-guard-introducescetacean-desk-enhancing-cetacean-safety-in-
salish-sea.

        The Coast Guard's pilot project is just one example of how 
        technology is being used to aggregate relevant information and 
        provide it to mariners to improve situational awareness. This 
        pilot program should serve as a national model to create 
        publicly accessible repositories of data points that can be 
        shared with the marine community in real time.
  4.  Modeling/Predicting/Forecasting Whales

        Data aggregation enables existing programs to create predictive 
        models that can be utilized for avoidance purposes. One example 
        is Risk Terrain Modeling (``RTM'') which is a tool used to 
        ``diagnose environmental conditions that connect with spatial 
        patterns of whale-vessel strikes. RTM can help us identify and 
        prioritize the areas where these collisions are significantly 
        most likely to happen at the micro-level'' so that boaters can 
        take steps to prevent such strikes.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ WAVS White Paper at 5.

        Similar predictive modeling was recently highlighted by Fathom 
        Science at a recent presentation to the bipartisan 
        Congressional Boating Caucus.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ WAVS Taskforce presentation to Congressional Boating Caucus 
(April 11, 2024)

    There is already work being done in this space to advance these 
technology solutions. Adopting a similar model to the program that 
would be authorized by H.R. 8704, the White House announced on May 22, 
2024 that $6 million in Inflation Reduction Act (``IRA'') funding would 
be made available to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 
(``NFWF'') to support grants for projects that develop technologies 
such as the approaches detailed above.\12\ Using this approach as a 
pilot model, there will be critical evidence available to NMFS that the 
recreational boating industry has the capability to advance and deploy 
these new technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Media Center, ``Press 
Release: NFWF and NOAA announce Vessel Strike Avoidance Fund 2024 
requests for proposals'', available at https://www.nfwf.org/media-
center/press-releases/nfwf-and-noaa-announce-vessel-strike-avoidance-
fund-2024-request.

    This new grant program, entitled the ``Vessel Strike Avoidance 
Fund'', has been established as ``a catalyst to foster promising 
detection and communication technologies from development to 
implementation.'' \13\ The funding of this program and the notice of 
request for proposal in conjunction with NOAA demonstrates that there 
is a understanding of the tangential benefit that deployment of 
technology solutions can bring to the effort of NARW recovery. This 
model, and the framework that would be established by H.R. 8704, will 
bring the vision of these technologies to reality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Id.

    The approaches employed by H.R. 8704 are a steadfast way to ensure 
that there is a real effort made to recover the depleted population of 
NARWs present in the Nation's ocean access points, while protecting and 
sustaining the way of life for mariners in communities up and down the 
Eastern seaboard. The NMMA fully supports H.R. 8704, To require the 
Secretary of Commerce to establish a grant program to foster enhanced 
coexistence between ocean users and North Atlantic right whales and 
other large cetacean species and urges a swift passage through the 
House Committee on Natural Resources with bipartisan support. The NMMA 
believes that all stakeholders with an interest in this rule should 
fully embrace a modern, outcomes-oriented strategy to protect the NARW, 
human lives, and our nation's economy--a strategy that embraces current 
technology, quality data, and collaboration with public and private-
sector partners. This reasonable approach is far more likely to be 
effective at reducing strike risk than the expansive, unenforceable, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and ill-conceived Vessel Speed Rule.

            Sincerely,

                                          Frank Hugelmeyer,
                                                  President and CEO

                                 ______
                                 

          Marine Retailers Association of the Americas (MRAA)

                                  and

                 Association of Marina Industries (AMI)

                                                   May 20, 2024    

The Honorable Gina M. Raimondo
Secretary of Commerce
1401Constitution Ave NW
Washington, DC 20230

Re: Proposed Amendments to the North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike 
        Reduction Rule (Docket ID No. NOAA-NMFS-2022-0022)

    Dear Secretary Raimondo:

    On behalf of the Marine Retailers Association of the Americas 
(MRAA) and the Association of Marina Industries (AMI), we are writing 
to request that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) withdraw 
the rule and instead reopen the docket for additional public comment on 
other means of mitigating the risk of vessel strikes. In particular, 
technological options that can achieve a performance-based vessel 
strike reduction rule that lower whale strike risk without the 
extremely detrimental impact on boater safety and the coastal economy 
that would be assured with the rule as proposed. We urge that the 
current rule be reconsidered so more reasonable and more effective 
protections for the North Atlantic Right Whale (NARW) can be crafted 
with meaningful input and engagement from the impacted recreational 
boating and fishing community.
    The MRAA is the leading trade association of North American small 
businesses that sell and service new and pre-owned recreational boats 
and operate marinas, boatyards, and accessory stores. MRAA represents 
more than 1,300 individual member retail locations and conducts 
advocacy efforts on their behalf.
    The Association of Marina Industries represents a diverse 
membership of over 1000 marinas, boatyards, marine dealers, yacht 
clubs, and public/private moorage basins across the United States and 
around the world. These companies provide slip space for over 240,000 
recreational watercraft and employ over 13,000 marine tradesmen and 
women. Over 1 million boaters access the water through AMI member 
marinas. AMI marina association member companies range from small 
family-owned and -operated companies to large corporations. In addition 
to facility operators and equipment manufacturers, membership 
represents academic and government agency interests, consultants, 
insurance and engineering firms, and many marine trade associations.
    Our associations are adamantly opposed to the rule as drafted. The 
rule as drafted does not represent a proven means of protecting the 
critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale (NARW) and NMFS has 
consistently failed to take the consequences of this proposed rule into 
consideration during the rulemaking process. Nor has NMFS considered 
technology-based alternatives that may provide better protection for 
the NARW while minimizing the impact on boater safety and the coastal 
economy. Most critical for the membership of our associations, many of 
which are defined as ``Small Businesses'' according to the definitions 
set forth by the U.S. Small Businesses Administration, has been the 
severe underestimation of the economic impact of the proposed rule. 
NMFS's estimate that this rule would result in an economic impact of 
only $46 million per year \1\ based solely on NMFS's estimate of the 
number of ``delayed transit hours'' for impacted vessels \2\ is an 
estimate of only a single and likely smallest facet of the vast 
economic impact of the proposed rule. Numerous comments on the proposed 
rule, including our own, made this underestimation abundantly clear to 
the agency, however we have seen little effort to grapple with the true 
impact of the proposed rule that will absolutely exceed an annual 
impact of $100 million many times over. Lastly, the deficiency of the 
IRFA is echoed by the United States Small Business Administration 
office of Advocacy, who urged ``NMFS to consider all potential impacts 
to small businesses from the proposed rule, and to update its IRFA to 
better account for these small business impacts.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NOAA-NMFS-2022-0022-0005
    \2\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NOAA-NMFS-2022-0022-0001
    \3\ https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Advocacy-
Vessel-Strike-Rule-Comment-Letter-2022.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To be clear, given the safety impact of the proposed 10 knot speed 
restriction, many recreational boaters, as well as commercial charter 
captains, will not put the safety of their vessel, themselves or their 
passengers at risk and will simply chose not to make the voyage at all. 
From the perspective of our members who sell, service, and store these 
impacted vessels, this proposed rule will have the real-world impact of 
a seasonal closure of the designated areas, making their products and 
services effectively useless for significant portions of the year. 
Furthermore, aside from the many potential safety considerations and 
concerns of traveling at only 10kts, the imposed 10kt speed limit will 
also make a majority of offshore and long-distance trips simply 
untenable due to the increased cost and time it will take to transit 
operating only at 10kts. For example, Charter Captain Freddy Gamboa, 
Owner, and Operator of Andreas' Toy Charters, an offshore fishing 
charter located in Point Pleasant New Jersey highlighted in his June 
6th, 2023, testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee, 
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries, that ``in a typical 
offshore charter, my primary objective is to cover a substantial 
distance . . . [and] the imposition of a 10kts vessel speed limit would 
render these trips impossible to conduct.'' \4\ Not only does this 
apply to charter captains, but will indeed the ability of recreational 
boaters as well, ultimately having negative impacts on MRAA and AMI 
members as well as the broader coastal economy. To clarify what impact 
our members are expecting to face if the rule is finalized as proposed, 
we surveyed 65 of our members, both marine dealers and brokers, to 
craft an estimated impact on their businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://republicans-naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/
Testimony_Gamboa.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For background and to put our survey results and estimates in 
context, we are including statistics on the overall impact of the 
recreational marine industry on the American economy from the National 
Marine Manufacturers Association's 2023 Economic Impact Study.\5\ The 
study indicates an overall annual economic impact for the recreational 
marine industry of $230.3 billion based on direct, indirect and induced 
spending, $56.7 billion in annual sales of boats, marine products and 
services. All of which supports over 800,000 jobs and more than 36,000 
businesses of which, more than 90% are small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ www.nmma.org/advocacy/economic-impact/recreational-boating
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With this in mind, our survey results indicate that the average 
dealer or broker typically sells just over 12 boats between 35 and 65 
feet annually with the total amongst respondents representing 739 total 
sales per year. The average revenue generated from sales of boats in 
this size category is $3.7 million per year per dealer or broker with 
the total reported annual revenue being $224,275,000. We then asked 
respondents to estimate the number of sales they expect to lose if the 
proposed rule is finalized as proposed as well as the corresponding 
loss in revenue from those sales. Our respondents indicated an 
estimated average loss in revenue of $3 million per business per year 
and a total loss of sales revenue of more than $153.2 million.
    In addition to the sale of a boat, many of our members support 
their businesses by servicing, provisioning, and providing dock space 
for boats between 35 and 65 feet, and.65 feet and above. Survey 
respondents were asked to estimate their lost revenue if the proposed 
rule is finalized as proposed and on average, they estimated a loss of 
$1.1 million per year with a total loss of non-sales related revenue of 
$15 million. The total lost sales revenue and lost revenue on service, 
dock space, and provisioning together are estimated by respondents to 
be worth more than $168.3 million per year.
    This impact is only from a sample of 65 MRAA and AMI members, we 
note that there are 496 marine dealers and brokers on the Atlantic 
coast who face the same impact of the proposed rule. In order to 
capture the entire impact of the proposed rule for marine dealers and 
brokers on the Atlantic coast, we have used our survey results to 
extrapolate the full impact of the rule on these nearly 500 businesses 
on the Atlantic coast. Based on an estimated average loss of sales 
revenue of $303,484 per boat per year in the 35-to-65-foot category and 
an estimated average loss of 10.1 boat sales per year, the estimated 
impact of the proposed rule on these 496 businesses is over $1.5 
billion in lost sales revenue with an additional estimated loss in non-
sales revenue of more than $566 million for a full estimate of the 
impact of the proposed rule of over $2 billion per year.
    While these are estimates of the survey respondents, we later 
followed up with respondents to ask for current inventories of boats in 
the 35-to-65-foot category and those who responded to this follow up 
indicated that on average dealers and brokers currently have 18.7 units 
in stock worth an average of over $11 million. A table of our results 
is included below.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    In addition to our survey, we utilized data available through 
Marinas.com to estimate the impact on marinas and boatyards. There are 
over 4500 marinas along the East Coast, of which 1230 provide dockage 
rental for vessels in the size range. This accounts for 2.6 million 
available marina dock space rental nights per year. Like hotels, you 
can think of renting marina dock spaces as booking a hotel room per 
night. These ``room nights'' are rented primarily by vessels traveling 
along the coast. Restrictions on the ability to navigate, like a 10-
knot speed restriction, would impact the total number of bookings and 
rentals. The total revenue of this activity is roughly $169 million, 
accounting for a total economic impact of approximately $600 million, 
according to AMI's Economic Impact Calculator (developed by the 
University of Florida). Even a small decrease in the total annual 
bookings for these larger marinas would result in close to the $46 
million per year total estimate by NMFS.

    We will note that our estimates presented here are only for those 
businesses that sell, service, store, and provide dock space for the 
impacted class of vessels. This does not consider the impact on those 
businesses that manufacture the vessels or the businesses that 
manufacture and sell accessories, fishing equipment, and other related 
goods, many of which are located far from the Atlantic coast, spreading 
the impact far inland. Nor does it take into consideration the further 
economic impact on the coastal communities that rely on recreational 
boating to support their economies through accommodations, restaurants, 
and other businesses that rely on recreational boaters for tourism 
dollars.
    Clearly, the economic impact of this proposed rule is orders of 
magnitude more than NMFS has estimated and will have devastating 
consequences for businesses across the United States. The vast 
underestimation of the economic impact of the proposed rule should be 
enough on its own to reconsider the rule, yet the proposed rule's 
negative impact on boating safety as well as the availability of 
technology-based alternatives makes a clear case for withdrawing the 
rule and reopening the docket for additional public comment to address 
alternatives that are free of the devastating impacts of the rule as 
proposed. We urge that the current rule be reconsidered so more 
reasonable and more effective protections for the North Atlantic Right 
Whale can be crafted with more meaningful and substantive input from 
the impacted recreational boating and fishing community.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this important 
process. We would be happy to discuss this issue with the agency or 
provide additional information upon request.

            Sincerely,

        Michael Sayre,                Eric Kretsch,
        Director of Government 
        Relations                     Legislative and Clean Marina 
                                      Program Manager
        Marine Retailers 
        Association of the Americas   Association of Marina Industries

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. And without objection, the Subcommittee stands 
adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 1:01 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Bentz

                          VIKING MARINE GROUP
                             New Gretna, NJ

                                                   July 2, 2024    

Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chairman
House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Comments on Legislative Hearing--June 27, 2024

    Dear Chairman Bentz:

    Please accept the following comments from the Viking Marine Group 
regarding the legislative hearing in the Subcommittee on Water, 
Wildlife, and Fisheries held on June 27, 2024. The hearing included 
discussions on several important pieces of legislation, with our focus 
on H.R. 8704.
    We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this important 
topic. As articulated by all the witnesses during the hearing, there is 
a strong commitment to supporting the recovery of the endangered North 
Atlantic Right Whale (NARW). Collaboration with the marine industry and 
leveraging private sector innovation is expected to provide the 
greatest opportunities for the species to recover.
    Our comments relative to the legislative hearing are threefold: 
first, to correct inaccurate statements regarding the lack of 
technology that can detect NARWs to provide examples of risk reduction 
tools currently in use, and to raise awareness of risk reduction tools 
that were omitted from the hearing discussion.
Inaccurate Statements

    It appears that the NOAA representative and the minority witness 
failed to consider current literature on the topic of technology that 
can mitigate the risk of vessel strikes to NARWs and other whale 
species. A casual literature review indicates that there is ample 
technology available today and installed on boats that can detect 
objects in the water, including NARWs and other marine mammals. It is 
critical to recognize that any technology that can detect objects in 
the water improves situational awareness and allows the operator to 
take necessary action to avoid a collision. Thus, having systems and 
equipment on a boat that detects objects in the water also provides a 
measurable reduction in the likelihood of hitting a NARW.
    During the hearing, Dr. Evan Howell stated, ``However, as it 
stands, there is no proven technology that can be adopted rapidly 
enough to reduce lethal vessel strikes of North Atlantic right 
whales.'' Not only is this statement incorrect but stokes a sense of 
concern noting that the Director of the Science and Technology in the 
federal agency charged with managing the NARW as not abreast of all 
ways of reducing risk. It has been recognized that technology is 
expected to play a role in preventing vessel strikes. As stated above, 
we urge Dr. Howell to investigate the array of equipment that is 
commonly installed on boats 35 feet and larger that can detect objects 
in the water, including NARWs.
    When asked about technology currently available and employed that 
can save right whales Dr. Jessica Redfern stated, ``The technology is 
not yet ready or available.'' This statement was also inconsistent with 
scientific literature.
    It is important to note that there is strong scientific evidence 
supporting the existing and use of technologies to mitigate strike 
risk. Recent research from researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic 
Institution found, ``We also conclude that surface-based whale 
detection may be very effective for whale-strike mitigation, and a 
large-scale deployment on suitable vessels in high-risk areas could 
effectively reduce whale strikes.'' \1\ This highlights the 
effectiveness of surface-based detection systems, many of which are 
already in use and installed on a broad range of vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Baille, L.M.R. and Daniel P. Zitter Bart, Effectiveness of 
surface-based detection methods for vessel strike mitigation of North 
Atlantic right whales. Endangered Species Research Vol. 49: 57-69, 2022 
Effectiveness of surface-based detection methods for vessel strike 
mitigation of North Atlantic whales (int-res.com)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another 2024 peer-reviewed paper found that computer vision systems 
are viable for widespread vessel-based application and at various near-
shore locations with high risks of physical disturbance to threatened 
and endangered whales: ``Due to the relatively low acquisition cost 
(<$20k USD) of land-based TI (thermal imaging) systems, they are a 
viable option for widespread application at various near-shore 
locations with high risks of physical disturbance of threatened and 
endangered whales.'' Note that the equipment evaluated in this study is 
commonly installed on vessels.
Risk Reduction Technology Available and Currently in Use

    Aside from scientific papers, the marine industry is constantly 
developing tools that allow boats to reduce at-sea collisions with 
objects in the water, including NARWs. Below are examples of equipment 
commonly installed on boats today with visual, thermal and infrared 
capabilities that can detect NARWs.

     FLIR M364C-364C LR: Capable of detecting a 30-foot vessel 
            up to 3,700 meters and a human-sized target up to 1,030 
            meters.

     Sionyx Nightwave: Capable of detecting a man-sized object 
            at 150m and a marine vessel-sized target at 450 meters.

     Sentry Camera by SEA.AI: Capable of detecting a buoy at 
            700 meters and a dingy at 3000 meters.

     AI-Ris Computer Vision Sensor by Sea Machines Robotics: 
            Provides advanced detection and classification capabilities 
            for small objects out 500 meters.

    Noting that NARW and other whale species spend time both at the 
surface and at depth, it is critical to recognize that there is below-
surface detection technology available that is also in use today. Below 
are a few products that can detect objects far smaller than a NARW in 
the water.

     Argos 350 by FarSounder: 3D forward-looking sonar 
            providing real-time images of the seabed and objects in the 
            water column up to 35 meters ahead of the vessel.

     Wavefront Systems: The system will detect moderate-sized 
            icebergs, submerged transport containers and whales across 
            the whole 1,500 meter range.

    For reference, an average size NARW is 52 feet long and weighs 
roughly 120,000 pounds.

    A more mundane technology but one that is extensively in use by 
both commercial vessel and pleasure craft fleets is marine radar. 
Marine radar is an accepted and proven technology to improve 
navigational safety and detect large marine mammals. Radar has been 
used in biological research to monitor wildlife, such as detecting and 
tracking fin whales and smaller mammals up to 5.5km or more at lower 
sea states.\2\ This demonstrates radar's is a fully capability and 
available tool widely employed by all manner and sized vessels for 
detecting marine mammals. This also counters the statements of some 
witnesses that technology is not available to detect NARWs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ DeProspo, Douglas F., J, Mobley, W. Hom, and M. Carron ``Radar-
Based Detection, Tracking and Speciation of Marine Mammals from 
Ships,'' Award Number: N00014-04-1-0729 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Omission of SAT Tagging as a Risk Reduction Tool

    The hearing witnesses failed to include any discussion the use of 
Satellite Tagging (SAT), a proven tool to track NARWs and mitigate 
strike risk. SAT tagging provides real-time positional information on 
tagged individuals, allowing vessels to avoid whales on an extremely 
fine scale when integrated into marine electronics. The Australian and 
New Zealand government have had great success deploying SAT tags on 
Southern Atlantic right whales, with some tags staying on for upwards 
of a year and a half with no detrimental impacts to the individuals.\3\ 
In addition, a SAT tagging program carried out by the conservation 
community in the South Atlantic is able to track Southern Right Whales 
as they move across shipping lanes and oil/gas fields during their 
annual migration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Tag retention, wound healing, and subsequent reproductive 
history of southern right whale following satellite‐ (up.ac.za)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It was announced in 2023 that NOAA allocated $3.5 million from the 
Inflation Reduction Act to deploy satellite tags on NARWs, 
demonstrating its efficacy as a proven method used in southern right 
whale management. Yet, no tags have been deployed as far as we have 
been made aware. Satellite tagging can provide real-time tracks of 
whale movements, offering a highly effective tool in reducing risk. In 
simplest terms, if vessel operators know where NARWS are real time, 
they will avoid them. Noting the urgency expressed by the witnesses in 
taking action to reduce risk, it is unfortunate that this highly 
effective technology tool is not being utilized.
Conclusion

    The long-term conservation strategy for the NARW and its subsequent 
management plan need to be firmly planted in a science and solutions-
based approach. There is no place for driven agendas given the 
seriousness of the conservation challenge at hand with NARW. Any 
successful approach includes acknowledgment that meaningful 
conservation will only be achieved with through a multi-pronged 
approach that considers all tools to reduce risk of vessel strikes. 
Technology, in various forms and as supported by the facts, can and 
must play a role in those efforts. Technology will have varying degrees 
of effectiveness depending on a multitude of factors, including factors 
attributed to the vessel. Again, referring to the scientific 
literature, it has been found that ``when vessels have a high 
maneuverability and the ability to change velocity quickly (e.g. 
certain fishing vessels and ferries), vessel-based detection systems 
would be very effective,'' \4\ The science clearly supports the 
adoption of a comprehensive and nuanced approach that matches risk 
reduction measures to the risk profile of the vessel. This type of 
approach is expected to meet the conservation needs of the resource and 
balance the operation needs of the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Baille, L.M.R. and Daniel P. Zitter Bart, Effectiveness of 
surface-based detection methods for vessel strike mitigation of North 
Atlantic right whales. Endangered Species Research Vol. 49: 57-69, 2022 
Effectiveness of surface-based detection methods for vessel strike 
mitigation of North Atlantic whales (int-res.com)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As noted during the hearing, a minimum of a 20% reduction of risk 
is likely to be achieved through a vessel speed rule. We believe that 
level of reduction can be achieved through other approaches. We hope 
members of the Subcommittee and NOAA understand that it is not expected 
that this level of risk reduction shall be achieved through a single 
piece of equipment or system but through a multimodal approach that 
utilizes all technology. Recognizing that not all vessels possess a 
suite of instruments that can achieve the desired level of reduction of 
risk, basic communication systems allow detection information to be 
share with other vessels when geographically relevant.
    It is vital to acknowledge that there are multiple tools available 
today to reduce the risk of vessel strikes to NARWs. A recent paper 
authored by NOAA scientist, states that ``Consideration should be given 
to multiple data sources, models, perspectives, sources of expertise, 
and possible solutions, rather than to a single model output or 
approach to mitigation.'' \5\ We urge NOAA to recognize the role of 
these technologies alongside vessel speed regulations in mitigating 
risk. Moreover, we hope HR8704 advances in the House of 
Representatives, enabling the necessary resources to support the 
private sector in carrying out the evaluation and implementation of 
these tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Roberts et al. North Atlantic right whale density model, Marine 
Ecology Progressive Series, Vol. 732: 167-192, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Evan Howell stated that NOAA remains fully committed to 
minimizing the regulatory burden on ocean users by investing in and 
adopting technology-based solutions. We hope that commitment includes 
acknowledging the technology available today that allows boats to 
detect whales while underway and take action to reduce the risk of 
vessel strikes.
    We are eager to work with the Subcommittee members, NOAA, and other 
partners to advance the important work of quantifying risk reduction 
that is taking place today. We also hope that HR8704 is advanced in the 
House of Representatives so the necessary resources can be distributed 
to the sector most capable of evaluating existing tools and bringing 
new risk reduction tools to market.

            Sincerely,

                                          John DePersenaire
                  Director of Government Affairs and Sustainability

                                 ______
                                 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Huffman

                                                  June 27, 2024    

Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chairman
Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Legislative Hearing on H.R. 8704 (Rep. Carter of GA), ``To require 
        the Secretary of Commerce to establish a grant program to 
        foster enhanced coexistence between ocean users and North 
        Atlantic right whales and other large cetacean species and 
        other bills''

    Dear Members of the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries:

    We write to you with serious concerns about H.R. 8704 and the 
impact it would have on North Atlantic right whales by blocking agency 
action on vessel speed rules for multiple years. Ship strikes and 
fishing gear entanglement are the two leading causes for the ongoing 
rapid collapse of the North Atlantic right whale population.\1\ Over 
the past eight years, a documented 23 North Atlantic right whales have 
fallen victim to ship strikes that led either to death, serious 
injuries, or sublethal injuries; these strikes occurred in both U.S. 
and Canadian waters and were caused by boats of all sizes.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Amendments to the North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike 
Reduction Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. 46,921 at 46928 (August 1,2022); S.M. 
Sharp et al., Gross and Histopathologic Diagnoses From North Atlantic 
Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis Mortalities Between 2003 and 2018, 135 
Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 1, at 1. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531(c)(1); 16 
U.S.C. Sec. 1361(6)
    \2\ 2017-2024 North Atlantic Right Whale Unusual Mortality Event, 
Detailed Tables on Mortality, Serious Injury and Morbidity Cases 
available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3/2024-05/North-Atlantic-
Right-Whale-Causes-of-Death-for-Confirmed-Carcasses-SI-and-Morbidity-
Tables-Combined-02May2024-1-.pdf (Last accessed June 27, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With respect to H.R. 8704, this bill would stop the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) from being able to amend, 
modify, update, or replace the current vessel speed rule regardless of 
the best available science and harm caused to the species. This bill 
would undermine the federal rulemaking process as well as the 
scientific basis on which the agency operates. Further, this bill would 
keep the agency from complying with species-saving statutes like the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA), among other relevant authorities. Additionally, the grant 
program this bill would create already exists and was passed into law 
at the end of the 117th congress. Creating a separate fund would be 
both redundant and potentially harmful for previously enacted 
legislation, including section 201 of division JJ of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act 2023 (16 U.S.C. 1393) and section 11303 of the James 
M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (16 
U.S.C. 1391). We oppose H.R. 8704 for these reasons and encourage you 
to do the same.
    The below provides background on NOAA's proposed rule and 
emphasizes the dire threat ship strikes pose to North Atlantic right 
whales. The 2022 proposed rule is based on the best available science 
and evidence, as well as the agency's Congressionally-mandated 
authority to protect species under its jurisdiction from injury, death, 
and potentially extinction. When finalized, the rule will give this 
species a fighting chance for survival.
    The species has been in decline for over a decade, with only about 
356 individual right whales remaining today.\3\ Collisions with vessels 
are one of the two leading causes of injury and death for right whales. 
Because they do not have a dorsal fin, and they spend much of their 
time at shallow depths, right whales (especially mothers and calves) 
are particularly susceptible to collisions with vessels. And the true 
impact of ship strikes on right whales may be much higher, as 
scientists estimate that observed deaths only represent around one 
third of total right whale mortalities. With so few whales left, every 
ship strike is detrimental to the potential recovery of this species. 
In fact, NMFS has determined that less than one right whale can die 
from anthropogenic causes per year for the species to reach its optimum 
sustainable population.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ With a slight stabilization, the overall North Atlantic right 
whales' downward trend is still troubling as updated population numbers 
released (October 23, 2023), New England Aquarium.
    \4\ National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2024. Draft U.S. 
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessment, available 
at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/29/2024-01653/
draft-2023-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports#::text=updated% 
20abundance%20estimates.-
,North%20Atlantic%20Right%20Whale%2C%20Western%20North 
%20Atlantic,individuals%20as%20of%20December%202021 (Last accessed June 
27, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Slowing vessels down in key areas and times is currently the most 
effective management tool for reducing ship strikes. At high speeds, 
vessels cannot safely maneuver to avoid right whales, leaving 
insufficient time for vessel operators and whales to avoid a collision. 
Should a collision occur, studies have found that slowing vessel speeds 
to 10 knots reduces their risk of death from ship strikes by 80% to 
90%. NMFS recognizes that mariner safety is extremely important and has 
included safety deviation provisions since the initial rule in 2008. 
Overall, the proposed regulatory changes continue to emphasize mariner 
safety as well as preventing right whale injury and mortality.
    It is absolutely vital to slow down vessels when mothers and calves 
are nursing in the Southeast and migrating through the Mid-Atlantic 
during calving season, and when the whales are aggregating in New 
England during the foraging season. And many of these seasonal slow 
zones fall outside of the heart of boating and recreational fishing 
seasons.
    In January of this year, a calf experienced severe propeller cuts 
to the head and mouth after a ship strike, eventually succumbing to a 
slow, painful death two months later. The vessel in question was 
determined to likely be between 35-57 feet in length and thus not 
subject to the current speed limits. In February 2021, another right 
whale calf died from propeller wounds, broken ribs, and a fractured 
skull, and the mother was seriously injured, after a collision with a 
54-foot recreational fishing vessel. Although these captains were not 
operating illegally, these collisions caused the tragic loss of a 
mother and calf, which are vital to the future of the population. 
Further, the 2021 collision resulted in the sinking of the $1.2 million 
vessel, endangering all passengers on board.
    Saving this species from extinction will take a collective effort 
from the fishing, boating, and shipping industries to effectively 
reduce the risk of deadly collisions. The federal government has an 
obligation to protect these whales from this clear threat by 
implementing stronger regulations and enforcement procedures. H.R. 8704 
would hamstring the federal government's ability and responsibility to 
protect the North Atlantic right whale and we ask you to oppose this 
latest attempt to gut bedrock environmental laws.

            Sincerely,

        Animal Legal Defense Fund     NRDC (Natural Resources Defense 
                                      Council)

        Animal Welfare Institute 
        (AWI)                         NY4WHALES

        Center for Biological 
        Diversity                     Ocean Conservancy

        Cetacean Society 
        International                 Ocean Conservation Research

        Conservation Law Foundation   Ocean Defense Initiative

        Defenders of Wildlife         Oceana

        Earthjustice                  One Hundred Miles

        Endangered Habitats League    Predator Defense

        Endangered Species 
        Coalition                     Resource Renewal Institute

        Environment America           Sanctuary Education Advisory 
                                      Specialists SEAS
        Environment Massachusetts     Save Animals Facing Extinction

        Environmental Investigation 
        Agency (EIA)                  Save the Manatee Club

        Georgia Interfaith Power 
        and Light                     Seattle Aquarium

        Great Old Broads for 
        Wilderness                    Shedd Aquarium

        Healthy Ocean Coalition       Sierra Club

        International Fund for 
        Animal Welfare (IFAW)         Southern Environmental Law Center

        International Marine Mammal 
        Project of Earth Island 
        Institute                     The Maritime Aquarium at Norwalk

        Kettle Range Conservation 
        Group                         Whale and Dolphin Conservation

        League of Conservation 
        Voters                        Wildlife Conservation Society

        Mystic Aquarium               World Wildlife Fund

        Nevada Wildlife Federation 
        Inc.                          Zoo New England: Franklin Park 
                                      Zoo & Stone Zoo

                                 ______
                                 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Levin

                      PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE

                              Kingston, WA

                                                  July 10, 2024    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chair
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chair
Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
1332 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: H.R. 6841, A bill to establish a Coastal and Estuarine Resilience 
        and Restoration Program

    Dear Chair Westerman. Ranking Member Grijalva, Chair Bentz, and 
Ranking Member Huffman:

    On behalf of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, I am writing to 
express our support for the bipartisan Resilient Coasts and Estuaries 
Act, H.R. 6841. However, we ask that the bill be amended to include 
Tribal governments in the list of governments that can participate in 
the Coastal and Estuarine Resilience and Restoration Program. There has 
been too little attention to the growing needs of our nation's coastal 
tribal communities in recent years. This is particularly true for the 
Pacific Northwest, where coastlines are eroding at an alarming rate, 
and essential salmon and shellfish species are steeply declining. The 
Resilient Coasts and Estuaries Act revitalizes key federal programs 
that aim to combat these challenges. In recognition of the urgency of 
coastal decline, we urge you to amend the bill to include Tribal 
governments in the Coastal and Estuarine Resilience and Restoration 
Program and pass the Resilient Coasts and Estuaries Act out of 
Committee, and we ask that Congress approve this bill during the 118th 
Congress.
    The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is a sovereign nation of over 1,342 
citizens located on the tip of the Kitsap Peninsula of Puget Sound in 
Northwest Washington State. In our language, ``S'Klallam'' means ``the 
Strong People,'' and despite having been displaced from our ancestral 
homelands and faced with challenges that threatened our way of life, 
our Tribe has survived, and thrived, because of the strength, 
determination, and wisdom of our ancestors. In 1855, our ancestors 
negotiated the Treaty of Point No Point, which, among other things, 
reserved our hunting, fishing, and gathering rights. We rely on those 
Treaty rights to this day for subsistence, commerce, and the 
continuation of our traditions and culture. Yet, in recent decades, we 
have seen a sharp decline in important fish and shell fish species, 
particularly our salmon, due to environmental impacts such as habitat 
degradation, pollution, and shifting ecosystems. Our people feel these 
impacts every day as they eat away at our Treaty rights. Even as we 
seek to implement restoration plans, we are hampered by a lack of 
available funding and inadequate partnerships from federal agencies. 
This is entirely inconsistent with the United States' obligations under 
the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point and its other trust and treaty 
obligations to protect our lands and resources and provide for the 
health and well-being of our citizens. Respect for Tribal sovereignty, 
like respect for the rule of law itself, requires more than mere 
acknowledgment. It requires federal agencies to act in accordance with 
our right to make decisions affecting our lands, resources, and 
citizens. This includes our responsibility to govern on issues 
affecting our environmental health, safety, and wellness.
    The Resilient Coasts and Estuaries Act is essential to bringing the 
federal government more in line with its trust and treaty obligation to 
our Tribe. It would revitalize and improve two programs that are 
essential to protecting and promoting the environmental resiliency of 
Puget Sound. First, this bill reauthorizes the Coastal and Estuarine 
Land Conservation Program (CELCP), which has been without funding since 
2017. CELCP provides funds to state, regional, and other units of 
governments to protect coastal and estuarine areas of ecological and 
historic value. Funding from this program is needed to support 
essential conservation activities. Coastal restoration projects in Port 
Gamble Bay, Quilcene Bay, and other coastal embayments throughout our 
usual and accustomed area will provide important nearshore habitat for 
salmon, Pacific herring, and other species. Life stages of salmon are 
tied to the shallow estuaries and nearshore habitats for refuge from 
predation, abundant food sources, and an osmoregulatory transition 
during juvenile migration. Impairments from shoreline armoring, fill, 
and overwater structures inhibit the growth of aquatic vegetation and 
degrade nearshore habitats. Funding for projects like the Port Gamble 
shoreline restoration and the Quilcene Bay restoration will go a long 
way to improve coastal processes and restore nearshore habitat for 
salmon, herring, and shellfish that are critical for Tribal subsistence 
and commercial harvesting.
    Second, the Resilient and Coastal Estuaries Act directs the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency to designate five new National 
Estuarine Research Reserves in the next five years. The National 
Estuarine Research Reserve System is a network of thirty coastal sites 
designated to protect and study estuarine systems in collaboration with 
and service to surrounding communities, including Tribal communities. 
Tribal Nations are the original conservationists and stewards of the 
land but are often excluded from federal-state conservation 
partnerships. This program includes Tribal Nations, and as such, PGST 
would welcome its expansion as an opportunity to work with the state of 
Washington to designate and protect local estuaries near our lands.

    We urge you to amend the Resilient and Coastal Estuaries Act to 
include Tribal governments in the Coastal and Estuarine Resilience and 
Restoration Program and secure its enactment in this Congress.

    H.R. 6814, the Resilient and Coastal Estuaries Act, is a good bill 
that will provide many benefits as set forth above. This bill, however, 
underscores the need for Congress to enact the Tribal Coastal 
Resiliency legislation, which has been introduced in several 
congressional sessions. This legislation (H.R. 3976), would allow the 
Department of Commerce to award competitive grants to Tribal Nations to 
achieve tribal coastal zone objectives, including protecting, 
restoring, or preserving areas in the zone that hold important 
ecological, cultural, or sacred significance. The bill would not only 
ensure Tribal governments are directly included in Coastal Zone 
Management Act programs, it would also honor tribal sovereignty and the 
Federal-Tribal government-to-government relationship and the Federal 
government's trust and treaty obligations. We look to you to uphold 
Congress' trust and treaty obligations by furthering long-term 
conservation efforts and fortifying our efforts to protect and preserve 
our people, our homelands, and our traditions.

            Sincerely,

                                             Amber Caldera,
                                                            Chair  

                                 [all]