[Senate Hearing 111-46]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-46
THE BLUE ECONOMY: THE ROLE OF THE OCEANS IN OUR NATION'S ECONOMIC
FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 9, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-769 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
BILL NELSON, Florida JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
MARK WARNER, Virginia MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
Ellen L. Doneski, Chief of Staff
James Reid, Deputy Chief of Staff
Bruce H. Andrews, General Counsel
Christine D. Kurth, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Brian M. Hendricks, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Ranking
Chairman ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BARBARA BOXER, California MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 9, 2009..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Snowe....................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Witnesses
Judith T. Kildow Ph.D., Director, National Ocean Economics
Program........................................................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Alexandra Cousteau, Founder and President, Blue Legacy
International.................................................. 11
William Fenical, Distinguished Professor of Oceanography and
Pharmaceutical Science, Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
University of California....................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Brad Warren, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Deerin Babb-Brott, Assistant Secretary of Oceans and Coastal Zone
Management, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts........... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Willett Kempton, Ph.D., Associate Professor, College of Earth,
Ocean and Environment, and Director, Center for Carbon-free
Power Integration, University of Delaware; Chair, R&D
Subcommittee, Offshore Wind Working Group, American Wind Energy
Association.................................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Appendix
John D. Rockefeller IV, U.S. Senator from West Virginia, prepared
statement...................................................... 51
THE BLUE ECONOMY: THE ROLE
OF THE OCEANS IN OUR
NATION'S ECONOMIC FUTURE
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and
Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria
Cantwell, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Oceans,
Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard will come to order.
Welcome to our panelists this morning. I would like to
thank my colleague Senator Snowe, who I am sure is going to
join us shortly, for helping to participate in today's hearing.
Today, we are trying to shine a spotlight on the Blue
Economy and its contribution to our Nation's economic health
and revitalization. The Blue Economy, the jobs and economic
opportunities that emerge from our oceans, Great Lakes, and
coastal resources, is one of the main tools to rebuilding the
U.S. economy.
America, from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to Seattle,
Washington, and as far inland as Topeka, Kansas, rely on our
oceans for numerous goods and services--for food to fuel to
rain for crops and, obviously, the great work we are going to
hear about today, cures for cancer.
Today, the ocean and coastal economies of the U.S. provide
over 50 million jobs for Americans and contribute nearly 60
percent of our GDP. We also rely on our oceans for trade in
goods vital to our economy. Nearly 80 percent of U.S. imports
and export freight is transported through our seaports.
And in my home State of Washington, our history and our
economy are based on a rich maritime tradition that contributes
as much as $3 billion for commercial fishing alone. For
example, there are over 3,000 vessels in Washington's fishing
fleet, and it employs over 10,000 fishermen.
There is great untapped wealth in our oceans, and that will
lead to new jobs and new business opportunities. Fungus living
on seaweed, bacteria growing in deep sea mud, sea fans may all
hold the key to curing cancer and other deadly diseases. And
aquaculture is a growing industry along our shorelines and in
the deep blue waters.
And concern with climate change is fueling interest in new
blue jobs in renewable energy resources. According to a report
released yesterday by the National Ocean Economics Program, the
strength of the Blue Economy is dependent upon the health of
our oceans and our coast, and today, our oceans are in peril.
Climate change, ocean acidification, pollution,
overfishing, rising sea levels, and marine debris all have
economic, social, and environmental impacts to our coast, to
our oceans, and coastal economies. Protecting our oceans is an
environmental and economic imperative.
There are steps that we need to take to maintain our Blue
Economy. First, we must pass climate change legislation to
reduce our carbon emissions, and second, we must strengthen the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by doubling its
budget over the next 4 years and creating a strong mission
through an organic act that doesn't exist at this point. Third,
we must find new approaches to incorporating ecosystem-based
management in our oceans.
Our Blue Economy has been the foundation of our economy for
centuries in the past, and it holds tremendous potential to
growing economic opportunities for future generations. Our
challenge is to strike a balance between maintaining the
economic and social benefits of our oceans and coastline while
protecting the vital marine ecosystem resources.
Before I introduce the panel today, I would like to turn to
my colleague, Senator Snowe. Again, thank you for being here
and helping us coordinate on the holding of this hearing. And I
will turn to you for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much
for calling this hearing today and for helping accommodate
schedules.
It is a very difficult and challenging time. There are so
many things going on at the same time. But I thought it was
most appropriate to hold this hearing this week during Capitol
Hill Ocean Week, to delve into some of the issues that are
important to the oceans, but also to our Nation's economy.
I am pleased to welcome this esteemed panel of witnesses
today to discuss many of the issues that are so important,
especially in the developments in your respective spheres.
Today, the world's oceans face numerous threats toward
their productivity and viability, including the looming threat
of climate change. So, we must take stock of our ocean
resources and examine the ways we can continue to utilize the
goods and services our ocean provides, while simultaneously
redoubling our efforts to ensure that we are using our oceans
sustainably and also protecting them from the inevitable damage
that will occur as a result of global climate change.
So, I am delighted that all of you could be here today to
discuss relevant developments in your fields of expertise and
help inform the policies we will develop in this committee in
the coming years and months.
The more than 5,500 miles of coastline in my home State of
Maine continues to shape our culture and our economy, as they
have defined our heritage. The oceans have been truly the
lifeblood of Maine's economy.
In 2007, Maine's fishermen landed over 180 million pounds
of fish valued at nearly $350 million. Still, this represents a
precipitous decline from the industry's peak in the early
1990s, particularly in the groundfish industry of cod, haddock,
and flounder.
Until the last few years, Maine's fishermen made their
living pursuing a diverse number of species, including
groundfish, shrimp, lobsters, scallops, among others. Yet
increasingly, our fishermen have been dependent on a single
species. In 2007, over 80 percent of the value of Maine's catch
came from lobster. This kind of consolidation is extremely
perilous for our coastal communities, which rely heavily on the
fishing industry and its affiliated businesses to survive.
Meanwhile, additional uses of ocean spaces are emerging
that can contribute not just to our economy, but to the future
of energy generation and climate policy. And just this last
Friday, I joined the Governor of Maine and the Congressional
delegation to meet with Secretary Chu about developing an
offshore wind energy research development center at the
University of Maine.
Today, the average Maine family spends 20 percent of their
household budget on energy. That is expected to expand to 40
percent within the next 10 years.
Meanwhile, off the coast of just the Lower 48 States, we
have wind resources capable of producing enough energy to
exceed our Nation's total energy demand. And just off the coast
of Maine lies wind resources that can generate energy
equivalent to approximately 40 nuclear power plants.
Technology is currently available to harness the winds in
shallow water, but we must push the envelope. Developing
deepwater offshore wind technology capable of operating farther
from our coasts where the winds are stronger and more
consistent can help reform energy generation in Maine,
throughout the Nation, and across the globe.
Maine is certainly uniquely positioned to be a leader in
this effort. The oceanographic conditions in our State waters
have excellent wind resources and water deep enough to deploy
floating turbines, and that is going to be critically
important. So, hopefully, we can explore the potential of this
enormous opportunity for the State, as well as our country. It
means thousands of jobs that can be created nationally, and it
certainly means a clean energy future for generations.
I want to again thank our panel of witnesses for their
efforts to be here today. And I also want to recognize Dr.
Kildow and her report. I know she co-authored it with Dr.
Charles Colgan, who is a Professor as well as the Chair of the
Community Planning Development Center at the University of
Southern Maine at the Muskie School of Public Service.
And I thought some of the statistics were truly
fascinating, and I think it really does explain the scope of
what we are talking about in terms of the use of the oceans and
what they contribute to our Nation's economy and the coastal
communities. And I am staggered by the fact that when you think
about what you mentioned in your report that coastal counties,
just 18 percent of the U.S. land area, contribute 42 percent of
the U.S. economic output in 2007. The coastal States account
for 83 percent of the U.S. economy.
I think that those are the statistics and facts that have
to be heralded as to why we have to do everything we can to
preserve the way of life in our coastal communities, the
oceans, and what they represent, both for our energy purposes
or for climate change, for our ecosystems, for our habitats.
And people just truly don't understand the dimensions to which
it contributes to this Nation and for generations to come.
So I very much appreciate you all being here today and your
expertise. And if I have to leave early, please forgive me. I
have another meeting on healthcare. What is coming up is we are
beginning on healthcare reform. But I want to thank you all
very much for being here, and I will certainly submit questions
if I can't be here for the question period.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Senator Snowe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, U.S. Senator from Maine
Thank you, Madam Chair, for calling this hearing today to delve
into the incredibly vital role the oceans play in our Nation's economy.
It is appropriate that we have taken the opportunity presented by
Capitol Hill Oceans Week to convene this in-depth discussion.
I am pleased to welcome this esteemed panel of witnesses here today
to delve into these issues and update us on developments in their
respective fields. Today, the world's oceans face numerous threats to
their productivity and viability, including the looming threat of
climate change. So, we must take stock of our ocean resources and
examine the ways we can continue to utilize the goods and services our
oceans provide while simultaneously redoubling our efforts to ensure
that we are using our oceans sustainably, and also protecting them from
the inevitable damage that will occur as a result of global climate
change. Dr. Kildow, Ms. Cousteau, Dr. Fenical, Mr. Warren, Mr. Babb-
Brott, and Dr. Kempton, I thank you all for taking the time to be here
today to discuss relevant developments in your fields of expertise and
help inform the policies we will develop in this Committee in the
coming months and years.
Eons ago, the oceans began carving bays, inlets, and islands to
form the more than 5,500 miles of shoreline in my home state of Maine,
which continue to shape our culture and economy as they have defined
our heritage. From the first settlers who hauled their food from the
bounty of the Gulf of Maine to the proud ships that have been built at
Bath Iron Works since 1888, to today's efforts to develop and deploy
offshore renewable energy technology that can help wean our state from
dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil, the oceans have been the
lifeblood of Maine's economy.
In 2007, Maine's fishermen landed over 180 million pounds of fish
valued at nearly $350 million. Still, this represented a precipitous
decline from the industry's peak in the early 1990s, particularly in
the groundfish industry--cod, haddock, and flounder. Until the last few
years, Maine's fishermen made their living pursuing a diverse number of
species including groundfish, shrimp, lobster, scallops, and others.
Yet increasingly, our fishermen have been dependent on a single
species. In 2007, over 80 percent of the value of Maine's catch came
from lobster. This kind of consolidation is extremely perilous for our
coastal communities which rely heavily on the fishing industry and its
affiliated businesses to survive. Which is why I have worked diligently
with the National Marine Fisheries Service to implement a new
regulatory structure in the groundfish industry that promises to make
our fishery more profitable today and more sustainable for future
generations.
Meanwhile, additional uses of ocean space are emerging that can
contribute not just to our economy, but to the future of our energy
generation and climate policy. Just last Friday, I joined Governor
Baldacci and my colleague Senator Collins in a meeting with the
Secretary of Energy to express our support for establishing a deepwater
offshore wind energy research and development center at the University
of Maine. Today, the average Maine family spends 20 percent of their
household budget on energy costs, a figure projected to grow to 40
percent within 10 years. Meanwhile, off the coasts of just the Lower 48
states, we have wind resources capable of producing enough energy to
exceed our Nation's total energy demand. And just off the coast of
Maine lies wind resources that can generate energy equivalent to
approximately forty nuclear power plants.
Technology is currently available to harness the winds in shallow
water, but we must push that envelope. Developing deepwater offshore
wind technology, capable of operating further from our coasts where the
winds are stronger and more consistent, can help reform energy
generation in Maine, throughout the Nation, and across the globe. Maine
is uniquely positioned to be a leader in this effort--with the research
capabilities already in place at the University of Maine in Orono,
oceanographic conditions in our state waters with excellent wind
resources and water deep enough to deploy floating turbines near shore
in state waters, and legislation now in place--signed into law just
last week--facilitating the testing of offshore wind turbines. Here we
have an industry with the potential to bring tens of billions of
dollars in investments and thousands of jobs to our state and the
Nation, the result of which would be a clean energy future for future
generations.
Once more, I thank our panel of witnesses for their efforts to be
here today, and I look forward to an enlightening discussion. Without
stealing too much of Dr. Kildow's thunder, I want to reference one
statistic that clearly stood out to me in a 2009 report she co-authored
with Dr. Charles Colgan, Chair of the Community Planning and
Development Program at the University of Southern Maine's Muskie School
of Public Service. Their report focuses on the state of the U.S. Ocean
and Coastal Economies, and found that coastal counties--just eighteen
percent of the U.S. land area--contributed forty-two percent of the
U.S. economic output in 2007. As these findings make clear, our oceans
truly hold the key to the future of our Nation's economy.
I regret that prior conflicts dictate that I will not be able to
remain with you for the entirety of this vital discussion, but I will
have several questions which I hope our witnesses will be able to
answer for me in writing to be included in the formal record of these
proceedings. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Snowe. And thank you
for that passion.
Senator Martinez, would you--Senator Martinez, do you care
to make an opening statement?
Senator Martinez. No, thank you very much.
Senator Cantwell. Well, thank you.
We will now turn to our witnesses. And again, I want to
thank them for being here today and for their expertise in this
area. Let me just briefly introduce them.
Dr. Judith Kildow, who is a social scientist and Director
of the National Ocean Economics Program. Ms. Alexandra
Cousteau, Founder and President of the Blue Legacy
International. Dr. William Fenical, Director of the Center of
Marine Biotechnology and Biomedicine of the Scripps Institute
of Oceanography at the University of California. Mr. Brad
Warren, Director of Ocean Health and Sustainable Fisheries
Partnership, the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership in Seattle,
Washington. Welcome. Mr. Deerin Babb-Brott, Assistant Secretary
of Oceans and Coastal Zone Management, the Executive Office of
Energy and Environmental Affairs, the State of Massachusetts,
and Dr. Willett M. Kempton, Associate Professor for Marine
Policy at the University of Delaware.
So welcome to all of you. Thank you for participating in
this important hearing.
And we will start with you, Dr. Kildow.
STATEMENT OF JUDITH T. KILDOW Ph.D., DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL OCEAN ECONOMICS PROGRAM
Dr. Kildow. Good morning, Chair Cantwell and Senator Snowe
and members of the Committee.
My name is Judith Kildow, and I am Director of the National
Ocean Economics Program.
I want to thank you for inviting me to speak today, and I
am here to summarize our new report, as you have referred to
it, and would like to make three points in my testimony.
First, that jobs and businesses generated by the coastal
and ocean economies are the very foundations of the U.S.
economy. The ocean and coastal economies are no longer a subset
of the U.S. economy. They really are the U.S. economy. Second,
coastal and ocean economies will power the Nation's economic
recovery. And third, the deleterious effects of climate change
will adversely affect the continuing growth of these important
economies unless we take action to curb greenhouse gases soon.
So the National Ocean Economics Program began 10 years ago
with an idea that a value could be placed on a portion of the
national economy that was linked to our coasts and coastal
ocean. And you have seen the reports of the compilation of our
data in the report that you referred to.
But before beginning, I want to say two things about the
report. First, to clarify what I will report on is that the
coastal--we measured two economies. First, we measured the
coastal economy, meaning all economic activity generated on
land near the oceans, and then the ocean economy, meaning the
economy generated by activities that depend on using the ocean
and its resources. One is geography-based, the coastal economy.
The other one is industrial-based, based on those industries
that must have and use the ocean.
My report also comes with a caveat. It underreports by a
lot what the ocean economy is worth. It does not include a lot
of sectors, such as pharmaceuticals that you will hear about
today. It doesn't include real estate, which is a huge part of
the financial sector. And it does not include research and
development.
These are categories that are not easily threaded out of
the U.S. accounts from which we drew our data. So this is yet
to come. I say this so that you will understand that the
numbers that I report today are very underreported.
But we did put together a report based on living marine
resources, marine transportation, marine construction, coastal
tourism and recreation, ship and boat building and repair, and
offshore minerals.
Now, how big is the impact of the coast and ocean
economies? Well, Senators Cantwell and Snowe have really
reported the numbers from our report. So I won't repeat what
they have said. I will just summarize by saying that four out
of five people who live in this country live along our coasts
and generate more than 80 percent of the U.S. economy.
This speaks volumes, and they also represent about 80
percent of the jobs. The coast is the U.S. economy, and the
coastal states are, and we can't deny this. If we look at the
small band along the coast, what the impact is, this small band
of shore-adjacent counties, which represents only a small
portion of our country, we find that it represents more than
half of the GDP for this country.
This tiny, little band of coastal shore-adjacent counties
represent almost 50 percent or more than 50 percent of our
gross domestic product and equal amount of jobs and population.
So we really are talking about a mega-economy that has really
been either neglected or avoided in discussions about economic
recovery.
The other part that I want to report is that our fisheries,
which I know are important to you, the value of U.S.-caught
fisheries is one-half of the value of imported fisheries into
this country, something that would have been inconceivable
years ago.
And finally, I would like to say that we looked at
nonmarket values. These are extremely important. They go
unreported most of the time, but it is the value of our
recreational and natural resource assets along the coast--
estuaries, watersheds, beaches. These are worth hundreds of
billions of dollars. We have studies on our website that
describe these values and describe how experts have derived
them.
But this is a part of our economy we cannot ignore. It is
the very foundation upon which the market economy is based, and
it represents a huge savings.
So the next question I want to refer to is what role the
oceans and coastal economies have on the economic recovery.
While all sectors of the coast and ocean economies are in
decline now and will continue to shrink for the next few years,
we should not misconstrue this as eliminating pressures on our
coastal resources.
In fact, this economy will rebound, and it will rebound
stronger, and it will grow essentially across the board. And
when this happens, we have to be mindful that we definitely
conserve and manage our resources so that we can make sure that
we have a healthy economy.
Shipbuilding, marine construction, and other of the sectors
will grow. They will actually stabilize the recovery. These are
sectors that have fiscal and cyclical characteristics that will
make the Nation's economy strong.
Finally, how will climate change impact these economies?
This question probably presents the greatest challenge of all,
unimaginable in years ahead. The significant environmental
changes that we know that are underway that you just mentioned
of sea temperature rise and ocean acidification, et cetera,
will affect our food supplies, the very air we breathe, and our
water supplies at the very least.
The landscape along the coast will definitely shift and
change due to inundation and sea level rise. And shoreline
communities that host these industries that are the foundation
of the U.S. economy are going to have huge challenges in how to
sustain their economies.
The offshore industrial expansion and environmental
protection efforts from new energy and food demands from water
delivery and housing pressures, plus responses to environmental
threats, will require creative management schemes akin to what
coastal management strategies were since the early 1970s.
We project on our team that over the next 30 years, the
Nation will see the most significant changes in the ocean and
coastal economies since the arrival of industrialization and
urbanization.
I hope you have found my summary useful and will take the
time to read the full report that is found on our website and
that we have distributed to your members today.
One final note. Unfortunately, there are no funds to
continue this work, so that this may be the only report of its
kind. While everyone seems to want this information, no one
seems to want to invest in collecting it.
So I suggest that the Federal Government--that it is
imperative that the Federal Government keep a set of oceans
accounts somehow. Why? Because the oceans are too important to
the United States economy to be overlooked.
I thank you for your time and interest.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kildow follows:]
Prepared Statement of Judith T. Kildow Ph.D., Director,
National Ocean Economics Program
Good morning Chairman Cantwell and Members of the Committee.
My name is Judith Tegger Kildow and I am Director of the National
Ocean Economics Program.
I am here today to summarize a major report: ``State of the U.S.
Ocean and Coastal Economies'' just released by my research team from
the National Ocean Economics Program (NOEP) to kick off Capitol Hill
Ocean Week. Let me first give you a bit of background about me and this
report, and then provide you with the information I know you await.
When I had the idea, 10 years ago, that a value could be placed on
that portion of the national economy that was linked to our coasts and
coastal oceans, ``they'' thought I was crazy. This was especially true
at the university where I was a professor--MIT. They had good reason to
think that. I was in the ocean engineering department, not the
economics department. And I wasn't an economist; my Ph.D. is in
international Science Policy. But there was good reason to pursue my
idea:
In 1983, the U.S. acquired an exclusive economic zone offshore of
more than 4 million square miles that more than doubled U.S. territory;
yet its value has barely been estimated until now, and its management
is currently under intense discussions.
I had the notion that I could identify all of the segments of the
economy that depend upon a location near or on the ocean. I thought I
could parse out what fishing really brings to the American economics
menu. And marine transportation. Drilling for oil. Building ships. I
thought I could even figure out the value of a day at the beach!
I assembled an advisory board of world-class economists and other
experts, including a Nobel laureate. Despite my doubters, I persisted,
left MIT, and began a decade-long odyssey that would take the NOEP to
the University of Southern California, the University of Vermont,
California State University Monterey Bay, and the Monterey Bay Aquarium
Research Institute. Basically, what I was doing was carrying a tin cup
to any place interested in my ideas that might host me and my program
and pony up a bit of money to finance the study.
In the beginning I attracted interest from NOAA, which provided
partial funding throughout much of the 10 years, especially the Coastal
Services Center. And early on, I hooked up with Dr. Charles Colgan, a
professor at the University of Southern Maine, who had the intellectual
skills, and the grit and persistence, to fly down to Washington on a
regular basis and immerse himself in the arcane national data bases
that provide the details of the comprehensive report that we have just
concluded.
This was literally grunt work, especially for an academic like
Charlie. But he labored in the trenches, gathering information compiled
over many years using complex formulas that could separate ocean from
non-ocean-related activities in a way that didn't violate disclosure
rules, so that we would have a comprehensive database that embraced the
entirety of two distinct, but overlapping, economies: the coastal
economy, meaning all economic activity generated on the land near the
oceans; and the ocean economy, meaning the economy generated by
activities that depend on using the ocean and its resources. It can get
confusing because the ocean economy and coastal economy are not the
same, yet do overlap, so you cannot add them up to get a single number
that represents the size of these two economies.
But size is important here. The coastal economy alone--that is, the
counties that border the oceans, Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes--
totaled $5.7 trillion in 2007, despite comprising only 18 percent of
U.S. land area, and where more than 108 million people reside and hold
more than 48 million jobs. More than three-quarters of the growth of
the entire U.S. economy has taken place in coastal states.
Parenthetically, 83 percent of U.S. GDP is in those coastal states.
The ocean economy--a smaller economy than the coastal economy--in
2004 generated $138 billion, approximately 1.2 percent of the U.S. GDP,
and provided 2.3 million jobs. This is equivalent in size to the U.S.
insurance industry by employment and the motor vehicle parts industry
by GDP.
I would like to make two points here that I think important:
First, the coastal and ocean economies will power the Nation's
economic recovery.
Second, the deleterious effects of climate change will adversely
affect the continuing growth of these important economies unless we
taken action to curb greenhouse gasses soon.
My report comes with a caveat: it under reports the true size and
impact of the coastal and ocean economies. This is because throughout
the 10 years, we have not been able to fully utilize the data that are
gathered by the Federal Government's North American Industrial
Classification System, which is our primary source of information for
market sectors. The NAICS accounts as established do not fully identify
ocean-related activities. For example, data on the pharmaceutical
industry does not categorize the significant amount of income generated
by the industry from exploiting the riches of the sea to make drugs.
Likewise we can only obtain data on coastal real estate by literally
gathering it by hand--going to local sources to track transactions. If
you've tried buying a house on the coast lately, you'll know that this
is a significant omission.
Nevertheless, we put together a report that measures the economies
of these sectors with consistency so that they are comparable across
geographies and sectors: living marine resources, marine
transportation, marine construction, coastal tourism and recreation,
ship and boat building and repair, and offshore minerals.
Some off-the-top findings detailed in the report about the ocean
economy:
The largest and fastest growing sector of ocean economy was
tourism and recreation with 1.7 million jobs or 75 percent of
ocean economy employment and $70 billion--that's more than half
of GDP; marine transportation was second largest with $27.6
billion, 20 percent of the ocean economy.
Total U.S. offshore oil production, 28 percent of all U.S.
oil production, was valued at >$27 billion in 2004:
$3 billion in state waters, the rest in Federal waters. It is
apparent that the balance has shifted over the years and states
are not getting nearly the revenues that the Federal Government
is from these operations.
Total landed value of fish caught in U.S. waters was $3.7
billion in 2004--and that totals just half the value of
imported fish for that same year. Not so long ago, this would
have been unimaginable. Now farmed seafood is expected to make
up for this loss.
These two economies, ocean and coastal, will drive the Nation's
economic recovery in part just by sheer size, but also because of a
rapidly growing non-market economy in these regions--in short, the
value of a day at the beach. When Dr. Linwood Pendleton, recently a
professor at UCLA and now a Fellow with the Ocean Foundation, joined
our team, we were finally able to quantify the non-market economies,
such as recreation, the allure of scenery and the wildlife viewing.
Professor Jason Scorse from the Monterey Institute for International
Studies continued this work, and found that values from this non-market
economy exceed $100 billion annually, and will grow. It isn't expensive
for families to partake of days at the beach, and they flock there in
increasingly greater numbers, spending money that trickles into the
local economies. You and I have come to appreciate the valuable
services of storm buffering, pollution filtration and fishery nursery
grounds provided by estuaries; the enormous recreational revenues
generated by beaches and harbors, and the importance of stable
shorelines to protect infrastructure ranging from homes to airports.
The value of these services is not found in the marketplace, but needs
to be accounted for as we plan for the challenges that lie ahead.
While all sectors of the coastal and ocean economies are in decline
along with the rest of the economy, changes over past decades have
increased their contributions as a share of the national economy. Over
the next few years, they will shrink, without doubt, causing some to
think that the intense pressures on costal regions have abated so there
is less need to protect these resources.
That would be a serious mistake. The economy will recover
generally, and historic coastal pressures will resume and intensify.
This will result in growth essentially across the board. Ship building,
for example, primarily for the U.S. Navy, marine construction,
particularly for ports, and the offshore minerals industry will grow in
part because of inherent cyclical characteristics, and because of
Federal fiscal policy.
How will climate change alter the future?
First, there will be significant environmental changes, such as sea
level and sea temperature rise, oxygen depletion, and ocean
acidification. The landscape will change dramatically, restructuring an
array of natural and physical assets as well as cultural and economic.
In fact, our research team projects that over the next 30 years the
Nation will see the most significant changes in the ocean and coastal
economies since the arrival of industrialization and urbanization.
Shoreline communities that host tourism, recreation, marine
transportation, and marine construction will have to adapt to an
increasingly hostile environment for both built structures, such as
ports and harbors, and natural structures, such as beaches and
estuaries.
This is the first report of its kind about the United States--and
likely the last. It was prepared by academics at three institutions and
reviewed by experts in government, academia, and nongovernmental
organizations. NOEP has developed the most detailed ocean valuation
methodology available anywhere, and it is in use as a core template by
other nations that are publishing ocean accounts, such as the United
Kingdom, France, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the European
Union.
There are no funds to continue this work so this may be the only
report of this kind. Everyone seems to want this information, but no
one wants to invest in collecting and analyzing it. The NOEP website
will remain on the Internet at www.OceanEconomics.org until the end of
this calendar year, and there will be a special page for this national
report, the appendices, and other supplementary materials we have
prepared including a full set of coastal state summaries of their ocean
and coastal economies. The website for these materials is found on the
inside back cover of the report you have here today. Whether the NOEP
continues, or not, the government should keep a set of ocean accounts
for many reasons, especially in light of the changes that are underway
from greenhouse gas impacts and the volatile economy. The oceans are
too important to the U.S. economy to be overlooked.
Thank you.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Dr. Kildow.
We really do appreciate the report, and I know that you
mentioned these statistics. But I think, in fact, that these
economies of shore-adjacent counties will be the third-largest
economy in the world after the European Union and the United
States based on GDP is just quite an impressive number. So
thank you for your work.
Ms. Cousteau, thank you for being here with us today, and
if you would go ahead and make your statement?
Thank you.
Ms. Cousteau. Thank you, Chair Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. You might have to pull that up close to
you so we can----
Ms. Cousteau. Is that better? No?
Senator Cantwell. It will help if you get it a little
closer. There we go.
STATEMENT OF ALEXANDRA COUSTEAU, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, BLUE
LEGACY INTERNATIONAL
Ms. Cousteau. Before I deliver my formal comments this
morning, I want to say a very sincere thank you to Chair
Cantwell, Senator Snowe, Senator Martinez, to the Members of
this Committee and their respective staff members for inviting
me to be here with you today and share my thoughts on this
critical issue.
My grandfather spoke strongly of the importance of informed
policy and always relished the opportunity to discuss these
issues frankly with leaders of this body. It is an honor for me
to continue that legacy here today because, for me, water and
our oceans are more than a legacy. I have dedicated my life to
exploring how these vital issues impact everyday people around
the world, and I have created my organization, Blue Legacy, to
do just that.
I am convinced that in order to truly make a difference, it
is time we stopped viewing ocean and water policy as
freestanding issues and realize how interconnected all
environmental and economic issues truly are. If this generation
is to change things, we must bring ocean policy ashore.
The ocean is the lifeblood of the Earth, covering more than
70 percent of the planet's surface, driving weather, regulating
temperature, and ultimately, supporting all living organisms.
Throughout history, the ocean has been a vital source of
sustenance, transport, commerce, growth, and inspiration.
But the decline of the oceans due to pollution,
overfishing, and climate change is now increasingly being felt
in the quality of life of people everywhere. It is not just the
coastal areas that are affected by these issues.
Louisiana's wetlands, for example, are twice the size of
the Everglades National Park, funnel more oil into the U.S.
than the Alaskan pipeline, sustain one of the Nation's largest
fisheries, and provide vital hurricane protection for New
Orleans. And they are disappearing under the Gulf of Mexico at
the astonishing rate of 33 football fields a day.
While we were in Louisiana on a recent expedition, we spent
time with the Cajun shrimp fishermen who have been fishing the
Gulf of Mexico for five generations. The core component of the
culture of coastal Louisiana is shrimping and fishing. It is
not just the way people have historically made a living. It is
life. It is what they do, and it is who they are.
Scott St. Pierre, a shrimp fisherman in his mid-40s told
me, ``We are not American. We are Cajun. We love food. We love
our families. We love the church, and we love to fish.'' They
are obviously proud of their unique culture and the fact that
they contribute significantly to the 40 percent of U.S. seafood
supplied from Louisiana's waters.
But sadly, the Cajun way of life is gradually dying out,
due to pressure from a number of factors that are all related
to water. The land is rapidly sinking because Louisiana's
wetlands have been nearly destroyed. Hurricanes, which are
growing increasingly frequent and powerful due to climate
change, threaten to wipe their town off the face of the Earth.
And local young people are leaving for jobs in big cities, in
part because the massive amount of agricultural runoff is
creating a dead zone the size of New Jersey that is eradicating
the Gulf of Mexico's shrimp supplies.
This story is just a single microcosm. The same story is
true of every one of our coastal communities with their myriad
of traditions and economies that are at risk. And this
underscores the reason why, as a Cousteau, I spend the majority
of my time on land, talking with small communities, rather than
on a boat or diving underwater. Because while the degradation
of the oceans is happening out there, it is being felt right
here in the homes of everyday people in this country and around
the world.
If we are to take ocean policy seriously, we need to take
it onto the land. We must start to realize that there can be no
stand-alone policies, especially as they relate to our water
resources. Energy, transportation, climate change,
infrastructure, agriculture, urban development--this is where
our ocean policies must begin because everything is
interconnected.
Water is Earth's great storyteller. It is the mark of
sustainability in a culture and is where we will feel the
effects of climate change first. Unless we begin to work
together to build a shared focus on this blue planet as a
single hydrosphere, we will never build the kind of momentum it
takes to leverage real and long-term change.
Thank you.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Ms. Cousteau.
And thank you for your and your family's dedication to the
oceans and the illuminating research that you have done. So we
appreciate you continuing in that legacy.
Dr. Fenical, welcome. Thank you very much for being here.
We look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM FENICAL, DISTINGUISHED
PROFESSOR OF OCEANOGRAPHY AND PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE, SCRIPPS
INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Dr. Fenical. Thank you very much, Senator Cantwell,
Senators Snowe and Martinez, and members of the Congressional
staff.
I am here to talk about what we haven't done with the
ocean, what remains, and the amazing economic impact that
exploration of the ocean can have on our economy.
This needs to be preset in the context that the American
economy has been and is growingly more dependent upon our
ability to discover and to innovate than it is in our ability
to produce. And in that context, I want to point out that
nature has provided huge numbers of new products of commercial
importance.
Four thousand years ago, humankind began to explore nature
and to utilize products from plants and animals all throughout
the world, and this led, over the ensuing centuries, to the
development of products. You can look at any product that you
have in your medicine cabinet, in your food supplies, in your
cosmetics, and see on the label that natural products are part
of these products providing really an incalculable context of
economic benefit to our society.
But when you think about that development, that history,
what we realize right away is that it has only been very
recently that we have recognized the importance of the oceans.
And a tremendous benefit remains for us to harvest from that
source. As was said, the oceans are a huge component of our
planet. They are, in particular, a very diverse environment in
the American waters, from the Caribbean to the far South
Pacific areas, and we have yet to utilize these products in
commercial context.
What is unique about the ocean is that when one considers
genetic diversity, 44 of the 46 basic phyla, basic divisions of
life, exist in the ocean, whereas, only 17 of these basic
divisions occur on land. And so, to be accurate, we should have
started to explore the ocean first. Why are we looking at our
terrestrial life?
Well, this is natural because we are terrestrial beings,
and we are unfamiliar with the ocean. But we are becoming more
familiar. And with technology, we are becoming able to develop
studies of the oceans, including the deepest parts of the
ocean.
What we are talking about are natural compounds. Genetic
diversity equates because of coding for the production of
natural compounds, and it is these same natural compounds that
have been used to generate great economic value.
These compounds consist of cosmetic products, as I said,
but go way beyond that to include coloring agents, food
products, and so on. And very few of these products have, at
this point, been explored in the ocean.
One of the most important areas, and an area that I
specialize in, is the development of pharmaceutical products.
And this is an area of economic benefit to the United States in
excess of $290 billion per year. Forty of the top
pharmaceutical products provide income in excess of $1 billion
per year.
And so, these are enormous economic benefits. But, of
course, not just the economic benefit, but the benefit to
society is important. In 1900, the average life span was 47
years. Now, in 2009, the average life span is 76 years. And
this is a result of medical research, education in health, but
in a major way, the discovery and development of new
pharmaceutical products that treat cancer, infectious diseases,
diabetes, and the like.
Why haven't we looked at the oceans? The oceans are a great
resource, but it has been the last resource because we are
conservative on developing such a vast area of resources. The
oceans have been explored recently and are beginning to be
explored, and this has resulted in the development of two
marine-derived drugs--one for intense pain and the other for
cancer treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma.
But this is just the beginning of an enormous iceberg of
development and discovery that could happen in the future.
Twenty-six drugs derived from marine life are being developed.
Currently, they are in human clinical trials. And as time
passes, of course, we intend to increase that number
significantly.
What are our challenges? Of course, the challenge is global
warming, seawater temperature increase, and this is providing
extinctions, mass migrations of plants and animals to new
environments, and the like.
Last, I think that the oceans and human health legislation
that we are looking at now is an opportunity to change the
situation in a very positive way to bring a focus on the health
benefits of the ocean and develop new products and resources.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fenical follows:]
Prepared Statement of William Fenical, Distinguished Professor of
Oceanography and Pharmaceutical Science, Scripps Institution of
Oceanography, University of California
Introduction
Scientific and technological discovery and development, more than
ever before, is perhaps the most important foundation of the economy of
the United States of America. As we enter the decades to come, it is
crucial that the U.S. lead in marine biological research providing for
the creation of new industries based upon discoveries made from the
ocean.
The Oceans as Our Great Resource
The world's oceans occupy more than 70 percent of the surface of
the Earth and 90 percent of the volume of its crust. While this is the
largest ecosystem of plant Earth, we have only now realized that it is
the most important of our biological resources.
Biological diversity is best viewed at the phylum level, with
humankind occupying the phylum Chordata. There are 46 phyla of
biodiverse life on this planet, but these are unequally distributed
between terrestrial and marine environments. On land, it is generally
agreed that 17 phyla are represented. In the ocean 44 phyla are
present, comprising our most diverse and complex biological community.
Why has it taken so long to accept this reality?
As terrestrial beings, humans have classically been unable to
comprehend the scope of marine environments and the diverse biota that
abound from the ocean surface to depths of greater than 13,000 meters.
Humans are not adapted to life in the sea, hence they are less familiar
with the oceans and even frightened to explore it.
Genetic Diversity = Chemical Diversity
Since genes are the molecular codes for new chemical compounds, it
is clear that genetic diversity leads to chemical diversity. Thus, it
is easily predicted that the oceans are our most prolific source for
new chemical compounds. Sometimes called ``natural products'',
naturally-produced chemical compounds are the foundation of a large
diversity of industries and products, including pharmaceuticals (50
percent of all drug are from Nature), cosmetic products (most contain
natural chemicals), food flavorings and colorings, food additives
(thickeners, vitamins, preservatives), biomaterials (polymers and
biomaterials), and a host of others. If one examines the labels of
virtually every consumer product we use, natural chemical compounds can
be readily seen.
Values of Natural Products--Pharmaceuticals Top The List
It is difficult to estimate the overall economic importance of
natural chemical compounds, but clearly it is immense. Some of the most
significant areas include the discovery and development of new
pharmaceuticals and personal care products. As the U.S. population
ages, they rely more than ever before on medications that can suppress
or cure human diseases. Since the invention of the automobile, human
life pan has increased from 47 years to over 75 years; much of this
life extension is due to effective medical care which emphasizes drug
treatments for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and many other human
maladies. In 2007, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry documented sales in
excess of $286 B USD.\1\ Much of this came from sales of ``blockbuster
drugs'' such as the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor, which generated
$7 B USD in 2007. Overall, there are more than 40 currently prescribed
drugs that report sales in excess of $1B USD per year.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2008-03-12-
drug-sales_N.htm.
\2\ http://www.drugs.com/top200.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Impact of Pharmaceuticals on Human Life
While the economics of pharmaceutical sales is huge, the positive
benefits on human health must be underscored. More than ever, difficult
diseases are treated with the latest pharmaceutical discoveries.
Diseases once considered fatal, are not treatable and often curable.
There is no question that the discovery and development of new drugs is
one of our most important societal goals.
Pharmaceutical Discovery in the Oceans
Considering that 50 percent of the current drugs are either of
natural origin or fashioned from natural drugs, it is imperative that
we carefully consider the sources we have that are undeveloped. The
treatment of cancer and infectious diseases, in particular, rely on
naturally-occurring chemical compounds (Taxol, Penicillin are prominent
examples) for their effective control. Because of the difficulty in
treating complex cancers, and the growing epidemic of drug-resistant
infectious diseases (MRSA for example), these diseases provide the
greatest societal need for new and more effective therapeutics.
Where will the new drugs in the next decades be derived?
Drug discovery is a very complex process involving many effective
approaches including bioassay-guided synthesis and computer-assisted
design. In the areas of cancer and infectious diseases, it is generally
agreed that natural drugs provide perhaps the best opportunities.
Because of the enormous biodiversity, marine environments provide
the most prolific sources for new, natural drugs. This has been
recognized by academic scientists and pharmaceutical researchers,
leading to two current drugs (for cancer and pain control) on the
market, and more than 25 additional marine-derived drugs currently
being evaluated in human clinical trials.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ D. Newman and G. Cragg, Chap. 12 in Bioactive Natural Products,
Detection, Isolation and Structure Determination, Steven M. Colegate,
Russell J. Molyneux, eds., CRC Press, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the enormous benefits, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry has
been slow to embrace marine drug discovery. This has not been the case
with the smaller biopharmaceutical industries (``Biotech''), which are
less risk averse and can create and utilize new technologies in more
dynamic ways. The linkages between academic scientists familiar with
the ocean and its biodiversity, and biotech industries capable of
development and sales, is a crucial one allowing the oceans to be
explored. It is this aspect of science policy that should be
underscored as the resources of the ocean are developed.
Secondary Benefits of Marine Drug Discovery
It is important to understand that the process of natural drug
discovery has enormous additional benefits to medical research. Often,
new drug candidates are discovered that, for numerous reasons, are
recognized to be unsuitable for treating human disease. At the same
time, these agents possess unique pharmacological properties and affect
human biochemical pathways that were previously unknown or poorly
understood. Known as ``molecular probes'', these compounds have
enormous utility in medical research. One such probe, known as aqueorin
or Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP), is a protein isolated from the
jellyfish Aqueoria victoria. GFP, which can be linked to drugs and
other proteins, has revolutionized the study of human cell biology.
This led to the award of the 2008 Nobel Prize to Chalfie, Shimomura and
Tsien, for their discovery and development.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.conncoll.edu/cca.cad/zimmer/GFP-ww/GFP-1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Will Climate Change Impact Natural Drug Discovery?
The biodiversity we currently enjoy is not guaranteed as we
recognize the impact of global climate change. Populations of marine
organisms are already beginning to decline or to migrate to new
environments. While we can measure the impact on macroscopic marine
life, and have done so in many areas, the impact on microbial
communities, because of their more limited temperature adaptation, is
likely to be greater.
Why do we care?
Microorganisms are historically the most prolific sources for new
drugs. The discovery of penicillin in 1929 heralded the great
``antibiotic era'', which produced virtually all of the antibiotics we
use today. Microbial antibiotics are produced by cultivation of
bacteria and fungi in large-scale fermentors. The oceans are a major,
untapped resource for bacteria and other microorganisms. Seawater is
composed of 28 million microscopic cells per ounce. The bottom
sediments, which mimic the soil, contain more than 1 billion cells in
the volume of an ordinary cube of sugar. This is an amazingly unique
community that is distinct from its terrestrial counterparts.
Currently, at least 2 anti-cancer drugs, produced by marine microbes,
are in clinical trials for the treatment of various forms of cancer.\5\
When one considers the medical emergency we face with drug-resistant
infectious diseases, and the fact that microorganisms are the best
source for new antibiotics, it is clear that marine bacteria and fungi
represent the next great source for the discovery of new antibiotics to
control human infectious diseases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.nereuspharm.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing the important role marine microorganism will play in
the future, it is disconcerting to consider the impact of global
climate change on their survival and distribution. As the temperature
of seawater increases, temperature adapted microorganisms typically
illustrate stress responses. Thus, in several ways, the diversity of
the ocean and our ability to use this amazing resource are linked to
our future success in controlling global change.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Dr. Fenical.
And we look forward to asking you some questions more about
that and potential products for the future.
Mr. Warren, welcome. Thank you for being here.
Obviously, part of today's discussion is the impacts that
climate change have on our oceans and on our environment. We
should note that this week, everybody has been complaining
about Seattle weather being in Washington, D.C. And I note that
we have been having wonderful 85-degree weather in Seattle,
sunny.
So, anyway, welcome to Washington, D.C.
STATEMENT OF BRAD WARREN,
SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES PARTNERSHIP
Mr. Warren. Thank you, and thank you for having this
hearing. I am really pleased that people here in D.C. are
paying attention to the ocean. We need that.
My name is Brad Warren. I run a program at the Sustainable
Fisheries Partnership dealing with ocean health. I got started
doing this because after 20, 25 years working in essentially
trade publishing in the fishing industry, I saw things coming
in climate change that we really had to deal with.
Can you hear me? OK.
An industry like this that totally depends on ocean health
is going to have a lot to say about this, and I thought we have
got to get these guys up to speed, and we have got to get their
influence at the table where they can help contribute to
solutions. So that is what I am doing.
I am going to tell you a nutshell story that relates to
what Dr. Fenical is doing. I have a very dear friend that I
have spent a lot of time with in the hospital in the last 2, 3
months. He is fighting a form of soft-tissue sarcoma for which
one of the treatments that people have a lot of hope for is a
compound derived from sea urchins.
Sea urchins are among the species most vulnerable, most
likely to dissolve because of ocean acidification. We have an
enormous resource here in terms of its medical value, and we
may well be throwing it away. Having said that, I will go into
the rest of my testimony.
What we are dealing with in terms of the dangerous rise in
world emissions of carbon dioxide is something that has the
potential to undercut every aspiration that we have for
fisheries and ocean ecosystems. This isn't just one more
problem for the ocean. It is the one that sets the terms for
all the others.
There are lots of efforts underway to conserve fisheries
and protect marine habitats, but there is a good chance that
none of them will amount to much if we don't get this one
right, if we don't get a grip on our rising emissions of
carbon.
I want to thank this committee again for recognizing that
the ocean belongs in this discussion, that the kind of
integration of issues that Ms. Cousteau was talking about is
exactly what we need. To be clear, SFP, for which I work, is
not a lobby group. We instead help leaders in the seafood
industry to understand the issues well enough to be part of the
solution to the problems they really care about. They do the
advocacy work. We are more of a technical adviser.
What is at stake in getting a grip on carbon for the ocean
is pretty big. Not even getting into the economic value of the
pharmaceuticals that are likely to come out of this ocean, we
are still at the infant stages of that, just the fish products.
In the U.S. alone, seafood generated $68.4 billion in retail
sales in 2007, according to NMFS. When you add wholesale and
processing value to that, you see 67,000 jobs there. Add food
service, and the numbers soar. There were, in 1999, the latest
study I have seen from New York on this, 70,000 full-time jobs
supported by sales of seafood in restaurants.
Worldwide, marine fisheries provide the primary source of
income and food for hundreds of millions of people. FAO and
other international resource agencies estimated this year that
3 billion people rely on the ocean for essential nutrition.
About 400 million people in poor countries get half or more of
their annual protein and minerals from seafood. About half a
billion people worldwide in developing countries earn a living
from fisheries and aquaculture.
How much of this will be lost if we don't reduce emissions?
We don't know. There aren't good answers for that, but we do
know that it doesn't look good. And if we make a mistake here,
the losses will be permanent.
At a minimum, we expect ocean acidification and hypoxia
alone will reduce productivity of fish stocks that generate
food and livelihood for many millions of people. In the worst
case, we could see the extinguishment of many fisheries. Large
parts of the world's surface ocean, the top few hundred meters
where virtually all of our seafood comes from, are already
becoming corrosive to many of the plankton species that form
the foundation of marine food webs. If the fish lose their
dinner table, we will lose ours.
The consequences of warming also take a toll. I will cut to
the chase here and mention that there is some hypoxia occurring
in the North Pacific that is particularly severe. We are
looking at very deep loss of habitat for groundfish, some of
the most valuable and productive fisheries we have.
Adaptation has limits. When it comes to chemical change in
the ocean, unlike thermal change, it is not clear that you
can--well, once the ocean becomes corrosive for calcifying
species, they dissolve. An ocean that is unfit for fish and the
things they eat is not an ocean that fisheries can adapt to.
There are some things we can do in terms of adaptive
management. We can do some good research. We should do more. We
have a profound need to dig in deeper in terms of how
productivity in the ocean is changing so that we have a chance
of managing fisheries sustainably as the ocean changes.
If we invest in understanding these changes, we have a
chance of adapting in a responsible way. So I would say there
are a couple of take-home points here. We need a strong carbon
policy. One can argue about where the thresholds should be. We
are going to get a pretty good glimpse of that in a paper that
is pending in press now by Feely and Turley that says here are
the biological and chemical bases for setting thresholds for
CO2 based on ocean health. We think that is going to
be a good place to look for figuring out how to set those
thresholds.
We urge you--and we are urging the industry to do the same,
to urge you--to do everything you can to do the kind of thing
you are already talking about. You are talking about doubling
the budget for NOAA. We salute that. We are going to need a lot
of that research, or we are not going to know enough to handle
this problem.
And then remember the nature of the risk. Overfishing and
things like that are classic old-school risks that we manage in
a way that bears in mind that you can usually get it back. You
blow it--well, you just fish less. The fish generally come
back. It is a marvelous kind of risk to face. This is not that
kind of risk.
This is one where, as far as we human beings are concerned,
the geologic record suggests it is basically forever. We lose
it. It is gone.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Warren follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brad Warren, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. It's especially
gratifying to be here today because the theme of this hearing, the Blue
Economy, shows that many of our elected leaders today--including
leaders from both parties--``get it'' about the ocean. We are all here
today because you understand that the ocean, which has been so generous
to human beings for so long, now needs our help.
My name is Brad Warren, and I run a program on ocean acidification
and global ocean health at the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (known
as SFP). SFP is a nonprofit group that works with the seafood industry
to conserve fisheries and marine ecosystems around the world.
I came to this work after more than two decades in the fishing
industry, where I mainly ran industry trade journals. I left the
publishing business to focus on preparing the industry to confront
CO2-driven ocean acidification and climate impacts. I made
this change because it was the most important work I could think of to
do. The dangerous rise in world emissions of carbon dioxide has the
potential to undercut every aspiration we have for fisheries and ocean
ecosystems.
This isn't just one more problem for the ocean. It's the one that
sets the terms for all the others. There are lots of efforts underway
to conserve fisheries and protect marine habitats. But there is a very
good chance that none of them will amount to much if we don't get a
grip on the world's carbon dioxide emissions. It will be hard to save
the fish if the ocean stops making them.
I want to thank this committee for recognizing that the ocean
belongs in this discussion. If we want the ocean to keep producing the
benefits we enjoy--things like fish, whales, seafood jobs for millions
of people, and (thanks to photosynthesizing plankton) about half of the
oxygen we breathe--then we're going to need carbon policies that
preserve its capacity to deliver the goods.
To be clear, SFP is not a lobby group. Instead, we help leaders in
the seafood industry to take on fundamental challenges to their future
ability to produce and market fish products. Ultimately it will be up
to them to speak for themselves on this issue. But I can tell you that
they're listening, they're seriously concerned, and they are sorting
out how they can be part of the solution. Some of the companies and
fishing groups we work with are keen to learn more about carbon policy,
where it's going, how it might affect them, and how it might help
protect the ocean they depend on.
What's at stake? Well, In the U.S., seafood generated $68.4 billion
in retail sales in 2007, according to the National Marine Fisheries
Service. Processing and wholesaling alone accounted for 67,000 jobs.
Add foodservice to that, and the numbers soar. Seafood sales in New
York State restaurants were estimated to support the equivalent of
70,000 full-time jobs in 1999, according to New York Sea Grant.
Worldwide, marine fisheries provide the primary source of income
and food for hundreds of millions of people. FAO and other
international resource agencies estimated this year that 3 billion
people rely on the ocean for essential nutrition. About 400 million
people in poor countries get half or more of their animal protein and
minerals from seafood. Another 500 million people in developing
counties earn a living from fisheries and aquaculture.
How much of this will be lost if we don't reduce emissions? There
are no good answers yet. But we do know this: If we delay acting until
we know exactly what is at risk, we will make more of those losses
unavoidable. Future generations will remember us for this. Whether they
will forgive us is another question.
We at SFP, and some of our colleagues in other organizations, have
done a lot of work to make sure leaders of the U.S. fishing industry
understand what the science is telling us about ocean acidification.
The chemistry is pretty clear. The changes have been measured, not
just modeled. We know that billions of tons of CO2 from
smokestacks and tailpipes are mixing into the ocean every year. The
resulting carbonic acid depletes the rich soup of calcium carbonate in
seawater. Many of the fish we eat depend on food species that literally
build themselves out of that soup. One example: Pteropods, an important
food source for salmon and many other fish, have been shown to dissolve
quickly in calcium carbonate-depleted conditions resulting from
elevated CO2 concentration. Those conditions already occur
in some near-surface waters along the West Coast and Alaska.
If you want to see the key scientific papers that document
acidification impacts, I would be happy to provide them.
At a minimum, we expect ocean acidification and hypoxia alone will
reduce productivity of fish stocks that generate food and livelihood
for many millions of people. In the worst case, acidification could
extinguish many fisheries. Large parts of the world's surface ocean--
the top few hundred meters, where virtually all our seafood comes
from--are already becoming corrosive to many of the plankton species
that form the foundation of marine food webs. This is what fish eat. If
fish lose their dinner table, we'll lose ours.
The consequences of thermal change--global warming--are mixed for
fisheries: Small amounts of warming can and do increase the
productivity of fish stocks, at least temporarily. One could make a
case that some of our major fisheries have benefited from warming in
the last few decades. As temperatures rise further, though, that
benefit will vanish. Like Goldilocks, fish want temperatures that are
``just right.''
The consequences of warming also take a toll on the oxygen content
of seawater, especially in deeper waters. Several studies suggest that
we're rapidly losing deep habitat for many marine fish because warming
has triggered processes that deplete the oxygen they need to survive.
Some of the most compelling work on this problem comes from Canada's
Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Some fisheries, such as Washington State's oyster industry, may
already be suffering grave harm from ocean acidification. Oyster
growers have suffered 4 years of reproductive failure. There is
preliminary evidence that this may be due to ocean acidification, or
possibly to a disease that thrives in acidified, oxygen-depleted
seawater. Larval forms of many marine species are especially
vulnerable, and lab experiments show very high mortality; in a
preliminary study by NOAA scientists, 67 percent of larval blue king
crab died when exposed to levels of acidification similar to those
already measured in some waters--including parts of the West Coast
during summer upwelling.
Based on peer-reviewed NOAA research findings, it appears that the
West Coast and the North Pacific off Alaska are especially vulnerable
in the near term, because CO2 tends to collect there. In the
near-surface waters where most fish and shellfish live, CO2
concentrations are unusually high in the North Pacific region. Alaska
produces about two-thirds of the U.S. fish harvest. So a lot of food is
at stake.
If we lose marine fisheries, some people hope that aquaculture will
take up the slack. I wouldn't count on that. The popular farmed seafood
products we consume in America--shrimp, salmon, tuna, etc.--are raised
on feeds that include millions of tons of wild caught marine fish.
Indeed, aquaculture consumes 57 percent of the world's annual
production of fishmeal and 90 percent of all fish oil, according to a
recent report by my colleagues at SFP.
Although we work closely with them, we don't represent the
fisheries industry. There isn't yet agreement on every point or every
step toward solutions. But I can say that many leaders of the industry
are seriously concerned about acidification. We think they should be.
It's fair to say that seafood producers have two interests at stake
in controlling CO2 emissions.
First, they depend on the ocean to make fish. Some fishers and
fishing communities are pressing for strong carbon policy in order to
protect ocean productivity. We encourage that. They also want to know
how CO2 emissions are affecting fish and shellfish. Fishing
and processing groups have advocated successfully for two important
government research programs, one national, one regional, that will
help to clarify how CO2-driven acidification affects marine
ecosystems and commercially harvested species
The second point of concern is the same one every other industry
faces: fishing takes fuel. Fishers and processors want to protect the
resource, and they also want to stay in business. They want emission
reductions targets that are achievable. They also want emissions
regulations to be fair and affordable.
Their experience is unusually relevant as the Nation prepares to
adopt a cap and trade system for carbon. Probably more than any other
industry, fishers understand the use of transferable ``rights'' or
``allowances'' to address environmental problems. The lessons learned
apply directly to carbon regulation. Dozens of transferable fishery
quota systems have evolved over the last for 25 years around the world.
Fishers and seafood processors have learned how these systems can solve
difficult problems such as reducing bycatch; they have also learned how
these cap-and-trade systems create competitive advantages and
disadvantages. If a new regulatory system for carbon dioxide is going
to create tools and incentives that help companies reduce emissions,
improve energy efficiency, and reduce fuel costs, people in the fish
business will want access to those benefits.
The fishing industry is a tiny emitter. Based on data from the U.N.
Food and Agriculture Organization and U.S. Department of Energy, we've
estimated that fishing fleets worldwide account for about 0.2 percent
of global CO2 emissions. Probably no U.S. seafood company
(and certainly no single facility) emits 10,000-ton CO2e,
the threshold for regulation envisioned by many carbon policy
proposals. But again, if a new system creates special benefits, they
will want the benefits to be allocated in a fair and inclusive way--not
reserved for a few big emitters, while everybody else just pays more at
the pump.
There can be legitimate disagreements about how, and how much, to
reduce emissions. But there is one goal everyone should hold in common:
We want controls that allow the ocean to keep giving us fish to eat .
An excellent documentary film on ocean acidification has just come
out. It's called A Sea Change (information online at
www.aseachange.net). I recommend this film to everyone here.
Thank you again for holding this hearing. Good luck!
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Warren.
Mr. Babb-Brott, thank you for being here and for your work
in Massachusetts. We look forward to hearing about your efforts
in planning.
STATEMENT OF DEERIN BABB-BROTT,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF OCEANS AND COASTAL
ZONE MANAGEMENT, MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE
OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS,
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Babb-Brott. Thank you, and good morning, Madam Chair
and Senator Snowe.
Thank you for the opportunity to share with you our
firsthand experiences in the initial applications of marine
spatial planning and ecosystem-based management through the
development of the Commonwealth's first comprehensive ocean
management plan.
In my testimony this morning, I will describe the concept
of marine spatial planning and ecosystem-based management and
explain our current efforts in Massachusetts to improve our
stewardship and the management of the ocean environment in and
beyond Massachusetts ocean waters.
Nationally and internationally, variations on the
discipline of marine spatial planning are emerging as a basis
for stewardship of the ocean ecosystem. While there are many
technical definitions, marine spatial planning can be simply
described as the adaptive process of collecting, analyzing, and
managing the spatial distribution of marine resources and
habitats and human activities to achieve the goals defined by
society.
Not unlike what we regularly do on land in terms of land
use planning to site development while protecting such features
as open space habitat and drinking water supplies, marine
spatial planning seeks to do the same in the ocean environment.
Marine spatial planning thus supports decisions related to the
allocation of ocean services.
A related discipline, ecosystem-based management, provides
the tools for understanding, maintaining, and enhancing the
ecosystem's ability to provide those services humans need and
desire. In brief, ecosystem-based management focuses on the
system; acknowledges interconnectedness within and among
systems, such as between air, land, and sea; and integrates
ecological, social, economic, and institutional perspectives,
recognizing their strong interdependencies.
In 2003, the Massachusetts Ocean Management Task Force was
appointed to examine evolving ocean issues and develop a
comprehensive approach to managing ocean resources. In March
2004, the Task Force presented as its top priority the
enactment of legislation establishing comprehensive ocean
resource management in Massachusetts ocean waters.
This recommendation led to the passage of the Oceans Act of
2008, signed by Governor Patrick last May. The Oceans Act has
15 core requirements whose elements include requirements to
identify and protect special, sensitive, or unique marine life
and habitat; value biodiversity and respect the interdependence
of ecosystems; identify appropriate locations for development;
foster sustainable uses that capitalize on economic
opportunity; respect the importance of commercial and
recreational fishing; and address climate change and sea level
rise.
Two key features of the Act include the fact that the ocean
plan is not a regulatory, but all approvals by any political
subdivision of the State must be consistent with the plan. And
fisheries management plans and fisheries regulations are not
subject to the ocean plan. Commercial and recreational fishing
are allowed uses, subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the
State fisheries agency.
The Oceans Act requires a draft for public review 12 months
from its enactment, and the final plan must be promulgated 6
months thereafter. To develop the plan, EEA invested in 6
months of listening to and learning from the public and
stakeholders, gathering and synthesizing existing data, and
identifying key data gaps that could be addressed within the
schedule; 3 months developing and reviewing management options
and incorporating new data; and 2 months refining and revising
the ocean plan.
As the basis for the plan, we adopted four goals--
integrated management, so that individual actions will be
considered in the context of a plan that integrates natural,
social, and economic information; effective stewardship through
management of human uses; the effective stewardship through the
protection of resources; and the development of an adaptive
planning framework. Specific planning strategies were developed
to address the 15 requirements of the Oceans Act, such as to
meet the condition of the Oceans Act that the ocean plan
reflect the importance of commercial fishing, we established as
a strategy that we would locate incompatible uses outside areas
of high commercial fishing effort and value.
Overall management options were then developed and reviewed
with the Ocean Advisory Commission. Options ranged from using
the new data and information to support existing management and
regulatory processes to fully zone the ocean for allowable and
prohibited uses. We are now working with a hybrid approach that
designates some specific areas that allow or prohibit uses, but
that also leaves the majority of the planning area unallocated
where new uses will be subject to siting and performance
standards that direct development away from high-value resource
areas and concentrations of existing water-dependent uses.
In our work to date, we have learned that marine spatial
planning is extremely time and labor intensive. Sufficient
staff and agency resources are required to address data, public
participation, and planning needs. A minimum requirement is
sufficient data to accurately characterize baseline
environmental and human conditions, but importantly, this
baseline data can be derived from multiple sources of varying
temporal and spatial scale and resolution. Acquiring,
analyzing, presenting, and based on feedback, revising
information in an iterative process with the public is
critical.
And last, the need for the coordinated and supportive
participation of the Federal agencies cannot be overstated. To
successfully support local and regional marine spatial planning
initiatives, we strongly believe that the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration should have a centralized
coordinating Federal role in working with the States and
regions to advance Federal, regional, and State marine spatial
planning policy initiatives.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Babb-Brott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Deerin Babb-Brott, Assistant Secretary of Oceans
and Coastal Zone Management, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy
and Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Introduction
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is
Deerin Babb-Brott, and I am Assistant Secretary of Oceans and Coastal
Zone Management of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental
Affairs for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I am pleased to be here
today to share with you our first-hand experiences in the initial
applications of marine spatial planning and ecosystem-based management
through the development the Commonwealth's first comprehensive ocean
management plan. In my testimony today, I will describe the concept of
marine spatial planning and explain our current efforts in
Massachusetts to use spatially-explicit information on ecosystem
components and human uses, activities, and facilities to improve our
stewardship and management of the ocean environment in and beyond
Massachusetts marine waters.
The Context for Marine Spatial Planning
Our Nation's oceans provide the foundation for uses, goods, and
services that collectively represent a significant component of the
United States economy. The oceans support an impressive list of
renewable and non-renewable goods and services including: commercial
and recreational fishing; marine transportation and navigation; energy,
communications, and waste/process-water infrastructure; sand and gravel
extraction; recreational boating, diving, wildlife watching; science
and education; and historical and cultural sites. ``Ecosystem
services'' has emerged as a term capturing the array of uses, goods,
and benefits that humans derive from natural systems. Estimates of the
value of the services derived from marine ecosystems can be generated
but they are generally very conservative as numerous services are very
difficult to quantify.
Human society benefits greatly from the uses, goods, and services
provided by estuarine and marine ecosystems, but our activities--both
in the ocean, along its coasts, and on adjacent land and watersheds--
are also having detrimental effects on these same systems, their
components and processes. Rapid climate change, habitat loss and
changes, pollution, and spread of invasive species are just some of the
threats and stressors which are jeopardizing these ecosystems and the
human services they provide.
At the same time, the marine waters are increasingly eyed for new
uses and development, including traditional energy facilities such as
liquefied natural gas terminals and associated pipelines, offshore
aquaculture, and the extraction of sand or gravel resources for beach
and shoreline stabilization. Another significant use of the ocean going
forward is the development of renewable energy facilities. While tide,
current, and wave resources represent potential as renewable energy
sources, wind energy in the Northeast is the resource with the greatest
promise on the basis of currently available technology. Here, offshore
wind is superior to remote onshore wind in terms of resource size,
distribution, capacity factor, reliability, minimization of
environmental impact, and proximity to population centers. It is a
potentially inexhaustible resource that, in many cases, is available in
close proximity to regions with the highest electricity demand,
minimizing the need for costly new transmission lines.
Concurrent with these new demands comes an increasing awareness of
the tremendous importance of maintaining a healthy and resilient marine
ecosystem to both support the uses and services that society values and
benefits from and also to support its resilience to the increasing
threats of global climate change. Time is long overdue to be more
active stewards of these public resources and to take a more pro-active
stance in planning for marine ecosystem protection and the responsible
and sustainable uses that stem from it.
Marine Spatial Planning and Ecosystem-based Management
Aspects of two formal methods for developing and organizing
information and making management decisions about human uses in the
marine environment are being used in the development of the
Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan: marine spatial planning and
ecosystem-based management. The United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization web page on marine spatial planning (http://
www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/) explains that:
Marine spatial planning is a public process of analyzing and
allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human
activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and
social objectives that usually have been specified through a
political process. Characteristics of marine spatial planning
include ecosystem-based, area-based, integrated, adaptive,
strategic and participatory.
Marine spatial planning is not an end in itself, but a
practical way to create and establish a more rational use of
marine space and the interactions between its uses, to balance
demands for development with the need to protect the
environment, and to achieve social and economic objectives in
an open and planned way.
More than 220 academic scientists and policy experts with relevant
expertise signed the Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine
Ecosystem-Based Management, which was published in 2005 by
Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea and written by K. L.
McLeod, J. Lubchenco, S. R. Palumbi, and A. A. Rosenberg. This
statement defines ecosystem-based management as:
. . . an integrated approach to management that considers the
entire ecosystem, including humans. The goal of ecosystem-based
management is to maintain an ecosystem in a healthy, productive
and resilient condition so that it can provide the services
humans want and need. Ecosystem-based management differs from
current approaches that usually focus on a single species,
sector, activity or concern; it considers the cumulative
impacts of different sectors.
Specifically, ecosystem-based management:
emphasizes the protection of ecosystem structure,
functioning, and key processes;
is place-based in focusing on a specific ecosystem and the
range of activities affecting it;
explicitly accounts for the interconnectedness within
systems, recognizing the importance of interactions between
many target species or key services and other non-target
species;
acknowledges interconnectedness among systems, such as
between air, land and sea; and
integrates ecological, social, economic, and institutional
perspectives, recognizing their strong interdependencies.
While these definitions exemplify the many interpretations of
marine spatial planning, we have adopted one from the United Nations'
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization that has particular
appeal for us by virtue of its intuitive simplicity.
Marine spatial planning is the adaptive process of collecting,
analyzing and managing the spatial distribution marine
resources and habitats and human activities to achieve the
goals defined by society. Not unlike what we regularly do on
land in terms of zoning and land-use planning to site
development while protecting such features as open space,
habitat, and drinking water supplies, marine spatial planning
seeks to do the same in the ocean environment.
The Massachusetts Oceans Act
In Massachusetts, rich ocean waters and a spectacular coastline
have shaped our history, economy, and way of life. Today, these
ecologically and economically vital public resources face unprecedented
development pressure and represent potential solutions for new
challenges, such as climate change. In addition to traditional ocean
uses--recreation and tourism, fishing and shellfishing, and shipping
and trade--new proposals for energy, aquaculture, off-shore sand
mining, and other projects highlight the need for a comprehensive ocean
management strategy.
In 2003, the Massachusetts Ocean Management Task Force was
appointed to examine evolving ocean uses and develop a comprehensive
approach to managing ocean resources. In March 2004, the Task Force
released its final recommendations in the Waves of Change report. These
recommendations focused on: strengthening state agencies to address
environmental, planning, and public trust issues in both state and
Federal waters; establishing an ecosystem-based protocol to improve
management of Federal waters; and initiating ocean education and
stewardship initiatives. The Task Force's top recommendation was that
legislation be enacted to require the development of comprehensive
ocean resource management plans for Massachusetts ocean waters. This
recommendation and the cooperative efforts that followed led to the
passage of the Oceans Act of 2008.
The Oceans Act of 2008 requires the Secretary of the Executive
Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) to develop an
integrated ocean management plan. Specifically, the Oceans Act requires
that the plan shall:
1. Set forth the Commonwealth's goals, siting priorities, and
standards for ensuring effective stewardship of its ocean
waters held in trust for the benefit of the public.
2. Adhere to sound management practices, taking into account
the existing natural, social, cultural, historic, and economic
characteristics of the planning areas.
3. Preserve and protect the public trust.
4. Reflect the importance of the waters of the Commonwealth to
its citizens who derive livelihoods and recreational benefits
from fishing.
5. Value biodiversity and ecosystem health.
6. Identify and protect special, sensitive, or unique estuarine
and marine life and habitats.
7. Address climate change and sea-level rise.
8. Respect the interdependence of ecosystems.
9. Coordinate uses that include international, Federal, state,
and local jurisdictions.
10. Foster sustainable uses that capitalize on economic
opportunity without significant detriment to the ecology or
natural beauty of the ocean.
11. Preserve and enhance public access.
12. Support the infrastructure necessary to sustain the economy
and quality of life for the citizens of the Commonwealth.
13. Encourage public participation in decision-making.
14. Adapt to evolving knowledge and understanding of the ocean
environment.
15. Identify appropriate locations and performance standards
for activities, uses, and facilities allowed under the Oceans
Sanctuaries Act.
The Oceans Act does not create a new layer of regulation, but
rather provides that all state certificates, licenses, permits and
approvals for any proposed structures, uses, or activities be
consistent with the plan to the maximum extent practicable.
Additionally, the ocean management plan must be incorporated into the
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Plan. Therefore, in addressing
the requirements of the Oceans Act, the ocean management plan must take
an integrated approach across levels of government, both in its
development as well as its implementation.
The Act stipulates that the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF)
shall have sole responsibility for developing and implementing any
fisheries management plans or fisheries regulations, and, further, that
commercial and recreational fishing shall be allowable uses subject to
the exclusive jurisdiction of DMF. Additionally, DMF is directed to
assess the potential economic impacts of planning decisions to
commercial and recreational fishing and make recommendations to
minimize those impacts. To ensure that the ocean management plan and
fisheries management are complementary, the Ocean Act requires that
fisheries management shall be integrated, to the maximum extent
practicable, with the plan.
In addition, the Oceans Act makes a new allowance for the
development of ``appropriate scale'' renewable energy development,
including wind, wave and tidal energy, in state waters; establishes an
Ocean Resources and Waterways Trust Fund to restore or enhance marine
habitat and resources or compensate for navigational impacts that is to
be funded by mitigation fees assessed to ocean development; establishes
an Ocean Advisory Commission and Ocean Science Advisory Committee to
assist the Secretary in developing the ocean management plan; and
requires that the ocean plan be revised and reviewed by the public and
the legislature at least every 5 years.
Finally, the Oceans Act established an aggressive eighteen-month
timeline for developing the ocean plan, challenging us to respond
quickly. While the schedule is ambitious, we will meet it, with an
ocean plan that both advances the marine spatial planning state-of-the-
art in Massachusetts and beyond, and sets out a framework for ongoing,
adaptive planning and ocean management.
Marine Spatial Planning in Massachusetts
Principles and practices of marine spatial planning and ecosystem-
based management, whether derived from academic expression, conceptual
models, or specific application in other ocean management plans,
provided one aspect of the basic foundation for the Massachusetts Ocean
Management Plan. The plan considered marine spatial planning and
ecosystem-based management principles through the prism of other
elements of the planning context, including:
The Oceans Act as a source for siting priorities and
standards.
Existing state law, particularly the Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act, for siting thresholds and standards.
Performance standards in Massachusetts agencies' resource
and regulatory programs.
Importantly, as planning and management disciplines, marine spatial
planning and ecosystem-based management have been advanced in
alternative configurations that share the common elements of a
formalized and iterative process that applies specified deliberative
methodologies and information requirements. The structure and content
of the ocean plan will be consistent with, and has been framed
carefully to allow for, ongoing incorporation of new knowledge and
refined methods relevant to marine spatial planning and ecosystem-based
management.
As the basis for developing the ocean plan, a planning team at the
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), supported
by EEA's Office of Coastal Zone Management, conducted an ambitious
public information and participation campaign that included the
following:
Websites and Electronic Updates--To provide the public with
the necessary information to effectively participate in plan
development, EEA launched the Massachusetts Ocean Plan website.
In addition, EEA developed the Public Input Portal for
Massachusetts Ocean Planning to provide direct access to video/
transcripts of public meetings, an online commenting form, and
a log of the public comments submitted. EEA also distributed
periodic Ocean Planning Alert e-mails, available both
electronically and in print.
Public Listening Sessions--In September and October of 2008,
EEA held 18 public Listening Sessions in Boston, Eastham, Fall
River, Gloucester, Lowell, Nantucket, New Bedford, Norwell, Oak
Bluffs, Pittsfield, Plymouth, Salem, Salisbury, Springfield,
West Barnstable, Weymouth, Woods Hole, and Worcester. More than
300 people turned out to give their input on the goals for the
ocean management plan. Videos and transcripts of these
Listening Sessions were posted on the Public Input Portal to
support further public participation, and summaries of the
comments provided at the meetings were posted to the EEA Ocean
Plan website.
Ocean Management Planning Principles Workshop--In November
2008, the OAC and SAC held a joint workshop to discuss various
aspects of the general practice of marine spatial planning. In
addition to OAC and SAC members, 30 individuals participated.
Data Workshops--In February 2009, twin workshops were held
by EEA in Sandwich and Boston to for the public to review draft
work group (see below for a description of the work groups)
maps and products. More than 40 people participated in the
Sandwich workshop and almost 60 participated in Boston.
Stakeholder Meetings--During the development of the draft
plan, EEA held more than 80 meetings with individual interest
groups, advocates, industry representatives, and others to
answer their questions and solicit their direct input. More
than 110 people were interviewed through these meeting and
summary reports of their comments were posted on the EEA Ocean
Plan website.
OAC Workshop on Preliminary Plan Components--In May 2009,
the OAC held twin workshops in Woods Hole and Boston to discuss
preliminary spatial analysis of existing ocean management data,
compatibility and impact analysis of ocean uses, and conceptual
management measures to be used in the Massachusetts Ocean
Management Plan. More than 130 stakeholder representatives
attended these workshops.
To collect and analyze information needed for plan development, EEA
worked with state agency staff and the Massachusetts Ocean Partnership.
Reports stemming from these efforts and detailing their results are
available electronically at www.mass.gov/czm/oceanplan/index.htm.
Technical Work Group Reports--Work groups made up of state
agency staff and members from Federal agencies, academia, the
renewable energy industry, and non-governmental organizations
were charged with assembling available natural resource and
human use data to be used in plan development. These work
groups were organized topically and covered: habitat;
fisheries; transportation, navigation, and infrastructure;
sediment; recreation and cultural services; and renewable
energy. Much of the data used in the ocean management plan
stemmed from these work group reports, and members of the
habitat and fisheries work groups formed the core staff that
worked on the Ecological Valuation Index (described more fully
in Chapter 3.
Qualitative Commercial Fishing Information--EEA staff met
with commercial fishermen in meetings coastwide to discuss the
development of the ocean management plan and concerns of
fishermen. At several of these meetings, fishermen used maps
and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration charts to
provide information regarding the locations of particular
fisheries in the planning area, type of gear used, and seasonal
restrictions.
Qualitative Recreational Fishing Information--The Division
of Marine Fisheries performed a coast-wide survey of
recreational fishing interests to identify areas of
concentrated recreational fishing activity. While this survey
was not designed to be statistically accurate, it provided
useful information for planning purposes.
Qualitative Recreational Use Information--The Massachusetts
Marine Trades Association developed a series of maps indicating
areas of concentrated recreational activity throughout the
planning area.
Automated Information System (AIS)--The Stellwagen Bank
National Marine Sanctuary provided AIS information for the
planning area and adjacent Federal waters. This data captures
the tracks of commercial vessels greater than 299 tons. This
information was digitized with the assistance of the
Massachusetts Ocean Partnership and used to identify areas of
the planning area used by commercial vessel traffic.
Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)--The Gloucester office of the
National Marine Fisheries Service provided VMS information for
the planning area and adjacent Federal waters, which indicates
the tracks of commercial fishing vessels that are fishing in
Federal waters. This information was digitized with the
assistance of the Massachusetts Ocean Partnership and used to
identify areas of the planning area traversed by commercial
fishing vessels fishing in Federal waters.
Assessment of Human Activities in the Planning Area--Through
funding provided by the Massachusetts Ocean Partnership,
scientists from the National Center for Ecological Analysis and
Synthesis at the University of California/Santa Barbara mapped
the footprint and preliminarily assessed the impact of certain
human activities in the planning area.
Science Tools to Implement Ecosystem-Based Management in
Massachusetts--Through funding provided by the Massachusetts
Ocean Partnership, the consulting firm MRAG Americas, Inc.
provided an overview and recommendations regarding the
application of ecosystem-based management principles to the
Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan. This report also provided
an overview of decision support tools and ecosystem models.
Planning Framework Review--The Massachusetts Ocean
Partnership funded a team of consultants to review ocean
management efforts outside of Massachusetts to identify
applicable aspects for the approach to the ocean management
plan. This team provided recommendations for the overall
framework for the ocean management plan.
Development of Mitigation Framework Options--Through funding
provided by the Massachusetts Ocean Partnership, the firm IEc
reviewed previous ocean development projects in Massachusetts
and interviewed involved parties. The purpose of this study was
to provide recommendations for developing a framework for how
to develop an approach to mitigation for ocean development in
the future.
The basic purpose of the ocean management plan is to translate the
policy direction and specific requirements of the Oceans Act into a
management plan through a logical, sequential process of developing
decision-making guidance for use in analyzing existing data.
The plan was developed by a sequential process that entailed: (1)
evaluating the Oceans Act and developing goals and strategies to
identify key issues to be addressed based on values expressed therein;
(2) assessing the compatibility and impacts of uses, activities, and
facilities allowed under the Ocean Sanctuaries Act with marine
resources and other uses; (3) applying the strategies as initial
planning guidance to identify appropriate and inappropriate locations
for specific uses, activities, and facilities; (4) correlating the
planning guidance with spatial data and generating maps that illustrate
impacts associated with uses marine resources; (5) evaluating options
for managing uses; and (6) developing an ocean management plan that
best accomplishes the management plan goals described above.
The overall approach to developing the ocean management plan was
therefore framed by the 15 core requirements and other substantive and
procedural elements of the Oceans Act, including the independent status
of commercial and recreational fishing, the requirement that the plan
be revised no less frequently than every 5 years, and the consultative
roles of the Ocean Advisory Commission and Science Advisory Council.
Important additional considerations included:
Vested public interest in the development of the draft plan;
The amount of data and information either immediately
available or able to be acquired within the schedule for the
draft plan;
Principles and practices of marine spatial planning and
ecosystem-based management;
Existing law and policy; and
The degree of change in current management practices
necessary to address current challenges, justifiable by
available information, and reasonable as a first response to
the Ocean Act's comprehensive expression of the public trust
doctrine.
To begin developing the ocean management plan and understanding the
requirements of the Oceans Act, the 15 requirements of the Oceans Act
were organized in generally common themes as illustrated below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governance and Management
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Set forth the Commonwealth's goals, siting priorities and standards for
ensuring effective stewardship of its ocean waters held in trust for
the benefit of the public
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coordinate uses that include international, Federal, state, and local
jurisdictions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adhere to sound management practices, taking into account the existing
natural, social, cultural, historic, and economic characteristics of
the planning areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapt to evolving knowledge and understanding of the ocean environment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilitate public participation in decision-making
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preserve and protect the public trust
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Ecosystems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value biodiversity and ecosystem health
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respect the interdependence of ecosystems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Address climate change and sea-level rise
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identify and protect special, sensitive, or unique estuarine and marine
life and habitats
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identify appropriate locations and performance standards for activities,
uses, and facilities allowed in Ocean Sanctuaries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foster sustainable uses that capitalize on economic opportunity without
significant detriment to the ecology or natural beauty of the ocean
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support the infrastructure necessary to sustain the economy and quality
of life for the citizens of the Commonwealth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reflect the importance of the waters of the Commonwealth to its citizens
who derive livelihoods and recreational benefits from fishing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preserve and enhance public access
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This organization by general theme was further refined by
addressing the questions: What central principles does the Oceans Act
establish? What are the most specific, important things that the Act
requires the plan to do? How can the plan best accomplish those things
in the context of the other important considerations described above?
To respond to these questions, the following subjects were reviewed:
the Oceans Act requirements, the current state of knowledge of the
marine environment and its uses, consideration of the preferred
management approach (discussed above), and public and stakeholder
comment including input from the Ocean Advisory Commission.
This review led to the development of the following framework for
the ocean management plan: specific goals describe what the ocean plan
should achieve); findings summarize conditions, issues, and desired
future conditions associated with the goals; strategies describe the
information and process needed to achieve the goals; and outcomes
define the final product that achieves the goals.
The four goals established in the ocean management plan are: (1)
integrated ocean management; (2) good stewardship--protection of the
marine ecosystem; (3) good stewardship--human use of the marine
ecosystem, and (4) an adaptive foundation for ocean management in the
future. These goals reflect the highest priority, basic elements needed
to be responsive to the Act and provide the basis for ongoing work. For
each of the goals, there is an accompanying outcome for the ocean
management plan to achieve.
Findings provide summary characterizations of conditions, issues,
and desired future conditions associated with each of the goals and
also provide a general rationale for the selection of particular
strategies. Findings are based on the understanding of the ocean
ecosystem, human uses and natural resources in the marine environment,
stakeholder comment, and the Ocean Act requirements and other existing
laws, policies, and regulations regarding ocean resources and uses.
These goals and their associated strategies and findings provide
the foundation for the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan. The next
step in developing the plan was to apply the decision-making guidance
supplied by the goals and strategies. This step occurred through the
development of compatibility assessment and application of this
assessment using existing data, as discussed in the next section.
Uses, activities, and facilities allowed by the Ocean Sanctuaries
Act, as described below, were analyzed to determine the degree to which
they are incompatible with marine resources and other uses, activities,
and facilities based on: (1) functional incompatibility (e.g., two uses
that cannot physically occupy the same location); (2) the significance
of potential impacts to natural resources that have special status
under existing law and policy (e.g., a use that could have significant
impacts to a Special Aquatic Site protected by the Clean Water Act);
and (3) the significance of potential impact to values expressed in the
Oceans Act (e.g., areas of high fishing effort and value).
Once these planning criteria were defined, they were then
correlated with data layers to represent the location and extent of
human uses and natural resources.
Uses and special status resources were then mapped by category of
potential incompatibility or impact. These initial maps served two
purposes: first, they provided the basis for screening and
identification of areas suitable areas for large-scale wind energy
development; and second, they provided the basis for considering
management and regulatory options to be implemented by the ocean
management plan.
The maps resulting from the compatibility assessment analyses
conducted for each category of use, activity, and facility allowed
under the Ocean Sanctuaries Act formed the basis for consideration of
planning and management options that were reviewed and discussed with
the Ocean Advisory Commission. Three general management options were
considered:
1. Regulate as now, using ocean data for alternatives analysis
and performance standards in permit conditions;
2. Designate specific areas for individual use based on data
and compatibility assessment criteria; or
3. Apply a hybrid approach to: (1) designate areas for uses
with potentially significant impacts for which EEA has good
data; and (2) identify exclusionary areas, defined by resources
and uses subject to likely or significant incompatibility or
impact, applicable to spatially indeterminate uses or uses for
which EEA has poorer data.
The management options were evaluated based on their ability to:
Advance the interests of the Oceans Act;
Protect the marine environment;
Avoid and minimize conflict with existing water-dependent
uses;
Provide flexibility for new uses and future changes to
management based on an increasing understanding of the marine
environment, new technologies, and evolving social values;
Apply management and regulatory limits that can be
substantiated by current data;
Use and streamline existing law and regulation to allow
regulatory decisions appropriate to the scale of potential
impact;
Employ new data and information within an adaptive framework
As the management options for uses were being developed, in a
parallel process, options for identifying and protecting special,
sensitive, or unique marine and estuarine life and habitats was
conducted (as required by the Oceans Act). Members of the Habitat and
Fisheries Work Groups convened to develop an approach to address the
requirements of the Oceans Act to identify and protect special,
sensitive, or unique areas by developing the concept, methodology, and
data for an ecological valuation index (EVI). The EVI is an attempt to
systematically evaluate the ecology of Massachusetts waters using
available data. The EVI was conceived and developed to be responsive to
the directives of the Oceans Act, to incorporate existing ecological
knowledge and data (qualitative and quantitative, as available and
appropriate), and to be scientifically defensible and rigorous in
approach. Not all data compiled by the Habitat and Fisheries Work
Groups were used in the EVI development. Some data sets were spatially
and/or temporarily incomplete and had limitations that precluded their
use in this process.
As a brief overview, the EVI begins with a compilation and analysis
of existing spatial data regarding species occurring in the ocean
planning area. Data for four marine mammal species, five bird species,
five crustacean species, eight mollusk species, and 22 fish species
were incorporated into the EVI. Individual datasets were then rated
according to a standard set of ecological criteria (major contribution
to survival/health of population, spatial rarity, and global and
regional importance). The planning area was gridded into 250-meter
cells and the values for each cell calculated based on the sum of the
rankings of the dataset present in each cell.
The intent of the EVI was to develop a scientifically defensible
approach for differentiating areas in terms of their ecological value.
Such a differentiation would support efforts to identify locations
appropriate for particular uses and to designate ``special, sensitive,
or unique'' areas of life and habitat, pursuant to the Oceans Act.
Because it was a multi-species approach by design, it was also a step
toward incorporating an ecosystem-based perspective into the ocean
management plan.
Limitations of the EVI included data availability (data for certain
species or guilds are not available) and the spatial resolution of
certain data leading to limitations on the conclusions that could be
drawn. Additionally, our understanding of ocean habitats and species
habitat requirements is continually evolving, as are the related data
available to managers. The development of the EVI provided important
information for use in ocean management plan specifically regarding how
special, sensitive, or unique areas are identified and protected.
Current Status of Planning
A public review draft of the ocean plan is due on June 30, 2009.
Following public hearings and legislative review, the ocean plan will
be promulgated by December 31, 2009.
Lessons Learned to Date
Marine spatial planning cannot occur in the absence of data
to characterize the human and natural components of the marine
ecosystem. Comprehensive data is not necessary, but a minimum
requirement is sufficient data to accurately characterize
baseline environmental and human use conditions. Baseline data
can be derived from data of varying temporal and spatial scale
and resolution.
Marine spatial planning is extremely time and labor
intensive and sufficient staff and agency resources are
required to address data, public participation, and planning
needs. The Massachusetts planning process was fortunate to be
supported by the Massachusetts Ocean Partnership, with funding
from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. This support
allowed us to benefit from applied planning research, develop
significant new data, and greatly facilitated public and
stakeholder participation.
A related point is that for marine spatial planning, process
is substance. Acquiring, analyzing, presenting, and, based on
feedback, revising information in an iterative process with
public, stakeholder and decision-making audiences has been a
fundamental component of developing our ocean plan.
The principles and practices of marine spatial planning must
be interpreted within the specific political, legal, social,
and environmental context in which it is applied.
Marine spatial planning and, particularly, ecosystem-based
management address complex systems about which much is poorly
understood or unknown. We have not let absence of knowledge be
an excuse to not take action. However, a key principle has been
to continually review our planning material to ensure that
management decisions can be substantiated by available
information.
Similarly, we have not let the perfect be the enemy of the
good, and have embraced the ambitious schedule established by
the Oceans Act as the basis for establishing an adaptive
framework for future planning.
Last, the need for the coordinated and supportive
participation of the Federal agencies cannot be overstated. To
successfully support local and regional marine spatial planning
initiatives, we strongly believe that the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration should have a centralized,
coordinating Federal role in working with states and regions to
advance Federal, regional and state marine spatial planning
policy and implementation. NOAA is operationally and
administratively well suited for this position by virtue of its
expertise and role in providing data, technical services,
research and coordination across Federal agencies related to
climate and weather, ocean and coastal services, charting and
observation, fisheries and marine resources, and regional and
state relationships.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Babb-Brott.
And now, our last witness, Dr. Kempton, thank you very much
for being here and for your contributions to the oceans and the
environment.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF WILLETT KEMPTON, Ph.D.,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF EARTH, OCEAN AND
ENVIRONMENT, AND DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR CARBON-FREE
POWER INTEGRATION, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE; CHAIR,
R&D SUBCOMMITTEE, OFFSHORE WIND WORKING GROUP,
AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION
Dr. Kempton. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator Snowe, for
the opportunity to testify today.
My topic that I was asked to speak on is offshore renewable
energy. To evaluate ocean energy, we need to know the resource
size in order to evaluate its significance to the economy and
to the environment. Unfortunately, careful resource assessments
have not been done for any ocean energy sources other than oil
and gas.
Using imprecise EPRI and DOE estimates--in my written
testimony I cover this in more detail--but let us compare the
U.S. energy use and electricity, 419 gigawatts. That is 419
large nuclear power plants. I am taking Senator Snowe's way of
describing a gigawatt.
The offshore wind resource, using the same metric, is 450
gigawatts. That is, it is greater than the entire electric use
of the country. That is by a DOE estimate, which, I believe, is
low. All other offshore renewable energy is about 50 gigawatts.
Offshore oil extracted over 20 years and converted into
electrical units is 185 gigawatts. So the offshore wind
resource is twice the offshore oil resource. By this DOE
estimate, it is about the same as our country's electrical use.
So we hear lists of offshore renewable energy, and we want
to develop research on many of those and develop devices. But
if we want to deal with carbon dioxide and have a large
offshore renewable energy industry, we have to focus on
offshore wind, as I will in my comments that follow.
Current offshore wind technology, developed primarily in
Europe, is immediately applicable to areas with shallow water--
that is under 100 feet of depth--no hurricanes and no ice. That
means the Northeast, shallower waters of the West Coast, and
some areas of the Great Lakes. As the industry develops
products which overcome these conditions, which I believe will
happen in the next 10 to 15 years, all U.S. coastal areas will
be potential offshore wind sites.
There are environmental impacts of offshore wind and of all
energy forms. Just as an example, I will describe an analysis
we did of a 600-megawatt offshore wind farm proposed for
Delaware. Six hundred megawatts in comparison to Delaware would
provide 17 percent of the State's electricity.
Negative impacts included bird kills. We took worst-case
scenarios. Suppose everybody got it wrong, and they put it
right in the middle of a flyway. We estimated 240 birds killed
per year under that scenario. More likely, it would be 20 to
50.
There is a viewshed impact, which didn't seem to concern
people in Delaware as much as it has in another state further
to our north. But let us look at the positive impacts because
you have to really look at the balance. It is the positive
impacts minus the negative impacts.
Overall human health benefit of this project due to reduced
emissions of existing power plants was $53 million per year,
broken out into 10 to 12 human deaths prevented per year, 203
emergency room visits avoided, 5,000 asthma attacks avoided,
and so forth.
Looking at plant cooling water from our current power
production facilities--again, they are shut down part of the
time when you have a large wind farm added--600,000 fish fry
and yearlings saved from death in power plant cooling per year.
So comparing that against maybe 20 to 50 bird kills. A 17
percent reduction in power plant CO2 emissions
statewide. So those are the overall positive and negative
environmental impacts.
I didn't talk much about CO2 reduction, but if
you look at offshore wind at a national and regional basis in
terms of CO2, it boils down to this. Offshore wind
today is the only power source that coastal States have at hand
at a scale that can significantly slow CO2 emissions
and at moderate cost. That is cost close to today's cost of
power in coastal areas in the East at least, and that is with a
nascent industry.
I will discuss State and Federal permitting processes
briefly, identification of optimal sites. We have observed a
process of picking sites and negotiating with state governments
and publics in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New
Jersey, and Delaware. The process that has occurred in most of
those areas, the State has requested power bids.
Massachusetts is the exception, where the developer came in
and just said we want to use this block of water. In all
others, it has been driven, first, by the state government.
Then applicants--that is, developers--apply, seek information,
investigate locations, and then propose two or more site
options.
The next step is that State environmental and power
planning officials recommend for or against these developer
proposed sites in contract terms. Then if the State process is
successful, it goes on to the Federal process, and then, thus,
allocation of water space. And upon successful completion of
environmental permits and reviews, financing, then the project
is built.
I describe in more detail in my written testimony the
concern that our analysis raises with a competitive process
going on at the State level over power, the lowest-cost power
and some environmental review by State coastal managers, then
getting handed over to MMS, which is requiring by law a
competitive process in bidding for water.
So you could have a developer that has a contract for power
that has been approved by one environmental process then going
into a second competitive process for water space, where they
could have a speculator bidding against them and really
couldn't do anything with it, but would make it difficult to
continue that process.
So I would ask that that might be something that would be
considered as an amendment to the authorizing law for the MMS
to site offshore renewables.
I think I will have to have a longer discussion. Maybe at
lunch, Mr. Babb-Brott and I could talk about spatial planning.
I think it is a useful planning exercise. I think it is very
important to do, as he has, leave the majority of planning area
unallocated. I think it is very hard to divide up every single
bit of space now, as technologies are just being developed and
as the environment is changing very rapidly.
In my written comments, I go through a detailed assessment
of the resource potential in the Mid-Atlantic, and just to hit
the bottom line, using current technology, only shallow water,
we find the practical offshore wind resource from North
Carolina to Massachusetts is enough to power all electricity
for those coastal States, displace all gasoline for their
entire light vehicle fleet, and provide all building heating
fuels. That uses two-thirds of the shallow water offshore wind
resource.
It is very large. And that is why I said in the beginning I
think these DOE estimates are quite low, but even they show
this is the largest resource.
How would we do that? It could be built in 15 years with 10
manufacturing complexes in the region, each employing perhaps
500 people, a subcomponent supply chain and 10 construction
crews with associated installation vessels.
In other words, we have tried to calculate this resource is
large, yet it could be developed in 15 years with a plausible
set of industrial complexes in the region. And I would like to
volunteer two automobile plants in Delaware, which have been
shut down in the last 6 months as part of that.
If we did build this out, we would reduce CO2
emissions from the area by 68 percent. So I have specific
recommendations as to law, which I will leave to the written
version.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kempton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Willett Kempton, Ph.D., Associate Professor,
College of Earth, Ocean and Environment, and Director, Center for
Carbon-free Power Integration, University of Delaware; Chair, R&D
Subcommittee, Offshore Wind Working Group, American Wind Energy
Association
My name is Willett Kempton. I am Associate Professor at the
University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean and Environment, and
Director of the University's Center for Carbon-free Power Integration.
I serve as Chair of the R&D Subcommittee of the Offshore Wind Working
Group of the American Wind Energy Association. At the University, I
direct research on carbon-free energy by about 25 researchers. I have
published extensively on energy and the environment.
Today I speak on the basis of my expertise; I am not representing
the position of any organizations with which I am affiliated.
Comparing Ocean Energy Resources
I start by estimating the size of several ocean energy resources.
This is important both to know how much economic activity each could
stimulate, and to see which of them could make significant impact on
other national goals such as energy independence, reduction
CO2 emissions, and reduced external payments.
Unfortunately, careful resource assessments have not been done. In
Table 1, I review existing estimates that are imprecise but allow an
initial comparison for discussion. The ocean renewables estimates draw
on a recent NREL/DOE report (Musial 2008, table 3, in turn based on
EPRI and earlier studies). I have added U.S. electricity consumption
(top line) and OCS oil (bottom line) for comparison, and I convert TWh/
yr to GWa.
A GW is 1,000,000,000 watts, the size of one of the largest nuclear
or coal plants, and GWa (``a'' for ``average'') is a
fluctuating amount with an average at one GW. For scale, one watt runs
an iPod. One to two thousand watts runs an average house. A little over
one GWa runs Delaware. 419 GWa runs the United
States. By the estimate below, the U.S. offshore wind resource is 450
GWa. I make a more detailed regional estimate below.
Table 1. Sizes of Ocean Energy Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Source TWh/yr GWa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Electricity Use \1\ 3,670 419
\1\ U.S. EIA, Table 5.1. ``Retail Sales of
Electricity to Ultimate Customers''
Electric Power Monthly with data for
February 2009, Report Released: May 15,
2009. This figure is 2007 retail sales.
Deep Water >30-m Offshore Wind 3,270 373
Shallow Offshore Wind 678 77
Wave Energy 252 29
Tidal Current 17 2
Ocean Current (Florida) 50 6
In-stream River Current 110 13
Thermal gradient (OTEC) Very large
Offshore oil (64 BBO) \2\ 1,627 185
\2\ Mean Undiscovered Economically
Recoverable Resources of the OCS, at $110/
BBL, from Table 2, OCS Report MMS 2009-015.
If natural gas is included, the resource
would approximately double. To compare with
electricity, oil energy is equivalenced to
its energy content (1 BBL = 1,695 TWh),
then to electric power at 30 percent
conversion, and assuming a 20 year burn. If
gasoline versus electric automobiles are
compared, the conversion multiplier for oil
should be 20 percent rather than 30
percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above table illustrates that offshore wind is the United
States' largest ocean energy resource, even in comparison to offshore
oil resources. Even based on the assumption in Table 1 that we drill
very fast and pump oil out at a rate that would exhaust the supplies in
20 years, offshore oil is only \1/2\ the size of the offshore wind
resource.\3\ Of course, when we are done pumping, the oil is gone along
with the associated jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ If we assume instead that it takes 40 years to pump out all the
offshore oil, the flow of oil would be roughly \1/4\ the energy of the
offshore wind resource.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offshore Wind Commercial Availability
Fortunately, offshore wind is not only the largest ocean energy
resource, but also the most commercially ready. Like the wind industry
on land, it can be roughly divided into four industries: manufacturing,
developing sites, installation, and operating. Over the past 4 years, a
handful of U.S. developers have emerged, that is, firms that now have
expertise in designing, siting, permitting, raising capital, closing
the power contract, and preparing to build offshore wind facilities.
And our marine construction firms could, with minimal re-tooling
(including purpose-built vessels), build offshore wind farms. Our
country lacks offshore wind manufacturing, but Denmark has been
developing it for the past 15 years, and has had wind turbines
operating at sea since 1990. So the industries and equipment are
available to construct commercial-scale offshore wind facilities today.
To add offshore wind manufacturing will take some policy effort,
described subsequently.
In short, the U.S. has offshore wind companies covering developers
and operators, but currently not manufacturers. In 2009, for the first
time we are beginning to see RFPs for offshore wind R&D. If we want
manufacturers, we need an active and expanding set of developments, and
DOE support for R&D in this area must continue and expand.
Because offshore wind technology was developed in Denmark, it is
best suited for offshore areas like Denmark--relatively shallow, and
lacking both hurricanes and sheets of ice. This means the Northeast,
parts of the west coast under 30 m depth, and some areas of the Great
Lakes (Lake Erie). As R&D and private investment advance, the areas
appropriate will expand as well.
Table 2. Wind Technology Goals to Expand Offshore Wind's Geographical
Application
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Goal Current State/need Added Application Regions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current technology In serial production Northeast plus shallow
areas of West Coast and
Great Lakes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Withstand floating A few examples in Great lakes
ice impact on Europe
tower
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Withstand Category Requires re- Gulf; South of North
5 hurricanes engineering of Carolina
blades, turbine and
controls
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deeper platforms Prototype in North Expand turbine count in all
Sea; U.S. developer areas above, especially
has licensed West Coast
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floating platform Many designs; Statoil More for West Coast; expand
floats 2.3 MW reach further out OCS
prototype this elsewhere
weekend
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Ongoing Reduce price and increase
optimizations reliability in all regions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is, with some continued development, offshore wind can be a
very large power resource for all coastal areas of the United States,
including the Great Lakes.
Environmental Impacts
Offshore wind will have both positive and negative environmental
impacts. The negative environmental impacts of offshore wind can be
projected based on a long-term study of a Danish offshore wind farm
(DONG Energy 200x), along with the now-completed Environmental Impact
Statement for the Cape Wind proposal.
The primary projected impacts are related to wildlife and
aesthetics. To summarize, most birds that encounter offshore wind farms
simply fly around. A few birds are displaced or killed. Off Denmark,
Nysted was built in a duck flyway (Common Eiders). Despite that poor
siting, estimated mortality was only 1.2 birds/year/tower. Since bats
rarely fly over the ocean, significant bat effects are unlikely. Some
people find the visual intrusion on the ocean negative; in Cape Cod our
surveys show 43 percent opposed, whereas in Delaware, we found only 4
percent opposed (Firestone, Kempton & Krueger 2008). Noise during
construction could plausibly have an impact on marine mammals; knowing
this, European offshore wind construction companies have developed
methods for attenuating noise of construction. The towers offer new
habitat for smaller organisms, in turn making them attractive to sports
fishermen. No other significant impacts have been found in the cited
studies. We should continue to study effects, but from thorough studies
to date, the only notable negative environmental impact seems to be
modest avian mortality.
With offshore wind power, like other renewable energy, impact
analysis is misleading without quantifying the positive impacts. For
construction of a 600 MW offshore wind farm off Delaware, consisting of
200 turbines, each 3 MW, we did a cursory impact analysis based on
literature rather than direct measurement. We used the health impact of
Delaware's current power production that would be displaced, along with
a report on fish kills from current Delaware power plant cooling
water.\4\ Offshore wind reduces air pollution and fish kills because
the wind power production leads other power plants to throttle back and
reduce output, and thus reduce pollution and water intake. We found
that this one offshore wind farm would have the following yearly
impacts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The study found that one large Delaware coal plant killed the
equivalent of 800,000 year-old winter flounder during 1 year studied,
more than 518,000 year-old Atlantic croaker and nearly 2.7 million bay
anchovy (Montgomery 2008). If we here estimate by considering the 17
percent reduction in power brought by the offshore wind facility as a
rough approximation of fish and fry saved, that would be a reduction in
fish kills of 683,000 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Negative impacts (projected)
Up to 240 birds killed (240 is worst case--if mistakenly built
in flyway)
View shed impact
Positive impacts (projected)
10-12 human deaths/year prevented
203 emergency room visits (due to respiratory distress)
prevented
5,156 asthma attacks prevented
. . . total human health benefit $53 million/year
683,000 fish fry and yearlings saved from death in power plant
cooling water
17 percent reduction in power plant CO2 emissions
statewide
The above figures are based on literature and approximation rather
than measurement after the fact or detailed modeling. However, it
appears that the net environmental effect is positive rather than
negative, by a substantial margin, even without considering
CO2 reduction benefits.
If CO2 reduction is considered an environmental benefit,
as I emphatically believe it is, my assessment of the importance of
offshore wind is this: Offshore wind is today the only large scale
power source that coastal states have at hand, that can significantly
slow CO2 emissions at moderate cost. Due to the versatility
of electricity, wind power is capable of displacing fossil electric
generation, fuel for building heat, and fuel for cars. Because of both
the potential for CO2 reductions, and the economic benefit,
I recommend some improvements to the permitting process in sections
below.
State and Federal Permitting Process; How to Identify Optimal Sites
Our research group has observed the process of picking sites and
negotiating with state governments and publics in Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware. There are two aspects,
power planning and site selection.
Regarding power planning, unlike offshore oil and gas, the process
we have seen for offshore wind has been that a U.S. state initiates a
process soliciting electric power. After the state government has
established a need for power, and possibly negotiated an agreement to
buy power via a power purchase agreement, the offshore wind developer
begins the process to permit with Federal MMS. Cape Wind has been the
sole exception, with the developer initiating the process, and the
Federal permitting initiated prior to any power agreement with the
state.
The process is quite different from offshore oil, which in Federal
waters has been permitted by the Federal MMS with little state
participation. The difference is due to the transportability of the
energy sources--oil can be shipped worldwide for little incremental
cost, whereas electricity must be transmitted by high voltage cables,
which to date have taken a short path from the offshore wind
development to shore. For similar reasons, oil is traded on global
markets, while electricity (including that from ocean renewables) is
sold on state or regional markets.
A processes that we see working well for identifying sites is:
1. The state requests bids, for power or specifically for
offshore wind, along with criteria for picking the winning
bidder.
2. Developers seek information about existing ocean uses, in
order to avoid conflict areas-this is in their interest, to
avoid places where coastal managers, residents, fishermen, etc
may oppose their proposed development.
3. Developers study locations, including wind speeds, ocean and
subfloor conditions, and considering current technology, value
of power, their tolerance for delay due to controversy, etc.,
then propose two or more site options.
4. State environmental and power planning officials recommend
for or against sites and power contract characteristics
proposed by developer.
5. If any sites are acceptable to the state, developer proceeds
to permitting, including environmental review by MMS, and
contract for use of ocean space.
6. Upon successfully completion of all permits and reviews, and
financing, project is built.
There is one problem in this process, created by the law that
authorized MMS to carry out these leases. The developer has already
gone through a bidding process and has been awarded a contract or
permit to sell power to one or more electric entities ashore. One
important criterion in their section would presumably be that the price
of power was competitive. But since MMS requires competitive bids for
ocean space, the space that the developer has already bid on in the
state power process, now must be bid again with MMS, possibly against
speculators who have no ability to even sell the power they would
generate. In the announcement of rule, MMS tried to address this
problem by saying that prior state competition would be considered in
the competition for ocean space. However, it would be appropriate to
examine whether it is appropriate to change the law, given that
electricity is not oil, and that rules for competition are already well
established in state and regional electric markets, and subsequent
competition for offshore space may lead to speculation and gaming.
Regarding choice of location, I feel that the optimum process is
close to the numbered sequence above--that the state sets parameters,
the private developer studies many sites then proposes a site, and the
state selects. The developer must go through environmental review
including any conflicting use and consistency with the state's coastal
zone management plan. I do not include advanced spatial planning in
this list, because I believe that no-one today can plan what will be
the best location for a variety of technologies several years in the
future. Also, I do not believe that spatial planning by state or
Federal officials will be as thorough as that by a developer with
investment at risk, followed by established EIS or EA processes.
The agreement last week (June 4, 2009) among the Governors of New
York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, was that spatial
analysis might proceed, but it should not cause any slowdown in project
proposal and development. I believe this is the correct approach.
Economic Potential
Here I summarize our more detailed resource estimate for the
Northeast, then show how that translates into economic opportunity. In
2008 we estimated the total offshore wind resource adjacent to the Mid-
Atlantic coastal states from North Carolina through Massachusetts
(Kempton et al, 2008; attached). This was an arbitrary area manageable
for a low-cost study, but one more detailed than anyone had previously
done. We used 20 years of wind speed data from NOAA buoys, bathymetric
data and sampled data on ocean uses such as shipping lanes or bird
flyways that would exclude wind turbines. We assume only machines and
towers that were either available or prototyped at the time of the
study. And, we compared the offshore wind resource against energy
demand of those Mid-Atlantic coastal states, electricity as well as
gasoline for cars and heating fuels.
Table 3. Mid-Atlantic Offshore Wind Resource Compared With Energy Demand
(from Kempton et al 2008)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source/demand GWa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offshore wind 330
Electric load 73
Cars 29
Heating 83
Total demand 185
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, for the Mid-Atlantic, with a large shallow
continental shelf, but with very high levels of population and energy
use, our more careful resource assessment shows that the practical
offshore wind resource is enough to power all electricity, all gasoline
for automobiles, and all fuel oil, natural gas, and other building
heating fuels. (My use of average GW is a simplification, as I do not
address the match of fluctuating wind power and fluctuating load, which
have to be matched.)
To estimate the economic impact, assume we plan to build enough
offshore wind to power electricity and cars but not heat, 108
GWa. To produce 108 GWa, assuming a 40 percent
capacity factor, would require 54,000 wind turbines each rated at 5 MW.
Current wind turbine factories running 5 days and three shifts can
produce 350 turbines per year. If we wanted to build 54,000 turbines
within 15 years, we would require 10 factories. In addition we would
need about 10 factories for blades and 10 for towers. This would be
like 10 large automobile manufacturing factories, each employing
perhaps 500 people, with approximately a 4x multiplier for indirect
jobs among suppliers, a total of 20,000 jobs. This is one of several
reasons that coastal states officials have preferred offshore wind to
distant onshore wind (Bowles 2009; Svenvold 2008).
I do not give these estimates in order to say that we should
produce exactly this much offshore wind, or at this pace, but to show
that the resource is very large, yet it could all be developed with a
manageable industrial complex in the region. We can build a great deal,
and even substitute electricity for end uses that not depend on liquid
fuels, and not exhaust the resource. If the entire 185 GWa
were developed, the Mid-Atlantic would reduce its CO2
emissions by 68 percent. And such large reductions in CO2
would have global significance in reducing the impact of ocean
acidification and climate change on the oceans.
Industry Needs for Development
Below are recommendations that would follow from my experience and
from the above.
1. Longer-term extension of the PTC, possibly limited to ocean
renewables. An offshore wind project could take 5 or 6 years to
complete, much longer than a land-based project. Investment in
manufacturing for offshore class turbines, towers and blades
would require at least 6-7 years of sales to return investment
in plant. The current 3-year PTC extensions insure that
manufacturing stays in Europe. Congress should pass a 10-year
PTC. This could limited, if necessary specific to offshore
renewable energy.
2. Facilitate development of manufacturing of offshore-wind
manufacturing in the US.
3. As noted above, R&D is needed to develop offshore wind
turbines that work in more U.S. regions, to improve on current
designs, to extend the coastal areas for which we have
turbines, to understand the resource, and for policy and public
opinion studies. The attached R&D Subcommittee document
suggests specific needs and rationale. In addition to the
attached wind R&D document, the U.S. should invest in long-term
research on other ocean energy technologies in Table 1.
4. In particular, we should develop expertise in assessing the
offshore wind resource by several independent parties, not only
MMS or DOE but also by state governments and/or universities
working with state government power planners. My group has
produced guidance for others who want to get up to speed and
analyze their state offshore wind resource (Dhanju et al 2008).
Small grants for partnerships between states and universities
would seed this activity and provide local expertise on this
resource assessment.
5. With many permit applications already headed to MMS, the
agency already needs more people. Need to fund MMS to allow it
to hire individuals to oversee the NEPA and licensing process.
Supplemental material
1. Kempton, W., C. L. Archer, A. Dhanju, R. W. Garvine, and M. Z.
Jacobson, 2007 ``Large CO2 reductions via offshore wind
power matched to inherent storage in energy end-uses'', Geophys. Res.
Lett., 34, L02817, doi:10.1029/2006GL028016. (Retained in Committee
files and available at http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0702/
2006GL028016/.)
2. Research and Development Needs for Offshore Wind, R&D
Subcommittee, Offshore Wind Working Group, American Wind Energy
Association. April 2009 [Retained in Committee files and available at
http://www.newwindagenda.org/pdf/Offshore_R&D_Needs.pdf]
References
Bowles, Ian, Home-Grown Power, NY Times Op Ed, March 7, 2009
Amardeep Dhanju, Phillip Whitaker, Willett Kempton (2008),
Assessing offshore wind resources: An accessible methodology. Renewable
Energy 33(1): 55-64. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2007.03.006
DONG Energy et al, 2006, Danish Offshore Wind--Key Environmental
Issues, Published by DONG Energy, Vattenfall, The Danish Energy
Authority and The Danish Forest and Nature Agency, November 2006 (Order
from the Danish Energy Authority's Internet bookstore http://
ens.netboghandel.dk)
Firestone, Jeremy, W. Kempton and A. Krueger, 2008, Public
Acceptance of Offshore Wind Power Projects in the United States, Wind
Energy 11. (DOI: 10.1002/we.316)
Montgomery, Jeff , 2008, ``Indian River center of fish debate:
Power plant's cooling system said to destroy millions of fish each
year.'' The News Journal, January 3, 2008
Musial, Walt, 2008, Status of Wave and Tidal Power Technologies for
the United States. Technical Report NREL/TP-500-43240, August 2008
Report to the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2009,
Survey of Available Data on OCS Resources and Identification of Data
Gaps. OCS Report MMS 2009-015
Mark Svenvold ``Wind Power Politics'' New York Times Magazine.
For further information on offshore wind, including our articles
cited above, see www.ocean.udel.edu/windpower, and
www.carbonfree.udel.edu
Senator Cantwell. Again, I want to thank Dr. Kempton for
his testimony and following what has happened in the previous
energy bills and things we might do to improve it.
I thank all the witnesses again for their testimony.
I am going to turn to Senator Snowe for her questions.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much
for allowing me to go first.
I just want to thank all of you for your very powerful
testimony. The Chair and I were just discussing it would be
nice if all members of the Senate could hear your testimony in
terms of the contributions that the ocean makes, and also the
impact on the ocean and the severity of many of the
consequences that we are facing now and well into the future if
we don't reverse course here on many levels. So I really
appreciate the dimensions of what you have offered here today
in your respective testimony and professions.
I know, Dr. Kildow, you mentioned in your report how
Federal investment in ocean and coastal communities has been
woefully insufficient. I think it was like $9.5 billion, or 0.3
percent of the Federal budget. Where do you think we could be
most useful in making these investments?
And you mentioned also, which I thought was very
interesting--I hesitate to ask this as well--but over the next
30 years you said would bring significant changes to the oceans
and the coastal communities, the most significant since the
industrialization and urbanization of the late 19th century. So
why do you expect that to happen?
And I will ask any of you or all of you to respond. Where
do you think we should be making our mark, either in
investments or on the issue of expertise in climate science,
which is obviously an area of our jurisdiction with NOAA? And
what is the investment we need to make because, obviously, the
impact goes beyond industrial activities, the acidification
that you are all talking about, the ecosystems that are under
attack, and how are we going to reverse course?
Because what you were saying, Mr. Warren, about the fact
that it is irreversible. The fish are gone. Can you rebuild the
stock? Well, no. That is disconcerting, and it is breath-taking
for those of us who depend on the fisheries, as our country
does.
So can you just tell us very quickly what you think we
should be focusing on in this committee both from the
standpoint of the investments or expertise in climate science
or whatever. Dr. Kildow?
Dr. Kildow. I would suggest that because the Government has
jurisdiction over most of the natural resources along the
shoreline, whether it is State government or Federal
Government, Federal and State governments should work together
to preserve, restore, and strengthen the resiliency of
estuaries, beaches, the shoreline. Those are our protection
against a number of the environmental changes that we face.
Without those and the strength of those, we are just going
to receive even worse impacts than we would have anticipated.
So I would recommend the investments go where the Federal
Government can make them most and where others are less likely
to make them, and that is in restoring and strengthening
estuaries, making sure that beaches are secured where they
should be secured. Where they are going to naturally erode, we
have to let that happen.
But the beaches are worth billions of dollars a year. Our
estuaries do so much protection of our shoreline. So I think
the natural resources are really where you should be focusing,
and the industry can look to others.
I also think that you can help local communities plan for
the effects that are coming from climate change impacts. Local
communities are really, in some cases, clueless as to what they
can do, how they can do it. So they need planning money. They
need technical assistance, and they need to be able to figure
out how to mobilize their communities so that they can
withstand the inundation and all the other kinds of climate
change impacts. So that is what I would do.
As far as the shoreline changing over the next 30 years,
what we were referring to is the fact that infrastructure is
going to be deeply affected. I live in California, and we just
put out a report, the Pacific Institute did, that identified
inundation areas. And things like San Francisco airport and our
ports are ground zero for a lot of the flooding and inundation.
And we have to figure out how we are going to deal with
these shoreline infrastructures that support our very
economies. So it seems to me that we are going to envision a
very different shoreline, configured in very different ways,
and we need to start planning now because these are not changes
that we can make in 5 years or 10 years. It is going to take a
while to either protect or to relocate a lot of our crucial
structures.
My understanding also is that people will be much more
inclined to move toward the coast for water purposes and
weather purposes due to climate changes. And so, we are going
to really be looking at even more intense pressure, population
pressures on the coast.
We are going to need to figure out how to reconfigure
housing, maybe build higher. But we need to think out of the
box. We need to think about how we can live sustainably and
have a good standard of living with these changes that are
underway. And the next 30 years are going to be critical in our
doing that.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Ms. Cousteau, any comments?
Your testimony was very powerful as well and eloquent about
the impact.
Ms. Cousteau. Thank you, Senator Snowe.
Senator Snowe. In Louisiana, the dead zone and so on has
been a major conversation here, and we have made efforts
concerning dead zones and hypoxia, and it is true. I mean, we
have got to try to retard this expansion of these dead zones.
Ms. Cousteau. Thank you, Senator Snowe. I appreciate your
comments.
And I feel strongly that we too often overlook the value of
ecosystem services as we make our decisions about how to
allocate resources. The communities that I have spent time with
not only here in the United States, but around the world are
the ones who have no alternatives. They have nowhere else to
go. They have no last resort. And the communities of Golden
Meadow in Louisiana were no different.
If we are to really take a stand on protecting our oceans,
we need to start with concern for the communities that are
being impacted by the degradation of the oceans and
understanding how that happens and what the consequences of
that will be. Which is why I said that ocean policy starts on
land. It starts in St. Louis and the decisions that are made on
the Mississippi River.
It starts on the Rio Grande. It starts with everyday
people. And if we are able to truly integrate ocean policy into
policies for climate change, agriculture, urban development,
energy, then we will see the kind of change we need to out in
the open ocean.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Anyone else care to comment? Dr. Fenical, anything that we
should focus on, very quickly?
Dr. Fenical. Just one comment.
Senator Snowe. Yes.
Dr. Fenical. Just one comment that I think it is a very
important activity to convince the public that these oceans,
and particularly coastal resources, are of great value to them.
That without their understanding of what this contributes to
their daily lives, you will have some difficulty.
And a case in point is a product that was developed in the
Bahamas Islands that was a cosmetic product derived by working
with a marine animal from that area. It was of such economic
value to the local communities that they literally quit fishing
and quit focusing on some of the fishing resources that were
dwindling in numbers in that area.
And so, I think developing a number of coastal industries
that focus on marine products will help greatly in convincing
people to work with their coastal resources.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Mr. Warren. I will add a couple of points. With respect to
fisheries and research investments, I think there are a couple
of guides there. One is a study done by the National Academy of
Sciences, led by Kleypas in 2006, that articulates a research
agenda for ocean acidification. It is a good place to start.
Funding the things they call for there would make sense.
To step a little beyond my canon into the territory of Dr.
Fenical, if we want to preserve the value the ocean is
generating that we haven't even begun to harvest yet in
pharmaceutical products, we might want to think about where
that value is. If it is like the land, a lot of it is in things
that sit still instead of swim--plants, not animals; corals;
fixed living organisms that generate compounds that they need
in order to survive because they can't run away from predators.
That very complex chemistry they develop is going to be
rich, and we are going to lose a lot of it fast if we don't get
on it and figure out, one, how to reduce the CO2
input and, two, how to remove some of those organisms from a
vulnerable environment and put them in protected aquarium
environments where we control the seawater content.
That is a long-term conservation need that will serve the
development of a pharmaceutical industry based on ocean
products. I regret to say we might need that kind of
protection.
And beyond that, I can't say enough--make a strong carbon
policy. If we don't do that, everything else that we think
matters about the ocean is over.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Mr. Babb-Brott. Very briefly, Senator Snowe, I would offer
three suggestions. Baseline oceanic data, a crucial component
of all of the work that is represented by the folks here on the
panel. A framework for Federal policy that supports and
integrates state initiative, also very important. Each of the
States, as you have heard Dr. Kempton talk about, have taken
similar, but somewhat different approaches to addressing their
issues.
Like the CZMA, there needs to obviously be national
consistent policy. But it also needs to support and enhance the
initiatives that States and regions have undertaken themselves.
Last, I would reiterate the support for and the
recommendation that NOAA's coastal mission be elevated and
provided adequate support. All of the panelists have spoken to
the importance of the coastal interface, both economically,
socially, environmentally, everything about it. NOAA really is
uniquely suited to serve that coordinating role, and that
coordinating role is very much needed.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Dr. Kempton?
Dr. Kempton. Thank you.
On research that might be within NOAA's jurisdiction, I
think is the question. I would agree with Mr. Babb-Brott that
baseline studies are very useful. For in particular introducing
new renewable resources like offshore wind, we would like to
know--in our region, we would like to know the Atlantic flyway
much better, have a region-wide bird study so we could see how
to avoid impacts there.
Also the type of study that I described of resources that
is not available, and you mentioned some work in Maine. I
believe that was done by your local university. So I think some
funding for local universities working with State governments
to assess offshore renewable energy resources would be quite
valuable and would help get local academics up to speed, as
well as informing State decisionmakers.
And a last specific one, NOAA maintains a wonderful set of
buoys, mostly near the surface, 10 meters. It would be very
valuable to have a string of towers at 100-meter height, which
is the turbine hub height. They are expensive, $5 million each.
But you can put in a string of them for much less than doing
one at a time, and it would give us a much better idea of the
resource out there, as well as improving models of marine
meteorology.
Senator Snowe. Again, thank you all very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Cantwell. Again, thank you, Senator Snowe, for
being here. I know you have got a busy schedule this morning,
as we all do.
I was mentioning to Senator Snowe, we are also in the
middle of an Energy Committee markup in which right now the
debate is going on about opening up more offshore drilling,
which I find to be very conflicting to the information that is
being provided here today. So, hopefully, we can get our
questions in and get over to that debate so I can add my voice.
I wanted to start with you, Mr. Warren, furthering the
discussion on ocean acidification that you were just having.
And I think the thing that people may miss sometimes or don't
fully understand is that oceans have already absorbed nearly
one-third of the CO2 added in the atmosphere. So we
are already seeing this problem.
And for us, in Washington State, I don't know how familiar
you are with the shellfish industry--I know you are working
with the industry overall--but they are currently reeling from
these bacteria and disease-carrying pathogens that are
hindering the seed growth for the shellfish industry. So these
types of bacteria are already spreading because of temperature
changes in the water and because of global warming.
So what else can we do? Do we not have the sufficient or
significant scientific data necessary? Because this is, for us,
well, it is a $100 million industry in the West in general, and
I think we are probably about $97 million of that in the
Northwest. So it is a very big impact to us.
So what else do we need to do to prove to people that this
is a problem that is here today and real?
Mr. Warren. Well, I think you hit it on the head. We need a
little more research to really prove that this problem is
caused by the combination of warming, hypoxia, and
acidification. Those are the strongest suspects in the oyster
crisis.
We have had a four-year run of reproductive failure in that
industry. And if the things you grow don't reproduce, you have
got a problem. They are failing either because of an organism
that thrives in hypoxic, acidified water or because of the
direct effects of acidification and hypoxia. We don't know
which one yet.
The work to do that, if people are defining--go ahead.
Senator Cantwell. Can you explain why would that matter? Or
does it?
Mr. Warren. In order to figure out which nail to hit, it
helps to know which one is actually holding the problem in
place.
Senator Cantwell. Well, if the cause is the same, though?
Mr. Warren. If the problem is CO2 and the
underlying assumption behind both analyses is correct, then it
is CO2 we need to get at. But until we have strong
data showing the economic impacts of essentially a non-
CO2 policy, of not doing the job, until we have the
economic and scientific basis to make the case that this is
jobs, livelihoods, food, lots of things that matter, then we
are going to have a hard time defending the policies that are
necessary to implement--to deal with that CO2
problem.
Senator Cantwell. Wouldn't that lead to disastrous results,
though? Wouldn't we have to wait--you are saying wait for
disastrous results to prove that?
Mr. Warren. Well, that is one way to do it. Another way
would be to do a very rapid investment in research to establish
what is causing the problem so that we can stand up and say
here it is. This is what is driving the problem here. It is
causing a lot of harm to an industry worth 100 million bucks a
year, and it is going cause a lot more.
And that is a good case study to think about funding
research in, and there are people working on a research agenda
for that, and they are worth talking to. They are asking good
questions.
Senator Cantwell. We are very interested and very
supportive of that kind of research because we see the problem
coming at us very directly now in the Northwest. And if this is
the kind of thing that can happen in other industries--I mean,
sorry, other sectors of the seafood industry, it is going to
cause huge problems for us.
Dr. Fenical, you are a supporter of more research. You
mentioned the Oceans and Human Health Act. What do we need to
do, more specifically? I know we have authorized about $60
million, but I don't think much has gotten appropriated in this
area.
What do we need to do to change the research and get the
right research that both helps us address the adaptation and
impact issues as well as the kind of advancements that you are
suggesting in medicine?
Dr. Fenical. Well, I think that is right. I think the
problem is that there is authorization, but no research dollars
or very small numbers of research dollars coming down to
address these problems. I think it is a matter of understanding
that the uniqueness of the oceans and human health legislation
and the fact that we can address through that resource some of
the problems that Mr. Warren has talked about and, in addition,
the positive health benefits of the ocean.
So it is quite an overreaching legislation that I would
argue is growing in importance each day and that we should
support very strongly.
Senator Cantwell. And how would you direct those research
dollars? What is the best way to, if we want to accelerate what
we have done so far, both in the amount of money, but obviously
because these very species and sources that you are talking
about getting data from are also in jeopardy.
Dr. Fenical. Exactly.
Senator Cantwell. So what is the best way to pursue that
research?
Dr. Fenical. I think the problem----
Senator Cantwell. Through our universities and institutions
or----
Dr. Fenical. I think one of the problems with the Oceans
and Human Health Act is that it is struggling to know how to
effectively allocate those moneys. On one hand, the Oceans and
Human Health addresses negative health benefits of the ocean
and of inhabitants or organisms within the sea, and on the
other hand, addresses the positive health benefits the ocean
will provide and has provided.
And so, in fact, the total allocation of funding through
NOAA may not address the positive aspects of health. But I
think NOAA allocations and previous allocations through the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the
National Science Foundation do have the opportunity to address
head-on the elements of climate change, ocean acidification,
and so on.
But we have to act through that Oceans and Human Health
legislation. It has to be strong and directed to create
programs to solve these problems.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Did you have a comment on that, Dr. Kildow?
Dr. Kildow. Yes. I have two comments. Number one, on the
ocean acidification research, I think that several panelists
have mentioned that we really don't quite know the impacts of
the acidification problem yet on marine creatures. We have a
lot of information, but we really don't have a definite
predictive capacity.
I think that more money needs to be put into doing the
experiments, which are very expensive, to determine the impact
of acidification on living resources, including the kinds of
problems that we are talking about up in your state. So that
would be the first thing that I think is overlooked.
It is assumed that the scientists can do it, but it is very
expensive, especially in deep waters, to figure out the impact
on the food chain.
The second thing I would suggest is that we are all talking
about jobs. We are all talking about the economy of our States,
and we are all talking about the survival of certain
industries. We do not have good economic data, particularly on
the fishing industry.
Fishermen have been exempted from reporting the way other
industries do. They are self-employed as far as categories of
IRS. And for those of us collecting economic data, we cannot
get data on the number of fishermen, on their earnings, and
therefore, it is very hard to know what the potential losses
are to the industry. They don't come under the unemployment
rules.
So this has been a big handicap for all of us collecting
data. When buyouts of fishermen are done, this is done by the
seat of the pants because we don't really know what they should
represent. That is one of the things.
The other thing is that the collection of economic data in
general, the kind that my report reports, has just not been a
very popular kind of activity. It is research. It is as
important research as the scientific research that my
colleagues have been discussing on this panel.
And yet it has not been considered research, and it has not
been funded. And it has not--there is nothing in the funding
for the future that is going to do it either. As I said at the
end of my talk, the economic research that we have been doing
has come to an end. There is no more money for it.
So if we want the kind of data about ``blue'' jobs, about
sustaining our economy, and how important the kinds of things
that all of these people have been talking about, we do not
have a facility for doing that. And the Government needs to
keep ocean accounts. There is just--we are one of the few
governments in the industrialized world that is not doing it
now.
Canada, the UK, France, the European Union, Australia, New
Zealand, I could go on. Their governments are all supporting
ocean accounts. Our Government is not. I think it is really
important for us to have the information that you are seeking
that we keep ocean accounts and understand the Blue Economy,
the jobs that are to be gained or lost from what is happening.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I couldn't agree with you more. We
have talked a little bit about the impact on the fishing
industry. We haven't really talked about how climate change can
change water levels, and that impact on coastal communities and
what that can mean. But for us, the port of Tacoma was
responsible for $35 billion in total trade in 2008, with
113,000 jobs; the port of Everett, $17 billion and 2,600 jobs;
Seattle, $40 billion and 190,000 direct and indirect jobs.
So I hear you. These kinds of changes to our oceans and
waters will have huge impacts on these economies. And I think
today's hearing has shone a bright light on that.
And Ms. Cousteau, you talked about this as it directly
impacted New Orleans. But how do we get this message across
about the adaptation that has to happen? Do you think that we
are just missing this information or research, or do you think
there is more to it?
Ms. Cousteau. I think that, as my colleagues here have
mentioned, we do need to invest an enormous amount of money in
research and evaluation. I also think that we have
underestimated the importance of communication and engaging
individuals to understand how they are part of the solution,
how we are downstream from one another, and how we all have to
play a role in the protection of our water resources.
What astounded me when I was in Louisiana was that the
Mississippi River drains 40 percent of this country, from
Montana to Pennsylvania. And all the way down to Louisiana, the
actions of every individual impact that enormous watershed that
tells the story of this country. And being able to engage
people in that so that they understand how they impact one
another is incredibly important.
I think Government agencies have a big role to play in
that, and NOAA has wonderful educational programs. But I think
that is incredibly important for all of us to share
responsibility for our resources and the stewardship of our
resources and the understanding that we are all downstream from
one another and the choices that we make impact people
downstream.
And I will just end with this. It was very moving to spend
time with these Cajun fishermen. I have spent time with
fishermen in Panama and in Africa and all over. But these men
and women were really living on the edge. They were surrounded
by water where there had once been fields. Now it was ocean.
And their levees were the only thing that was separating
the Gulf from their homes. And they were talking about farmers
upstream and the impact of the agricultural runoff, and why
didn't we take action to protect the fisheries from overuse of
fertilizer?
And I think that it is incredible when you think that if a
cloud of toxic gas were to cover New Jersey and the only things
that could survive were ones that could run out of the State,
that is what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico. This cloud of
hypoxia covers an area the size of New Jersey, and the only
things that survive are what can escape that area.
People will go to the beach with their buckets and catch
shrimp that are jumping out of the water to breathe because
they can't breathe in the water anymore. And as Mr. Warren was
saying, when the water is not fit for life, then we have a big
problem. And short-term priorities can no longer get in the way
of our long-term priority of protecting life in the oceans.
Thank you.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
I said in my statement, and Dr. Kildow, you mentioned the
NOAA budget. And I have said we need to at least double it. Of
its $4.48 billion, I know that EPA is getting something like a
37 percent increase right now.
What do we need to do to get the resources? What are we
talking about here to adequately get the resources to address
this issue? Each of you could comment on that.
Dr. Kildow. I think that people need to understand, in the
inland States as well as the coastal States, the urgency of
these problems. I think that if people understood urgency--I
think that they understand there are problems. I don't think
they get the urgency of what is happening.
And somehow, we have to be able to communicate better that
there is urgency because I think if you and your other elected
colleagues would understand that we do not have much time and
that there will be calamitous effects if we do not act, that
NOAA and the climate change programs would and should get the
money that they deserve to do the work that is just so wanting.
I don't know what else to suggest. It has been a big
frustration. Scientists are stepping up. They are speaking out
now. They are testifying.
But I think that people in the Midwest, in the areas that
drain into the Mississippi need to understand that the U.S.
economy is the coastal economy. We can't look at it any
differently now, and they need to understand that the coasts
are their lives and their livelihood. So that Kansas City as
well as Long Beach are dependent on the same economy.
Senator Cantwell. So that sounds to me like maybe a little
more than doubling of the budget over 4 years. Is that a yes or
a no?
[Laughter.]
Dr. Kildow. You know, I couldn't begin to tell you how much
resources, but what I was trying to show is that over the
years, as the problems with the ocean have increased, the
percentage of the Federal budget that has been dedicated to the
oceans has decreased.
Senator Cantwell. Has decreased, yes. Thank you.
Ms. Cousteau or Dr. Fenical, do you have a number or an
idea of how we should look at this?
Dr. Fenical. Well, one of the concerns I have is the issue
of really funneling research funds to those people in a
position to examine some of these issues. And it strikes me
that the issues are not the same for all of us. In fact,
coastal States are obviously not the same. They have different
problems. They have different issues.
And I want to refresh your memory about the Department of
Commerce Sea Grant program that is a national program, but is
dedicated to create research activities around the sea in each
of the coastal and Great Lakes States. This program frequently
creates new initiatives. It creates activities, both of
positive and negative impacts from the ocean. And I think it
could be used very effectively to focus funding for these
activities.
Senator Cantwell. OK. And Mr. Warren or anybody else on the
panel?
Mr. Warren. I will give you two quick thoughts. The numbers
I hear about in terms of what people think it will take to fund
a really good national ocean acidification research program?
About $30 million a year. So probably doable if we pay
attention.
One of the concerns that some people have raised, and I
think it is a valid one, is if we fund that by robbing Peter to
pay Paul, dipping into the funding to support fisheries survey
work, we are really not serving the cause. Because that data is
how we try to maintain sustainable fisheries. We are going to
have to do both.
We are going to need that steady flow of fishery survey
data, and we are going to need a whole new raft of data about
changing ocean conditions in order to make sure we understand
it well enough to manage.
Senator Cantwell. Thirty million hardly seems like a lot of
money if we are the third-largest economy in the world. If you
are taking the ocean communities and saying they are the third-
largest GDP in the world, $30 million to help deal with ocean
acidification seems like next to nothing to protect that huge
resource for our economy.
Dr. Kempton or Mr. Babb-Brott, do you have any comments
about----
Mr. Babb-Brott. I would offer briefly that regardless of
what the number or what the appropriate number is, we have an
obligation, I think, to use the resources that we do have or
that we could acquire wisely, and I know I mentioned this in my
testimony. But I would reiterate that we can use the Federal
budget more efficiently through centralized and coordinated
action by the Federal agencies.
From a parochial management interest at the State and
regional level, it can be a frustrating thicket to navigate,
and it certainly impedes the kind of creative, constructive
initiative and response to the issues that we have been
discussing here this morning. Again, I think that NOAA is well
suited to handle that role.
Thank you.
Senator Cantwell. Dr. Kempton?
Dr. Kempton. I certainly think that increasing the amount
of effort on ocean acidification would be very valuable. I am
not sure if we need to just prove that it is happening,
although that probably helps to get increasing numbers of
people buying into it. But as my remarks mentioned, I think it
is important to also have researchers working on solution
paths.
I see a lot of elected officials who are ready to do
something, but they are not sure what to do. So in addition to
demonstrating the effects, which can already be seen in
fisheries and dead zones and so forth, it is important to work
on the how you reduce the amount of CO2 that humans
are putting into the atmosphere.
And if you just sort of pour money in the top, that can
be--that can all go to sort of traditional activities, whereas
prevention of CO2 emissions is not central to the
way NOAA may see its mission, although they do have some
departments. So I think some direction from the legislative
side on working on solution paths because a lot of the solution
paths, at least for coastal States, are also in the ocean.
But coastal managers may not see themselves as those who
are supposed to facilitate development of ocean renewable
energy resources, for example, but they could play a productive
role there.
Senator Cantwell. And what about adaptation? Is that part
of the solution kit? Is that what, when you say ``solutions,''
are you talking specifically about----
Dr. Kempton. Well, a person--sorry.
Senator Cantwell. Or were you talking about the reduction
of CO2?
Dr. Kempton. I was talking about reducing CO2. A
personal reaction to your question is adaptation I find very
frightening. We live in a very low-lying State, and talking
about adapting to sea-level rise means essentially abandoning
Delaware. It will be an archipelago. And I think you could say
the same type of things about shellfishing in Washington.
So I don't think there is any adaptation to that. That is
why I am focused in my research and our whole group on
prevention, which means keeping CO2 from going into
the atmosphere, which means changing energy production and
agricultural activities.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I think there are some who believe
that if we actually do the work behind adaptation, it would
become clear to everyone that that is not a sustainable route.
That it is only a temporary issue for dealing with the impacts,
but the real issue is to change course. So I appreciate you
bringing up that point.
And I want to thank all of the witnesses for your testimony
today. We are going to leave the record open so that my
colleagues can submit questions, and hopefully, you can get a
quick response. But we do plan to move on legislation in this
area, and we thank you for helping us build a record to show
how incredibly important the Blue Economy really is to our
country and what we need to do to protect it.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV,
U.S. Senator from West Virginia
Our oceans and coasts are sources of great economic and
environmental wealth for the Nation. Nearly 80 percent of U.S. import
and export freight is transported through seaports. Our 3.4 million
square mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the largest in the world,
covers an area greater than the entire United States.
The Blue Economy--jobs and economic opportunities that emerge from
our oceans, Great Lakes, and coastal resources--generates more than 50
percent of our Nation's Gross Domestic Product and provides over 70
million jobs to Americans. Simply put, the economic health of America
is undeniable linked to the riches of our oceans and coasts.
Today's witnesses have compelling stories to tell us about the Blue
Economy and its importance. From food to fuel, we rely on oceans for
goods and services that drive the economy. America is on the cusp of
major developments that could produce new ``blue'' jobs in renewable
ocean energy development, aquaculture, marine drugs and products, and
ocean exploration, and I look forward to hearing from each individual
here.
Before we begin, I want to take a moment to highlight what is, in
my view the most prominent threat to our Blue Economy and that is
climate change. Climate change is acidifying the waters, warming
oceans, and creating giant dead zones--jeopardizing the $111 billion
commercial seafood industry and the promising development of new
products from our oceans. Sea-level rise is threatening coastal
communities and the maritime industries that provide millions of jobs.
There are key steps that we must take now to sustain and grow our
Nation's blue economy.
We must strengthen the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). First, I hope the Administration will commit to
doubling the budget of NOAA by 2012. Second, currently, NOAA operates
through more than 200 separate authorization creating overlaps and
disconnects among different parts of the agency. The U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy recommended that Congress establish an organic act for
NOAA to codify its mission. I support this goal and look forward to
working with my colleagues and the Administration to enact legislation
establishing NOAA.
We also must look for new and innovative ways to plan for uses of
our oceans and coasts that supports economic growth, protects
ecological services and unique marine areas, and reduces conflicts
among users. Balancing use and protection of marine resources for
current and future generations requires strong science-based management
of our oceans and coasts, interagency coordination, and Federal-state-
local partnerships. For this reason, I sent a letter to President Obama
urging the Administration working through the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, the Council of Environmental Quality, and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop a
comprehensive science-based Federal marine planning framework to guide
decisions on ocean use and conservation and to promote ecosystem-based
management.
In closing I want to state very clearly--for those who live on our
coasts and those who do not, like my state--we must all be a part of
the effort to improve the health and well-being of our oceans.
America's economic growth and the livelihood of so many workers depend
on the decisions we make now. What is good for the health of our
coastal communities and oceans is good for the Nation.
Thank you.